79
UNIVERSITATEA DIN CRAIOVA FACULTATEA DE LITERE ÎNVĂŢĂMÂNT LA DISTANŢĂ PROGRAMA ANALITICĂ Disciplina: Curs opţional: Basic Elements of English Semantics Specializarea: Română- Engleză Anul III, Semestrul I +II Titularul disciplinei: lector Claudia Pisoschi I. OBIECTIVELE DISCIPLINEI: Cursul îşi propune: definirea domeniului semanticii, a locului şi rolului acesteia în cadrul lingvisticii; evidenţierea relaţiilor cu celelalte discipline lingvistice: lexicologia, morfo-sintaxa, pragmatica; prezentarea unui scurt istoric al semanticii, vazuta in contextul celorlalte discipline lingvistice; predarea noţiunillor de bază din domeniul semanticii , cu accent pe teoriile legate de sens; descrierea principalelor tipuri de motivare a sensului; prezentarea abordarilor structurale in analiza sensului, cu accent pe rolul analizei componentiale; în cadrul fiecarei teme studiate se pune accent atât pe aspectele teoretice cât şi pe cele practice, fiecare capitol cuprinzând şi câteva exerciţii pentru aplicarea cunoştinţelor teoretice acumulate. II. TEMATICA CURSULUI: Capitolul I. Introduction to Semantics 1. A Short History of Semantics 2. Definition and Object of Semantics

Opt Lbengle An3-1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Opt Lbengle An3-1

UNIVERSITATEA DIN CRAIOVAFACULTATEA DE LITEREÎNVĂŢĂMÂNT LA DISTANŢĂ

P R O G R A M A A N A L I T I C Ă Disciplina: Curs opţional: Basic Elements of English Semantics Specializarea: Română- Engleză Anul III, Semestrul I +II Titularul disciplinei: lector Claudia Pisoschi

I. OBIECTIVELE DISCIPLINEI: Cursul îşi propune:

definirea domeniului semanticii, a locului şi rolului acesteia în cadrul lingvisticii; evidenţierea relaţiilor cu celelalte discipline lingvistice: lexicologia, morfo-sintaxa, pragmatica;

prezentarea unui scurt istoric al semanticii, vazuta in contextul celorlalte discipline lingvistice;

predarea noţiunillor de bază din domeniul semanticii , cu accent pe teoriile legate de sens;

descrierea principalelor tipuri de motivare a sensului; prezentarea abordarilor structurale in analiza sensului, cu accent pe rolul

analizei componentiale; în cadrul fiecarei teme studiate se pune accent atât pe aspectele teoretice cât şi

pe cele practice, fiecare capitol cuprinzând şi câteva exerciţii pentru aplicarea cunoştinţelor teoretice acumulate.

II. TEMATICA CURSULUI: Capitolul I. Introduction to Semantics

1. A Short History of Semantics 2. Definition and Object of Semantics 3. Semantics and Semiotics

Capitolul II. The Problem of Meaning I. The Concept of Meaning: 1.a bipolar relation

2.a triadic relation:a. referential approach b. conceptual approach

3. Heger’s viewII. Dimensions of Meaning 1. dimensions of meaning 2.types of meaning in Leech’s conception

Capitolul III. Motivation of meaning.

Page 2: Opt Lbengle An3-1

1. Absolute motivation2. Relative motivation

Capitolul IV. Structural Approaches to the Study of Meaning

1. Componential Analysis2. Paradigms in Lexic. The Semantic Field Theory

III. EVALUAREA STUDENŢILOR: Forma de evaluare: examen scris

IV. BIBLIOGRAFIE GENERALĂ:1. Chiţoran, Dumitru.1973. Elements of English Structural Semantics, Bucureşti:

Editura Didactică şi Pedagogică2. Ionescu, Emil. 1992. Manual de lingvistică generală ,Bucureşti: Editura All3. Leech,G. 1990 Semantics .The Study Of Meaning. London: Penguin Books4. Lyons, J. 1977.Semantics vol I, II, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.5. Saeed, J.I. 1997. Semantics,Dublin: Blackwell Publishers.

Page 3: Opt Lbengle An3-1

P R E Z E N T A R E A C U R S U L U I Capitolul I. Introduction to Semantics.

4. A Short History of Semantics 5. Definition and Object of Semantics 6. Semantics and Semiotics

Capitolul II. The Problem of Meaning .I.The Concept of Meaning: 1.a bipolar relation

2.a triadic relation:c. referential approach d. conceptual approach

3. Heger’s viewIII. Dimensions of Meaning 1. dimensions of meaning 2.types of meaning in Leech’s conception

Capitolul III. Motivation of meaning.3. Absolute motivation4. Relative motivation

Capitolul IV. Structural Approaches to the Study of Meaning

1. Componential Analysis2. Paradigms in Lexic. The Semantic Field Theory

Page 4: Opt Lbengle An3-1

Chapter IINTRODUCTION TO SEMANTICS

Why study semantics? Semantics (as the study of meaning) is central to the

study of communication and as communication becomes more and more a crucial

factor in social organization, the need to understand it becomes more and more

pressing. Semantics is also at the centre of the study of the human mind - thought

processes, cognition, conceptualization - all these are intricately bound up with the

way in which we classify and convey our experience of the world through language.

Because it is, in these two ways, a focal point in man's study of man,

semantics has been the meeting place of various cross-currents of thinking and

various disciplines of study. Philosophy, psychology, and linguistics all claim a deep

interest in the subject. Semantics has often seemed baffling because there are many

different approaches to it, and the ways in which they are related to one another are

rarely clear, even to writers on the subject. (Leech 1990: IX).

Semantics is a branch of linguistics, which is the study of language; it is an

area of study interacting with those of syntax and phonology. A person's linguistic

abilities are based on knowledge that they have. One of the insights of modern

linguistics is that speakers of a language have different types of linguistic knowledge,

including how to pronounce words, how to construct sentences, and about the

meaning of individual words and sentences. To reflect this, linguistic description has

different levels of analysis. So - phonology is the study of what sounds combine to

form words; syntax is the study of how words can be combined into sentences; and

semantics is the study of the meanings of words and sentences.

1. A Short History of Semantics

It has often been pointed out, and for obvious reasons, that semantics is the

youngest branch of linguistics (Ullmann 1962, Greimas 1962). Yet, interest in what

we call today "problems of semantics" was quite alive already in ancient times. In

ancient Greece, philosophers spent much time debating the problem of the way in

which words acquired their meaning. The question why is a thing called by a given

name, was answered in two different ways.

Page 5: Opt Lbengle An3-1

Some of them believed that the names of things were arrived at naturally,

physei, that they were somehow conditioned by the natural properties of things

themselves. They took great pains to explain for instance that a letter like "rho" seems

apt to express motion since the tongue moves rapidly in its production. Hence its

occurence in such words as rhoein ("to flow"), while other sounds such as /s, f, ks/,

which require greater breath effort in production, are apt for such names as psychron

("shivering") or kseon ("shaking"), etc. The obvious inadvertencies of such

correlations did not discourage philosophers from believing that it is the physical

nature of the sounds of a name that can tell us something about its meaning.

Other philosophers held the opposite view, namely that names are given to

things arbitrarily through convention, thesei. The physei-thesei controversy or physis-

nomos controversy is amply discussed in Plato's dialogue Cratylus. In the dialogue,

Cratylus appears to be a part of the physei theory of name acquistion, while

Hermogenes defends the opposite, nomos or their point of view. The two positions

are then debated by Socrates in his usual manner. In an attempt to mediate between

the two discussants he points out first of all that there are two types of names. Some

are compound names which are divisible into smaller constituent element and

accordingly, analyzable into the meaning of these constituent elements: Poseidon

derives his name from posi ("for the feet") and desmos ("fetter") since it was believed

that it was difficult for the sea god to walk in the water.

The words, in themselves, Socrates points out, give us no clue as to their

"natural" meaning, except for the nature of their sounds. Certain qualities are

attributed to certain types of sounds and then the meaning of words is analyzed in

terms of the qualities of the sounds they are made of. When faced with abundant

examples which run counter the apriori hypothesis: finding a "l" sound ("lambda")

"characteristic of liquid movements" in the word sklerotes ("hardness") for instance,

he concludes, in true socratic fashion, that "we must admit that both convention and

usage contribute to the manifestation of what we have in mind when we speak".

In two other dialogues, Theatetus and Sophists, Plato dealt with other

problems such as the relation between thought language, and the outside world. In

fact, Plato opened the way for the analysis of the sentence in terms which are parly

linguistic and partly pertaining to logic. He was dealing therefore with matters

Page 6: Opt Lbengle An3-1

pertaining to syntactic semantics, the meaning of utterrances, rather than the meaning

of individual words.

Aristotle's works (Organon as well as Rhetoric and Poetics) represent the next

major contribution of antiquity to language study in general and semantics in

particular. His general approach to language was that of a logician, in the sense that

he was interested in what there is to know how men know it, and how they express it

in langugage (Dinneen, 1967: 70) and it is through this perspective that his

contribution to linguistics should be assessed.

In the field of semantics proper, he identified a level of language analysis - the

lexical one - the main purpose of which was to study the meaning of words either in

isolation or in syntactic constructions. He deepened the discussion of the polysemy,

antonymy, synonymy and homony and developed a full-fledged theory of metaphor.

The contribution of stoic philosophy to semantics is related to their discussion

of the nature of linguistic sign. In fact, as it was pointed out (Jakobson, 1965: 21,

Stati 1971: 182, etc.) centuries ahead of Ferdinand de Saussure, the theory of the

Janus-like nature of the linguistic sign - semeion - is an entity resulting from the

relationship obtaining between the signifier - semainon - (i.e. the sound or graphic

aspect of the word), the signified - semainomenon (i.e. the notion) and the object thus

named - tynkhanon -, a very clear distinction, therefore, between reference and

meaning as postulated much later by Ogden and Richards in the famous "triangle"

that goes by their name.

Etymology was also much debated in antiquity; but the explanations given to

changes in the meaning and form of words were marred on the one hand by their

belief that semantic evolution was always unidirectional, from a supposedly "correct"

initial meaning, to their corruption, and, on the other hand, by their disregard of

phonetic laws (Stati, 1971: 182).

During the Middle Ages, it is worth mentioning in the field of linguistics and

semantics the activity of the "Modistae" the group of philosophers so named because

of their writings On the Modes of Signification. These writings were highly

speculative grammars in wich semantic considerations held an important position.

