UNIVERSITATEA DIN CRAIOVA

FACULTATEA DE LITERE
NVMNT LA DISTAN
PROGRAMA ANALI TI C

Disciplina: Limba Englez Contemporan: English Semantics
Specializarea: Romn- Englez
Anul III, Semestrul I
itularul !isciplinei: lector Clau!ia "isoschi

I# $%IECI&ELE DISCI"LI'EI:
Cursul ()i propune:
!e*inirea !omeniului semanticii, a locului )i rolului acesteia (n ca!rul ling+isticii,
e+i!en-ierea rela-iilor cu celelalte !iscipline ling+istice: le.icologia, mor*o-
sinta.a, pragmatica,
pre!area no-iunillor !e baz !in !omeniul semanticii cu accent pe teoriile legate
!e sens,
!escrierea principalelor curente )i teorii semantice,
!escrierea rela-iilor semantice para!igmatice )i sintagmatice,
(n ca!rul *iecarei teme stu!iate se pune accent att pe aspectele teoretice ct )i
pe cele practice, *iecare capitol cuprinzn! )i cte+a e.erci-ii pentru aplicarea
cuno)tin-elor teoretice acumulate#
II# E/AICA C0RS0L0I:
Capitolul I# Intro!uction to Semantics
1# A Short 2istor3 o* Semantics
4# De*inition an! $b5ect o* Semantics
6# Semantics an! Semiotics
Capitolul II# he "roblem o* /eaning
I#he Concept o* /eaning: 1#a bipolar relation
4#a tria!ic relation:
a# re*erential approach
b# conceptual approach
6# 2eger7s +ie8
II# Dimensions o* /eaning 1# !imensions o* meaning
4#t3pes o* meaning in Leech7s conception
Capitolul III# /oti+ation o* meaning#
1# Absolute moti+ation
4# Relati+e moti+ation

Capitolul I&# Structural Approaches to the Stu!3 o* /eaning
1# Componential Anal3sis
4# "ara!igms in Le.ic#he Semantic 9iel! heor3
Capitolul &# Language as a Conceptual S3stem#
Linguistic Relati+ism an! Semantic 0ni+ersals
1
Capitolul &I# Semantic Relations an! Le.ical Categories
A# "ara!igmatic Relations
1# Incompatibilit3: $positeness o* /eaning
a# Complementarit3
b# Anton3m3
c# Re+ersibilit3
!# 2ierarchic oppositions#
e# In+erse oppositions#
4# S3non3m3
6# 23pon3m3 or inclusion
%# S3ntagmatic Relations#
Capitolul &II# Semantic heor3 8ithin the 9rame8or; o*
<enerati+e rans*ormational
<rammar
1# Semantics in the Stan!ar! <enerati+e heor3 o* language# he
Semantic Component o* <enerati+e -rans*ormational <rammar
1# <enerati+e Semantics &ersus Interpreti+e Semantics
Capitolul &III# 'e8 Semantic heories
1# Categorization# 'ecessar3 an! Su**icient Con!itions /o!el# he
heor3 o* "rotot3pe
4# Cogniti+e Semantics
III# E&AL0AREA S0DE'=IL$R:
9orma !e e+aluare: e.amen scris
I&# %I%LI$<RA9IE <E'ERAL>:
1# Chi-oran, Dumitru#1?@6# Elements of English Structural Semantics, %ucure)ti:
E!itura Di!actic )i "e!agogic
4# Ionescu, Emil# 1??4# Manual de lingvistic general ,%ucure)ti: E!itura All
6# Leech,<# 1??A Semantics .The Study Of Meaning. Lon!on: "enguin %oo;s
B# L3ons, C# 1?@@#Semantics vol I, II, Cambri!ge: Cambri!ge 0ni+ersit3 "ress#
D# Saee!, C#I# 1??@# Semantics, Dublin: %lac;8ell "ublishers#




Chapter I
INTRODUCTION TO SEMANTICS
4
Eh3 stu!3 semanticsF Semantics Gas the stu!3 o* meaningH is central to the
stu!3 o* communication an! as communication becomes more an! more a crucial
*actor in social organization, the nee! to un!erstan! it becomes more an! more
pressing# Semantics is also at the centre o* the stu!3 o* the human min! - thought
processes, cognition, conceptualization - all these are intricatel3 boun! up 8ith the
8a3 in 8hich 8e classi*3 an! con+e3 our e.perience o* the 8orl! through language#
%ecause it is, in these t8o 8a3s, a *ocal point in manIs stu!3 o* man, semantics
has been the meeting place o* +arious cross-currents o* thin;ing an! +arious !isciplines
o* stu!3# "hilosoph3, ps3cholog3, an! linguistics all claim a !eep interest in the sub5ect#
Semantics has o*ten seeme! ba**ling because there are man3 !i**erent approaches to it,
an! the 8a3s in 8hich the3 are relate! to one another are rarel3 clear, e+en to 8riters
on the sub5ect# GLeech 1??A: IJH#
Semantics is a branch o* linguistics, 8hich is the stu!3 o* language, it is an area
o* stu!3 interacting 8ith those o* s3nta. an! phonolog3# A personIs linguistic abilities
are base! on ;no8le!ge that the3 ha+e# $ne o* the insights o* mo!ern linguistics is that
spea;ers o* a language ha+e !i**erent t3pes o* linguistic ;no8le!ge, inclu!ing ho8 to
pronounce 8or!s, ho8 to construct sentences, an! about the meaning o* in!i+i!ual
8or!s an! sentences# o re*lect this, linguistic !escription has !i**erent le+els o*
anal3sis# So - phonolog3 is the stu!3 o* 8hat soun!s combine to *orm 8or!s, s3nta. is
the stu!3 o* ho8 8or!s can be combine! into sentences, an! semantics is the stu!3 o*
the meanings o* 8or!s an! sentences#
1. A Short !"tor# o$ Se%a&t!'"
It has o*ten been pointe! out, an! *or ob+ious reasons, that semantics is the
3oungest branch o* linguistics G0llmann 1?K4, <reimas 1?K4H# Let, interest in 8hat 8e
call to!a3 Mproblems o* semanticsM 8as Nuite ali+e alrea!3 in ancient times# In ancient
<reece, philosophers spent much time !ebating the problem o* the 8a3 in 8hich 8or!s
acNuire! their meaning# he Nuestion 8h3 is a thing calle! b3 a gi+en name, 8as
ans8ere! in t8o !i**erent 8a3s#
Some o* them belie+e! that the names o* things 8ere arri+e! at naturall3,
physei, that the3 8ere someho8 con!itione! b3 the natural properties o* things
themsel+es# he3 too; great pains to e.plain *or instance that a letter li;e MrhoM seems
apt to e.press motion since the tongue mo+es rapi!l3 in its pro!uction# 2ence its
occurence in such 8or!s as rhoein GMto *lo8MH, 8hile other soun!s such as :s, *, ;s:,
6
8hich reNuire greater breath e**ort in pro!uction, are apt *or such names as psychron
GMshi+eringMH or kseon GMsha;ingMH, etc# he ob+ious ina!+ertencies o* such correlations
!i! not !iscourage philosophers *rom belie+ing that it is the ph3sical nature o* the
soun!s o* a name that can tell us something about its meaning#
$ther philosophers hel! the opposite +ie8, namel3 that names are gi+en to
things arbitraril3 through con+ention, thesei# he physei-thesei contro+ers3 or physis-
nomos contro+ers3 is ampl3 !iscusse! in "latoIs !ialogue ratylus# In the !ialogue,
Crat3lus appears to be a part o* the physei theor3 o* name acNuistion, 8hile
2ermogenes !e*en!s the opposite, nomos or their point o* +ie8# he t8o positions are
then !ebate! b3 Socrates in his usual manner# In an attempt to me!iate bet8een the
t8o !iscussants he points out *irst o* all that there are t8o t3pes o* names# Some are
compoun! names 8hich are !i+isible into smaller constituent element an! accor!ingl3,
anal3zable into the meaning o* these constituent elements: !oseidon !eri+es his name
*rom posi GM*or the *eetMH an! desmos GM*etterMH since it 8as belie+e! that it 8as
!i**icult *or the sea go! to 8al; in the 8ater#
he 8or!s, in themsel+es, Socrates points out, gi+e us no clue as to their
MnaturalM meaning, e.cept *or the nature o* their soun!s# Certain Nualities are attribute!
to certain t3pes o* soun!s an! then the meaning o* 8or!s is anal3ze! in terms o* the
Nualities o* the soun!s the3 are ma!e o*# Ehen *ace! 8ith abun!ant e.amples 8hich
run counter the apriori h3pothesis: *in!ing a MlM soun! GMlamb!aMH Mcharacteristic o*
liNui! mo+ementsM in the 8or! sklerotes GMhar!nessMH *or instance, he conclu!es, in
true socratic *ashion, that M8e must a!mit that both con+ention an! usage contribute to
the mani*estation o* 8hat 8e ha+e in min! 8hen 8e spea;M#
In t8o other !ialogues, Theatetus and Sophists, "lato !ealt 8ith other
problems such as the relation bet8een thought language, an! the outsi!e 8orl!# In
*act, "lato opene! the 8a3 *or the anal3sis o* the sentence in terms 8hich are parl3
linguistic an! partl3 pertaining to logic# 2e 8as !ealing there*ore 8ith matters
pertaining to s3ntactic semantics, the meaning o* utterrances, rather than the meaning
o* in!i+i!ual 8or!s#
AristotleIs 8or;s GOrganon as 8ell as "hetoric an! !oeticsH represent the ne.t
ma5or contribution o* antiNuit3 to language stu!3 in general an! semantics in particular#
2is general approach to language 8as that o* a logician, in the sense that he 8as
intereste! in 8hat there is to ;no8 ho8 men ;no8 it, an! ho8 the3 e.press it in
B
langugage GDinneen, 1?K@: @AH an! it is through this perspecti+e that his contribution
to linguistics shoul! be assesse!#
In the *iel! o* semantics proper, he i!enti*ie! a le+el o* language anal3sis - the
le.ical one - the main purpose o* 8hich 8as to stu!3 the meaning o* 8or!s either in
isolation or in s3ntactic constructions# 2e !eepene! the !iscussion o* the pol3sem3,
anton3m3, s3non3m3 an! homon3 an! !e+elope! a *ull-*le!ge! theor3 o* metaphor#
he contribution o* stoic philosoph3 to semantics is relate! to their !iscussion
o* the nature o* linguistic sign# In *act, as it 8as pointe! out GCa;obson, 1?KD: 41, Stati
1?@1: 1O4, etc#H centuries ahea! o* 9er!inan! !e Saussure, the theor3 o* the Canus-li;e
nature o* the linguistic sign - semeion - is an entit3 resulting *rom the relationship
obtaining bet8een the signi*ier - semainon - Gi#e# the soun! or graphic aspect o* the
8or!H, the signi*ie! - semainomenon Gi#e# the notionH an! the ob5ect thus name! -
tynkhanon -, a +er3 clear !istinction, there*ore, bet8een re*erence an! meaning as
postulate! much later b3 $g!en an! Richar!s in the *amous MtriangleM that goes b3
their name#
Et3molog3 8as also much !ebate! in antiNuit3, but the e.planations gi+en to
changes in the meaning an! *orm o* 8or!s 8ere marre! on the one han! b3 their belie*
that semantic e+olution 8as al8a3s uni!irectional, *rom a suppose!l3 McorrectM initial
meaning, to their corruption, an!, on the other han!, b3 their !isregar! o* phonetic
la8s GStati, 1?@1: 1O4H#
During the /i!!le Ages, it is 8orth mentioning in the *iel! o* linguistics an!
semantics the acti+it3 o* the M/o!istaeM the group o* philosophers so name! because
o* their 8ritings On the Modes of Signification# hese 8ritings 8ere highl3 speculati+e
grammars in 8ich semantic consi!erations hel! an important position# he M/o!istaeM
a!opte! the MtheseiM point o* +ie8 in the Mph3sei-theseiM contro+ers3 an! their e**orts
8ere !irecte! to8ar!s pointing out the Mmo!i intelligen!iM, the 8a3s in 8hich 8e can
;no8 things, an! the Mmo!i signi*ican!iM, the +arious 8a3s o* signi*3ing them
GDinneen, 1?K@: 1B6H#
It ma3 be conclu!e! that throughout antiNuit3 an! the /i!!le Ages, an!
actuall3 until the 1?
th
centur3 almost e+er3thing that came to be ;no8n about meaning
in languages 8as the result o* philosophic speculation an! logical reasoning#
"hilosoph3 an! logic 8ere the t8o important sciences 8hich le*t their strong impact on
the stu!3 o* linguistic meaning#
D
It 8as onl3 !uring the 1?
th
centur3 that semantics came into being as an
in!epen!ent branch o* linguistics as a science in its o8n right# he *irst 8or!s 8hich
con*ine! themsel+es to the stu!3 o* semantic problems as 8e un!erstan! them to!a3,
!ate as *ar bac; as the beginning o* the last centur3#
In his lectures as 2alle 0ni+ersit3, the <erman linguist Ch# C# Reisig 8as the
*irst to *ormulate the ob5ect o* stu!3 o* the ne8 science o* meaning 8hich he calle!
semasiology# 2e concei+e! the ne8 linguistic branch o* stu!3 as a historical science
stu!3ing the principles go+erning the e+olution o* meaning#
o8ar!s the en! o* the centur3 G1O?@H, /# %rPal publishe! an important boo;
Essay de s#manti$ue 8hich 8as soon translate! into English an! *oun! an imme!iate
echo in 9rance as 8ell as in other countries o* Europe# In man3 8a3s it mar;s the
birth!a3 o* semantics as a mo!ern linguistic !iscipline# %rPal !i! not onl3 pro+i!e the
name *or the ne8 science, 8hich became general in use, but also circumscribe! more
clearl3 its sub5ect-matter#
he theoretical sources o* semantic linguistics outline! b3 %rPal are, again,
classical logic an! rethorics, to 8hich the insights o* an upcoming science, namel3,
ps3cholog3 are a!!e!# In *ollo8ing the +arious changes in the meaning o* 8or!s,
interest is *ocuse! on i!enti*3ing certain general la8s go+erning these changes# Some
o* these la8s are arri+e! at b3 the recourse to the categories o* logic: e.tension o*
meaning, narro8ing o* meaning, trans*er o* meaning, 8hile others are !ue to a
ps3chological approach, !egra!ation o* meaning an! the re+erse process o* ele+ation
o* meaning#
Alongsi!e these theoretical en!ea+ours to Mmo!ernizeM semantics as the
3oungest branch o* linguistics, the stu!3 o* meaning 8as consi!erabl3 enhance! b3 the
8riting o* !ictionaries, both monolingual an! bilingual# Le.icographic practice *oun!
e.tensi+e e+i!ence *or the categories an! principles use! in the stu!3 o* meaning *rom
antiNuit3 to the more mo!ern approaches o* this science: pol3sem3, s3non3m3,
homon3m3, anton3m3, as 8ell as *or the la8s o* semantic change mentione! abo+e#
he stu!3 o* language meaning has a long tra!ition in Romania# Stati
mentione! G1?@1: 1OBH Dimitrie CantemirIs contribution to the !iscussion o* the
!i**erence bet8een categorematic an! s3ncategorematic 8or!s so !ear to the me!ie+al
scholastics#
K
Le.icograph3 attaine! remar;abl3 high stan!ar!s !ue mainl3 to %# "# 2as!eu#
2is Magnum Etymologicum "omaniae ran;s 8ith the other great le.icographic 8or;s
o* the time#
In 1OO@, ten 3ears ahea! o* /# %rPal, Lazar Saineanu publishe! a remar;able
boo; entitle! Incercare asupra semasiologiei lim%ei romane. Studii istorice despre
tran&itiunea sensurilor# his constitutes one o* the *irst 8or;s on semantics to ha+e
appeare! an38here# Saineanu ma;es ample use o* the contributions o* ps3cholog3 in
his attempts at i!enti*3ing the semantic associations establishe! among 8or!s an! the
Mlogical la8s an! a**initiesM go+erning the e+olution o* 8or!s in particular an! o*
language in general#
Although it !oesnIt contain an e.plicit theor3 o* semantics, the posthumous
publication o* 9er!inan! !e SaussureIs ours de linguisti$ue g#n#rale 1?1K, o8ing to
the re+olutionar3 character o* the i!eas on the stu!3 o* language it containe!,
!etermine! an interest *or structure in the *iel! o* semantics as 8ell#
Eithin this process o* !e+elopment o* the 3oung linguistic !iscipline, the 1?41-
1?61 !eca!e has a particular signi*icance# It is mar;e! b3 the publication o* three
important boo;s: Cost rier, 'er 'eutsche (ortschat& im Sinn%e&ink des )erstandes
G1?61H, <# Stern, Meaning and hange of Meaning G1?61H an! C# Q# $g!en an! C# A#
Richar!s: The Meaning of Meaning G1?46H#
Cost rierIs boo; as 8ell as his other stu!ies 8hich are +isibl3 in*luence! b3 E#
+on 2umbol!Is i!eas on language, represents an attempt to approach some o* the
Saussurean principles to semantics# Anal3zing the meaning o* a set o* le.ical elements
relate! to one another b3 their content, an! thus belonging to a semantic M*iel!M, rier
reache! the conclusion that the3 8ere structurall3 organize! 8ithin this *iel!, in such a
manner that the signi*icati+e +alue o* each element 8as !etermine! b3 the position
8hich it occupie! 8ithin the respecti+e *iel!# 9or the *irst time, there*ore, 8or!s 8ere
no longer approache! in isolation, but anal3ze! in terms o* their position 8ithin a
larger ensemble - the semantic *iel! - 8hich in turn, is integrate!, together 8ith other
*iel!s, into an e+er larger one# he process o* subseNuent integrations continues until
the entire le.icon is co+ere!# he le.icon there*ore is en+isage! as a huge mosaic 8ith
no piece missing#
<usta+ SternIs 8or; is an ambitious attempt at e.amining the component
*actors o* meaning an! o* !etermining, on this groun!, the causes an! !irections o*
changes o* meaning# 0sing scienti*ic a!+ances ps3cholog3 Gparticularl3 Eun!tIs
@
ps3chlog3H Stern postulates se+eral classi*ications an! principles 8hich no linguist
coul! possibl3 neglect#
As regar!s $g!en an! Richar!Is boo;, its +er3 title The Meaning of Meaning is
suggesti+e o* its content# he boo; !eals *or the most part 8ith the !i**erent accepte!
!e*initions o* the 8or! MmeaningM, not onl3 in linguistics, but in other !isciplines as
8ell, i!enti*3ing no less than t8ent3-*our such !e*initions# he o+ert en!ea+our o* the
authors is to con*ine semantic preoccupations to linguistic problems e.clusi+el3# he
t8o authors ha+e the merit o* ha+ing postulate! the tria!ic relational theor3 o*
meaning - graphicall3 represente! b3 the triangle that bears their names#
A short supplement appen!e! to the boo;: The !ro%lem of Meaning in
!rimitive *anguages !ue to an anthropologist, %# /alino8s;i, 8as highl3 instrumental
in the !e+elopment o* a ne8 Mconte.tualM theor3 o* meaning a!+ocate! b3 the %ritish
school o* linguistics hea!e! b3 C# R# 9irth#
he *ollo8ing !eca!es, more speci*icall3 the perio! 1?6A-1?DA is ;no8n as a
perio! o* crisis in semantics# /eaning 8as all but completel3 ignore! in linguistics
particularl3 as an e**ect o* the position a!opte! b3 L# %loom*iel!, 8ho consi!ere! that
the stu!3 o* meaning 8as outsi!e the scope o* linguistics proper# Its stu!3 *alls rather
8ithin the boun!aries o* other sciences such as chemistr3, ph3sics, etc#, an! more
especiall3 ps3cholog3, sociolog3 or anthropolog3# he some8hat more conciliator3
positions 8hich, 8ithout !en3ing the role o* meaning in language ne+ertheless allote!
it but a marginal place 8ithin the stu!3 o* language G2oc;ett, 1?DOH, 8as not able to
put an en! to this perio! o* crisis#
Re*erence to semantics 8as onl3 ma!e in e.tremis, 8hen the +arious linguistic
theories 8ere not able to integrate the comple.it3 o* linguistic e+ents 8ithin a unitar3
s3stem# 2ence the 8i!esprea! i!ea o* +ie8ing semantics as a Mre*ugeM, as a +ast
container in 8hich all language *acts that 8ere !i**icult to *ormalize coul! be !ispose!
o*#
he picture o* the !e+elopment o* semantics throughout this perio! 8oul! be
incomplete, 8ere it not to comprise the +aluable accumulation o* !ata regar!ing
meaning, all !ue to the pursuing o* tra!ition metho!s an! primaril3 to le.icographic
practice#
I* 8e +ie8 the situation *rom a broa!er perspecti+e, it becomes e+i!ent that the
so-calle! McrisisM o* semantics, actuall3 re*erre! to the crisis o* this linguistic !iscipline
onl3 *rom a structuralist stan!point, more speci*icall3 *rom the point o* +ie8 o*
O
American !escripti+ism# $n the other han!, ho8e+er, it is also salient that the
reno+ating ten!encies, as inaugurate! b3 !i**erent linguistic schools, !i! not
incorporate the semantic !omain until +er3 late# It 8as onl3 in the last 3ears o* the
si.ties that the organize! attac;s o* the mo!ern linguistic schools o* !i**erent
orientations 8as launche! upon the +ast !omain o* linguistic meaning#
At present meaning has cease! to be an ManathemaM *or linguistics# /oreo+er,
the +arious linguistic theories are unanimous in a!mitting that no language !escription
can be regar!e! as being complete 8ithout inclu!ing *acts o* meaning in its anal3sis#
A speci*ic *eature o* mo!ern research in linguistics is the e+er gro8ing interest
in problems o* meaning# Cu!ging b3 the great number o* publishe! 8or;s, b3 the
e.tensi+e number o* semantic theories 8hich ha+e been postulate!, o* 8hich some are
complementar3, 8hile some other are !irectl3 oppose!, 8e are 8itnessing a perio! o*
*e+erish research, o* e**er+escence, 8hich cannot but lea! to progress in semantics#
An important !e+elopment in the !irection o* a ps3cholinguistic approach to
meaning is La;o**Is in+estigation o* the metaphorical basis o* meaning GLa;o** an!
Cohnson 1?OAH# his approach !ra8 on Elinor RoschIs notion o* prot3pe, an! a!opt the
+ie8 oppose! to that o* Choms;3, that meaning cannot be easil3 separate! *rom the
more general cogniti+e *unctions o* the min!#
<# Leech consi!ers that the !e+elopments 8hich 8ill bring most re8ar!s in the
*uture 8ill be those 8hich bring into a harmonious s3nthesis the insights pro+i!e! b3
the three !isciplines 8hich claim the most !irect an! general interest in meaning: those
o* linguistics, philosoph3 an! ps3cholog3#
(. De$!&!t!o& a&) O*+e't o$ Se%a&t!'"
In linguistic terminolog3 the 8or! semantics is use! to !esignate the science o*
8or!-meaning# he term, ho8e+er, has acNuire! a number o* senses in contemporar3
science# Also, a number o* other terms ha+e been propose! to co+er the same area o*
stu!3, namel3 the stu!3 o* meaning# As to meaning itsel*, the term has a +ariet3 o* uses
in the metalanguage o* se+eral sciences such as logic, ps3cholog3, linguistics, an! more
recentl3 semiotics#
All these *actors ren!er it necessar3 to !iscuss on the one han! the terminolog3
use! in the stu!3 o* meaning an! on the other han!, the main concerns o* the science
!e+ote! to the stu!3 o* meaning#
?
