curs id semantica.doc

8/20/2019 CURS ID SEMANTICA.doc

1/77

Chapter IINTRODUCTION TO SEMANTICS

Why study semantics? Semantics (as the study of meaning) is central to the study of communication and as communication becomes more and more a crucial factor in social

organization, the need to understand it becomes more and more pressing. Semantics is also at

the centre of the study of the human mind - thought processes, cognition, conceptualization -

all these are intricately bound up with the way in which we classify and convey our

e perience of the world through language.

!ecause 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 thin#ing and various disciplines of study.$hilosophy, psychology, and linguistics all claim a deep interest in the sub%ect. 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 sub%ect. (&eech

' * + ).

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

study interacting with those of synta and phonology. person"s linguistic abilities are based

on #nowledge that they have. /ne of the insights of modern linguistics is that spea#ers of a

language have different types of linguistic #nowledge, including how to pronounce words,

how to construct sentences, and about the meaning of individual words and sentences. 0o

reflect this, linguistic description has different levels of analysis. So - phonology is the study

of what sounds combine to form words synta is the study of how words can be combined

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

1. A Short History of Semantics

+t has often been pointed out, and for obvious reasons, that semantics is the youngest

branch of linguistics (1llmann ' 23, 4reimas ' 23). 5et, interest in what we call today

6problems of semantics6 was 7uite alive already in ancient times. +n ancient 4reece,

philosophers spent much time debating the problem of the way in which words ac7uired their

meaning. 0he 7uestion why is a thing called by a given name, was answered in two different

ways.

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

they were somehow conditioned by the natural properties of things themselves. 0hey too#

'


2/77

great pains to e plain for instance that a letter li#e 6rho6 seems apt to e press motion since the

tongue moves rapidly in its production. 8ence its occurence in such words as rhoein (6to

flow6), while other sounds such as 9s, f, #s9, which re7uire greater breath effort in production,

are apt for such names as psychron (6shivering6) or kseon (6sha#ing6), etc. 0he 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.

/ther philosophers held the opposite view, namely that names are given to things

arbitrarily through convention, thesei . 0he physei-thesei controversy or physis-nomos

controversy is amply discussed in $lato"s dialogue Cratylus . +n the dialogue, :ratylus appears

to be a part of the physei theory of name ac7uistion, while 8ermogenes defends the opposite,

nomos or their point of view. 0he two positions are then debated by Socrates in his usual

manner. +n an attempt to mediate between the two discussants he points out first of all that

there are two types of names. Some are compound names which are divisible into smaller

constituent element and accordingly, analyzable into the meaning of these constituent

elements* Poseidon derives his name from posi (6for the feet6) and desmos (6fetter6) since it

was believed that it was difficult for the sea god to wal# in the water.

0he words, in themselves, Socrates points out, give us no clue as to their 6natural6

meaning, e cept for the nature of their sounds. :ertain 7ualities are attributed to certain types

of sounds and then the meaning of words is analyzed in terms of the 7ualities of the sounds

they are made of. When faced with abundant e amples which run counter the apriori

hypothesis* finding a 6l6 sound (6lambda6) 6characteristic of li7uid movements6 in the word

sklerotes (6hardness6) for instance, he concludes, in true socratic fashion, that 6we must admit

that both convention and usage contribute to the manifestation of what we have in mind when

we spea#6.

+n two other dialogues, Theatetus and Sophists , $lato dealt with other problems such

as the relation between thought language, and the outside world. +n fact, $lato opened the way

for the analysis of the sentence in terms which are parly linguistic and partly pertaining to

logic. 8e was dealing therefore with matters pertaining to syntactic semantics, the meaning of

utterrances, rather than the meaning of individual words.

ristotle"s wor#s ( Organon as well as Rhetoric and Poetics ) represent the ne t ma%or

contribution of anti7uity to language study in general and semantics in particular. 8is general

approach to language was that of a logician, in the sense that he was interested in what there is

to #now how men #now it, and how they e press it in langugage (;inneen, ' 2


3/77

+n the field of semantics proper, he identified a level of language analysis - the le ical

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

syntactic constructions. 8e deepened the discussion of the polysemy, antonymy, synonymy

and homony and developed a full-fledged theory of metaphor.

0he contribution of stoic philosophy to semantics is related to their discussion of the

nature of linguistic sign. +n fact, as it was pointed out (=a#obson, ' 2>* 3', Stati '


4/77

conceived the new linguistic branch of study as a historical science studying the principles

governing the evolution of meaning.

0owards the end of the century ('


5/77

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 ' 3'-' E'

decade has a particular significance. +t is mar#ed by the publication of three important boo#s*

=ost 0rier, $er $eutsche %ortschat# im Sinn!e#ink des &erstandes (' E'), 4. Stern, Meaning

and Change of Meaning (' E') and :. G. /gden and =. . Aichards* The Meaning of

Meaning (' 3E).

=ost 0rier"s boo# as well as his other studies which are visibly influenced by W. von

8umbold"s ideas on language, represents an attempt to approach some of the Saussurean

principles to semantics. nalyzing the meaning of a set of le ical elements related to one

another by their content, and thus belonging to a semantic 6field6, 0rier 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. @or the first time, therefore, words were no longer approached in

isolation, but analyzed in terms of their position within a larger ensemble - the semantic field -

which in turn, is integrated, together with other fields, into an ever larger one. 0he process of

subse7uent integrations continues until the entire le icon is covered. 0he le icon therefore is

envisaged as a huge mosaic with no piece missing.

4ustav Stern"s wor# is an ambitious attempt at e amining the component factors of

meaning and of determining, on this ground, the causes and directions of changes of meaning.

1sing scientific advances psychology (particularly Wundt"s psychlogy) Stern postulates

several classifications and principles which no linguist could possibly neglect.

s regards /gden and Aichard"s boo#, its very title The Meaning of Meaning is

suggestive of its content. 0he boo# deals for the most part with the different accepted

definitions of the word 6meaning6, not only in linguistics, but in other disciplines as well,

identifying no less than twenty-four such definitions. 0he overt endeavour of the authors is to

confine semantic preoccupations to linguistic problems e clusively. 0he two authors have the

merit of having postulated the triadic relational theory of meaning - graphically represented

by the triangle that bears their names.

short supplement appended to the boo#* The Pro!lem of Meaning in Primiti'e

(anguages due to an anthropologist, !. Calinows#i, was highly instrumental in the

development of a new 6conte tual6 theory of meaning advocated by the !ritish school of

linguistics headed by =. A. @irth.

>


6/77

0he following decades, more specifically the period ' E -' > is #nown as a period

of crisis in semantics. Ceaning was all but completely ignored in linguistics particularly as an

effect of the position adopted by &. !loomfield, who considered that the study of meaning

was outside the scope of linguistics proper. +ts study falls rather within the boundaries of other

sciences such as chemistry, physics, etc., and more especially psychology, sociology or

anthropology. 0he somewhat more conciliatory positions which, without denying the role of

meaning in language nevertheless alloted it but a marginal place within the study of language

(8oc#ett, ' > ), was not able to put an end to this period of crisis.

Aeference to semantics was only made in e tremis, when the various linguistic

theories were not able to integrate the comple ity of linguistic events within a unitary system.

8ence the widespread idea of viewing semantics as a 6refuge6, as a vast container in which all

language facts that were difficult to formalize could be disposed of.