The "Modistae" adopted the "thesei" point of view in the "physei-thesei" controversy

and their efforts were directed towards pointing out the "modi intelligendi", the ways

Page 7: Opt Lbengle An3-1

in which we can know things, and the "modi significandi", the various ways of

signifying them (Dinneen, 1967: 143).

It may be concluded that throughout antiquity and the Middle Ages, and

actually until the 19th century almost everything that came to be known about

meaning in languages was the result of philosophic speculation and logical reasoning.

Philosophy and logic were the two important sciences which left their strong impact

on the study of linguistic meaning.

It was only during the 19th century that semantics came into being as an

independent branch of linguistics as a science in its own right. The first words which

confined themselves to the study of semantic problems as we understand them today,

date as far back as the beginning of the last century.

In his lectures as Halle University, the German linguist Ch. C. Reisig was the

first to formulate the object of study of the new science of meaning which he called

semasiology. He conceived the new linguistic branch of study as a historical science

studying the principles governing the evolution of meaning.

Towards the end of the century (1897), M. Bréal published an important book

Essay de sémantique which was soon translated into English and found an immediate

echo in France as well as in other countries of Europe. In many ways it marks the

birthday of semantics as a modern linguistic discipline. Bréal did not only provide the

name for the new science, which became general in use, but also circumscribed more

clearly its subject-matter.

The theoretical sources of semantic linguistics outlined by Bréal are, again,

classical logic and rethorics, to which the insights of an upcoming science, namely,

psychology are added. In following the various changes in the meaning of words,

interest is focused on identifying certain general laws governing these changes. Some

of these laws are arrived at by the recourse to the categories of logic: extension of

meaning, narrowing of meaning, transfer of meaning, while others are due to a

psychological approach, degradation of meaning and the reverse process of elevation

of meaning.

Alongside these theoretical endeavours to "modernize" semantics as the

youngest branch of linguistics, the study of meaning was considerably enhanced by

the writing of dictionaries, both monolingual and bilingual. Lexicographic practice

found extensive evidence for the categories and principles used in the study of

Page 8: Opt Lbengle An3-1

meaning from antiquity to the more modern approaches of this science: polysemy,

synonymy, homonymy, antonymy, as well as for the laws of semantic change

mentioned above.

The study of language meaning has a long tradition in Romania. Stati

mentioned (1971: 184) Dimitrie Cantemir's contribution to the discussion of the

difference between categorematic and syncategorematic words so dear to the

medieval scholastics.

Lexicography attained remarkably high standards due mainly to B. P. Hasdeu.

His Magnum Etymologicum Romaniae ranks with the other great lexicographic works

of the time.

In 1887, ten years ahead of M. Bréal, Lazar Saineanu published a remarkable

book entitled Incercare asupra semasiologiei limbei romane. Studii istorice despre

tranzitiunea sensurilor. This constitutes one of the first works on semantics to have

appeared anywhere. Saineanu makes ample use of the contributions of psychology in

his attempts at identifying the semantic associations established among words and the

"logical laws and affinities" governing the evolution of words in particular and of

language in general.

Although it doesn't contain an explicit theory of semantics, the posthumous

publication of Ferdinand de Saussure's Cours de linguistique générale 1916, owing to

the revolutionary character of the ideas on the study of language it contained,

determined an interest for structure in the field of semantics as well.

Within this process of development of the young linguistic discipline, the

1921-1931 decade has a particular significance. It is marked by the publication of

three important books: Jost Trier, Der Deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezink des

Verstandes (1931), G. Stern, Meaning and Change of Meaning (1931) and C. K.

Ogden and J. A. Richards: The Meaning of Meaning (1923).

Jost Trier's book as well as his other studies which are visibly influenced by

W. von Humbold's ideas on language, represents an attempt to approach some of the

Saussurean principles to semantics. Analyzing the meaning of a set of lexical

elements related to one another by their content, and thus belonging to a semantic

"field", Trier reached the conclusion that they were structurally organized within this

field, in such a manner that the significative value of each element was determined by

the position which it occupied within the respective field. For the first time, therefore,

Page 9: Opt Lbengle An3-1

words were no longer approached in isolation, but analyzed in terms of their position

within a larger ensemble - the semantic field - which in turn, is integrated, together

with other fields, into an ever larger one. The process of subsequent integrations

continues until the entire lexicon is covered. The lexicon therefore is envisaged as a

huge mosaic with no piece missing.

Gustav Stern's work is an ambitious attempt at examining the component

factors of meaning and of determining, on this ground, the causes and directions of

changes of meaning. Using scientific advances psychology (particularly Wundt's

psychlogy) Stern postulates several classifications and principles which no linguist

could possibly neglect.

As regards Ogden and Richard's book, its very title The Meaning of Meaning

is suggestive of its content. The book deals for the most part with the different

accepted definitions of the word "meaning", not only in linguistics, but in other

disciplines as well, identifying no less than twenty-four such definitions. The overt

endeavour of the authors is to confine semantic preoccupations to linguistic problems

exclusively. The two authors have the merit of having postulated the triadic relational

theory of meaning - graphically represented by the triangle that bears their names.

A short supplement appended to the book: The Problem of Meaning in

Primitive Languages due to an anthropologist, B. Malinowski, was highly

instrumental in the development of a new "contextual" theory of meaning advocated

by the British school of linguistics headed by J. R. Firth.

The following decades, more specifically the period 1930-1950 is known as a

period of crisis in semantics. Meaning was all but completely ignored in linguistics

particularly as an effect of the position adopted by L. Bloomfield, who considered

that the study of meaning was outside the scope of linguistics proper. Its study falls

rather within the boundaries of other sciences such as chemistry, physics, etc., and

more especially psychology, sociology or anthropology. The somewhat more

conciliatory positions which, without denying the role of meaning in language

nevertheless alloted it but a marginal place within the study of language (Hockett,

1958), was not able to put an end to this period of crisis.

Reference to semantics was only made in extremis, when the various linguistic

theories were not able to integrate the complexity of linguistic events within a unitary

system. Hence the widespread idea of viewing semantics as a "refuge", as a vast

Page 10: Opt Lbengle An3-1

container in which all language facts that were difficult to formalize could be

disposed of.

The picture of the development of semantics throughout this period would be

incomplete, were it not to comprise the valuable accumulation of data regarding

meaning, all due to the pursuing of tradition methods and primarily to lexicographic

practice.

If we view the situation from a broader perspective, it becomes evident that

the so-called "crisis" of semantics, actually referred to the crisis of this linguistic

discipline only from a structuralist standpoint, more specifically from the point of

view of American descriptivism. On the other hand, however, it is also salient that the

renovating tendencies, as inaugurated by different linguistic schools, did not

incorporate the semantic domain until very late. It was only in the last years of the

sixties that the organized attacks of the modern linguistic schools of different

orientations was launched upon the vast domain of linguistic meaning.

At present meaning has ceased to be an "anathema" for linguistics. Moreover,

the various linguistic theories are unanimous in admitting that no language

description can be regarded as being complete without including facts of meaning in

its analysis.

A specific feature of modern research in linguistics is the ever growing

interest in problems of meaning. Judging by the great number of published works, by

the extensive number of semantic theories which have been postulated, of which

some are complementary, while some other are directly opposed, we are witnessing a

period of feverish research, of effervescence, which cannot but lead to progress in

semantics.

An important development in the direction of a psycholinguistic approach to

meaning is Lakoff's investigation of the metaphorical basis of meaning (Lakoff and

Johnson 1980). This approach draw on Elinor Rosch's notion of protype, and adopt

the view opposed to that of Chomsky, that meaning cannot be easily separated from

the more general cognitive functions of the mind.

G. Leech considers that the developments which will bring most rewards in

the future will be those which bring into a harmonious synthesis the insights provided

by the three disciplines which claim the most direct and general interest in meaning:

those of linguistics, philosophy and psychology.

Page 11: Opt Lbengle An3-1

2. Definition and Object of Semantics

In linguistic terminology the word semantics is used to designate the science

of word-meaning. The term, however, has acquired a number of senses in

contemporary science. Also, a number of other terms have been proposed to cover the

same area of study, namely the study of meaning. As to meaning itself, the term has a

variety of uses in the metalanguage of several sciences such as logic, psychology,

linguistics, and more recently semiotics.

All these factors render it necessary to discuss on the one hand the

terminology used in the study of meaning and on the other hand, the main concerns of

the science devoted to the study of meaning.

One particular meaning of the term semantics is used to designate a new

science, General Semantics, the psychological and pedagogical doctrine founded by

Alfred Korzybsky (1933) under the influence of contemporary neo-positivism.

Starting from the supposed exercise upon man's behaviour, General semantics aims at

correcting the "inconsistencies" of natural language as well as their tendency to

"simplify" the complex nature of reality.

A clearer definition of the meaning (or meanings) of a word is said to

contribute to removing the "dogmatism" and "rigidity" of language and to make up

for the lack of emotional balance among people which is ultimately due to language.

This school of thought holds that the study of communicative process can be a

powerful force for good in the resolution of human conflict, whether on an individual,

local, or international scale. This is a rather naïve point of view concerning the causes

of conflicts (G. Leech 1990: XI). Yet, certain aspects of the relationship between

linguistic signs and their users - speakers and listeners alike - have, of course, to be

analyzed given their relevance for the meaning of the respective signs.

Also, that there is a dialectic interdependence between language and thought

in the sense that language does not serve merely to express thought, but takes an

active part in the very moulding of thought, is beyond any doubt.

On the whole, however the extreme position adopted by general semanticists

as evidenced by such formulations as "the tyranny of words", "the power of

language", "man at the mercy of language", etc. has brought this "science" to the

Page 12: Opt Lbengle An3-1

point of ridicule, despite the efforts of genuine scholars such as Hayakawa and others

to uphold it.

In the more general science of semiotics, the term semantics is used in two

senses:

(a) theoretical (pure) semantics, which aims at formulating an abstract theory of

meaning in the process of cognition, and therefore belongs to logic, more

precisely to symbolic logic;

(b) empirical (linguistic) semantics, which studies meaning in natural languages, that

is the relationship between linguistic signs and their meaning. Obviously, of the

two types of semantics, it is empirical semantics that falls within the scope of

linguistics.

The most commonly agreed-upon definition of semantics remains the one

given by Bréal as "the science of the meanings of words and of the changes in their

meaning". With this definition, semantics is included under lexicology, the more

general science of words, being its most important branch.

The result of research in the field of word-meaning usually takes the form of

dictionaries of all kinds, which is the proper object of the study of lexicography.

The term semasiology is sometimes used instead of semantics, with exactly

the same meaning. However since this term is also used in opposition to

onomasiology it is probably better to keep it for this more restricted usage.

