Componential analysis

Ivana Grbavac, Assist. Prof.

University of Mostar
Definition

• The analysis of word meanings is often

seen as a process of breaking down the
sense of a word into its minimal distinctive
features, that is into components which
contrast with other components. Lyons,
1977.
• approach to isolated lexemes
• a kind of methodology in discussing meaning
• Meaning – relational
concept & relational entity
• Arbitrary (nemotiviran)
• Conventional
• Elements of mentalism
• Ogden & Richards (1923)
broke down the concept
of meaning >
• M. is relationship
between language, the
real world and the way
we perceive it.
 • Ullman, S. (1962):
sense name – lexeme
thing – denotatum
sense – to avoid
name thing concept
• Today: concept,
mental image
• MEANING: the relationship between the
tree points in the triangle
• Major thing TBR: Meaning can be broken
down.
• Knowledge of the world
• Knowledge of the language
 lexical concept • These triangles –
(knowledge of the world) introduction to CA
• Major kind of
relationship is
between concept and
lexeme (Ullman)
lexeme denotatum
• It is breaking sth
(knowledge down into
of the language) components: sense or
concept
• Mentalistic approach: reaching
conclusions on the basis of knowledge
about the world (intuition, introspection,
…)
• What is a woman? …, …. …,
- breaking down of a concept
 Componential analysis
feature analysis or contrast analysis

• the description of the meaning of words through

structured sets of semantic features, which are
given as “present”, “absent” or “indifferent with
reference to feature”.
• a method typical of structural semantics which
analyzes the structure of a word's meaning.
Thus, it reveals the culturally important features
by which speakers of the language distinguish
different words in the domain (Ottenheimer,
2006: 20)
 Human Adult Male
man + + +

woman + + -

boy + - +
girl + - -
• Componential analysis (CA) assumes that
the meaning of any given word is
represented best by a unique bundle of
meaningful features. The analytical
method of CA is to compare the meanings
of words from the same area of meaning
to discover the minimum number of
features necessary to distinguish the
differences in their meanings.
• CA: The analysis of a set of related
linguistic items, especially word meanings,
into combinations of features in terms of
which each item may be compared with
every other.
Example:

Male Adult Animal

cow +/- + +
bull + + +
calf +/- - +
Problems with CA

1) How many components do we need to

describe a lexeme?
2) How do you break down the meaning of
generic terms?

cow – bull
duck – drake
(semantically unmarked, frequent, generic)
vs. (semantically marked lexemes)
• Scientific manipulation: A structure is being
imposed upon meaning, a structure which
may not be in the nature of the thing.
• Our aim?
Example: implements for sitting down on

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 • S1 with the back

• S2 raised above
chair + + + + - +
the ground
• S3 for one person
armchair + + + + + +
• S4 to sit in or on
stool - + + + - + • S5 with arms
• S6 with solid
sofa + + - + + + material

pouffe - + + + - -
To sum up – problematic:

• Number of components
• Generic terms
• You do not get the definition of meaning of chair,
man, woman, …
• Insufficient definition
• The traditional approaches to CA rely very much
on semantically related lexemes and they
function on the basis of opposites
• “CA leaves unexplained at least as much as it
succeeds in explaining” (Lyons, 1977)
 Traditional approach vs.
contemporary approach to CA
• E. Nida (1975)
Inclusion, overlapping, complementation,
contiguity; losening of analytical rigour,
descriptive components
• A. Wierzbicka (1985):
Uses different kinds of descriptive components
Eg. mugs and cups
- Meaning is a stretching kind of phenomenon,
slippery ground
- A descriptive kind of CA based on the notion of
the prototype
W. Labov (1973)
- the prototypical example of a cup
A. Wierzbicka (1985)
- prototypicality
- But concepts are a relative category
(eg. sredovječan, visok …) > there must be
a common, core meaning that makes the
communication possible, M. Žic Fuchs
Two tasks:

1) Define “tree” using CA

2) Do a CA of the following lexemes:

cat, horse, deer
 Checklist
• Breaking down the sense
• Minimal distinctive features – components
• Ogden & Richards (1923)
• Ullman, S. (1962)
• Contemporary view of the semantic triangle
• Componential analysis: necessary features, comparison
of items
• Problems with CA: semantically marked and unmarked
lexemes, number of components, insufficient definition
• Contemporary approach to CA: Labov, Wierzbicka