$ne particular meaning o* the term semantics is use! to !esignate a ne8
science, +eneral Semantics, the ps3chological an! pe!agogical !octrine *oun!e! b3
Al*re! Qorz3bs;3 G1?66H un!er the in*luence o* contemporar3 neo-positi+ism# Starting
*rom the suppose! e.ercise upon manIs beha+iour, <eneral semantics aims at
correcting the MinconsistenciesM o* natural language as 8ell as their ten!enc3 to
Msimpli*3M the comple. nature o* realit3#
A clearer !e*inition o* the meaning Gor meaningsH o* a 8or! is sai! to
contribute to remo+ing the M!ogmatismM an! Mrigi!it3M o* language an! to ma;e up *or
the lac; o* emotional balance among people 8hich is ultimatel3 !ue to language# his
school o* thought hol!s that the stu!3 o* communicati+e process can be a po8er*ul
*orce *or goo! in the resolution o* human con*lict, 8hether on an in!i+i!ual, local, or
international scale# his is a rather naR+e point o* +ie8 concerning the causes o*
con*licts G<# Leech 1??A: JIH# Let, certain aspects o* the relationship bet8een
linguistic signs an! their users - spea;ers an! listeners ali;e - ha+e, o* course, to be
anal3ze! gi+en their rele+ance *or the meaning o* the respecti+e signs#
Also, that there is a !ialectic inter!epen!ence bet8een language an! thought in
the sense that language !oes not ser+e merel3 to e.press thought, but ta;es an acti+e
part in the +er3 moul!ing o* thought, is be3on! an3 !oubt#
$n the 8hole, ho8e+er the e.treme position a!opte! b3 general semanticists as
e+i!ence! b3 such *ormulations as Mthe t3rann3 o* 8or!sM, Mthe po8er o* languageM,
Mman at the merc3 o* languageM, etc# has brought this MscienceM to the point o* ri!icule,
!espite the e**orts o* genuine scholars such as 2a3a;a8a an! others to uphol! it#
In the more general science o* semiotics, the term semantics is use! in t8o
senses:
GaH theoretical GpureH semantics, 8hich aims at *ormulating an abstract theor3 o*
meaning in the process o* cognition, an! there*ore belongs to logic, more precisel3
to s3mbolic logic,
GbH empirical ,linguistic- semantics, 8hich stu!ies meaning in natural languages, that
is the relationship bet8een linguistic signs an! their meaning# $b+iousl3, o* the t8o
t3pes o* semantics, it is empirical semantics that *alls 8ithin the scope o* linguistics#
he most commonl3 agree!-upon !e*inition o* semantics remains the one gi+en
b3 %rPal as Mthe science o* the meanings o* 8or!s an! o* the changes in their
meaningM# Eith this !e*inition, semantics is inclu!e! un!er le.icolog3, the more general
science o* 8or!s, being its most important branch#
1A
he result o* research in the *iel! o* 8or!-meaning usuall3 ta;es the *orm o*
!ictionaries o* all ;in!s, 8hich is the proper ob5ect o* the stu!3 o* le.icograph3#
he term semasiology is sometimes use! instea! o* semantics, 8ith e.actl3 the
same meaning# 2o8e+er since this term is also use! in opposition to onomasiology it is
probabl3 better to ;eep it *or this more restricte! usage# Semasiolog3 stan!s *or the
stu!3 o* meaning starting *rom the Msigni*iantM Gthe acoustic imageH o* a sign an!
e.amining the possible Msigni*iPsM attache! to it# $nomasiolog3 accounts *or the
opposite !irection o* stu!3, namel3 *rom a Msigni*iPM to the +arious Msigni*iantsM that
ma3 stan! *or it#
Since !e Saussure, the i!ea that an3 linguistic *orm is ma!e up o* t8o aspects -
a material one an! an i!eal one -, the lingistic sign being in!estructible union bet8een
a signifiant an! a signifi#, bet8een an e.pression an! a content. In the light o* these
concepts, the !e*inition o* semantics as the science o* meaning o* 8or!s an! o* the
changes in meaning, appears to be rather con*ine!# he !e*inition certainl3 nee!s to be
e.ten!e! so as to inclu!e the entire le+el o* the content o* language# As 25elmsle+
pointe! out, there shoul! be a science 8hose ob5ect o* stu!3 shoul! be the content o*
language an! propose! to call it plerematics# 'e+ertheless all the glossematicians,
inclu!ing 25elmsle+ continue! to use the ol!er term - semantics in their 8or;s#
E# "rieto G1?KBH calls the science o* the content o* language noology G*rom
<ree; noos - Mmin!MH but the term has *aile! to gain currenc3#
$b+iousl3, a !istinction shoul! be ma!e bet8een le.osemantics, 8hich stu!ies
le.ical meaning proper in the tra!itional terminolog3 an! morphosemantics, 8hich
stu!ies the grammatical aspect o* 8or!-meaning#
Eith the a!+ent o* generati+e grammar emphasis 8as s8itche! *rom the
meaning o* 8or!s to the meaning o* sentences# Semantic anal3sis 8ill accor!ingl3 be
reNuire! to e.plain ho8 sentences are un!erstoo! b3 the spea;ers o* language# Also,
the tas; o* semantic anal3sis is to e.plain the relations e.isting among sentences, 8h3
certain sentences are anomalous, although grammaticall3 correct, 8h3 other sentences
are semanticall3 ambiguous, since the3 a!mit o* se+eral interpretations, 8h3 other
sentences are s3non3mous or paraphrases o* each other, etc#
$* course, much o* the in*ormation reNuire! to gi+e an ans8er to these
Nuestions is carrie! b3 the le.ical items themsel+es, an! generati+e semantics !oes
inclu!e a representation o* the meaning o* le.ical elements, but a total interpretation o*
a sentence !epen!s on its s3ntactic structure as 8ell, more particularl3 on ho8 these
11
meanings o* 8or!s are 8o+en into s3ntactic structure in or!er to allo8 *or the correct
interpretation o* sentences an! to relate them to ob5ecti+e realit3# In the case o*
generati+e semantics it is ob+ious that 8e can spea; o* syntactic semantics, 8hich
inclu!es a much 8i!er area o* stu!3 that le.ical semantics#
,. Se%a&t!'" a&) Se%!ot!'"
Ehen the Stoics i!enti*ie! the sing as the constant relationship bet8een the
signi*ier an! the signi*ie! the3 actuall3 ha! in min! an3 ;in! o* signs not 5ust linguistic
ones# he3 postulate! a ne8 science o* signs, a science *or 8hich a term alrea!3
e.iste! in <ree;: s/meiotik/. It is ho8e+er, onl3 +er3 recentl3, !espite repeate!
attempts b3 *oresighte! scientists, that semiotics become a science in its o8n right#
A *irst, an! +er3 clear presentation o* semiotics is it to be *oun! in this
e.tensi+e Nuotation *rom Cohn Loc;eIs 0n Essay oncerning 1uman 2nderstanding#
In the chapter on the M!i+ision o* the sciencesM, Loc;e mentions Mthe thir! branch
G8hichH ma3 be calle! semiotic, or the !octrine o* signs### the business 8hereo* is to
consi!er the nature o* signs the min! ma;es use o* *or the un!erstan!ing o* things, or
con+e3ing its ;no8le!ge to others# 9or, since the things the min! contemplates are
none o* them, besi!e itsel*, present to the un!erstan!ing, it is necessar3 that something
else, a sign or representation o* the thing it consi!ers, shoul! be present to itM GLoc;e,
1?KB: 6A?H#
Later, in the 1?
th
centur3, the American philosopher Charles San!ers "eirce
!e+ote! a li*e time 8or;, 8hich un*ortunatel3 remaine! unhee!e! *or a long time, to
the stu!3 o* signs, to setting up semiotics as a science, Mas the !octrine o* the essential
nature an! *un!amental +arieties o* possible SsemiosisTM# GR# Ca;obson, 1?KD: 44H#
9er!inan! !e Saussure too, probabl3 Nuite in!epen!entl3 *rom "eirce, but un!oubte!l3
inspire! b3 the same <ree; philosophersI speculations on language, suggeste! that
linguistics shoul! be regar!e! as 5ust one branch o* a more general science o* sign
s3stems 8hich he calle! semiology# In other 8or!s he sa8 no basic !i**erence bet8een
language signs an! an3 other ;in!s o* sings all o* them interpretable b3 re*erence to the
same general science o* signs#
"eirce !istinguishe! three main t3pes o* signs accor!ing to the nature o* the
relationship bet8een the t8o inseparable aspects o* a sign: the signans Gthe material
suport o* the sign, its concrete mani*estationH an! the signatum Gthe thing signi*ie!H:
14
GiH Icons in 8hich the relationship bet8een the signans an! the signatum is
one o* the similarit3#
he signans o* an iconic t3pe o* sign, resembles in shape its signatum#
Dra8ings, photographs, etc#, are e.amples o* iconic signs# Let, phisical similarit3 !oes
not impl3 true cop3ing or re*lection o* the signatum b3 the signans# "eirce
!istinguishe! t8o subclasses o* icons-images an! !iagrams# In the case o* the latter, it
is ob+ious that the Msimilarit3M is har!l3 Mph3sicalM at all# In a !iagram o* the rate o*
population or in!ustrial pro!uction gro8th, *or instance, con+ention pla3s a +er3
important part#
GiiH In!e.es, in 8hich the relationship bet8een the signans an! the signatum
is the result o* a constant association base! on ph3sical contiguit3 not on similarit3#
he signans !oes not resemble the signatum to in!icate it# hus smo;e is an in!e. *or
*ire, gathering clou!s in!icate a coming rain, high temperature is an in!e. *or illness,
*ootprints are in!e.es *or the presence o* animals, etc#
GiiiH S3mbols, in 8hich the relationship bet8een the signans an! the
signatum is entirel3 con+entional# here is no similarit3 or ph3sical contiguit3 bet8een
the t8o# he signans an! signatum are boun! b3 con+ention, their relationship is an
arbitrar3 one# Language signs are essentiall3 s3mbolic in nature# 9er!inan! !e Saussure
clearl3 speci*ie! absolute arbitrariness as Mthe proper con!ition o* the +erbal signM#
he act o* semiosis ma3 be both motivated an! conventional. I* semiosis is
moti+ate!, than moti+ation is achie+e! either b3 contiguit3 or b3 similarit3#
An3 s3stem o* signs en!o8e! 8ith homogeneous signi*ications *orms a
language, an! an3 language shoul! be concei+e! o* as a mi.ture o* signs#
Another aspect re+eale! b3 semiotics 8hich presents a particular importance
*or semantics is the un!erstan!ing o* the semiotic act as an institutional one# Language
itsel*, can be regar!e! as an institution G9irth, 1?D@H, as a comple. *orm o* human
beha+iour go+erne! b3 signs# his un!erstan!ing o* language opens the 8a3 *or a ne8,
intentional theor3 o* meaning# /eaning is achie+e! there*ore either b3 convention or
b3 intention#
-!*.!o/raph#0
1# Chi-oran, Dumitru# 1?@6# Elements of English Structural Semantics# %ucure)ti:
E#D#"#
4# Leech, <# 1??A# Semantics. The Study of Meaning# Lon!on: "enguin %oo;s#
16
6# Saee!, C#, I# 1??@# Semantics# Dublin: %lac;8ell "ublishers#
TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION
1# De*ine semantics an! its ob5ect#
4# he ph3sei-thesei cont ro+ers3#
6# 3pes o* signs#
Chapter II
TE PRO-LEM OF MEANI NG
I# he concept o* meaning 1#a bipolar relation
4# a tria!ic relation - A# re*erential approach
- %# conceptual approach
6# 2eger7s +ie8#
II# Dimensions o* meaning 1# !imensions o* meaning
4# t3pes o* meaning in Leech7 s conception#
1B
I#1# An3 progress in semantics is con!itione! b3 a clearer un!erstan!ing o*
meaning, as the ob5ect o* its anal3sis# 'umberless !e*initions o* language meaning ha+e
been postulate!, some complementar3 in nature, some oppose!# A linguistic account
o* meaning 8oul! still be +er3 !i**icult to gi+e because o* the pluralit3 o* le+els at
8hich meaning can be !iscusse!- the 8or! le+el, the phrase le+el, the sentence le+el#
E+en i* the morpheme is the minimum unit o* language en!o8e! 8ith meaning,
it is the 8or!, the ne.t higher unit that tra!itional le.icolog3 has selecte! as its ob5ect
o* stu!3 an! to clearl3 un!erstan! the *actors in+ol+e! in meaning, it7s necessar3 to
begin 8ith an account o* meaning at 8or! le+el#
he concept o* meaning, !e*ine! b3 9# !e Saussure, 8as *irst regar!e! as a
bipolar relation bet8een the t8o inter!epen!ent si!es o* a linguistic sign-significans
Ue.pression7 an! significatum Ucont6ent7 an! this is true *or an3 sign, no matter to 8hat
semiotic s3stem it belongs#
4# $g!en an! Richar!s ha+e pointe! out in 1?46 that at least three *actors are
in+ol+e! in an3 s3mbolic act- the sym%ol itself Uthe material aspect o* the linguistic
sign, be it phonic or graphic7, the thought3reference Uthe mental content that
accompanies the occurrence o* the s3mbol in the min!s o* both the spea;er an! the
listener7, the o%4ect itself3 the referent Uthe ob5ect in the real 8orl! !esignate! b3 the
s3mbol7#
he tria!ic concept o* meaning 8as represente! b3 $g!en an! Richar!s in the
*orm o* a triangle#
Ehile the relation s3mbol- re*erence an! re*erence- re*erent are !irect an!
causal ones in the sense that the s3mbol e.presses or s3mbolises the re*erence 8hich,
in turn re*ers to the re*erent, the relation s3mbol- ob5ect or re*erent is an impute!,
in!irect one#
$* the t8o si!es o* the triangle onl3 the right-han! one can be le*t out V
tentati+el3 an! temporaril3- in a linguistic account o* meaning# he relationship
bet8een thought an! the outsi!e 8orl! o* ob5ects an! phenomena is o* interest
primaril3 to ps3chologists an! philosophers, linguists !irecting their attention to8ar!s
the other t8o si!es# GChi-oran, 1?@6: 6AH#
1D
Depen!ing on 8hat it is un!erstoo! b3 meaning, 8e can !istinguish t8o main
semantic theories:
- the referential 3 denotational approach-meaning is the action o* putting
8or!s into relationship 8ith the 8orl!,
- the representational 3conceptual approach-meaning is the notion, the concept
or the mental image o* the ob5ect or situation in realit3 as re*lecte! in man7s min!#
he t8o basic t3pes o* meaning 8ere *irst mentione! b3 S# Stati in 1?@1-
re*erential !e*initions 8hich anal3se meaning in terms o* the relation s3mbol- ob5ect
:re*erent, conceptual !e*initions 8hich regar! the relation s3mbol- thought:re*erence#
A# 'enotational 3"eferential Theories of Meaning#
%e*ore !escribing the characteristics o* these theories, a clari*ication o* the
terms use! is necessar3# All languages allo8 spea;ers to !escribe or mo!el aspects o*
8hat the3 percei+e# In semantics the action o* pic;ing out or i!enti*3ing in!i+i!uals:
locations 8ith 8or!s is calle! referring3denoting. o some linguists the t8o terms,
denote an! refer are s3non3mous# C# Saee! G1??@: 46H gi+es t8o e.amples o* proper
names 8hose correspon!ing re*erents are easil3 recognizable
e# g# I sa5 Michael Jackson on T) last night.
(e have 4ust flo5n %ack from Paris.
he un!erline! 8or!s re*er to:!enote the *amous singer, respecti+el3 the capital o*
9rance, e+en i* in some conte.ts the3 ma3 be use! to !esignate a person !i**erent *rom
the singer, or a localit3 other than the capital o* 9rance#
o Cohn L3ons the terms denote an! refer are not s3non3mous# he *ormer is
use! to e.press the relationship linguistic e.pression- 8orl!, 8hereas the latter is use!
*or the action o* a spea;er in pic;ing out entities in the 8orl!# In the e.ample
A sparrow fle5 into the room.
A sparrow an! the room are '"s that refer to things in the 8orl!#, room,
sparrow denote classes o* items# In conclusion, referring is 8hat spea;ers !o an!
denoting is a propert3 o* 8or!s# Denotation is a stable relationship in a language, it
!oesn7t !epen! on an3one7s use o* the 8or! unli;e the action o* re*erring#
Returning to the problem o* theories o* meaning, the3 are calle! referential3
denotational 8hen their basic premise is that 8e can gi+e the meaning o* 8or!s an!
sentences b3 sho8ing ho8 the3 relate to situations- proper names !enote in!i+i!uals,
nouns !enote entities or sets o* in!i+i!uals, +erbs !enote actions, a!+erbs !enote
properties o* actions, a!5ecti+es !enote properties o* in!i+i!uals-#In case o* sentences,
1K
the3 !enote situations an! e+ents# he !i**erence in meaning bet8een a sentence an!
its negati+e counterpart arises *rom the *act that the3 !escribe t8o situations
e# g# There is a %ook on the shelf.
There isn6t a %ook on the shelf.
Re*erential theories consi!er meaning to be something outsi!e the 8orl! itsel*, an
e.tra-linguistic entit3# his means re!ucing the linguistic sign, i# e# the 8or! to its
material aspect, be it phonic or graphic#
he impossibilit3 o* eNuating meaning 8ith the ob5ect !enote! b3 a gi+en 8or!
can be e.plaine! consi!ering three ma5or reasons
a# the i!entit3 meaning-ob5ect 8oul! lea+e meaning to a large e.tent un!e*ine!
because not all the characteristic traits o* an ob5ect as an e.tra- linguistic realit3 are
i!entical 8ith the !istincti+e *eatures o* le.ical meaning,
b# not all 8or!s ha+e a re*erent in the outsi!e 8orl!, there are:
- non- re*erring e.pressions so, very, may%e, if, not, etc#
- re*erring e.pressions use! genericall3:
e# g# A murder is a serious felony.
- 8or!s li;e nouns, pronouns 8ith +ariable re*erence !epen!ing on the
conte.t:
e# g# The president decides on the foreign policy.
She didn6t kno5 5hat to say.
- 8or!s 8hich ha+e no correspon!ing ob5ect in the real 8orl! in general or
at a certain moment:
e# g# The unicorn is a mythical animal.
She 5ants to make a cake this evening.
- !i**erent e.pressions:8or!s that can be use! *or the same re*erent, the
meaning re*lecting the perspecti+e *rom 8hich the re*erent is +ie8e!
e# g# The morning star is the same thing as the evening star.
The president of the USA/ George ush/ ar!ara ush"s hus!and
5as to deliver a speech.
%esi!es the re*erential !i**erences bet8een e.pressions, 8e can ma;e use*ul
!istinctions among the things re*erre! to b3 e.pressions-referent 1 thing pic;e! out b3
uttering the e.pression in a particular conte.t, e.tension of an e.pression W set o*
things 8hich coul! possibl3 be the re*erent o* that e.pression# In L3on7s terminolog3
1@
the relationship bet8een an e.pression an! its e.tension is calle! denotation.GSaee!
1??@: 4@H
A !istinction currentl3 ma!e b3 mo!ern linguists is that bet8een the denotation
o* a 8or! an! the connotations associate! 8ith it# 9or most linguists, !enotation
represents the cogniti+e or communicati+e aspect o* meaning GScha** 1?KDH, 8hile
connotation stan!s *or the emotional o+ertones a spea;er usuall3 associates 8ith each
in!i+i!ual use o* a 8or!# Denotati+e meaning accounts *or the relationship bet8een the
linguistic sign an! its !enotatum# %ut one shoul!n7t eNuate !enotation 8ith the
!enotatum#Ehat is the !enotation o* a 8or! 8hich has no !enotatum#
As *ar as the attitu!e o* the spea;er is concerne!, !enotation is regar!e! as
neutral, since its *unction is simpl3 to con+e3 the in*ormational loa! carrie! b3 a 8or!#
he connotati+e aspects o* meaning are highl3 sub5ecti+e, springing *rom personal
e.periences, 8hich a spea;er has ha! o* a gi+en 8or! an! also *rom his:her attitu!e
to8ar!s his: her utterance an!: or to8ar!s the interlocutors GLeech, 1??A: 1BH# 9or
e.ample d5elling, house, home, a%ode, residence ha+e the same !enotation but
!i**erent connotations#
<i+en their highl3 in!i+i!ual nature, connotations seem to be unrepeatable but,
on the other han!, in man3 instances, the social nature o* in!i+i!ual e.perience ma;es
some connotati+e sha!es o* meaning share! b3 practicall3 all the spea;ers o* a
language# It is +er3 !i**icult to !ra8 a har! line bet8een !enotation an! connotation in
meaning anal3sis, !ue to the *act that elements o* connotation are !ra8n into 8hat is
re*erre! to as basic, !enotati+e meaning# %3 ta;ing into account connotati+e o+ertones
o* meaning, its anal3sis has been intro!uce! a ne8 !imension, the pragmatic one#
al;ing about re*erence in+ol+es tal;ing about nominals- names an! noun
phrases-# he3 are labels *or people, places, etc# Conte.t is important in the use o*
names, names are !e*inite in that the3 carr3 the spea;er7s assumption that his: her
au!ience can i!enti*3 the re*erent GSaee!, 1??@: 4OH#
$ne important approach in nominals7 anal3sis is the description theory GRussel,
9rege, SearleH# A name is ta;en as a label or shorthan! *or ;no8le!ge about the
re*erent, or *or one or more !e*inite !escriptions in the terminolog3 o* philosophers# In
this theor3, un!erstan!ing a name an! i!enti*3ing the re*erent are both !epen!ent on
associating the name 8ith the right !escription#
e# g# hristopher Marlo5e 3 the 5riter of the play 'r. 7austus 3 the Eli&a%ethan
play5right murdered in a 'eptford tavern.
1O
Another interesting approach is the causal theory GDe+itt, Stereln3, 1?O@H an!
base! on the i!eas o* Qrip;e G1?OAH an! Donnellan G1?@4H# his theor3 is base! on the
i!ea that names are sociall3 inherite! or borro8e!# here is a chain bac; to the original
naming: groun!ing# In some cases a name !oes not get attache! to a single groun!ing#
It ma3 arise *rom a perio! o* repeate! uses# Sometimes there are competing names an!
one 8ins out# /ista;es can be ma!e an! subseNuentl3 *i.e! b3 public practice# his
theor3 recognizes that spea;ers ma3 use names 8ith +er3 little ;no8le!ge o* the
re*erent, so it stresses the role o* social ;no8le!ge in the use o* names# he treatment
chosen *or names can be e.ten!e! to other nominals li;e natural kinds Ge# g# gira**e,
gol!H that is nouns re*erring to classes 8hich occur in nature#

8. onceptual3 "epresentational Theory of Meaning
It proposes to !e*ine meaning in terms o* the notion, the concept or the mental
image o* the ob5ect or situation in realit3 as re*lecte! in man7s min!# Semantic stu!ies,
both tra!itional an! mo!ern, ha+e use! mainl3 such conceptual !e*initions o* meaning,
ta;ing it *or grante! that *or a correct un!erstan!ing o* meaning, it is necessar3 to
relate it to that re*lection in our min!s o* the general characteristics o* ob5ects an!
phenomena# E+en %loom*iel! re*ers to general characteristics o* an ob5ect: situation
8hich is Ulinguisticall3 rele+ant7#
$n the other han!, complete i!enti*ication o* meaning 8ith the concept or
notion is not possible either# his 8oul! mean to ignore !enotation an! to !epri+e
meaning o* an3 ob5ecti+e *oun!ation# /ore than that, languages pro+i!e 8hole
categories o* 8or!s-proper names, prepositions, con5unctions- *or 8hich no
correspon!ing notions can be sai! to e.ist# E+en in the case o* notional 8or!s, the
notion, the concept ma3 be regar!e! as being both U8i!er7 an! Unarro8er7 than
meaning# A notion, concept has a uni+ersal character, 8hile the meaning o* a 8or! is
speci*ic, !e*ine! onl3 8ithin a gi+en language GChi-oran, 1?@6: 64-66H#
Signification an! Sense# /eaning shoul! be !e*ine! in terms o* all the
possible relations characteristic o* language signs# he use o* a linguistic sign to re*er
to some aspects o* realit3 is a semiotic act# here are three elements in+ol+e! in an3
semiotic act- the sign, the sense, the signification#
8o !istinguishable aspects o* the content si!e o* the sign can be postulate!-
its signification, the real ob5ect or situation !enote! b3 the sign, i# e# its !enotation an!
a sense 8hich e.presses a certain in*ormational content on the ob5ect or situation# he
1?
relation bet8een a proper name an! 8hat it !enotes is calle! name relation an! the
thing !enote! is calle! denotation# UA name names its !enotation an! e.presses its
sense#7 GAlonso ChurchH
E.tensional an! Intensional Meaning. he !e*inition o* meaning b3
signi*ication is calle! e.tension in s3mbolic logic GCarnap, 1?KAH an! 8hat has been
calle! sense is eNui+alent to intension# E.tension stan!s *or the class o* ob5ects
correspon!ing to a gi+en pre!icate, 8hile intension is base! on the propert3 assigne!
to the pre!icate GE# &asiliu, 1?@AH#
e# g# They 5ant to %uy a new car# Gintensional meaningH
There is a car parked in front of your house. Ge.tensional meaningH
C# The Trape&ium of 1eger#
Qlaus 2eger in his article *es %ases metodologi$ues de l6onomasiologie
proposes a trapezium- li;e +ariant, 8hich allo8s him to intro!uce ne8 !istinctions#
2eger notice! V as <reimas, a!ept o* the tria!ic conception agree!- that signifiant 9
signifie i# e# concept is !i**erent *rom the linguistic sign, because the content o* an
e.pression is a semasiologic field, 8hich is ma!e up o* more than one concept or
mental ob5ect# In its turn a concept can be e.presse! b3 means o* se+eral signifiants.
he mo!el o* 2eger gi+es him the possibilit3 to anal3se the content, ma;ing
place *or sememes an! semes. E.tralinguistic realit3 has t8o le+els- the logical an!:or
ps3chological le+el an! the le+el o* the e.ternal 8orl! GC# %a3lon, "# 9abre, 1?@O:
164H#
he term moneme GA# /artinetH is also use! b3 2eger an! represents the
minimal unit en!o8e! 8ith signi*ication, a moneme is ma!e up o* morphemes 8hich
are in a limite! number an! it also represents a le.eme, the number o* le.emes in a
language being +irtuall3 in*inite# In conclusion, a moneme is at the same time *orm o*
e.pression li;e phonemes an! *orm o* content li;e sememes# It is signi*icant an!
signi*ie!# he signi*ie! !epen!s on the structure o* the language, but the concept on
the right si!e o* the trapezium is in!epen!ent#
4A
he onomasiology starts *rom the concept an! tries to *in! the linguistic
relations *or one or se+eral languages# It tries to *in! monemes 8hich b3 means o* their
signi*ications or sememes e.press a certain concept# An onomasiological *iel!
repre8sents the structure o* all the sememes belonging to !i**erent signi*ie!, so to
!i**erent monemes, but ma;ing up one concept#
Semasiology anal3ses a signi*ie! associate! b3 co- substantialit3 to one
moneme, so 8e !eal 8ith multiple signi*ications or sememes#
Qurt %al!inger G1?OB: 161H comments on 2eger7s trapezium, anal3sing the
succesi+e stages *rom the substance o* e.pression le+el to the *inal content le+el#
II# D!%e&"!o&" o$ Mea&!&/#
1# 'imensions of Meaning. /eaning is so comple. an! there are so man3
*actors in+ol+e! in it, that a complete !e*inition 8oul! be impossible# Ee are !ealing
8ith a pluralit3 o* !imensions characteristic o* the content si!e o* linguistic signs
GChi-oran, 1?@6: 6@H#
41
here is a *irst o* all a semantic dimension proper, 8hich co+ers the !enotatum
o* the sign inclu!ing also in*ormation as to ho8 the !enotatum is actuall3 re*erre! to,
*rom 8hat point o* +ie8 it is being consi!ere!# he *irst aspect is the signi*ication, the
latter is its sense#
e# g# *ord 8yron3 0uthor of hild 1arold ha+e similar signi*ication an!
