English Semantics

ENGLISH SEMANTICS
0
1
CONTENTS
FOREWORD....................................................................................................4
UNIT I. INTRODUCTION TO SEMANTICS…………………………….5

1.1. A Short History of Semantics…………………………………………….6
1.2. Definition and Object of Semantics……………………………………..11
1.3. Semantics and Semiotics………………………………………………...14
Conclusions…………………………………………………………………..15
Self-assessment tests…………………………………………………………16
Exercises……………………………………………………………………..17
UNIT II. THE PROBLEM OF MEANING………………………………18

2. 1. The Concept of Meaning………………………………………………..18
2.1.1. Meaning as a Bipolar Relation………………………………………...19
2.1.2. Meaning as a Triadic Concept…………………………………………19
2. 2. Dimensions of Meaning………………………………………………...24
2. 2. 1. The Multiple Facets of Meaning……………………………………..24
2. 2. 2. Types of Meaning according to G. Leech……………………………25
Conclusions…………………………………………………………………..27
Self-assessment Tests………………………………………………………...28
Exercises……………………………………………………………………..29
UNIT III. MOTIVATION OF MEANING………………………………..31

3. 1. Absolute Motivation................................................................................32
3. 2. Relative Motivation.................................................................................33
Conclusions…………………………………………………………………..35
Exercises……………………………………………………………………..36
UNIT IV. STRUCTURAL APPROACHES

TO THE STUDY OF MEANING………………………………………….37
4. 1. Componential Analysis………………………………………………....37
4. 2. Paradigms of the Lexicon. The Semantic Field Theory………………..46
Conclusions…………………………………………………………………..50
Exercises……………………………………………………………………..54
UNIT V. LANGUAGE AS A CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM………………..56

5. 1. Linguistic Relativism…………………………………………………..57
5. 2. Universal Semantics……………………………………………………59
2
5.3. The Child's Acquisition of Conceptual Categories………59
5.4. Creativity in Language……………………………………...60
Conclusions………………………………………………………………..62
Self-assessment Tests……………………………………………………...62
Exercises…………………………………………………………………..63
UNIT VI. SEMANTIC RELATIONS

AND LEXICAL CATEGORIES…………………………………………….64
6.1. Paradigmatic Relations………………………………………. …………..66
6.1. 1. Incompatibility/ Oppositeness of Meaning………………......................66
6. 1. 2. Synonymy……………………………………………………………...68
6. 1. 3. Hyponymy……………………………………………………………...70
6. 2. Syntagmatic Relations……………………………………………………71
Conclusions…………………………………………………………………….72
Self-assessment Tests………………………………………………..................72
Exercises………………………………………………………………………73
UNIT VII. SEMANTIC THEORY WITHIN

THE FRAMEWORK OF GENERATIVE
TRANSFORMATIONAL GRAMMAR………………………………….76
7. 1. Semantics in the Standard Generative Theory of language……………...76
7. 2. The Semantic Component of G T Grammar……………………………..79
7. 3. Generative versus Interpretive Semantics..................................................81
Conclusions…………………………………………………………………….84
Self-assessment Tests…………………………………………………………..85
Exercises……………………………………………………………………….86
UNIT VIII. NEW SEMANTIC

THEORIES……………………………………………………………………87
8. 1. Categorization. Necessary and Sufficient
Conditions Model. The Theory of Prototype………………………………….87
8. 2. Cognitive Semantics....................................................................................92
Conclusions…………………………………………………………………….95
Self-assessment tests…………………………………………………………...96
Exercises……………………………………………………………………….96
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................98
3
Unit I
INTRODUCTION TO SEMANTICS
Obiectivele învăţării:
- studenţii vor fi capabili să stabilească locul semanticii în cadrul disciplinelor
lingvistice şi să circumscrie domeniul său;
4
- îşi vor forma o imagine de ansamblu asupra preocupărilor semantice de-a
lungul timpului;
- vor putea recunoaşte diferitele tipuri de semne şi vor putea să le descrie
caracteristicile.
Timpul mediu de studiu: 3 ore.
Cuprins:
1. 1. A Short History of Semantics
1. 2. Definition and Object of Semantics
1.3. Semantics and Semiotics.
Concluzii
Teste de autoevaluare
Exerciţii.
Concern for semantics. Why should one study semantics? Semantics (as the
study of meaning) is central to the study of communication and as communication
becomes more and more a crucial factor in social organization, the need to
understand it becomes more and more pressing. Semantics is also at the centre of
the study of the human mind - thought processes, cognition, conceptualization -
all these are intricately bound up with the way in which we classify and convey
our experience of the world through language.
Because it is, in these two ways, a focal point in man's study of man,
semantics has been the meeting place of various cross-currents of thinking and
various disciplines of study. Philosophy, psychology, and linguistics all claim a
deep interest in the subject. Semantics has often seemed baffling because there are
many different approaches to it, and the ways in which they are related to one
another are rarely clear, even to writers on the subject. (Leech, 1990: IX).
Semantics is a branch of linguistics, which is the study of language; it is an
area of study interacting with those of syntax and phonology. A person's linguistic
abilities are based on the knowledge that they have. One of the insights of modern
linguistics is that speakers of a language have different types of linguistic
knowledge, including how to pronounce words, how to construct sentences, and
about the meaning of individual words and sentences. To reflect this, linguistic
description has different levels of analysis. So - phonology is the study of what
sounds combine to form words; syntax is the study of how words can be
combined into sentences; and semantics is the study of the meanings of words and
sentences.
To remember! Semantics is a domain which deals with the content side of

linguistic signs, being in strong connection with the other linguistic branches, in
the same way in which morpho-syntactic competence combines with semantic
5
competence. Words collocate not only considering the syntactic rules of a
language, but also their meaning.
1.1. A Short History of Semantics

It has often been pointed out, and for obvious reasons, that semantics is the
youngest branch of linguistics (Ullmann, 1962; Greimas, 1962). Yet, interest in
what we call today "problems of semantics" was quite alive already in ancient
times.
In ancient Greece, philosophers spent much time debating the problem of the
way in which words acquired their meaning. The question why is a thing called by
a given name, was answered in two different ways.
Some philosophers believed that the names of things were arrived at naturally,
physei, that they were somehow conditioned by the natural properties of things
themselves. They took great pains to explain for instance that a letter like "rho"
seems apt to express motion since the tongue moves rapidly in its production.
Hence its occurrence in such words as rhoein ("to flow"), while other sounds such
as /s, f, ks/, which require greater breath effort in production, are apt for such
names as psychron ("shivering") or kseon ("shaking"), etc. The obvious
inadvertencies of such correlations did not discourage philosophers from
believing that it is the physical nature of the sounds of a name that can tell us
something about its meaning. Other philosophers held the opposite view, namely
that names are given to things arbitrarily through convention, thesei.
The physei-thesei controversy or physis-nomos controversy is amply discussed
in Plato's dialogue Cratylus. In the dialogue, Cratylus appears to be a part of the
physei theory of name acquistion, while Hermogenes defends the opposite, nomos
or their point of view. The two positions are then debated by Socrates in his usual
manner. In an attempt to mediate between the two discussants he points out first
of all that there are two types of names. Some are compound names which are
divisible into smaller constituent element and accordingly, analysable into the
meaning of these constituent elements: Poseidon derives his name from posi ("for
the feet") and desmos ("fetter") since it was believed that it was difficult for the
sea god to walk in the water.
The words, in themselves, Socrates points out, give us no clue as to their
"natural" meaning, except for the nature of their sounds. Certain qualities are
attributed to certain types of sounds and then the meaning of words is analysed in
terms of the qualities of the sounds they are made of. When faced with abundant
examples which run counter the apriori hypothesis: finding a "l" sound ("lambda")
"characteristic of liquid movements" in the word sklerotes ("hardness") for
instance, he concludes, in true Socratic fashion, that "we must admit that both
convention and usage contribute to the manifestation of what we have in mind
when we speak".
In two other dialogues, Theatetus and Sophists, Plato dealt with other
problems such as the relation between thought language, and the outside world. In
6
fact, Plato opened the way for the analysis of the sentence in terms which are
partly linguistic and partly pertaining to logic. He was dealing therefore with
matters pertaining to syntactic semantics, the meaning of utterances, rather than
the meaning of individual words.
To remember! The form of a word can indicate to a certain extent some

features of its meaning, but convention is the main factor in establishing how to
make reference to something.
Aristotle's works (Organon as well as Rhetoric and Poetics) represent the next
major contribution of antiquity to language study in general and semantics in
particular. His general approach to language was that of a logician, in the sense
that he was interested in what there is to know how men know it, and how they
express it in language (Dinneen, 1967: 70) and it is through this perspective that
his contribution to linguistics should be assessed.
In the field of semantics proper, he identified a level of language analysis - the
lexical one - the main purpose of which was to study the meaning of words either
in isolation or in syntactic constructions. He deepened the discussion of the
polysemy, antonymy, synonymy and homonymy and developed a full-fledged
theory of metaphor.
The contribution of stoic philosophy to semantics is related to their discussion
of the nature of linguistic sign. In fact, as it was pointed out (Jakobson, 1965: 21,
Stati 1971: 182, etc.) centuries ahead of Ferdinand de Saussure, the theory of the
Janus-like nature of the linguistic sign - semeion - is an entity resulting from the
relationship obtaining between the signifier - semainon - (i.e. the sound or graphic
aspect of the word), the signified - semainomenon (i.e. the notion) and the object
thus named - tynkhanon -, a very clear distinction, therefore, between reference
and meaning as postulated much later by Ogden and Richards in the famous
"triangle" that goes by their name.
Etymology was also much debated in antiquity; but the explanations given to
changes in the meaning and form of words were marred on the one hand by their
belief that semantic evolution was always unidirectional, from a supposedly
"correct" initial meaning, to their corruption, and, on the other hand, by their
disregard of phonetic laws (Stati, 1971: 182).
To remember! The double nature of any linguistic sign has been evident ever
since ancient times and word meaning is to be discussed in relation to other
words.
During the Middle Ages, it is worth mentioning in the field of linguistics and
semantics the activity of the "Modistae" the group of philosophers so named
because of their writings On the Modes of Signification. These writings were
highly speculative grammars in wich semantic considerations held an important
7
position. The "Modistae" adopted the "thesei" point of view in the "physei-thesei"
controversy and their efforts were directed towards pointing out the "modi
intelligendi", the ways in which we can know things, and the "modi significandi",
the various ways of signifying them (Dinneen, 1967: 143).
It may be concluded that throughout antiquity and the Middle Ages, and
actually until the 19th century almost everything that came to be known about
meaning in languages was the result of philosophic speculation and logical
reasoning. Philosophy and logic were the two important sciences which left their
strong impact on the study of linguistic meaning.
It was only during the 19th century that semantics came into being as an
independent branch of linguistics as a science in its own right. The first words
which confined themselves to the study of semantic problems as we understand
them today, date as far back as the beginning of the last century.
In his lectures as Halle University, the German linguist Ch. Reisig was the first
to formulate the object of study of the new science of meaning which he called
semasiology. He conceived the new linguistic branch of study as a historical
science studying the principles governing the evolution of meaning.
Towards the end of the century (1897), M. Bréal published an important book
Essay de sémantique which was soon translated into English and found an
immediate echo in France as well as in other countries of Europe. In many ways it
marks the birthday of semantics as a modern linguistic discipline. Bréal did not
only provide the name for the new science, which became general in use, but also
circumscribed more clearly its subject-matter.
The theoretical sources of semantic linguistics outlined by Bréal are, again,
classical logic and rhetoric, to which the insights of an upcoming science, namely,
psychology are added. In following the various changes in the meaning of words,
interest is focused on identifying certain general laws governing these changes.
Some of these laws are arrived at by the recourse to the categories of logic:
extension of meaning, narrowing of meaning, transfer of meaning, while others
are due to a psychological approach, degradation of meaning and the reverse
process of elevation of meaning.
Alongside these theoretical endeavours to "modernize" semantics as the
youngest branch of linguistics, the study of meaning was considerably enhanced
by the writing of dictionaries, both monolingual and bilingual. Lexicographic
practice found extensive evidence for the categories and principles used in the
study of meaning from antiquity to the more modern approaches of this science:
polysemy, synonymy, homonymy, antonymy, as well as for the laws of semantic
change mentioned above.
To remember! Logic, philosophy, rhetoric and psychology contribute to the

study and developing of semantics as an independent linguistic branch. Meaning
changes can be explained only considering the influence of the above-mentioned
sciences. Such meaning changes are recorded by various types of dictionaries.
8
The study of language meaning has a long tradition in Romania. Stati
mentioned (1971: 184) Dimitrie Cantemir's contribution to the discussion of the
difference between categorematic and syncategorematic words so dear to the
medieval scholastics.
Lexicography attained remarkably high standards due mainly to B. P. Hasdeu.
His Magnum Etymologicum Romaniae ranks with the other great lexicographic
works of the time.
In 1887, ten years ahead of M. Bréal, Lazăr Şăineanu published a remarkable
book entitled Încercare asupra semasiologiei limbei române. Studii istorice
despre tranziţiunea sensurilor. This constitutes one of the first works on semantics
to have appeared anywhere. Şăineanu makes ample use of the contributions of
psychology in his attempts at identifying the semantic associations established
among words and the "logical laws and affinities" governing the evolution of
words in particular and of language in general.
Although it doesn't contain an explicit theory of semantics, the posthumous
publication of Ferdinand de Saussure's Cours de linguistique générale 1916,
owing to the revolutionary character of the ideas on the study of language it
contained, determined an interest for structure in the field of semantics as well.
Within this process of development of the young linguistic discipline, the
1921-1931 decade has a particular significance. It is marked by the publication of
three important books: Jost Trier, Der Deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezink des
Verstandes (1931), G. Stern, Meaning and Change of Meaning (1931) and C. K.
Ogden and J. A. Richards: The Meaning of Meaning (1923).
Jost Trier's book, as well as his other studies, is visibly influenced by W. von
Humbold's ideas on language, and it represents an attempt to approach some of
the Saussurean principles to semantics. Analysing the meaning of a set of lexical
elements related to one another by their content, and thus belonging to a semantic
"field", Trier reached the conclusion that they were structurally organized within
this field, in such a manner that the significative value of each element was
determined by the position which it occupied within the respective field. For the
first time, therefore, words were no longer approached in isolation, but analysed
in terms of their position within a larger ensemble - the semantic field - which in
turn, is integrated, together with other fields, into an ever larger one. The process
of subsequent integrations continues until the entire lexicon is covered. The
lexicon therefore is envisaged as a huge mosaic, with no piece missing.
Gustav Stern's work is an ambitious attempt at examining the component
factors of meaning and of determining, on this ground, the causes and directions
of changes of meaning. Using scientific advances psychology (particularly
Wundt's psychology) Stern postulates several classifications and principles which
no linguist could possibly neglect.
As regards Ogden and Richard's book, its very title The Meaning of Meaning
is suggestive of its content. As far as most of the book is concerned, it deals with
9
the different accepted definitions of the word "meaning", definitions pertaining
not only to linguistics, but to other disciplines as well, identifying no less than
twenty-four such definitions. The overt endeavour of the authors is to confine
semantic preoccupations to linguistic problems exclusively. The two authors have
the merit of having postulated the triadic relational theory of meaning -
graphically represented by the triangle that bears their names.
A short supplement appended to the book: The Problem of Meaning in
Primitive Languages due to an anthropologist, B. Malinowski, was highly
instrumental in the development of a new "contextual" theory of meaning
advocated by the British school of linguistics headed by J. R. Firth.
To remember! Words were no longer approached in isolation, but analysed in

terms of their position within a larger ensemble - the semantic field - which in
turn, is integrated, together with other fields, into an ever larger one; the process
of subsequent integrations accounts for the structure of the whole lexicon.
The following decades, more specifically the period 1930-1950 is known as a

period of crisis in semantics. Meaning was all but completely ignored in
linguistics particularly as an effect of the position adopted by L. Bloomfield, who
considered that the study of meaning was outside the scope of linguistics proper.
Its study falls rather within the boundaries of other sciences such as chemistry,
physics, etc., and more especially psychology, sociology or anthropology. The
somewhat more conciliatory positions which, without denying the role of meaning
in language, allotted it but a marginal place within the study of language (Hockett,
1958), were not able to put an end to this period of crisis.
Reference to semantics was only made in extremis, when the various linguistic
theories were not able to integrate the complexity of linguistic events within a
unitary system. Hence the widespread idea of viewing semantics as a "refuge", as
a vast container in which all language facts that were difficult to formalize could
be disposed of.
The picture of the development of semantics throughout this period would be
incomplete, were it not to comprise the valuable accumulation of data regarding
meaning, all due to the pursuing of tradition methods and primarily to
lexicographic practice.
If we view the situation from a broader perspective, it becomes evident that
the so-called "crisis" of semantics, actually referred to the crisis of this linguistic
discipline only from a structuralist standpoint, more specifically from the point of
view of American descriptivism. On the other hand, however, it is also salient that
the renovating tendencies, as inaugurated by different linguistic schools, did not
incorporate the semantic domain until very late. It was only in the last years of the
sixties that the organized attacks of the modern linguistic schools, of different
orientations, were launched upon the vast domain of linguistic meaning.
10
To remember! The period of crisis in the history of semantics was due to the
extreme interest in the linguistic structure, seen as the ‘engine’ which governs
correct and meaningful communication. Focus on word form and sentence
structure proved beneficial for the future development of semantics, because of
the data gained.
At present meaning has ceased to be an "anathema" for linguistics. Moreover,

the various linguistic theories are unanimous in admitting that no language
description can be regarded as being complete without including facts of meaning
in its analysis.
A specific feature of modern research in linguistics is the ever growing interest
in problems of meaning. Judging by the great number of published works, by the
extensive number of semantic theories which have been postulated, of which
some are complementary, while some other are directly opposed, we are
witnessing a period of feverish research, of effervescence, which cannot but lead
to progress in semantics.
An important development in the direction of a psycholinguistic approach to
meaning is Lakoff's investigation of the metaphorical basis of meaning (Lakoff
and Johnson 1980). This approach draws on Elinor Rosch's notion of prototype,
and adopts the view opposed to that of Chomsky, that meaning cannot be easily
separated from the more general cognitive functions of the mind.
G. Leech considers that the developments which will bring most rewards in
the future will be those which bring into a harmonious synthesis the insights
provided by the three disciplines which claim the most direct and general interest
in meaning: those of linguistics, philosophy and psychology.
To remember! Present-day research confirmed the opinion of ancient time

scientists, that only a multi-disciplinary and integrating perspective on semantics
could offer an accurate image on this complex phenomenon.
1.2. Definition and Object of Semantics
In linguistic terminology the word semantics is used to designate the science