0he 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 le icographic practice.

+f we view the situation from a broader perspective, it becomes evident that the so-

called 6crisis6 of semantics, actually referred to the crisis of this linguistic discipline only

from a structuralist standpoint, more specifically from the point of view of merican

descriptivism. /n 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. +t was only in the last years of the si ties that the organized attac#s of the modern

linguistic schools of different orientations was launched upon the vast domain of linguistic

meaning.

t present meaning has ceased to be an 6anathema6 for linguistics. Coreover, 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.

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

problems of meaning. =udging by the great number of published wor#s, by the e tensive

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.

n important development in the direction of a psycholinguistic approach to meaning

is &a#off"s investigation of the metaphorical basis of meaning (&a#off and =ohnson ' ).0his approach draw on Blinor Aosch"s notion of protype, and adopt the view opposed to that

2


7/77

of :homs#y, that meaning cannot be easily separated from the more general cognitive

functions of the mind.

4. &eech 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.

2. Definition an O!"ect of Semantics

+n linguistic terminology the word semantics is used to designate the science of word-

meaning. 0he term, however, has ac7uired a number of senses in contemporary science. lso,

a number of other terms have been proposed to cover the same area of study, namely the study

of meaning. s 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.

ll 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.

/ne particular meaning of the term semantics is used to designate a new science,

)eneral Semantics , the psychological and pedagogical doctrine founded by lfred Gorzybs#y(' EE) under the influence of contemporary neo-positivism. Starting from the supposed

e ercise upon man"s behaviour, 4eneral semantics aims at correcting the 6inconsistencies6 of

natural language as well as their tendency to 6simplify6 the comple nature of reality.

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

removing the 6dogmatism6 and 6rigidity6 of language and to ma#e up for the lac# of

emotional balance among people which is ultimately due to language. 0his school of thought

holds that the study of communicative process can be a powerful force for good in theresolution of human conflict, whether on an individual, local, or international scale. 0his is a

rather naHve point of view concerning the causes of conflicts (4. &eech ' * +). 5et, certain

aspects of the relationship between linguistic signs and their users - spea#ers and listeners

ali#e - have, of course, to be analyzed given their relevance for the meaning of the respective

signs.

lso, that there is a dialectic interdependence between language and thought in the

sense that language does not serve merely to e press thought, but ta#es an active part in the

very moulding of thought, is beyond any doubt.


8/77

/n the whole, however the e treme position adopted by general semanticists as

evidenced by such formulations as 6the tyranny of words6, 6the power of language6, 6man at

the mercy of language6, etc. has brought this 6science6 to the point of ridicule, despite the

efforts of genuine scholars such as 8aya#awa and others to uphold it.

+n 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. /bviously, of the two types of

semantics, it is empirical semantics that falls within the scope of linguistics.

0he most commonly agreed-upon definition of semantics remains the one given by

!rFal as 6the science of the meanings of words and of the changes in their meaning6. With

this definition, semantics is included under le icology, the more general science of words,

being its most important branch.

0he result of research in the field of word-meaning usually ta#es the form of

dictionaries of all #inds, which is the proper ob%ect of the study of le icography.

0he term semasiology is sometimes used instead of semantics, with e actly the same

meaning. 8owever since this term is also used in opposition to onomasiology it is probably

better to #eep it for this more restricted usage. Semasiology stands for the study of meaning

starting from the 6signifiant6 (the acoustic image) of a sign and e amining the possible

6signifiFs6 attached to it. /nomasiology accounts for the opposite direction of study, namely

from a 6signifiF6 to the various 6signifiants6 that may stand for it.

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

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

signifiant and a signifié , between an e,pression and a content" +n 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. 0he definition certainly needs to be e tended so as to include

the entire level of the content of language. s 8%elmslev pointed out, there should be a

science whose ob%ect of study should be the content of language and proposed to call it

plerematics . Ievertheless all the glossematicians, including 8%elmslev continued to use the

older term - semantics in their wor#s.

B. $rieto (' 2D) calls the science of the content of language noology (from 4ree# noos

- 6mind6) but the term has failed to gain currency.


9/77

/bviously, a distinction should be made between le,osemantics , which studies le ical

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 re7uired to e plain

how sentences are understood by the spea#ers of language. lso, the tas# of semantic analysis

is to e plain the relations e isting 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.

/f course, much of the information re7uired to give an answer to these 7uestions is

carried by the le ical items themselves, and generative semantics does include a

representation of the meaning of le ical 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 ob%ective reality. +n the case of generative semantics it is obvious that we

can spea# of syntactic semantics , which includes a much wider area of study that le ical

semantics.

#. Semantics an Semiotics

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

and the signified they actually had in mind any #ind of signs not %ust linguistic ones. 0hey

postulated a new science of signs, a science for which a term already e isted in 4ree#*

s meiotik " +t is however, only very recently, despite repeated attempts by foresighted

scientists, that semiotics become a science in its own right. first, and very clear presentation of semiotics is it to be found in this e tensive

7uotation from =ohn &oc#e"s .n Essay Concerning /uman 0nderstanding . +n the chapter on

the 6division of the sciences6, &oc#e mentions 6the third branch (which) may be called

semiotic, or the doctrine of signs... the business whereof is to consider the nature of signs the

mind ma#es use of for the understanding of things, or conveying its #nowledge to others. @or,

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 it6 (&oc#e, ' 2D* E ).


10/77

&ater, in the ' th century, the merican philosopher :harles Sanders $eirce devoted a

life time wor#, which unfortunately remained unheeded for a long time, to the study of signs,

to setting up semiotics as a science, 6as the doctrine of the essential nature and fundamental

varieties of possible JsemiosisK6. (A. =a#obson, ' 2>* 33). @erdinand de Saussure too,

probably 7uite independently from $eirce, but undoubtedly inspired by the same 4ree#

philosophers" speculations on language, suggested that linguistics should be regarded as %ust

one branch of a more general science of sign systems which he called semiology . +n other

words he saw no basic difference between language signs and any other #inds of sings all of

them interpretable by reference to the same general science of signs.

$eirce 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) cons in which the relationship between the signans and the signatum is one of

the similarity.

0he signans of an iconic type of sign, resembles in shape its signatum. ;rawings,

photographs, etc., are e amples of iconic signs. 5et, phisical similarity does not imply true

copying or reflection of the signatum by the signans. $eirce distinguished two subclasses of

icons-images and diagrams. +n the case of the latter, it is obvious that the 6similarity6 is hardly

6physical6 at all. +n a diagram of the rate of population or industrial production growth, for

instance, convention plays a very important part.

(ii) +nde es, in which the relationship between the signans and the signatum is the

result of a constant association based on physical contiguity not on similarity. 0he signans

does not resemble the signatum to indicate it. 0hus smo#e is an inde for fire, gathering

clouds indicate a coming rain, high temperature is an inde for illness, footprints are inde es

for the presence of animals, etc.

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

entirely conventional. 0here is no similarity or physical contiguity between the two. 0he

signans and signatum are bound by convention their relationship is an arbitrary one.

&anguage signs are essentially symbolic in nature. @erdinand de Saussure clearly specified

absolute arbitrariness as 6the proper condition of the verbal sign6.

