A
good deal of work being published by linguists at present and dealing
with semantics has to do with componential analysis.1
To illustrate
what is meant by this we have taken a simple example (see p. 41) used
for this purpose by many linguists. Consider the following set of
words:
man,
woman, boy, girl, bull, cow. We
can arrange them as correlations
of binary oppositions man
: : woman =
boy
: : girl = bull : : cow.
The
meanings of words man,
boy, bull on the
one hand, and woman,
girl
and
cow,
on
the other, have something in common. This distinctive feature we call
a semantic component or seme. In this case the semantic distinctive
feature is that of sex — male or female. Another possible
correlation
is man
: : boy =
woman
: : girl. The
distinctive feature is that of age — adult or non-adult. If we
compare this with a third correlation man
: : bull =
woman
: : cow, we
obtain a third distinctive feature contrasting human and animal
beings. In addition to the notation given
on p. 41, the componential formula may be also shown by brackets. The
meaning of man
can
be described as (male (adult (human being))), woman
as
(female (adult (human being))), girl
as
(female (non-adult (human being))), etc.
1
See the works by O.K. Seliverstova, J.N. Karaulov, E. Nida, D.
Bolinger and others.
57
Componential
analysis is thus an attempt to describe the meaning of words in terms
of a universal inventory of semantic components and their possible
combinations.1
Componential
approach to meaning has a long history in linguistics.2
L.
Hjelmslev’s commutation test deals with similar relationships and
may be illustrated by proportions from which the distinctive features
d1,
d2,
d3
are obtained by means of the following procedure:
hence
As
the first relationship is that of male to female, the second, of
young to adult, and the third, human to animal, the meaning ‘boy’
may be characterised with respect to the distinctive features d1,
d2,
d3
as containing the semantic elements ‘male’, ‘young’, and
‘human’. The existence of correlated oppositions proves that
these elements are recognised by the vocabulary.
In
criticising this approach, the English linguist Prof. W. Haas3
argues
that the commutation test looks very plausible if one has carefully
selected examples from words entering into clear-cut semantic
groups, such as terms of kinship or words denoting colours. It is
less satisfactory in other cases, as there is no linguistic
framework by which the semantic contrasts can be limited. The
commutation test, however, borrows its restrictions from philosophy.
A
form of componential analysis describing semantic components in
terms of categories represented as a hierarchic structure so that
each subsequent category is a sub-category of the previous one is
described by R. S. Ginzburg. She follows the theory of the American
linguists J. Katz and J. Fodor involving the analysis of dictionary
meanings into semantic markers
and distinguishers
but redefines it in a clear-cut way. The markers refer to features
which the word has in common with other lexical items, whereas a
distinguishes as the term implies, differentiates it from all other
words.
We
borrow from R. S. Ginzburg her analysis of the word spinster.
It
runs as follows: spinster
—
noun,
count noun, human, adult, female, who has never married. Parts of
speech are the most inclusive categories pointing to major classes.
So we shall call this component class
seme
(a term used by French semasiologists). As the grammatical function
is predominant when we classify a word as a count noun it seems
more
logical to take this feature as a subdivision of a class seme.
1 Note
the possibility of different graphical representation.
2 Componential
analysis proper originates with the work of F.G. Lounsbury and W.H.
Goodenough on kinship terms.
3 Prof.
W. Haas (of Manchester University) delivered a series of lectures on
the theory
of meaning at the Pedagogical Institutes of Moscow and Leningrad in
1965.
58
It
may, on the other hand, be taken as a marker because it represents a
sub-class within nouns, marks all nouns that can be counted, and
differentiates them from all uncountable nouns. Human is the next
marker which refers the word spinster
to
a sub-category of nouns denoting human beings (man,
woman, etc.
vs table,
flower, etc.).
Adult is another marker pointing at a specific subdivision of living
beings into adult and not grown-up (man,
woman vs
boy,
girl). Female
is also a marker (woman,
widow vs
man,
widower), it
represents a whole class of adult human females. ‘Who has never
married’ —
is
not a marker but a distinguisher, it differentiates the word spinster
from
other words which have other features in common (spinster
vs
widow,
bride, etc.).
The analysis shows that the
dimensions of meaning may be regarded as semantic oppositions because
the word’s meaning is reduced to its contrastive elements. The
segmentation is continued as far as we can have markers needed for a
group of words, and stops when a unique feature is reached.
A
very close resemblance to componential analysis is the method of
logical definition by dividing a genus into species and species into
subspecies indispensable to dictionary definitions. It is therefore
but natural that lexicographic definitions lend themselves as
suitable material for the analysis of lexical groups in terms of a
finite set of semantic components. Consider the following definitions
given in Hornby’s dictionary:
cow
—
a
full grown female of any animal of the ox family calf
—
the
young of the cow
The
first definition contains all the elements we have previously
obtained from proportional oppositions. The second is incomplete but
we can substitute the missing elements from the previous definition.