of word-meaning. The term, however, has acquired a number of senses in
contemporary science. Also, a number of other terms have been proposed to cover
the same area of study, namely the study of meaning. As to meaning itself, the
term has a variety of uses in the metalanguage of several sciences such as logic,
psychology, linguistics, and more recently semiotics.
All these factors render it necessary to discuss on the one hand the
terminology used in the study of meaning and on the other hand, the main
concerns of the science devoted to the study of meaning.
One particular meaning of the term semantics is used to designate a new
science, General Semantics, the psychological and pedagogical doctrine founded
11
by Alfred Korzybsky (1933) under the influence of contemporary neo-positivism.
Starting from the supposed exercise upon man's behaviour, General semantics
aims at correcting the "inconsistencies" of natural language as well as their
tendency to "simplify" the complex nature of reality.
A clearer definition of the meaning (or meanings) of a word is said to
contribute to removing the "dogmatism" and "rigidity" of language and to make
up for the lack of emotional balance among people which is ultimately due to
language. This school of thought holds that the study of communicative process
can be a powerful force for good in the resolution of human conflict, whether on
an individual, local, or international scale. This is a rather naïve point of view
concerning the causes of conflicts (G. Leech 1990: XI). Yet, certain aspects of the
relationship between linguistic signs and their users - speakers and listeners alike -
have, of course, to be analysed given their relevance for the meaning of the
respective signs.
Also, that there is a dialectical interdependence between language and thought
in the sense that language does not serve merely to express thought, but takes an
active part in the very moulding of thought, is beyond any doubt.
On the whole, however the extreme position adopted by general semanticists
as evidenced by such formulations as "the tyranny of words", "the power of
language", "man at the mercy of language", etc. has brought this "science" to the
point of ridicule, despite the efforts of genuine scholars such as Hayakawa and
others to uphold it.
In the more general science of semiotics, the term semantics is used in two
senses:
(a) theoretical (pure) semantics, which aims at formulating an abstract
theory of meaning in the process of cognition, and therefore belongs to logic,
more precisely to symbolic logic;
(b) empirical (linguistic) semantics, which studies meaning in natural
languages, that is the relationship between linguistic signs and their meaning.
Obviously, of the two types of semantics, it is empirical semantics that falls
within the scope of linguistics.
The most commonly agreed-upon definition of semantics remains the one
given by Bréal as "the science of the meanings of words and of the changes in
their meaning". With this definition, semantics is included under lexicology, the
more general science of words, being its most important branch.
The result of research in the field of word-meaning usually takes the form of
dictionaries of all kinds, which is the proper object of the study of lexicography.
The term semasiology is sometimes used instead of semantics, with exactly
the same meaning. However since this term is also used in opposition to
onomasiology it is probably better to keep it for this more restricted usage.
Semasiology stands for the study of meaning starting from the "signifiant" (the
acoustic image) of a sign and examining the possible "signifiés" attached to it.
12
Onomasiology accounts for the opposite direction of study, namely from a
"signifié" to the various "signifiants" that may stand for it.
Since de Saussure, the idea that any linguistic form is made up of two aspects
- a material one and an ideal one -, the linguistic sign being indestructible union
between a signifiant and a signifié, between an expression and a content. In the
light of these concepts, the definition of semantics as the science of meaning of
words and of the changes in meaning, appears to be rather confined. The
definition certainly needs to be extended so as to include the entire level of the
content of language. As Hjelmslev pointed out, there should be a science whose
object of study should be the content of language and proposed to call it
plerematics. Nevertheless all the glossematicians, including Hjelmslev continued
to use the older term - semantics in their works.
E. Prieto (1964) calls the science of the content of language noology (from
Greek noos - "mind") but the term has failed to gain currency.
Obviously, a distinction should be made between lexosemantics, which studies
lexical meaning proper in the traditional terminology and morphosemantics,
which studies the grammatical aspect of word-meaning.
With the advent of generative grammar emphasis was switched from the
meaning of words to the meaning of sentences. Semantic analysis will accordingly
be required to explain how sentences are understood by the speakers of language.
Also, the task of semantic analysis is to explain the relations existing among
sentences, why certain sentences are anomalous, although grammatically correct,
why other sentences are semantically ambiguous, since they admit of several
interpretations, why other sentences are synonymous or paraphrases of each other,
etc.
Of course, much of the information required to give an answer to these
questions is carried by the lexical items themselves, and generative semantics
does include a representation of the meaning of lexical elements, but a total
interpretation of a sentence depends on its syntactic structure as well, more
particularly on how these meanings of words are woven into syntactic structure in
order to allow for the correct interpretation of sentences and to relate them to
objective reality. In the case of generative semantics it is obvious that we can
speak of syntactic semantics, which includes a much wider area of study that
lexical semantics.
To remember! As with any science, many more or less synonymous terms are
introduced, the difference being given by the perspective adopted. Terms such as
‘semantics’ and ‘semasiology’ reflect the perspective of meaning as a property of
the word, the latter being the basic element of interest. ‘Plerematics’ considers the
whole lexicon of a language, as the all-inclusive class.
1.3. Semantics and Semiotics
13
When the Stoics identified the sign as the constant relationship between the
signifier and the signified they actually had in mind any kind of signs not just
linguistic ones. They postulated a new science of signs, a science for which a term
already existed in Greek: sêmeiotikê. It is however, only very recently, despite
repeated attempts by foresighted scientists, that semiotics has become a science in
its own right.
A first, and very clear presentation of semiotics is it to be found in this
extensive quotation from John Locke's An Essay Concerning Human
Understanding. In the chapter on the "division of the sciences", Locke mentions
"the third branch (which) may be called semiotic, or the doctrine of signs... the
business whereof is to consider the nature of signs the mind makes use of for the
understanding of things, or conveying its knowledge to others. For, since the
things the mind contemplates are none of them, beside itself, present to the
understanding, it is necessary that something else, a sign or representation of the
thing it considers, should be present to it" (Locke, 1964: 309).
Later, in the 19th century, the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce
devoted a life time work, which unfortunately remained unheeded for a long time,
to the study of signs, to setting up semiotics as a science, "as the doctrine of the
essential nature and fundamental varieties of possible «semiosis»". (R.Jakobson,
1965: 22) Ferdinand de Saussure too, probably quite independently from Peirce,
but undoubtedly inspired by the same Greek philosophers' speculations on
language, suggested that linguistics should be regarded as just one branch of a
more general science of sign systems which he called semiology. In other words
he saw no basic difference between language signs and any other kinds of sings
all of them interpretable by reference to the same general science of signs.
Peirce distinguished three main types of signs according to the nature of the
relationship between the two inseparable aspects of a sign: the signans (the
material suport of the sign, its concrete manifestation) and the signatum (the thing
signified):
(i) Icons, in which case, the relationship between the signans and the
signatum is one of similarity.
The signans of an iconic type of sign, resembles in shape its signatum.
Drawings, photographs, etc., are examples of iconic signs. Yet, physical similarity
does not imply true copying or reflection of the signatum by the signans. Peirce
distinguished two subclasses of icons- images and diagrams. In the case of the
latter, it is obvious that the "similarity" is hardly "physical" at all. In a diagram of
the rate of population or industrial production growth, for instance, convention
plays a very important part.
(ii) Indexes, in which the relationship between the signans and the signatum is
the result of a constant association based on physical contiguity, not on similarity.
The signans does not resemble the signatum to indicate it. Thus smoke is an index
14
for fire, gathering clouds indicate a coming rain, high temperature is an index for
illness, footprints are indexes for the presence of animals, etc.
(iii)Symbols, in which the relationship between the signans and the signatum is
entirely conventional. There is no similarity or physical contiguity between the
two. The signans and signatum are bound by convention; their relationship is an
arbitrary one. Language signs are essentially symbolic in nature. Ferdinand de
Saussure clearly specified absolute arbitrariness as "the proper condition of the
verbal sign".
To remember! The act of semiosis may be both motivated and conventional. If

semiosis is motivated, than motivation is achieved either by contiguity or by
similarity.
Any system of signs endowed with homogeneous significations forms a
language; and any language should be conceived of as a mixture of signs.
Another aspect revealed by semiotics which presents a particular importance
for semantics is the understanding of the semiotic act as an institutional one.
Language itself, can be regarded as an institution (Firth, 1957), as a complex form
of human behaviour governed by signs. This understanding of language opens the
way for a new, intentional theory of meaning. Meaning is achieved therefore
either by convention or by intention.
Conclusions:
Semantics is a domain which deals with the content side of linguistic signs,
being in strong connection with the other linguistic branches, in the same way in
which morpho-syntactic competence combines with semantic competence. Words
collocate not only considering the syntactic rules of a language, but also their
meaning.
Words were no longer approached in isolation, but analysed in terms of their
position within a larger ensemble - the semantic field - which in turn, is
integrated, together with other fields, into an ever larger one; the process of
subsequent integrations accounts for the structure of the whole lexicon. The form
of a word can indicate to a certain extent some features of its meaning, but
convention is the main factor in establishing how to make reference to something.
The period of crisis in the history of semantics was due to the extreme interest
in the linguistic structure, seen as the ‘engine’ which governs correct and
meaningful communication. Focus on word form and sentence structure proved
beneficial for the future development of semantics, because of the data gained.
As with any science, many more or less synonymous terms are introduced, the
difference being given by the perspective adopted. Terms such as ‘semantics’ and
‘semasiology’ reflect the perspective of meaning as a property of the word, the
15
latter being the basic element of interest. ‘Plerematics’ considers the whole
lexicon of a language, as the all-inclusive class.
The act of semiosis may be both motivated and conventional. If semiosis is
motivated, than motivation is achieved either by contiguity or by similarity. Any
system of signs endowed with homogeneous significations forms a language; and
any language should be conceived of as a mixture of signs.
Bibliography:
Chiţoran, Dumitru. 1973. Elements of English Structural Semantics. Bucureşti:
E.D.P.
Klinkenberg, J.-M. 2004. Iniţiere în semiotica generală. Iaşi: Institutul European.
Leech, G. 1990. Semantics. The Study of Meaning. London: Penguin Books.
Saeed, J., I. 1997. Semantics. Dublin: Blackwell Publishers.
Self-Assessment Test
1. What term is not synonymous with the term semantics?

a. onomasiology
b. noology
c. plerematics
d. semasilogy
2. When was the period of crisis in the history of semantics?

a. in the Middle Ages
b. in the 19th century
c. nowadays
d. in the seventh decade of the 20th century
3. Which are the subdivisions of semantics?

a. theoretical semantics and empirical (linguistic) semantics
b. morpho-semantics and lexo-semantics
c. semiotics and syntactic semantics
4. What is the common feature of all types of signs?

a. contiguity
b. similarity
c. conventionality
d. subjectivity
16
Correct answers: 1 a; 2d; 3 a; 4 c.
Exercises.
1. Define the object of semantics as it has appeared throughout
history.
2. Find in the dictionary the meaning of the English words whisper,
boo-hoo, relativism and give their Romanian counterparts. Discuss how
the physei-thesei controversy manifests itself in this case.
3. Consider the example of traffic signs. Decide what class of signs
they belong to, according to Peirce’s classification. Discuss how
motivation and convention explain the semiotic act in this case.
17
Unit II
THE PROBLEM OF MEANING
- studenţii vor fi capabili să descrie relaţia cuvânt-sens-referent şi să-i
stabilească caracteristicile în diverse cazuri;
- vor putea recunoaşte atuurile şi deficienţele teoriilor referenţiale, respectiv
conceptuale referitoare la sens;
- vor distinge pe exemple concrete sensul denotaţional al unui cuvânt de
sensurile de tip asociativ, în funcţie de context.
Cuprins:
2. 1. The Concept of Meaning:
2. 1. 1. Meaning as a bipolar relation
2. 1. 2. Meaning as a triadic concept:
- the referential approach
- the conceptual approach
2.2. Dimensions of Meaning
2. 2. 1. The multiple facets of meaning
2. 2. 2. Types of meaning in Leech’s view
Concluzii
Exerciţii
2. 1. Any progress in semantics is conditioned by a clearer understanding of

meaning, as the object of its analysis. Numberless definitions of language
meaning have been postulated, some complementary in nature, some opposed. A
linguistic account of meaning would still be very difficult to give, because of the
plurality of levels at which meaning can be discussed - the word level, the phrase
level, the sentence level.
To remember! Even if the morpheme is the minimum unit of language

endowed with meaning, it is the word, the next higher unit that traditional
lexicology has selected as its object of study and to clearly understand the factors
involved in meaning, it’s necessary to begin with an account of meaning at word
level.
18
2.1.1. The concept of meaning, defined by F. de Saussure, was first regarded
as a bipolar relation between the two interdependent sides of a linguistic sign-
significans ‘expression’ and significatum ‘content’ and this is true for any sign, no
matter to what semiotic system it belongs. Any sign is a convention, a symbol,
standing for something else. As it has already been mentioned, linguistic signs are
characterised by the highest degree of conventionality, which explains the
existence of so many natural languages.
2.1.2. To remember! Ogden and Richards have pointed out in 1923 that at
least three factors are involved in any symbolic act- the symbol itself ‘the material
aspect of the linguistic sign, be it phonic or graphic’; the thought/reference ‘the
mental content that accompanies the occurrence of the symbol in the minds of
both the speaker and the listener’; the object itself/ the referent ‘the object in the
real world designated by the symbol’.
The triadic concept of meaning was represented by Ogden and Richards in the
form of a triangle.
Thought/
mental image
(reference)
Symbol Object
(graphic/ (referent)
phonic)
To remember! While the relation symbol- reference and reference- referent

are direct and causal ones in the sense that the symbol expresses or symbolises
the reference which, in turn refers to the referent, the relation symbol- object or
referent is an imputed, indirect one.
Of the two sides of the triangle only the right-hand one can be left out –
tentatively and temporarily- in a linguistic account of meaning. The relationship
between thought and the outside world of objects and phenomena is of interest
primarily to psychologists and philosophers, linguists directing their attention
towards the other two sides. (Chiţoran,1973: 30).
Depending on what it is understood by meaning, we can distinguish two main
semantic theories:
19
- the referential/ denotational approach-meaning is the action of putting words
into relationship with the world;
- the representational/ conceptual approach-meaning is the notion, the
concept or the mental image of the object or situation in reality as reflected in
man’s mind.
The two basic types of meaning were first mentioned by S. Stati in 1971-
referential definitions which analyse meaning in terms of the relation symbol-
object /referent; conceptual definitions which regard the relation symbol-
thought/reference.
Denotational / Referential Theories of Meaning.
Before describing the characteristics of these theories, a clarification of
the terms used is necessary. All languages allow speakers to describe or model
aspects of what they perceive. In semantics the action of picking out or identifying
individuals/ locations with words is called referring/denoting. To some linguists
the two terms, denote and refer are synonymous. J. Saeed (1997: 23) gives two
examples of proper names whose corresponding referents are easily recognizable
e. g. I saw Michael Jackson on TV last night.
We have just flown back from Paris.
The underlined words refer to/denote the famous singer, respectively the
capital of France, even if in some contexts they may be used to designate a person
different from the singer, or a locality other than the capital of France.
To John Lyons the terms denote and refer are not synonymous. The former is
used to express the relationship linguistic expression- world, whereas the latter is
used for the action of a speaker in picking out entities in the world. In the example
A sparrow flew into the room.
a sparrow and the room are NPs that refer to things in the world.; room,
sparrow denote classes of items.
To remember! In conclusion, referring is what speakers do and denoting is a

property of words. Denotation is a stable relationship in a language, it doesn’t
depend on anyone’s use of the word, unlike the action of referring.
Returning to the problem of theories of meaning, they are called referential/

denotational when their basic premise is that we can give the meaning of words
and sentences by showing how they relate to situations: proper names denote
individuals, nouns denote entities or sets of individuals, verbs denote actions,
adverbs denote properties of actions, adjectives denote properties of individuals.
In case of sentences, they denote situations and events. The difference in meaning
between a sentence and its negative counterpart arises from the fact that they
describe two situations:
e. g. There is a book on the shelf.
There isn’t a book on the shelf.
20
Referential theories consider meaning to be something outside the world itself,
an extra-linguistic entity. This means reducing the linguistic sign, i.e. the word, to
its material aspect, be it phonic or graphic.
The impossibility of equating meaning with the object denoted by a given
word can be explained considering three major reasons
a. the identity meaning-object would leave meaning to a large extent
undefined because not all the characteristic traits of an object as an extra-
linguistic reality are identical with the distinctive features of lexical meaning;
b. not all words have a referent in the outside world; there are:
- non- referring expressions so, very, maybe, if, not, etc.
- referring expressions used generically:
e. g. A murder is a serious felony.
- words like nouns, pronouns with variable reference depending on
the context:
e. g. The president decides on the foreign policy.
She didn’t know what to say.
- words which have no corresponding object in the real world in
general or at a certain moment:
e. g. The unicorn is a mythical animal.
She wants to make a cake this evening.
- different expressions/words that can be used for the same referent,
the meaning reflecting the perspective from which the referent is
viewed
e. g. The morning star is the same thing as the evening star.
The president of the USA/ George Bush/ Barbara Bush’s
husband was to deliver a speech.
Besides the referential differences between expressions, we can make useful
distinctions among the things referred to by expressions-referent = thing picked
out by uttering the expression in a particular context; extension of an expression =
set of things which could possibly be the referent of that expression. In Lyon’s
terminology, the relationship between an expression and its extension is called
denotation. (Saeed 1997: 27)
A distinction currently made by modern linguists is that between the
denotation of a word and the connotations associated with it. For most linguists,
denotation represents the cognitive or communicative aspect of meaning (Schaff,
1965), while connotation stands for the emotional overtones a speaker usually
associates with each individual use of a word. Denotative meaning accounts for
the relationship between the linguistic sign and its denotatum. But one shouldn’t
equate denotation with the denotatum. What is the denotation of a word which has
no denotatum? As we shall see, it represents a concept or a mental image.
As far as the attitude of the speaker is concerned, denotation is regarded as
neutral, since its function is simply to convey the informational load carried by a
word. The connotative aspects of meaning are highly subjective, springing from
21
personal experiences, which a speaker has had of a given word and also from
his/her attitude towards his/ her utterance and/ or towards the interlocutors (Leech,
1990: 14). For example dwelling, house, home, abode, residence have the same
denotation but different connotations.
Given their highly individual nature, connotations seem to be unrepeatable
but, on the other hand, in many instances, the social nature of individual
experience makes some connotative shades of meaning shared by practically all
the speakers of a language. It is very difficult to draw a hard line between
denotation and connotation in meaning analysis, due to the fact that elements of
connotation are drawn into what is referred to as basic, denotative meaning. By
taking into account connotative overtones of meaning, its analysis has been
introduced a new dimension, the pragmatic one.
Talking about reference involves talking about nominals- names and noun
phrases-. They are labels for people, places, etc. Context is important in the use of
names; names are definite in that they carry the speaker’s assumption that his/ her
audience can identify the referent (Saeed, 1997: 28).
One important approach in nominals’ analysis is the description theory
(Russel, Frege, Searle). A name is taken as a label or shorthand for knowledge
about the referent, or for one or more definite descriptions in the terminology of
philosophers. In this theory, understanding a name and identifying the referent are
both dependent on associating the name with the right description.
e. g. Christopher Marlowe was murdered in a Deptford tavern.
The writer of the play Dr. Faustus was murdered in a Deptford
tavern.
The Elizabethan playwright was murdered in a Deptford tavern.
Another interesting approach is the causal theory (Devitt, Sterelny,
1987), based on the ideas of Kripke (1980) and Donnellan (1972). This theory
considers that names are socially inherited or borrowed. There is a chain back to
the original naming/ grounding. In some cases a name does not get attached to a
single grounding. It may arise from a period of repeated uses. Sometimes there are
competing names and one wins out. Mistakes can be made and subsequently fixed
by public practice. This theory recognizes that speakers may use names with very
little knowledge of the referent, so it stresses the role of social knowledge in the
use of names. The treatment chosen for names can be extended to other nominals,
like natural kinds (e. g. giraffe, gold), that is nouns referring to classes which
occur in nature.
To remember! Referential theories consider meaning to be something

outside the world, an extra-linguistic entity. It is impossible to equate meaning
with the object denoted because not all object traits have correspondents at the
level of meaning features and not all words have a referent in the outside world. A
word designates classes of objects; its denotation represents the cognitive aspect
of meaning and its connotations stand for the emotional overtones. An exception
22
is represented by proper names, their reference being accounted for by descriptive
or causal theories of naming.
Conceptual/ Representational Theory of Meaning

It proposes to define meaning in terms of the notion, the concept or the mental
image of the object or situation in reality as reflected in man’s mind. Semantic
studies, both traditional and modern, have used mainly such conceptual
definitions of meaning, taking it for granted that for a correct understanding of
meaning, it is necessary to relate it to that reflection in our minds of the general
characteristics of objects and phenomena. Even Bloomfield refers to those general
characteristics of an object/ situation which are ‘linguistically relevant’.
On the other hand, complete identification of meaning with the concept or
notion is not possible either. This would mean to ignore denotation and to deprive
meaning of any objective foundation. More than that, languages provide whole
categories of words-proper names, prepositions, conjunctions- for which no
corresponding notions can be said to exist. Even in the case of notional words, the
notion, the concept may be regarded as being both ‘wider’ and ‘narrower’ than
meaning. A notion, concept has a universal character, while the meaning of a word
is specific, defined only within a given language (Chiţoran, 1973: 32-33).
Signification and Sense. Meaning should be defined in terms of
all the possible relations characteristic of language signs. The use of a linguistic
sign to refer to some aspects of reality is a semiotic act. There are three elements
involved in any semiotic act- the sign, the sense, the signification.
Sense
(intensional
meaning)
Signification
(extensional
Linguistic meaning)
sign
Two distinguishable aspects of the content side of the sign can

be postulated- its signification, the real object or situation denoted by the sign, i. e.
its denotation and a sense which expresses a certain informational content on the
23
object or situation. The relation between a proper name and what it denotes is
called name relation and the thing denoted is called denotation. ‘A name names its
denotation and expresses its sense.’ (Alonso Church)
Extensional and Intensional Meaning. The definition of meaning by
signification is called extension in symbolic logic (Carnap, 1960) and what has
been called sense is equivalent to intension. Extension stands for the class of
objects corresponding to a given predicate, while intension is based on the
property assigned to the predicate (Vasiliu, 1970).
e. g. They want to buy a new car. (intensional meaning)
There is a car parked in front of your house. (extensional
meaning)
To remember! The complete identification of meaning with the concept or
notion is not possible either. This would mean to ignore denotation and to deprive
meaning of any objective foundation. More than that, languages provide whole
categories of words-proper names, prepositions, conjunctions- for which no
corresponding notions can be said to exist.
Moreover, the concept may be regarded as being both ‘wider’ and ‘narrower’
than meaning.
Two distinguishable aspects of the content side of the sign can be postulated-
its signification, the real object or situation denoted by the sign, i.e. its denotation
and a sense which expresses a certain informational content on the object or
situation. Defining meaning in terms of symbolic logic, we can distinguish
between extension, which stands for the class of objects corresponding to a given
predicate, and intension, based on the property assigned to the predicate. The
presence of a referent associated with the word accounts for extensional meaning,
whereas its absence represents a case of intensional meaning.
2.2. Dimensions of Meaning.