!i**erent senses#
1e is clever. 3:ohn is clever # 1e an! :ohn are s3non3mous e.pressions i* the
con!ition o* co- re*erentialit3 is met#
The logical dimension o* meaning co+ers the in*ormation con+e3e! b3 the
linguistic e.pression on the !enotatum, inclu!ing a 5u!gement o* it#
The pragmatic dimension !e*ines the purpose o* the e.pression, 8h3 it is uttere!
b3 a spea;er# he relation emphasize! is bet8een language users an! language signs#
The structural dimension co+ers the structure o* linguistic e.pressions, the
comple. net8or; o* relationships among its component elements as 8ell as bet8een it
an! other e.pressions#
4# Types of Meaning. Consi!ering these !imensions, meaning can be anal3ze!
*rom !i**erent perspecti+es, o* 8hich <# Leech !istinguishe! se+en main t3pes GLeech,
1??A: ?H#
a# *ogical3 conceptual meaning, also calle! denotative or cognitive meaning, is
consi!ere! to be the central *actor in linguistic communication# It has a comple.
an! sophisticate! organization compare! to those speci*ic to s3ntactic or
phonological le+els o* language# he principles o* contrastiveness an! constituent
structure ; para!igmatic an! s3ntagmatic a.es o* linguistic structure- mani*est at
this le+el i# e# conceptual meaning can be stu!ie! in terms o* contrastive features.
b# onnotative meaning is the communicati+e +alue an e.pression has b3 +irtue o*
8hat it re*ers to# o a large e.tent, the notion o* re*erence o+erlaps 8ith
conceptual meaning# he contrasti+e *eatures become attributes o* the re*erent,
inclu!ing not onl3 ph3sical characteristics, but also ps3chological an! social
properties, t3pical rather than in+ariable# Connotations are apt to +ar3 *rom age to
age, *rom societ3 to societ3#
e# g# 5oman <capa%le of speech= <e.perienced in cookery=
<frail= <prone to tears=
<non- trouser- 5earing=
44
Connotati+e meaning is peripheral compare! to conceptual meaning, because
connotations are relati+el3 unsta%le. he3 +ar3 accor!ing to cultural, historical perio!,
e.perience o* the in!i+i!ual# Connotati+e meaning is indeterminate an! open- ended
that is an3 characteristic o* the re*erent, i!enti*ie! sub5ecti+el3 or ob5ecti+el3 ma3
contribute to the connotati+e meaning#
c# In consi!ering the pragmatic !imension o* meaning, 8e can !istinguish bet8een
social an! affective meaning. Social meaning is that 8hich a piece o* language
con+e3s about the social circumstances o* its use# In part, 8e U!eco!e7 the social
meaning o* a te.t through our recognition o* !i**erent !imensions an! le+els o*
st3le#
$ne account GCr3stal an! Da+3, Investigating English StyleH has recognize!
se+eral !imensions o* socio-linguistic +ariation# here are +ariations accor!ing to:
- !ialect i# e# the language o* a geographical region or o* a social class,
- time , *or instance the language o* the eighteenth centur3,
- pro+ince:!omain I# e# the language o* la8, science, etc#,
- status i# e# polite: colloNuial language etc#,
- mo!alit3 i# e# the language o* memoran!a, lectures, 5o;es, etc#,
- singuralit3, *or instance the language o* a 8riter#
It7s not surprising that 8e rarel3 *in! 8or!s 8hich ha+e both the same
conceptual an! st3listic meaning, an! this le! to !eclare that there are no Utrue
s3non3ms7# %ut there is much con+enience in restricting the term Us3non3m37 to
eNui+alence o* conceptual meaning# 9or e.ample, domicile is +er3 *ormal, o**icial,
residence is *ormal, a%ode is poetic, home is the most general term# In terms o*
conceptual meaning, the *ollo8ing sentences are s3non3mous#
e# g# They chucked a stone at the cops, and then did a %unk 5ith the loot.
0fter casting a stone at the police, they a%sconded 5ith the money.
In a more local sense, social meaning can inclu!e 8hat has been calle! The
illocutionary force o* an utterance, 8hether it is to be interprete! as a reNuest, an
assertion, an apolog3, a threat, etc#
!# he 8a3 language re*lects the personal *eelings o* the spea;er, his: her attitu!e
to8ar!s his: her interlocutor or to8ar!s the topic o* !iscussion, represents
affective meaning. Scaling our remar;s accor!ing to politeness, intonation an!
+oice- timbre are essential *actors in e.pressing a**ecti+e meaning 8hich is largel3
a parasitic categor3, because it relies on the me!iation o* conceptual, connotati+e
46
or st3listic meanings# he e.ception is 8hen 8e use inter5ections 8hose chie*
*unction is to e.press emotion#
e# 8o other t3pes o* meaning in+ol+e an interconnection on the le.ical le+el o*
language# "eflected meaning arises in cases o* multiple conceptual meaning, 8hen
one sense o* a 8or! *orms part o* our response to another sense# $n hearing, in a
church ser+ice, the s3non3mous e.pressions the omforter an! the 1oly +host,
one ma3 react accor!ing to the e+er3!a3 non- religious meanings o* comfort an!
ghost. $ne sense o* a 8or! Urubs o**7 on another sense 8hen it has a !ominant
suggesti+e po8er through *reNuenc3 an! *amiliarit3# he case 8hen re*lecte!
meaning intru!es through the sheer strength o* emoti+e suggestion is illustrate! b3
8or!s 8hich ha+e a taboo meaning, this taboo contamination accounte! in the past
*or the !3ing- out o* the non- taboo sense, %loom*iel! e.plains in this 8a3 the
replacement o* cock b3 rooster.
*# ollocative Meaning consists o* the associations a 8or! acNuires on account o* the
meanings o* 8or!s 8hich ten! to occur in its en+ironment: collocate 8ith it#
e. g. pretty girl3 %oy3 flo5er3 color
handsome %oy3 man3 car3 vessel3 overcoat3 type5riter .
Collocati+e meaning remains an i!ios3ncratic propert3 o* in!i+i!ual 8or!s an! it
shoul!n7t be in+o;e! to e.plain all !i**erences o* potential co- occurrence# A**ecti+e
an! social meaning, re*lecte! an! collocati+e meaning ha+e more in common 8ith
connotati+e meaning than 8ith conceptual meaning, the3 all ha+e the same open-
en!e!, +ariable character an! len! themsel+es to anal3sis in terms o* scales an! ranges#
he3 can be all brought together un!er the hea!ing o* associative meaning.
Associati+e meaning nee!s emplo3ing an elementar3 Uassociationist7 theor3 o* mental
connections base! upon contiguities o* e.perience in or!er to e.plain it# Ehereas
conceptual meaning reNuires the postulation o* intricate mental structures speci*ic to
language an! to humans, an! is part o* the Ucommon s3stemU o* language share! b3
members o* a speech communit3, associati+e meaning is less stable an! +aries 8ith the
in!i+i!ual7s e.perience# %ecause o* so man3 impon!erable *actors in+ol+e! in it,
associati+e meaning can be stu!ie! s3stematicall3 onl3 b3 appro.imati+e statistical
techniNues# $sgoo!, Suci an! annenbaum GThe Measurement of Meaning, >?@AH,
propose! a metho! *or a partial anal3sis o* associati+e meaning# he3 !e+ise! a
techniNue V in+ol+ing a statistical measurement !e+ice, - he Semantic Di**erential -,
4B
*or plotting meaning in terms o* a multi!imensional semantic space, using as !ata
spea;er7s 5u!gements recor!e! in terms o* se+en point scales#
Thematic Meaning means 8hat is communicate! b3 the 8a3 in 8hich a
spea;er: 8riter organizes the message in terms o* or!ering, *ocus or emphasis#
Emphasis can be illustrate! b3 8or!- or!er:
e#g# 8essie donated the first pri#e$
The first pri&e 5as donated !% essie$
b3 grammatical constructions:
e# g# There6s a man 5aiting in the hall.
It6s 'anish cheese that I like %est.
b3 le.ical means:
e# g# The shop %elongs to him
1e o5ns the shop.
b3 intonation:
e# g# 1e 5ants an electric ra&or.
Co&'.2"!o&"
a# meaning, as a propert3 o* linguistic signs, is essentiall3 a relation-
con+entional, stable, an! e.plicit- establishe! bet8een a sign an! the ob5ect in
re*erential !e*initions, or bet8een the sign an! the concept: the mental image o* the
ob5ect in conceptual !e*initions o* meaning,
b# an important aspect o* meaning is !eri+e! *rom the use that the spea;ers
ma;e o* it V pragmatic meaning, inclu!ing the attitu!e that spea;ers a!opt to8ar!s the
signs,
c# part o* the meaning o* linguistic *orms can be !etermine! b3 the position
the3 occup3 in a s3stem o* eNui+alent linguistic *orms, in the para!igmatic set to 8hich
the3 belong- !i**erential: connotati+e meaning,
!# eNuall3, part o* the meaning can be !etermine! b3 the position a linguistic
sign occupies along the s3ntagmatic a.is- !istributional: collocati+e meaning,
e# meaning cannot be concei+e! as an in!i+isible entit3, it is !i+isible into
simpler constituti+e elements, into semantic *eatures, li;e the ones !ispla3e! on the
e.pression le+el o* language#
1# Conceptual /eaning Logical, cogniti+e or
!enotati+e content
Associati+e meaning 4# Connotati+e /eaning Ehat is communicate! b3
+irtue o* 8hat language
4D
re*ers to
6# Social /eaning Ehat is communicate! o*
the social circumstances o*
language use
B# A**ecti+e /eaning Ehat is communicate! o*
the *eelings an! attitu!es o*
the spea;er: 8riter
D# Re*lecte! /eaning Ehat is communicate!
through association 8ith
another sense o* the same
e.pression
K# Collocati+e /eaning Ehat is communicate!
through association 8ith
8or!s ten!ing to occur in
the en+ironment o* another
8or!
@# hematic /eaning Ehat is communicate! b3
the 8a3 in 8hich the
message is organize! in
terms o* or!er an!
emphasis
Top!'" $or )!"'2""!o& a&) e3er'!"e"
1# Characterize the re*erential theories o* meaning#
4# De*ine the terms referent, e.tension, denotation, connotation. <i+e e.amples to
illustrate the !e*initions#
6# I!enti*3 an! comment on the t3pe o* meaning o* the bol! 8or!s in terms o*
e.tension an! intension
An &pera Theatre in her to5n is her dream.
They are signing the contract$
'1ave you met the Pope ' BI have never met Giovanni Paolo (("$
I 5anted to find a nice pair of glasses %ut there 5asn6t any cheap enough.
Since he sa5 that film, he6s al5ays %een afraid of ghosts$
0nn 5as sad. She didn6t ans5er my greeting.
1e %ought a !ar of chocolate$
)orro is his favorite hero.
They have no mone% to travel a%road.
Every year, the ma%or delivers a speech in the to5n s$uare.
(hat 5e need is a group of volunteers$
B# <i+e e.amples *or each t3pe o* meaning in Leech7s classi*ication#
4K
Ch a p t e r I I I .
MOTI VATI ON OF MEANI NG
9er!inan! !e SaussureIs apo!ictic statement: Mthe linguistic sign is arbitrar3M in
the sense that there is no !irect relationship bet8een the soun! seNuence Gthe
signi*iantH an! the Mi!eaM e.presse! b3 it Gsigni*iPH is ta;en *or grante! in the stu!3 o*
language# he resumption o* the !iscussion on the arbitrar3 character o* the linguistic
sign in the late thirties an! earl3 *orties pro+e! ho8e+er that the problem is not as
simple as it might seem# here are numerous 8or!s in all languages in 8hich a special
correlation ma3 be sai! to e.ist bet8een meaning an! soun!# hese 8or!s inclu!e in
the *irst place inter5ections an! onomatopoeia, 8hich are someho8 imitati+e o* non-
linguistic soun!s as 8ell as those instances in 8hich it can be sai! that some soun!s are
someho8 associate! 8ith certain meanings, in the sense that the3 suggest them# his
latter aspect is ;no8n as phonetic sym%olism#
%ut in a!!ition to these cases 8hich still remain marginal in the language, there
is also another sense in 8hich the meaning o* 8or!s ma3 be sai! to be relate! to its
*orm, namel3 the possibilit3 o* anal3zing linguistic signs b3 re*erence to the smaller
meaning*ul elements o* 8hich the3 are ma!e up# In!ee!, !eri+ati+e, comple. an!
compoun! 8or!s are anal3zable *rom the point o* +ie8 o* meaning in terms o* their
constituent morphemes#
It is ob+ious that 8hile the general principle remains +ali!, namel3 that there is
no inherent reason 8h3 a gi+en concept shoul! be paire! to a gi+en string o* soun!s, it
is the linguistIs tas; to e.amine those instances, 8hen it is possible to sa3 something
4@
about the meaning o* a linguistic sign b3 re*erence to its soun!s an! grammatical
structure, in other 8or!s, it is necessar3 to assess the e.tent to 8hich there is some
moti+ation in the case o* at least a number o* 8or!s in the language#
0llmann G1?D@H ma!e a !istinction bet8een opa$ue an! transparent 8or!s# In
the latter case o* transparent 8or!s, 0llmann !iscusses three t3pes o* moti+ation:
phonetic, grammatical an! semantic Gmoti+ation b3 meaning, as in the case o*
Mbrea;*astM, 8hose meaning can be !eri+e! *rom the meaning o* its component
elementsH#
here are t8o main t3pes o* linguistic moti+ation alrea!3 postulate! b3 !e
Saussure: absolute an! relati+e moti+ation#
1. A*"o.2te %ot!4at!o&
Absolute moti+ation inclu!es language signs 8hose soun! structure repro!uces
certain *eatures o* their content# <i+en this Nuasi-ph3sical resemblance bet8een their
signi*iant an! their signi*iP, these signs are o* an iconic or in!e.ic nature in the
t3polog3 o* semiotic signs, although s3mbolic elements are present as 8ell in their
organization:
here are se+eral classes o* linguistic signs, 8hich can be sai! to be absolutel3
moti+ate!:
GiH Inter4ections# It 8oul! be 8rong to consi!er, as is sometimes !one, that
inter5ections someho8 !epict e.actl3 the ph3siological an! ps3chological states the3
e.press# he *act that inter5ections !i**er in soun! *rom one language to another is the
best proo* o* it# Compare Romanian auC aoleuC vaiC etc# an! English ouchC, 8hich ma3
be use! in similar situations b3 spea;ers o* the t8o languages#
GiiH Onomatopoeia# his is true o* imitati+e or onomatopoeic 8or!s as 8ell#
Despite the relati+e similarit3 in the basic phonetic substance o* 8or!s meant to imitate
animal or other soun!s an! noises, their phonological structure *ollo8s the rules o*
pattern an! arrangement characteristic o* each separate language# here are instances
in 8hich the !egree o* con+entionalit3 is highl3 mar;e!, as e+i!ence! b3 the *act that
8hile in English a !og goes %o5-5o5, in Romanian it goes ham-ham# Also, such *orms
as English 5hisper an! Romanian Dopti are consi!ere! to be moti+ate! in the t8o
languages, although the3 are Nuite !i**erent in *orm#
GiiiH !honetic sym%olism# "honetic s3mbolism is base! on the assumption that
certain soun!s ma3 be associate! 8ith particular i!eas or meanings, because the3
4O
someho8 seem to share some attributes usuall3 associate! 8ith the respecti+e
re*erents# he problem o* phonetic s3mbolism has been ampl3 !ebate! in linguistics
an! ps3cholog3 an! numerous e.periments ha+e been ma!e 8ithout arri+ing at +er3
conclusi+e results#
It is Nuite eas3 to 5ump at s8eeping generalizations starting *rom a *e8
instances o* soun! s3mbolism#
Cespersen attache! particular attention to the phonetic moti+ation o* 8or!s an!
trie! to gi+e the character o* la8 to certain soun! an! meaning concor!ances# 2e
maintaine! *or instance, on the basis o* ample e+i!ence pro+i!e! b3 a great +ariet3 o*
languages, that the *ront, close +o8el soun! o* the XiY t3pe is suggesti+e o* the i!ea o*
smallness, rapi!it3 an! 8ea;ness# A long list o* English 8or!s: little, slim, kid, %it, flip,
tip, t5it, pinch, t5inkle, click, etc# can be easil3 pro+i!e! in support o* the assumption,
an! it can also be rein*orce! b3 e.amples o* 8or!s *rom other languages: 9r# petit, It#
piccolo, Rom# mic, etc# $* course, one can eNuall3 easil3 *in! counter e.amples - the
most ob+ious being the 8or! %ig in English - but on the 8hole it !oes not seem
unreasonable to argue that a gi+en soun!, or seNuence o* soun!s is associate! to a
gi+en meaning impression, although it remains a +er3 +ague one#
Sapir G1?4?H maintaine! that a contrast can be establishe! bet8een XiY an! XaY
in point o* the size o* the re*erents in the names o* 8hich the3 appear, so that 8or!s
containing XaY usuall3 ha+e re*erents o* larger size# Similar s3stematic relations 8ere
establishe! *or consonants as 8ell#
Initial consonant clusters o* the :sn:, :sl:, :*l: t3pe are sai! to be highl3
suggesti+e o* Nuite !istincti+e meanings, as in!icate! b3 long lists o* 8or!s beginning
8ith these soun!s#
(. Re.at!4e %ot!4at!o&
Relati+e moti+ation. In the case o* relati+el3 moti+ate! language signs, it is not
the soun!s 8hich someho8 e+o;e the meaning, 8hate+er can be guesse! about the
meaning o* such 8or!s is a result o* the anal3sis o* the smaller linguistic signs 8hich
are inclu!e! in them# Relati+e moti+ation in+ol+es a much larger number o* 8or!s in
the language than absolute moti+ation# here are three t3pes o* relati+e moti+ation:
moti+ation b3 !eri+ation, b3 composition an! semantic moti+ation#
An anal3sis o* the use o* !eri+ational means to create ne8 8or!s in the
language 8ill re+eal its importance *or the +ocabular3 o* a language# he pre*i. Z-in[,
realize! phonologicall3 in +arious 8a3s an! meaning either GaH not an! GbH in, into,
4?
appears in at least 4,AAA English 8or!s: inside, irregular, impossi%le, incorrect,
inactive etc#
Similarl3, the Latin capere GMta;eMH appears in a great number o* English 8or!s:
capture, captivity, capa%le, reception, e.cept, principal, participant, etc#
It is no 8on!er that %ro8n G1?KBH *oun! it possible to gi+e ;e3s to the
meanings o* o+er 1B,AAA 8or!s, 8hich can be anal3ze! in terms o* combinations
bet8een 4A pre*i.es an! 1B roots# Some o* his e.amples are gi+en belo8:
(ords !refi. ommon Meaning "oot ommon
Meaning
1# "recept pre- be*ore capere ta;e, seize
4# Detain !e- a8a3, !o8n tenere hol!, ha+e
6# Intermittent inter- bet8een, among mittere sen!
B# $**er ob- against *erre bear, carr3
D# Insist in- into stare stan!
K# /onograph mono- alone, one, graphein 8rite
@# Epilogue epi- upon legein sa3, stu!3 o*
O# Aspect a!- to, to8ar!s specere see
his table alone is su**icient to in!icate the importance o* relati+e moti+ation
*or the anal3sis o* meaning#
It is ob+ious that the le.icon o* a language presents items 8hich !i**er in the
!egree to 8hich their meaning can be sai! to be moti+ate!, 8hile some are opa$ue
Gtheir soun! gi+e no in!ication o* their meaningH, others are more or less transparent,
in the sense that one can arri+e at some i!ea o* their meaning b3 recourse to their
phonetic shape or to their !eri+ational structure or to some semantic relations 8hich
can be establishe! 8ith other 8or!s in the language#
In !r#cis de s#manti$ue franEaise G1?D4H, 0llman suggeste! se+eral criteria o*
semantic structure 8hich enable! him to characterize English as a Mle.ical languageM,
as oppose! to 9rench 8hich is a more MgrammaticalM one: the number o* arbitrar3 an!
moti+ate! 8or!s in the +ocabular3, the number o* particular an! generic terms, the use
o* special !e+ices to heighten the emoti+e impact o* 8or!s# hree other criteria are
base! on multiple meaning Gpatterns o* s3non3m3, the relati+e *reNuenc3 o* pol3sem3,
an! the inci!ence o* homon3m3H an! a *inal one e+aluates the e.tent to 8hich 8or!s
!epen! on conte.t *or the clari*ication o* their meaning# his is an area o* stu!3 8hich
coul! be continue! 8ith pro*itable results *or other languages as 8ell#
-!*.!o/raph#:
6A
Chi-oran, Dumitru# 1?@6# Elements of English Structural Semantics, %ucure)ti, E!#
Di!actic )i "e!agogic#
E3er'!"e"0
>. <i+e e.amples o* 8or!s 8hich are absolutel3 moti+ate!#
F. Anal3se the *ollo8ing 8or!s in terms o* relati+e moti+ation: ro5%oat,
impermea%ility, 5holesaler, pan-0frican, childless, playing-field, incredi%le,
scare-cro5, counter-attack, imperfect, overdose, shareholder, caretaker,
salesman, foresee, misunderstanding.
G. <i+e e.amples o* 8or!s buil! 8ith the help o* the *ollo8ing pre*i.es: %i-, in-,
mis-, de-, anti-, non-, out-, super-, dis-, mal-, a-, en-, over-.
H. Anal3ze the *ollo8ing blen!s in point o* their relati+e moti+ation: sportcast,
smog, telescreen, mailomat, dictaphon, motel, paratroops, ca%legram, guestar,
transistor.
@. Erite the 8or! *orms o* the *ollo8ing 8or!s an! anal3ze them in terms o*
relati+e moti+ation: move, comment, place. Consi!er Saussure7s t3pes o*
associations an! *in! possible associations among the 8or! *orms that 3ou
pre+iousl3 *oun!#
Chapter IV
STRUCTURAL APPROACES TO TE STUD5 OF MEANING
1. COMPONENTIAL ANAL5SIS
hough structuralism in linguistics shoul! be connecte! to structuralism in
other sciences, notabl3 in anthropolog3, it shoul! also be regar!e! as a result o* its
o8n inner la8s o* !e+elopment as a science#
<enerall3, structuralist linguistics ma3 be characterise! b3 a neglect o*
meaning, but this must not lea! to the conclusion that this !irection in linguistics has
le*t the stu!3 o* meaning completel3 una**ecte!# Structural research in semantics has
trie! to ans8er t8o basic guestions:
aH V is there a semantic structure:s3stem o* language, similar to the s3stemic
organisation o* language unco+ere! at other le+els o* linguistic anal3sis
Gphonolog3 an! grammarH F
61
bH can the same structure metho!s 8hich ha+e been use! in the anal3sis o*
phonological an! grammatical aspects o* languages be applie! to the
anal3sis o* meaning F
In relation to Nuestion aH, the e.istence o* some ;in! o* s3stemic organisation
8ithin the le.icon o* a language is ta;en *or grante!# 9 !e Sanssure pointe! aut that
the +ocabular3 o* a language cannot be regar!e! as a mere catalogue# %ut this
aaceptance !oes not mean it is an eas3 5ob to pro+e the s3stematic character o* the
le.icon# 9irst o* all, it 8oul! mean the stu!3 o* the entire ci+ilization it re*lects an!
secon!l3, gi+en the *lui! an! +ague nature o* meaning, semantic realit3 must be
anal3se! 8ithout recourse to !irectl3 obser+able entities as it happens in case o* soun!
an! grammatical meaning#
$ne solution 8as to group together those elements o* the le.icon 8hich *orm
more or less natural series# Such series are usuall3 represente! b3 ;inship terms, parts
o* the human bo!3, the term o* temporal an! spatial orientation,etc, that can be sai! to
re+eal a structural organisation# Structural consi!erations 8ere applie! to terms
!enoting sensorial perceptions: colour, soun! , s8ell, taste, as 8ell as to terms o*
social an! personal appreciation#
he e.istence o* such semantic series, the organisation o* 8or!s into semnatic
*iel!s 5usti*ie! the structural approach to the stu!3 o* le.icon#
25elmsle+ con!itione! the e.istencee o* s3stem in language b3 the e.istence o*
para!ignes so that a structural !escription is onl3 possible 8here para!igmes are
re+eale!#%ut the +ocabular3 , as an open s3stem, 8ith a +ariable number o* elements,
!oes not *it such a !escription unless the !e*inition o* s3stem broa!ens# /elcu;
G1?K1H state! that a set o* structurall3 organise! ob5ects *orms a s3stem i* the ob5ects
can be !escribe! b3 certain rules, on con!ition that the number o* rules is smaller than
the number o* ob5ects# Constant re*erence to phonolog3, in terms o* !istinguishing
bet8een rele+ant an! irrele+ant in the stu!3 o* meaning has le! to appl3ing metho!s
pertaining to the e.pression le+el o* language to its content le+el as 8ell#
Some linguistic theories, mainl3 the <loosemantic School, ta;e it *or grante!
that there is an un!erl3ing isomorphism bet8een the e.pression an! content le+els o*
language# Accor!ingl3 the3 consi!er it a.iomatic to appl3 a uniNue metho! o* anal3sis
to both le+els o* language# 25elmsle+ !istinguishes bet8een signification an! sense an!