0he act of semiosis may be both moti'ated and con'entional" +f semiosis is motivated,

than motivation is achieved either by contiguity or by similarity.

ny system of signs endowed with homogeneous significations forms a language andany language should be conceived of as a mi ture of signs.

'


11/77

nother aspect revealed by semiotics which presents a particular importance for

semantics is the understanding of the semiotic act as an institutional one. &anguage itself, can

be regarded as an institution (@irth, ' >


12/77

Chapter II

T H E ( R O $ * E M O ) M E A N I N +

+. 0he concept of meaning '.a bipolar relation 3. a triadic relation - . referential approach

- !. conceptual approach

E. 8egerNs view.

++. ;imensions of meaning '. dimensions of meaning

3. types of meaning in &eechN s conception.

+.'. ny progress in semantics is conditioned by a clearer understanding of meaning,

as the ob%ect of its analysis. Iumberless definitions of language meaning have been postulated, some complementary in nature, some opposed. 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.

Bven if the morpheme is the minimum unit of language endowed with meaning, it is

the word, the ne t higher unit that traditional le icology has selected as its ob%ect of study and

to clearly understand the factors involved in meaning, itNs necessary to begin with an account

of meaning at word level.

0he concept of meaning, defined by @. de Saussure, was first regarded as a bipolar

relation between the two interdependent sides of a linguistic sign- significans Oe pressionN and

significatum OcontEentN and this is true for any sign, no matter to what semiotic system it

belongs.

3. /gden and Aichards have pointed out in ' 3E that at least three factors are

involved in any symbolic act- the sym!ol itself Othe material aspect of the linguistic sign, be it

phonic or graphicN the thought1reference Othe mental content that accompanies the occurrence

of the symbol in the minds of both the spea#er and the listenerN the o!2ect itself1 the referent

Othe ob%ect in the real world designated by the symbolN.

0he triadic concept of meaning was represented by /gden and Aichards in the form of

a triangle.

'3


13/77

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

in the sense that the symbol e presses or symbolises the reference which, in turn refers to the

referent, the relation symbol- ob%ect or referent is an imputed, indirect one.

/f the two sides of the triangle only the right-hand one can be left out P tentatively

and temporarily- in a linguistic account of meaning. 0he relationship between thought and the

outside world of ob%ects and phenomena is of interest primarily to psychologists and

philosophers, linguists directing their attention towards the other two sides. (:hiLoran, '


14/77

A sparrow and the room are I$s that refer to things in the world. room, sparrow

denote classes of items. +n conclusion, referring is what spea#ers do and denoting is a

property of words. ;enotation is a stable relationship in a language, it doesnNt depend on

anyoneNs use of the word unli#e the action of referring.

Aeturning to the problem of theories of meaning, they are called referential1

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,

ad%ectives denote properties of individuals-.+n case of sentences, they denote situations and

events. 0he difference in meaning between a sentence and its negative counterpart arises from

the fact that they describe two situations

e. g. There is a !ook on the shelf"

There isn4t a !ook on the shelf"

Aeferential theories consider meaning to be something outside the world itself, an e tra-

linguistic entity. 0his means reducing the linguistic sign, i. e. the word to its material aspect,

be it phonic or graphic.

0he impossibility of e7uating meaning with the ob%ect denoted by a given word can be

e plained considering three ma%or reasons

a. the identity meaning-ob%ect would leave meaning to a large e tent undefined because not

all the characteristic traits of an ob%ect as an e tralinguistic reality are identical with the

distinctive features of le ical meaning

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

- non- referring e pressions so5 'ery5 may!e5 if5 not5 etc.

- referring e pressions used generically*

e. g. A murder is a serious felony"

- words li#e nouns, pronouns with variable reference depending on the conte t*

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

She didn4t kno3 3hat to say"

- words which have no corresponding ob%ect in the real world in general or at a

certain moment*

e. g. The unicorn is a mythical animal"

She 3ants to make a cake this e'ening"

- different e pressions9words that can be used for the same referent, the meaningreflecting the perspective from which the referent is viewed

'D


15/77

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

The president of the USA/ George ush/ ar!ara ush"s hus!and 3as to

deli'er a speech"

!esides the referential differences between e pressions, we can ma#e useful

distinctions among the things referred to by e pressions- referent , thing pic#ed out by

uttering the e pression in a particular conte t e,tension of an e,pression Q set of things

which could possibly be the referent of that e pression. +n &yonNs terminology the

relationship between an e pression and its e tension is called denotation" (Saeed '


16/77

or more definite descriptions in the terminology of philosophers. +n this theory, understanding

a name and identifying the referent are both dependent on associating the name with the right

description.

e. g. Christopher Marlo3e 1 the 3riter of the play $r" 6austus 1 the Eli#a!ethan

play3right murdered in a $eptford ta'ern"

nother interesting approach is the causal theory (;evitt, Sterelny, '


17/77

0wo distinguishable aspects of the content side of the sign can be postulated- its

signification , the real ob%ect or situation denoted by the sign, i. e. its denotation and a sense

which e presses a certain informational content on the ob%ect or situation. 0he relation

between a proper name and what it denotes is called name relation and the thing denoted is

called denotation . O name names its denotation and e presses its sense.N ( lonso :hurch)

E,tensional and ntensional Meaning" 0he definition of meaning by signification is

called e,tension in symbolic logic (:arnap, ' 2 ) and what has been called sense is

e7uivalent to intension . B tension stands for the class of ob%ects corresponding to a given

predicate, while intension is based on the property assigned to the predicate (B. Rasiliu, ' < ).

e. g. They 3ant to !uy a new car . (intensional meaning)

There is a car parked in front of your house" (e tensional meaning)

:. The Trape#ium of /eger .

Glaus 8eger in his article (es !ases metodologiques de l4onomasiologie proposes a

trapezium- li#e variant, which allows him to introduce new distinctions. 8eger noticed P as

4reimas, adept of the triadic conception agreed- that signifiant 8 signifie i. e. concept is

different from the linguistic sign, because the content of an e pression is a semasiologic field ,

which is made up of more than one concept or mental ob%ect. +n its turn a concept can be

e pressed by means of several signifiants"

0he model of 8eger gives him the possibility to analyse the content, ma#ing place

for sememes and semes" B tralinguistic reality has two levels- the logical and9or

psychological level and the level of the e ternal world (:. !aylon, $. @abre, ' < * 'E3).

0he term moneme ( . Cartinet) is also used by 8eger and represents the minimal

unit endowed with signification a moneme is made up of morphemes which are in a limited

number and it also represents a le eme, the number of le emes in a language being virtually

infinite. +n conclusion, a moneme is at the same time form of e pression li#e phonemes and

form of content li#e sememes. +t is significant and signified. 0he signified depends on the

structure of the language, but the concept on the right side of the trapezium is independent.

'


18/77

0he onomasiology starts from the concept and tries to find the linguistic relations for

one or several languages. +t tries to find monemes which by means of their significations or

sememes e press a certain concept. n onomasiological field reprewsents the structure of all

the sememes belonging to different signified, so to different monemes, but ma#ing up one

concept .

Semasiology analyses a signified associated by co- substantiality to one moneme so

we deal with multiple significations or sememes.

Gurt !aldinger (' D* 'E') comments on 8egerNs trapezium, analysing the succesive

stages from the substance of e pression level to the final content level.

++.Dimensions of Meanin& .