2.2.1. The multiple facets of meaning. Meaning is so complex and there are so
many factors involved in it, that a complete definition would be impossible. We
are dealing with a plurality of dimensions characteristic of the content side of
linguistic signs (Chiţoran, 1973: 37).
There is a first of all a semantic dimension proper, which covers the
denotatum of the sign including also information as to how the denotatum is
actually referred to, from what point of view it is being considered. The former
aspect is the signification, the latter is its sense.
e. g. Lord Byron/ Author of Child Harold have similar signification and
different senses.
He is clever. /John is clever. He and John are synonymous expressions
if the condition of co- referentiality is met.
24
The logical dimension of meaning covers the information conveyed by
the linguistic expression on the denotatum, including a judgement of it.
The pragmatic dimension defines the purpose of the expression, why it is
uttered by a speaker. The relation emphasized is between language users and
language signs.
The structural dimension covers the structure of linguistic expressions,
the complex network of relationships among its component elements as well as
between it and other expressions.
2.2.2. Types of Meaning. Considering these dimensions, meaning can be
analysed from different perspectives, of which G. Leech distinguished seven main
types (Leech, 1990: 9).
a. Logical/ conceptual meaning, also called denotative or cognitive
meaning, is considered to be the central factor in linguistic communication. It has
a complex and sophisticated organization compared to those specific to syntactic
or phonological levels of language. The principles of contrastiveness and
constituent structure – paradigmatic and syntagmatic axes of linguistic structure-
manifest at this level i.e. conceptual meaning can be studied in terms of
contrastive features.
b. Connotative meaning is the communicative value an expression
has by virtue of what it refers to. To a large extent, the notion of reference
overlaps with conceptual meaning. The contrastive features become attributes of
the referent, including not only physical characteristics, but also psychological
and social properties, typical rather than invariable. Connotations are apt to vary
from age to age, from society to society.
e. g. woman [capable of speech] [experienced in cookery] [frail] [prone
to tears] [non - trouser- wearing]
Connotative meaning is peripheral compared to conceptual meaning, because
connotations are relatively unstable. They vary according to cultural, historical
period, experience of the individual. Connotative meaning is indeterminate and
open- ended that is any characteristic of the referent, identified subjectively or
objectively may contribute to the connotative meaning.
c. In considering the pragmatic dimension of meaning, we can
distinguish between social and affective meaning. Social meaning is that which a
piece of language conveys about the social circumstances of its use. In part, we
‘decode’ the social meaning of a text through our recognition of different
dimensions and levels of style.
One account (Crystal and Davy, Investigating English Style) has recognized
several dimensions of socio-linguistic variation. There are variations according to:
- dialect i.e. the language of a geographical region or of a social class;
- time, for instance the language of the eighteenth century;
- province/domain, i.e. the language of law, science, etc.;
- status, i.e. polite/ colloquial language etc.;
- modality, i.e. the language of memoranda, lectures, jokes, etc.;
25
- singurality, for instance the language of a writer.
It’s not surprising that we rarely find words which have both the same
conceptual and stylistic meaning, and this led to declare that there are no ‘true
synonyms’. But there is much convenience in restricting the term ‘synonymy’ to
equivalence of conceptual meaning. For example, domicile is very formal,
official, residence is formal, abode is poetic, home is the most general term.
In terms of conceptual meaning, the following sentences are synonymous.
e. g. They chucked a stone at the cops, and then did a bunk with the loot.
After casting a stone at the police, they absconded with the money.
In a more local sense, social meaning can include what has been called
the illocutionary force of an utterance, whether it is to be interpreted as a request,
an assertion, an apology, a threat, etc.
d. The way language reflects the personal feelings of the speaker, his/
her attitude towards his/ her interlocutor or towards the topic of discussion,
represents affective meaning. Scaling our remarks according to politeness,
intonation and voice- timbre are essential factors in expressing affective
meaning which is largely a parasitic category, because it relies on the
mediation of conceptual, connotative or stylistic meanings. The exception is
when we use interjections whose chief function is to express emotion.
e. Two other types of meaning involve an interconnection on the
lexical level of language. Reflected meaning arises in cases of multiple
conceptual meaning, when one sense of a word forms part of our response to
another sense. On hearing, in a church service, the synonymous expressions
the Comforter and the Holy Ghost, one may react according to the everyday
non- religious meanings of comfort and ghost. One sense of a word ‘rubs off’
on another sense when it has a dominant suggestive power through frequency
and familiarity. The case when reflected meaning intrudes through the sheer
strength of emotive suggestion is illustrated by words which have a taboo
meaning; this taboo contamination accounted in the past for the dying- out of
the non- taboo sense; Bloomfield explains in this way the replacement of cock
by rooster.
f. Collocative Meaning consists of the associations a word acquires
on account of the meanings of words which tend to occur in its environment/
collocate with it.
e.g. pretty girl/ boy/ flower/ color
handsome boy/ man/ car/ vessel/ overcoat/ typewriter .
Collocative meaning remains an idiosyncratic property of individual words
and it shouldn’t be invoked to explain all differences of potential co- occurrence.
Affective and social meaning, reflected and collocative meaning have more in
common with connotative meaning than with conceptual meaning; they all have
the same open- ended, variable character and lend themselves to analysis in terms
of scales and ranges. They can be all brought together under the heading of
associative meaning. Associative meaning needs employing an elementary
26
‘associationist’ theory of mental connections based upon contiguities of
experience in order to explain it. Whereas conceptual meaning requires the
postulation of intricate mental structures specific to language and to humans, and
is part of the ‘common system‘ of language shared by members of a speech
community, associative meaning is less stable and varies with the individual’s
experience. Because of so many imponderable factors involved in it, associative
meaning can be studied systematically only by approximation statistical
techniques. Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum (The Measurement of Meaning, 1957),
proposed a method for a partial analysis of associative meaning. They devised a
technique – involving a statistical measurement device, - The Semantic
Differential -, for plotting meaning in terms of a multidimensional semantic
space, using as data speaker’s judgements recorded in terms of seven point scales.
Thematic Meaning means what is communicated by the way in which a
speaker/ writer organizes the message in terms of ordering, focus or emphasis.
Emphasis can be illustrated:
- by word-order:
e.g. Bessie donated the first prize.
The first prize was donated by Bessie.
-by grammatical constructions:
e. g. There’s a man waiting in the hall.
It’s Danish cheese that I like best.
-by lexical means:
e. g. The shop belongs to him
He owns the shop.
- by intonation:
e. g. He wants an electric razor.
Conclusions:
Meaning, as a property of linguistic signs, is essentially a relation-
conventional, stable, and explicit- established between a sign and the object in
referential definitions, or between the sign and the concept/ the mental image of
the object in conceptual definitions of meaning;
An important aspect of meaning is derived from the use that the speakers
make of it – pragmatic meaning, including the attitude that speakers adopt
towards the signs; part of the meaning of linguistic forms can be determined by
the position they occupy in a system of equivalent linguistic forms, in the
paradigmatic set to which they belong - differential/ connotative meaning; equally,
part of the meaning can be determined by the position a linguistic sign occupies
along the syntagmatic axis - distributional/ collocative meaning;
Meaning cannot be conceived as an indivisible entity; it is divisible into
simpler constitutive elements, into semantic features, like the ones displayed on
the expression level of language.
27
Logical, cognitive or
1. Conceptual Meaning
denotative content
What is communicated by
2. Connotative Meaning
virtue of what language refers to
What is communicated of
3. Social Meaning the social circumstances of
language use
What is communicated of
Associative meaning
4. Affective Meaning the feelings and attitudes of the
speaker/ writer
What is communicated
through association with
5. Reflected Meaning
another sense of the same
expression
What is communicated
through association with words
6. Collocative Meaning
tending to occur in the
environment of another word
What is communicated by
the way in which the message is
7. Thematic Meaning
organized in terms of order and
emphasis
Bibliography:
Chiţoran, Dumitru. 1973. Elements of English Structural Semantics.
Bucureşti: E.D.P.
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge, CUP.
Saeed, J., I. 1997. Semantics. Dublin: Blackwell Publishers.
De Saussure, F. 2004. Scrieri de lingvistică generală. Bucureşti: Polirom.
Self- Assessment tests:
1. The drawbacks of referential theory of meaning are:

a. each word has a denotation
b. extension is a class of objects
c. not every word has a referent
c. each meaning feature corresponds to an object trait
2. In the example She turned and looked at me the word and has:
28
a. sense
b. signification
c. both
d. neither, it is a link word
3. Explain what theory of naming can account for the word Venice in the
sentence:
They visited their friends who live in Venice, California.
a. descriptive
b. causal
c. both
d. neither
4. In the example Lady, you talk too much! the word lady expresses:
a. denotative meaning
b. reflected meaning
c. collocative meaning
d. social and affective meaning
Correct answers: 1. c; 2. d; 3. b; 4. d.
Topics for discussion and exercises:
1. Characterize the referential theories of meaning.

2. Define the terms referent, extension, denotation, connotation. Give
examples to illustrate the definitions.
3. Identify and comment on the type of meaning of the bold words in
terms of extension and intension
An Opera Theatre in her town is her dream.
They are signing the contract.
‘Have you met the Pope?’ ‘I have never met Giovanni Paolo II’.
I wanted to find a nice pair of glasses but there wasn’t any cheap
enough.
Since he saw that film, he’s always been afraid of ghosts.
Ann was sad. She didn’t answer my greeting.
He bought a bar of chocolate.
Zorro is his favourite hero.
They have no money to travel abroad.
Every year, the mayor delivers a speech in the town square.
What we need is a group of volunteers.
29
4. Give examples for each type of meaning in Leech’s classification. You can
start by considering the values that the underlined words/phrases in the previous
exercise can acquire in various contexts. Give the Romanian translation of your
examples and discuss your findings.
5. Apply the description theory of naming to the following proper names- for
each name find two different descriptive sentences Karl Marx, New York, Jane
Austen.
6. Give examples of situations in which the causal theory of naming functions.
Can the descriptive and the causal theories of naming be combined?
30
Unit III
M O T I VAT I O N O F M E A N I N G
- studenţii vor fi capabili să explice conceptul de motivare a sensului;
- vor putea distinge cazurile de motivare absolută faţă de cele de motivare
relativă;
- vor putea analiza pe exemple concrete modul cum structura cuvântului
(derivat sau compus) oferă informaţii despre sensul exprimat.
Cuprins:
3. 1. Absolute motivation
3. 2. Relative motivation.
Concluzii
Exerciţii.
Ferdinand de Saussure's apodictic statement: "the linguistic sign is arbitrary"

in the sense that there is no direct relationship between the sound sequence (the
signifiant) and the "idea" expressed by it (signifié) is taken for granted in the
study of language. The resumption of the discussion on the arbitrary character of
the linguistic sign in the late thirties and early forties proved however that the
problem is not as simple as it might seem. There are numerous words in all
languages in which a special correlation may be said to exist between meaning
and sound. These words include in the first place interjections and onomatopoeia,
which are somehow imitative of non-linguistic sounds as well as those instances
in which it can be said that some sounds are somehow associated with certain
meanings, in the sense that they suggest them. This latter aspect is known as
phonetic symbolism.
But in addition to these cases which still remain marginal in the language,
there is also another sense in which the meaning of words may be said to be
related to its form, namely the possibility of analysing linguistic signs by
reference to the smaller meaningful elements of which they are made up. Indeed,
derivative, complex and compound words are analysable from the point of view
of meaning in terms of their constituent morphemes.
31
It is obvious that while the general principle remains valid, namely that there
is no inherent reason why a given concept should be paired to a given string of
sounds, it is the linguist's task to examine those instances, when it is possible to
say something about the meaning of a linguistic sign by reference to its sounds
and grammatical structure, in other words, it is necessary to assess the extent to
which there is some motivation in the case of at least a number of words in the
language.
Ullmann (1957) made a distinction between opaque and transparent words. In
the latter case of transparent words, Ullmann discusses three types of motivation:
phonetic, grammatical and semantic (motivation by meaning, as in the case of
"breakfast", whose meaning can be to a certain extent derived from the meaning
of its component elements; one of the features of the meal designated by the word
is that it finishes quickly).
There are two main types of linguistic motivation already postulated by de
Saussure: absolute and relative motivation.
3. 1. Absolute Motivation
To remember! Absolute motivation includes language signs whose sound
structure reproduces certain features of their content. Given this quasi-physical
resemblance between their signifiant and their signifié, these signs are of an
iconic or indexical nature in the typology of semiotic signs, although symbolic
elements are present as well in their organization.
There are several classes of linguistic signs, which can be said to be absolutely
motivated:
(i) Interjections. It would be wrong to consider, as is sometimes done, that
interjections somehow depict exactly the physiological and psychological states
they express. The fact that interjections differ in sound from one language to
another is the best proof of it. Compare the Romanian au! aoleu! vai! and the
English ouch!, which may be used in similar situations by speakers of the two
languages.
(ii) Onomatopoeia. This is true of imitative or onomatopoeic words as well.
Despite the relative similarity in the basic phonetic substance of words meant to
imitate animal or other sounds and noises, their phonological structure follows the
rules of pattern and arrangement characteristic of each separate language. There
are instances in which the degree of conventionality is highly marked, as
evidenced by the fact that while in English a dog goes bow-wow, in Romanian it
goes ham-ham. Also, such forms as English whisper and Romanian şopti are
considered to be motivated in the two languages, although they are quite different
in form.
(iii)Phonetic symbolism. Phonetic symbolism is based on the assumption that
certain sounds may be associated with particular ideas or meanings, because they
somehow seem to share some attributes usually associated with the respective
32
referents. The problem of phonetic symbolism has been amply debated in
linguistics and psychology and numerous experiments have been made without
arriving at very conclusive results.
It is quite easy to jump at sweeping generalizations starting from a few
instances of sound symbolism.
Jespersen attached particular attention to the phonetic motivation of words and
tried to give the character of law to certain sound and meaning concordances. He
maintained for instance, on the basis of ample evidence provided by a great
variety of languages, that the front, close vowel sound of the [i] type is suggestive
of the idea of smallness, rapidity and weakness. A long list of English words:
little, slim, kid, bit, flip, tip, twit, pinch, twinkle, click, etc. can be easily provided
in support of the assumption, and it can also be reinforced by examples of words
from other languages: Fr. petit, It. piccolo, Rom. mic, etc. Of course, one can
equally easily find counter examples - the most obvious being the word big in
English - but on the whole it does not seem unreasonable to argue that a given
sound, or sequence of sounds is associated to a given meaning impression,
although it remains a very vague one.
Sapir (1929) maintained that a contrast can be established between [i] and [a]
in point of the size of the referents in the names of which they appear, so that
words containing [a] usually have referents of larger size. Similar systematic
relations were established for consonants as well.
Initial consonant clusters of the /sn/, /sl/, /fl/ type are said to be highly
suggestive of quite distinctive meanings, as indicated by long lists of words
beginning with these sounds.
3. 2. Relative Motivation
To remember! In the case of relatively motivated language signs, it is not the
sounds which somehow evoke the meaning; whatever can be guessed about the
meaning of such words is a result of the analysis of the smaller linguistic signs
which are included in them. Relative motivation involves a much larger number of
words in the language than absolute motivation. There are three types of relative
motivation: motivation by derivation; by composition and semantic motivation.
An analysis of the use of derivational means to create new words in the

language will reveal its importance for the vocabulary of a language. The prefix {-
in}, realized phonologically in various ways and meaning either (a) not and (b) in,
into, appears in at least 2,000 English words: inside, irregular, impossible,
incorrect, inactive etc.
Let us consider the word impossibility; it is made up by preposing the negative
prefix im- to the base possibility. The presence of the negative prefix gives the
native speaker information about the negative meaning of the word (lack of
possibility). The base possibility is made up of the base possibil- and the noun-
forming suffix –ity. Again, the language user will know that he/she deals with a
33
noun. Up to this point, the word can be considered to have been transparent, to use
Ullmann’s terms. The base possibil- is not easily recognisable as being made up
by adding the adjectival suffix –ibil- to the root poss-. The root cannot be
recognised as such, since it does not exist as a word in English.
Many roots are of Latin origin, but only derivatives of theirs have been
borrowed into English. For example, the Latin capere ("take") appears in a great
number of English words: capture, captivity, capable, reception, except, principal,
participant, etc.
It is no wonder that Brown (1964) found it possible to give keys to the
meanings of over 14,000 words, which can be analysed in terms of combinations
between 20 prefixes and 14 roots. Some of his examples are given below:
Words Prefix Common Root Common

Meaning Meaning
1. Precept pre- before capere take, seize
2. Detain de- away, down tenere hold, have
3. Intermittent inter- between, among mittere send
4. Offer ob- against ferre bear, carry
5. Insist in- into stare stand
6. Monograph mono- alone, one, graphein write
7. Epilogue epi- upon legein say, study of
8. Aspect ad- to, towards specere see
This table alone is sufficient to indicate the importance of relative motivation

for the analysis of meaning.
It is obvious that the lexicon of a language presents items which differ in the
degree to which their meaning can be said to be motivated; while some are
opaque (their sound give no indication of their meaning), others are more or less
transparent, in the sense that one can arrive at some idea of their meaning by
recourse to their phonetic shape or to their derivational structure or to some
semantic relations which can be established with other words in the language.
In Précis de sémantique française (1952), Ullmann suggested several criteria
of semantic structure which enabled him to characterize English as a "lexical
language", as opposed to French which is a more "grammatical" one: the number
of arbitrary and motivated words in the vocabulary; the number of particular and
generic terms; the use of special devices to heighten the emotive impact of words.
Three other criteria are based on multiple meaning (patterns of synonymy, the
relative frequency of polysemy, and the incidence of homonymy) and a final one
evaluates the extent to which words depend on context for the clarification of their
meaning. This is an area of study which could be continued with profitable results
for other languages as well.
34
Conclusions:
Derivative, complex and compound words are analysable from the point of
view of meaning in terms of their constituent morphemes and this can offer some
information in point of their meaning, even if they are not completely transparent.
Absolute motivation includes language signs whose sound structure
reproduces certain features of their content.
In case of relative motivation, whatever can be guessed about the meaning of
such words is a result of the analysis of the smaller linguistic signs which are
included in them. Relative motivation involves a much larger number of words in
the language than absolute motivation. There are three types of relative
motivation: motivation by derivation, by composition and semantic motivation.
Bibliography:
Chiţoran, Dumitru. 1973. Elements of English Structural Semantics, Bucureşti,
Ed. Didactică şi Pedagogică.
Duţescu-Coliban, T. 2001. Derivational Morphology. Bucureşti, Universitatea
“Spiru Haret”: Editura Fundaţiei România de mâine.
Leviţchi, L. 1970. Limba engleză contemporană- Lexicologie. Bucureşti:
Editura ştiinţifică şi enciclopedică.
Marchand, H. 1960. The Categories and Types of Present-day English Word-
formation. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Ullmann, S. 1952. Précis de Sémantique française, Bern.
Ullmann, S. 1957. Style in the French Novel, Cambridge: CUP.
Ullmann, S. 1972. Semantics. An introduction to the science of meaning, 2-nd
edition (1-st edition 1962). Oxford: Blackwell
Self-Assessment Test:
1. Absolutely motivated words include:
a. onomatopoeia
b. compounds
c. proper names
d. derivatives
2. F. de Saussure subdivided word motivation into:

a. absolute and relative
b. lexical and semantic
c. obtained by derivation and composition
d. structural
35
3. A transparent word is
a. a word absolutely motivated
b. a derivative
c. a word with one meaning
d. a word whose structure gives information about its meaning
Correct answers: 1. a; 2. a; 3. d.
Exercises:
1. Give examples of words which are absolutely motivated.
2. Analyse the following words in terms of relative motivation:
rowboat, impermeability, wholesaler, pan-African, childless, playing-field,
incredible, scare-crow, counter-attack, imperfect, overdose, shareholder,
caretaker, salesman, foresee, misunderstanding.
3. Give examples of words build with the help of the following
prefixes: bi-, in-, mis-, de-, anti-, non-, out-, super-, dis-, mal-, a-, en-,
over-.
4. Analyze the following blends in point of their relative motivation:
sportcast, smog, telescreen, mailomat, dictaphon, motel, paratroops,
cablegram, guestar, transistor.
5. Write the word forms of the following words and analyze them in
terms of relative motivation: move, comment, place. Consider Saussure’s
types of associations and find possible associations among the word forms
that you previously found. For instance, think of the value of -ment in
comment, placement, movement.
36
Unit IV
STRUCTURAL APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF
MEANING
- studenţii vor fi capabili să descrie caracteristicile analizei componenţiale ca
metodă de lucru în semantică;
- vor şti să identifice trăsăturile semantice relevante ale unui cuvânt;
- vor putea aplica analiza componenţială în cazul unor serii de cuvinte pentru a
stabili aparteneţa lor la acelaşi câmp semantic.
Cuprins:
4. 1. Componential Analysis
4. 2. Paradigms of the Lexicon. The Semantic Field Theory
Concluzii
Exerciţii.
4.1. Componential Analysis

Componential Analysis cannot be discussed without mentioning the role of
structuralism.Though structuralism in linguistics should be connected to
structuralism in other sciences, notably in anthropology, it should also be regarded
as a result of its own inner laws of development as a science.
Generally, structuralist linguistics may be characterised by a neglect of
meaning, but this must not lead to the conclusion that this direction in linguistics
has left the study of meaning completely unaffected. Structural research in
semantics has tried to answer two basic guestions:
a) – is there a semantic structure/system of language, similar
to the systemic organisation of language uncovered at other levels of
linguistic analysis (phonology and grammar) ?
b) can the same structure methods which have been used in
the analysis of phonological and grammatical aspects of languages be
applied to the analysis of meaning ?
In relation to question a), the existence of some kind of systemic organisation
within the lexicon of a language is taken for granted. F de Sanssure pointed aut
that the vocabulary of a language cannot be regarded as a mere catalogue. But
this aaceptance does not mean it is an easy job to prove the systematic character of
the lexicon. First of all, it would mean the study of the entire civilization it reflects
37
and secondly, given the fluid and vague nature of meaning, semantic reality must
be analysed without recourse to directly observable entities as it happens in case
of sound and grammatical meaning.
One solution was to group together those elements of the lexicon which
form more or less natural series. Such series are usually represented by kinship
terms, parts of the human body, the term of temporal and spatial orientation etc,
that can be said to reveal a structural organisation. Structural considerations were
applied to terms denoting sensorial perceptions: colour, sound , swell, taste, as
well as to terms of social and personal appreciation.
The existence of such semantic series, the organisation of words into
semantic fields justified the structural approach to the study of lexicon.
Hjelmslev conditioned the existence of system in language by the
existence of paradigms, so that a structural description is only possible where
paradigms are revealed. But, the vocabulary, as an open system, with a variable
number of elements, does not fit such a description unless the definition of
system broadens. Melcuk (1961) stated that a set of structurally organised objects
forms a system if the objects can be described by certain rules, on condition that
the number of rules is smaller than the number of objects. Constant reference to
phonology, in terms of distinguishing between relevant and irrelevant in the study
of meaning has led to applying methods pertaining to the expression level of
language to its content level as well.
Some linguistic theories, mainly the Gloosemantic School, take it for
granted that there is an underlying isomorphism between the expression and
content levels of language. Accordingly they consider it axiomatic to apply a
unique method of analysis to both levels of language. Hjelmslev distinguishes
between signification and sense and deepens this distinction on the basis of a new
dichotomy postulated by glossematics: form and substance. While sense refers to
the substance of content, signification refers to its form or structure. The
distinction signification/sense can be analysed in term of another structuralist
dichotomy: invariant/variant. Significations represent invariant units of meaning
while the sense are its variants. There is a commutation relation between
significations as invariants, and a substitution one between senses as variants. An
example is given below :
Romanian English Russian
palmă
hand
mână pyka
braţ arm
Since significations as invariants find their material manifestation in senses as

their invariants, in terms of glossematics, a theory of signification stands for
content form alone, so signification is no more semantic than other aspects of
content form dealt with by grammar. It follows that only a theory of the sense
(substance of content) could be the object of study of semantics(Chiţoran,
1973:48).
38
In Hjelmslev’s opinion, sense is characteristic of speech, not of language,
pertains to an empirical level, so below any interest of linguistics. Any attempt to
uncover structure or system at the sense level can be based on the collective
evaluation of sense. For Hjelmslev, lexicology is a sociological discipline which
makes use of linguistic material: words. This extreme position is in keeping with
the neopositivist stand adopted by glossematics, according to which form has
primacy over substance, that language is form, not substance and what matters in
the study of meaning is the complex network of relations obtaining among
linguistic elements.
To remember! Keeping in mind the basic isomorphism between expression