We can, consequently, agree with J. N.
Karaulov
and regard as semantic components (or semes) the notional words of
the right hand side of a dictionary entry.
It
is possible to describe parts of the vocabulary by formalising these
definitions and reducing them to some standard form according to a
set of rules. The explanatory
transformations
thus
obtained constitute an intersection of transformational and
componential analysis. The result of this procedure applied to
collective personal nouns may be illustrated by the following.
e.
g. team
→ a
group of people acting together in a game, piece of work, etc.
Procedures
briefly outlined above proved to be very efficient for certain
problems and find an ever-widening application, providing us with a
deeper insight into some aspects of language.1
1
For
further detail see: Арнольд
И.В. Семантическая
структура слова в современном английском
языке и методика ее исследования. Л.,
1966.
59
Chapter
4
SEMANTIC
CHANGE
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Componential analysis (feature analysis or contrast analysis) is the analysis of words through structured sets of semantic features, which are given as «present», «absent» or «indifferent with reference to feature». The method thus departs from the principle of compositionality. Componential analysis is a method typical of structural semantics which analyzes the components of a word’s meaning. Thus, it reveals the culturally important features by which speakers of the language distinguish different words in a semantic field or domain (Ottenheimer, 2006, p. 20).
Examples[edit]
man = [+ MALE], [+ MATURE] or woman = [– MALE], [+ MATURE] or boy = [+ MALE], [– MATURE] or girl = [– MALE] [– MATURE] or child = [+/– MALE] [– MATURE]. In other words, the word girl can have three basic factors (or semantic properties): human, young, and female. Another example, being edible is an important factor by which plants may be distinguished from one another (Ottenheimer, 2006, p. 20). To summarize, one word can have basic underlying meanings that are well established depending on the cultural context. It is crucial to understand these underlying meanings in order to fully understand any language and culture.
Historical background[edit]
Structural semantics and the componential analysis were patterned on the phonological methods of the Prague School, which described sounds by determining the absence and presence of features. On one hand, componential analysis gave birth to various models in generative semantics, lexical field theory and transformational grammar. On the other hand, its shortcoming were also visible:
- The discovery procedures for semantic features are not clearly objectifiable.
- Only part of the vocabulary can be described through more or less structured sets of features.
- Metalinguistic features are expressed through language again.
- Features used may not have clear definitions.
- Limited in focus and mechanical in style.
As a consequence, entirely different ways to describe meaning were developed, such as prototype semantics.
See also[edit]
- Ethnoscience
- Structural linguistics
- Word-sense disambiguation
References[edit]
- Bussmann, Hadumod (1996), Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics, London: Routledge, s.v. componential analysis.
- Ottenheimer, H. J. (2006). The Anthropology of Language. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Asked by: Aileen Gutmann
Score: 4.6/5
(7 votes)
Componential analysis is a method typical of structural semantics which analyzes the components of a word’s meaning. Thus, it reveals the culturally important features by which speakers of the language distinguish different words in a semantic field or domain (Ottenheimer, 2006, p. 20).
What is the aim of Componential analysis?
Componential analysis is a method of describing the subject matter of a language. It aims at constructing verifiable models of how specific bodies of cultural (or ideational) content are coherently organized, insofar as such content is represented by words and expressions in a people’s language.
What is Componential analysis and how is it deal with translating or interpreting something?
Componential analysis is an analysis of the meaning of a word by breaking down the word into different pieces called ‘component parts’. This kind of analysis could be helpful in the process of translation to choose the most accurate and closest lexical equivalents.
What is Componential analysis CA?
Componential analysis (CA) in the broadest sense, also known as ‘lexical decomposition’, is any attempt to formalize and standardize procedures for the analysis of word meanings.
Are components binary in Componential analysis?
2.0 Componential Analysis
Lexical items are analysed in terms of semantic features or sense components. Generally, components are treated as binary opposites distinguished by pluses or minuses: for example, [+male]/[-male] or [+female]/ [-female] rather than simply [male] / [female].
44 related questions found
What is Componential analysis example?
Componential analysis is a method typical of structural semantics which analyzes the components of a word’s meaning. Thus, it reveals the culturally important features by which speakers of the language distinguish different words in a semantic field or domain (Ottenheimer, 2006, p. 20).
What means Componential?
adj. forming or functioning as a part or aspect; constituent. [C17: from Latin compōnere to put together, from pōnere to place, put] componential adj.
Who proposed Componential analysis?