'. $imensions of Meaning" Ceaning is so comple 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 (:hiLoran, '


19/77

0here 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. 0he first aspect is the signification, the latter is its sense.

e. g. (ord 7yron1 .uthor of Child /arold have similar signification and different

senses.

/e is cle'er" 19ohn is cle'er . /e and 9ohn are synonymous e pressions if the

condition of co- referentiality is met.

The logical dimension of meaning covers the information conveyed by the linguistic

e pression on the denotatum, including a %udgement of it.

The pragmatic dimension defines the purpose of the e pression, why it is uttered by a

spea#er. 0he relation emphasized is between language users and language signs.The structural dimension covers the structure of linguistic e pressions, the comple

networ# of relationships among its component elements as well as between it and other

e pressions.

3. Types of Meaning" :onsidering these dimensions, meaning can be analyzed from

different perspectives, of which 4. &eech distinguished seven main types (&eech, ' * ).

a. (ogical1 conceptual meaning5 also called denotati'e or cogniti'e meaning5 is considered

to be the central factor in linguistic communication. +t has a comple and sophisticatedorganization compared to those specific to syntactic or phonological levels of language.

0he principles of contrasti'eness and constituent structure : paradigmatic and

syntagmatic a es of linguistic structure- manifest at this level i. e. conceptual meaning

can be studied in terms of contrasti'e features"

b. Connotati'e meaning is the communicative value an e pression has by virtue of what it

refers to. 0o a large e tent, the notion of reference overlaps with conceptual meaning. 0he

contrastive features become attributes of the referent, including not only physicalcharacteristics, but also psychological and social properties, typical rather than invariable.

:onnotations are apt to vary from age to age, from society to society.

e. g. 3oman ;capa!le of speech< ;e,perienced in cookery<

;frail< ;prone to tears<

;non- trouser- 3earing<

:onnotative meaning is peripheral compared to conceptual meaning, because

connotations are relatively unsta!le" 0hey vary according to cultural, historical period,

e perience of the individual. :onnotative meaning is indeterminate and open- ended that is

'


20/77

any characteristic of the referent, identified sub%ectively or ob%ectively may contribute to the

connotative meaning.

c. +n considering the pragmatic dimension of meaning, we can distinguish between social

and affecti'e meaning" Social meaning is that which a piece of language conveys about

the social circumstances of its use. +n part, we OdecodeN the social meaning of a te t

through our recognition of different dimensions and levels of style.

/ne account (:rystal and ;avy, n'estigating English Style ) has recognized several

dimensions of socio-linguistic variation. 0here 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

- province9domain +. e. the language of law, science, etc.

- status i. e. polite9 collo7uial language etc.

- modality i. e. the language of memoranda, lectures, %o#es, etc.

- singurality, for instance the language of a writer.

+tNs 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 Otrue synonymsN. !ut there is much

convenience in restricting the term OsynonymyN to e7uivalence of conceptual meaning. @or

e ample, domicile is very formal, official, residence is formal, a!ode is poetic, home is the

most general term. +n terms of conceptual meaning, the following sentences are synonymous.

e. g. They chucked a stone at the cops5 and then did a !unk 3ith the loot"

.fter casting a stone at the police5 they a!sconded 3ith the money"

+n 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 re7uest, an assertion, an

apology, a threat, etc.

d. 0he way language reflects the personal feelings of the spea#er, his9 her attitude towards

his9 her interlocutor or towards the topic of discussion, represents affecti'e meaning"

Scaling our remar#s according to politeness, intonation and voice- timbre are essential

factors in e pressing affective meaning which is largely a parasitic category, because it

relies on the mediation of conceptual, connotative or stylistic meanings. 0he e ception is

when we use inter%ections whose chief function is to e press emotion.

e. 0wo other types of meaning involve an interconnection on the le ical 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. /n hearing, in a church service, thesynonymous e pressions the Comforter and the /oly )host5 one may react according to

3


21/77

the everyday non- religious meanings of comfort and ghost" /ne sense of a word Orubs

offN on another sense when it has a dominant suggestive power through fre7uency and

familiarity. 0he 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

!loomfield e plains in this way the replacement of cock by rooster"

f. Collocati'e Meaning consists of the associations a word ac7uires on account of the

meanings of words which tend to occur in its environment9 collocate with it.

e" g" pretty girl1 !oy1 flo3er1 color

handsome !oy1 man1 car1 'essel1 o'ercoat1 type3riter "

:ollocative meaning remains an idiosyncratic property of individual words and it shouldnNt

be invo#ed to e plain all differences of potential co- occurrence. ffective 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. 0hey can be all brought together

under the heading of associati'e meaning" ssociative meaning needs employing an

elementary OassociationistN theory of mental connections based upon contiguities of

e perience in order to e plain it. Whereas conceptual meaning re7uires the postulation of

intricate mental structures specific to language and to humans, and is part of the Ocommon

systemO of language shared by members of a speech community, associative meaning is less

stable and varies with the individualNs e perience. !ecause of so many imponderable factors

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

statistical techni7ues. /sgood, Suci and 0annenbaum ( The Measurement of Meaning5 =>?@ ),

proposed a method for a partial analysis of associative meaning. 0hey devised a techni7ue P

involving a statistical measurement device, - 0he Semantic ;ifferential -, for plotting

meaning in terms of a multidimensional semantic space, using as data spea#erNs %udgements

recorded in terms of seven point scales.

Thematic Meaning means what is communicated by the way in which a spea#er9

writer organizes the message in terms of ordering, focus or emphasis. Bmphasis can be

illustrated by word- order*

e.g. 7essie donated the first pri#e$

The first pri#e 3as donated !% essie$

by grammatical constructions*

3'


22/77

e. g. There4s a man 3aiting in the hall"

t4s $anish cheese that like !est"

by le ical means*

e. g. The shop !elongs to him

/e o3ns the shop"

by intonation*

e. g. /e 3ants an electric ra#or"

Conc%-sions

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

stable, and e plicit- established between a sign and the ob%ect in referential definitions, or

between the sign and the concept9 the mental image of the ob%ect in conceptual definitions of

meaning

b. an important aspect of meaning is derived from the use that the spea#ers ma#e of it

P pragmatic meaning, including the attitude that spea#ers adopt towards the signs

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

occupy in a system of e7uivalent linguistic forms, in the paradigmatic set to which they

belong- differential9 connotative meaning

d. e7ually, part of the meaning can be determined by the position a linguistic sign

occupies along the syntagmatic a is- distributional9 collocative meaning

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

constitutive elements, into semantic features, li#e the ones displayed on the e pression level

of language.

'. :onceptual Ceaning &ogical, cognitive ordenotative content

ssociative meaning 3. :onnotative Ceaning What is communicated byvirtue of what language refers

toE. Social Ceaning What is communicated of thesocial circumstances oflanguage use

D. ffective Ceaning What is communicated of thefeelings and attitudes of thespea#er9 writer

>. Aeflected Ceaning What is communicatedthrough association withanother sense of the samee pression

33


23/77

2. :ollocative Ceaning What is communicatedthrough association withwords tending to occur in theenvironment of another word


24/77

C h a p t e r I I I .