and content, it is essential to emphasize some important differences between the
two language levels:
- the expression level of language implies sequentiality, a
development in time (spoken language) or space (written language);
its content level is characterised by simultaneity;
- the number of units to be uncovered at the expression level
is relatively small, and infinitely greater at the content level.
It is generaly accepted that the meanings of a word are also structured, that
they form microsystems, as apposed to the entire vocabulary which represents the
lexical macrosystem. The meanings of a lexical element display levels of
structure, starting from a basic significative nucleus, a semantic constant
(Coteanu, 1960) which represents the highest level of abstraction in the
structuration of meaning. Around it different meanings can be grouped (the 2 nd
level). (Chiţoran, 1973:51)
The actual uses of a lexical item, resulting from the individualising function of
words (Coteanu, 1960) belong to speech. Monolingual dictionaries give the
meanings of a lexical item abstracted on the basis of a wide collection of data. As
far as the semantic constant is concerned, its identification is the task of semnatics
and one way of doing that is by means of the Componential Analysis.
To remember! Componential Analysis assumes that all meanings can be

further analysed into distinctive semantic features called ‚semes’, ‚semantic
components’ or ‚semantic primitives’, as the ultimate components of meaning.
The search for distinctive semantic features was first limited to lexical items
which were intuitively felt to form natural structures of a more ar less closed
nature.
The set kinship terms was among the first lexical subsystems to be submitted
to componential analysis :
father [+male][+direct line] [+older generation]
mother [-male][+direct line] [+older generation]
39
son [+male][+direct line] [-older generation]
daughter [_male][+direct line] [-older generation]
uncle[+male][_direct line] [+older generation]
aunt [-male] [-direct line] [+older generation]
nephew [+male] [-direct line] [-older generation]
niece [-male] [-direct line] [-older generation]
It is evident than there exist the same hierarchy of units and the same principle
of structuring lower level units into higher level ones (Pottier, 1963):
Expression Content
Distinctive feature pheme (f) seme (s)
Set of distinctive features phememe(F) sememe (S)
(a set of pheme) (A set of semes)
The formalization of a set of phoneme(P) lexeme(L)
Distinctive features (the formalization of a formalization of a sememe
phememe)
The sememes are arrived at by comparing various lexical items in the

language. Starting from the dictionary definitions, the semantic features
encountered in case of furniture intended for siting are :
Semantic
with support for more
feature/ for sitting with back
for arms people upholstered
Lexical item
Stool + - - - *
Chair + + - - *
Armchair + + + - *
Bench + + * + -
Sofa + + * + +
*the given feature(present/absent)is not relevant .
To remember! On the content level an archilexeme will result from the

neutralization of a lexemic opposition. The semantic features of an archilexeme
represent archisememes. In this case the more general term chair can be the
archilexeme, or another lexical item can be chosen- seat.
Glossematics represents the point of departure for an American linguistic

theory, the statificational theory of language (Sidney Lamb, 1964,1966). He
included a semantic theory in his general linguistic theory. This semantic
component has the form of a separate level of language (stratum) the sememic
one. Lamb’s semantic theory is based on the assumption that there is a
structuralization of meaning characteristic of all languages. While before him
words were related directly to their denotata or significata. Lamb suggests the
insertion of a new statum ‘sememics’, between language and the outside world in
40
order to delimit what is linguistically relevant on the content level from what is
not. The sememic statum is inserted between the lexemic (lower) and the semantic
(higher) strata. Its elementary unit is the semon (the minimal unit of the semantic
stratum such that its components are not representations of the components of the
semantic statum; sememes may be accounted for by general construction rules,
the combination of semons must be listed individually for each sememe. Evidence
is formed both for diversification (semo-lexemic) and neutralization
(lexosememic) between the two strata.
Sememic stratum S of colours; giving out/reflecting much light
Lexemic stratum L bright L vivid L intense
Sememic stratum S quick-witted, clever
Lexemic stratum L bright Lgifted L clever L capable
Sememic statum S/piece of wood s/on the ship s/group of people s/food
Lexemic stratum board
41
The first is accounting for the semasiological direction, the second for the
onomasiological direction (from denotata and significata to a linguistic form-
explaining synonymy). In the process of neutalization which accounts for
polysemy, one lexeme is connected to several sememes in an either-or type of
relationship. But the lexeme/lamb/is connected both to the sememe/sheep/ and the
sememe /young/. A given lexeme may connect first to several units in an either-or
relationship, which in turn may connect to several sememes in a both-and
relationship. The intermediate units between the lexeme and the sememes are
called by Lamb sememic signs.
/male/
Sememic stratum /unmarried /owner of the / ± male /
person / 1 st Acad. Degree/
(intermediate) /unmarried /university /young

sememic sign man/ graduate/ knight/
(sememe)
lexemic stratum bachelor
By expressing the meanings of individual items in terms of combinations

of features, we obtain the componential definitions of the items concerned. They
can be regarded as formalized dictionary definitions :
Man / + HUMAN/ /+ ADULT/ / + MALE/
The dimensions of meaning will be termed semantic oppositions. The
features of opposition are mutually defining: + (marked); - (negative, unmarked).
Not all semantic contrasts are binary In fact componential analysis assumes
that meanings are organised in multi-dimensional contrasts. Taxonomic
(hierarchical arrangement of categories) oppositions can be: binary, dead # alive
or multiple, gold # copper # iron # mercury etc.
The link between componential analysis and and basic statements is made
through the mediation of hyponymy (inclusion) and incompatibility. So basic
logical relationships (entailment, inconsistency) can be defined in terms of
hyponymy and incompatibility (Leech, 1990:97):
e.g. The secretary is a woman entails The secretary is an adult.
I meet two boys entails I met two children.
42
Justifying componential analysis by following out its logical consequences
in terms of basic statements implies giving a certain priority to sentence meaning
over word-meaning, so truth-falsehood properties of sentence meanings are the
surest basis for testing a description of meaning: scared and frightened would be
considered as synonyms in terms of their truth value and would be perceived as
differing in terms of stylistic meaning /+/- colloquial/.
The features of different semantic oppositions can be combined. Is it true
that every dimension is variable completely independent of all the other ? If we
take a look at the examples below, /+ human/, /+ adult/, /+male/ are independently
variable; the feature /+animate/ combines with the seme /+countable/; /+ animate/
combines with /± male/, but /+male/ implies /+animate/.
Redundancy rules add features which are predictable from the presence of
other features and are therefore in a sense redundant to an economical semantic
interpretation. Such rules are found in phonology and syntax. Indirect relation of
incompatibility and hyponymy can be established through redundancy rules: man
and book are incompatible in meaning.
Hence, X is a man and X is a book are inconsistent statements. Redundancy
rules are important for extending the power of componential analysis to account
for basic statements. Certain features and oppositions can be regarded as more
important than others in the total organisation of the language. The oppositions /±
concrete/ and /+ countable/ have many other oppositions dependent on them and
so they are in key positions as it happens with the feature /+ animate/. (G. Leech,
1990:111).
Binary oppositions frequently have marked and unmarked terms. That is,
the terms are not entirely of equivalent weight, but one (the unmarked) is neutral
or positive in contrast to the other.
e.g. Eng. book # books
duck # drake
long # short
Fr. petit # petite
Markedness is definable as a relation between form and meaning: if two
words contrast on a single dimension of meaning, the unmarked one is the one
which can also apply neutrally to the whole dimension. A positive-negative bias
is inherent to the semantic opposition. Often the marked term is indicated by a
negative suffix or prefix: happy-unhappy, useful-useless. People tend to respond
more quickly to unmarked than to marked terms. This could be explained by their
tendency to look on the bride side of life and associate unmarkedness with ‘good’
evaluations and markedness with ‘bad’ ones (Leech, 1990:114).
There is also a factor of bias in relative oppositions but this could be
explained in terms of dominance rather than markedness. We prefer to use the
dominant term before the other or to use it alone. Below there are two columns of
dominant terms; the first column contains words which have an unmarked
counterpart, the other contains words without an unmarked antonym.
43
parent # child see –
own # belong to hit –
in front # behind have –
Markedness and dominance vary in strength (they can grow weak even
become inexistent left/right) and are also subject to contextual influences.
To remember! Componential Analysis is based on binary or multiple

oppositions, within which redundancy rules play an important part, from the point
of view of the semes making up the meaning of the words. An opposition
obligatorily contains a marked element; in many cases, the latter is more
frequently used, moreover so when the unmarked counterpart is missing.
Criticisms of Componential Analysis (CA). Componential analysis is

considered by some linguists as a useful and revealing technique for
demonstrating the relation of meaning between words. At the same time, this
theory of word-meaning has been criticised and G.Leech has tried to comment on
the main criticisms :
1. It is said that componential analysis (CA) accounts for only someparts of a
language’s vocabulary (those parts which are neatly organized). Componential
analysis can be fitted into a more powerful model of meaning, with additional
levels of analysis apart from CA.
To remember! Semantic features need not be atomic contrastive elements, but

may have an internal structure of their own, that is, the semantic features can be
derived from configurations of other features. This recursive power of feature-
creation is particularly important in considering metaphor. So, there is no need to
postulate an indefinite proliferation of semantic oppositions.
2. It is often objected than CA suffers from a ‘vicious circle’ in that it
merely explains one set of symbols (e.g. English words) by another set of symbols
(which also turned out to be English words). Leech’s counterargument is that the
notation of symbols is arbitrary and the explanatory function of features consists
solely in their role in the prediction of basic statements.
3. Another objection is that CA postulates abstract semantic entities
(semantic features) unnecessarily. But the notation of CA is language-neutral; the
same features, oppositions redundancy rules may explain meaning relation in
many different languages.
4. Connected to that, it has been postulated that CA implies universal
features of meaning and therefore relies on the strong assumption that the same
semantic features are found in all languages. To remember! CA fits in well with a
‘weak universalist’ position whereby semantic oppositions are regarded as
language-neutral i.e. as conceptual contrasts not necessarily tied to the
description of particular languages. Semantic analyses may be generalized from
44
one language to another, but only to the extent that this is justified by translation
equivalence.
5. It has also been claimed that CA is unexplanatory in that it does not
provide for the interpretation of semantic features in terms of the real-world
properties and objects that they refer to. For example /+ ADULT/ remains an
abstract uninterpreted symbol unless we can actually specify what adults are like,
i.e. how we decide when the feature /+ ADULT/ refers to something.
To remember! To expect CA to provide an interpretation in this sense is to

expect it to provide a theory not only of meaning, but of reference, or not only of
conceptual meaning, but also of connotative meaning. CA cannot have this wider
goal : it is meant to explain word sense, not the encyclopedic knowledge which
must enter into a theory of reference.
6. The view that word-meanings are essentially vague, that determinate

criteria for the reference of words cannot be given has received prominent support
in philosophy and linguistics. Wittgenstein exemplified this with the word game :
he could find no essential defining features of what constitutes a game and
concluded that we know the meaning by virtue of recognizing certain ‘family
resemblances between the activities it refers to. A more recent critique of the
deterministic view of meaning is given by Labov (1973) who conducted an
experiment in which subjects were invited to label pictures of more-or-less cup-
like objects. There was a core of agreement as to what constituted a cup but there
was also a peripheral gradient of disagreement and uncertainty. The conclusion is
that cup, mug, bowl and similar words are defined in terms of ‘fuzzy sets of
attributes’, that is sets of attributes of varying importance, rather than in terms of
a clear-cut, unvarying set of features. We match candidates for ‘cuphood’ against
a prototype or standard notion of cup. The vagueness is referential and does not
affect componential analysis because it has to do with category recognition: the
mental encyclopedia rather than the mental dictionary.
Another kind of variability of reference is presented by Lyons in case of
three words: boy, girl, child in terms of a common feature /– ADULT/. This
feature will require different interpretations in the three cases. Within the
/-ADULT/ category there is a further binary taxonomy, distinguishing child from
adolescent. /–ADULT/ stands as a common factor in the meanings of boy, girl,
child, puppy etc, but its referential interpretation is variable for reasons which are
explicable in terms of the prototypic view of categories.
To remember! There have emerged three different levels at which word-

meaning can be analysed:
- the word-sense as an entirety may be seen as a conceptual
unit in its own right prepackaged experience (Leech, 1990:121);
45
- this unit may be subdivided into components/features by
CA;
- both word-senses and features, representing prototypic
categories can be broken down into fuzzy sets of attributes.
4.2. Paradigms in the Lexicon. The Semantic Field

T h e o r y.
The idea of the organization of the entire lexicon of a language into a unitary
system was for the first time formulated by Jost Trier. Actually, Trier continued
two lines of thought. On the one hand, he was directly influenced by W. von
Humboldt and his ideas of linguistic relativism. Wilhelm von Humboldt,
influenced by the romanticism of the early 19 th century, advanced the theory that
languages are unique, in that each language expresses the spirit of a people, its
Volksgeist. Each language categorizes reality in different ways so that it may
either help or hinder its speakers in making certain observations or in perceiving
certain relations. Given the principle of relativism, it follows that the vocabularies
of any two languages are unisomorphic, that there are no absolute one to one
correspondences between two equivalent words belonging to two different
languages. Humboldt also made the distinction between language viewed
statically, as an ergon, and language viewed dynamically, creatively, as an
energeia. Trier's semantic fields are, accordingly, closely, integrated lexical
systems in a dynamic state of continuous evolution.
The other line of thought which Trier continues springs from Ferdinand de
Saussure's structuralism, more specifically from the distinctions made by the latter
between the signification, and value of lexical items. According to de Saussure,
words have signification, in that they do mean something, positively, but they also
have value, which is defined negatively by reference to what the respective words
do not mean. Linguistic value is the result of the structural relationships of a term
in the system to which it belongs. Thus, Trier postulated that no item in the
vocabulary can be analysed semantically unless one takes into account the bundle
of relationships and oppositions it enters with the other words in a given
subsystem or system. One cannot assess the correct meaning of "green" for
instance, unless one knows the meaning of "red" and all the other colours in the
system.
Colour terms are actually often used to illustrate the semantic field theory. Let
us suppose that the field of colours, which physicists assure us forms a continuum,
is covered by the following number of terms in two languages L1 and L2:
L1: x y z
L2: A b c d e
It is evident that no single term in any of the two languages covers exactly the
same area of the spectrum; only "z" in L1 can be said to incorporate the whole of
"e" in L2 although it covers a small part of the area covered by "d" as well.
46
English and Shona, a language spoken in Rhodesia, exhibit precisely the type
of structural segmentation of the colour spectrum postulated above. While English
have seven basic terms for colour (the first level of the hierarchy), red, orange,
yellow, green, blue and purple, Shona has only three which are distributed roughly
as follows: a first term "covers the range of English orange, red and purple, and a
small part of blue; another term covers the area of green and most of blue" (Lamb
1969: 46). It is evident that the terms for colour are not equivalent in the two
languages.
Evidently the linguistic field of colour terms is a favourable one for such an
analysis. There is first of all a "metalanguage" provided by the science of physics
to which one can report the words for colour. Secondly, the number of words is
quite limited and thus reducible to a restricted set of relationships.
But even in the case of the most elementary vocabulary one encounters a
similar lack of correspondence. English sheep and French mouton are not the
same since English makes use of another term, mutton, to cover the entire area of
meanings and uses covered by French mouton.
Trier advanced the idea, that vocabulary as a whole forms an integrated
system of lexemes interrelated in sense, a huge mosaic with no loopholes or
superposed terms since our concepts themselves cover the entire Universe.
According to his dynamic conception of language viewed as "energeia", Trier
pointed out that the slightest change in the meaning of a term within a semantic
field brings about changes in the neighbouring terms as well.
To remember! Any broadening in the sense of one lexeme involves a

corresponding narrowing in the sense of one or more of its neighbours. According
to Trier, it is one of the major failings of traditional diachronic semantics that it
sets out to catalogue the history of changes in the meanings of individual lexemes
in an atomistic way, or one by one, instead of investigating changes in the whole
structure of the vocabulary as it has developed through time. (Lyons, 1977: 252)
The procedure followed by Trier in diachronic semantics is not one of

comparing successive states of the total vocabulary (which would be hardly
practicable). What he does is to compare the structure of a lexical field at time t 1
with the structure of a lexical field at time t2.
To remember! Semantic fields with a more restricted number of terms are

incorporated into larger ones, the latter are themselves structured into even
larger ones, until the entire lexicon of a language is integrated into a unitary
system. In Trier's opinion therefore semantic fields act as intermediaries between
individual lexical entries, as they appear in a dictionary, and the vocabulary as a
whole.
47
Despite their revolutionary character, Trier's ideas on semantics found few
followers and were consequently slow in being pursued and developed. This is
normal in view of the important objections which can be raised to his theory.
One of the objections came from those who were reluctant to admit such a
perfect organization of vocabulary into an interdependent and perfectly integrated
system of elements which delimit each other like pieces in a jig-saw puzzle.
Secondly, the linguistic relativism of Trier's ideas, his contention about the
influence of language upon thought was rightly considered as an instance of
linguistic solipsism (only language could be studied, verified, it is the only
reality).
To remember! Much of the criticism levelled at semantic field theory

originated from less philosophical considerations. It is quite difficult to outline
the actual limits of a field, its "constant", which subsequently enables one to
analyse the terms incorporated in it. Also, the semantic field theory, if valid,
accounts for only one type of relations contracted by lexical items - the
paradigmatic ones, or, a full semantic description should include syntagmatic
relations as well. In addition Trier's theory does not seem to be related to any
given grammatical theory.
Nevertheless, there were numerous attempts at developing the semantic field

theory, most of them departing to a lesser or greater extent from Trier's original
ideas. L. Weisgerber for instance, continued the analysis of the semantic field of
knowledge and understanding in Modern German while trying to incorporate the
notion of semantic fields in his general theory of language (1953).
P. Guiraud (1956, 1962) developed the theory of the morpho-semantic field.
The morpho-semantic field includes all the sound and sense associations radiating
from a word; its homonyms and synonyms, all other words to which it may be
related formally or logically, metaphorically, etc., as well as casual or more stable
associations which can be established between objects designated by these words.
Walter von Wartburg and R. Hallig (1952) undertook a more ambitious task.
They suggested a method of analysis based on the system of concepts which was
meant to cover the entire vocabulary of a language and, since the general
classification of concepts was supposed to have a general character, the
vocabulary of any language could be incorporated into such a conceptual
dictionary.
The method is entirely reminiscent of Roget's Thesaurus in that it identifies
lexical systems with logical systems of concepts. The outline of the system of
concepts has three main components: the Universe, Man and Man and the
Universe. Each main component includes several classes of concepts (and
accordingly, of words designating these concepts). Thus, component A includes
the following four classes: I. The sky and atmosphere; II. The Earth; III. The
Plants; IV. Animals.
48
To remember! Semantic fields are structural organizations of lexis which
reflect a structuring of the content level of language. Hjelmslev and E. Coşeriu
(1968) considered that any semantic theory is valid only to the extent to which it
arrives at paradigms on the content level of language.
Coşeriu defined the semantic field as a primary paradigmatic structure of the
lexicon, a paradigm consisting in lexical units of content (lexemes), which share a
continuous common zone of signification, being in an immediate opposition one to
another. (Iliescu, Wald 1981: 39)
A semantic field should be understood in Trier's original sense, namely as a

zone of signification covered by a number of closely interrelated lexical items. In
this respect the componential analysis of meaning (Goodenough, 1956) seems to
be nearer the true concept of the semantic field.
Three main objections can be and have been raised with regard to the present
state of the semantic field theory.
(a) Is it possible to analyse the entire vocabulary into semantically structured
fields, or are they limited to certain parts of it only, namely to lexical items
designating aspects of reality (especially man-made reality, the reality of artifacts)
which by their own nature possess a certain structural organization?
(b) Closely related to objection (a) one can doubt the linguistic nature of
semantic fields. Do they correspond to an internal organization of the vocabulary
or are they organizations external to language?
(c) How can semantic fields be delimited? Is there an objective method of
evaluating the range of a given field and the number of elements it includes?
Componential Analysis Applied in the Analysis of Semantic