‘ Hjelmslev, Louis, a Danish linguist, was a representative of early European Structuralism and the first one who gave definite proposal for a componential semantics (cf. Cruse 2000: 98f). Hjelmslev-like procedures the beginning with complex meaning and reduces them to simpler ones, guided the meanings of other words.
What is Componential theory?
Abstract. The componential theory of creativity is a comprehensive model of the social and psychological components necessary for an individual to produce creative work. The theory is grounded in a definition of creativity as the production of ideas or outcomes that are both novel and appropriate to some goal.
What is Componential analysis Translation?
Componential analysis in translation is the basic comparison of a source language word with a target language word which has a similar meaning, but not an obvious one-to- one equivalent, by demonstrating first their common and then their differing sense components (Newmark, 1988:115).
What is Componential analysis Slideshare?
Componential analysis is a way proposed by the structural semanticists to analyze word meaning. The approach is based upon the belief that the meaning of a word can be dissected into meaning components, called semantic features.
What is Componential intelligence?
Componential intelligence is the most recognized form of intelligence and is what most IQ tests measure. … It includes logic, abstract thinking, verbal skills, and mathematical skills.
What is truth conditional theory?
Truth-conditional theories of semantics attempt to define the meaning of a given proposition by explaining when the sentence is true. … So, for example, because ‘snow is white’ is true iff (read ‘if and only if’) snow is white, the meaning of ‘snow is white’ is snow is white.
What is domain-relevant skills?
Domain-relevant skills are attributes such as factual knowledge and skills. These attributes affect an individual’s performance in a given field of knowledge. Creativity- relevant skills include a person’s cognitive style that facilitates coping with complexity and breaking one’s mental set.
What are the theories of creativity?
Theories of creativity (particularly investigation of why some people are more creative than others) have focused on a variety of aspects. The dominant factors are usually identified as «the four Ps» — process, product, person, and place (according to Mel Rhodes).
What is a common criticism of Sternberg’s triarchic model of intelligence?
The major criticism about the Triarchic theory of intelligence has been regarding its unempirical nature. Psychologist Linda Gottfredson argued that it’s not accurate to assume traditional IQ tests do not measure practical intelligences.
What is polysemy linguistics?
Polysemy is characterized as the phenomenon whereby a single word form is associated with two or several related senses. It is distinguished from monosemy, where one word form is associated with a single meaning, and homonymy, where a single word form is associated with two or several unrelated meanings.
What is a lexical field in English?
A lexical field denotes a segment of reality symbolized by a set of related words. The words in a semantic field share a common semantic property. Most often, fields are defined by subject matter, such as body parts, landforms, diseases, colors, foods, or kinship relations.
What is the referential theory of meaning?
A direct reference theory (also called referentialism or referential realism) is a theory of language that claims that the meaning of a word or expression lies in what it points out in the world. The object denoted by a word is called its referent.
What is hyponymy linguistics?
In linguistics, hyponymy (from Greek ὑπό, hupó, «under», and ὄνυμα, ónuma, «name») is a semantic relation between a hyponym denoting a subtype and a hypernym or hyperonym denoting a supertype. In other words, the semantic field of the hyponym is included within that of the hypernym.
What are lexical relations?
Lexical relationships are the connections established between one word and another; for example, we all know that the opposite of “closed” is “open” and that “literature” is similar to “book”.
What is structuralist semantics?
Logical positivism asserts that structural semantics is the study of relationships between the meanings of terms within a sentence, and how meaning can be composed from smaller elements. … Structuralism is a very efficient aspect of Semantics, as it explains the concordance in the meaning of certain words and utterances.
What are types of meanings?
According to Charles Morris, there are three types of meanings: referential meaning (the relationship between signs and entities in the world), pragmatic meaning (the relationship between signs and their users; it includes identificational meaning, expressive meaning, associative meaning, social meaning, and imperative …
Like other elements of language, the meaning can also be analyzed. The scholars have developed the procedure for the analysis of meaning. This is called the componential analysis.
In componential Analysis, the word meaning is broken into the constituents of meaning. Thus the analysis of word meaning is the process of breaking down the sense of a word into its minimal distinctive features. These features are determined on the basis of contrast with other components. If we take, example, the words “man-woman, boy, and girl”, we find different constituents of meaning in these words:
1. All four words (man, woman, boy and girl) belong to the human race.
2. All these words show gender. On the basis of gender, these four words can be divided into two semantic groups, i.e., male (man and boy) and female (woman and girl).