M O T I / AT I O N O ) M E A N I N +

@erdinand de Saussure"s apodictic statement* 6the linguistic sign is arbitrary6 in the

sense that there is no direct relationship between the sound se7uence (the signifiant) and the

6idea6 e pressed by it (signifiF) is ta#en for granted in the study of language. 0he 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. 0here are numerous

words in all languages in which a special correlation may be said to e ist between meaning

and sound. 0hese words include in the first place inter%ections 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. 0his latter aspect is #nown as phonetic sym!olism .

!ut in addition to these cases which still remain marginal in the language, there is also

another sense in which the meaning of words may be said to be related to its form, namely the

possibility of analyzing linguistic signs by reference to the smaller meaningful elements of

which they are made up. +ndeed, derivative, comple and compound words are analyzable

from the point of view of meaning in terms of their constituent morphemes.

+t 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 tas# to e amine 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 e tent to which there is some motivation in the case of atleast a number of words in the language.

1llmann (' >


25/77

1. A!so%-te moti0ation

bsolute motivation includes language signs whose sound structure reproduces certain

features of their content. 4iven this 7uasi-physical resemblance between their signifiant and

their signifiF, these signs are of an iconic or inde ic nature in the typology of semiotic signs,

although symbolic elements are present as well in their organization*

0here are several classes of linguistic signs, which can be said to be absolutely

motivated*

(i) nter2ections . +t would be wrong to consider, as is sometimes done, that

inter%ections somehow depict e actly the physiological and psychological states they e press.

0he fact that inter%ections differ in sound from one language to another is the best proof of it.

:ompare Aomanian auB aoleuB 'aiB etc. and Bnglish ouchB, which may be used in similar

situations by spea#ers of the two languages.

(ii) Onomatopoeia . 0his is true of imitative or onomatopoeic words as well. ;espite

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. 0here are instances in which the degree

of conventionality is highly mar#ed, as evidenced by the fact that while in Bnglish a dog goes

!o3-3o3 , in Aomanian it goes ham-ham . lso, such forms as Bnglish 3hisper and Aomanian

opti are considered to be motivated in the two languages, although they are 7uite different in

form.

(iii) Phonetic sym!olism . $honetic symbolism is based on the assumption that certain

sounds may be associated with particular ideas or meanings, because they somehow seem to

share some attributes usually associated with the respective referents. 0he problem of

phonetic symbolism has been amply debated in linguistics and psychology and numerous

e periments have been made without arriving at very conclusive results.

+t is 7uite easy to %ump at sweeping generalizations starting from a few instances of

sound symbolism.

=espersen attached particular attention to the phonetic motivation of words and tried to

give the character of law to certain sound and meaning concordances. 8e maintained for

instance, on the basis of ample evidence provided by a great variety of languages, that the

front, close vowel sound of the iT type is suggestive of the idea of smallness, rapidity and

wea#ness. long list of Bnglish words* little5 slim5 kid5 !it5 flip5 tip5 t3it5 pinch5 t3inkle5 click5

etc. can be easily provided in support of the assumption, and it can also be reinforced bye amples of words from other languages* @r. petit , +t. piccolo , Aom. mic , etc. /f course, one

3>


26/77

can e7ually easily find counter e amples - the most obvious being the word !ig in Bnglish -

but on the whole it does not seem unreasonable to argue that a given sound, or se7uence of

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

Sapir (' 3 ) maintained that a contrast can be established between iT and aT in point

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

usually have referents of larger size. Similar systematic relations were established for

consonants as well.

+nitial consonant clusters of the 9sn9, 9sl9, 9fl9 type are said to be highly suggestive of

7uite distinctive meanings, as indicated by long lists of words beginning with these sounds.

2. Re%ati0e moti0ation

Aelative motivation " +n the case of relatively motivated language signs, it is not thesounds which somehow evo#e 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. Aelative motivation involves a much larger number of words in the language than

absolute motivation. 0here are three types of relative motivation* motivation by derivation by

composition and semantic motivation.

n analysis of the use of derivational means to create new words in the language will

reveal its importance for the vocabulary of a language. 0he prefi U-inV, realized phonologically in various ways and meaning either (a) not and (b) in , into , appears in at least

3, Bnglish words* inside5 irregular5 impossi!le5 incorrect5 inacti'e etc.

Similarly, the &atin capere (6ta#e6) appears in a great number of Bnglish words*

capture5 capti'ity5 capa!le5 reception5 e,cept5 principal5 participant , etc.

+t is no wonder that !rown (' 2D) found it possible to give #eys to the meanings of

over 'D, words, which can be analyzed in terms of combinations between 3 prefi es and

'D roots. Some of his e amples are given below*%ords Prefi, Common Meaning Root Common

Meaning '. $recept pre- before capere ta#e, seize3. ;etain de- away, down tenere hold, haveE. +ntermittent inter- between, among mittere sendD. /ffer ob- against ferre bear, carry>. +nsist in- into stare stand2. Conograph mono- alone, one, graphein write


27/77

0his table alone is sufficient to indicate the importance of relative motivation for the

analysis of meaning.

+t is obvious that the le icon 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.

+n Précis de sémantique franDaise (' >3), 1llman suggested several criteria of

semantic structure which enabled him to characterize Bnglish as a 6le ical language6, as

opposed to @rench which is a more 6grammatical6 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. 0hree other criteria are based on multiple

meaning (patterns of synonymy, the relative fre7uency of polysemy, and the incidence of

homonymy) and a final one evaluates the e tent to which words depend on conte t for the

clarification of their meaning. 0his is an area of study which could be continued with

profitable results for other languages as well.

$i!%io&raphy *

:hiLoran, ;umitru. '


28/77

Chapter I/STRUCTURA* A((ROACHES TO THE STUD O) MEANIN+

1. COM(ONENTIA* ANA* SIS

0hough 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.

4enerally, 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) P is there a semantic structure9system 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 ?

+n relation to 7uestion a), the e istence of some #ind of systemic organisation within

the le icon of a language is ta#en for granted. @ de Sanssure pointed aut that the vocabulary

of a language cannot be regarded as a mere catalogue. !ut this aaceptance does not mean it

is an easy %ob to prove the systematic character of the le icon. @irst of all, it would mean the

study of the entire civilization it reflects and secondly, given the fluid and vague nature of

meaning, semantic reality must be analysed without recourse to directly observable entities as

it happens in case of sound and grammatical meaning.

/ne solution was to group together those elements of the le icon which form more or

less natural series. Such series are usually represented by #inship 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.

0he e istence of such semantic series, the organisation of words into semnatic fields

%ustified the structural approach to the study of le icon.

3


29/77

8%elmslev conditioned the e istencee of system in language by the e istence of

paradignes so that a structural description is only possible where paradigmes are revealed.!ut

the vocabulary , as an open system, with a variable number of elements, does not fit such a

description unless the definition of system broadens. Celcu# (' 2') stated that a set of

structurally organised ob%ects forms a system if the ob%ects can be described by certain rules,

on condition that the number of rules is smaller than the number of ob%ects. :onstant

reference to phonology, in terms of distinguishing between relevant and irrelevant in the study

of meaning has led to applying methods pertaining to the e pression level of language to its

content level as well.

Some linguistic theories, mainly the 4loosemantic School, ta#e it for granted that

there is an underlying isomorphism between the e pression and content levels of language.

ccordingly they consider it a iomatic to apply a uni7ue method of analysis to both levels of

language. 8%elmslev distinguishes between signification and sense and deepens this

distinction on the basis of a new dichotomy postulated by glossematics * form and su!stance .