!eepens this !istinction on the basis o* a ne8 !ichotom3 postulate! b3 glossematics :
form an! su%stance# Ehile the sense re*ers to the substance o* content, signi*ication
64
re*ers to its *orm or structure# he !istinction signi*ication:sense can be anal3se! in
term o* another structuralist !ichotom3: invariant3variant# Signi*ications represent
in+ariant units o* meaning 8hile the sense are its +ariants# here is a commutation
relation bet8een signi*ications as in+ariants, an! a su%stitution one bet8een senses as
+ariants# An e.ample is gi+en belo8 :
Romanian English Russian
palma
mana han! p3;a
brat arm
Since signi*ications as in+ariants *in! their material mani*estation in senses as
their in+ariants, in terms o* glossematics, a theor3 o* signi*ication stan!s *or content
*orm alone, so signi*ication is no more semantic than other aspects o* content *orm
!ealt 8ith b3 grammar# It *ollo8s that onl3 a theor3 o* the sense Gsubstance o* contentH
coul! be the ob5ect o* stu!3 o* semanticsGChitoran, 1?@6:BOH#
In 25elmsle+7s opinion, sense is characteristic o* speech, not o* language,
pertains to an empirical le+el, so belo8 an3 interest o* linguistics# An3 attempt to
unco+er structure or s3stem at the sense le+el can be base! on the collecti+e e+aluation
o* sense# 9or 25elmsle+, le.icolog3 is a sociological !iscipline 8hich ma;es use o*
linguistic material : 8or!s# his e.treme position is in ;eeping 8ith the neopositi+ist
stan! a!opte! b3 glossematics, accor!ing to 8hich *orm has primac3 o+er substance,
that language is *orm, not substance an! 8hat matters in the stu!3 o* meaning is the
comple. net8or; o* relations obtaining among linguistic elements#
Qeeping in min! the basic isomorphism bet8een e.pression an! content, it is
essential to emphasize some important !i**erences bet8een the t8o language le+els:
- the e.pression le+el o* language implies seNuentialit3, a !e+elopment in time
Gspo;en languageH or space G8ritten languageH, its content le+el is
characterise! b3 simultaneit3,
- the number o* units to be unco+ere! at the e.pression le+el is relati+el3
small, an! in*initel3 greater at the content le+el#
It is general3 accepte! that the meanings o* a 8or! are also structure!, that
the3 *orm micros3stems, as appose! to the entire +ocabular3 8hich represents the
le.ical macros3stem# he meanings o* a le.ical element !ispla3 three le+els o*
structure, starting *rom a basic signi*icati+e nucleus, a semantic constant GCoteanu,
1?KAH 8hich represents the highest le+el o* abstraction in the structuration o* meaning#
Aroun! it !i**erent meanings can be groupe! Gthe 4
n!
le+elH# GChi-oran, 1?@6:D1H
66
he actual uses o* a le.ical item, resulting *rom the in!i+i!ualising *unction o*
8or!s GCoteanu, 1?KAH belong to speech# /onolingual !ictionaries gi+e the meanings
o* a le.ical item abstracte! on the basis o* a 8i!e collection o* !ata# As *ar as the
semantic constant is concerne!, its i!enti*ication is the tas; o* semnatics an! one 8a3
o* !oing that is b3 means o* the Componential Anal3sis#
Componential Anal3sis assumes that all meanings can be *urther anal3se! into
!istincti+e semantic *eatures calle! semes, semantic components or semantic
primitives, as the ultimate components o* meaning# he search *or !istincti+e semantic
*eatures 8as *irst limite! to le.ical items 8hich 8ere intuiti+el3 *elt to *orm natural
structures o* a more ar less close! nature# he set ;inship terms 8as among the *irst
le.ical subs3stems to be submitte! to componential anal3sis :
father X\maleYX\!irect lineY X\ol!er generationY
mother X-maleYX\!irect lineY X\ol!er generationY
son X\maleYX\!irect lineY X-ol!er generationY
daughter X]maleYX\!irect lineY X-ol!er generationY
uncleX\maleYX]!irect lineY X\ol!er generationY
aunt X-maleY X-!irect lineY X\ol!er generationY
nephe5 X\maleY X-!irect lineY X-ol!er generationY
niece X-maleY X-!irect lineY X-ol!er generationY
It is e+i!ent than there e.ist the same hierarch3 o* units an! the same principle
o* structuring lo8er le+el units into higher le+el ones G"ottier, 1?K6H:
E.pression Content
Distincti+e *eature pheme G*H seme GsH
Set o* !istincti+e *eatures phememeG9H
Ga set o* phemeH
sememe GSH
GA set o* semesH
he *ormalization o* a set o*
Distincti+e *eatures
phonemeG"H
Gthe *ormalization o* a
phememeH
le.emeGLH
*ormalization o* a sememe
he sememes are arri+e! at b3 comparing +arious le.ical items in the language#
Starting *rom the !ictionar3 !e*initions, the semantic *eatures encountere! in case o*
*urniture inten!e! *or siting are :
Semantic
*eature:
Le.ical item
*or sitting 8ith bac; 8ith
support
*or arms
*or more
people upholstere!
Stool \ - - - ^
Chair \ \ - - ^
6B
Armchair \ \ \ - ^
%ench \ \ ^ \ -
So*a \ \ ^ \ \
^the gi+en *eatureGpresent:absentHis not rele+ant #
$n the content le+el an archile.eme 8ill result *rom the neutralization o* a
le.emic opposition# In this case the more general term chair can be the archile.eme,
or another le.ical item can be chosen-seat#
<lossematies represents the point o* !eparture *or an American linguistic
theor3, the statificational theory of language GSidney *am%, 1?KB,1?KKH# 2e inclu!e!
a semantic theor3 in his general linguistic theor3# his semantic component has the
*orm o* a separate le+el o* language GstratumH the sememic one# Lamb7s semantic
theor3 is base! on the assumption that there is a structuralization o* meaning
characteristic o* all languages# Ehile be*ore him 8or!s 8ere relate! !irectl3 to their
denotata or significata# Lamb suggests the insertion o* a ne8 statum Bsememics6,
bet8een language an! the outsi!e 8orl! in or!er to !elimit 8hat is linguisticall3
rele+ant on the content le+el *rom 8hat is not# he sememic statum is inserte! bet8een
the le.emic Glo8erH an! the semantic GhigherH strata#Its elementar3 unit is the
semonGWthe minimal unit o* the semantic stratum such that its components are not
representations o* the components o* the semantic statum sememes ma3 be accounte!
*or b3 general construction rules, the combination o* semons must be liste! in!i+i!uall3
*or each sememe# E+i!ence is *orme! both *or !i+ersi*ication Gsemo-le.emicH an!
neutralization Gle.osememicH bet8een the t8o strata#
Sememic stratum S o* colours, gi+ing out:re*lecting much light
Le.emic stratum L bright L +i+i! L intense
Sememic stratum S Nuic;-8itte!, cle+er
Le.emic stratum L bright Lgi*te! L cle+er L capable
Sememeic statum S:piece o* 8oo! s:on the ship s:group o* people
s:G*oo!H
Le.emic stratum boar!
6D
he *irst is accounting *or the semasiological !irection, the secon! *or the
onomasiological !irection G*rom !enotata an! signi*icata to a linguistic *orm-e.plaining
s3non3m3H# In the process o* neutalization 8hich accounts *or pol3sem3, one le.ema is
connecte! to se+eral sememes in an either-or t3pe o* relationship# %ut the
le.eme:lamb:is connecte! both to the sememe:sheep: an! the sememe :3oung:# A gi+en
le.eme ma3 connect *irst to se+eral units in an either-or relationship, 8hich in turn
ma3 connect to se+eral sememes in a both-an! relationship# he interme!iate units
bet8een the le.eme an! the sememes are calle! b3 Lamb sememic signs#
:male:
Sememic stratum :unmarrie! :o8ner o* the : _ male :
person : 1
st
Aca!# Degree:
Ginterme!iateH :unmarrie! :uni+ersit3 :3oung
sememic sign man: gra!uate: ;night:
GsememeH
le.emic stratum bachelor
%3 e.pressing the meanings o* in!i+i!ual items in terms o* combinations o*
*eatures, 8e obtain the componential !e*initions o* the items concerne!# he3 can be
regar!e! as *ormalize! !ictionar3 !e*initions :
man \ 20/A' \ AD0L \ /ALE
he !imensions o* meaning 8ill be terme! semantic oppositions# he *eatures
o* opposition are mutuall3 !e*ining#
\ Gmar;e!H
- Gnegati+e, unmar;e!H
'ot all semantic contrasts are binar3 In *act componential anal3sis assumes that
meanings are organise! in multi-!imensional contrasts# a.onomic Ghierarchical
arrangement o* categoriesH oppositions can be :
- binar3 : !ea! ` ali+e
- multiple : gol! ` copper ` iron ` mercur3 etc#
he lin; bet8een componential anal3sis an! an! basic statements is ma!e
through the me!iation o* h3pon3m3 GinclusionH an! incompatibilit3# So basic logical
relationships Gentailment, inconsistenc3H can be !e*ine! in terms o* h3pon3m3 an!
incompatibilit3 GLeech, 1??A:?@H:
6K
e#g# The secretary is a 5oman entails The secretary is an adult#
I meet t5o %oys entails I met t5o children#
Custi*3ing componential anal3sis b3 *ollo8ing out its logical conseNuences in
terms o* basic statements implies gi+ing a certain priorit3 to sentence meaning o+er
8or!-meaning, so truth-*alsehoo! properties o* sentence meanings are the surest basis
*or testing a !escription o* meaning: scare! an! *rightene! 8oul! be consi!ere! as
s3non3ms in terms o* their truth +alue an! 8oul! be percei+e! as !i**ering in terms o*
st3listic meaning \:- colloNuial#
he *eatures o* !i**erent semantic oppositions can be combine!# Is it true that
e+er3 !imension is +ariable completel3 in!epen!ent o* all the other F
:\ human: :\ a!ult: :\male: are in!epen!entl3 +ariable
:\animate: combines 8ith :\countable:
:\ animate: combines 8ith :_ male: but X\maleY implies X\animateY
"edundancy rules a!! *eatures 8hich are pre!ictable *rom the presence o*
other *eatures an! are there*ore in a sense re!un!ant to an economical semantic
interpretation# Such rules are *oun! in phonolog3 an! s3nta.# In!irect relation o*
incompatibilit3 an! h3pon3m3 can be establishe! through re!un!anc3 rules: man an!
%ook are incompatible in meaning#
2ence, I is a man an! I is a %ook are inconsistent statements# Re!un!anc3
rules are important *or e.ten!ing the po8er o* componential anal3sis to account *or
basic statements# Certain *eatures an! oppositions can be regar!e! as more important
than others in the total organisation o* the language# he oppositions _ concrete an! \
counta%le ha+e man3 other oppositions !epen!ent on them an! so the3 are in ;e3
positions as it happens 8ith the *eature \ animate# G<# Leech, 1??A:111H#
%inar3 oppositions *reNuentl3 ha+e marked an! unmarked terms# hat is, the
terms are not entirel3 o* eNui+alent 8eight, but one Gthe unmar;e!H is neutral or
positi+e in contrast to the other#
e#g# boo; boo;s
petit petite
!uc; !ra;e
long short
/ar;e!ness is !e*inable as a relation bet8een *orm an! meaning : i* t8o 8or!s
contrast on a single !imension o* meaning, the unmar;e! one is the one 8hich can also
6@
appl3 neutrall3 to the 8hole !imension# A positi+e-negati+e bias is inherent to the
semantic opposition# $*ten the mar;e! term is in!icate! b3 a negati+e su**i. or pre*i. :
happ3-unhapp3, use*ul-useless# "eople ten! to respon! more Nuic;l3 to unmar;e! than
to mar;e! terms# his coul! be e.plaine! b3 their ten!enc3 to loo; on the bri!e si!e
o* li*e an! associate unmar;e!ness 8ith Ugoo!7 e+aluations an! mar;e!ness 8ith
Uba!7 ones GLeech, 1??A:11BH#
here is also a *actor o* bias in relati+e oppositions but this coul! be e.plaine!
in terms o* dominance rather than markedness# Ee pre*er to use the !ominant term
be*ore the other or to use it alone#
parent:chil! see V
o8n:belong to hit V
in *ront:behin! ha+e V
/ar;e!ness an! !ominance +ar3 in strength Gthe3 can gro8 8ea; e+en become
ine.istent le*t:rightH an! are also sub5ect to conte.tual in*luences#
Cr!t!'!"%" o$ Co%po&e&t!a. A&a.#"!". Componential anal3sis is consi!ere! b3
some linguists as a useful an! revealing techniNue *or !emonstrating relation o*
meaning bet8een 8or!s# At the same time, this theor3 o* 8or!-meaning has been
criticise! an! <#Leech has trie! to comment on the main criticisms :
1# It is sai! that componential anal3sis GCAH accounts *or onl3 someparts o* a
language7s +ocabular3 Gthose parts 8hich are neatly organi&edH# Componential anal3sis
can be *itte! into a more po8er*ul mo!el o* meaning, 8ith a!!itional le+els o* anal3sis
apart *rom CA# Semantic *eatures nee! not be atomic contrasti+e elements, but ma3
ha+e an internal structure o* their o8n, that is, the semantic *eatures can be !eri+e!
*rom con*igurations o* other *eatures# his recursi+e po8er o* *eature-creation is
particularl3 important in consi!ering metaphor# So, there is no nee! to postulate an
in!e*inite proli*eration o* semantic oppositions#
4# It is o*ten ob5ecte! than CA su**ers *rom a Bvicious circle6 in that it merel3
e.plains one set o* s3mbols Ge#g# English 8or!sH b3 another set o* s3mbols G8hich also
turne! out to be English 8or!sH# he notation o* s3mbols is arbitrar3 an! the
e.planator3 *unction o* *eatures is solel3 their role in the pre!iction o* basic
statements#
6# Another ob5ection is that CA postulates abstract semantic entities Gsemantic
*eaturesH unnecessaril3# %ut the notation o* CA is language-neutral, an! so the same
6O
*eatures, oppositions re!un!anc3 rules ma3 e.plain meaning relation in man3 !i**erent
languages#
B# Connecte! to that, it has been postulate! that CA implies uni+ersal *eatures
o* meaning an! there*ore relies on the strong assumption that the same semantic
*eatures are *oun! in all languages# CA *its in 8ell 8ith a U8ea; uni+ersalist7 position
8hereb3 semantic oppositions are regar!e! as language-neutral i#e# as conceptual
contrasts not necessaril3 tie! to the !escription o* particular languages# Semantic
anal3ses ma3 be generalize! *rom one language to another, but onl3 to the e.tent that
this is 5usti*ie! b3 translation e$uivalence#
D# It has also been claime! that CA is une.planator3 in that it !oes not pro+i!e
*or the interpretation o* semantic *eatures in terms o* the real-8orl! properties an!
ob5ects that the3 re*er to# 9or e.ample \ 0'2*T remains an abstract uninterprete!
s3mbol unless 8e can actuall3 speci*3 8hat a!ults are li;e i#e# ho8 !eci!e 8hen the
*eature \ 0'2*T re*ers to something# o e.pect CA to pro+i!e an interpretation in
this sense is to e.pect it to pro+i!e a theor3 not onl3 o* meaning, but o* reference, or
not onl3 o* conceptual meaning, but also o* connotati+e meaning# CA cannot ha+e this
8i!er goal : it is meant to e.plain 8or! sense, not the enc3clope!ic ;no8le!ge 8hich
must enter into a theor3 o* re*erence#
K# he +ie8 that 8or!-meanings are essentiall3 +ague, that !eterminate criteria
*or the re*erence o* 8or!s cannot be gi+en has recei+e! prominent support in
philosoph3 an! linguisties# Eittgenstein e.empli*ie! this 8ith the 8or! game : he coul!
*in! no essential !e*ining *eatures o* 8hat constitutes a game an! conclu!e! that 8e
;no8 the meaning b3 +irtue o* recognizing certain U*amil3 resemblances bet8een the
acti+ities it re*ers to# A more recent critiNue o* the !eterministic +ie8 o* meaning is
gi+en b3 Labo+ G1?@6H 8ho con!ucte! an e.periment in 8hich sub5ects 8ere in+ite! to
label pictures o* more-or-less cup-li;e ob5ects# here 8as a core o* agreement as to
8hat constitute! a cup but there 8as also a peripheral gra!ient o* !isagreement an!
uncertaint3# he conclusion is that cup, mug, %o5l an! similar 8or!s are !e*ine! in
terms o* Bfu&&y sets of attri%utes6, that is sets of attri%utes of varying importance,
rather than in terms o* a clear-cut, un+ar3ing set o* *eatures# Ee match can!i!ates *or
Ucuphoo!7 against a prototype or standard notion of cup# he +agueness is re*erential
an! !oes not a**ect componential anal3sis because it has to !o 8ith categor3
recognition: the mental enc3clope!ia rather than the mental !ictionar3#
6?
Another ;in! o* +ariabilit3 o* re*erence is presente! b3 L3ons in case o* three
8or!s: %oy, girl, child in terms o* a common *eature V AD0L# his *eature 8ill
reNuire !i**erent interpretations in the three cases# Eithin the-AD0L categor3 there is
a *urther binar3 ta.onom3 !istinguishing child *rom adolescent# VAD0L stan!s as a
common *actor in the meanings o* %oy, girl, child, puppy etc# but its re*erential
interpretation is +ariable *or reasons 8hich are e.plicable in terms o* the protot3pic
+ie8 o* categories#
here ha+e emerge! three !i**erent le+els at 8hich 8or!-meaning can be
anal3se!#
- the 5ord-sense as an entiret3 ma3 be seen as a conceptual unit in its o8n
right prepackaged e.perience GLeech, 1??A:141H,
- this unit ma3 be sub!i+i!e! into components:*eatures b3 CA,
- both 8or!-senses an! *eatures, representing protot3pic categories can be
bro;en !o8n into *uzz3 sets o* attributes#
( . PARADI GMS I N LE6I C
The S e %a & t ! ' F! e . ) The o r #
he i!ea o* the organization o* the entire le.icon o* a language into a unitar3
s3stem 8as *or the *irst time *ormulate! b3 Cost rier# Actuall3, rier continue! t8o
lines o* thought# $n the one han!, he 8as !irectl3 in*luence! b3 E# +on 2umbol!t an!
his i!eas o* linguistic relati+ism# Eilhelm +on 2umbol!t, in*luence! b3 the romanticism
o* the earl3 1?
th
centur3 a!+ance! the theor3 that languages are uniNue, in that each
language e.presses the spirit o* a people, its )olksgeist# Each language categorizes
realit3 in !i**erent 8a3s so that it ma3 either help or hin!er its spea;ers in ma;ing
certain obser+ations or in percei+ing certain relations# <i+en the principle o* relati+ism,
it *ollo8s that the +ocabularies o* an3 t8o languages are anisomorphic, that there are
no absolute one to one correspon!ences bet8een t8o eNui+alent 8or!s belonging to
t8o !i**erent languages# 2umbol!t ma!e, also, the !istinction bet8een language
+ie8e! staticall3 as an ergon an! language +ie8e! !3namicall3, creati+el3, as an
energeia. rierIs semantic *iel!s are, accor!ingl3, closel3, integrate! le.ical s3stems in a
!3namic state o* continuous e+olution#
he other line o* thought 8hich rier continues springs *rom 9er!inan! !e
SaussureIs structuralism, more speci*icall3 *rom the !istinctions ma!e b3 the latter
bet8een the signi*ication, an! +alue o* le.ical items# Accor!ing to !e Saussure, 8or!s
BA
ha+e signification, in that the3 !o mean something, positi+el3, but the3 also ha+e
value, 8hich is !e*ine! negati+el3 b3 re*erence to 8hat the respecti+e 8or!s do not
mean# Linguistic +alue is the result o* the structural relationships o* a term in the
s3stem to 8hich it belongs# hus, rier postulate! that no item in the +ocabular3 can
be anal3ze! semanticall3 unless one ta;es into account the bun!le o* relationships an!
oppositions it enters 8ith the other 8or!s in a gi+en subs3stem or s3stem# $ne cannot
assess the correct meaning o* MgreenM *or instance, unless one ;no8s the meaning o*
Mre!M an! all the other colours in the s3stem#
Colour terms are actuall3 o*ten use! to illustrate the semantic *iel! theor3# Let
us suppose that the *iel! o* colours, 8hich ph3sicists assure us *orms a continuum, is
co+ere! b3 the *ollo8ing number o* terms in t8o languages L
1
an! L
4
:
L
1
: . 3 z
L
4
: a b c ! e
It is e+i!ent that no single term in an3 o* the t8o languages co+ers e.actl3 the
same area o* the spectrum, onl3 MzM in L
1
can be sai! to incorporate the 8hole o* MeM in
L
4
although it co+ers a small part o* the area co+ere! b3 M!M as 8ell#
English an! Shona, a language spo;en in Rho!esia, e.hibit precisel3 the t3pe o*
structural segmentation o* the colour spectrum postulate! abo+e# Ehile English ha+e
se+en basic terms *or colour Gthe *irst le+el o* the hierarch3H, red, orange, yello5,
green, %lue an! purple, Shona has onl3 three 8hich are !istribute! roughl3 as *ollo8s:
a *irst term Mco+ers the range o* English orange, red an! purple, an! a small part o*
%lueJ another term co+ers the area o* green an! most o* %lueM GLamb 1?K?: BKH# It is
e+i!ent that the terms *or colour are not eNui+alent in the t8o languages#
E+i!entl3 the linguistic *iel! o* colour terms is a *a+ourable one *or such an
anal3sis# here is *irst o* all a MmetalanguageM pro+i!e! b3 the science o* ph3sics to
8hich one can report the 8or!s *or colour# Secon!l3, the number o* 8or!s, is Nuite
limite! an! thus re!uctible to a restricte! set o* relationships#
%ut e+en in the case o* the most elementar3 +ocabular3 one encounters a
similar lac; o* correspon!ence# English sheep an! 9rench mouton are not the same
since English ma;es use o* another term mutton, to co+er the entire area o* meanings
an! uses co+ere! b3 9rench mouton.
rier a!+ance! the i!ea, that +ocabular3 as a 8hole *orms an integrate! s3stem
o* le.emes interrelate! in sense, a huge mosaic 8ith no loopholes or superpose! terms
since our concepts themsel+es co+er the entire 0ni+erse# Accor!ing to his !3namic
conception o* language +ie8e! as MenergeiaM, rier pointe! out that the slightest
B1
change in the meaning o* a term 8ithin a semantic *iel! brings about changes in the
neighbouring terms as 8ell#
An3 broa!ening in the sense o* one le.eme in+ol+es a correspon!ing narro8ing
in the sense o* one or more o* its neighbours# Accor!ing to rier, it is one o* the ma5or
*ailings o* tra!itional !iachronic semantics that it sets out to catalogue the histor3 o*
changes in the meanings o* in!i+i!ual le.emes atomisticall3, or one b3 one, instea! o*
in+estigating changes in the 8hole structure o* the +ocabular3 as it has !e+elope!
through time# GL3ons 1?@@: 4D4H#
he proce!ure *ollo8e! b3 rier in !iachronic semantics is not one o*
comparing successi+e states o* the total +ocabular3 G8hich 8oul! be har!l3
practicableH# Ehat he !oes is to compare the structure o* a le.ical *iel! at time t
1
8ith
the structure o* a le.ical *iel! at time t
4
#
Semantic *iel!s 8ith a more restricte! number o* terms are incorporate! into
larger ones, the latter are themsel+es structurate! into e+en larger ones, until the entire
le.icon o* a language is integrate! into a unitar3 s3stem# In rierIs opinion there*ore
semantic *iel!s act as interme!iaries bet8een in!i+i!ual le.ical entries, as the3 appear
in a !ictionar3, an! the +ocabular3 as a 8hole#
Despite their re+olutionar3 character, rierIs i!eas on semantics *oun! *e8
*ollo8ers an! 8ere conseNuentl3 slo8 in being pursue! an! !e+elope!# his is normal
in +ie8 o* the important ob5ections 8hich can be raise! to his theor3#
$ne o* the ob5ections came *rom those 8ho 8ere reluctant to a!mit such a
per*ect organization o* +ocabular3 into an inter!epen!ent an! per*ectl3 integrate!
s3stem o* elements 8hich !elimit each other li;e pieces in a 5ig-sa8 puzzle# Secon!l3,
the linguistic relati+ism o* rierIs i!eas, his contention about the in*luence o* language
upon thought 8as rightl3 consi!ere! as an instance o* linguistic solipsism#
/uch o* the criticism le+ele! at semantic *iel! theor3 originate! *rom less
philosophical consi!erations# It is Nuite !i**icult to outline the actual limits o* a *iel!, its
MconstantM, 8hich subseNuentl3 enables one to anal3ze the terms incorporate! in it#
Also, the semantic *iel! theor3, i* +ali!, accounts *or onl3 one t3pe o* relations
contracte! b3 le.ical items - the para!igmatic ones, or, a *ull semantic !escription
shoul! inclu!e s3ntagmatic relations as 8ell# In a!!ition rierIs theor3 !oes not seem
to be relate! to an3 gi+en grammatical theor3#
'e+ertheless, there 8ere numerous attempts at !e+eloping the semantic *iel!
theor3, most o* them !eparting to a lesser or greater e.tent *rom rierIs original i!eas#
B4
L# Eeisgerber *or instance, continue! the anal3sis o* the semantic *iel! o* ;no8le!ge
an! un!erstan!ing in /o!ern <erman 8hile tr3ing to incorporate the notion o*
semantic *iel!s in his general theor3 o* language G1?D6H#
"# <uirau! G1?DK, 1?K4H !e+elope! the theor3 o* the morpho-semantic field#
he morpho-semantic *iel! inclu!es all the soun! an! sense associations ra!iating *rom
a 8or!, its homon3ms an! s3non3ms, all other 8or!s to 8hich it ma3 be relate!