Semasiology stands for the study of meaning starting from the "signifiant" (the

acoustic image) of a sign and examining the possible "signifiés" attached to it.

Onomasiology accounts for the opposite direction of study, namely from a "signifié"

to the various "signifiants" that may stand for it.

Since de Saussure, the idea that any linguistic form is made up of two aspects

- a material one and an ideal one -, the lingistic sign being indestructible union

between a signifiant and a signifié, between an expression and a content. In the light

of these concepts, the definition of semantics as the science of meaning of words and

of the changes in meaning, appears to be rather confined. The definition certainly

needs to be extended so as to include the entire level of the content of language. As

Hjelmslev pointed out, there should be a science whose object of study should be the

content of language and proposed to call it plerematics. Nevertheless all the

Page 13: Opt Lbengle An3-1

glossematicians, including Hjelmslev continued to use the older term - semantics in

their works.

E. Prieto (1964) calls the science of the content of language noology (from

Greek noos - "mind") but the term has failed to gain currency.

Obviously, a distinction should be made between lexosemantics, which studies

lexical meaning proper in the traditional terminology and morphosemantics, which

studies the grammatical aspect of word-meaning.

With the advent of generative grammar emphasis was switched from the

meaning of words to the meaning of sentences. Semantic analysis will accordingly be

required to explain how sentences are understood by the speakers of language. Also,

the task of semantic analysis is to explain the relations existing among sentences, why

certain sentences are anomalous, although grammatically correct, why other sentences

are semantically ambiguous, since they admit of several interpretations, why other

sentences are synonymous or paraphrases of each other, etc.

Of course, much of the information required to give an answer to these

questions is carried by the lexical items themselves, and generative semantics does

include a representation of the meaning of lexical elements, but a total interpretation

of a sentence depends on its syntactic structure as well, more particularly on how

these meanings of words are woven into syntactic structure in order to allow for the

correct interpretation of sentences and to relate them to objective reality. In the case

of generative semantics it is obvious that we can speak of syntactic semantics, which

includes a much wider area of study that lexical semantics.

3. Semantics and Semiotics

When the Stoics identified the sing as the constant relationship between the

signifier and the signified they actually had in mind any kind of signs not just

linguistic ones. They postulated a new science of signs, a science for which a term

already existed in Greek: sêmeiotikê. It is however, only very recently, despite

repeated attempts by foresighted scientists, that semiotics become a science in its own

right.

A first, and very clear presentation of semiotics is it to be found in this

extensive quotation from John Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.

In the chapter on the "division of the sciences", Locke mentions "the third branch

Page 14: Opt Lbengle An3-1

(which) may be called semiotic, or the doctrine of signs... the business whereof is to

consider the nature of signs the mind makes use of for the understanding of things, or

conveying its knowledge to others. For, since the things the mind contemplates are

none of them, beside itself, present to the understanding, it is necessary that

something else, a sign or representation of the thing it considers, should be present to

it" (Locke, 1964: 309).

Later, in the 19th century, the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce

devoted a life time work, which unfortunately remained unheeded for a long time, to

the study of signs, to setting up semiotics as a science, "as the doctrine of the essential

nature and fundamental varieties of possible «semiosis»". (R. Jakobson, 1965: 22).

Ferdinand de Saussure too, probably quite independently from Peirce, but

undoubtedly inspired by the same Greek philosophers' speculations on language,

suggested that linguistics should be regarded as just one branch of a more general

science of sign systems which he called semiology. In other words he saw no basic

difference between language signs and any other kinds of sings all of them

interpretable by reference to the same general science of signs.

Peirce distinguished three main types of signs according to the nature of the

relationship between the two inseparable aspects of a sign: the signans (the material

suport of the sign, its concrete manifestation) and the signatum (the thing signified):

(i) Icons in which the relationship between the signans and the signatum

is one of the similarity.

The signans of an iconic type of sign, resembles in shape its signatum.

Drawings, photographs, etc., are examples of iconic signs. Yet, phisical similarity

does not imply true copying or reflection of the signatum by the signans. Peirce

distinguished two subclasses of icons-images and diagrams. In the case of the latter, it

is obvious that the "similarity" is hardly "physical" at all. In a diagram of the rate of

population or industrial production growth, for instance, convention plays a very

important part.

(ii) Indexes, in which the relationship between the signans and the

signatum is the result of a constant association based on physical contiguity not on

similarity. The signans does not resemble the signatum to indicate it. Thus smoke is

an index for fire, gathering clouds indicate a coming rain, high temperature is an

index for illness, footprints are indexes for the presence of animals, etc.

Page 15: Opt Lbengle An3-1

(iii) Symbols, in which the relationship between the signans and the

signatum is entirely conventional. There is no similarity or physical contiguity

between the two. The signans and signatum are bound by convention; their

relationship is an arbitrary one. Language signs are essentially symbolic in nature.

Ferdinand de Saussure clearly specified absolute arbitrariness as "the proper condition

of the verbal sign".

The act of semiosis may be both motivated and conventional. If semiosis is

motivated, than motivation is achieved either by contiguity or by similarity.

Any system of signs endowed with homogeneous significations forms a

language; and any language should be conceived of as a mixture of signs.

Another aspect revealed by semiotics which presents a particular importance

for semantics is the understanding of the semiotic act as an institutional one.

Language itself, can be regarded as an institution (Firth, 1957), as a complex form of

human behaviour governed by signs. This understanding of language opens the way

for a new, intentional theory of meaning. Meaning is achieved therefore either by

convention or by intention.

Bibliography:

1. Chiţoran, Dumitru. 1973. Elements of English Structural Semantics. Bucureşti:

E.D.P.

2. Leech, G. 1990. Semantics. The Study of Meaning. London: Penguin Books.

3. Saeed, J., I. 1997. Semantics. Dublin: Blackwell Publishers.

TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION

1. Define semantics and its object.

2. The physei-thesei controversy.

3. Types of signs.

Page 16: Opt Lbengle An3-1

Chapter II

T H E P R O B L E M O F M E A N I N G

I. The concept of meaning 1.a bipolar relation

2. a triadic relation - A. referential approach

- B. conceptual approach

3. Heger’s view.

II. Dimensions of meaning 1. dimensions of meaning

2. types of meaning in Leech’ s conception.

I.1. Any progress in semantics is conditioned by a clearer understanding of

meaning, as the object of its analysis. Numberless definitions of language meaning

have been postulated, some complementary in nature, some opposed. A linguistic

account of meaning would still be very difficult to give because of the plurality of

levels at which meaning can be discussed- the word level, the phrase level, the

sentence level.

Even if the morpheme is the minimum unit of language endowed with

meaning, it is the word, the next higher unit that traditional lexicology has selected as

its object of study and to clearly understand the factors involved in meaning, it’s

necessary to begin with an account of meaning at word level.

Page 17: Opt Lbengle An3-1

The concept of meaning, defined by F. de Saussure, was first regarded as a

bipolar relation between the two interdependent sides of a linguistic sign-significans

‘expression’ and significatum ‘cont3ent’ and this is true for any sign, no matter to

what semiotic system it belongs.

2. Ogden and Richards have pointed out in 1923 that at least three factors are

involved in any symbolic act- the symbol itself ‘the material aspect of the linguistic

sign, be it phonic or graphic’; the thought/reference ‘the mental content that

accompanies the occurrence of the symbol in the minds of both the speaker and the

listener’; the object itself/ the referent ‘the object in the real world designated by the

symbol’.

The triadic concept of meaning was represented by Ogden and Richards in the

form of a triangle.

While the relation symbol- reference and reference- referent are direct and

causal ones in the sense that the symbol expresses or symbolises the reference which,

in turn refers to the referent, the relation symbol- object or referent is an imputed,

indirect one.

Of the two sides of the triangle only the right-hand one can be left out –

tentatively and temporarily- in a linguistic account of meaning. The relationship

between thought and the outside world of objects and phenomena is of interest

primarily to psychologists and philosophers, linguists directing their attention towards

the other two sides. (Chiţoran, 1973: 30).

Depending on what it is understood by meaning, we can distinguish two main

semantic theories:

- the referential / denotational approach-meaning is the action of putting

words into relationship with the world;

- the representational /conceptual approach-meaning is the notion, the

concept or the mental image of the object or situation in reality as reflected in man’s

mind.

Page 18: Opt Lbengle An3-1

The two basic types of meaning were first mentioned by S. Stati in 1971-

referential definitions which analyse meaning in terms of the relation symbol-

object /referent; conceptual definitions which regard the relation symbol-

thought/reference.

A. Denotational /Referential Theories of Meaning.

Before describing the characteristics of these theories, a clarification of the

terms used is necessary. All languages allow speakers to describe or model aspects of

what they perceive. In semantics the action of picking out or identifying individuals/

locations with words is called referring/denoting. To some linguists the two terms,

denote and refer are synonymous. J. Saeed (1997: 23) gives two examples of proper

names whose corresponding referents are easily recognizable

e. g. I saw Michael Jackson on TV last night.

We have just flown back from Paris.

The underlined words refer to/denote the famous singer, respectively the capital of

France, even if in some contexts they may be used to designate a person different

from the singer, or a locality other than the capital of France.

To John Lyons the terms denote and refer are not synonymous. The former is

used to express the relationship linguistic expression- world, whereas the latter is used

for the action of a speaker in picking out entities in the world. In the example

A sparrow flew into the room.

A sparrow and the room are NPs that refer to things in the world.; room,

sparrow denote classes of items. In conclusion, referring is what speakers do and

denoting is a property of words. Denotation is a stable relationship in a language, it

doesn’t depend on anyone’s use of the word unlike the action of referring.

Returning to the problem of theories of meaning, they are called referential/

denotational when their basic premise is that we can give the meaning of words and

sentences by showing how they relate to situations- proper names denote individuals,

nouns denote entities or sets of individuals, verbs denote actions, adverbs denote

properties of actions, adjectives denote properties of individuals-.In case of sentences,

they denote situations and events. The difference in meaning between a sentence and

its negative counterpart arises from the fact that they describe two situations

e. g. There is a book on the shelf.

There isn’t a book on the shelf.

Page 19: Opt Lbengle An3-1

Referential theories consider meaning to be something outside the world itself, an

extra-linguistic entity. This means reducing the linguistic sign, i. e. the word to its

material aspect, be it phonic or graphic.