Fields
One of the most important tenets of modern semantics claims that the
meanings of lexical items do not represent ultimate, indivisible entities; they are,
on the contrary, analysable into further components. This led to a method of
approach in semantic analysis, appropriately called componential analysis,
previously discussed in this chapter.
To remember! Componential analysis originally started as a method of

analysing units belonging to a certain semantic field. The method was fruitfully
applied in the study of kinship terms, colour terminology, military ranks and other
fairly restricted domains of meaning.
Assuming that the meaning of a word is not an undivided entity, componential
analysis provides for the decomposition of meanings into smaller significant
features. Modelled on the analysis of phonemes into distinctive features,
componential analysis is founded on the notion of semantic contrast: the units of
a field are assumed to contrast simultaneously on different dimensions of
49
meaning. The meanings of the field units complement each other constituting a
paradigm. A paradigm will be defined as a set of linguistic forms wherein:
a) the meaning of every form has, at least one feature in common with the
meaning of all other forms in the set;
b) the meaning of every form differs from that of every other form of the set,
by one or more additional features.
c)
The common feature of meaning of the set is called the root meaning. It
defines the semantic area which is analysed by the units of the field. The words in
the field will be arranged into contrastive sets along different dimensions of
meaning. Thus, just as /t/ and /d/ complement each other with respect to the
dimension of voicing, old and young complement each other with respect to the
conceptual dimension of age.
A dimension is an opposition of mutually exclusive features. The features of
the dimension sex, presumably relevant in an analysis of kinship terms, are
[+Male] and [+Female].
Any term of the paradigm will be componentially defined in terms of its
coordinates in the paradigm. The componential definition of a word is a
combination of features for several (or for all) dimensions of the paradigm.
To remember! In the componential definition of the meaning of a lexical item

the linguist proceeds from extensional definition to intensional definitions. That is,
starting his analysis of say, kinship terms, the linguist has to draw up the list of all
the terms with kinship designation and, than, to specify for each of them the set of
possible denotata (the set of contextual meanings or all the allosemes of the
word).
The componential definition of a term may be taken to be an expression of its
significatum. A componential definition is therefore an intensional definition,
which specifies the distinctive features shared in common by all denotata
designated by a given term.
It is a unitary, conjunctive definition implying that all the features are
simultaneously present in every occurrence of the word.
Conclusions:
Keeping in mind the basic isomorphism between expression and content, it is
essential to emphasize some important differences between the two language
levels:
- the expression level of language implies sequentiality, a
development in time (spoken language) or space (written language);
its content level is characterised by simultaneity;
- the number of units to be uncovered at the expression level
is relatively small, and infinitely greater at the content level.
50
Componential Analysis assumes that all meanings can be further analysed
into distinctive semantic features called ‚semes’, ‚semantic components’ or
‚semantic primitives’, as the ultimate components of meaning. The search for
distinctive semantic features was first limited to lexical items which were
intuitively felt to form natural structures of a more ar less closed nature.
On the content level an archilexeme will result from the neutralization of a
lexemic opposition. The semantic features of an archilexeme represent
archisememes.
Componential Analysis is based on binary or multiple oppositions, within
which redundancy rules play an important part, from the point of view of the
semes making up the meaning of the words. An opposition obligatorily contains a
marked element; in many cases, the latter is more frequently used, moreover so
when the unmarked counterpart is missing.
Semantic features need not be atomic contrastive elements, but may have an
internal structure of their own, that is, the semantic features can be derived from
configurations of other features.
CA fits in well with a ‘weak universalist’ position whereby semantic
oppositions are regarded as language-neutral i.e. as conceptual contrasts not
necessarily tied to the description of particular languages. Semantic analyses may
be generalized from one language to another, but only to the extent that this is
justified by translation equivalence.
To expect CA to provide an interpretation in this sense is to expect it to
provide a theory not only of meaning, but of reference, or not only of conceptual
meaning, but also of connotative meaning. CA cannot have this wider goal : it is
meant to explain word sense, not the encyclopedic knowledge which must enter
into a theory of reference.
There have emerged three different levels at which word-meaning can be
analysed:
- the word-sense as an entirety may be seen as a conceptual
unit in its own right prepackaged experience (Leech, 1990:121);
- this unit may be subdivided into components/features by
CA;
- both word-senses and features, representing prototypic
categories can be broken down into fuzzy sets of attributes.
Any broadening in the sense of one lexeme involves a corresponding
narrowing in the sense of one or more of its neighbours. According to Trier, it is
one of the major failings of traditional diachronic semantics that it sets out to
catalogue the history of changes in the meanings of individual lexemes in an
atomistic way, or one by one, instead of investigating changes in the whole
structure of the vocabulary as it has developed through time. (Lyons, 1977: 252)
Semantic fields with a more restricted number of terms are incorporated into
larger ones, the latter are themselves structured into even larger ones, until the
entire lexicon of a language is integrated into a unitary system. In Trier's opinion
51
therefore semantic fields act as intermediaries between individual lexical entries,
as they appear in a dictionary, and the vocabulary as a whole.
Much of the criticism levelled at semantic field theory originated from less
philosophical considerations. It is quite difficult to outline the actual limits of a
field, its "constant", which subsequently enables one to analyse the terms
incorporated in it. Also, the semantic field theory, if valid, accounts for only one
type of relations contracted by lexical items - the paradigmatic ones, or, a full
semantic description should include syntagmatic relations as well.
Semantic fields are structural organizations of lexis which reflect a
structuring of the content level of language. Hjelmslev and E. Coşeriu (1968)
considered that any semantic theory is valid only to the extent to which it arrives
at paradigms on the content level of language.
Coşeriu defined the semantic field as a primary paradigmatic structure of the
lexicon, a paradigm consisting in lexical units of content (lexemes), which share a
continuous common zone of signification, being in an immediate opposition one to
another. (Iliescu, Wald 1981: 39)
Componential analysis originally started as a method of analysing units
belonging to a certain semantic field. The method was fruitfully applied in the
study of kinship terms, colour terminology, military ranks and other fairly
restricted domains of meaning.
Assuming that the meaning of a word is not an undivided entity, componential
analysis provides for the decomposition of meanings into smaller significant
features. Modelled on the analysis of phonemes into distinctive features,
componential analysis is founded on the notion of semantic contrast: the units of
a field are assumed to contrast simultaneously on different dimensions of
meaning. The meanings of the field units complement each other constituting a
paradigm. A paradigm will be defined as a set of linguistic forms wherein:
d) the meaning of every form has, at least one feature in common with the
meaning of all other forms in the set;
e) the meaning of every form differs from that of every other form of the set,
by one or more additional features.
In the componential definition of the meaning of a lexical item the linguist
proceeds from extensional definition to intensional definitions. That is, starting
his analysis of say, kinship terms, the linguist has to draw up the list of all the
terms with kinship designation and, than, to specify for each of them the set of
possible denotata (the set of contextual meanings or all the allosemes of the
word).
The componential definition of a term may be taken to be an expression of its
significatum. A componential definition is therefore an intensional definition,
which specifies the distinctive features shared in common by all denotata
designated by a given term.
It is a unitary, conjunctive definition implying that all the features are
simultaneously present in every occurrence of the word.
52
Bibliography:
Chiţoran, Dumitru. 1973. Elements of English Structural Semantics, Buc.: Editura
Didactică şi Pedagogică.
Hulban, N., Luca-Lăcătuşu, T., Creţescu Kogălniceanu, C. 1983. Competenţă şi
performanţă. Exerciţii şi teste de limbă engleză. Bucureşti: Ed. Ştiinţifică şi
Enciclopedică
Iliescu, M. Wald, L. 1981. Lingvistica modernă în texte. Buc.: Reprografia
Universităţii din Bucureşti.
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics vol. I, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pottier, B. 1963. Recherche sur l’analyse sémantique en linguistique et en
traduction mécanique. Série A. Linguistique appliquée et Traduction
Automatique II, Publications Linguistique de la Faculté de Lettre et Sciences
de l’Univérsité de Nancy.
Pottier, B. 1964.Vers une sémantique moderne. Strasbourg : C. Klincksieck
Lamb, Sydney M. 1966. Outline of Stratificational Grammar. Georgetown:
Georgetown University Pre
1.The content level of language is characterised by:

a. sequentiality
b. simultaneity
c. both
d. synonymy
2. A seme is
a. a type of morpheme
b. a distinctive semantic feature
c. a group of semantic features
d. a word meaning
3. Componential Analysis is a type of

a. morphematic analysis
b. analysis of compounds
c. structuralist method of meaning analysis
d. partial analysis
4. A semantic field comprises

a. synonyms
53
b. semes
c. sets of meanings
d. sets of linguistic units having in common at least one semantic feature
Correct answers: 1. b; 2. b; 3. c; 4. d.
Topics for discussions and exercises:

1. For each of the following words try to establish sets of attributes that would
distinguish it from its companions in the group :
cake, biscuit, bread, role, bun, cracker,
boil, fry, broil, sauté, simmer, grill, roast.
2. For each group of words given below, state what semantic property
/-ies distinguish between the classes of a) and b) words. Do a)words and b)words
share any semantic property ?
Example: a) widow, mother, sister, aunt, maid
b) widower, father, brother, uncle, valet
a) and b) are human
a) words are female and b) male
A) a) bachelor, man, son, pope, chief

b) bull, rooster, drake, ram
B) a) table, stone, pencil, cup, house, ship, car
b)milk, alchohol, rice, soup, mud
C) a) book, temple, mountain, road, tractor
b) idea, love, charity, sincerity, bravery, fear
D) a) walk, run, skip, jump, hop, swim
b) fly, skate, ski, ride, cycle, canoe
E) a) alleged, counterfeit, false, putative, accused
b) red, large, cheerful, pretty, stupid
3. Define the terms seme, sememe, lexeme. Give examples.
4. Find the archilexeme and the archisememe for the next series of
words:
wallet, bag, case, purse, suitcase, knapsack .
5. Point out the advantages and drawbacks of componential analysis.
54
Unit V
LANGUAGE AS A CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM
- studenţii vor fi capabili să argumenteze caracterul conceptual sistemic al
limbii;
- vor putea distinge trăsăturile relativismului lingvistic şi ale universalismului
semantic;
- vor putea analiza pe exemple concrete modul cum cele două puncte de
vedere diametral opuse se combină.
Cuprins:
5. 1. Linguistic Relativism
5. 2. Semantic Universals
5.3. The Child's Acquisition of Conceptual Categories
5.4. Creativity in Language.
Language is not only an instrument of communication. It is far more than this

- it is the means by which we interpret our environment, by which we classify or
"conceptualize" our experiences, by which we are able to impose structure on
reality, so as to use what we have observed for present and future learning and
understanding. Leech considers language, in its semantic aspect, as a conceptual
system. Not as a closed, rigid, conceptual system which tyrannizes over the
thought processes of its users, but as an open-ended conceptual system, one which
"leaks", in the sense that it allows us to transcend its limitations by various types
of semantic creativity.
The first question which arises in whether language is a single conceptual
system, or whether there are as many conceptual systems as there are languages.
Although much of present-day thinking has tended to hypothesize a universal
conceptual framework which is common to all human language, common
observation shows that languages differ in the way they classify experience. A
classic instance of this is the semantics of colour words. English (according to
Berlin and Kay, Basic Color Terms, 1969) has a range of eleven primary colour
terms (black, white, red, green, yellow, blue, brown, purple, pink, orange and
grey), whereas the Philipine language of Hanunóo (according to Conklein,
Hanunóo Colour Categories, 1955) makes do with four.
Conceptual boundaries often vary from language to language. Languages have
a tendency to impose structure upon the real world by treating some distinctions
as crucial, and ignoring others. The way a language classifies things is sometimes
blatantly man-centred.
55
5.1. Linguistic Relativism
Semantic relativism and semantic universals are two conflicting points of view
in relation to meaning. Both theses concern the relation between the structure of
language and the structure of the universe. They represent in fact two different
ways of interpreting the relation between the universe, as experienced by man,
and language as a tool of expressing that experience. Ever since ancient times it
has been maintained that the structure of language reflects more or less directly
the structure of the Universe as well as the universal structure of the human mind
(Mounin, 1963: 41). This was taken to be a precondition of interlingual
communication as well as of the act of translation.
In terms of Hjelmslevian distinction between substance and form of the
content, it was agreed that there may be different ways of segmenting substance,
and an even richer variety in its form but the content itself, the world of
experience remains basically the same.
The axiomatic character of the statement which relates the structure of
language to the structure of the universe as reflected in man's mind, ceases to be
commonly agreed upon when one begins to consider the nature of this relationship.
Wilhelm von Humboldt in the first half of the 19th century, and many
philosophers and linguists after him, assigned language a much more active role,
regarding it not as a passive carrier of thought, but, in a very direct way as a
moulder of it. In their opinion, language imposes upon thought its own system of
distinctions, its own analysis of objective reality. These ideas remained unheeded
by linguists until the advent of European structuralism. The key idea in
Saussurean linguistics namely that language signs have no meaning or "value"
outside the system to which they belonged, fits perfectly the principle of linguistic
relativism. Trier and particularly Hjelmslev consider that each language structures
reality in its own way and by doing so, creates an image of reality which is not a
direct copy of it. Language is the result of the imposition of same form upon an
underlying substance.
Quite independently, and emerging mainly from current observation in
linguistic anthropological research on Amerindian languages, conducted by Fr.
Boas, similar ideas were expressed by E. Sapir and B. L. Worf in America.
Linguistic determinism has come to be often referred to as the Sapir-Worf
hypothesis. For Sapir (1921) and Worf (1956) objective reality is an
undifferentiated continuum which is segmented by each language in a different
way. We obtain a vision of nature, of reality which is by and large pre-determined
by our mother tongue. Each language is a vast system of structures, different from
that of others in which are ordered culturally all forms and categories by means of
which the individual not only communicates but also analyses nature, grasps or
neglects a given phenomenon or relation, in means of which he moulds his
manner of thinking and by means of which he builds up the entire edifice of his
knowledge of the world. Worf provided ample evidence from Amerindian
languages of how languages segment reality differently by neglecting aspects
56
which are emphasized in other languages. In Europe, linguists as Benveniste
(1958) and Martinet, in analysing the relationship between categories of thought
and categories of language, are unanimous not only in pointing out a basic
parallelism between the two, but also in assigning to linguistic categories a
primary role. The linguistic structure conditions, albeit in an unconscious way,
man's knowledge of the world, his spiritual and philosophical experience.
Linguistic relativism or determinism in its extreme variant, which maintains
that people's knowledge of the world, the categorization of external experience is
totally determined by the structure of language which imposes its particular form
upon it, has been criticized. Various arguments can be advanced against the Sapir-
Worf position.
To remember! The idea that language systems have no points in common at

all, and are completely untranslatable is refuted by empirical evidence. The fact
that speakers of a given language are able to learn the vocabularies of other
language, and, indeed, whole other languages, is the best proof of it. Also, a
single language often has alternative conceptualizations of the same
phenomenon: in English, for instance, human beings can be categorized by age
into "children", "adolescents" and "adults" or alternatively, into "majors" and
"minors". Furthermore, if we draw a distinction between meaning and reference,
we can say that even though there is no corresponding concept in one's own
language for a concept in another language, one can nevertheless provide a
description of its referent (Leech 1990: 27). The differences in environment,
climate, cultural development, etc., among various linguistic communities may be
very great, but basically, human societies are linked by a common biological
history. The objective reality in which they live is definitely not identical but it is
by and large similar. Man's universe is basically a Universe made up of things
and he is constantly confronted with them, obliged to communicate about them, to
define himself in relation to them. This is basic to all human societies. Various
language systems are not therefore untranslatable.
The problem of translatability or rather degrees of translatability may be

discussed appropriately with reference to the notion of cultural overlap. Cultures
are not linguistically bound; in other words, languages and cultures are not co-
terminous. Linguistic boundaries do not coincide with cultural ones, but there is
always a certain degree of cultural overlap between two language communities.
To remember! On the whole, similarities among languages are more

important and more numerous than the differences among them. These differences
can be explained in terms of cultural differences between the respective language
communities.
57
Second language learning seems to support this point of view, too. Words
denoting objects, structures and features situated in an area of cultural overlap are
among the first to be learned, and with no apparent difficulty. Their acquisition
seems to form the foundation on which the other words in the new language are
acquired and integrated into a dynamic semantic system.
5. 2. Universal Semantics
Interest in the study of language meaning shifted from what keeps languages
apart to what all languages are said to have in common. The idea that the
meanings of words in different languages can be analysed, at least partially, in
terms of a given number of conceptual atoms identifiable in the analysis of the
vocabularies of all languages has become once again a very popular one with
linguistics. As for the "universality" of grammar, it lies at the foundation of all
linguistic work produced before the advent of structuralism. Linguistic and
philosophical speculation ever since the 17th century has currently dealt with such
problems. The current renewal of interest in language universals is due mainly to
generative grammar which has always laid emphasis on those features which are
shared by all languages alike.
To remember! The universalist point of view is based on the idea that

language is basically an innate, or genetically inherited capability, which all
human beings are "programmed" from birth to develop. This implies the adoption
of the position that languages share the same basic conceptual framework. It can
be argued that there is a universal set of semantic categories (i.e. categories
concerned with time, place, causation, animacy, etc.) from which each language
draws its own subset of categories, and it is only in the choice from this subset,
and in the permitted combinations in which they are expressed, that languages
differ.
5.3. The Child's Acquisition of Conceptual Categories

How do we acquire conceptual categories in childhood? There are widely
divergent points of view, extending from the empiricism of those who would
argue that the cognitive system is learned entirely through experience from one's
environment (which includes cultural conditioning), and the extreme rationalism
of those who would claim that the cognitive framework does not have to be
learned, as it is part of an inherited mental apparatus specific to the human
species. This polarity of views is obviously the universalist-relativist controversy
in a slightly different guise.
Two prima facie arguments arising from modern linguistic research favour the
universalist-rationalist point of view: as linguistics probes more deeply and
precisely into the layers of linguistic structure, firstly it becomes more difficult to
explain how a child learns so soon to manipulate the remarkable complexities of
language, particularly on the semantic level, without having a "head-start" in the
58
form of some fairly specific language-learning capacity; and secondly, it becomes
easier to see how in a multi-layered analysis of language, widely different
structures in phonology and syntax can be reconciled with identical, or al least
similar, structures on the semantic level.
On the other hand, that at least part of concept learning runs according to
empiricist thinking is clear from the way we observe young children to acquire the
conceptual categories of their language by a procedure of trial-and-error. It has
long been noted that learning a concept such as "cat" involves two complementary
processes: (1) extension, i.e. extending the name one has learned to apply to same
referents (cat1, cat2, cat3, etc.) to all objects sharing certain attributes of those
referents (cat4, .... catn); and (2) differentiation, i.e. restricting the reference of a
word to objects sharing certain characteristics, but not others (e.g. not applying
the term cat to dogs, tigers, etc.). These two processes go hand in hand in the
learning of category boundaries, but a child cannot learn both aspects
simultaneously, so he tends either to overextend (e.g. "identifying "daddy" with all
men) or to underextend (e.g. identifying "man" with all strange men wearing
hats).
5.4. Creativity in Language

Discussion for and against semantic universals usually seems to assume that a
language forms a static, closed conceptual system, and that once the fixed
categories of the language have been acquired, our semantic equipment is
complete. If this were true, it would cause us to take very seriously the sinister
idea that our language is a mental strait -jacket, which determines our thought
processes and our assumption about the universe.
But fortunately for the human race, language is only a mental straitjacket if we
allow it to become one: the semantic system, like any other system relating to
human society, is continually being extended and revised. In a language, new
concepts are introduced in large numbers day by day and week by week, and in
very little time, owing to modern mass communications, become familiar to many
people. The technique by which the new concepts are introduced is lexical
innovation, which may take the form of neologism and of transfer of meaning.
Language has within itself anti-creative pressures, and the function of the
literary writer, in T. S. Eliot's words, is to "purify the dialect of the tribe" - to
restore the currency to its full value, and to resist the natural tendency to
devaluation. Writers have always considered themselves the determined enemies
of jargon and cliché.
Our linguistic competence (as Chomsky pointed out) is such that with a finite
number of rules, we can generate and interpret an infinite number of sentences.
Day by day we encounter and produce sentences we have never met in our whole
life before. In its semantic aspect, this creativity of linguistic resource may be
demonstrated by our ability to make up and make sense of configurations which
have virtually a nil probability of occurring in day-to-day communication. But in
59
performance, this creative or innovative power inherent in our language
competence is eroded by our tendency to rely on well-worn paths through
theoretically infinite array of possible English utterances. Thus not merely
individual concepts, but configurations of concepts, become stereotyped; jargon
invades syntax. That writer who resists this principle of least effort, by exploring
new pathways and taking no meaning for granted, is in a real sense "creative".
There is an important notion of linguistic creativity which applies pre-
eminently to poetry: one which amounts to actually breaking through the
conceptual bonds with which language constrains us. If one of the major roles of
language is to reduce experience to order, to "prepackage" it for us, then the poet
is the person who unties the string. It is in this context that the "irrational" or
"counterlogical" character of poetry becomes explicable.
A very simple example of poetic irrationality in the Latin poet Catullus’
famous paradox Odi et amo: "I hate and I love". The two-valued orientation of
language makes us to see love and hate as mutually exclusive categories. But the
poet, by presenting a seeming absurdity, shocks his reader into rearranging his
categories; the stereotyped concept of love and hate as contrasting emotions is
destroyed. A kind of conceptual fission and fusion takes place.
The quality just observed in poetic paradox is also present in metaphor - a
more pervasive and important semantic feature of poetry. Again, the mechanism
can be demonstrated by a very simple example. In an Anglo-Saxon poem, the
expression mere-hengest ("sea-steed") is used as a metaphor for "ship". The
connection between steed and ship lies in their common connotations: both horses
and ships convey men from one place to another; both are used (in the heroic
context of the poem) for adventurous journeys and for warfare; both carry their
riders with an up-and-down movement. By presenting the two concepts
simultaneously, as superimposed images, the poet dissolves those linguistically
crucial criteria which define their separateness: the fact that a horse is animate
whereas a ship is not; and the fact that a horse moves over land, whereas a ship
moves over water. Metaphor is, actually, a conceptual reorganization. Through its
power of realigning conceptual boundaries, metaphor can achieve a
communicative effect which in a sense is "beyond language". It has a liberating
effect. As a chief instrument of the poet's imagination, metaphor is the means by
which he takes his revenge on language for the "stereotyped ideas" which have
"prevailed over the truth". (G. Leech, 1990: 38) It is not surprising that children's
language produces many instances of semantic "mistakes" which strike the adult
as poetic. G. Leech gave two of such instances: a child's description of a viaduct
as a window-bridge and of the moon as that shilling in the sky, both based,
significantly, on visual analogy. The window-bridge example is very similar to the
mere-hengest of the Anglo-Saxon poet: the openings in a viaduct, when seen side
on, are indeed very close in appearance and construction to the window openings
of a house. Using this generalizing ability, the child hits on physical appearance as
a crucial criterion, at the expense of the criterion of function, which the language
60
regards as more important. The difference between the two cases, of course, is that
while the poet is familiar with the institutional categories and is aware of his
departure from them, the child is not.
Conclusions:
"Except for the immediate satisfaction of biological needs, man lives in a
world not of things but of symbols" (General Systems Theory, p. 245). This
statement by Ludwig von Bertalanffy is close enough to the truth to justify the
concentration on the way language both determines and reflects our understanding
of the world we live in. Semantic relativism and semantic universals are two
conflicting points of view in relation to meaning. Both theses concern the relation
between the structure of language and the structure of the universe. They represent
in fact two different ways of interpreting the relation between the universe, as
experienced by man, and language as a tool of expressing that experience.
Thinking of a language as providing its users with a system of conceptual
categories, we may conclude that:
1. concepts vary from language to language, and are sometimes arbitrary in
the sense that they impose a structure which is not necessarily inherent in the data
of experience;
2. it is a matter for debate how for concepts vary from language to language,
and how far it is possible to postulate semantic universals common to all human
language;
3. although the conceptual system of a language predisposes its users towards
certain distinctions rather than others, the extent to which more is "enslaved" by
his language in this respect is mitigated by various forces of creativity inherent in
the system itself.
Bibliography:
Chiţoran, D. 1973. Elements of English Structural Semantics. Buc.: Ed.
1. Semantic relativism means:
a. relationship among words meaning

b. relativity in semantics
c. causal, deterministic relationship language- thinking
61
d. vague meaning
2. Lack of common cross-cultural concepts would make it impossible:
a. to translate from one language into another

b. to be creative
c. to express oneself
d. to evolve
3. Learning a new concept implies:
a. extension and differentiation

b. overextension and stereotypy
c. under-extension and comparison
d. meaning transfer and similarity
4. Innate abilities manifest themselves in:

a. selecting a subset from an unique set of semantic categories
b. inventing new rules
c. creating metaphors
Correct answers: 1. c; 2. a; 3. a; 4. a.