*ormall3 or logicall3, metaphoricall3, etc#, as 8ell as casual or more stable associations
8hich can be establishe! bet8een ob5ects !esignate! b3 these 8or!s#
Ealter +on Eartburg an! R# 2allig G1?D4H un!ertoo; a more ambitious tas;#
he3 suggeste! a metho! o* anal3sis base! on the s3stem o* concepts 8hich 8as
meant to co+er the entire +ocabular3 o* a language an!, since the general classi*ication
o* concepts 8as suppose! to ha+e a general character, the +ocabular3 o* an3 language
coul! be incorporate! into such a conceptual !ictionar3#
he metho! is entirel3 reminiscent o* RogetIs Thesaurus in that it i!enti*ies
le.ical s3stems 8ith logical s3stems o* concepts# he outline o* the s3stem o* concepts
has three main components: A: he 0ni+erse, %: /an, an! C: /an an! the 0ni+erse#
Each main component inclu!es se+eral classes o* concepts Gan! accor!ingl3, o* 8or!s
!esignating these conceptsH# hus, component A inclu!es the *ollo8ing *our classes: I
he s;3 an! atmosphere, II# he Earth, III# he "lants, I&# he Animals#
Semantic *iel!s are structural organizations o* le.is 8hich re*lect a structuration
o* the content le+el o* language# 25elmsle+ an! E# Coseriu G1?KOH consi!ere! that an3
semantic theor3 is +ali! onl3 to the e.tent to 8hich it arri+es at paradigms on the
content le+el o* language#
Coseriu !e*ine! the semantic *iel! as a primar3 para!igmatic structure o* the
le.ic, a para!igm consisting in le.ical units o* content Gle.emesH, 8hich share a
continuous common zone o* signi*ication, being in an imme!iate opposition one to
another# GIliescu, Eal! 1?O1: 6?H
A semantic *iel! shoul! be un!erstoo! in rierIs original sense, namel3 as a
&one of signification co+ere! b3 a number o* closel3 interrelate! le.ical items# In this
respect the componential anal3sis o* meaning G<oo!enough, 1?DKH seems to be nearer
the true concept o* the semantic *iel!#
hree main ob5ections can be an! ha+e been raise! 8ith regar! to the present
state o* the semantic *iel! theor3#
B6
GaH Is it possible to anal3ze the entire +ocabular3 into semanticall3 structure!
*iel!s, or are the3 limite! to certain parts o* it onl3, namel3 to le.ical items !esignating
aspects o* realit3 Gespeciall3 man-ma!e realit3, the realit3 o* arti*actsH 8hich b3 their
o8n nature possess a certain structural organizationF
GbH Closel3 relate! to ob5ection GaH one can !oubt the linguistic nature o*
semantic *iel!s# Do the3 correspon! to an internal organization o* the +ocabular3 or
are the3 organizations e.ternal to languageF
GcH 2o8 can semantic *iel!s be !elimite!F Is there an ob5ecti+e metho! o*
e+aluating the range o* a gi+en *iel! an! the number o* elements it inclu!esF
Co%po&e&t!a. A&a.#"!" App.!e) !& the A&a.#"!" o$ Se%a&t!' F!e.)"
$ne o* the most important tenets o* mo!ern semantics claims that the meanings
o* le.ical items !o not represent ultimate, in!i+isible entities, the3 are, on the contrar3,
anal3zable into *urther components# his le! to a metho! o* approach in semantic
anal3sis, appropriatel3 calle! componential analysis, pre+iousl3 !iscusse! in this
chapter#
Componential anal3sis originall3 starte! as a metho! o* anal3sing units
belonging to a certain semantic *iel!# he metho! 8as *ruit*ull3 applie! in the stu!3 o*
;inship terms, colour terminolog3, militar3 ran;s an! other *airl3 restricte! !omains o*
meaning#
Assuming that the meaning o* a 8or! is not an un!i+i!e! entit3, componential
anal3sis pro+i!es *or the !ecomposition o* meanings into smaller signi*icant *eatures#
/o!ele! on the anal3sis o* phonemes into !istincti+e *eatures, componential anal3sis is
*oun!e! on the notion o* semantic contrast: the units o* a *iel! are assume! to contrast
simultaneousl3 on !i**erent !imensions o* meaning# he meanings o* the *iel! units
complement each other constituing a paradigm# A para!igm 8ill be !e*ine! as a set o*
linguistic *orms 8herein:
aH the meaning o* e+er3 *orm has, at least one *eature in common 8ith the
meaning o* all other *orms in the set,
bH the meaning o* e+er3 *orm !i**ers *rom that o* e+er3 other *orm o* the set,
b3 one or more a!!itional *eatures#
he common *eature o* meaning o* the set is calle! the root meaning# It !e*ines
the semantic area 8hich is anal3ze! b3 the units o* the *iel!# he 8or!s in the *iel! 8ill
be arrange! into contrasti+e sets along !i**erent !imensions o* meaning# hus, 5ust
BB
as :t: an! :d: complement each other 8ith respect to the !imension o* voicing, old an!
young complement each other 8ith respect to the conceptual !imension o* age#
0 dimension is an opposition o* mutuall3 e.clusi+e *eatures# he *eatures o* the
!imension se., presumabl3 rele+ant in an anal3sis o* ;inship terms, are X\/aleY an!
X\9emaleY#
An3 term o* the para!igm 8ill be !e*ine! componentiall3 in terms o* its
coor!inates in the para!igm# The componential definition o* a 8or! is a combination
o* *eatures *or se+eral Gor *or allH !imensions o* the para!igm#
In the componential !e*inition o* the meaning o* a le.ical item the linguist
procee!s *rom e.tensional !e*inition to intensional !e*initions# hat is, starting his
anal3sis o* sa3, ;inship terms, the linguist has to !ra8 up the list o* all the terms 8ith
;inship !esignation an!, than, to speci*3 *or each o* them the set o* possible !enotata
Gthe set o* conte.tual meanings or all the allosemes o* the 8or!H#
he componential !e*inition o* a term ma3 be ta;en to be an e.pression o* its
signi*icatum# A componential !e*inition is there*ore an intensional !e*inition, 8hich
speci*ies the !istincti+e *eatures share! in common b3 all !enotata !esignate! b3 a
gi+en term#
It is a unitar3, con5uncti+e !e*inition impl3ing that all the *eatures are
simultaneousl3 present in e+er3 occurrence o* the 8or!#
-!*.!o/raph#0
1# Chi-oran, Dumitru# 1?@6# Elements of English Structural Semantics, %uc#: E!itura
Di!actic )i "e!agogic#
4# Iliescu, /# Eal!, L# 1?O1# *ingvistica modern Kn te.te# %uc#: Reprogra*ia
0ni+ersit-ii !in %ucure)ti#
6# L3ons, C# 1?@@# Semantics +ol# I, Cambri!ge: Cambri!ge 0ni+ersit3 "ress#
B# 2ulban, '# Luca-Lctu)u, # Cre-escu Qoglniceanu, C# 1?O6# ompetenL Di
performanL. E.erciLii Di teste de lim% engle&# %ucure)ti: E!# atiin-i*ic )i
Enciclope!ic#
TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION AND E6ERCISES
1# 9or each o* the *ollo8ing 8or!s tr3 to establish sets o* attributes that 8oul!
!istinguish it *rom its companions in the group :
cake, %iscuit, %read, role, %un, cracker,
BD
%oil, fry, %roil, saut#, simmer, grill, roast.
4# 9or each group o* 8or!s gi+en belo8, state 8hat semantic propert3 :-ies
!istinguish bet8een the classes o* aH an! bH 8or!s# Do aH8or!s an! bH8or!s share an3
semantic propert3 F
E.ample: aH 5ido5, mother, sister, aunt, maid
bH 5ido5er, father, %rother, uncle, valet
aH an! bH are human
aH 8or!s are female an! bH male
0- aH %achelor, man, son, pope, chief
bH %ull, rooster, drake, ram
8- aH ta%le, stone, pencil, cup, house, ship, car
cH milk, alchohol, rice, soup, mud
- aH %ook, temple, mountain, road, tractor
bH idea, love, charity, sincerity, %ravery, fear
'- aH 5alk, run, skip, 4ump, hop, s5im
bH fly, skate, ski, ride, cycle, canoe
E- aH alleged, counterfeit, false, putative, accused
bH red, large, cheerful, pretty, stupid
6# De*ine the terms seme, sememe, le.eme# <i+e e.amples#
B# Ehat is a semantic *iel!F
BK
Chapter V
LANGUAGE AS A CONCEPTUAL S 5S TEM
Language is not onl3 an instrument o* communication# It is *ar more than this -
it is the means b3 8hich 8e interpret our en+ironment, b3 8hich 8e classi*3 or
MconceptualizeM our e.periences, b3 8hich 8e are able to impose structure on realit3,
so as to use 8hat 8e ha+e obser+e! *or present an! *uture learning an! un!erstan!ing#
Leech consi!ers language, in its semantic aspect, as a conceptual system. 'ot as a
closed, rigi!, conceptual s3stem 8hich t3rannizes o+er the thought processes o* its
users, but as an open-en!e! conceptual s3stem, one 8hich Mlea;sM, in the sense that it
allo8s us to transcen! its limitations b3 +arious t3pes o* semantic creati+it3#
he *irst Nuestion 8hich arises in 8hether language is a single conceptual
s3stem, or 8hether there are as man3 conceptual s3stems as there are languages#
Although much o* present-!a3 thin;ing has ten!e! to h3pothesize a uni+ersal
conceptual *rame8or; 8hich is common to all human language, common obser+ation
sho8s that languages !i**er in the 8a3 the3 classi*3 e.perience# A classic instance o*
this is the semantics o* colour 8or!s# English Gaccor!ing to %erlin an! Qa3, 8asic
olor Terms, 1?K?H has a range o* ele+en primar3 colour terms Gblac;, 8hite, re!,
green, 3ello8, blue, bro8n, purple, pin;, orange an! gre3H, 8hereas the "hilipine
language o* 2anunbo Gaccor!ing to Con;lein, 1anunMo olour ategories, 1?DDH
ma;es !o 8ith *our#
Conceptual boun!aries o*ten +ar3 *rom language to language# Languages ha+e
a ten!enc3 to impose structure upon the real 8orl! b3 treating some !istinctions as
crucial, an! ignoring others# he 8a3 a language classi*ies things is sometimes blatantl3
man-centre!#
L!&/2!"t!' Re.at!4!"% a&) Se%a&t!' U&!4er"a."
Semantic relati+ism an! semantic uni+ersals are t8o con*licting points o* +ie8
in relation to meaning# %oth theses concern the relation bet8een the structure o*
language an! the structure o* the uni+erse# he3 represent in *act t8o !i**erent 8a3s o*
interpreting the relation bet8een the uni+erse, as e.perience! b3 man, an! language as
a tool o* e.pressing that e.perience# E+er since ancient times it has been maintaine!
B@
that the structure o* language re*lects more or less !irectl3 the structure o* the
0ni+erse as 8ell as the uni+ersal structure o* the human min! G/ounin, 1?K6: B1H#
his 8as ta;en to be a precon!ition o* interlingual communication as 8ell as o* the act
o* translation#
In terms o* 25elmsle+ian !istinction bet8een su%stance an! form o* the
content, it 8as agree! that there ma3 be !i**erent 8a3s o* segmenting substance, an!
an e+en richer +ariet3 in its *orm but the content itsel*, the 8orl! o* e.perience remains
basicall3 the same#
*inguistic relativism# he a.iomatic character o* the statement 8hich relates
the structure o* language to the structure o* the uni+erse as re*lecte! in manIs min!,
ceases to be commonl3 agree! upon 8hen one begins to consi!er the nature o* this
relationship#
Eilhelm +on 2umbol!t in the *irst hal* o* the 1?
th
centur3, an! man3
philosophers an! linguists a*ter him, assigne! language a much more acti+e role,
regar!ing it not as a passi+e carrier o* thought, but, in a +er3 !irect 8a3 as a moul!er
o* it# In their opinion, language imposes upon thought its o8n s3stem o* !istinctions,
its o8n anal3sis o* ob5ecti+e realit3# hese i!eas remaine! unhee!e! b3 linguists until
the a!+ent o* European structuralism# he ;e3 i!ea in Saussurean linguistics namel3
that language signs ha+e no meaning or M+alueM outsi!e the s3stem to 8hich the3
belonge!, *its per*ectl3 the principle o* linguistic relati+ism# rier an! particularl3
25elmsle+ consi!er that each language structures realit3 in its o8n 8a3 an! b3 !oing
so, creates an image o* realit3 8hich is not a !irect cop3 o* it# Language is the result o*
the imposition o* same *orm upon an un!erl3ing substance#
cuite in!epen!entl3, an! emerging mainl3 *rom current obser+ation in linguistic
anthropological research on Amerin!ian languages, con!ucte! b3 9r# %oas, similar
i!eas 8ere e.presse! b3 E# Sapir an! %# L# Eor* in America# Linguistic !eterminism
has come to be o*ten re*erre! to as the Sapir-(orf hypothesis# 9or Sapir G1?41H an!
Eor* G1?DKH ob5ecti+e realit3 is an un!i**erentiate! continuum 8hich is segmente! b3
each language in a !i**erent 8a3# Ee obtain a +ision o* nature, o* realit3 8hich is b3
an! large pre-!etermine! b3 our mother tongue# Each language is a +ast s3stem o*
structures, !i**erent *rom that o* others in 8hich are or!ere! culturall3 all *orms an!
categories b3 means o* 8hich the in!i+i!ual not onl3 communicates but also anal3zes
nature, grasps or neglects a gi+en phenomenon or relation, in means o* 8hich he mol!s
his manner o* thin;ing an! b3 means o* 8hich he buil!s up the entire e!i*ice o* his
BO
;no8le!ge o* the 8orl!# Eor* pro+i!e! ample e+i!ence *rom Amerin!ian languages o*
ho8 languages segment realit3 !i**erentl3 b3 neglecting aspects 8hich are emphasize!
in other languages# In Europe linguists as %en+eniste G1?DOH an! /artinet, in anal3zing
the relationship bet8een categories o* thought an! categories o* language, are
unanimous not onl3 in pointing out a basic parallelism bet8een the t8o, but also in
assigning to linguistic categories a primar3 role# he linguistic structure con!itions,
albeit in an unconscious 8a3, manIs ;no8le!ge o* the 8orl!, his spiritual an!
philosophical e.perience#
Linguistic relati+ism or !eterminism in its e.treme +ariant, 8hich maintains that
peopleIs ;no8le!ge o* the 8orl!, the categorization o* e.ternal e.perience is totall3
!etermine! b3 the structure o* language 8hich imposes its particular *orm upon it, has
been criticize!# &arious arguments can be a!+ance! against the Sapir-Eor* position#
he i!ea that language s3stems ha+e no points in common at all, an! are completel3
untranslatable is re*ute! b3 empirical e+i!ence# he *act that spea;ers o* a gi+en
language are able to learn the +ocabularies o* other language, an!, in!ee!, other
languages as a 8hole, is the best proo* o* it# Also, a single language o*ten has
alternati+e conceptualizations o* the same phenomenon: in English, *or instance,
human beings can be categorize! b3 age into Mchil!renM, Ma!olescentsM an! Ma!ultsM or
alternati+el3, into Mma5orsM an! MminorsM# 9urthermore, i* 8e !ra8 a !istinction
bet8een meaning an! re*erence, 8e can sa3 that e+en though there is no correspon!ing
concept in oneIs o8n language *or a concept in another language, one can ne+ertheless
pro+i!e a !escription o* its re*erent GLeech 1??A: 4@H# he !i**erences in en+ironment,
climate, cultural !e+elopment, etc#, among +arious linguistic communities ma3 be +er3
great, but basicall3, human societies are lin;e! b3 a common biological histor3# he
ob5ecti+e realit3 in 8hich the3 li+e is !e*initel3 not i!entical but it is b3 an! large
similar# /anIs uni+erse is basicall3 a 0ni+erse ma!e up o* things an! he is constantl3
con*ronte! 8ith them, oblige! to communicate about them, to !e*ine himsel* in
relation to them# his is basic to all human societies# &arious language s3stems are not
there*ore untranslatable#
he problem o* translatabilit3 or rather !egrees o* translatabilit3 ma3 be
!iscusse! appropriatel3 8ith re*erence to the notion o* cultural overlap# Cultures are
not linguisticall3 boun!, in other 8or!s, languages an! cultures are not co-terminous#
Linguistic boun!aries !o not coinci!e 8ith cultural ones# here is al8a3s a certain
!egree o* cultural o+erlap bet8een t8o language communities#
B?
$n the 8hole, similarities among languages are more important an! more
numerous than the !i**erences among them# hese !i**erences can be e.plaine! in
terms o* cultural !i**erences bet8een the respecti+e language communities#
Secon! language learning too seems to support this point o* +ie8# Eor!s
!enoting ob5ects, structures an! *eatures situate! in an area o* cultural o+erlap are
among the *irst to be learne!, an! 8ith no apparent !i**icult3# heir acNuisition seems
to *orm the *oun!ation on 8hich the other 8or!s in the ne8 language are acNuire! an!
integrate! into a !3namic semantic s3stem#
2niversal semantics# Interest in the stu!3 o* language meaning shi*te! *rom
8hat ;eeps languages apart to 8hat all languages are sai! to ha+e in common# he
i!ea that the meanings o* 8or!s in !i**erent languages can be anal3ze!, at least
partiall3, in terms o* a gi+en number o* conceptual atoms i!enti*icable in the anal3sis o*
the +ocabularies o* all languages has become once again a +er3 popular one 8ith
linguistics# As *or the Muni+ersalit3M o* grammar, it lies at the *oun!ation o* all linguistic
8or; pro!uce! be*ore the a!+ent o* structuralism# Linguistic an! philosophical
speculation e+er since the 1@
th
centur3 has currentl3 !ealt 8ith such problems# he
current rene8al o* interest in language uni+ersals is !ue mainl3 to generati+e grammar
8hich has al8a3s lai! emphasis on those *eatures 8hich are share! b3 all languages
ali;e#
he uni+ersalist point o* +ie8 is base! on the i!ea that language is basicall3 an
innate, or geneticall3 inherite! capabilit3, 8hich all human beings are Mprogramme!M
*rom birth to !e+elop# his implies the a!option o* the position that languages share
the same basic conceptual *rame8or;# It can be argue! that there is a uni+ersal set o*
semantic categories Gi#e# categories concerne! 8ith time, place, causation, animac3,
etc#H *rom 8hich each language !ra8s its o8n subset o* categories, an! it is onl3 in the
choice *rom this subset, an! in the permitte! combinations in 8hich the3 are e.presse!,
that languages !i**er#
The Ch!.)7" A'82!"!t!o& o$ Co&'ept2a. Cate/or!e"
2o8 !o 8e acNuire conceptual categories in chil!hoo!F here are 8i!el3
!i+ergent points o* +ie8, e.ten!ing *rom the empiricism o* those 8ho 8oul! argue that
the cogniti+e s3stem is learne! entirel3 through e.perience *rom oneIs en+ironment
G8hich inclu!es cultural con!itioningH, an! the e.treme rationalism o* those 8ho
8oul! claim that the cogniti+e *rame8or; !oes not ha+e to be learne!, as it is part o*
DA
an inherite! mental apparatus speci*ic to the human species# his polarit3 o* +ie8s is
ob+iousl3 the uni+ersalist-relati+ist contro+ers3 in a slightl3 !i**erent guise#
8o prima *acie arguments arising *rom mo!ern linguistic research *a+our the
uni+ersalist-rationalist point o* +ie8: as linguistics probes more !eepl3 an! precisel3
into the la3ers o* linguistic structure, *irstl3 it becomes more !i**icult to e.plain ho8 a
chil! learns so soon to manipulate the remar;able comple.ities o* language,
particularl3 on the semantic le+el, 8ithout ha+ing a Mhea!-startM in the *orm o* some
*airl3 speci*ic language-learning capacit3, an! secon!l3, it becomes easier to see ho8 in
a multi-la3ere! anal3sis o* language, 8i!el3 !i**erent structures in phonolog3 an!
s3nta. can be reconci!e! 8ith i!entical, or al least similar, structures on the semantic
le+el#
$n the other han!, that at least part o* concept learning runs accor!ing to
empiricist thin;ing is clear *rom the 8a3 8e obser+e 3oung chil!ren to acNuire the
conceptual categories o* their language b3 a proce!ure o* trial-an!-error# It has long
been note! that learning a concept such as McatM in+ol+es t8o complementar3
processes: G1H e.tension, i#e# e.ten!ing the name one has learne! to appl3 to same
re*erents Gcat
1
, cat
4
, cat
6
, etc#H to all ob5ects sharing certain attributes o* those re*erents
Gcat
B
, #### cat
n
H, an! G4H differentiation, i#e# restricting the re*erence o* a 8or! to ob5ects
sharing certain characteristics, but not others Ge#g# not appl3ing the term cat to !ogs,
tigers, etc#H# hese t8o processes go han! in han! in the learning o* categor3
boun!aries, but a chil! cannot learn both aspects simultaneousl3, so he ten!s either to
overe.tend Ge#g# Mi!enti*3ing M!a!!3M 8ith all menH or to undere.tend Ge#g# i!enti*3ing
MmanM 8ith all strange men 8earing hatsH#
Creat!4!t# !& La&/2a/e
Discussion *or an! against semantic uni+ersals usuall3 seems to assume that a
language *orms a static, close! conceptual s3stem, an! that once the *i.e! categories
o* the language ha+e been acNuire!, our semantic eNuipment is complete# I* this 8ere
true, it 8oul! cause us to ta;e +er3 seriousl3 the sinister i!ea that our language is a
mental strait -5ac;et, 8hich !etermines our thought processes an! our assumption
about the uni+erse#
%ut *ortunatel3 *or the human race, language is onl3 a mental strait5ac;et i* 8e
allo8 it to become one: the semantic s3stem, li;e an3 other s3stem relating to human
societ3, is continuall3 being e.ten!e! an! re+ise!# In a language, ne8 concepts are
D1
intro!uce! in large numbers !a3 b3 !a3 an! 8ee; b3 8ee;, an! in +er3 little time,
o8ing to mo!ern mass communications, become *amiliar to man3 people# he
techniNue b3 8hich the ne8 concepts are intro!uce! is le.ical inno+ation, 8hich ma3
ta;e the *orm o* neologism an! o* transfer of meaning#
Language has 8ithin itsel* anti-creati+e pressures, an! the *unction o* the
literar3 8riter, in # S# EliotIs 8or!s, is to Mpuri*3 the !ialect o* the tribeM - to restore
the currenc3 to its *ull +alue, an! to resist the natural ten!enc3 to !e+aluation# Eriters
ha+e al8a3s consi!ere! themsel+es the !etermine! enemies o* 5argon an! clichP#
$ur linguistic competence Gas Choms;3 pointe! outH is such that 8ith a *inite
number o* rules, 8e can generate an! interpret an in*inite number o* sentences# Da3 b3
!a3 8e encounter an! pro!uce sentences 8e ha+e ne+er met in our 8hole li*e be*ore#
In its semantic aspect, this creati+it3 o* linguistic resource ma3 be !emonstrate! b3 our
abilit3 to ma;e up an! ma;e sense o* con*igurations 8hich ha+e +irtuall3 a nil
probabilit3 o* occurring in !a3-to-!a3 communication# %ut in per*ormance, this
creati+e or inno+ati+e po8er inherent in our language competence is ero!e! b3 our
ten!enc3 to rel3 on 8ell-8orn paths through theoreticall3 in*inite arra3 o* possible
English utterances# hus not merel3 in!i+i!ual concepts, but con*igurations o*
concepts, become stereot3pe!, 5argon in+a!es s3nta.# he 8riter 8ho resists this
principle o* least e**ort, b3 e.ploring ne8 path8a3s an! ta;ing no meaning *or grante!,
is in a real sense Mcreati+eM#
here is an important notion o* linguistic creati+it3 8hich applies pre-eminentl3
to poetr3: one 8hich amounts to actuall3 brea;ing through the conceptual bon!s 8ith
8hich language constrains us# I* one o* the ma5or roles o* language is to re!uce
e.perience to or!er, to Mprepac;ageM it *or us, then the poet is the person 8ho unties
the string# It is in this conte.t that the MirrationalM or McounterlogicalM character o*
poetr3 becomes e.plicable#
A +er3 simple e.ample o* poetic irrationalit3 in the Latin poet Catullus7 *amous
para!o. Odi et amoN MI hate an! I lo+eM# he t8o-+alue! orientation o* language
ma;es us to see lo+e an! hate as mutuall3 e.clusi+e categories# %ut the poet, b3
presenting a seeming absur!it3, shoc;s his rea!er into rearranging his categories, the
stereot3pe! concept o* lo+e an! hate as contrasting emotions is !estro3e!# A ;in! o*
conceptual *ission an! *usion ta;es place#
he Nualit3 5ust obser+e! in poetic para!o. is also present in metaphor - a
more per+asi+e an! important semantic *eature o* poetr3# Again, the mechanism can be
D4
!emonstrate! b3 a +er3 simple e.ample# In an Anglo-Sa.on poem, the e.pression
mere-hengest GMsea-stee!MH is use! as a metaphor *or MshipM# he connection bet8een
steed an! ship lies in common connotations: both horses an! ships con+e3 men *rom
one place to another, both are use! Gin the heroic conte.t o* the poemH *or
a!+enturous 5ourne3s an! *or 8ar*are, both carr3 their ri!ers 8ith an up-an!-!o8n
mo+ement# %3 presenting the t8o concepts simultaneousl3, as superimpose! images,
the poet !issol+es those linguisticall3 crucial criteria 8hich !e*ines their separateness:
the *act that a horse is animate 8hereas a ship is not, an! the *act that a horse mo+es
o+er lan!, 8hereas a ship mo+es o+er 8ater# /etaphor is, actuall3, a conceptual
reorganization# hrough its po8er o* realigning conceptual boun!aries, metaphor can
achie+e a communicati+e e**ect 8hich in a sense is Mbe3on! languageM# It has a
liberating e**ect# As a chie* instrument o* the poetIs imagination, metaphor is the means
b3 8hich he ta;es his re+enge on language *or the Mstereot3pe! i!easM 8hich ha+e
Mpre+aile! o+er the truthM# G<# Leech 1??A: 6OH# It is not surprising that chil!renIs
language pro!uces man3 instances o* semantic Mmista;esM 8hich stri;e the a!ult as
poetic# <# Leech ga+e t8o o* such instances: a chil!Is !escription o* a +ia!uct as a
5indo5-%ridge an! o* the moon as that shilling in the sky, both base!, signi*icantl3, on
+isual analog3# he 8in!o8-bri!ge e.ample is +er3 similar to the mere-hengest o* the
Anglo-Sa.on poet: the openings in a +ia!uct, 8hen seen si!e on, are in!ee! +er3 close
in appearance an! construction to the 8in!o8 openings o* a house# 0sing this
generalizing abilit3, the chil! hits on ph3sical appearance as a crucial criterion, at the
e.pense o* the criterion o* *unction, 8hich the language regar!s as more important#
he !i**erence bet8een the t8o cases, o* course, is that 8hile the poet is *amiliar 8ith
the institutional categories an! is a8are o* his !eparture *rom them, the chil! is not#
Co&'.2"!o&"
ME.cept *or the imme!iate satis*action o* biological nee!s, man li+es in a 8orl!