The impossibility of equating meaning with the object denoted by a given

word can be explained considering three major reasons

a. the identity meaning-object would leave meaning to a large extent undefined

because not all the characteristic traits of an object as an extra- linguistic reality

are identical with the distinctive features of lexical meaning;

b. not all words have a referent in the outside world; there are:

- non- referring expressions so, very, maybe, if, not, etc.

- referring expressions used generically:

e. g. A murder is a serious felony.

- words like nouns, pronouns with variable reference depending on the

context:

e. g. The president decides on the foreign policy.

She didn’t know what to say.

- words which have no corresponding object in the real world in general or

at a certain moment:

e. g. The unicorn is a mythical animal.

She wants to make a cake this evening.

- different expressions/words that can be used for the same referent, the

meaning reflecting the perspective from which the referent is viewed

e. g. The morning star is the same thing as the evening star.

The president of the USA/ George Bush/ Barbara Bush’s husband

was to deliver a speech.

Besides the referential differences between expressions, we can make useful

distinctions among the things referred to by expressions-referent = thing picked out

by uttering the expression in a particular context; extension of an expression = set of

things which could possibly be the referent of that expression. In Lyon’s

terminology the relationship between an expression and its extension is called

denotation.(Saeed 1997: 27)

A distinction currently made by modern linguists is that between the

denotation of a word and the connotations associated with it. For most linguists,

Page 20: Opt Lbengle An3-1

denotation represents the cognitive or communicative aspect of meaning (Schaff

1965), while connotation stands for the emotional overtones a speaker usually

associates with each individual use of a word. Denotative meaning accounts for the

relationship between the linguistic sign and its denotatum. But one shouldn’t equate

denotation with the denotatum.What is the denotation of a word which has no

denotatum.

As far as the attitude of the speaker is concerned, denotation is regarded as

neutral, since its function is simply to convey the informational load carried by a

word. The connotative aspects of meaning are highly subjective, springing from

personal experiences, which a speaker has had of a given word and also from his/her

attitude towards his/ her utterance and/ or towards the interlocutors (Leech, 1990: 14).

For example dwelling, house, home, abode, residence have the same denotation but

different connotations.

Given their highly individual nature, connotations seem to be unrepeatable

but, on the other hand, in many instances, the social nature of individual experience

makes some connotative shades of meaning shared by practically all the speakers of a

language. It is very difficult to draw a hard line between denotation and connotation

in meaning analysis, due to the fact that elements of connotation are drawn into what

is referred to as basic, denotative meaning. By taking into account connotative

overtones of meaning, its analysis has been introduced a new dimension, the

pragmatic one.

Talking about reference involves talking about nominals- names and noun

phrases-. They are labels for people, places, etc. Context is important in the use of

names; names are definite in that they carry the speaker’s assumption that his/ her

audience can identify the referent (Saeed, 1997: 28).

One important approach in nominals’ analysis is the description theory

(Russel, Frege, Searle). A name is taken as a label or shorthand for knowledge about

the referent, or for one or more definite descriptions in the terminology of

philosophers. In this theory, understanding a name and identifying the referent are

both dependent on associating the name with the right description.

e. g. Christopher Marlowe / the writer of the play Dr. Faustus / the Elizabethan

playwright murdered in a Deptford tavern.

Page 21: Opt Lbengle An3-1

Another interesting approach is the causal theory (Devitt, Sterelny, 1987) and

based on the ideas of Kripke (1980) and Donnellan (1972). This theory is based on

the idea that names are socially inherited or borrowed. There is a chain back to the

original naming/ grounding. In some cases a name does not get attached to a single

grounding. It may arise from a period of repeated uses. Sometimes there are

competing names and one wins out. Mistakes can be made and subsequently fixed by

public practice. This theory recognizes that speakers may use names with very little

knowledge of the referent, so it stresses the role of social knowledge in the use of

names. The treatment chosen for names can be extended to other nominals like

natural kinds (e. g. giraffe, gold) that is nouns referring to classes which occur in

nature.

B. Conceptual/ Representational Theory of Meaning

It proposes to define meaning in terms of the notion, the concept or the mental

image of the object or situation in reality as reflected in man’s mind. Semantic

studies, both traditional and modern, have used mainly such conceptual definitions of

meaning, taking it for granted that for a correct understanding of meaning, it is

necessary to relate it to that reflection in our minds of the general characteristics of

objects and phenomena. Even Bloomfield refers to general characteristics of an

object/ situation which is ‘linguistically relevant’.

On the other hand, complete identification of meaning with the concept or

notion is not possible either. This would mean to ignore denotation and to deprive

meaning of any objective foundation. More than that, languages provide whole

categories of words-proper names, prepositions, conjunctions- for which no

corresponding notions can be said to exist. Even in the case of notional words, the

notion, the concept may be regarded as being both ‘wider’ and ‘narrower’ than

meaning. A notion, concept has a universal character, while the meaning of a word is

specific, defined only within a given language (Chiţoran, 1973: 32-33).

Signification and Sense. Meaning should be defined in terms of all the

possible relations characteristic of language signs. The use of a linguistic sign to refer

to some aspects of reality is a semiotic act. There are three elements involved in any

semiotic act- the sign, the sense, the signification.

Page 22: Opt Lbengle An3-1

Two distinguishable aspects of the content side of the sign can be

postulated- its signification, the real object or situation denoted by the sign, i. e. its

denotation and a sense which expresses a certain informational content on the object

or situation. The relation between a proper name and what it denotes is called name

relation and the thing denoted is called denotation. ‘A name names its denotation and

expresses its sense.’ (Alonso Church)

Extensional and Intensional Meaning. The definition of meaning by

signification is called extension in symbolic logic (Carnap, 1960) and what has been

called sense is equivalent to intension. Extension stands for the class of objects

corresponding to a given predicate, while intension is based on the property assigned

to the predicate (E. Vasiliu, 1970).

e. g. They want to buy a new car. (intensional meaning)

There is a car parked in front of your house. (extensional meaning)

C. The Trapezium of Heger.

Klaus Heger in his article Les bases metodologiques de l’onomasiologie

proposes a trapezium- like variant, which allows him to introduce new distinctions.

Heger noticed – as Greimas, adept of the triadic conception agreed- that signifiant +

signifie i. e. concept is different from the linguistic sign, because the content of an

expression is a semasiologic field, which is made up of more than one concept or

mental object. In its turn a concept can be expressed by means of several signifiants.

The model of Heger gives him the possibility to analyse the content, making

place for sememes and semes. Extralinguistic reality has two levels- the logical and/or

psychological level and the level of the external world (C. Baylon, P. Fabre, 1978:

132).

The term moneme (A. Martinet) is also used by Heger and represents the

minimal unit endowed with signification; a moneme is made up of morphemes which

are in a limited number and it also represents a lexeme, the number of lexemes in a

language being virtually infinite. In conclusion, a moneme is at the same time form of

Page 23: Opt Lbengle An3-1

expression like phonemes and form of content like sememes. It is significant and

signified. The signified depends on the structure of the language, but the concept on

the right side of the trapezium is independent.

The onomasiology starts from the concept and tries to find the linguistic

relations for one or several languages. It tries to find monemes which by means of

their significations or sememes express a certain concept. An onomasiological field

reprewsents the structure of all the sememes belonging to different signified, so to

different monemes, but making up one concept.

Semasiology analyses a signified associated by co- substantiality to one

moneme; so we deal with multiple significations or sememes.

Kurt Baldinger (1984: 131) comments on Heger’s trapezium, analysing the

succesive stages from the substance of expression level to the final content level.

II. Dimensions of Meaning.

Page 24: Opt Lbengle An3-1

1. Dimensions of Meaning. Meaning is so complex and there are so many

factors involved in it, that a complete definition would be impossible. We are dealing

with a plurality of dimensions characteristic of the content side of linguistic signs

(Chiţoran, 1973: 37).

There is a first of all a semantic dimension proper, which covers the denotatum

of the sign including also information as to how the denotatum is actually referred to,

from what point of view it is being considered. The first aspect is the signification,

the latter is its sense.

e. g. Lord Byron/ Author of Child Harold have similar signification and

different senses.

He is clever. /John is clever . He and John are synonymous expressions if the

condition of co- referentiality is met.

The logical dimension of meaning covers the information conveyed by the

linguistic expression on the denotatum, including a judgement of it.

The pragmatic dimension defines the purpose of the expression, why it is

uttered by a speaker. The relation emphasized is between language users and

language signs.

The structural dimension covers the structure of linguistic expressions, the

complex network of relationships among its component elements as well as between

it and other expressions.

2. Types of Meaning. Considering these dimensions, meaning can be analyzed

from different perspectives, of which G. Leech distinguished seven main types

(Leech, 1990: 9).

a. Logical/ conceptual meaning, also called denotative or cognitive meaning, is

considered to be the central factor in linguistic communication. It has a complex

and sophisticated organization compared to those specific to syntactic or

phonological levels of language. The principles of contrastiveness and constituent

structure – paradigmatic and syntagmatic axes of linguistic structure- manifest at

this level i. e. conceptual meaning can be studied in terms of contrastive features.

b. Connotative meaning is the communicative value an expression has by virtue of

what it refers to. To a large extent, the notion of reference overlaps with

conceptual meaning. The contrastive features become attributes of the referent,

including not only physical characteristics, but also psychological and social

Page 25: Opt Lbengle An3-1

properties, typical rather than invariable. Connotations are apt to vary from age to

age, from society to society.

e. g. woman [capable of speech] [experienced in cookery]

[frail] [prone to tears]

[non- trouser- wearing]

Connotative meaning is peripheral compared to conceptual meaning, because

connotations are relatively unstable. They vary according to cultural, historical

period, experience of the individual. Connotative meaning is indeterminate and open-

ended that is any characteristic of the referent, identified subjectively or objectively

may contribute to the connotative meaning.

c. In considering the pragmatic dimension of meaning, we can distinguish between

social and affective meaning. Social meaning is that which a piece of language

conveys about the social circumstances of its use. In part, we ‘decode’ the social

meaning of a text through our recognition of different dimensions and levels of

style.

One account (Crystal and Davy, Investigating English Style) has recognized

several dimensions of socio-linguistic variation. There are variations according to:

- dialect i. e. the language of a geographical region or of a social class;

- time , for instance the language of the eighteenth century;

- province/domain I. e. the language of law, science, etc.;

- status i. e. polite/ colloquial language etc.;

- modality i. e. the language of memoranda, lectures, jokes, etc.;

- singurality, for instance the language of a writer.