1.Comment on the two different conceptions in semantics relativism and
universalism.
2. Discuss how linguistic relativism and semantic universals account for the
next two idioms: to kill two birds at one stone, a împuşca doi iepuri dintr-o
lovitură.
3. Compare the meaning and linguistic structure of the next proverbs:
Cine se scoală de dimineaţă, departe ajunge.
The early bird catches the worm.
62
Unit VI
SEMANTIC RELATIONS AND LEXICAL CATEGORIES
- studenţii vor distinge tipul de relaţii paradigmatice de cel al
relaţiilor sintagmatice, be baza caracteristicilor fiecăruia;
- vor identifica specificul fiecărui membru al unei serii
sinonimice sau antonimice, sau al unei taxonomii;
- vor fi capabili să folosească termeni sinonimici sau
antonimici în contexte diferite, aplicând criterii morfo-sintactice,
semantice sau pragmatice în alegerea elementului adecvat.
Cuprins:
6.1. Paradigmatic Relations

6. 1. 1. Incompatibility/ Oppositeness of Meaning
Complementarity
Antonymy
Reversibility
Hierarchic oppositions
Inverse oppositions
6. 1. 2. Synonymy
6. 1. 3. Hyponymy or inclusion
6. 2. Syntagmatic Relations
Concluzii
Exerciţii
Ferdinand de Saussure directed the linguists’ attention to the necessity of

studying the multiple relationships among words in a systematic way.
To remember! A particular lexeme may be simultaneously in a number of

such relations, so the lexicon must be thought as a network rather than a listing of
words. He suggested the existence of a network of associative fields, covering the
entire vocabulary, and this structuring the huge mass of words. So an important
organizational principle in the lexicon is the lexical field. This represents a group
63
of words which belong to a particular activity or area of specialized knowledge,
such as terms in cooking, sailing; the vocabulary of doctors, coal miners or
mountain climbers.
The effects are the use of different senses for a word and also the use of
specialized terms. In fact, each word is a centre of a ‘constellation’ or ‘series of
constellations’, the point towards which other terms associated with it converge.
Saussure established four major types of associations among lexical items:
- etymological associations - based on resemblances in form and
meaning;
- derivational associations - based on identity of affixes;
- semantic associations - based on meaning relations;
- formal associations - based on accidental form resemblances.
The types of associations listed above are illustrated by D. Chiţoran
considering the example of the French word enseignement.
Enseignement
enseigner apprentisage changement clement
enseignons education armement justement
Progress in semantics was due mainly to lexicographic practice, which

continued to bring together facts about meaning. Particular attention was paid to
changes in the meaning of words. Traditional lexicology deals with types of
lexical relations established considering distinctions similar to those belonging to
Saussure’s conception:
- semantic ties - based on the signification of words; such ties result in
synonymic and antonymic series of words;
- morpho-semantic ties obtaining among lexical items derived from a
common basic element; they result in word families;
- syntagmatic ties obtaining among lexical items as they occur in actual
utterance; syntagmatic ties may be divided into free - relations among sit and
chair/ table/ down etc.- and stereotype – relations among lexical items part of set
idioms and phrases, as a matter of fact, as mad as a hatter, day and night, etc.-;
64
- phonetic ties based on similarities of phonic substance; the first two
examples represent minimal pairs, i. e. words which differ in just one phoneme,
and the next two examples are words which present a common grammatical
marker, in this case, that for the past participle
might - night flown- shown
town - down caught- taught.
These types of relations can be interpreted in terms of the distinction between
expression- signifiant- and content- signifie-, as the interdependent planes of a
linguistic sign. There are:
- formal or phonological relations established between the signifiants, i. e.
the expression planes of linguistic signs; they account for homonymy;
- the relation of the type one signifiant- various signifies serves the
designation of polysemy;
- the relation one signifie- various signifiants expresses synonymy;
- relations between various contents of linguistic signs.
-
To remember! E. Coşeriu pointed out that semantic relations should be
signification relations, rather than relations between signs. Only in this way
semantic structures can be distinguished from simple associative fields which are
based on similarity relations between linguistic signs both on the expression and
on the content level. The primary task of linguistics is to study the relational
network encompassing the elements of language. The linguistic relational
framework is structured along two axes, the syntagmatic and the paradigmatic
axis. The linguistic elements situated on the syntagmatic axis find themselves in a
both…and kind of relationship, i. e. they coexist within the same linguistic chain.
They are in contrast position ( A. Martinet).The syntagmatic relations are directly
observable in the spoken/ written chain. On the paradigmatic axis, the linguistic
elements are mutually exclusive within one and the same linguistic sequence.
They are in either…or relationship, in opposition (A. Martinet). These relations
are not observable within a linguistic chain.
6.1. Paradigmatic Relations

6.1.1. The primary semantic relation on the paradigmatic axis is that of
incompatibility, a relation which is characteristic of all lexical elements based on
the substitution of items:
e. g. I had tea at breakfast.
I had coffee/cocoa/milk.
Part of the meaning of a term belonging to a lexical set is its compatibility
with all the other members of the same lexical set in a given context. The wider
concept of meaning incompatibility includes distinct types of oppositeness of
meaning, each of them being designated by a separate term (J. Lyons).
65
a. Complementarity is a type of antonymic relation based on binary
oppositions which do not allow for gradations between the extreme poles of a
semantic axis; they are two- term sets of incompatible terms. Validity of one term
implies denial of the other:
e. g. single - married
male - female
alive - dead.
b. Antonymy. The term is used to designate those meaning oppositions which

admit certain gradations with regard to the meaning expressed:
e. g. young- old;
young.........childish/juvenile.............adolescent.............young.........mature...........
middle........... aged...........old.......ancient.........
small- large;
....microscopic....tiny....little....small.....big/large.....spacious.....immense....
beautiful - ugly;
.....splendid.......wonderful....beautiful.....attractive.....handsome.....good-
looking.......
pretty.....nice....pleasant....acceptable......common.....ordinary.....plain...unattractiv
e....ugly....horrible...awful....frightening....spooky....terrifying
c. Reversibility refers to two terms which presuppose one another:

give- take; borrow- lend; buy- sell; husband- wife; offer- accept/refuse;
employer-
employee. This type of binary opposition, a relation, involves a contrast of
direction.
The relation can be realized by keeping the same lexical item and
reversing the syntactic positions of the arguments:
e. g. John is the parent of James.
James is the parent of John.
or by keeping the syntactic positions of the arguments constant and changing
the lexical form:
e. g. John is the parent of James.
John is the child of James.
Lexical pairs such as parent and child are called converses. Because of the
alternative ways of expressing the same contrast, there arise cases of synonymy,
John is the parent of James = James is the child of John.
In case of ‘parenthood’ relation, the directional contrast is mutually exclusive,
so there is an asymmetric relation.
Alf is parent of George. is incompatible with George is parent of Alf.
An example of symmetric relation is John is married to Susan. which entails
Susan is married to John. In this case we talk about reciprocal relation.
66
d. Less common types of semantic opposition include hierarchic
oppositions, which are multiple taxonomies, except that they include an
element of ordering. Examples are sets of units of measurement- inch/ foot/
yard- , calendar units- month of the year- or the hierarchy of numbers which is
an open- ended, that is it has no ‘highest’ term. The days of the week
opposition is a cyclic type of hierarchy, because it has no first/ last member.
e. Last but not least, there is an interesting type of binary semantic
contrast, called inverse opposition:
e. g. all - some willing- insist
possible - necessary still- already
allow - compel remain- become.
The main logical test for an inverse opposition is whether it obeys a special
rule of synonymy which involves substituting one inverse term for another and
changing the position of the a negative term in relation to the inverse term
e. g. Some countries have no coastline. = Not all countries have a
coastline.
All of us are non- smokers. = Not any of us are smokers.
We were compelled to be non- smokers. = We were not allowed to be
smokers.
It is possibly true that Jack is a hippy. = It is not necessarily true that
Jack is a hippy.
6.1.2. Another type of paradigmatic relation is synonymy. There are words
which sound different, but have the same or nearly the same meaning. There is a
tendency to limit synonymic status to those elements, which given the identity of
their referential, can be used freely in a given context. To remember! There are
no perfect synonyms, since no two elements can be used with the same statistic
probability in absolutely all contexts in which any of them can appear. Synonymy
is always related to context. Two lexical items are perfectly synonymous in a given
context or in several contexts, but never in all contexts. The term used to describe
this is ‚relative synonymy’. Context, i.e. the position on the syntagmatic axis, is
essential for synonymy:
e. g. deep water *deep idea
profound idea *profound water
deep / profound sleep; deep / profound thought.
We can notice that the distinction concrete/ abstract is not relevant here, since
words like idea and thought, both abstract, behave differently in relation to the
pair of relative synonyms deep and profound. Talking about the terms used in
describing synonymy, it is necessary at this point to present Lyons’ classification
of synonyms into:
- absolute synonyms;
- partial synonyms;
- near synonyms.
Absolute synonyms should be fully, totally and completely synonymous.
67
i. Synonyms are fully synonymous if, and only if, all their meanings
are identical ;
ii. synonyms are totally synonyms if and only if they are
synonymous in all contexts;
iii. synonyms are completely synonymous if and only if they are
identical on all relevant dimensions of meaning.
Absolute synonyms should satisfy all the three criteria above, whereas partial
synonyms should satisfy at least one criterion (Lyons, 1981: 50-51).
D. A. Cruse (1987: 292) comments on Lyons’ classification, arguing that
identical and synonymous are to be understood as completely synonymous;
secondly, near- synonyms ‘more or less similar, but not identical in meaning’
qualify as incomplete synonyms, and therefore as partial synonyms, so the
distinction between the two classes is not so clear as Lyons claims. Referring to
absolute synonyms in language, Cruse states that there is no real motivation for
their existence, and if they do exist, in time one of them would become obsolete,
or would develop a difference in semantic function. For example, sofa and settee
are absolute synonyms, but at a certain point in time sofa had the feature /elegant/,
which now seems to have disappeared from the conscience of the speakers who
use the two terms in free variation. But according to Cruse, this state of affairs
would not persist, since it is against the tendency towards economy manifest in
any language.
Examples like sofa and couch refer to the same type of object, and share
most of their semantic properties-/ piece of furniture/ / used for sitting/ /with
arms/ / backed/ / upholstered/-, so they can be considered synonymous. There are
words that are neither synonyms nor near synonyms, yet they have many semantic
properties in common. For example, man and boy imply /+male/ /+human/
features, but boy includes the property /+youth/, so it differs in meaning from
man. The question to be asked is how to determine all relevant dimensions of
meaning in order to establish the type of synonymy we are dealing with. Cruse
draws a distinction between subordinate semantic traits and capital traits.
Subordinate traits are those which have a role within the meaning of a word
analogous to that of a modifier in a syntactic construction (e. g. red in a red
hat).For instance, /walk/ is the capital trait of stroll, /good looking/ of pretty and
handsome. For nag , /worthless/ is a subordinate trait.
Sometimes words that are ordinarily opposites can mean the same thing
in a certain context, a good scare = a bad scare. The apparent synonymy of two
utterances that contain a pair of antonyms hides opposite or at least different
connotations.
e.. g. How old are you? - neutral connotation; inquiry about
someone’s age
How young are you? You shouldn’t smoke. -negative connotation;
it’s obvious you are too young to do that;
I don’t know how big his house is. – neutral connotation.
68
I don’t know how small his house is. -negative connotation; I know
that it is too small.
Even when using synonyms this implies not only a high degree of
semantic overlap, but also a low degree of implicit contrastiveness,
e. g. He was murdered, or rather/ more exactly, executed.
He was cashiered, that is to say, dismissed.- the synonym is used as
an explanation for another word.
Synonymy depends largely on other factors such as:
- register used, wife [neutral], spouse [formal, legal term], old lady
[highly informal];
- collocation, big trouble *large trouble;
- connotation, notorious [negative], famous [positive]; immature
[negative], young [positive].
- dialectal variations, which may be geographical ,- lift (British
English), elevator (American English)-, temporal,- wireless became radio, -,
and last but not least, social - toilet replaced lavatory, settee became
sofa-,though the last two subtypes of variations cannot be always separated;
(Cruse, 1987: 282-283)
- morpho- syntactic behavior,
e. g. He began/ started his speech with a quotation.
Tom tried to start/ *begin his car.
At the beginning/ *start of the world…
All the examples above refer to lexical synonymy, but there are also
grammatical synonyms, operating at the level of morphology, means of expressing
futurity, possibility, etc.
e. g. He will go / is going / is to go tomorrow.
He can/ may visit us next week if the weather is fine.
6.1.3. Hyponymy. Another type of paradigmatic relation is hyponymy /
inclusion. It implies as a rule multiple taxonomies, a series of hypo-ordinate /
subordinate terms being included in the area of a hyper-ordinate/ super-ordinate
term. This relationship exists between two meanings if one componential formula
contains all the features present in the other formula. Woman contains the
features /+human/, /+adult/, /-male/.In different contexts, the emphasis is on one
of the features included in the meaning of woman:
e. g. Stop treating me like a child. I’m a woman [= grown- up]
She is a woman [= human being], not an object.
She is a woman [= female] , so she wouldn’t know what a man feels
like in such a situation.
One way to describe hyponymy is in terms of genus and differentia.
We can discuss about meaning inclusion, that is all the features of adult are
included in woman, and about reference inclusion, that is all the objects denoted
by woman are included into the larger category denoted by adult.
Sometimes we can’t have a super-ordinate term expressed just by one word:
69
musical instrument
clarinet guitar piano trumpet violin drums
6.2. Syntagmatic Relations

Relations of the type both…and… are fundamental in structuring our
utterances. The connection between paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations
appears obvious, since in choosing a certain term from a synonymic series, we
must take into account selectional restrictions. A particular type of arbitrary co-
occurrence restrictions are collocational restrictions:
e. g. Ann/ The cat/ The plant died.
Ann/ *The cat/ *The plant kicked the bucket.
Collocational restrictions vary in the degree to which they can be specified in
terms of required semantic traits. When fully specifiable, they may be described
as systematic collocational restrictions:
e. g. Pass away /animate/ and kick the bucket /human/
Grill /meat/ and toast /bread/
When there are exceptions to the general tendency in collocating, we may
speak of semi- systematic collocational restrictions:
e. g. Customer /acquiry of something material in exchange for
money/
Client /acquiry of a certain type of service/, but a client of a bank
is called customer, too.
The collocational ranges of some lexical items can only be described by listing
permissible collocants. Such items will be described as having idiosyncratic
collocational restrictions. (Cruse, 1987: 281)
unblemished spotless flawless immaculate impeccable

performance - - + + +
argument - - + - ?
complexion ? ? + - -
behavior - - - - +
kitchen - + - + -
The table above represents Cruse’s own intuitions. No semantic motivation

can be discerned for the collocational patterns. It is debatable whether
idiosyncratic restrictions are a matter of semantics at all.
70
Conclusions:
A particular lexeme may be simultaneously in a number of such relations, so
the lexicon must be thought as a network rather than a listing of words. He
suggested the existence of a network of associative fields, covering the entire
vocabulary, and this structuring the huge mass of words. So an important
organizational principle in the lexicon is the lexical field. This represents a group
of words which belong to a particular activity or area of specialized knowledge .
E. Coşeriu pointed out that semantic relations should be signification relations,
rather than relations between signs. Only in this way can semantic structures be
distinguished from simple associative fields which are based on similarity
relations between linguistic signs both on the expression and on the content.
The linguistic relational framework is structured along two axes, the
syntagmatic and the paradigmatic axis. The linguistic elements situated on the
syntagmatic axis find themselves in a both…and kind of relationship, i. e. they
coexist within the same linguistic chain. They are in contrast position (A.
Martinet).The syntagmatic relations are directly observable in the spoken/ written
chain. On the paradigmatic axis, the linguistic elements are mutually exclusive
within one and the same linguistic sequence. They are in either…or relationship,
in opposition (A. Martinet). Paradigmatic relations include incompatibility,
synonymy and hyponymy. Syntagmatic relations include collocations and idioms.
Bibliography:
Chiţoran, D.1973. Elements of English Structural Semantics, Bucureşti: E.D.P.
Cruse, D.1987. Lexical Semantics, Cambridge: CUP.
Crystal, D., Davy, D. 1973. Investigating English Style. London: Longman.
Leech, G.1990. Semantics. The Study Of Meaning. London: Penguin Books.
Lyons, J.1977. Semantics, Cambridge: CUP.
1. Paradigmatic relations are based on:
a. mutually exclusive terms
b. formal relationships
c. semantic ties
d. antonymic relationships
2. Complementarity means
a. incompleteness
b. ungradable binary oppositions
c. complementation
d. flattering terms
71
3. According to Lyons’ classification absolute synonymy implies
a. non-relative synonyms
b. perfect synonyms
c. full, total and complete synonyms
d. synonymy of absolutely motivated terms
Correct answers: 1. a; 2. b; 3. c.
Questions and exercises

1. Discuss the types of opposition relation.
2. Illustrate how various linguistic and extra- linguistic factors
influence synonymy.
3. Match the appropriate adjectives with the nouns to show how
collocation works.
calculated retirement
deliberate risk
voluntary judgement
premeditated mistake
considered murder
express ignorance
wilful wish.
4. Context is essential in choosing from a pair of synonyms. Think of
contexts in which the following pairs of words cannot be interchanged:
hurry/ hasten pavement/ sidewalk
consider/ regard exit/ way out
injure/ damage spud/ potato
confess/ admit.
5. Synonymy and antonymy are associated when arranging words
expressing different degrees of the same quality/ concept. The result is a
cline/ scale. Try to arrange the following words according to their intensity:
a.immense, big, enormous, large, gigantic, spacious, colossal,
extensive;
b.little, tiny, microscopic, small, minute, infinitesimal, diminutive;
c.distinguished, famous, well- known, illustrious, renowned;
d.mansion, castle, cottage, hut, house, palace, cabin.
6. Make-up the antonymic series for the following terms: clever -
stupid; interesting - boring; fast - slow.
7. A word can have different opposites in different contexts; which are
they in case of:
Light bag/ wind/ colors
Rough sea/ texture/ area/ person/ calculation
High marks/ opinion/ building/ price/ temperature/ wind
72
Hard exam/ chair/ journey/ work/ person/ drugs
8. Construct hyponymy trees for vehicle, tomato, bench. Then complete

diagrams like the following:
vehicle/ feature powered carries people four- wheeled

bus + + +
car … … …
9. Two or more words may be close in meaning and yet not collocate with
the same items. Which is correct:
The baby began to cry/ started to cry as soon as they had left.
I couldn’t begin / start my car; the battery was flat.
Before the world started, only God existed.
10. Words have distinct syntactic behaviour. Analyse the differences:

The plane leaves/ departs from Gatwick, not Heathrow.
We left the house at 6.
We *departed the house at 6.
11. Mark the following words with positive[+], negative[-] or neutral [n]
connotation. If possible, try to establish relations of synonymy or antonymy
between pairs of them:
frugal, famous, extravagant, boast, generous, miserly, notorious,
careful, brag, resolute, strict, advertise, obstinate, severe, praise.
12. What is the criterion that differenciates the following words belonging to
the two series:
a. partner, colleague, ally, accomplice, comrade;
b. pal, mate, associate, companion, buddy, friend.
13. Correct the sentences if necessary:

There was a high difference between the two teams.
I am doing this exam because I want to achieve a step in my career.
His books commanded criticism from many people.
He had been found guilty of some slight crimes.
She won many competitions, forming fame in the process.
I was very grateful, because he had rescued my life.
14. What are the opposites of single, white, light, heavy. Provide contexts.
15. Identify the different types of oppositions:
The more the haste, the less the speed.
Marry in haste and repent in leisure.
If you lie upon roses when young, you’ll lie upon thorns when old.
73
Better to give than to take.
Spare when you are young and spend when you are old.
Faults are thick when love is thin.
A saint abroad and a devil at home.
Pride goes before and shame follows after.
An idle youth, a needy age.
This world is a comedy to those that think and a tragedy to those that
feel.
A good beginning makes a good ending.
Unselfish parents have selfish children.
Promise little but do much.
A pair of lovers are like sunset and sunrise; there are such things every
day, but we very seldom see them.
74
Unit VII
SEMANTIC THEORY WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF
GENERATIVE-TRANSFORMATIONAL GRAMMAR
- studenţii vor putea caracteriza curentul generativist în lingvistică;
- vor fi capabili să stabilească locul semanticii în cadrul gramaticii
GT;
- vor deduce avantajele acestei abordări faţă de cele anterioare.
Cuprins:
7. 1. Semantics in the Standard Generative Theory of
language
7. 2. The Semantic Component of Generative
-Transformational Grammar
7. 3. Generative Semantics Versus Interpretive Semantics
Concluzii
Exerciţii.
The development of generative-transformational grammar beginning with the

late fifties of the 20th century has brought about a strong revival of interest in
semantics. Particular mention should be made of the distinction postulated by
generative grammar between deep structure and surface structure which is in
many ways responsible for the recent developments in the study of language
meaning.
To remember! Generative-transformational grammar resumes many of the
concerns of traditional semantics. Thus, according to the theory, semantics should
include an analysis of the way in which words and sentences are related to objects
and processes in reality reintroducing into the discussion the problems of
reference, denotation etc. Its second concern should be an analysis of the manner
in which words and sentences are related to one another. These include an
account of synonymy, antonymy entailment, contradiction, paraphrase,
implication, presupposition, etc.
7.1. Semantics in the Standard Generative Theory of Language

A grammar of language can be described as a system of rules that express the
correspondence between sound and meaning in the respective language. Every
75
speaker possesses a finite and relatively small set of simple rules, which enable
the speaker to produce and the listener to understand an infinite number of
sentences. The set of rules represents - in the Chomskyan terminology - the
linguistic competence, while the utterances produced on their basis constitute the
linguistic performance.
To remember! Generative grammars are thus, synthetic models, able to

generate all well-formed sentences in a language. By "synthetic" it is meant that
starting from a set of rules arranged in a formalized construction, synthetic
models lead finally to a set of utterances. G.T. is first of all, a model of
competence, being-conceived as a model of language acquisition. The rules are
mainly of two kinds: rewriting rules and transformational rules. These rules are
applied to symbols which make up the vocabulary of grammar. Semantics will
concentrate on lexical categories and formatives (corresponding to words or full-
lexical meaning or content words).
The organization of a generative grammar. Generative transformational

grammar is defined in terms of three components: syntactic, semantic and
phonological.
In the standard theory, the syntactic component is the most important. It
generates both the deep structure - which is semantically interpreted by the
semantic component - and the surface structure which is further related to the
sound aspect of language by means of the phonological component. While the
semantic and the phonological components are purely interpretative, the syntactic
component is basic to grammar since it represents the generative source of the
grammar.
To remember! The syntactic component consists of a base syntactic
subcomponent and a set of transformations, i.e. it has two kinds of rules: writing
rules or phrase-structure rules and transformational rules. The first specify the
form of constituent structure trees, and the second convert one kind of tree-
structure into another (e.g. an active structure into a passive one).
Transformations are rules that act on the phrase markers generated by the base,
mapping deep structures onto the surface structures of sentences.
In the earliest published version of transformational grammar - Chomsky's