not o* things but o* s3mbolsM G+eneral Systems Theory, p# 4BDH# his statement b3
Lu!8ig +on %ertalan**3 is close enough to the truth to 5usti*3 the concentration on the
8a3 language both !etermines an! re*lects our un!erstan!ing o* the 8orl! 8e li+e in#
hin;ing o* a language as pro+i!ing its users 8ith a s3stem o* conceptual
categories, 8e ma3 conclu!e:
D6
1# hat the concepts +ar3 *rom language to language, an! are sometimes
arbitrar3 in the sense that the3 impose a structure 8hich is not necessaril3 inherent in
the !ata o* e.perience#
4# hat it is a matter *or !ebate ho8 *or concepts +ar3 *rom language to
language, an! ho8 *ar it is possible to postulate semantic uni+ersals common to all
human language#
6# hat although the conceptual s3stem o* a language pre!isposes its users
to8ar!s certain !istinctions rather than others, the e.tent to 8hich more is Mensla+e!M
b3 his language in this respect is mitigate! b3 +arious *orces o* creati+it3 inherent in
the s3stem itsel*#
-!*.!o/raph#0
1# Chi-oran, D# 1?@6# Elements of English Structural Semantics# %uc#: E!# Di!actic
)i "e!agogic#
4# Leech, <# 1??A# Semantics. The Study of Meaning# Lon!on: "enguin %oo;s#
TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION
Comment on the t8o !i**erent conceptions in semantics relati+ism an!
uni+ersalism#
Chapter VI
SEMANTIC RELATIONS AND LE6ICAL CATEGORIES
9# !e Saussure !irecte! the linguists7 attention to the necessit3 o* stu!3ing the
multiple relationships among 8or!s in a s3stematic 8a3# A particular le.eme ma3 be
simultaneousl3 in a number o* such relations, so the le.icon must be thought as a
net8or; rather than a listing o* 8or!s# 2e suggeste! the e.istence o* a net8or; o*
associati+e *iel!s, co+ering the entire +ocabular3, an! this structuring the huge mass o*
8or!s# So an important organizational principle in the le.icon is the le.ical *iel!# his
represents a group o* 8or!s 8hich belong to a particular acti+it3 or area o* specialize!
DB
;no8le!ge, such as terms in coo;ing, sailing, the +ocabular3 o* !octors, coal miners or
mountain climbers# he e**ects are the use o* !i**erent senses *or a 8or! an! also the
use o* specialize! terms# In *act, each 8or! is a center o* a Uconstellation7 or Useries o*
constellations7, the point to8ar!s 8hich other terms associate! 8ith it con+erge#
Saussure establishe! *our ma5or t3pes o* associations among le.ical items:
- et3mological- base! on resemblances in *orm an! meaning,
- !eri+ational- base! on i!entit3 o* a**i.es,
- semantic- base! on meaning relations, *ormal- base! on acci!ental *orm
resemblances#
he t3pes o* associations liste! abo+e are illustrate! b3 D# Chi-oran consi!ering the
e.ample o* the 9rench 8or! enseignement.
Enseignement
Enseigner apprentisage changement clement
Enseignons education armement
4ustement
"rogress in semantics 8as !ue mainl3 to le.icographic practice, 8hich
continue! to bring together *acts about meaning# "articular attention 8as pai! to
changes in the meaning o* 8or!s# ra!itional le.icolog3 !eals 8ith t3pes o* le.ical
relations establishe! consi!ering !istinctions similar to those belonging to Saussure7s
conception:
- semantic ties - base! on the signi*ication o* 8or!s, such ties result in
s3non3mic an! anton3mic series o* 8or!s,
- morpho-semantic ties obtaining among le.ical items !eri+e! *rom a
common basic element, the3 result in 8or! *amilies,
- s3ntagmatic ties obtaining among le.ical items as the3 occur in actual
utterance, s3ntagmatic ties ma3 be !i+i!e! into $ree - relations among sit an! chair3
ta%le3 do5n etc#- an! "tereot#pe V relations among le.ical items part o* set i!ioms an!
phrases, as a matter of fact, as mad as a hatter, day and night, etc#-,
- phonetic ties base! on similarities o* phonic substance, the *irst t8o
e.amples represent minimal pairs, i# e# 8or!s 8hich !i**er in 5ust one phoneme, an! the
ne.t t8o e.amples are 8or!s 8hich present a common grammatical mar;er, in this
case, that *or the past participle
DD
might - night flo5n- sho5n
to5n - do5n caught- taught.
hese t3pes o* relations can be interprete! in terms o* the !istinction bet8een
e.pression- signi*iant- an! content- signi*ie-, as the inter!epen!ent planes o* a
linguistic sign# here are:
- *ormal or phonological relations establishe! bet8een the signi*iants, i# e# the
e.pression planes o* linguistic signs, the3 account *or homon3m3,
- the relation o* the t3pe one signi*iant- +arious signi*ies ser+es the
!esignation o* pol3sem3,
- the relation one signi*ie- +arious signi*iants e.presses s3non3m3,
- relations bet8een +arious contents o* linguistic signs#
E# Co)eriu pointe! out that semantic relations shoul! be signi*ication relations,
rather than relations bet8een signs# $nl3 in this 8a3 semantic structures can be
!istinguishe! *rom simple associati+e *iel!s 8hich are base! on similarit3 relations
bet8een linguistic signs both on the e.pression an! on the content le+el# he primar3
tas; o* linguistics is to stu!3 the relational net8or; encompassing the elements o*
language# he linguistic relational *rame8or; is structure! along t8o a.es, the
s3ntagmatic an! the para!igmatic a.is# he linguistic elements situate! on the
s3ntagmatic a.is *in! themsel+es in a %othOand ;in! o* relationship, i# e# the3 coe.ist
8ithin the same linguistic chain# he3 are in contrast position , A# /artinetH#he
s3ntagmatic relations are !irectl3 obser+able in the spo;en: 8ritten chain# $n the
para!igmatic a.is, the linguistic elements are mutuall3 e.clusi+e 8ithin one an! the
same linguistic seNuence# he3 are in eitherOor relationship, in opposition GA#
/artinetH# hese relations are not obser+able 8ithin a linguistic chain#

A. Para)!/%at!' Re.at!o&"
1# he primar3 semantic relation on the para!igmatic a.is is that o*
!&'o%pat!*!.!t#, a relation 8hich is characteristic o* all le.ical elements base! on the
substitution o* items:
e# g# I had tea at %reakfast.
I had coffee/cocoa9milk$
DK
"art o* the meaning o* a term belonging to a le.ical set is its compatibilit3 8ith
all the other members o* the same le.ical set in a gi+en conte.t# he 8i!er concept o*
meaning incompatibilit3 inclu!es !istinct t3pes o* oppositeness o* meaning, each o*
them being !esignate! b3 a separate term GC# L3onsH#
a# omplementarity is a t3pe o* anton3mic relation base! on binar3 oppositions 8hich
!o not allo8 *or gra!ations bet8een the e.treme poles o* a semantic a.is, the3 are
t8o- term sets o* incompatible terms# &ali!it3 o* one term implies !enial o* the other:
e# g# single - married
male - female
alive - dead.
b# 0ntonymy# he term is use! to !esignate those meaning oppositions 8hich a!mit
certain gra!ations 8ith regar! to the meaning e.presse!:
e# g# young- oldJ
young.........childish34uvenil.............adolescent.............young.........mature.........middl
e........... aged...........old.......ancient.........
small- largeJ
....microscopic....tiny....little....small.....%ig3large.....spacious.....immense....
%eautiful - uglyJ
.....splendid.......5onderful....%eautiful.....attractive.....handsome.....good-looking.......
pretty.....nice....pleasant....accepta%le......common.....ordinary.....plain...
unattractive....ugly....horri%le...a5ful....frightening....spooky....terrifying
clever - stupidJ
interesting - %oringJ
fast - slo5.
c. "eversi%ility re*ers to t8o terms 8hich presuppose one another:
give- takeJ %orro5- lendJ %uy- sellJ hus%and- 5ifeJ offer- accept3refuseJ employer-
employee. his t3pe o* binar3 opposition, a relation, in+ol+es a contrast of
direction#
he relation can be realize! b3 ;eeping the same le.ical item an! re+ersing the
s3ntactic positions o* the arguments:
e# g# :ohn is the parent of :ames.
:ames is the parent of :ohn.
or b3 ;eeping the s3ntactic positions o* the arguments constant an! changing the
le.ical *orm:
D@
e# g# :ohn is the parent of :ames.
:ohn is the child of :ames.
Le.ical pairs such as parent an! child are calle! converses. %ecause o* the alternati+e
8a3s o* e.pressing the same contrast, there arise cases o* s3non3m3,
:ohn is the parent of :ames P :ames is the child of :ohn.
In case o* Uparenthoo!7 relation, the !irectional contrast is mutually e.clusive, so there
is an asymmetric relation.
0lf is parent of +eorge. is incompatible 8ith +eorge is parent of 0lf.
An e.ample o* s3mmetric relation is :ohn is married to Susan. 8hich entails Susan is
married to :ohn. In this case 8e tal; about reciprocal relation.
!# Less common t3pes o* semantic opposition inclu!e hierarchic oppositions, 8hich
are multiple ta.onomies, e.cept that the3 inclu!e an element o* or!ering# E.amples
are sets o* units o* measurement- inch3 foot3 yard- , calen!ar units- month of the
year- or the hierarch3 o* numbers 8hich is an open- en!e!, that is it has no
Uhighest7 term# he days of the 5eek opposition is a c3clic t3pe o* hierarch3,
because it has no *irst: last member#
e# Last but not least, there is an interesting t3pe o* binar3 semantic contrast, calle!
inverse oppositionN
e# g# all - some 5illing- insist
possi%le - necessary still- already
allo5 - compel remain- %ecome.
he main logical test *or an in+erse opposition is 8hether it obe3s a special rule o*
s3non3m3 8hich in+ol+es substituting one in+erse term *or another an! changing the
position o* the a negati+e term in relation to the in+erse term
e# g# Some countries have no coastline. P *ot all countries have a coastline.
All of us are non+ smokers. P *ot an% of us are smokers.
(e 5ere compelled to %e non- smokers. P (e 5ere not allo5ed to %e smokers.
It is possi!l% true that :ack is a hippy. P It is not necessaril% true that :ack is a
hippy.
4# Another t3pe o* para!igmatic relation is synonymy. here are 8or!s 8hich
soun! !i**erent, but ha+e the same or nearl3 the same meaning# here is a ten!enc3 to
limit s3non3mic status to those elements, 8hich gi+en the i!entit3 o* their re*erential,
can be use! *reel3 in a gi+en conte.t# here are no per*ect s3non3ms, since no t8o
elements can be use! 8ith the same statistic probabilit3 in absolutel3 all conte.ts in
DO
8hich an3 o* them can appear# S3non3m3 is al8a3s relate! to conte.t# 8o le.ical
items are perfectly synonymous in a gi+en conte.t or in se+eral conte.ts, but ne+er in
all conte.ts# he term use! to !escribe this is relative synonymy# Conte.t, that is the
position on the s3ntagmatic a.is, is essential *or s3non3m3#
e# g# deep 5ater Qdeep idea
profound idea Qprofound 5ater
deep 3 profound sleepJ deep 3 profound thought.
Ee can notice that the !istinction concrete: abstract is not rele+ant here, since
8or!s li;e idea an! thought, both abstract, beha+e !i**erentl3 in relation to the pair o*
relati+e s3non3ms deep an! profound# al;ing about the terms use! in !escribing
s3non3m3, it is necessar3 at this point to present L3ons7 classi*ication o* s3non3ms into:
- a%solute synonymsJ
- partial synonymsJ
- near synonyms.
Absolute s3non3ms shoul! be fully, totally an! completely s3non3mous#
i. S3non3ms are *ull3 s3non3mous i*, an! onl3 i*, all their meanings are
identical ,
ii. s3non3ms are totall3 s3non3ms i* an! onl3 i* the3 are s3non3mous in all
conte.tsJ
iii. s3non3ms are completel3 s3non3mous i* an! onl3 i* the3 are i!entical on all
relevant dimensions of meaning.
Absolute s3non3ms shoul! satis*3 all the three criteria abo+e, 8hereas partial
s3non3ms shoul! satis*3 at least one criterion GL3ons, 1?O1: DA-D1H#
D# A# Cruse G1?O@: 4?4H comments on L3ons7 classi*ication, arguing that identical an!
synonymous are to be un!erstoo! as completely synonymous, secon!l3, near-
synonyms Umore or less similar, but not i!entical in meaning7 Nuali*3 as incomplete
s3non3ms, an! there*ore as partial synonyms, so the !istinction bet8een the t8o
classes is not so clear as L3ons claims# Re*erring to absolute s3non3ms in language,
Cruse states that there is no real moti+ation *or their e.istence, an! i* the3 !o e.ist, in
time one o* them 8oul! become obsolete, or 8oul! !e+elop a !i**erence in semantic
*unction# 9or e.ample, sofa an! settee are absolute s3non3ms, but at a certain point in
time sofa ha! the *eature :elegant:, 8hich no8 seems to ha+e !isappeare! *rom the
conscience o* the spea;ers 8ho use the t8o terms in *ree +ariation# %ut accor!ing to
D?
Cruse, this state o* a**airs 8oul! not persist, since it is against the ten!enc3 to8ar!s
econom3 mani*est in an3 language#
E.amples li;e sofa an! couch re*er to the same t3pe o* ob5ect, an! share most o*
their semantic properties-: piece o* *urniture: : use! *or sitting: :8ith arms: : bac;e!: :
upholstere!:-, so the3 can be consi!ere! s3non3mous# here are 8or!s that are neither
s3non3ms nor near s3non3ms, 3et the3 ha+e man3 semantic properties in common# 9or
e.ample, man an! %oy impl3 :\male: :\human: *eatures, but %oy inclu!es the propert3
:\3outh:, so it !i**ers in meaning *rom man. he Nuestion to be as;e! is ho8 to
!etermine all rele+ant !imensions o* meaning in or!er to establish the t3pe o*
s3non3m3 8e are !ealing 8ith# Cruse !ra8s a !istinction bet8een su%ordinate
semantic traits an! capital traits. Subor!inate traits are those 8hich ha+e a role 8ithin
the meaning o* a 8or! analogous to that o* a mo!i*ier in a s3ntactic construction Ge# g#
red in a red hatH#9or instance, :8al;: is the capital trait o* stroll, :goo! loo;ing: o*
pretty an! handsome. 9or nag , :8orthless: is a subor!inate trait#
Sometimes 8or!s that are or!inaril3 opposites can mean the same thing in a
certain conte.t, a good scare P a %ad scare. he apparent s3non3m3 o* t8o utterances
that contain a pair o* anton3ms hi!es opposite or at least !i**erent connotations#
e## g# 1o5 old are youR - neutral connotation, inNuir3 about
someone7s age
1o5 young are youR Sou shouldn6t smoke. -negati+e connotation, it7s
ob+ious 3ou are too 3oung to !o that,
I don6t kno5 ho5 %ig his house is. - neutral
I don6t kno5 ho5 small his house is. -negati+e connotation, I ;no8 that it is
too small
E+en 8hen using s3non3ms this implies not onl3 a high !egree o* semantic
o+erlap, but also a lo8 !egree o* implicit contrasti+eness,
e# g# 1e 5as murdered, or rather3 more e.actly, e.ecuted.
1e 5as cashiered, that is to say, dismissed.- the s3non3m is use! as an
e.planation *or another 8or!#
S3non3m3 !epen!s largel3 on other *actors such as:
- register use!, 5ife XneutralY, spouse X*ormal, legal termY, old lady Xhighl3
in*ormalY,
- collocation, %ig trou%le Qlarge trou%leJ
KA
- connotation, notorious Xnegati+eY, famous Xpositi+eY, immature Xnegati+eY,
young Xpositi+eY#
- !ialectal +ariations, 8hich ma3 be geographical ,- lift G%ritish EnglishH,
elevator GAmerican EnglishH-, temporal,- 5ireless became radio, -, an! last but not
least, social - toilet replace! lavatory, settee became sofa-,though the last t8o
subt3pes o* +ariations cannot be al8a3s separate!, GCruse, 1?O@: 4O4-4O6H
- morpho- s3ntactic beha+ior,
e# g# 1e %egan3 started his speech 5ith a $uotation.
Tom tried to start3 Q%egin his car.
0t the %eginning3 Qstart of the 5orldO
All the e.amples abo+e re*er to le.ical s3non3m3, but there are also
grammatical synonyms, operating at the le+el o* morpholog3, means o* e.pressing
*uturit3, possibilit3, etc#
e# g# 1e 5ill go 3 is going 3 is to go tomorro5.
1e can3 may visit us ne.t 5eek if the 5eather is fine.
6# 1yponymy. Another t3pe o* para!igmatic relation is hyponymy 3 inclusion. It
implies as a rule multiple ta.onomies, a series o* h3po-or!inate : subor!inate terms
being inclu!e! in the area o* a h3per-or!inate: super-or!inate term# his relationship
e.ists bet8een t8o meanings i* one componential *ormula contains all the *eatures
present in the other *ormula# (oman contains the *eatures :\human:, :\a!ult:,
:-male:#In !i**erent conte.ts, the emphasis is on one o* the *eatures inclu!e! in the
meaning o* 5omanN
e# g# Stop treating me like a child. I6m a 5oman XW gro8n- upY
She is a 5oman XW human beingY, not an o%4ect.
She is a 5oman X W *emaleY , so she 5ouldn6t kno5 5hat a man feels like in
such a situation.
$ne 8a3 to !escribe h3pon3m3 is in terms o* genus an! differentia. Ee can
!iscuss about meaning inclusion, that is all the *eatures o* adult are inclu!e! in
5oman, an! about reference inclusion, that is all the ob5ects !enote! b3 5oman are
inclu!e! into the larger categor3 !enote! b3 adult.
Sometimes 8e can7t ha+e a super-or!inate term e.presse! 5ust b3 one 8or!:
musical instrument
clarinet guitar piano trumpet violin drums
K1
-. S#&ta/%at!' Re.at!o&".
Relations o* the t3pe %othOandO are *un!amental in structuring our
utterances# he connection bet8een para!igmatic an! s3ntagmatic relations
appears ob+ious, since in choosing a certain term *rom a s3non3mic series, 8e
must ta;e into account selectional restrictions# A particular t3pe o* arbitrar3 co-
occurrence restrictions are collocational restrictionsN
e# g# 0nn3 The cat3 The plant died.
0nn3 QThe cat3 QThe plant kicked the %ucket.
Collocational restrictions +ar3 in the !egree to 8hich the3 can be speci*ie! in terms o*
reNuire! semantic traits# Ehen *ull3 speci*iable, the3 ma3 be !escribe! as systematic
collocational restrictionsN
e# g# !ass a5ay 3animate: an! kick the %ucket :human:
+rill :meat: an! toast 3brea!:
Ehen there are e.ceptions to the general ten!enc3 in collocating, 8e ma3 spea; o*
semi- systematic collocational restrictionsN
e. g. ustomer 3acNuir3 o* something material in e.change *or mone3:
lient 3acNuir3 o* a certain t3pe o* ser+ice:, but a client o* a ban; is
calle! customer, too#
he collocational ranges o* some le.ical items can onl3 be !scribe! b3
listing permissible collocants# Such items 8ill be !escribe! as ha+ing idiosyncratic
collocational restrictions. GCruse,1?O@: 4O1H
unblemishe! spotless *la8less immaculate impeccable
per*ormance - - \ \ \
argument - - \ - F
comple.ion F F \ - -
beha+ior - - - - \
;itchen - \ - \ -
he table abo+e represents Cruse7s o8n intuitions# 'o semantic moti+ation can be
!iscerne! *or the collocational patterns# It is !ebatable 8hether i!ios3ncratic
restrictions are a matter o* semantics at all#
%ibliograph3:
1# Chi-oran, D#1?@6# Elements of English Structural Semantics, %ucure)ti: E#D#"#
4# Cruse, D#1?O@# *e.ical Semantics,Cambri!ge: C0"#
6# Leech, <#1??A# Semantics, Lon!on: "enguin %oo;s#
B# L3ons, C#1?@@# Semantics, Cambri!ge: C0"#
K4
:2e"t!o&" a&) e3er'!"e"
1# Discuss the t3pes o* opposition relation#
4# Illustrate ho8 +arious linguistic an! e.tra- linguistic *actors in*luence s3non3m3#
6# /atch the appropriate a!5ecti+es 8ith the nouns to sho8 ho8 collocation 8or;s#
calculated retirement
deli%erate risk
voluntary 4udgement
premeditated mistake
considered murder
e.press ignorance
5ilful 5ish.
B# Conte.t is essential in choosing *rom a pair o* s3non3ms# hin; o* conte.ts in
8hich the *ollo8ing pairs o* 8or!s cannot be interchange!:
hurry3 hasten pavement3 side5alk
consider3 regard e.it3 5ay out
in4ure3 damage spud3 potato
confess3 admit.
D# S3non3m3 an! anton3m3 are associate! 8hen arranging 8or!s e.pressing
!i**erent !egrees o* the same Nualit3: concept# he result is a cline3 scale# r3 to
arrange the *ollo8ing 8or!s accor!ing to their intensit3:
a# immense, %ig, enormous, large, gigantic, spacious, colossal, e.tensiveJ
b# little, tiny, microscopic, small, minute, infinitesimal, diminutiveJ
c# distinguished, famous, 5ell- kno5n, illustrious, reno5nedJ
!# mansion, castle, cottage, hut, house, palace, ca%in.