It’s not surprising that we rarely find words which have both the same

conceptual and stylistic meaning, and this led to declare that there are no ‘true

synonyms’. But there is much convenience in restricting the term ‘synonymy’ to

equivalence of conceptual meaning. For example, domicile is very formal, official,

residence is formal, abode is poetic, home is the most general term. In terms of

conceptual meaning, the following sentences are synonymous.

e. g. They chucked a stone at the cops, and then did a bunk with the loot.

After casting a stone at the police, they absconded with the money.

Page 26: Opt Lbengle An3-1

In a more local sense, social meaning can include what has been called

The illocutionary force of an utterance, whether it is to be interpreted as a request, an

assertion, an apology, a threat, etc.

d. The way language reflects the personal feelings of the speaker, his/ her attitude

towards his/ her interlocutor or towards the topic of discussion, represents

affective meaning. Scaling our remarks according to politeness, intonation and

voice- timbre are essential factors in expressing affective meaning which is

largely a parasitic category, because it relies on the mediation of conceptual,

connotative or stylistic meanings. The exception is when we use interjections

whose chief function is to express emotion.

e. Two other types of meaning involve an interconnection on the lexical level of

language. Reflected meaning arises in cases of multiple conceptual meaning,

when one sense of a word forms part of our response to another sense. On

hearing, in a church service, the synonymous expressions the Comforter and the

Holy Ghost, one may react according to the everyday non- religious meanings of

comfort and ghost. One sense of a word ‘rubs off’ on another sense when it has a

dominant suggestive power through frequency and familiarity. The case when

reflected meaning intrudes through the sheer strength of emotive suggestion is

illustrated by words which have a taboo meaning; this taboo contamination

accounted in the past for the dying- out of the non- taboo sense; Bloomfield

explains in this way the replacement of cock by rooster.

f. Collocative Meaning consists of the associations a word acquires on account of

the meanings of words which tend to occur in its environment/ collocate with it.

e. g. pretty girl/ boy/ flower/ color

handsome boy/ man/ car/ vessel/ overcoat/ typewriter .

Collocative meaning remains an idiosyncratic property of individual words and it

shouldn’t be invoked to explain all differences of potential co- occurrence. Affective

and social meaning, reflected and collocative meaning have more in common with

connotative meaning than with conceptual meaning; they all have the same open-

ended, variable character and lend themselves to analysis in terms of scales and

ranges. They can be all brought together under the heading of associative meaning.

Associative meaning needs employing an elementary ‘associationist’ theory of

mental connections based upon contiguities of experience in order to explain it.

Page 27: Opt Lbengle An3-1

Whereas conceptual meaning requires the postulation of intricate mental structures

specific to language and to humans, and is part of the ‘common system‘ of language

shared by members of a speech community, associative meaning is less stable and

varies with the individual’s experience. Because of so many imponderable factors

involved in it, associative meaning can be studied systematically only by

approximative statistical techniques. Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum (The

Measurement of Meaning, 1957), proposed a method for a partial analysis of

associative meaning. They devised a technique – involving a statistical measurement

device, - The Semantic Differential -, for plotting meaning in terms of a

multidimensional semantic space, using as data speaker’s judgements recorded in

terms of seven point scales.

Thematic Meaning means what is communicated by the way in which a

speaker/ writer organizes the message in terms of ordering, focus or emphasis.

Emphasis can be illustrated by word- order:

e.g. Bessie donated the first prize.

The first prize was donated by Bessie.

by grammatical constructions:

e. g. There’s a man waiting in the hall.

It’s Danish cheese that I like best.

by lexical means:

e. g. The shop belongs to him

He owns the shop.

by intonation:

e. g. He wants an electric razor.

Conclusions

a. meaning, as a property of linguistic signs, is essentially a relation-

conventional, stable, and explicit- established between a sign and the object in

referential definitions, or between the sign and the concept/ the mental image of the

object in conceptual definitions of meaning;

b. an important aspect of meaning is derived from the use that the speakers

make of it – pragmatic meaning, including the attitude that speakers adopt towards

the signs;

Page 28: Opt Lbengle An3-1

c. part of the meaning of linguistic forms can be determined by the position

they occupy in a system of equivalent linguistic forms, in the paradigmatic set to

which they belong- differential/ connotative meaning;

d. equally, part of the meaning can be determined by the position a linguistic

sign occupies along the syntagmatic axis- distributional/ collocative meaning;

e. meaning cannot be conceived as an indivisible entity; it is divisible into

simpler constitutive elements, into semantic features, like the ones displayed on the

expression level of language.

1. Conceptual Meaning Logical, cognitive or denotative content

Associative meaning 2. Connotative Meaning What is communicated by virtue of what language refers to

3. Social Meaning What is communicated of the social circumstances of language use

4. Affective Meaning What is communicated of the feelings and attitudes of the speaker/ writer

5. Reflected Meaning What is communicated through association with another sense of the same expression

6. Collocative Meaning What is communicated through association with words tending to occur in the environment of another word

7. Thematic Meaning What is communicated by the way in which the message is organized in terms of order and emphasis

Topics for discussion and exercises

1. Characterize the referential theories of meaning.

2. Define the terms referent, extension, denotation, connotation. Give examples to

illustrate the definitions.

3. Identify and comment on the type of meaning of the bold words in terms of

extension and intension

An Opera Theatre in her town is her dream.

Page 29: Opt Lbengle An3-1

They are signing the contract.

‘Have you met the Pope ‘ ‘I have never met Giovanni Paolo II’.

I wanted to find a nice pair of glasses but there wasn’t any cheap

enough.

Since he saw that film, he’s always been afraid of ghosts.

Ann was sad. She didn’t answer my greeting.

He bought a bar of chocolate.

Zorro is his favorite hero.

They have no money to travel abroad.

Every year, the mayor delivers a speech in the town square.

What we need is a group of volunteers.

4. Give examples for each type of meaning in Leech’s classification.

C h a p t e r I I I .

M O T I V A T I O N O F M E A N I N G

Ferdinand de Saussure's apodictic statement: "the linguistic sign is arbitrary"

in the sense that there is no direct relationship between the sound sequence (the

signifiant) and the "idea" expressed by it (signifié) is taken for granted in the study of

language. The resumption of the discussion on the arbitrary character of the linguistic

sign in the late thirties and early forties proved however that the problem is not as

simple as it might seem. There are numerous words in all languages in which a

special correlation may be said to exist between meaning and sound. These words

Page 30: Opt Lbengle An3-1

include in the first place interjections and onomatopoeia, which are somehow

imitative of non-linguistic sounds as well as those instances in which it can be said

that some sounds are somehow associated with certain meanings, in the sense that

they suggest them. This latter aspect is known as phonetic symbolism.

But in addition to these cases which still remain marginal in the language,

there is also another sense in which the meaning of words may be said to be related to

its form, namely the possibility of analyzing linguistic signs by reference to the

smaller meaningful elements of which they are made up. Indeed, derivative, complex

and compound words are analyzable from the point of view of meaning in terms of

their constituent morphemes.

It is obvious that while the general principle remains valid, namely that there

is no inherent reason why a given concept should be paired to a given string of

sounds, it is the linguist's task to examine those instances, when it is possible to say

something about the meaning of a linguistic sign by reference to its sounds and

grammatical structure, in other words, it is necessary to assess the extent to which

there is some motivation in the case of at least a number of words in the language.

Ullmann (1957) made a distinction between opaque and transparent words. In

the latter case of transparent words, Ullmann discusses three types of motivation:

phonetic, grammatical and semantic (motivation by meaning, as in the case of

"breakfast", whose meaning can be derived from the meaning of its component

elements).

There are two main types of linguistic motivation already postulated by de

Saussure: absolute and relative motivation.

1. Absolute motivation

Absolute motivation includes language signs whose sound structure

reproduces certain features of their content. Given this quasi-physical resemblance

between their signifiant and their signifié, these signs are of an iconic or indexic

nature in the typology of semiotic signs, although symbolic elements are present as

well in their organization:

There are several classes of linguistic signs, which can be said to be absolutely

motivated:

Page 31: Opt Lbengle An3-1

(i) Interjections. It would be wrong to consider, as is sometimes done, that

interjections somehow depict exactly the physiological and psychological states they

express. The fact that interjections differ in sound from one language to another is the

best proof of it. Compare Romanian au! aoleu! vai! etc. and English ouch!, which

may be used in similar situations by speakers of the two languages.

(ii) Onomatopoeia. This is true of imitative or onomatopoeic words as well.

Despite the relative similarity in the basic phonetic substance of words meant to

imitate animal or other sounds and noises, their phonological structure follows the

rules of pattern and arrangement characteristic of each separate language. There are

instances in which the degree of conventionality is highly marked, as evidenced by

the fact that while in English a dog goes bow-wow, in Romanian it goes ham-ham.

Also, such forms as English whisper and Romanian şopti are considered to be

motivated in the two languages, although they are quite different in form.

(iii) Phonetic symbolism. Phonetic symbolism is based on the assumption that

certain sounds may be associated with particular ideas or meanings, because they

somehow seem to share some attributes usually associated with the respective

referents. The problem of phonetic symbolism has been amply debated in linguistics

and psychology and numerous experiments have been made without arriving at very

conclusive results.

It is quite easy to jump at sweeping generalizations starting from a few

instances of sound symbolism.

Jespersen attached particular attention to the phonetic motivation of words and

tried to give the character of law to certain sound and meaning concordances. He

maintained for instance, on the basis of ample evidence provided by a great variety of

languages, that the front, close vowel sound of the [i] type is suggestive of the idea of

smallness, rapidity and weakness. A long list of English words: little, slim, kid, bit,

flip, tip, twit, pinch, twinkle, click, etc. can be easily provided in support of the

assumption, and it can also be reinforced by examples of words from other languages:

Fr. petit, It. piccolo, Rom. mic, etc. Of course, one can equally easily find counter

examples - the most obvious being the word big in English - but on the whole it does

not seem unreasonable to argue that a given sound, or sequence of sounds is

associated to a given meaning impression, although it remains a very vague one.

Page 32: Opt Lbengle An3-1

Sapir (1929) maintained that a contrast can be established between [i] and [a]

in point of the size of the referents in the names of which they appear, so that words

containing [a] usually have referents of larger size. Similar systematic relations were

established for consonants as well.

Initial consonant clusters of the /sn/, /sl/, /fl/ type are said to be highly

suggestive of quite distinctive meanings, as indicated by long lists of words beginning

with these sounds.

2. Relative motivation

Relative motivation. In the case of relatively motivated language signs, it is

not the sounds which somehow evoke the meaning; whatever can be guessed about

the meaning of such words is a result of the analysis of the smaller linguistic signs

which are included in them. Relative motivation involves a much larger number of

words in the language than absolute motivation. There are three types of relative

motivation: motivation by derivation; by composition and semantic motivation.