Syntactic Structures (1957) - meaning was in effect ignored. It was assumed that
syntactic rules operated in complete independence from meaning: their function
was to "generate" or specify by rule the grammatical sentences of a language, and
to assign to these sentences their correct structure. In fact, many of the
transformational rules, such as that which converted an active sentence structure
into a passive sentence structure, happened in general to preserve the meaning of
sentences unaltered (and therefore to be rules of paraphrase), but this was
considered an irrelevant side-effect of such rules. However, after a pioneering
76
article on semantics by Katz and Fodor ("The Structure of a Semantic Theory",
1963), transformational grammar went through a period of conceding to semantics
a more and more important position in linguistic theory. (Leech 1990: 343)
Scope and object of a semantic theory in generative-transformational
grammar. A semantic theory describes and explains the interpretative
competence of the speaker. This ability implies that a speaker can interpret
sentences in the sense that he can relate them appropriately to "states, processes
and objects in the universe" (Bierwisch 1971: 167).
A speaker can understand an infinite number of sentences, some of which he
has never heard before. This is because he knows a number of rules on whose
basis he can generate an infinite number of sentences. The rules are said to project
a finite set or rules on an infinite set of sentences (Katz and Fodor, 1966: 481).
The problem of formulating such rules represents the projection problem.
This problem requires for its solution rules which project the infinite set of
sentences in a way which mirrors the way speakers understand novel sentences. In
encountering a novel sentence, the speaker is not encountering new elements but
only a novel combination of familiar elements. Since the set of sentences is
infinite and each sentence is a different concatenation of morphemes, the fact that
a speaker can understand any sentence must mean that the way he understands
sentences he has never previously encountered is compositional, i.e. it is based on
his knowledge of the grammatical properties and the meaning of the morphemes
of the language.
To remember! The rules the speaker knows enable him to determine the
meaning of a novel sentence, by following the manner in which the parts of the
sentence are composed to form wholes. As any speaker is able to grasp the
difference in meaning between any two syntactically similar strings, this ability
falling under the scope of semantic theory, it follows that the projection problem
is fully solved only in as much as the grammar is supplemented by a semantic
theory.
The aims and objectives of a semantic theory as part of the transformational-
generative theory of language are:
a) to establish the meaning and the degree of ambiguity of a sentence;
b) to detect semantic anomalies;
c) to state the paraphrase relation between sentences;
d) to state other relevant semantic properties of sentences.
These objectives are self-evident for the innovative character of this semantic
theory as compared to more traditional ones. While semanticists in the past were
mainly concerned with the analysis of meaning (usually of isolated elements), the
change in the evolution of meaning etc., the interest is now switched to the
analysis of the meaning of sentences, and of their semantic properties. (Chiţoran,
1973: 172)
77
7.2. The semantic component of generative-transformational grammar
To remember! The semantic component of a linguistic description is a
projective device consisting of:
1) a dictionary that provides a meaning for each of the lexical items of the
language;
2) a finite set of projection rules which assign a semantic interpretation to
which string of formatives (or string of words) generated by the syntactic
component. To arrive at a semantic interpretation it is necessary for each lexical
item in a string of formatives to be assigned a meaning on the basis of the
semantic information provided by the dictionary.
The projection rules then combine these meanings in a manner dictated by the
syntactic description of the string to arrive at a characterization of the meaning of
the whole string and of each of its constituents. This process reconstructs the way
in which a speaker is able to obtain the meaning of a sentence from the meaning
of its lexical items and its syntactic structure.
The dictionary part of the semantic component offers information on a lexical
entry which is analysed at four distinct levels.
To remember! At the first level, each lexical entry is categorized

grammatically by indicating its syntactic marker, i.e. the grammatical class to
which it belongs (noun, adjective, transitive, etc.). The semantic information
proper, i.e. the specification of the meaning or meanings of the respective item is
given under the form of semantic markers (as semantic categories of the type: / 
Animate/, / Human/, / Male/, etc., which indicate the semantic relations
obtaining among various lexical units and appearing therefore in the description
of many of them) and distinguishers, which reflect the idiosyncretic elements in
the meaning of lexical items.
Semantic markers and distinguishers are the transformational analogues of
semes in the structural semantics (the first are similar to classemes and the
second to semantemes). The distinction between semantic markers and
distinguishers consists in the fact that semantic markers are used in the semantic
description of more formatives (words), while distinguishers occur only in the
description of a certain formative, individualizing it. For example in the case of
the formative mammal the semantic marker is (+Animate) and the distinguisher is
[they feed the young with their own milk]. The first can appear in the description
of many formatives: mammal, fish, bird and the second is applied only to mammal.
(E. Ionescu, 1992: 192).
The fourth type of information provided by the dictionary refers to the

combinatorial abilities of lexical items in a given syntactic construction to render
a definite meaning. These rules of the combination of items in order to render a
given meaning take the form of selectional restrictions in the dictionary suggested
78
by Katz and Fodor. Thus, handy means clever with the hands when said of
persons, and easy to use, convenient to handle when used of things and places.
The syntactic marker of an item is indicated by the grammatical terms
denoting it; semantic markers are enclosed between normal brackets (...),
distinguishers are enclosed between square brackets [...] and selectional
restrictions are given between angles ....
To remember! The second constituent of the theory is represented by the

projection rules (amalgamation), whose object is to account for the semantic
relations among morphemes and the interaction between meaning and syntactic
structure. Projection rules are ultimately responsible for assigning a semantic
interpretation to a sentence.
This they do in the first place by associating to the lexical items of a given
sentence S, those readings which are compatible with their syntactic
categorization as revealed by the phrase marker of the respective S (Katz and
Postal 1964: 18). The next operation that projection rules perform is to combine
the readings of inferior constituents into derived readings of successively higher
constituents until the readings for the whole sentence are arrived at. The process
by which composite readings are arrived at by combining readings from each of
the sets of readings dominated by a given node in a phrase marker, is called
amalgamation. There is an inter-play of syntactic and semantic relations in
regulating the pairing of readings, since one condition for two items to be joined
in syntactic relation, is that all selectional restrictions of one be included in the
semantic markers of the other.
A closer analysis of the dictionary component of Katz and Fodor semantic
theory reveals many similarities with previous approaches to the science of
meaning. In fact, what Katz and Fodor do in their dictionary component of the
theory is to rediscover the Aristotlean reference to genres and species (semantic
markers and distinguishers) (Mounin, 1972: 168).
As Coşeriu indicated (1968) what Katz and Fodor essentially do, is to study
meaning along the semasiological direction, that is starting from a given
signifiant, proper signifiés are assigned to it in a given context, following certain
(syntactic) operations. In its original form the theory does not account for such
well established facts as the existence of primary meanings and secondary ones,
and in particular, it does not account for transferred meanings, and, in general, for
the widespread use of metaphor in language.
An obvious criticism that was raised against the theory regards, as in the case
of componential analysis, the very hypothesis according to which linguistic
signification and semantic structure in general can be reduced to a relatively small
set of "atoms" of meaning, with no residue whatever because this hypothesis is far
from having been accepted unanimously (Chiţoran, 1973: 177).
79
7.3. Generative Semantics versus Interpretive Semantics
The generative-interpretative controversy raged in the early seventies, but had
no conclusive outcome. After a while the partisans of each side moved on the other
topics of interest.
To remember! The popular labels generative semantics and interpretive
semantics refer not so much to ways of studying semantics per se, as to ways of
relating semantics to syntax.
Both developed out of the Standard Theory of 1965 (Aspects of the Theory of
Syntax) in which a sentence was seen as organized syntactically on two chief
levels: that of deep structure and that of surface structure. The surface structure of
a sentence was derived from the deep structure by means of transformational rules
involving such operations as the deletion of constituents, the movement of
constituents from one part of a sentence to another, etc. The rules which specified
the DS were phrase structure rules, which spelt out the basic constituency of
sentences in terms of categories like Noun Phrases, Verbs, etc. As it was
previously mentioned, these rules made up the base component of syntax, and had
as their output (after the insertion of lexical items) deep structures and the
transformational rules made up the transformational component of syntax, and
had as their output surface structures. Apart from syntax, which was the central
part of the total grammar, these were two interpretive components: the
phonological and the semantic. The phonetic interpretation of a sentence was
derived from its surface structure by means of phonological rules, while the
semantic interpretation of a sentence was derived from the deep structure through
the operation of the so-called projection rules of semantics. The whole theory,
therefore, through the interaction of its various components, provided a matching
of phonetic outputs with semantic outputs (G. Leech 1990: 344). So, the theory
provides an account of the pairing of meanings with sounds which any complete
linguistic theory must attempt. The syntactic component has special status, being
the point from which the derivation of both sounds and meaning originates.
To remember! Among the special claims of Standard Theory are (1) that
syntactic surface structure is the only level of syntax relevant to the specification
of phonetic interpretation; and (2) that syntactic deep structure is the only level of
syntax relevant to semantic interpretation. This second point brings with it the
important principle that transformational rules are meaning-preserving; that is,
they do not in any way alter the meaning of the structures that they operate on.
This means, in effect, that all sentences that have the same deep structures have
the same meanings.
Standard Theory provides for an interpretative semantic component; that is

the meaning of a sentence is specified by the application of semantic rules to a
syntactic base. It may be diagrammed as follows:
80
Standard Theory
Transformational Grammar 1965
Semantic Interpretation
(Projection Rules)
(Base) DEEP STRUCTURE
(Transformational Rules)
SURFACE STRUCTURE
(Phonological Rules)
Phonetic Interpretation
Later, an important modification to the interpretivist position was proposed.

Chomsky (1970), Jackendoff (1972), and others didn't claim any more that all
sentences with the same deep structures have the same meaning. Within this
revised theory, deep structure reverted to being a level to be justified very largely
on syntactic grounds alone.
To remember! Generative semantics like interpretative semantic, arose out of

Standard Theory, but it developed along a quite different path. Lakoff, McCawley,
Ross, and others, "deepened" the deep structure so as to make it closer to a
representation of a sentence's meaning, and they also "lengthened" the
transformational process of derivation from deep to surface structure. Leech
considers that the logical terminus of this process was reached (Ross and Lakoff,
1967 and McCawley 1968) when the deep structure of a sentence was declared to
be so "deep" as to be identical with its semantic representation. This now meant
that base component, in the sense of Chomsky (1965), was no longer syntactic,
but semantic. And since the deep structure was the semantic interpretation, there
was no longer any need for the projection rules to supply an interpretation of
deep structure. Projection rules therefore disappeared, and the resulting diagram
was:
Generative Semantics Position
SEMANTIC REPRESENTATION
(or deep structure)
(Transformational Rules)
SURFACE STRUCTURE
(Phonological Rules)
81
Phonetic Interpretation
Since it eliminates the projectional rule component, the generativist model has
the advantage of overall simplicity of design. But, the simplification is necessarily
at the cost of expanding the transformational component, and making the chain of
transformational derivation for each sentence considerably longer than was
envisaged by Chomsky in 1965. (G. Leech, 1990: 347)
The generativists, in the main, stayed committed to the view that
transformational rules do not change meaning. This proved the most vulnerable
principle in their model, and was subject to the severest criticisms from
interpretivists.
Within the framework of generative-transformational grammar, a "battle" is
being fought not only between two rival semantic theories - interpretive semantics
and generative semantics - but also between two versions of grammar: one which
is syntactically based (the "standard" theory as developed by Chomsky, Katz,
Fodor, Postal, including interpretive semantics) and another one which is
semantically based (generative semantics).
In the standard theory, syntax is independent; it is the generative source of the
grammar, which provides a deep and a surface syntactic structure. The deep
structure provides all necessary information to the semantic component whose
task is to assign semantic interpretations (readings) to the deep structures
generated by the syntactic component.
With the generative semantics models, the semantic component is the
generative source of the grammar. The semantic representations which initiate the
derivation of sentences are independently generated, and are then mapped onto
surface (syntactic) structures by means of transformations. (Chiţoran, 1973: 181)
Thus there have been two ways heading to generative semantics:
1. the revision of the standard model particularly of the notions of
deep structure, selectional restrictions, etc.
2. a reappraisal of the semantic component, more specifically of
semantic representation.
Leech (1990) considers that a simple way of defining interpretive and
generative semantics is to say that in the one case the semantic representation of a
sentence is derived from a syntactic base, whereas in the other, the (surface)
syntactic representation is derived from a semantic base.
The same author proposes a three-component model of language (semantics-
syntax-phonology) in which expression rules would have the function of
translating (or "recoding") semantic representations as syntactic representations,
or vice versa (no directional precedence was assumed). Thus we have two
separate bases, with syntax and semantics both having independent well-
formedness conditions. In fact, various phonologists (Sampson 1970) have also
argued for a phonological base. Hence, Leech's model differs from both the
82
generative and interpretative models in containing more than one base component
(Leech, 1990: 349; 351).
Conclusions:
Generative-transformational grammar resumes many of the concerns of
traditional semantics. Thus, according to the theory, semantics should include an
analysis of the way in which words and sentences are related to objects and
processes in reality reintroducing into the discussion the problems of reference,
denotation etc. Its second concern should be an analysis of the manner in which
words and sentences are related to one another. These include an account of
synonymy, antonymy entailment, contradiction, paraphrase, implication,
presupposition, etc.
Generative grammars are synthetic models, able to generate all well-formed
sentences in a language. By "synthetic" it is meant that starting from a set of rules
arranged in a formalized construction, synthetic models lead finally to a set of
utterances. G.T. is first of all, a model of competence, being-conceived as a model
of language acquisition. The rules are mainly of two kinds: rewriting rules and
transformational rules. The first specify the form of constituent structure trees,
and the second convert one kind of tree-structure into another (e.g. an active
structure into a passive one). These rules are applied to symbols which make up
the vocabulary of grammar.
Semantics will concentrate on lexical categories and formatives
(corresponding to words or full-lexical meaning or content words).
The aims and objectives of a semantic theory as part of the transformational-
generative theory of language are:
e) to establish the meaning and the degree of ambiguity of a sentence;
f) to detect semantic anomalies;
g) to state the paraphrase relation between sentences;
h) to state other relevant semantic properties of sentences.
The semantic component of a linguistic description is a projective device
consisting of: a dictionary that provides a meaning for each of the lexical items of
the language; a finite set of projection rules which assign a semantic
interpretation to which string of formatives (or string of words) generated by the
syntactic component. To arrive at a semantic interpretation it is necessary for
each lexical item in a string of formatives to be assigned a meaning on the basis
of the semantic information provided by the dictionary.
Each lexical entry is categorized grammatically by indicating its syntactic
marker, i.e. the grammatical class to which it belongs (noun, adjective, transitive,
etc.). The semantic information proper, i.e. the specification of the meaning or
meanings of the respective item is given under the form of semantic markers (as
semantic categories of the type:  Animate,  Human,  Male, etc., which indicate
the semantic relations obtaining among various lexical units and appearing
83
therefore in the description of many of them) and distinguishers, which reflect the
idiosyncretic elements in the meaning of lexical items. Semantic markers and
distinguishers are the transformational analogues of semes in the structural
semantics (the first are similar to classemes and the second to semantemes). The
distinction between semantic markers and distinguishers consists in the fact that
semantic markers are used in the semantic description of more formatives
(words), while distinguishers occur only in the description of a certain formative,
individualizing it.
The second constituent of the theory is represented by the projection rules
(amalgamation), whose object is to account for the semantic relations among
morphemes and the interaction between meaning and syntactic structure.
Projection rules are ultimately responsible for assigning a semantic interpretation
to a sentence.
Generative semantics like interpretative semantics, arose out of Standard
Theory, but it developed along a quite different path. Lakoff, McCawley, Ross,
and others, "deepened" the deep structure so as to make it closer to a
representation of a sentence's meaning, and they also "lengthened" the
transformational process of derivation from deep to surface structure. Leech
considers that the logical terminus of this process was reached (Ross and Lakoff
1967 and McCawley 1968) when the deep structure of a sentence was declared to
be so "deep" as to be identical with its semantic representation. This now meant
that base component, in the sense of Chomsky (1965), was no longer syntactic,
but semantic. And since the deep structure was the semantic interpretation, there
was no longer any need for the projection rules to supply an interpretation of
deep structure.
Bibliography:
Chiţoran, D. 1973. Elements of English Structural Semantics, Bucureşti:
E.D.P.
1. The semantic component of a linguistic description is a projective device
consisting of:
a. a dictionary
b. a dictionary and a finite set of projection rules
c. semantic primitives
d. lexical fields.
2. Distinguishers are
84
a. syntactic markers
b. analogues of semantemes which characterise a formative
c. analogues of classemes
d. lexical affixes
3. A sentence is assigned a semantic interpretation by means of:

a. grammatical rules
b. general knowledge
c. projection rules
4. Generative semantics considers that:

a. the deep structure is the semantic representation of a sentence
b. projection rules supply an interpretation of the deep structure
c. the base component of s sentence is syntactic.
Correct answers: 1. b; 2. b; 3. c; 4. a.

1. What is the difference between semantic markers and
distinguishers? Give some examples.
2. What are the elements of the semantic component of Generative-
Transformational Grammar?
1. The organization of a generative grammar.
2. Generative Semantics versus Interpretive Semantics.
85
Unit VIII
NEW SEMANTIC THEORIES
- studenţii vor putea caracteriza noile teorii semantice privitoare la
categorizare şi prototip;
- vor fi capabili să stabilească elementul care reprezintă prototipul în
cadrul unui câmp lexo-semantic;
- vor deduce avantajele acestei abordări faţă de cele anterioare.
Cuprins:
8. 1. Categorization. Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
Model. The
Theory of Prototype
8. 2. Cognitive Semantics
Concluzii
Exerciţii.
8.1. Categorization
The process of categorization is essential because it represents "the main way
we make sense of experience" (G. Lakoff, 1987: XI). This mental operation,
which consists in putting together different things, is present in all our activities:
thinking, perception, speaking etc. Categorization and categories are fundamental
for the organization of human experience. Without this capacity of surpassing
individual entities in order to reach a conceptual structure, the environment would
be chaotic and forever new. (E. Cauzinille-Marmèche, D. Dubois, J. Mathieu,
1988).
Most of the concepts or mental representations correspond to certain
categories and not to individual entities. Therefore, it is fundamental to know the
mechanisms of categorization, trying to give an answer to the question: What are
the criteria which decide that an entity belongs to a category? The objectivist
current gives a clear answer: categorization is made on the basis of common
characteristics. The experiential realism imposes a different view, based on
prototype theory. G. Lakoff considers that the theory of prototype changed our
conception about categorization, reasoning and other human capacities (G. Lakoff
1987: 7).
86
Necessary and Sufficient Conditions Model. One traditional approach
to describing concepts is to define them by using sets of necessary and sufficient
conditions. This approach comes from thinking about concepts as follows. If we
have a concept like WOMAN, it must contain the information necessary to decide
when something in the world is a woman or not. How can this information be
organized?
Perhaps as a set of characteristics or attributes, i.e.:
X is a woman if and only if L
where L is a list of attributes, like:
X is human;
X is "adult";
X is female, etc.
One can see these attributes as conditions: if something must have them to be
a woman, then they can be called necessary conditions. In addition, if we can find
the right set, so that just that set is enough to define a woman, then they can be
called sufficient conditions; that means we have identified the right amount of
information for the concept.
This theory views concepts as lists of bits of knowledge: the necessary and
sufficient conditions for something to be an example of that concept.
To remember! The Aristotelian model of necessary and sufficient conditions,

very largely used in philosophy, anthropology, psychology and linguistics is based
on the following thesis:
1. Concepts and categories are entities with very clear borderlines.
2. The model is based on truth and false system: It is a dog provided that it
fits the criterial conditions of the category "dog".
3. The members of the same category have an equal status since each
member has the features required by the definition of the category. So, each
member is a good as any other.
One major problem with this approach has been that it seems to assume that if
speakers share the same concept they will agree on the necessary and sufficient
conditions: if something has them, it is an x; if not, not. But it has proved difficult
to set these up even for nouns which identify concrete and natural kinds like dog
or cat. Saeed (1997: 36) takes as an example the noun zebra. We might agree on
some attributes: is an animal, has four legs; is striped, is a herbivore. However, the
problem we are faced with is: which of these is necessary? The first obviously, but
the rest are more problematic. If we find in a herd of zebra, one that is pure white
or black, we might still want to call it a zebra. Or if by some birth defect, a three-
legged zebra comes into the world, it would still be a zebra. Similarly, if a single
zebra got bored with a grass diet and started to include a few insects, would it
cease to be a zebra? Of course, these seem rather whimsical or strange questions,
perhaps problems for philosophers rather than linguists, and indeed this zebra
87
example is just a version of Saul Kripke's example about tigers (Kripke 1980) or
Putnam's fantasy about cats (Putnam 1962). Questions such as these have
important consequences for our ideas about concepts: if we cannot establish a
mutual definition of a concept, how can we use its linguistic label?
Another argument against necessary and sufficient conditions as the basis for
linguistic concepts is Putnam's (1975) observations about ignorance. Speakers
often use words to refer knowing very little, and sometimes nothing, about the
identifying characteristics of the referent. Putnam's examples include the tree
names beech and elm: like Putnam, many English speakers cannot distinguish
between these two trees yet use the words regularly. Such a speaker would
presumably be understood, and be speaking truthfully, if he said:
In the 1970s Dutch elm disease killed a huge number of British elms.
Perhaps as Putnam suggests, we rely on a belief that somewhere there are
experts who do have such knowledge and can tell the difference between different
species of trees. In any case it seems, as with other natural kind terms like gold or
platinum, we can use the words without knowing very much about the referent. It
seems unlikely then that a word is referring to a concept composed of a set of
necessary and sufficient conditions, or what amounts to the same thing, a
definition. The idea is that natural kind terms, like names are originally fixed by
contact with examples of the kind. Thereafter, speakers may receive or borrow the
word, without being exposed to the real thing, or knowing very much about its
characteristics. As we have seen, philosophers like to use examples of metals like
gold or silver. Any inability to identify correctly or define the substance silver
does not prevent one from using the word silver. We assume that someone once
had the ability or need to recognize the individual metal and that somewhere there
are experts who can identify it empirically. Putnam speaks about a "division of
labour" in a speech community: between "expert" and "folk" uses of a term. Only
the expert or scientific uses of a word would ever be rigorous enough to support
necessary and sufficient conditions, but speakers happily go on using the word.
The Prototype Theory. Because of the problems with necessary and