While the sense refers to the substance of content, signification refers to its form or structure.

0he distinction signification9sense can be analysed in term of another structuralist dichotomy*

in'ariant1'ariant . Significations represent invariant units of meaning while the sense are its

variants. 0here is a commutation relation between significations as invariants, and a

su!stitution one between senses as variants. n e ample is given below *

Aomanian Bnglish Aussian palma

mana hand py#a brat arm

Since significations as invariants find their material manifestation in senses as their

invariants, in terms of glossematics, a theory of signification stands for content form alone, so

signification is no more semantic than other aspects of content form dealt with by grammar. +t

follows that only a theory of the sense (substance of content) could be the ob%ect of study of

semantics(:hitoran, '


30/77

matters in the study of meaning is the comple networ# of relations obtaining among

linguistic elements.

Geeping in mind the basic isomorphism between e pression and content, it is essential

to emphasize some important differences between the two language levels*

- the e pression level of language implies se7uentiality, a development in time

(spo#en language) or space (written language) its content level is characterised by

simultaneity

- the number of units to be uncovered at the e pression level is relatively small, and

infinitely greater at the content level.

+t 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 le ical macrosystem.

0he meanings of a le ical element display three levels of structure, starting from a basic

significative nucleus, a semantic constant (:oteanu, ' 2 ) which represents the highest level

of abstraction in the structuration of meaning. round it different meanings can be grouped

(the 3 nd level). (:hiLoran, ' ')

0he actual uses of a le ical item, resulting from the individualising function of words

(:oteanu, ' 2 ) belong to speech. Conolingual dictionaries give the meanings of a le ical

item abstracted on the basis of a wide collection of data. s far as the semantic constant is

concerned, its identification is the tas# of semnatics and one way of doing that is by means of

the :omponential nalysis.

:omponential nalysis assumes that all meanings can be further analysed into

distinctive semantic features called semes , semantic components or semantic primiti'es , as the

ultimate components of meaning. 0he search for distinctive semantic features was first limited

to le ical items which were intuitively felt to form natural structures of a more ar less closed

nature. 0he set #inship terms was among the first le ical subsystems to be submitted to

componential analysis *

father XmaleT Xdirect lineT Xolder generationT

mother -maleT Xdirect lineT Xolder generationT

son XmaleT Xdirect lineT -older generationT

daughter YmaleT Xdirect lineT -older generationT

uncle XmaleT Ydirect lineT Xolder generationT

aunt -maleT -direct lineT Xolder generationT

nephe3 XmaleT -direct lineT -older generationTniece -maleT -direct lineT -older generationT

E


31/77

+t is evident than there e ist the same hierarchy of units and the same principle of

structuring lower level units into higher level ones ($ottier, ' 2E)*

B pression :ontent;istinctive feature pheme (f) seme (s)Set of distinctive features phememe(@)

(a set of pheme)

sememe (S)

( set of semes)0he formalization of a set of

;istinctive features

phoneme($)

(the formalization of a

phememe)

le eme(&)

formalization of a sememe

0he sememes are arrived at by comparing various le ical items in the language.

Starting from the dictionary definitions, the semantic features encountered in case of furniture

intended for siting are *

Semanticfeature9&e ical item

for sitting with bac# with supportfor arms

for more people upholstered

Stool X - - - Z:hair X X - - Z

rmchair X X X - Z!ench X X Z X -Sofa X X Z X X

Zthe given feature(present9absent)is not relevant ./n the content level an archile eme will result from the neutralization of a le emic

opposition. +n this case the more general term chair can be the archile eme, or another

le ical item can be chosen- seat .

4lossematies represents the point of departure for an merican linguistic theory, the

statificational theory of language (Sidney (am! , ' 2D,' 22). 8e included a semantic theory

in his general linguistic theory. 0his semantic component has the form of a separate level of

language (stratum) the sememic one. &ambNs semantic theory is based on the assumption thatthere is a structuralization of meaning characteristic of all languages. While before him words

were related directly to their denotata or significata . &amb suggests the insertion of a new

statum Asememics4 , between language and the outside world in order to delimit what is

linguistically relevant on the content level from what is not. 0he sememic statum is inserted

between the le emic (lower) and the semantic (higher) strata.+ts elementary unit is the

semon (Qthe 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 bygeneral construction rules, the combination of semons must be listed individually for each

E'


32/77

sememe. Bvidence is formed both for diversification (semo-le emic) and neutralization

(le osememic) between the two strata.

Sememic stratum S of colours giving out9reflecting much light

&e emic stratum & bright & vivid & intense

Sememic stratum S 7uic#-witted, clever

&e emic stratum & bright &gifted & clever & capable

Sememeic statum S9piece of wood s9on the ship s9group of people s9(food)

&e emic stratum board

0he first is accounting for the semasiological direction, the second for the

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

synonymy). +n the process of neutalization which accounts for polysemy, one le ema is

connected to several sememes in an either-or type of relationship. !ut the le eme9lamb9is

connected both to the sememe9sheep9 and the sememe 9young9. given le eme may connect

first to several units in an either-or relationship, which in turn may connect to several

sememes in a both-and relationship. 0he intermediate units between the le,eme and the

sememes are called by &amb sememic signs .

9male9

Sememic stratum 9unmarried 9owner of the 9 [ male 9 person 9 ' st cad. ;egree9

(intermediate) 9unmarried 9university 9youngsememic sign man9 graduate9 #night9(sememe)

le emic stratum bachelor

!y e pressing the meanings of individual items in terms of combinations of features,

we obtain the componential definitions of the items concerned. 0hey can be regarded asformalized dictionary definitions *

E3


33/77

man X 81C I X ;1&0 X C &B

0he dimensions of meaning will be termed semantic oppositions. 0he features of

opposition are mutually defining.

X (mar#ed)

- (negative, unmar#ed)

Iot all semantic contrasts are binary +n fact componential analysis assumes that

meanings are organised in multi-dimensional contrasts. 0a onomic (hierarchical arrangement

of categories) oppositions can be *

- binary * dead \ alive

- multiple * gold \ copper \ iron \ mercury etc.

0he lin# 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 (&eech,

' *


34/77

organisation of the language. 0he oppositions [ concrete and X counta!le have many other

oppositions dependent on them and so they are in #ey positions as it happens with the feature

X animate . (4. &eech, ' *''').

!inary oppositions fre7uently have marked and unmarked terms. 0hat is, the terms

are not entirely of e7uivalent weight, but one (the unmar#ed) is neutral or positive in contrast

to the other.

e.g. boo# boo#s

petit petite

duc# dra#e

long short

Car#edness is definable as a relation between form and meaning * if two words

contrast on a single dimension of meaning, the unmar#ed one is the one which can also apply

neutrally to the whole dimension. positive-negative bias is inherent to the semantic

opposition. /ften the mar#ed term is indicated by a negative suffi or prefi * happy-unhappy,

useful-useless. $eople tend to respond more 7uic#ly to unmar#ed than to mar#ed terms. 0his

could be e plained by their tendency to loo# on the bride side of life and associate

unmar#edness with OgoodN evaluations and mar#edness with ObadN ones (&eech, ' *''D).