An analysis of the use of derivational means to create new words in the

language will reveal its importance for the vocabulary of a language. The prefix {-

in}, realized phonologically in various ways and meaning either (a) not and (b) in,

into, appears in at least 2,000 English words: inside, irregular, impossible, incorrect,

inactive etc.

Similarly, the Latin capere ("take") appears in a great number of English

words: capture, captivity, capable, reception, except, principal, participant, etc.

It is no wonder that Brown (1964) found it possible to give keys to the meanings of over

14,000 words, which can be analyzed in terms of combinations between 20 prefixes and 14 roots.

Some of his examples are given below:

Words Prefix Common Meaning Root Common Meaning

1. Precept pre- before capere take, seize2. Detain de- away, down tenere hold, have3. Intermittent inter- between, among mittere send4. Offer ob- against ferre bear, carry5. Insist in- into stare stand6. Monograph mono- alone, one, graphein write7. Epilogue epi- upon legein say, study of8. Aspect ad- to, towards specere see

This table alone is sufficient to indicate the importance of relative motivation

for the analysis of meaning.

Page 33: Opt Lbengle An3-1

It is obvious that the lexicon of a language presents items which differ in the

degree to which their meaning can be said to be motivated; while some are opaque

(their sound give no indication of their meaning), others are more or less transparent,

in the sense that one can arrive at some idea of their meaning by recourse to their

phonetic shape or to their derivational structure or to some semantic relations which

can be established with other words in the language.

In Précis de sémantique française (1952), Ullman suggested several criteria of

semantic structure which enabled him to characterize English as a "lexical language",

as opposed to French which is a more "grammatical" one: the number of arbitrary and

motivated words in the vocabulary; the number of particular and generic terms; the

use of special devices to heighten the emotive impact of words. Three other criteria

are based on multiple meaning (patterns of synonymy, the relative frequency of

polysemy, and the incidence of homonymy) and a final one evaluates the extent to

which words depend on context for the clarification of their meaning. This is an area

of study which could be continued with profitable results for other languages as well.

Bibliography:

Chiţoran, Dumitru. 1973. Elements of English Structural Semantics, Bucureşti, Ed.

Didactică şi Pedagogică.

Exercises:

1. Give examples of words which are absolutely motivated.

2. Analyse the following words in terms of relative motivation: rowboat,

impermeability, wholesaler, pan-African, childless, playing-field, incredible,

scare-crow, counter-attack, imperfect, overdose, shareholder, caretaker,

salesman, foresee, misunderstanding.

3. Give examples of words build with the help of the following prefixes: bi-, in-,

mis-, de-, anti-, non-, out-, super-, dis-, mal-, a-, en-, over-.

4. Analyze the following blends in point of their relative motivation: sportcast,

smog, telescreen, mailomat, dictaphon, motel, paratroops, cablegram,

guestar, transistor.

5. Write the word forms of the following words and analyze them in terms of

relative motivation: move, comment, place. Consider Saussure’s types of

Page 34: Opt Lbengle An3-1

associations and find possible associations among the word forms that you

previously found.

Chapter IVSTRUCTURAL APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF MEANING

1. COMPONENTIAL ANALYSIS

Though structuralism in linguistics should be connected to structuralism in

other sciences, notably in anthropology, it should also be regarded as a result of its

own inner laws of development as a science.

Generally, structuralist linguistics may be characterised by a neglect of

meaning, but this must not lead to the conclusion that this direction in linguistics has

left the study of meaning completely unaffected. Structural research in semantics has

tried to answer two basic guestions:

a) – is there a semantic structure/system of language, similar to the systemic

organisation of language uncovered at other levels of linguistic analysis

(phonology and grammar) ?

b) can the same structure methods which have been used in the analysis of

phonological and grammatical aspects of languages be applied to the

analysis of meaning ?

In relation to question a), the existence of some kind of systemic organisation

within the lexicon of a language is taken for granted. F de Sanssure pointed aut that

the vocabulary of a language cannot be regarded as a mere catalogue. But this

aaceptance does not mean it is an easy job to prove the systematic character of the

lexicon. First of all, it would mean the study of the entire civilization it reflects and

secondly, given the fluid and vague nature of meaning, semantic reality must be

analysed without recourse to directly observable entities as it happens in case of

sound and grammatical meaning.

One solution was to group together those elements of the lexicon which form

more or less natural series. Such series are usually represented by kinship terms, parts

of the human body, the term of temporal and spatial orientation,etc, that can be said

to reveal a structural organisation. Structural considerations were applied to terms

Page 35: Opt Lbengle An3-1

denoting sensorial perceptions: colour, sound , swell, taste, as well as to terms of

social and personal appreciation.

The existence of such semantic series, the organisation of words into semnatic

fields justified the structural approach to the study of lexicon.

Hjelmslev conditioned the existencee of system in language by the existence

of paradignes so that a structural description is only possible where paradigmes are

revealed.But the vocabulary , as an open system, with a variable number of elements,

does not fit such a description unless the definition of system broadens. Melcuk

(1961) stated that a set of structurally organised objects forms a system if the objects

can be described by certain rules, on condition that the number of rules is smaller

than the number of objects. Constant reference to phonology, in terms of

distinguishing between relevant and irrelevant in the study of meaning has led to

applying methods pertaining to the expression level of language to its content level as

well.

Some linguistic theories, mainly the Gloosemantic School, take it for granted

that there is an underlying isomorphism between the expression and content levels of

language. Accordingly they consider it axiomatic to apply a unique method of

analysis to both levels of language. Hjelmslev distinguishes between signification and

sense and deepens this distinction on the basis of a new dichotomy postulated by

glossematics : form and substance. While the sense refers to the substance of content,

signification refers to its form or structure. The distinction signification/sense can be

analysed in term of another structuralist dichotomy: invariant/variant. Significations

represent invariant units of meaning while the sense are its variants. There is a

commutation relation between significations as invariants, and a substitution one

between senses as variants. An example is given below :

Romanian English Russian

palma

mana hand pyka

brat arm

Since significations as invariants find their material manifestation in senses as

their invariants, in terms of glossematics, a theory of signification stands for content

form alone, so signification is no more semantic than other aspects of content form

Page 36: Opt Lbengle An3-1

dealt with by grammar. It follows that only a theory of the sense (substance of

content) could be the object of study of semantics(Chitoran, 1973:48).

In Hjelmslev’s opinion, sense is characteristic of speech, not of language,

pertains to an empirical level, so below any interest of linguistics. Any attempt to

uncover structure or system at the sense level can be based on the collective

evaluation of sense. For Hjelmslev, lexicology is a sociological discipline which

makes use of linguistic material : words. This extreme position is in keeping with the

neopositivist stand adopted by glossematics, according to which form has primacy

over substance, that language is form, not substance and what matters in the study of

meaning is the complex network of relations obtaining among linguistic elements.

Keeping in mind the basic isomorphism between expression and content, it is

essential to emphasize some important differences between the two language levels:

- the expression level of language implies sequentiality, a development in

time (spoken language) or space (written language); its content level is

characterised by simultaneity;

- the number of units to be uncovered at the expression level is relatively

small, and infinitely greater at the content level.

It is generaly accepted that the meanings of a word are also structured, that

they form microsystems, as apposed to the entire vocabulary which represents the

lexical macrosystem. The meanings of a lexical element display three levels of

structure, starting from a basic significative nucleus, a semantic constant (Coteanu,

1960) which represents the highest level of abstraction in the structuration of

meaning. Around it different meanings can be grouped (the 2 nd level). (Chiţoran,

1973:51)

The actual uses of a lexical item, resulting from the individualising function of

words (Coteanu, 1960) belong to speech. Monolingual dictionaries give the meanings

of a lexical item abstracted on the basis of a wide collection of data. As far as the

semantic constant is concerned, its identification is the task of semnatics and one way

of doing that is by means of the Componential Analysis.

Componential Analysis assumes that all meanings can be further analysed into

distinctive semantic features called semes, semantic components or semantic

primitives, as the ultimate components of meaning. The search for distinctive

semantic features was first limited to lexical items which were intuitively felt to form

Page 37: Opt Lbengle An3-1

natural structures of a more ar less closed nature. The set kinship terms was among

the first lexical subsystems to be submitted to componential analysis :

father [+male][+direct line] [+older generation]

mother [-male][+direct line] [+older generation]

son [+male][+direct line] [-older generation]

daughter [_male][+direct line] [-older generation]

uncle[+male][_direct line] [+older generation]

aunt [-male] [-direct line] [+older generation]

nephew [+male] [-direct line] [-older generation]

niece [-male] [-direct line] [-older generation]

It is evident than there exist the same hierarchy of units and the same principle

of structuring lower level units into higher level ones (Pottier, 1963):

Expression Content

Distinctive feature pheme (f) seme (s)

Set of distinctive features phememe(F)

(a set of pheme)

sememe (S)

(A set of semes)

The formalization of a set of

Distinctive features

phoneme(P)

(the formalization of a

phememe)

lexeme(L)

formalization of a

sememe

The sememes are arrived at by comparing various lexical items in the

language. Starting from the dictionary definitions, the semantic features encountered

in case of furniture intended for siting are :

Semantic feature/Lexical item

for sitting with back with supportfor arms

for morepeople upholstered

Stool + - - - *

Chair + + - - *

Armchair + + + - *

Bench + + * + -

Sofa + + * + +

*the given feature(present/absent)is not relevant .

Page 38: Opt Lbengle An3-1

On the content level an archilexeme will result from the neutralization of a

lexemic opposition. In this case the more general term chair can be the archilexeme,

or another lexical item can be chosen-seat.

Glossematies represents the point of departure for an American linguistic

theory, the statificational theory of language (Sidney Lamb, 1964,1966). He included

a semantic theory in his general linguistic theory. This semantic component has the

form of a separate level of language (stratum) the sememic one. Lamb’s semantic

theory is based on the assumption that there is a structuralization of meaning

characteristic of all languages. While before him words were related directly to their

denotata or significata. Lamb suggests the insertion of a new statum ‘sememics’,

between language and the outside world in order to delimit what is linguistically

relevant on the content level from what is not. The sememic statum is inserted

between the lexemic (lower) and the semantic (higher) strata.Its elementary unit is the

semon(=the minimal unit of the semantic stratum such that its components are not

representations of the components of the semantic statum sememes may be accounted

for by general construction rules, the combination of semons must be listed

individually for each sememe. Evidence is formed both for diversification (semo-

lexemic) and neutralization (lexosememic) between the two strata.