K# A 8or! can ha+e !i**erent opposites in !i**erent conte.ts, 8hich are the3 in case
o*:
*ight bag: 8in!: colors,
"ough sea: te.ture: area: person: calculation,
1igh mar;s: opinion: buil!ing: price: temperature: 8in!,
1ard e.am: chair: 5ourne3: 8or;: person: !rugs#
@# Construct h3pon3m3 trees *or vehicle, tomato, %ench. hen complete !iagrams
li;e the *ollo8ing:
+ehicle: *eature po8ere! carries people *our- 8heele!
bus \ \ \
K6
car d d d

Chapter VII
SEMANTIC TEOR5 ;ITIN TE FRAME;OR< OF
GENERATIVE=TRANSFORMATIONAL GRAMMAR
he !e+elopment o* generati+e-trans*ormational grammar beginning 8ith the
late *i*ties o* the 4A
th
centur3 has brought about a strong re+i+al o* interest in
semantics# "articular mention shoul! be ma!e o* the !istinction postulate! b3
generati+e grammar bet8een !eep structure an! sur*ace structure 8hich is in man3
8a3s responsible *or the recent !e+elopments in the stu!3 o* language meaning#
<enerati+e-trans*ormational grammar resumes man3 o* the concerns o*
tra!itional semantics# hus, accor!ing to the theor3, semantics shoul! inclu!e an
anal3sis o* the 8a3 in 8hich 8or!s an! sentences are relate! to ob5ects an! processes
in realit3 reintro!ucing into the !iscussion the problems o* re*erence, !enotation etc#
Its secon! concern shoul! be an anal3sis o* the manner in 8hich 8or!s an! sentences
are relate! to one another# hese inclu!e an account o* s3non3m3, anton3m3
entailment, contra!iction, paraphrase, implication, presupposition, etc#
1. Se%a&t!'" !& the Sta&)ar) Ge&erat!4e Theor# o$ La&/2a/e
A grammar o* language can be !escribe! as a s3stem o* rules that e.press the
correspon!ence bet8een soun! an! meaning in the respecti+e language# E+er3 spea;er
possesses a *inite an! relati+el3 small set o* simple rules, 8hich enable the spea;er to
pro!uce an! the listener to un!erstan! an in*inite number o* sentences# he set o* rules
represents - in the Choms;3an terminolog3 - the linguistic competence, 8hile the
utterances pro!uce! on their basis constitute the linguistic performance#
KB
<enerati+e grammars are thus, s3nthetic mo!els, able to generate all 8ell-
*orme! sentences in a language# %3 Ms3ntheticM it is meant that starting *rom a set o*
rules arrange! in a *ormalize! construction, s3nthetic mo!els lea! *inall3 to a set o*
utterances# <## is *irst o* all, a mo!el o* competence, being-concei+e! as a mo!el o*
language acNuisition#
he rules are mainl3 o* t8o ;in!s: re5riting rules an! transformational rules#
hese rules are applie! to s3mbols 8hich ma;e up the +ocabular3 o* grammar#
Semantics 8ill be concentrate on le.ical categories an! *ormati+es
Gcorrespon!ing to 8or!s or *ull-le.ical meaning or content 8or!sH#
The or/a&!>at!o& o$ a /e&erat!4e /ra%%ar. <enerati+e trans*ormational
grammar is !e*ine! in terms o* 6 components: s3ntactic, semantic an! phonological#
In the stan!ar! theor3, the s3ntactic component in the most important one# It
generates both the !eep structure - 8hich is semanticall3 interprete! b3 the semantic
component - an! the sur*ace structure 8hich is *urther relate! to the soun! aspect o*
language b3 means o* the phonological component# Ehile the semantic an! the
phonological components are purel3 interpretati+e, the s3ntactic component is basic to
grammar since it represents the generati+e source o* the grammar#
he s3ntactic component consists o* a %ase s3ntactic subcomponent an! a set
o* trans*ormations, i#e# it has t8o ;in!s o* rules: 5riting rules or phrase-structure rules
an! transformational rules# he *irst speci*3 the *orm o* constituent structure trees,
an! the secon! con+ert one ;in! o* tree-structure into another Ge#g# an acti+e structure
into a passi+e oneH# rans*ormations are rules that act on the phrase mar;ers generate!
b3 the base, mapping !eep structures onto the sur*ace structures o* sentences#
In the earliest publishe! +ersion o* trans*ormational grammar - Choms;3Is
Syntactic Structures G1?D@H - meaning 8as in e**ect ignore!# It 8as assume! that
s3ntactic rules operate! in complete in!epen!ence *rom meaning: their *unction 8as to
MgenerateM or speci*3 b3 rule the grammatical sentences o* a language, an! to assign to
these sentences their correct structure# In *act, man3 o* the trans*ormational rules, such
as that 8hich con+erte! an acti+e sentence structure into a passi+e sentence structure,
happene! in general to preser+e the meaning o* sentences unaltere! Gan! there*ore to
be rules o* paraphraseH, but this 8as consi!ere! an irrele+ant si!e-e**ect o* such rules#
2o8e+er, a*ter a pioneering article on semantics b3 Qatz an! 9o!or GMhe Structure o*
a Semantic heor3M, 1?K6H, trans*ormational grammar 8ent through a perio! o*
KD
conce!ing to semantics a more an! more important position in linguistic theor3# GLeech
1??A: 6B6H
S'ope a&) o*+e't o$ a "e%a&t!' theor# !& /e&erat!4e=tra&"$or%at!o&a.
/ra%%ar# A semantic theor3 !escribes an! e.plains the interpretati+e competence o*
the spea;er# his abilit3 implies that a spea;er can interpret sentences in the sense that
he can relate them appropriatel3 to Mstates, processes an! ob5ects in the uni+erseM
G%ier8isch 1?@1: 1K@H#
A spea;er can un!erstan! an in*inite number o* sentences, some o* 8hich he
has ne+er hear! be*ore# his is because he ;no8s a number o* rules on 8hose basis he
can generate an in*inite number o* sentences# he rules are sai! to pro5ect a *inite set or
rules on an in*inite set o* sentences GQatz an! 9o!or, 1?KK: BO1H# he problem o*
*ormulating such rules represent the pro5ection problem#
his problem reNuires *or its solution rules 8hich pro5ect the in*inite set o*
sentences in a 8a3 8hich mirrors the 8a3 spea;ers un!erstan! no+el sentences# In
encountering a no+el sentence, the spea;er is not encountering ne8 elements but onl3
a no+el combination o* *amiliar elements# Since the set o* sentences is in*inite an! each
sentence is a !i**erent concatenation o* morphems, the *act that a spea;er can
un!erstan! an3 sentence must mean that the 8a3 he un!erstan!s sentences he has
ne+er pre+iousl3 encountere! is compositional, i#e# it is base! on his ;no8le!ge o* the
grammatical properties an! the meaning o* the morphems o* the language# he rules
the spea;er ;no8s enable him to !etermine the meaning o* a no+el sentence, b3
*ollo8ing the manner in 8hich the parts o* the sentence are compose! to *orm 8holes#
As an3 spea;er is able to grasp the !i**erence in meaning bet8een an3 t8o s3ntacticall3
similar strings, this abilit3 *alling un!er the scope o* semantic theor3, it *ollo8s that the
pro5ection problem is *ull3 sol+e! onl3 in as much as the grammar is supplemente! b3 a
semantic theor3#
he aims an! ob5ecti+es o* a semantic theor3 as part o* the trans*ormational-
generati+e theor3 o* language are:
aH to establish the meaning an! the !egree o* ambiguit3 o* a sentence,
bH to !etect semantic anomalies,
cH to state the paraphrase relation bet8een sentences,
!H to state other rele+ant semantic properties o* sentences#
hese ob5ecti+es are sel*-e+i!ent *or the inno+ati+e character o* this semantic
theor3 as compare! to more tra!itional ones# Ehile semanticists in the past 8ere
KK
mainl3 concerne! 8ith the anal3sis o* meaning Gusuall3 o* isolate! elementsH, the
change in the e+olution o* meaning etc#, the interest is no8 s8itche! to the anal3sis o*
the meaning o* sentences, an! o* their semantic properties# GChitoran, 1?@6: 1@4H#
The "e%a&t!' 'o%po&e&t o$ /e&erat!4e=tra&"$or%at!o&a. /ra%%ar. he
semantic component o* a linguistic !escription is a pro5ecti+e !e+ice consisting o*:
1H a !ictionar3 that pro+i!es a meaning *or each o* the le.ical items o* the
language,
4H a *inite set o* pro5ection rules 8hich assign a semantic interpretation to
8hich string o* *ormati+es Gor string o* 8or!sH generate! b3 the s3ntactic component#
o arri+e at a semantic interpretation it is necessar3 *or each le.ical item in a string o*
*ormati+es to be assigne! a meaning on the basis o* the semantic in*ormation pro+i!e!
b3 the !ictionar3#
he pro5ection rules then combine these meanings in a manner !ictate! b3 the
s3ntactic !escription o* the string to arri+e at a characterization o* the meaning o* the
8hole string an! o* each o* its constituents# his process reconstructs the 8a3 in 8hich
a spea;er is able to obtain the meaning o* a sentence *rom the meaning o* its le.ical
items an! its s3ntactic structure#
he !ictionar3 part o* the semantic component o**ers in*ormation on a le.ical
entr3 8hich is anal3ze! at *our !istinct le+els#
At the *irst le+el, each le.ical entr3 is categorize! grammaticall3 b3 in!icating
its syntactic marker, i#e# the grammatical class to 8hich it belongs Gnoun, a!5ecti+e,
transiti+e, etc#H# he semantic in*ormation proper, i#e# the speci*ication o* the meaning
or meanings o* the respecti+e item is gi+en un!er the *orm o* semantic markers Gas
semantic categories o* the t3pe: Animate, 2uman, /ale, etc#, 8hich in!icate the
semantic relations obtaining among +arious le.ical units an! appearing there*ore in the
!escription o* man3 o* themH an! distinguishers, 8hich re*lect the i!ios3ncretic
elements in the meaning o* le.ical items#
Semantic mar;ers an! !istinguishers are the trans*ormational analogues o*
semes in the structural semantics Gthe *irst are similar to classemes an! the secon! to
semantemesH# he !istinction bet8een semantic mar;ers an! !istinguishers consists in
the *act that semantic mar;ers are use! in the semantic !escription o* more *ormati+es
G8or!sH, 8hile !istinguishers occur onl3 in the !escription o* a certain *ormati+e,
in!i+i!ualizing it# 9or e.ample in the case o* the *ormati+e mammal the semantic
mar;er is G\AnimateH an! the !istinguisher is Xthe3 *ee! the 3oung 8ith their o8n
K@
mil;Y# he *irst can appear in the !escription o* man3 *ormati+es: mammal, fish, %ird
an! the secon! is applie! onl3 to mammal# GE# Ionescu 1??4: 1?4H#
he *ourth t3pe o* in*ormation pro+i!e! b3 the !ictionar3 re*ers to the
combinatorial abilities o* le.ical items in a gi+en s3ntactic construction to ren!er a
!e*inite meaning# hese rules o* the combination o* items in or!er to ren!er a gi+en
meaning ta;e the *orm o* selectional restrictions in the !ictionar3 suggeste! b3 Qatz
an! 9o!or# hus, handy means clever 5ith the hands 8hen sai! o* persons, an! easy to
use, convenient to handle 8hen use! o* things an! places#
he s3ntactic mar;er o* an item is in!icate! b3 the grammatical terms !enoting
it, semantic mar;ers are enclose! bet8een normal brac;ets G###H, !istinguishers are
enclose! bet8een sNuare brac;ets X###Y an! selectional restrictions are gi+en bet8een
angles <###>#
he secon! constituent o* the theor3 is represente! b3 the pro4ection rules
GamalgamationH, 8hose ob5ect is to account *or the semantic relations among
morphems an! the interraction bet8een meaning an! s3ntactic structure# "ro5ection
rules are ultimatel3 responsible *or assigning a semantic interpretation to a sentence#
his the3 !o in the *irst place b3 associating to the le.ical items o* a gi+en
sentence S, those rea!ings 8hich are compatible 8ith their s3ntactic categorization as
re+eale! b3 the phrase mar;er o* the respecti+e S GQatz an! "ostal 1?KB: 1OH# he ne.t
operation that pro5ection rules per*orm is to combine the rea!ings o* in*erior
constituents into !eri+e! rea!ings o* successi+el3 higher constituents until the rea!ings
*or the 8hole sentence are arri+e! at# he process b3 means o* 8hich composite
rea!ings are arri+e! at b3 combining rea!ings *rom each o* the sets o* rea!ings
!ominate! b3 a gi+en no!e in a phrase mar;er, is calle! amalgamation# here is an
interpla3 o* s3ntactic an! semantic relations in regulating the pairing o* rea!ings, since
one con!ition *or t8o items to be 5oine! in s3ntactic relation, is that all selectional
restrictions o* one be inclu!e! in the semantic mar;ers o* the other#
A closer anal3sis o* the !ictionar3 component o* Qatz an! 9o!or semantic
theor3 re+eals man3 similarities 8ith pre+ious approaches to the science o* meaning# In
*act, 8hat Qatz an! 9o!or !o in their !ictionar3 component o* the theor3 is to
re!isco+er the Aristotlean re*erence to genres an! species Gsemantic mar;ers an!
!istinguishersH G/ounin 1?@4: 1KOH#
As Co)eriu in!icate! G1?KOH 8hat Qatz an! 9o!or essentiall3 !o, is to stu!3
meaning along the semasiological !irection, that is starting *rom a gi+en signifiant,
KO
proper signi*iPs are assigne! to it in a gi+en conte.t, *ollo8ing certain Gs3ntacticH
operations# In its original *orm the theor3 !oes not account *or such 8ell establishe!
*acts as the e.istence o* primar3 meanings an! secon!ar3 ones, an! in particular, it
!oes not account *or trans*erre! meanings, an!, in general, *or the 8i!esprea! use o*
metaphor in language#
An ob+ious criticism that 8as raise! against the theor3 regar!s, as in the case
o* componential anal3sis, the +er3 h3pothesis accor!ing to 8hich linguistic
signi*ication an! semantic structure in general can be re!uce! to a relati+el3 small set
o* MatomsM o* meaning, 8ith no resi!ue 8hate+er because this h3pothesis is *ar *rom
ha+ing been accepte! unanimousl3 GChitoran 1?@6: 1@@H#
(. Ge&erat!4e Se%a&t!'" Ver"2" I&terpret!4e Se%a&t!'"
he generati+e-interpretati+e contro+ers3 rage! in the earl3 se+enties, but ha!
no conclusi+e outcome# A*ter a 8hile the partisans o* each si!e mo+e! on the other topics
o* interest#
he popular labels generative semantics an! interpretive semantics re*er not so
much to 8a3s o* stu!3ing semantics per se, as to 8a3s o* relating semantics to s3nta.#
%oth !e+elope! out o* the Stan!ar! heor3 o* 1?KD G0spects of the Theory of Synta.H
in 8ich a sentence 8as seen as organize! s3ntacticall3 on t8o chie* le+els: that o* deep
structure an! that o* surface structure# he sur*ace structure o* a sentence 8as !eri+e!
*rom the !eep structure b3 means o* trans*ormational rules in+ol+ing such operations
as the !elition o* constituents, the mo+ement o* constituents *rom one part o* a
sentence to another, etc# he rules 8hich speci*ie! the DS 8ere phrase structure rules,
8hich spelt out the basic constituenc3 o* sentences in terms o* categories li;e 'oun
"hrases, &erbs, etc# As it 8as pre+iousl3 mentione!, these rules ma!e up the %ase
component o* s3nta., an! ha! as their output Ga*ter the insertion o* le.ical itemsH !eep
structures an! the trans*ormational rules ma!e up the transformational component o*
s3nta., an! ha! as their output sur*ace structures# Apart *rom s3nta., 8hich 8as the
central part o* the total grammar, these 8ere t8o interpreti+e components: the
phonological an! the semantic# he phonetic interpretation o* a sentence 8as !eri+e!
*rom its sur*ace structure b3 means o* phonological rules, 8hile the semantic
interpretation o* a sentence 8as !eri+e! *rom the !eep structure through the operation
o* the so-calle! pro4ection rules o* semantics# he 8hole theor3, there*ore, through the
interaction o* its +arious components, pro+i!e! a matching o* phonetic outputs 8ith
semantic outputs G<# Leech 1??A: 6BBH# So, the theor3 pro+i!es an account o* the
K?
pairing o* meanings 8ith soun!s 8hich an3 complete linguistic theor3 must attempt#
he s3ntactic component has special status, being the point *rom 8hich the !eri+ation
o* both soun!s an! meaning originates# Among the special claims o* Stan!ar! heor3
are G1H that s3ntactic sur*ace structure is the onl3 le+el o* s3nta. rele+ant to the
speci*ication o* phonetic interpretation, an! G4H that s3ntactic !eep structure is the
onl3 le+el o* s3nta. rele+ant to semantic interpretation# his secon! point brings 8ith
it the important principle that trans*ormational rules are meaning-preservingJ that is,
the3 !o not in an3 8a3 alter the meaning o* the structures that the3 operate on# his
means, in e**ect, that all sentences that ha+e the same !eep structures ha+e the same
meanings#
Ee can see, Stan!ar! heor3 pro+i!es *or an interpretative semantic
component, that is the meaning o* a sentence is speci*ie! b3 the application o* semantic
rules to a s3ntactic %ase# It ma3 be !iagramme! as *ollo8s:
Standard Theory
Transformational +rammar >?T@
Semantic Interpret ati on
G"ro5ection RulesH
Grans*ormational RulesH
G"honological RulesH
"honetic Interpretation
Later, an important mo!i*ication to the interpreti+ist position 8as propose!#
Choms;3 G1?@AH, Cac;en!o** G1?@4H, an! others !i!nIt claim an3 more that all
sentences 8ith the same !eep structures ha+e the same meaning# Eithin this re+ise!
theor3, !eep structure re+erte! to being a le+el to be 5usti*ie! +er3 largel3 on s3ntactic
groun!s alone#
+enerative semantics li;e interpretati+e semantic, arose out o* Stan!ar!
heor3, but it !e+elope! along a Nuite !i**erent path# La;o**, /cCa8le3, Ross, an!
others, M!eepene!M the !eep structure so as to ma;e it closer to a representation o* a
sentenceIs meaning, an! the3 also Mlengthene!M the trans*ormational process o*
@A
DEE" SR0C0RE
G%aseH
S0R9ACE SR0C0RE
!eri+ation *rom !eep to sur*ace structure# Leech consi!ers that the logical terminus o*
this process 8as reache! GRoss an! La;o** 1?K@ an! /cCa8le3 1?KOH 8hen the !eep
structure o* a sentence 8as !eclare! to be so M!eepM as to be identical 8ith its
semantic representation# his no8 meant that %ase component, in the sense o*
Choms;3 G1?KDH, 8as no longer s3ntactic, but semantic# An! since the !eep structure
5as the semantic interpretation, there 8as no longer an3 nee! *or the pro5ection rules
to suppl3 an interpretation o* !eep structure# "ro5ection rules there*ore !isappeare!,
an! the resulting !iagram 8as:
+enerative Semantics !osition

Grans*ormational RulesH
G"honological RulesH
"honetic Interpretation
Since it eliminates the pro5ectional rule component, the generati+ist mo!el has
the a!+antage o* o+erall simplicit3 o* !esign# %ut, the simpli*ication is necessaril3 at
the cost o* e.pan!ing the trans*ormational component, an! ma;ing the chain o*
trans*ormational !eri+ation *or each sentence consi!erabl3 longer than 8as en+isage!
b3 Choms;3 in 1?KD# G<# Leech 1??A: 6B@H#
he generati+ists, in the main, sta3e! commite! to the +ie8 that
trans*ormational rules !o not change meaning# his pro+e! the most +ulnerable
principle in their mo!el, an! 8as sub5ect to the se+erest criticisms *rom interpreti+ists#
Eithin the *rame8or; o* generati+e-trans*ormational grammar, a MbattleM is
being *ought not onl3 bet8een t8o ri+al semantic theories - interpreti+e semantics an!
generati+e semantics - but also bet8een t8o +ersions o* grammar: one 8hich is
s3ntacticall3 base! Gthe Mstan!ar!M theor3 as !e+elope! b3 Choms;3, Qatz, 9o!or,
"ostal, inclu!ing interpreti+e semanticsH an! another one 8hich is semanticall3 base!
Ggenerati+e semanticsH#
In the stan!ar! theor3, s3nta. is in!epen!ent, it is the generati+e source o* the
grammar, 8hich pro+i!es a !eep an! a sur*ace s3ntactic structure# he !eep structure
@1
SE/A'IC RE"RESE'AI$'
Gor !eep structureH
S0R9ACE SR0C0RE
pro+i!es all necessar3 in*ormation to the semantic component 8hose tas; is to assign
semantic interpretations Grea!ingsH to the !eep structures generate! b3 the s3ntactic
component#
Eith the generati+e semantics mo!els, the semantic component is the
generati+e source o* the grammar# he semantic representations 8hich initiate the
!eri+ation o* sentences are in!epen!entl3 generate!, an! are then mappe! onto sur*ace
Gs3ntacticH structures b3 means o* trans*ormations# GChitoran 1?@6: 1O1H#
hus there ha+e been t8o 8a3s hea!ing to generati+e semantics:
1# the re+ision o* the stan!ar! mo!el particularl3 o* the notions o* !eep structure,
selectional restrictions, etc#
4# a reappraisal o* the semantic component, more speci*icall3 o* semantic
representation#
Leech G1??AH consi!ers that a simple 8a3 o* !e*ining interpreti+e an!
generati+e semantics is to sa3 that in the one case the semantic representation o* a
sentence is !eri+e! *rom a s3ntactic base, 8hereas in the other, the Gsur*aceH s3ntactic
representation is !eri+e! *rom a semantic base#
he same author proposes a three-component mo!el o* language Gsemantics-
s3nta.-phonolog3H in 8hich e.pression rules 8oul! ha+e the *unction o* translating Gor
Mreco!ingMH semantic representations as s3ntactic representations, or +ice +ersa Gno
!irectional prece!ence 8as assume!H# hus 8e ha+e t8o separate bases, 8ith s3nta.
an! semantics both ha+ing in!epen!ent 8ell-*orme!ness con!itions# In *act, +arious
phonologists GSampson 1?@AH ha+e also argue! *or a phonological base# 2ence,
LeechIs mo!el !i**ers *rom both the generati+e an! interpretati+e mo!els in containing
more than one base component GLeech 1??A: 6B?, 6D1H#
%ibliograph3:
1# Chi-oran, D# 1?@6# Elements of English Structural Semantics, %ucure)ti:
E#D#"#
4# Leech, <# 1??A# Semantics. The Study of Meaning. Lon!on: "enguin %oo;s#
TOPI CS FOR DI SCUS S I ON
1# Ehat is the !i**erence bet8een semantic mar;ers an! !istinguishersF <i+e some
e.amples#
Ch a p t e r VI I I
@4
NE; SEMANTI C TEORI ES
1. Cate/or!>at!o&
he process o* categorization is essential because it represents Mthe main 8a3
8e ma;e sense o* e.perienceM G<# La;o** 1?O@: JIH# his mental operation, 8hich
consists in putting together !i**erent things, is present in all our acti+ities: thin;ing,
perception, spea;ing etc# Categorization an! categories are *un!amental *or the
organization o* human e.perience# Eithout this capacit3 o* surpassing in!i+i!ual
entities in or!er to reach a conceptual structure, the en+ironment 8oul! be chaotic an!
*ore+er ne8# GE# Cauzinille-/armeche, D# Dubois, C# /athieu, 1?OOH#
/ost o* the concepts or mental representations correspon! to certain
categories an! not to in!i+i!ual entities# here*ore, it is *un!amental to ;no8 the
mechanisms o* categorization, tr3ing to gi+e an ans8er to the Nuestion: Ehat are the
criteria 8hich !eci!e that an entit3 belongs to a categor3F he ob5ecti+ist current gi+es
a clear ans8er: categorization is ma!e on the basis o* common characteristics# he
e.periential realism imposes a !i**erent +ie8, base! on protot3pe theor3# <# La;o**
consi!ers that the theor3 o* protot3pe change! our conception about categorization,
reasoning an! other human capacities G<# La;o** 1?O@: @H#
Ne'e""ar# a&) S2$$!'!e&t Co&)!t!o&" Mo)e.. $ne tra!itional
approach to !escribing concepts is to !e*ine them b3 using sets o* necessary and
sufficient conditions. his approach comes *rom thin;ing about concepts as *ollo8s# I*
8e ha+e a concept li;e E$/A', it must contain the in*ormation necessar3 to !eci!e
8hen something in the 8orl! is a 8oman or not# 2o8 can this in*ormation be
organize!F
"erhaps as a set o* categoristics or attributes, i#e#:
J is a 8oman i* an! onl3 i* L
8here L is a list o* attributes, li;e:
J is human,
J is Ma!ultM,
J is *emale, etc#
$ne can see these attributes as con!itions: i* something must ha+e them to be a
8oman, then the3 can be calle! necessar3 con!itions# In a!!ition, i* 8e can *in! the
right set, so that 5ust that set is enough to !e*ine a 8oman, then the3 can be calle!
@6
su**icient con!itions, that means 8e ha+e i!enti*ie! the right amount o* in*ormation *or
the concept#
his theor3 +ie8s concepts as lists o* bits o* ;no8le!ge: the necessar3 an!
su**icient con!itions *or something to be an e.ample o* that concept#
he Aristotleian mo!el o* necessar3 an! su**icient con!itions, +er3 largel3 use!
in philosoph3, anthropolog3, ps3cholog3 an! linguistics is base! on the *ollo8ing
thesis:
1# Concepts an! categories are entities 8ith +er3 clear bor!erlines#
4# he mo!el is base! on truth an! *alse s3stem: It is a !og pro+i!e! that it
*its the criterial con!itions o* the categor3 M!ogM#
6# he members o* the same categor3 ha+e an eNual status since each member
has the *eatures reNuire! b3 the !e*inition o* the categor3# So, each member is a goo!
as an3 other#
$ne ma5or problem 8ith this approach has been that it seems to assume that i*
spea;ers share the same concept the3 8ill agree on the necessar3 an! su**icient
con!itions: i* something has them, it is an ., i* not, not# %ut it has pro+e! !i**icult to
set these up e+en *or nouns 8hich i!enti*3 concrete an! natural ;in!s li;e dog or cat.