sufficient conditions or definitions, several more sophisticated theories of
concepts have been proposed. One influential proposal is due to Eleanor Rosch
and her co-workers (Rosch 1973, 1975, Rosch and Mevis 1975, Rosch et al. 1976)
who have suggested the notion of prototypes. To remember! This is a model of
concepts which views them as structural so that there are central or typical
members of a category, such as BIRD or FURNITURE, but then a shading-off
into less typical or peripheral members. So, chair is a more central member of the
category FURNITURE than lamp, for example. Or sparrow a more typical
member of the category BIRD than penguin or ostrich. This approach seems to
have been supported by Rosch's experimental evidence: speakers tend to agree
more readily on typical members than on less typical members; they come to
mind more quickly, etc. Another result of this approach and similar work (e.g.
88
Labov 1973) is that the boundaries between concepts can seem to speakers
uncertain, or "fuzzy", rather than clearly defined.
G. Kleiber (1999) speaks about two sciences of prototype theory: the standard
theory and the extended theory. The standard theory corresponds to the period
when E. Rosch and her team publish their work. According to prototype theory,
the category is structured on two dimensions: the horizontal dimension (the
internal structure) and the vertical dimension (intercategorial relations).
To remember! The Horizontal Dimension. The prototype is the best exemplar,

the central instance of a category. This new conception is based on the following
principles (Kleiber,1997: 51).
1. The category has an internal prototypical structure.
2. The borderlines of the categories or concepts are not very clearly
delimited, they are vague.
3. Not all the members of a category present common characteristics; they
are grouped together on the basis of the family resemblance.
4. An entity is a member of a certain category if it presents similarities with
the prototype.
So, this approach allows for borderline uncertainty: an item in the world might
bear some resemblance to two different prototypes. Here we might give examples
of speakers being able to use the word whale, yet being unsure about whether a
whale is a mammal or a fish. In the prototype theory of concepts, this might be
explained by the fact that whales are not typical of the category MAMMAL, being
far from the central prototype. At the same time, whales resemble prototypical fish
in some characteristic features: they live underwater in the oceans, have fins, etc.
There are a number of interpretations of these typicality effects in the
psychology literature: some researchers for example have argued that the central
prototype is an abstraction. This abstraction might be a set of characteristic
features to which we compare real items. These characteristic features of BIRD
might describe a kind of average bird, small, perhaps, with wings, feathers, with
the ability to fly, etc. but of no particular species. Other researchers have proposed
that we organize our categories by exemplars, memories of actual typical birds,
say sparrows, pigeons and hawks, and we compute the likelihood of something we
meet being a bird on the basis of comparison with these memories of real birds.
There is another approach to typicality effects within linguistics, which is
interesting because of the light it sheds on the relationship between linguistic
knowledge and encyclopaedic knowledge. Kleiber called this approach the
extended version of the prototype theory. Charles Fillmore (1982) and G. Lakoff
(1987) both make similar claims that speakers have folk theories about the world,
based on their experience and rooted in their culture. These theories are called
frames by Fillmore and idealized cognitive models (ICMD) by Lakoff. They are
not scientific theories or logically consistent definitions, but collections of cultural
89
views. Fillmore gives an example of how these folk theories might work by using
the word bachelor. It is clear that that some bachelors are more prototypical than
others, with the Pope, for example, being far from prototypical. Fillmore and
Lakoff (1987) suggest that there is a division of our knowledge about the word
bachelor: part is a dictionary-type definition ("an unmarried man") and part is an
encyclopaedia-type entry of cultural knowledge about bachelorhood and marriage
- the frame or ICM. The first we can call linguistic or semantic knowledge and the
second real world or general knowledge. Their point is we only apply the word
bachelor within a typical marriage ICM: a monogamous union between eligible
people, typically involving romantic love, etc. It is this idealized model, a form of
general knowledge, which governs our use of the word bachelor and restrains us
from applying it to celibate priests, or people living in isolation like Tarzan living
among apes in the jungle. In this view, using a word involves combining semantic
knowledge and encyclopaedia knowledge, and this interaction may result in
typicality effects.
G. Leech (1990) considers that one of the flaws of the prototype semantics is
that it reduces the role of conceptual semantics, in explaining word meaning, to
the minimum of matching a word to a category. But the nominal view appears to
be too restricted, because it can only be easily applied to common nouns (rather
than to adjectives, verbs, etc.).
In addition to the category-recognizing ability, human beings also have a
different order of cognitive ability - something which is much more closely tied to
language - which is the ability to recognize structural relations between
categories. (G. Leech,1990: 85).
Although the prototype theory was considered a veritable revolution, it is not a
miraculous solution for all semantic problems and it cannot surpass all the
difficulties which remain unsolved in the classical model of necessary and
sufficient conditions.
To remember! The theory brings three new elements of a great importance for
lexical semantics.
(i) This theory allows us to integrate in the meaning of a word, characteristics
excluded by the classical model, being considered unnecessary, encyclopaedic
features;
(ii) It proves the existence of an internal organization of the category.
(iii)It also explains the hierarchical conceptual structure and intercategorial
relations.
We also have to take into account that this theory is a theory of categorization,
first intended for psychological goals.
The Vertical Dimension. Relations between Concepts. The relational nature of
conceptual knowledge is an important issue in semantics. Words are in a network
of semantic links with other words and it is reasonable to assume that conceptual
structures are similarly linked.
90
Models of conceptual hierarchies are fundamental in the cognitive psychology
literature. A model based on defining attributes was proposed by Collins and
Quillian (1969). In this model, concepts are represented by nodes in a network, to
which attributes can be attached and between which there are links.
To remember! Proponents of prototype theory, (Rosch et al. 1976) have also

investigated conceptual hierarchies and have proposed that such hierarchies
contain three levels of generality: a superordinate level, a basic level, and a
subordinate level. The idea is that the levels differ in their balance between
informativeness and usefulness.
If we take one of Rosch et al.'s (1976) examples, that of furniture, the

superordinate level is FURNITURE, which has relatively few characteristic
features; the basic level would include concepts like CHAIR, which has more
features, and the subordinate level would include concepts like ARMCHAIR,
DININGCHAIR, etc., which have still more features and are thus more specific
again. The basic level is identified as cognitively important; it is the level that is
most used in everyday life; it is acquired first by children; in experiments it is at
which adults spontaneously name objects; such objects are recognized more
quickly in tests, and so on.
This model has proved to be very robust in the psychological literature, though
the simple picture we have presented here needs some modifications. It seems that
the relationship between the classic level and the intermediate term might vary
somewhat from domain to domain: man-made categories like FURNITURE differ
somewhat from natural kind terms, and the relationship may vary depending on
the person's experience of the categories. So a person's expert knowledge of a
domain might influence the relationship between the basic and subordinate levels.
Tancka and Taylor (1991) suggest that experts on dogs and birds might have a
different, richer structure at subordinate levels for these categories from the
average person.
8.2. Cognitive Semantics

Toward the end of the 20th century, there is both dissatisfaction with the
existing formal semantic theories and a wish to preserve insights from other
semantic traditions. Cognitive semantics, the latest of the major trends which have
dominated the last decades, attempts to do this by focusing on meaning as a
cognitive phenomenon.
As is often the case with labels for theories, the term cognitive semantics
might be objected to as being rather uninformative: in many semantic approaches
it is assumed that language is a mental faculty and that linguistic abilities are
supported by special forms of knowledge. Hence, for many linguists semantics is
necessarily a part of the inquiry into cognition. However, writers in the general
approach called cognitive linguistics, and other scholars who are broadly in
91
sympathy with them, share a particular view of linguistic knowledge. This view is
that there is no separation of linguistic knowledge from general thinking or
cognition. Contrary to the influential views of the philosopher Jerry Fodor or of
Noam Chomsky, these scholars see linguistic behaviour as another part of the
general cognitive abilities which allow learning, reasoning, etc. So perhaps we can
take the label cognitive linguistics as representing the slogan "linguistic
knowledge is part of general cognition". (Saeed, 1997: 299).
Cognitive linguists often point to a division between formal and functional
approaches to language. Formal approaches, such as generative grammar are
often associated with a certain view of language and cognition: that knowledge of
linguistic structures and rules forms an autonomous module (faculty), independent
of other mental processes of attention, memory and reasoning. This external view
of an independent linguistic module is often combined with a view of internal
modularity: that different levels of linguistic analysis, such as phonology, syntax
and semantics, form independent modules.
Functionalism, with which cognitive linguists identify themselves, implies a
quite different view of language: that externally, principles of language use
embody more general cognitive principles; and internally, that explanation must
cross boundaries between levels and analysis. Thus, it makes sense to look for
principles shared across a range of cognitive domains. Similarly, it is argued that
no adequate account of grammatical rules is possible without taking the meaning
of elements into account.
This general difference of approach underlies specific positions taken by
cognitive linguists on a number of issues: in each case their approach seeks to
break down the abstractions and specializations characteristic of formalism.
Studies in cognitive semantics have tented to blur, if not ignore, the commonly
made distinctions between linguistic knowledge and encyclopaedic, real world
knowledge and between literal and figurative language. Cognitive linguists
consider that syntax can never be autonomous from semantics or pragmatics. So,
the explanation of grammmatical patterns cannot be given in terms of abstract
syntactic principles but only in terms of the speaker's intended meaning in
particular contexts of language use.
A further distinction that is reassessed in this framework is the traditional
structuralist division between, to use Ferdinand de Saussure's terms, diachronic
(or historical) linguistics and synchronic linguistics. In his foundational lectures,
de Saussure, attempting to free linguistics from etymological explanation,
proposed his famous abstraction: a synchronic linguistics, where considerations of
historical change might be ignored, as if in describing a language we could factor
out or "freeze" time. This consideration has been accepted in many linguistic
theories, but is currently questioned in functional approaches. From the
functionalist perspective, linguistic structures have evolved through long periods
of use and the processes of change are evident in and relevant to an understanding
of the current use of language.
92
If we turn to meaning, a defining characteristic of cognitive semantics is the
rejection of what is termed objectivist semantics. G. Lakoff (1988) assigns to
objectivism the basic metaphysical belief that categories exist in objective reality,
together with their properties and relations, independently of consciousness.
Associated with this is the view that the symbols of language are meaningful
because they are associated with these objective categories. This gives rise to a
particular approach to semantics, Objectivist Semantics, which Lakoff
characterizes under three "doctrines" (adapted from Lakoff 1988: 125-6):
a. The doctrine of truth-conditional meaning: Meaning is based on reference
and truth.
b. The "correspondence theory" of truth: Truth consists in the correspondence
between symbols and states of affairs in the world.
c. The doctrine of objective reference: There is an "objectively correct" way
to associate symbols with things in the world.
In rejecting these views, cognitive semanticists place themselves in opposition
to the formal semantics approach. For these writers, linguistic truth and falsity
must be relative to the way an observer construes a situation, based on his or her
conceptual framework. The real focus of investigation should, in this view, be
these conceptual frameworks and how language use reflects them.
In the cognitive semantics literature meaning is a cognitive phenomenon,
based on conventionalized conceptual structures. Thus semantic structure, along
with other cognitive domains, reflects the mental categories which people have
formed from their experience of growing up and acting in the world. A number of
conceptual structures and processes are identified in this literature but special
attention is often given to metaphor.
Cognitive linguists agree with the proposal by G. Lakoff and Johnson (1980)
that metaphor is an essential element in our categorization of the world and our
thinking processes. The conventional metaphorical expressions are not a purely
linguistic phenomenon, but the manifestation of a conceptual mapping between
two semantic domains; hence the mapping is general and productive and, also
assumed to be specific for the human mind (Croft, Cruse, 2004: 198).
Metaphor is seen as related to other fundamental structures such as image
schemas, which provide a kind of basic conceptual framework derived from
perception and bodily experience, and Fauconnier's notion of mental spaces,
which are mental structures which speakers set up to manipulate reference to
entities. Cognitive linguists also investigate the conceptual processes which reveal
the importance of the speaker's construal of a scene.
A consequence of this view of language is that the study of semantics and
linguistics must be an interdisciplinary activity. One result is that scholars
working within this and related frameworks tend to stray across intra- and inter-
disciplinary boundaries more easily than most. The approach to metaphor has
been applied not only to the study of grammar and semantics, but also to historical
93
linguistics, categories of thought, poetic language, rhetoric and ethics amongst
other areas.
.Conclusions:
The Aristotelian model of necessary and sufficient conditions, very largely
used in philosophy, anthropology, psychology and linguistics is based on the
following thesis:
-concepts and categories are entities with very clear borderlines.
-the model is based on truth and false system: It is a dog provided that it fits
the criterial conditions of the category "dog".
-the members of the same category have an equal status since each member
has the features required by the definition of the category. So, each member is a
good as any other.
The prototype theory is a model of concepts which views them as structural so
that there are central or typical members of a category, such as BIRD or
FURNITURE, but then a shading-off into less typical or peripheral members. So,
‘chair’ is a more central member of the category FURNITURE than ‘lamp’, for
example. Or ‘sparrow’ a more typical member of the category BIRD than
‘penguin’ or ‘ostrich’. This approach seems to have been supported by Rosch's
experimental evidence: speakers tend to agree more readily on typical members
than on less typical members; they come to mind more quickly, etc.
The prototype is the best exemplar, the central instance of a category. This
new conception is based on the following principles (Kleiber 1997: 51):
-the category has an internal prototypical structure.
-the borderlines of the categories or concepts are not very clearly delimited,
they are vague.
-not all the members of a category present common characteristics; they are
grouped together on the basis of the family resemblance.
-an entity is a member of a certain category if it presents similarities with the
prototype.
The theory brings three new elements of a great importance for lexical
semantics: it allows us to integrate in the meaning of a word, characteristics
excluded by the classical model, being considered unnecessary, encyclopaedic
features; it proves the existence of an internal organization of the category; it also
explains the hierarchical conceptual structure and inter-categorial relations.
Proponents of prototype theory, (Rosch et al. 1976) have also investigated
conceptual hierarchies and have proposed that such hierarchies contain three
levels of generality: a superordinate level, a basic level, and a subordinate level.
The idea is that the levels differ in their balance between informativeness and
usefulness.
The cognitivist view is that there is no separation of linguistic knowledge from
general thinking or cognition. Cognitive semanticists place themselves in
94
opposition to the formal semantics approach. For these writers, linguistic truth
and falsity must be relative to the way an observer construes a situation, based on
his or her conceptual framework. The real focus of investigation should, in this
view, be these conceptual frameworks and how language use reflects them.
Bibliography:
Kleiber, G. 1990. La sémantique du prototype. Paris: Presses Universitaires de
France.
Lakoff, George.1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories
Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Saeed, J. 1997. Semantics. Dublin:Blackwell Publishers.
Self-assessment Tests:
1. A category is structured on
a. syntactic and semantic levels
b. horizontal and vertical levels
c. internal and external levels
2. The cognitivist view

a. shares the frame of formal semantics
b. distinguishes between linguistic knowledge and general cognition
c. is based on the subject’s conceptual framework.
3. E. Rosch’s based their conceptual hierarchies on

a. hyponymy relations
b. synonymy relations
c. syntactic relations
Correct answers: 1. b; 2. c; 3. a.
Exercises:
1. What is a prototype? Give examples.
2. What are conceptual hierarchies? Provide examples.
3. State the main principles of Cognitive Semantics.
4. Explain the importance of the process of categorization.
5. Discuss the main theses of the two opposite models: the model of necessary
and sufficient conditions and the prototype theory.
6. The vertical dimension of categories. Give examples.
95
7. Discuss the main theses of Cognitive Semantics.
8. Give examples of conceptual structures.
96
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Chiţoran, Dumitru.1973. Elements of English Structural Semantics, Bucureşti:

Editura Didactică şi Pedagogică.
Crystal, D., Davy, D. 1973. Investigating English Style. London: Longman.
Croft, W., Cruse, D. A., Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP
Cruse, D.1987. Lexical Semantics, Cambridge: CUP.
de Saussure, F. 2004. Scrieri de lingvistică generală. Bucureşti: Polirom.
Duţescu-Coliban, T. 2001. Derivational Morphology. Bucureşti, Universitatea
“Spiru Haret”: Editura Fundaţiei România de mâine.
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1985. Mental Spaces. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Greimas, Algirdas, Julien. 1966. Sémantique structurale. Recherches de méthode.
Paris: Seuil.
Greimas, Algirdas, Julien. 1970. Du sens. Essais sémantiques. Paris : Seuil.
Hulban, N., Luca-Lăcătuşu, T., Creţescu Kogălniceanu, C. 1983. Competenţă şi
performanţă. Exerciţii şi teste de limbă engleză. Bucureşti: Ed. Ştiinţifică şi
Enciclopedică.
Iliescu, M. Wald, L. 1981. Lingvistica modernă în texte. Buc.: Reprografia
Universităţii din Bucureşti.
Ionescu, Emil. 1992. Manual de lingvistică generală ,Bucureşti: Editura All.
Katz, Jerrold, Postal, I. 1963. “Semantic Interpretation of Idioms and Sentences
Containing Them”, M. I. T., Quarterly Progress Report, nr. 70, pp. 275-
282.
Katz, Jerrold, Fodor, Jerry 1976. “Structura unei teorii semantice” în volumul
Antologie de semantică, pp. 325-404.
Kleiber, G. 1990. La sémantique du prototype. Paris: Presses Universitaires de
France.
Klinkenberg, J.-M. 2004. Iniţiere în semiotica generală. Iaşi: Institutul European.
Kovecses, Z. 2002.Metaphor. A Practical Introduction. Oxford: OUP.
Lakoff, George.1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories
Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Leech,G. 1990. Semantics. The Study Of Meaning. London: Penguin Books.
Leviţchi, L. 1970. Limba engleză contemporană- Lexicologie. Bucureşti: Editura
ştiinţifică şi enciclopedică.
Lamb, Sydney M. 1966. Outline of Stratificational Grammar. Georgetown:
Georgetown University Press.
Lyons, J. 1977.Semantics vol I, II, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marchand, H. 1960. The Categories and Types of Present-day English Word-
formation. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz
Neagu, Mariana. 2005. Cognitive Linguistics. An Introduction. Bucureşti: Editura
97
.Pottier, B. 1963. Recherche sur l’analyse sémantique en linguistique et en
traduction mécanique. Série A. Linguistique appliquée et Traduction
Automatique II, Publications Linguistique de la Faculté de Lettre et
Sciences de l’Univérsité de Nancy.
Pottier, B. 1964.Vers une sémantique moderne. Strasbourg : C. Klincksieck.
Saeed, J.I. 1997. Semantics, Dublin: Blackwell Publishers.
Ullmann, S. 1952. Précis de Sémantique française, Bern.
Ullmann, S. 1957. Style in the French Novel, Cambridge: CUP.
Ullmann, S. 1972. Semantics. An introduction to the science of meaning, 2-nd
edition (1-st edition 1962). Oxford: Blackwell.
98

English Semantics

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

English Semantics

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

ENGLISH SEMANTICS

UNIT I. INTRODUCTION TO SEMANTICS…………………………….5

UNIT II. THE PROBLEM OF MEANING………………………………18

UNIT III. MOTIVATION OF MEANING………………………………..31

UNIT IV. STRUCTURAL APPROACHES

UNIT V. LANGUAGE AS A CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM………………..56

UNIT VI. SEMANTIC RELATIONS

UNIT VII. SEMANTIC THEORY WITHIN

UNIT VIII. NEW SEMANTIC

To remember! Semantics is a domain which deals with the content side of

1.1. A Short History of Semantics

To remember! The form of a word can indicate to a certain extent some

To remember! Logic, philosophy, rhetoric and psychology contribute to the

To remember! Words were no longer approached in isolation, but analysed in

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

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

To remember! Present-day research confirmed the opinion of ancient time

1.2. Definition and Object of Semantics

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

1.3. Semantics and Semiotics

To remember! The act of semiosis may be both motivated and conventional. If

1. What term is not synonymous with the term semantics?

2. When was the period of crisis in the history of semantics?

3. Which are the subdivisions of semantics?

4. What is the common feature of all types of signs?

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

To remember! Even if the morpheme is the minimum unit of language

To remember! While the relation symbol- reference and reference- referent

To remember! In conclusion, referring is what speakers do and denoting is a

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

To remember! Referential theories consider meaning to be something

Conceptual/ Representational Theory of Meaning

Two distinguishable aspects of the content side of the sign can

2.2. Dimensions of Meaning.

Self- Assessment tests:

1. The drawbacks of referential theory of meaning are:

Topics for discussion and exercises:

1. Characterize the referential theories of meaning.

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

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

Words Prefix Common Root Common

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

2. F. de Saussure subdivided word motivation into:

4.1. Componential Analysis

Since significations as invariants find their material manifestation in senses as

To remember! Keeping in mind the basic isomorphism between expression

To remember! Componential Analysis assumes that all meanings can be

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

To remember! On the content level an archilexeme will result from the

Glossematics represents the point of departure for an American linguistic

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

Lexemic stratum L bright L vivid L intense

Sememic stratum S quick-witted, clever

Lexemic stratum L bright Lgifted L clever L capable

Lexemic stratum board

(intermediate) /unmarried /university /young

lexemic stratum bachelor

By expressing the meanings of individual items in terms of combinations

To remember! Componential Analysis is based on binary or multiple

Criticisms of Componential Analysis (CA). Componential analysis is

To remember! Semantic features need not be atomic contrastive elements, but

To remember! To expect CA to provide an interpretation in this sense is to

6. The view that word-meanings are essentially vague, that determinate