Sememic stratum S of colours; giving out/reflecting much light

Lexemic stratum L bright L vivid L intense

Sememic stratum S quick-witted, clever

Lexemic stratum L bright Lgifted L clever L capable

Sememeic statum S/piece of wood s/on the ship s/group of people

s/(food)

Lexemic stratum board

The first is accounting for the semasiological direction, the second for the

onomasiological direction (from denotata and significata to a linguistic form-

Page 39: Opt Lbengle An3-1

explaining synonymy). In the process of neutalization which accounts for polysemy,

one lexema is connected to several sememes in an either-or type of relationship. But

the lexeme/lamb/is connected both to the sememe/sheep/ and the sememe /young/. A

given lexeme may connect first to several units in an either-or relationship, which in

turn may connect to several sememes in a both-and relationship. The intermediate

units between the lexeme and the sememes are called by Lamb sememic signs.

/male/

Sememic stratum /unmarried /owner of the / ± male / person / 1 st Acad. Degree/

(intermediate) /unmarried /university /youngsememic sign man/ graduate/ knight/(sememe)

lexemic stratum bachelor

By expressing the meanings of individual items in terms of combinations of

features, we obtain the componential definitions of the items concerned. They can be

regarded as formalized dictionary definitions :

man + HUMAN + ADULT + MALE

The dimensions of meaning will be termed semantic oppositions. The features

of opposition are mutually defining.

+ (marked)

- (negative, unmarked)

Not all semantic contrasts are binary In fact componential analysis assumes

that meanings are organised in multi-dimensional contrasts. Taxonomic (hierarchical

arrangement of categories) oppositions can be :

- binary : dead # alive

- multiple : gold # copper # iron # mercury etc.

The link between componential analysis and and basic statements is made

through the mediation of hyponymy (inclusion) and incompatibility. So basic logical

relationships (entailment, inconsistency) can be defined in terms of hyponymy and

incompatibility (Leech, 1990:97):

e.g. The secretary is a woman entails The secretary is an adult.

Page 40: Opt Lbengle An3-1

I meet two boys entails I met two children.

Justifying componential analysis by following out its logical consequences in

terms of basic statements implies giving a certain priority to sentence meaning over

word-meaning, so truth-falsehood properties of sentence meanings are the surest basis

for testing a description of meaning: scared and frightened would be considered as

synonyms in terms of their truth value and would be perceived as differing in terms

of stylistic meaning +/- colloquial.

The features of different semantic oppositions can be combined. Is it true that

every dimension is variable completely independent of all the other ?

/+ human/ /+ adult/ /+male/ are independently

variable

/+animate/ combines with /+countable/

/+ animate/ combines with /± male/ but [+male] implies [+animate]

Redundancy rules add features which are predictable from the presence of

other features and are therefore in a sense redundant to an economical semantic

interpretation. Such rules are found in phonology and syntax. Indirect relation of

incompatibility and hyponymy can be established through redundancy rules: man and

book are incompatible in meaning.

Hence, X is a man and X is a book are inconsistent statements. Redundancy

rules are important for extending the power of componential analysis to account for

basic statements. Certain features and oppositions can be regarded as more important

than others in the total organisation of the language. The oppositions ± concrete and +

countable have many other oppositions dependent on them and so they are in key

positions as it happens with the feature + animate. (G. Leech, 1990:111).

Binary oppositions frequently have marked and unmarked terms. That is, the

terms are not entirely of equivalent weight, but one (the unmarked) is neutral or

positive in contrast to the other.

e.g. book books

petit petite

duck drake

long short

Page 41: Opt Lbengle An3-1

Markedness is definable as a relation between form and meaning : if two

words contrast on a single dimension of meaning, the unmarked one is the one which

can also apply neutrally to the whole dimension. A positive-negative bias is inherent

to the semantic opposition. Often the marked term is indicated by a negative suffix or

prefix : happy-unhappy, useful-useless. People tend to respond more quickly to

unmarked than to marked terms. This could be explained by their tendency to look

on the bride side of life and associate unmarkedness with ‘good’ evaluations and

markedness with ‘bad’ ones (Leech, 1990:114).

There is also a factor of bias in relative oppositions but this could be explained

in terms of dominance rather than markedness. We prefer to use the dominant term

before the other or to use it alone.

parent/child see –

own/belong to hit –

in front/behind have –

Markedness and dominance vary in strength (they can grow weak even

become inexistent left/right) and are also subject to contextual influences.

Criticisms of Componential Analysis. Componential analysis is considered

by some linguists as a useful and revealing technique for demonstrating relation of

meaning between words. At the same time, this theory of word-meaning has been

criticised and G.Leech has tried to comment on the main criticisms :

1. It is said that componential analysis (CA) accounts for only someparts of a

language’s vocabulary (those parts which are neatly organized). Componential

analysis can be fitted into a more powerful model of meaning, with additional levels

of analysis apart from CA. Semantic features need not be atomic contrastive

elements, but may have an internal structure of their own, that is, the semantic

features can be derived from configurations of other features. This recursive power of

feature-creation is particularly important in considering metaphor. So, there is no

need to postulate an indefinite proliferation of semantic oppositions.

2. It is often objected than CA suffers from a ‘vicious circle’ in that it merely

explains one set of symbols (e.g. English words) by another set of symbols (which

also turned out to be English words). The notation of symbols is arbitrary and the

Page 42: Opt Lbengle An3-1

explanatory function of features is solely their role in the prediction of basic

statements.

3. Another objection is that CA postulates abstract semantic entities (semantic

features) unnecessarily. But the notation of CA is language-neutral, and so the same

features, oppositions redundancy rules may explain meaning relation in many

different languages.

4. Connected to that, it has been postulated that CA implies universal features

of meaning and therefore relies on the strong assumption that the same semantic

features are found in all languages. CA fits in well with a ‘weak universalist’ position

whereby semantic oppositions are regarded as language-neutral i.e. as conceptual

contrasts not necessarily tied to the description of particular languages. Semantic

analyses may be generalized from one language to another, but only to the extent that

this is justified by translation equivalence.

5. It has also been claimed that CA is unexplanatory in that it does not provide

for the interpretation of semantic features in terms of the real-world properties and

objects that they refer to. For example + ADULT remains an abstract uninterpreted

symbol unless we can actually specify what adults are like i.e. how decide when the

feature + ADULT refers to something. To expect CA to provide an interpretation in

this sense is to expect it to provide a theory not only of meaning, but of reference, or

not only of conceptual meaning, but also of connotative meaning. CA cannot have

this wider goal : it is meant to explain word sense, not the encyclopedic knowledge

which must enter into a theory of reference.

6. The view that word-meanings are essentially vague, that determinate

criteria for the reference of words cannot be given has received prominent support in

philosophy and linguisties. Wittgenstein exemplified this with the word game : he

could find no essential defining features of what constitutes a game and concluded

that we know the meaning by virtue of recognizing certain ‘family resemblances

between the activities it refers to. A more recent critique of the deterministic view of

meaning is given by Labov (1973) who conducted an experiment in which subjects

were invited to label pictures of more-or-less cup-like objects. There was a core of

agreement as to what constituted a cup but there was also a peripheral gradient of

disagreement and uncertainty. The conclusion is that cup, mug, bowl and similar

words are defined in terms of ‘fuzzy sets of attributes’, that is sets of attributes of

Page 43: Opt Lbengle An3-1

varying importance, rather than in terms of a clear-cut, unvarying set of features. We

match candidates for ‘cuphood’ against a prototype or standard notion of cup. The

vagueness is referential and does not affect componential analysis because it has to do

with category recognition: the mental encyclopedia rather than the mental dictionary.

Another kind of variability of reference is presented by Lyons in case of three

words: boy, girl, child in terms of a common feature – ADULT. This feature will

require different interpretations in the three cases. Within the-ADULT category there

is a further binary taxonomy distinguishing child from adolescent. –ADULT stands as

a common factor in the meanings of boy, girl, child, puppy etc. but its referential

interpretation is variable for reasons which are explicable in terms of the prototypic

view of categories.

There have emerged three different levels at which word-meaning can be

analysed.

- the word-sense as an entirety may be seen as a conceptual unit in its own

right prepackaged experience (Leech, 1990:121);

- this unit may be subdivided into components/features by CA;

- both word-senses and features, representing prototypic categories can be

broken down into fuzzy sets of attributes.

2 . P A R A D I G M S I N L E X I C

T h e S e m a n t i c F i e l d T h e o r y

The idea of the organization of the entire lexicon of a language into a unitary

system was for the first time formulated by Jost Trier. Actually, Trier continued two

lines of thought. On the one hand, he was directly influenced by W. von Humboldt

and his ideas of linguistic relativism. Wilhelm von Humboldt, influenced by the

romanticism of the early 19th century advanced the theory that languages are unique,

in that each language expresses the spirit of a people, its Volksgeist. Each language

categorizes reality in different ways so that it may either help or hinder its speakers in

making certain observations or in perceiving certain relations. Given the principle of

relativism, it follows that the vocabularies of any two languages are anisomorphic,

that there are no absolute one to one correspondences between two equivalent words

belonging to two different languages. Humboldt made, also, the distinction between

language viewed statically as an ergon and language viewed dynamically, creatively,

Page 44: Opt Lbengle An3-1

as an energeia. Trier's semantic fields are, accordingly, closely, integrated lexical

systems in a dynamic state of continuous evolution.

The other line of thought which Trier continues springs from Ferdinand de

Saussure's structuralism, more specifically from the distinctions made by the latter

between the signification, and value of lexical items. According to de Saussure,

words have signification, in that they do mean something, positively, but they also

have value, which is defined negatively by reference to what the respective words do

not mean. Linguistic value is the result of the structural relationships of a term in the

system to which it belongs. Thus, Trier postulated that no item in the vocabulary can

be analyzed semantically unless one takes into account the bundle of relationships and

oppositions it enters with the other words in a given subsystem or system. One cannot

assess the correct meaning of "green" for instance, unless one knows the meaning of

"red" and all the other colours in the system.

Colour terms are actually often used to illustrate the semantic field theory. Let

us suppose that the field of colours, which physicists assure us forms a continuum, is

covered by the following number of terms in two languages L1 and L2:

L1: x y z

L2: a b c d e

It is evident that no single term in any of the two languages covers exactly the

same area of the spectrum; only "z" in L1 can be said to incorporate the whole of "e"

in L2 although it covers a small part of the area covered by "d" as well.