Saee! G1??@: 6KH ta;es as an e.ample the noun &e%ra# Ee might agree on some
attributes: is an animal, has *our legs, is stripe!, is a herbi+ore# he problem 8e *ace,
though is: 8hich o* these is necessar3F he *irst ob+iousl3, but the rest are more
problematic# I* 8e *in! in a her! o* zebra, one that is pure 8hite or blac;, 8e might
still 8ant to call it a zebra# $r i* b3 some birth !e*ect, a three-legge! zebra comes into
the 8orl!, it 8oul! still be a zebra# Similarl3, i* a single zebra got bore! 8ith a grass
!iet an! starte! to inclu!e a *e8 insects, 8oul! it cease to be a zebraF $* course, these
seem rather 8himsical or strange Nuestions, perhaps problems *or philosophers rather
than linguists, an! in!ee! this zebra e.ample is 5ust a +ersion o* Saul Qrip;eIs e.ample
about tigers GQrip;e 1?OAH or "utnamIs *antas3 about cats G"utnam 1?K4H# cuestions
such as these ha+e important conseNuences *or our i!eas about concepts: i* 8e cannot
establish a mutual !e*inition o* a concept, ho8 can 8e use its linguistic labelF
Another argument against necessar3 an! su**icient con!itions as the basis *or
linguistic concepts is "utnamIs G1?@DH obser+ations about ignorance# Spea;ers o*ten
use 8or!s to re*er ;no8ing +er3 little, an! sometimes nothing, about the i!enti*3ing
characteristics o* the re*erent# "utnamIs e.amples inclu!e the tree names %eech an!
elmN li;e "utnam, man3 English spea;ers cannot !istinguish bet8een these t8o trees
@B
3et use the 8or!s regularl3# Such a spea;er 8oul! presumabl3 be un!erstoo!, an! be
spea;ing truth*ull3, i* he sai!:
In the 1?@As Dutch elm !isease ;ille! a huge number o* %ritish elms#
"erhaps as "utnam suggests, 8e rel3 on a belie* that some8here there are
e.perts 8ho !o ha+e such ;no8le!ge an! can tell the !i**erence bet8een !i**erent
species o* trees# In an3 case it seems, as 8ith other natural ;in! terms li;e gold or
platinum, 8e can use the 8or!s 8ithout ;no8ing +er3 much about the re*erent# It
seems unli;el3 then that a 8or! is re*erring to a concept compose! o* a set o*
necessar3 an! su**icient con!itions, or 8hat amounts to the same thing, a definition#
he i!ea is that natural ;in! terms, li;e names are originall3 *i.e! b3 contact 8ith
e.amples o* the ;in!# herea*ter, spea;ers ma3 recei+e or borro8 the 8or!, 8ithout
being e.pose! to the real thing, or ;no8ing +er3 much about its characteristics# As 8e
ha+e seen, philosophers li;e to use e.amples o* metals li;e gol! or sil+er# An3 inabilit3
to i!enti*3 correctl3 or !e*ine the substance sil+er !oes not pre+ent one *rom using the
8or! silver# Ee assume that someone once ha! the abilit3 or nee! to recognize the
in!i+i!ual metal an! that some8here there are e.perts 8ho can i!enti*3 it empiricall3#
"utnam spea;s about a M!i+ision o* labourM in a speech communit3: bet8een Me.pertM
an! M*ol;M uses o* a term# $nl3 the e.pert or scienti*ic uses o* a 8or! 8oul! e+er be
rigorous enough to support necessar3 an! su**icient con!itions, but spea;ers happil3
go on using the 8or!#
The Protot#pe Theor#. %ecause o* problems 8ith necessar3 an! su**icient
con!itions, or !e*initions, se+eral more sophisticate! theories o* concepts ha+e been
propose!# $ne in*luential proposal is !ue to Eleanor Rosch an! her co-8or;ers GRosch
1?@6, 1?@D, Rosch an! /e+is 1?@D, Rosch et al# 1?@KH 8ho ha+e suggeste! the notion
o* protot#pe"# his is a mo!el o* concepts 8hich +ie8s them as structural so that there
are central or t3pical members o* a categor3, such as %IRD or 90R'I0RE, but then
a sha!ing o** into less t3pical or peripheral members# So chair is a more central
member o* the categor3 90R'I0RE than lamp, *or e.ample# $r sparro5 a more
t3pical member o* the categor3 %IRD than penguin or ostrich# his approach seems to
ha+e been supporte! b3 RoschIs e.perimental e+i!ence: spea;ers ten! to agree more
rea!il3 on t3pical members than on less t3pical members, the3 come to min! more
Nuic;l3, etc# Another result o* this approach an! similar 8or; Ge#g# Labo+ 1?@6H is that
the boun!aries bet8een concepts can seem to spea;ers uncertain, or M*uzz3M, rather
than clearl3 !e*ine!#
@D
<# Qleiber G1???H spea;s about t8o sciences o* protot3pe theor3: the stan!ar!
theor3 an! the e.ten!e! theor3# he stan!ar! theor3 correspon!s to the perio! 8hen
E# Rosch an! her team publish their 8or;# Accor!ing to protot3pe theor3, the categor3
is structure! on t8o !imensions: the hori&ontal dimension Gthe internal structureH an!
the vertical dimension Gintercategorial relationsH#
The 1ori&ontal 'imension. he protot3pe is the best e.emplar, the central
instance o* a categor3# his ne8 conception is base! on the *ollo8ing principles
GQleiber 1??@: D1H#
>. he categor3 has an internal protot3pical structure#
F. he bor!erlines o* the categories or concepts are not +er3 clearl3 !elimite!,
the3 are +ague#
G. 'ot all the members o* a categor3 present common characteristics, the3 are
groupe! together on the basis o* the family resem%lance.
H. An entit3 is a member o* a certain categor3 i* it presents similarities 8ith
the protot3pe#
So, this approach allo8s *or bor!erline uncertaint3: an item in the 8orl! might
bear some resemblance to t8o !i**erent protot3pes# 2ere 8e might gi+e e.amples o*
spea;ers being able to use the 8or! 5hale, 3et being unsure about 8hether a 8hale is a
mammal or a *ish# In the protot3pe theor3 o* concepts, this might be e.plaine! b3 the
*act that 8hales are not t3pical o* the categor3 /A//AL, being *ar *rom the central
protot3pe# At the same time, 8hales resemble protot3pical *ish in some characteristic
*eatures: the3 li+e un!er8ater in the oceans, ha+e *ins, etc#
here are a number o* interpretations o* these t3picalit3 e**ects in the
ps3cholog3 literature: some researchers *or e.ample ha+e argue! that the central
protot3pe is an abstraction# his abstraction might be a set o* characteristic *eatures to
8hich 8e compare real items# hese characteristic *eatures o* %IRD might !escribe a
;in! o* a+erage bir!, small, perhaps, 8ith 8ings, *eathers, the abilit3 to *l3, etc# but o*
no particular species# $ther researchers ha+e propose! that 8e organize our categories
b3 e3e%p.ar", memories o* actual t3pical bir!s, sa3 sparro8s, pigeons an! ha8;s, an!
8e compute the li;elihoo! o* something 8e meet being a bir! on the basis o*
comparison 8ith these memories o* real bir!s#
here is another approach to t3picalit3 e**ects 8ithin linguistics, 8hich is
interesting because o* the light it she!s on the relationship bet8een linguistic
;no8le!ge an! enc3clope!ic ;no8le!ge# Qleiber calle! this approach the e.ten!e!
@K
+ersion o* the protot3pe theor3# Charles 9illmore G1?O4H an! <# La;o** G1?O@H both
ma;e similar claims that spea;ers ha+e *ol; theories about the 8orl!, base! on their
e.perience an! roote! in their culture# hese theories are calle! $ra%e" b3 9illmore
an! !)ea.!>e) 'o/&!t!4e %o)e." GIC/DH b3 La;o**# he3 are not scienti*ic theories or
logicall3 consistent !e*initions, but collections o* cultural +ie8s# 9illmore gi+es an
e.ample o* ho8 these *ol; theories might 8or; b3 using the 8or! %achelor# It is clear
that that some bachelors are more protot3pical than others, 8ith the "ope, *or
e.ample, being *ar *rom protot3pical# 9illmore an! La;o** G1?O@H suggests that there is
a !i+ision o* our ;no8le!ge about the 8or! %achelorN part is a )!'t!o&ar#-t3pe
!e*inition GMan unmarrie! manMH an! part is an e&'#'.opae)!a-t3pe entr3 o* cultural
;no8le!ge about bachelorhoo! an! marriage - the *rame or IC/# he *irst 8e can call
linguistic or semantic ;no8le!ge an! the secon! real 8orl! or general ;no8le!ge#
heir point is 8e onl3 appl3 the 8or! *a'he.or 8ithin a t3pical marriage IC/: a
monogamous union bet8een eligible people, t3picall3 in+ol+ing romantic lo+e, etc# It is
this i!ealize! mo!el, a *orm o* general ;no8le!ge, 8hich go+erns our use o* the 8or!
%achelor an! restrains us *rom appl3ing it to celibate priests, or people li+ing in
isolation li;e arzan li+ing among apes in the 5ungle# In this +ie8, 8hen using a 8or!
in+ol+es combining semantic ;no8le!ge an! enc3clopae!ia ;no8le!ge, an! this
interaction ma3 result in t3picalit3 e**ects#
<# Leech G1??AH consi!ers that one o* the *la8s o* the protot3pe semantics is
that it re!uces the role o* conceptual semantics, in e.plaining 8or! meaning, to the
minimum o* matching a 8or! to a categor3# %ut the nominal +ie8 appears to be too
restricte!, because it can onl3 be easil3 applie! to common nouns Grather than to
a!5ecti+es, +erbs, etc#H#
In a!!ition to the categor3 - recognizing abilit3, human beings also ha+e a
!i**erent or!er o* cogniti+e abilit3 - something 8hich is much more closel3 tie! to
language - 8hich is the abilit3 to recognize structural relations bet8een categories# G<#
Leech 1??A: ODH#
Although the protot3pe theor3 8as consi!ere! a +eritable re+olution, it is not a
miraculous solution *or all semantic problems an! it cannot surpass all the !i**iculties
8hich remain unsol+e! in the classical mo!el o* necessar3 an! su**icient con!itions#
%ut, the theor3 brings three ne8 elements o* a great importance *or le.ical semantics#
GiH his theor3 allo8s us to integrate in the meaning o* a 8or!, characteristics
e.clu!e! b3 the classical mo!el, being consi!ere! unnecessar3, enc3clopae!ic *eatures,
@@
GiiH It pro+es the e.istence o* an internal organization o* the categor3#
GiiiH It also e.plains the hierarchical conceptual structure an! intercategorial
relations#
Ee also ha+e to ta;e into account that this theor3 is a theor3 o* categorization,
*irst inten!e! *or ps3chological goals#
The )ertical 'imension. "elations %et5een oncepts. he relational nature o*
conceptual ;no8le!ge is an important issue in semantics# Eor!s are in a net8or; o*
semantic lin;s 8ith other 8or!s an! it is reasonable to assume that conceptual
structures are similarl3 lin;e!#
/o!els o* conceptual hierarchies are *un!amental in the cogniti+e ps3cholog3
literature# A mo!el base! on !e*ining attributes 8as propose! b3 Collins an! cuillian
G1?K?H# In this mo!el, concepts are represente! b3 no!es in a net8or;, to 8hich
attributes can be attache! an! bet8een 8hich there are lin;s#
"roponents o* protot3pe theor3, GRosch et al# 1?@KH ha+e also in+estigate!
conceptual hierarchies an! ha+e propose! that such hierarchies contain three le+els o*
generalit3: a superordinate le+el, a %asic level, an! a su%ordinate level# he i!ea is that
the le+els !i**er in their balance bet8een in*ormati+eness an! use*ulness# I* 8e ta;e one
o* Rosch et al#Is G1?@KH e.amples, that o* *urniture, the superor!inate le+el is
90R'I0RE, 8hich has relati+el3 *e8 characteristic *eatures, the basic le+el 8oul!
inclu!e concepts li;e C2AIR, 8hich has more *eatures, an! the subor!inate le+el
8oul! inclu!e concepts li;e AR/C2AIR, DI'I'<C2AIR, etc#, 8hich ha+e still more
*eatures an! are thus more speci*ic again# he basic le+el is i!enti*ie! as cogniti+el3
important, it is the le+el that is most use! in e+er3!a3 li*e, it is acNuire! *irst b3
chil!ren, in e.periments it is at 8hich a!ults spontaneousl3 name ob5ects, such ob5ects
are recognize! more Nuic;l3 in tests, an! so on#
his mo!el has pro+e! to be +er3 robust in the ps3chological literature, though
the simple picture 8e ha+e presente! here nee!s some mo!i*ications# It seems that the
relationship bet8een the classic le+el an! the interme!iate term might +ar3 some8hat
*rom !omain to !omain: man-ma!e categories li;e 90R'I0RE !i**er some8hat
*rom natural ;in! terms, an! the relationship ma3 +ar3 !epen!ing on the personIs
e.perience o* the categories# So a personIs e.pert ;no8le!ge o* a !omain might
in*luence the relationship bet8een the basic an! subor!inate le+els# anc;a an! a3lor
G1??1H suggest that e.perts on !ogs an! bir!s might ha+e a !i**erent, richer structure
at subor!inate le+els *or these categories *rom the a+erage person#
@O
(. Co/&!t!4e Se%a&t!'"
o8ar! the en! o* the 4A
th
centur3, there is both a !issatis*action 8ith e.isting
*ormal semantic theories an! a 8ish to preser+e insights *rom other semantic tra!itions#
Cogniti+e semantics, the latest o* the ma5or tren!s 8hich ha+e !ominate! the last
!eca!es, attempts to !o this b3 *ocusing on meaning as a cogniti+e phenomenon#
As is o*ten the case 8ith labels *or theories, the term cognitive semantics might
be ob5ecte! to as being rather unin*ormati+e: in this instance because in man3 semantic
approaches it is assume! that language is a mental *acult3 an! that linguistic abilities
are supporte! b3 special *orms o* ;no8le!ge# 2ence, *or man3 linguists semantics is
necessaril3 a part o* the inNuir3 into cognition# 2o8e+er, 8riters in the general
approach calle! cognitive linguistics, an! other scholars 8ho are broa!l3 in s3mpath3
8ith them, share a particular +ie8 o* linguistic ;no8le!ge# his +ie8 is that there is no
separation o* linguistic ;no8le!ge *rom general thin;ing or cognition# Contrar3 to the
in*luential +ie8s o* the philosopher Cerr3 9o!or or o* 'oam Choms;3, these scholars
see linguistic beha+iour as another part o* the general cogniti+e abilities 8hich allo8
learning, reasoning, etc# So perhaps 8e can ta;e the label cognitive linguistics as
representing the slogan Mlinguistic ;no8le!ge is part o* general cognitionM# GSaee!
1??@: 4??H#
Cogniti+e linguists o*ten point to a !i+ision bet8een $or%a. an! $2&'t!o&a.
approaches to language# 9ormal approaches, such as generative grammar are o*ten
associate! 8ith a certain +ie8 o* language an! cognition: that ;no8le!ge o* linguistic
structures an! rules *orms an antonomous mo!ule G*acult3H, in!epen!ent o* other
mental processes o* attention, memor3 an! reasoning# his e.ternal +ie8 o* an
in!epen!ent linguistic mo!ule is o*ten combine! 8ith a +ie8 o* internal mo!ularit3:
that !i**erent le+els o* linguistic anal3sis, such as phonolog3, s3nta. an! semantics,
*orm in!epen!ent mo!ules#
9unctionalism, 8ith 8hich cogniti+e linguists i!enti*3 themsel+es, implies a
Nuite !i**erent +ie8 o* language: that e.ternall3, principles o* language use embo!3
more general cogniti+e principles, an! internall3, that e.planation must cross
boun!aries bet8een le+els an! anal3sis# hus, it ma;es sense to loo; *or principles
share! across a range o* cogniti+e !omains# Similarl3, it is argue! that no a!eNuate
account o* grammatical rules is possible 8ithout ta;ing the meaning o* elements into
account#
@?
his general !i**erence o* approach un!erlies speci*ic positions ta;en b3
cogniti+e linguists on a number o* issues: in each case their approach see;s to brea;
!o8n the abstractions an! specializations characteristic o* *ormalism# Stu!ies in
cogniti+e semantics ha+e tente! to blur, i* not ignore, the commonl3 ma!e !istinctions
bet8een linguistic ;no8le!ge an! enc3clopae!ic, real 8orl! ;no8le!ge an! bet8een
literal an! *igurati+e language# Cogniti+e linguists consi!er that s3nta. can ne+er be
antonomous *rom semantics or pragmatics# So, the e.planation o* grammmatical
patterns cannot be gi+en in terms o* abstract s3ntactic principles but onl3 in terms o*
the spea;erIs inten!e! meaning in particular conte.ts o* language use#
A *urther !istinction that is reassesse! in this *rame8or; is the tra!itional
structuralist !i+ision bet8een, to use 9er!inan! !e SaussureIs terms, )!a'hro&!' Gor
historicalH linguistics an! "#&'hro&!' linguistics# In his *oun!ational lectures, !e
Saussure, attempting to *ree linguistics *rom et3mological e.planation, propose! his
*amous abstraction: a s3nchronic linguistics, 8here consi!erations o* historical change
might be ignore!, as i* in !escribing a language 8e coul! *actor out or M*reezeM time#
his consi!eration has been accepte! in man3 linguistic theories, but is currentl3
Nuestione! in *unctional approaches# Linguistic structures, in a *unctionalist
perspecti+e, ha+e en+ol+e! through long perio!s o* use an! the processes o* change
are e+i!ent in an! rele+ant to an un!erstan!ing o* the current use o* language#
I* 8e turn to meaning, a !e*ining characteristic o* cogniti+e semantics is the
re5ection o* 8hat is terme! o*+e't!4!"t "e%a&t!'"# <# La;o** G1?OOH assigns to
ob5ecti+ism the basic metaph3sical belie* that categories e.ist in ob5ecti+e realit3,
together 8ith their properties an! relations, in!epen!entl3 o* consciousness#
Associate! 8ith this in the +ie8 that the s3mbols o* language are meaning*ul because
the3 are associate! 8ith these ob5ecti+e categories# his gi+es rise to a particular
approach to semantics, $b5ecti+ist Semantics, 8hich La;o** characterizes un!er three
M!octrinesM Ga!apte! *rom La;o** 1?OO: 14D-KH:
a# he !octrine o* truth-con!itional meaning: /eaning is base! on re*erence
an! truth#
b# he Mcorrespon!ence theor3M o* truth: ruth consists in the correspon!ence
bet8een s3mbols an! states o* a**airs in the 8orl!#
c# he !octrine o* ob5ecti+e re*erence: here is an Mob5ecti+el3 correctM 8a3
to associate s3mbols 8ith things in the 8orl!#
OA
In re5ecting these +ie8s, cogniti+e semanticists place themsel+es in opposition
to the *ormal semantics approach# 9or these 8riters, linguistic truth an! *alsit3 must be
relati+e to the 8a3 an obser+er construes a situation, base! on his or her conceptual
*rame8or;# he real *ocus o* in+estigation shoul!, in this +ie8, be these conceptual
*rame8or;s an! ho8 language use re*lects them#
In the cogniti+e semantics literature meaning is base! on con+entionalize!
conceptual structures# hus semantic structure, along 8ith other cogniti+e !omains,
re*lects the mental categories 8hich people ha+e *orme! *rom their e.perience o*
gro8ing up an! acting in the 8orl!# A number o* conceptual structures an! processes
are i!enti*ie! in this literature but special attention is o*ten gi+en to %etaphor#
Cogniti+e linguists agree 8ith the proposal b3 <# La;o** an! Cohnson G1?OAH
that metaphor is an essential element in our categorization o* the 8orl! an! our
thin;ing processes# /etaphor is seen as relate! to other *un!amental structures such as
!%a/e "'he%a", 8hich pro+i!e a ;in! o* basic conceptual *rame8or; !eri+e! *rom
perception an! bo!il3 e.perience, an! 9auconnierIs notion o* %e&ta. "pa'e", 8hich
are mental structures 8hich spea;ers set up to manipulate re*erence to entities#
Cogniti+e linguists also in+estigate the conceptual processes 8hich re+eal the
importance o* the spea;erIs construal o* a scene#
A conseNuence o* this +ie8 o* language is that the stu!3 o* semantics an!
linguistics must be an inter!isciplinar3 acti+it3# $ne result is that scholars 8or;ing
8ithin this an! relate! *rame8or;s ten! to stra3 across intra- an! inter-!isciplinar3
boun!aries more easil3 than most# he approach to metaphor has been applie! not onl3
to the stu!3 o* grammar an! semantics, but also to historical linguistics, categories o*
thought, poetic language, rhetoric an! ethics amongst other areas#
-!*.!o/raph#0
1# Qleiber, <# 1??A# *a s#manti$ue du prototype# "aris# "resses 0ni+ersitaires !e
9rance#
4# Leech, <# 1??A# Semantics# he Stu!3 o* /eaning# Lon!on# "enguin %oo;s#
6# Saee!, C# 1??@# Semantics# %lac;8ell "ublishers#
TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION
1# Ehat is a protot3peF <i+e e.amples#
4# Ehat are conceptual hierarchiesF "ro+i!e e.amples#
6# State the main principles o* Cogniti+e Semantics#
O1
FINAL TESTS AND :UESTIONS

>. De*ine semantics an! its ob5ect#
F. he relation bet8een semantics an! semiotics#
G. "h3sei V thesei contro+ers3#
H. Comment on the !ra8bac;s o* re*erential theor3 o* meaning#
@. Appl3 the !escription theor3 o* naming to the *ollo8ing proper names- *or each
name *in! t8o !i**erent !escripti+e sentences Uarl Mar., Ve5 Sork, :ane
0usten.
T. <i+e e.amples o* situations in 8hich the causal theor3 o* naming *unctions#
Can the !escripti+e an! the causal theories o* naming be combine!F
A. Absolute moti+ation#
W. Relati+e moti+ation#
?. 9in! the archile.eme an! the archisememe *or the ne.t series o* 8or!s:
5allet, %ag, case, purse, suitcase, knapsack .
>X. "oint out the a!+antages an! !ra8bac;s o* componential anal3sis#
>>. De*ine the notion o* semantic *iel! an! state the main elements o* the semantic
*iel! theor3#
>F. Linguistic Relati+ism +ersus Semantic 0ni+ersals#
16# 8o or more 8or!s ma3 be close in meaning an! 3et not collocate 8ith the
same items# Ehich is correct:
The %a%y %egan to cry3 started to cry as soon as they had left.
I couldn6t %egin 3 start my carJ the %attery 5as flat.
8efore the 5orld started, only +od e.isted.
1B# Eor!s ha+e !istinct s3ntactic beha+iour# Anal3se the !i**erences:
The plane leaves3 departs from +at5ick, not 1eathro5.
(e left the house at T.
(e Qdeparted the house at T.
1D# /ar; the *ollo8ing 8or!s 8ith positi+eX\Y, negati+eX-Y or neutral XnY
connotation# I* possible, tr3 to establish relations o* s3non3m3 or anton3m3
bet8een pairs o* them
frugal, famous, e.travagant, %oast, generous, miserly, notorious, careful,
%rag, resolute, strict, advertise, o%stinate, severe, praise.
O4
1K# Ehat is the criterion that !i**erenciates the *ollo8ing 8or!s belonging to the
t8o series:
a# partner, colleague, ally, accomplice, comradeJ
b# pal, mate, associate, companion, %uddy, friend.
1@# Correct the sentences i* necessar3:
There 5as a high difference %et5een the t5o teams.
I am doing this e.am %ecause I 5ant to achieve a step in my career.
1is %ooks commanded criticism from many people.
1e had %een found guilty of some slight crimes.
She 5on many competitions, forming fame in the process.
I 5as very grateful, %ecause he had rescued my life.
1O# Ehat are the opposites o* single, 5hite, light, heavy. "ro+i!e conte.ts#
1?# I!enti*3 the !i**erent t3pes o* oppositions:
The more the haste, the less the speed.
Marry in haste and repent in leisure.
If you lie upon roses 5hen young, you6ll lie upon thorns 5hen old.
8etter to give than to take.
Spare 5hen you are young and spend 5hen you are old.
7aults are thick 5hen love is thin.
0 saint a%road and a devil at home.
!ride goes %efore and shame follo5s after.
0n idle youth, a needy age.
This 5orld is a comedy to those that think and a tragedy to those that feel.
0 good %eginning makes a good ending.
2nselfish parents have selfish children.
!romise little %ut do much.
0 pair of lovers are like sunset and sunriseJ there are such things every day,
%ut 5e very seldom see them.
4A# Ehat are the elements o* the semantic component o* <enerati+e-
rans*ormational <rammarF
41# he organization o* a generati+e grammar#
44# <enerati+e Semantics +ersus Interpreti+e Semantics#
46# E.plain the importance o* the process o* categorization#
4B# Discuss the main theses o* the t8o opposite mo!els: the mo!el o* necessar3
an! su**icient con!itions an! the protot3pe theor3#
4D# he +ertical !imension o* categories# <i+e e.amples#
4K# Discuss the main theses o* Cogniti+e Semantics#
O6