0here is also a factor of bias in relative oppositions but this could be e plained in

terms of dominance rather than markedness . We prefer to use the dominant term before the

other or to use it alone.

parent9child see P

own9belong to hit P

in front9behind have P

Car#edness and dominance vary in strength (they can grow wea# even become

ine istent left9right) and are also sub%ect to conte tual influences.

Criticisms of Componentia% Ana%ysis. :omponential analysis is considered by some

linguists as a useful and re'ealing techni7ue for demonstrating relation of meaning between

words. t the same time, this theory of word-meaning has been criticised and 4.&eech has

tried to comment on the main criticisms *

'. +t is said that componential analysis (: ) accounts for only someparts of a

languageNs vocabulary (those parts which are neatly organi#ed ). :omponential analysis can be

fitted into a more powerful model of meaning, with additional levels of analysis apart from: . Semantic features need not be atomic contrastive elements, but may have an internal

ED


35/77


36/77

and similar words are defined in terms of Afu##y sets of attri!utes4 , that is sets of attri!utes of

'arying importance , rather than in terms of a clear-cut, unvarying set of features. We match

candidates for OcuphoodN against a prototype or standard notion of cup . 0he 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.

nother #ind of variability of reference is presented by &yons in case of three words*

!oy5 girl5 child in terms of a common feature P ;1&0. 0his feature will re7uire different

interpretations in the three cases. Within the- ;1&0 category there is a further binary

ta onomy distinguishing child from adolescent . P ;1&0 stands as a common factor in the

meanings of !oy5 girl5 child5 puppy etc. but its referential interpretation is variable for reasons

which are e plicable in terms of the prototypic view of categories.

0here have emerged three different levels at which word-meaning can be analysed.

- the 3ord-sense as an entirety may be seen as a conceptual unit in its own right

prepackaged e,perience (&eech, ' *'3')

- this unit may be subdivided into components9features by :

- both word-senses and features, representing prototypic categories can be bro#en

down into fuzzy sets of attributes.

2 . ( A R A D I + M S I N * E I C

T h e S e m a n t i c ) i e % T h e o r y

0he idea of the organization of the entire le icon of a language into a unitary system

was for the first time formulated by =ost 0rier. ctually, 0rier continued two lines of thought.

/n the one hand, he was directly influenced by W. von 8umboldt and his ideas of linguistic

relativism. Wilhelm von 8umboldt, influenced by the romanticism of the early ' th century

advanced the theory that languages are uni7ue, in that each language e presses the spirit of a

people, its &olksgeist . Bach language categorizes reality in different ways so that it may either

help or hinder its spea#ers in ma#ing certain observations or in perceiving certain relations.

4iven the principle of relativism, it follows that the vocabularies of any two languages are

anisomorphic, that there are no absolute one to one correspondences between two e7uivalent

words belonging to two different languages. 8umboldt made, also, the distinction between

language viewed statically as an ergon and language viewed dynamically, creatively, as an

energeia" 0rier"s semantic fields are, accordingly, closely, integrated le ical systems in a

dynamic state of continuous evolution.

E2


37/77

0he other line of thought which 0rier continues springs from @erdinand de Saussure"s

structuralism, more specifically from the distinctions made by the latter between the

signification, and value of le ical items. ccording to de Saussure, words have signification ,

in that they do mean something, positively, but they also have 'alue , which is defined

negatively by reference to what the respective words do not mean. &inguistic value is the

result of the structural relationships of a term in the system to which it belongs. 0hus, 0rier

postulated that no item in the vocabulary can be analyzed semantically unless one ta#es into

account the bundle of relationships and oppositions it enters with the other words in a given

subsystem or system. /ne cannot assess the correct meaning of 6green6 for instance, unless

one #nows the meaning of 6red6 and all the other colours in the system.

:olour terms are actually often used to illustrate the semantic field theory. &et 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 & ' and &3*

&' * y z&3* a b c d e

+t is evident that no single term in any of the two languages covers e actly the same

area of the spectrum only 6z6 in & ' can be said to incorporate the whole of 6e6 in & 3 although

it covers a small part of the area covered by 6d6 as well.

Bnglish and Shona, a language spo#en in Ahodesia, e hibit precisely the type of structural segmentation of the colour spectrum postulated above. While Bnglish have seven

basic terms for colour (the first level of the hierarchy), red5 orange5 yello35 green5 !lue and

purple5 Shona has only three which are distributed roughly as follows* a first term 6covers the

range of Bnglish orange5 red and purple , and a small part of !lueI another term covers the

area of green and most of !lue 6 (&amb ' 2 * D2). +t is evident that the terms for colour are not

e7uivalent in the two languages.

Bvidently the linguistic field of colour terms is a favourable one for such an analysis.

0here is first of all a 6metalanguage6 provided by the science of physics to which one can

report the words for colour. Secondly, the number of words, is 7uite limited and thus

reductible to a restricted set of relationships.

!ut even in the case of the most elementary vocabulary one encounters a similar lac#

of correspondence. Bnglish sheep and @rench mouton are not the same since Bnglish ma#es

use of another term mutton , to cover the entire area of meanings and uses covered by @rench

mouton"

0rier advanced the idea, that vocabulary as a whole forms an integrated system of

le emes interrelated in sense, a huge mosaic with no loopholes or superposed terms since our E


38/77

concepts themselves cover the entire 1niverse. ccording to his dynamic conception of

language viewed as 6energeia6, 0rier 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.

ny broadening in the sense of one le eme involves a corresponding narrowing in the

sense of one or more of its neighbours. ccording to 0rier, it is one of the ma%or failings of

traditional diachronic semantics that it sets out to catalogue the history of changes in the

meanings of individual le emes atomistically, or one by one, instead of investigating changes

in the whole structure of the vocabulary as it has developed through time. (&yons '


39/77

for instance, continued the analysis of the semantic field of #nowledge and understanding in

Codern 4erman while trying to incorporate the notion of semantic fields in his general theory

of language (' >E).

$. 4uiraud (' >2, ' 23) developed the theory of the morpho-semantic field . 0he

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 ob%ects designated by these words.

Walter von Wartburg and A. 8allig (' >3) undertoo# a more ambitious tas#. 0hey

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.

0he method is entirely reminiscent of Aoget"s Thesaurus in that it identifies le ical

systems with logical systems of concepts. 0he outline of the system of concepts has three

main components* * 0he 1niverse !* Can and :* Can and the 1niverse. Bach main

component includes several classes of concepts (and accordingly, of words designating these

concepts). 0hus, component includes the following four classes* + 0he s#y and atmosphere

++. 0he Barth +++. 0he $lants +R. 0he nimals.

Semantic fields are structural organizations of le is which reflect a structuration of the

content level of language. 8%elmslev and B. :oseriu (' 2 ) considered that any semantic

theory is valid only to the e tent to which it arrives at paradigms on the content level of

language.

:oseriu defined the semantic field as a primary paradigmatic structure of the le ic, a

paradigm consisting in le ical units of content (le emes), which share a continuous common

zone of signification, being in an immediate opposition one to another. (+liescu, Wald ' '* E )

semantic field should be understood in 0rier"s original sense, namely as a #one of

signification covered by a number of closely interrelated le ical items. +n this respect the

componential analysis of meaning (4oodenough, ' >2) seems to be nearer the true concept of

the semantic field.