English and Shona, a language spoken in Rhodesia, exhibit precisely the type

of structural segmentation of the colour spectrum postulated above. While English

have seven basic terms for colour (the first level of the hierarchy), red, orange,

yellow, green, blue and purple, Shona has only three which are distributed roughly as

follows: a first term "covers the range of English orange, red and purple, and a small

part of blue; another term covers the area of green and most of blue" (Lamb 1969:

46). It is evident that the terms for colour are not equivalent in the two languages.

Evidently the linguistic field of colour terms is a favourable one for such an

analysis. There is first of all a "metalanguage" provided by the science of physics to

which one can report the words for colour. Secondly, the number of words, is quite

limited and thus reductible to a restricted set of relationships.

Page 45: Opt Lbengle An3-1

But even in the case of the most elementary vocabulary one encounters a

similar lack of correspondence. English sheep and French mouton are not the same

since English makes use of another term mutton, to cover the entire area of meanings

and uses covered by French mouton.

Trier advanced the idea, that vocabulary as a whole forms an integrated

system of lexemes interrelated in sense, a huge mosaic with no loopholes or

superposed terms since our concepts themselves cover the entire Universe. According

to his dynamic conception of language viewed as "energeia", Trier pointed out that

the slightest change in the meaning of a term within a semantic field brings about

changes in the neighbouring terms as well.

Any broadening in the sense of one lexeme involves a corresponding

narrowing in the sense of one or more of its neighbours. According to Trier, it is one

of the major failings of traditional diachronic semantics that it sets out to catalogue

the history of changes in the meanings of individual lexemes atomistically, or one by

one, instead of investigating changes in the whole structure of the vocabulary as it has

developed through time. (Lyons 1977: 252).

The procedure followed by Trier in diachronic semantics is not one of

comparing successive states of the total vocabulary (which would be hardly

practicable). What he does is to compare the structure of a lexical field at time t1 with

the structure of a lexical field at time t2.

Semantic fields with a more restricted number of terms are incorporated into

larger ones, the latter are themselves structurated into even larger ones, until the

entire lexicon of a language is integrated into a unitary system. In Trier's opinion

therefore semantic fields act as intermediaries between individual lexical entries, as

they appear in a dictionary, and the vocabulary as a whole.

Despite their revolutionary character, Trier's ideas on semantics found few

followers and were consequently slow in being pursued and developed. This is

normal in view of the important objections which can be raised to his theory.

One of the objections came from those who were reluctant to admit such a

perfect organization of vocabulary into an interdependent and perfectly integrated

system of elements which delimit each other like pieces in a jig-saw puzzle.

Secondly, the linguistic relativism of Trier's ideas, his contention about the influence

Page 46: Opt Lbengle An3-1

of language upon thought was rightly considered as an instance of linguistic

solipsism.

Much of the criticism leveled at semantic field theory originated from less

philosophical considerations. It is quite difficult to outline the actual limits of a field,

its "constant", which subsequently enables one to analyze the terms incorporated in it.

Also, the semantic field theory, if valid, accounts for only one type of relations

contracted by lexical items - the paradigmatic ones, or, a full semantic description

should include syntagmatic relations as well. In addition Trier's theory does not seem

to be related to any given grammatical theory.

Nevertheless, there were numerous attempts at developing the semantic field

theory, most of them departing to a lesser or greater extent from Trier's original ideas.

L. Weisgerber for instance, continued the analysis of the semantic field of knowledge

and understanding in Modern German while trying to incorporate the notion of

semantic fields in his general theory of language (1953).

P. Guiraud (1956, 1962) developed the theory of the morpho-semantic field.

The morpho-semantic field includes all the sound and sense associations radiating

from a word; its homonyms and synonyms, all other words to which it may be related

formally or logically, metaphorically, etc., as well as casual or more stable

associations which can be established between objects designated by these words.

Walter von Wartburg and R. Hallig (1952) undertook a more ambitious task.

They suggested a method of analysis based on the system of concepts which was

meant to cover the entire vocabulary of a language and, since the general

classification of concepts was supposed to have a general character, the vocabulary of

any language could be incorporated into such a conceptual dictionary.

The method is entirely reminiscent of Roget's Thesaurus in that it identifies

lexical systems with logical systems of concepts. The outline of the system of

concepts has three main components: A: The Universe; B: Man; and C: Man and the

Universe. Each main component includes several classes of concepts (and

accordingly, of words designating these concepts). Thus, component A includes the

following four classes: I The sky and atmosphere; II. The Earth; III. The Plants; IV.

The Animals.

Semantic fields are structural organizations of lexis which reflect a

structuration of the content level of language. Hjelmslev and E. Coseriu (1968)

Page 47: Opt Lbengle An3-1

considered that any semantic theory is valid only to the extent to which it arrives at

paradigms on the content level of language.

Coseriu defined the semantic field as a primary paradigmatic structure of the

lexic, a paradigm consisting in lexical units of content (lexemes), which share a

continuous common zone of signification, being in an immediate opposition one to

another. (Iliescu, Wald 1981: 39)

A semantic field should be understood in Trier's original sense, namely as a

zone of signification covered by a number of closely interrelated lexical items. In this

respect the componential analysis of meaning (Goodenough, 1956) seems to be nearer

the true concept of the semantic field.

Three main objections can be and have been raised with regard to the present

state of the semantic field theory.

(a) Is it possible to analyze the entire vocabulary into semantically structured

fields, or are they limited to certain parts of it only, namely to lexical items

designating aspects of reality (especially man-made reality, the reality of artifacts)

which by their own nature possess a certain structural organization?

(b) Closely related to objection (a) one can doubt the linguistic nature of

semantic fields. Do they correspond to an internal organization of the vocabulary or

are they organizations external to language?

(c) How can semantic fields be delimited? Is there an objective method of

evaluating the range of a given field and the number of elements it includes?

Componential Analysis Applied in the Analysis of Semantic Fields

One of the most important tenets of modern semantics claims that the

meanings of lexical items do not represent ultimate, indivisible entities; they are, on

the contrary, analyzable into further components. This led to a method of approach in

semantic analysis, appropriately called componential analysis, previously discussed in

this chapter.

Componential analysis originally started as a method of analysing units

belonging to a certain semantic field. The method was fruitfully applied in the study

of kinship terms, colour terminology, military ranks and other fairly restricted

domains of meaning.

Page 48: Opt Lbengle An3-1

Assuming that the meaning of a word is not an undivided entity, componential

analysis provides for the decomposition of meanings into smaller significant features.

Modeled on the analysis of phonemes into distinctive features, componential analysis

is founded on the notion of semantic contrast: the units of a field are assumed to

contrast simultaneously on different dimensions of meaning. The meanings of the

field units complement each other constituing a paradigm. A paradigm will be

defined as a set of linguistic forms wherein:

a) the meaning of every form has, at least one feature in common with the

meaning of all other forms in the set;

b) the meaning of every form differs from that of every other form of the set,

by one or more additional features.

The common feature of meaning of the set is called the root meaning. It

defines the semantic area which is analyzed by the units of the field. The words in the

field will be arranged into contrastive sets along different dimensions of meaning.

Thus, just as /t/ and /d/ complement each other with respect to the dimension of

voicing, old and young complement each other with respect to the conceptual

dimension of age.

A dimension is an opposition of mutually exclusive features. The features of

the dimension sex, presumably relevant in an analysis of kinship terms, are [+Male]

and [+Female].

Any term of the paradigm will be defined componentially in terms of its

coordinates in the paradigm. The componential definition of a word is a combination

of features for several (or for all) dimensions of the paradigm.

In the componential definition of the meaning of a lexical item the linguist

proceeds from extensional definition to intensional definitions. That is, starting his

analysis of say, kinship terms, the linguist has to draw up the list of all the terms with

kinship designation and, than, to specify for each of them the set of possible denotata

(the set of contextual meanings or all the allosemes of the word).

The componential definition of a term may be taken to be an expression of its

significatum. A componential definition is therefore an intensional definition, which

specifies the distinctive features shared in common by all denotata designated by a

given term.

Page 49: Opt Lbengle An3-1

It is a unitary, conjunctive definition implying that all the features are

simultaneously present in every occurrence of the word.

Bibliography:

1. Chiţoran, Dumitru. 1973. Elements of English Structural Semantics, Buc.: Editura

Didactică şi Pedagogică.

2. Iliescu, M. Wald, L. 1981. Lingvistica modernă în texte. Buc.: Reprografia

Universităţii din Bucureşti.

3. Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics vol. I, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

4. Hulban, N. Luca-Lăcătuşu, T. Creţescu Kogălniceanu, C. 1983. Competenţă şi

performanţă. Exerciţii şi teste de limbă engleză. Bucureşti: Ed. Ştiinţifică şi

Enciclopedică.

TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION AND EXERCISES

1. For each of the following words try to establish sets of attributes that would

distinguish it from its companions in the group :

cake, biscuit, bread, role, bun, cracker,

boil, fry, broil, sauté, simmer, grill, roast.

2. For each group of words given below, state what semantic property /-ies

distinguish between the classes of a) and b) words. Do a)words and b)words share any

semantic property ?

Example: a) widow, mother, sister, aunt, maid

b) widower, father, brother, uncle, valet

a) and b) are human

a) words are female and b) male

A) a) bachelor, man, son, pope, chief

b) bull, rooster, drake, ram

B) a) table, stone, pencil, cup, house, ship, car

c) milk, alchohol, rice, soup, mud

C) a) book, temple, mountain, road, tractor

b) idea, love, charity, sincerity, bravery, fear

Page 50: Opt Lbengle An3-1

D) a) walk, run, skip, jump, hop, swim

b) fly, skate, ski, ride, cycle, canoe

E) a) alleged, counterfeit, false, putative, accused

b) red, large, cheerful, pretty, stupid

3. Define the terms seme, sememe, lexeme. Give examples.

4. What is a semantic field?

FINAL TESTS AND QUESTIONS

1. Define semantics and its object.

2. The relation between semantics and semiotics.

3. Physei – thesei controversy.

4. Comment on the drawbacks of referential theory of meaning.

5. Apply the description theory of naming to the following proper names- for each name find two different descriptive sentences Karl Marx, New York, Jane Austen.

Page 51: Opt Lbengle An3-1

6. Give examples of situations in which the causal theory of naming functions. Can the descriptive and the causal theories of naming be combined?

7. Absolute motivation.

8. Relative motivation.

9. Find the archilexeme and the archisememe for the next series of words:

wallet, bag, case, purse, suitcase, knapsack .

10. Point out the advantages and drawbacks of componential analysis.

11. Define the notion of semantic field and state the main elements of the semantic field theory.