0hree main ob%ections can be and have been raised with regard to the present state of

the semantic field theory.

(a) +s it possible to analyze the entire vocabulary into semantically structured fields, or are they limited to certain parts of it only, namely to le ical items designating aspects of

E


40/77

reality (especially man-made reality, the reality of artifacts) which by their own nature possess

a certain structural organization?

(b) :losely related to ob%ection (a) one can doubt the linguistic nature of semantic

fields. ;o they correspond to an internal organization of the vocabulary or are they

organizations e ternal to language?

(c) 8ow can semantic fields be delimited? +s there an ob%ective method of evaluating

the range of a given field and the number of elements it includes?

Componentia% Ana%ysis App%ie in the Ana%ysis of Semantic )ie% s

/ne of the most important tenets of modern semantics claims that the meanings of

le ical items do not represent ultimate, indivisible entities they are, on the contrary,

analyzable into further components. 0his led to a method of approach in semantic analysis,

appropriately called componential analysis , previously discussed in this chapter.

:omponential analysis originally started as a method of analysing units belonging to a

certain semantic field. 0he method was fruitfully applied in the study of #inship terms, colour

terminology, military ran#s and other fairly restricted domains of meaning.

ssuming that the meaning of a word is not an undivided entity, componential

analysis provides for the decomposition of meanings into smaller significant features.

Codeled 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. 0he meanings of the field units

complement each other constituing a paradigm . 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.

0he common feature of meaning of the set is called the root meaning. +t defines the

semantic area which is analyzed by the units of the field. 0he words in the field will be

arranged into contrastive sets along different dimensions of meaning. 0hus, %ust as 9 t 9 and 9d 9

complement each other with respect to the dimension of 'oicing , old and young complement

each other with respect to the conceptual dimension of age .

D


41/77

. dimension is an opposition of mutually e clusive features. 0he features of the

dimension se, , presumably relevant in an analysis of #inship terms, are XCaleT and

X@emaleT.

ny term of the paradigm will be defined componentially in terms of its coordinates in

the paradigm. The componential definition of a word is a combination of features for several

(or for all) dimensions of the paradigm.

+n the componential definition of the meaning of a le ical item the linguist proceeds

from e tensional definition to intensional definitions. 0hat is, starting his analysis of say,

#inship terms, the linguist has to draw up the list of all the terms with #inship designation and,

than, to specify for each of them the set of possible denotata (the set of conte tual meanings

or all the allosemes of the word).

0he componential definition of a term may be ta#en to be an e pression of its

significatum. componential definition is therefore an intensional definition, which specifies

the distinctive features shared in common by all denotata designated by a given term.

+t is a unitary, con%unctive definition implying that all the features are simultaneously

present in every occurrence of the word.

$i!%io&raphy'

'. :hiLoran, ;umitru. '


42/77

3. @or each group of words given below, state what semantic property 9-ies distinguish

between the classes of a) and b) words. ;o a)words and b)words share any semantic

property ?

B ample* a) 3ido35 mother5 sister5 aunt5 maid

b) 3ido3er5 father5 !rother5 uncle5 'ale t

a) and b) are human

a) words are female and b) male

.+ a) !achelor5 man5 son5 pope5 chief

b) !ull5 rooster5 drake5 ram

7+ a) ta!le5 stone5 pencil5 cup5 house5 ship5 car

c) milk5 alchohol5 rice5 soup5 mud

C+ a) !ook5 temple5 mountain5 road5 tractor

b) idea5 lo'e5 charity5 sincerity5 !ra'ery5 fear

$+ a) 3alk5 run5 skip5 2ump5 hop5 s3im

b) fly5 skate5 ski5 ride5 cycle5 canoe

E+ a) alleged5 counterfeit5 false5 putati'e5 accused

b) red5 large5 cheerful5 pretty5 stupid

E. ;efine the terms seme , sememe5 le,eme . 4ive e amples.

D. What is a semantic field?

D3


43/77

Chapter /

* A N + U A + E A S A C O N C E ( T U A * S S T E M

&anguage is not only an instrument of communication. +t is far more than this - it is

the means by which we interpret our environment, by which we classify or 6conceptualize6

our e periences, 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. &eech considers language,

in its semantic aspect, as a conceptual system" Iot as a closed , rigid, conceptual system which

tyrannizes over the thought processes of its users, but as an open-ended conceptual system,

one which 6lea#s6, in the sense that it allows us to transcend its limitations by various types of

semantic creativity.

0he first 7uestion which arises in whether language is a single conceptual system, or

whether there are as many conceptual systems as there are languages. lthough much of

present-day thin#ing has tended to hypothesize a universal conceptual framewor# which is

common to all human language, common observation shows that languages differ in the way

they classify e perience. classic instance of this is the semantics of colour words. Bnglish

(according to !erlin and Gay, 7asic Color Terms5 ' 2 ) has a range of eleven primary colour

terms (blac#, white, red, green, yellow, blue, brown, purple, pin#, orange and grey), whereas

the $hilipine language of 8anun^o (according to :on#lein, /anun o Colour Categories ,

' >>) ma#es do with four.

:onceptual boundaries often vary from language to language. &anguages have a

tendency to impose structure upon the real world by treating some distinctions as crucial, and

ignoring others. 0he way a language classifies things is sometimes blatantly man-centred.

*in&-istic Re%ati0ism an Semantic Uni0ersa%s

Semantic relativism and semantic universals are two conflicting points of view in

relation to meaning. !oth theses concern the relation between the structure of language and

the structure of the universe. 0hey represent in fact two different ways of interpreting the

relation between the universe, as e perienced by man, and language as a tool of e pressing

that e perience. Bver since ancient times it has been maintained that the structure of language

reflects more or less directly the structure of the 1niverse as well as the universal structure of

the human mind (Counin, ' 2E* D'). 0his was ta#en to be a precondition of interlingualcommunication as well as of the act of translation.

DE


44/77

+n terms of 8%elmslevian distinction between su!stance 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 e perience remains basically the same.

(inguistic relati'ism . 0he a iomatic 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 8umboldt in the first half of the ' th 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. +n their opinion, language

imposes upon thought its own system of distinctions, its own analysis of ob%ective reality.

0hese ideas remained unheeded by linguists until the advent of Buropean structuralism. 0he

#ey idea in Saussurean linguistics namely that language signs have no meaning or 6value6

outside the system to which they belonged, fits perfectly the principle of linguistic relativism.

0rier and particularly 8%elmslev 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. &anguage is the

result of the imposition of same form upon an underlying substance.

_uite independently, and emerging mainly from current observation in linguistic

anthropological research on merindian languages, conducted by @r. !oas, similar ideas were

e pressed by B. Sapir and !. &. Worf in merica. &inguistic determinism has come to be

often referred to as the Sapir-%orf hypothesis . @or Sapir (' 3') and Worf (' >2) ob%ective

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. Bach 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 analyzes nature, grasps or neglects a given phenomenon or

relation, in means of which he molds his manner of thin#ing and by means of which he builds

up the entire edifice of his #nowledge of the world. Worf provided ample evidence from

merindian languages of how languages segment reality differently by neglecting aspects

which are emphasized in other languages. +n Burope linguists as !enveniste (' > ) and

Cartinet, in analyzing 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. 0he linguistic structure conditions,

albeit in an unconscious way, ma

curs id semantica.doc

Documents