3. The third semantic constituent or semantic feature, which is found in these words, is age. On this basis, these four words are put into groups, i.e., adult (man and woman) and young (boy and girl)
The constituents of meaning or the dimensions of meaning can be expressed by the following feature symbols, using (-) and (+) with one and the same symbol. For example:
1. +HUMAN (human)
The meanings of the individual items can be expressed by the combination of these features symbols:
1. Man : + HUMAN + ADULT + MALE
2. Woman: + HUMAN + ADULT-MALE
3. Boy : + HUMAN — ADULT + MALE
4. Girl : + HUMAN — ADULT — MALE
If we compare the terms “man and woman”, we find contract in +MALE and -MALE (man is + MALE and woman is- MALE ). If we compare the two items like ‘man’ and ‘boy’, we find contrast in +ADULT and- ADULT (man is + ADULT and boy is -ADULT). This formula is called the componential definitions of the items concerned and the whole procedure is known as componential analysis.
In certain cases the concept of age or sex is not clear. In these cases we use the term ‘0′, which signifies that the particular semantic feature is not clearly expressed.
For example, ‘0 ADULT refers to young and adult both, for example, the word ‘student’, this can be clear when we give the semantic or the componential definitions of child, adult, man and female:
1. Man : + HUMAN (O MALE) (0 ADULT)
2. adult : + HUMAN+ ADULT (O MALE)
3. child : + HUMAN-ADULT (0 MALE)
4. female : (0 HUMAN) (0 ADULT)-MALE
So for as the contrast of meaning in two items is concerned, the following example clearly explains the point:
1. Woman : +HUMAN+ ADULT — MALE
2. Child : + HUMAN — ADULT (0 MALE)
Usually, componential analysis is applied to group of related words that may differ from one another only by one or two components.
The Idea that semantics could be handled in terms of components has been argued with the investigation of kinship terms. For example, it is in Spanish that the sex of the people involved is clearly marked with ending “-0” for male, “-a” for female as in:
1. Tio = Uncle
English has no markers of sex , if course, though the ending “-ess” occurs in baroness, lioness, tigress, duchess etc. But if we’re concerned with semantics, that is not particularly relevant. There is no reason why we should not attempt to classify the English kinship terms with reference to categories such as sex , even if the language does not mark these terms in the form of the words.
Therefore, sex provides one set of components for kinship terms. Generation differences and degrees of relationship provide two other sets. Thus, for generation differences we need at least five generations which may be labeled grandfather, father/ uncle, brother/ cousin, son/ niece and grandson. Degrees of relationship involve “ lineality” direct for grandfather, father, “ colineal” for brother, uncle, and “ ablineal” for cousin. Given these three sets of components all the English kinship terms can b handled. “ Aunt” is , thus, female and colineal , “cousin” male or female and ablineal:
We can most easily recognize components where words can be set out in a diagrammatic form to represent some kind of “proportional” relationship. In English, there is a three-fold division with many words that refer to living creatures:
1. Man — Woman-Child
Thus, “bull” is to “cow” as “ram” is to “ewe”- or in mathematical terms bull: cow : : ram : ewe.
In the light of relationships such as these, we can abstract the components (male) and (female), (adult) and (non-adult), plus (human), (bovine), (ovine) and (porcine). Strictly, these examples do not in guise (male) and (female) in full conjunction with (adult) and (non-adult), since that would imply four possibilities and we only have three. But, all four are to be found in:
1. Man woman boy girl
However, even with the other examples, it is more plausible to make both distinctions than to say that there are simply three posihilities-(male), (female) and (non-adult).
Componential analysis allows us to provide definitions for all these words in terms of a few components such as “boar” being (porcine), (male), (adult). In many cases, there is an appropriate word in the language to label the component, for example, male and female. But it would be a mistake to suppose that if we use such terms to define a common word that the resultant phrase is semantically identical with it.
Thus, ‘boar’ is not the same as ‘male adult porcine animal’. It is important to note that in the vocabulary of English we have words such as ‘boar’ and bull whereas with “giraffe” we can only use the phrase adult male giraffe. And the difference is relevant to the semantic structure of English. We may, perhaps, assume that all societies distinguish between male and female, and that thus (male) and (female) are universal components of language.
A particular characteristic of componential analysis is that it attempts as far as possible to treat components in terms of “binary” opposites, eg. between (male) and (female), (animal) and (in- animal), (adult) and (non-adult).
In this, it clearly gives emphasis on the relation of complementarity. Additionally, there an advantage in such binary terms in that we can choose one only as the label and distinguish this in terms of pluses and minuses. Thus, (male) and (female) are written as (+male) and (- male), and so-on.
Moreover, we can refer to the lack of a sex distinction as “ plus or minus” with the symbol (+- male).
In practice, componential analysis has not been used simply in order to restate the relations dealt in hyponymy, synonymy, autonomy, polysemy and homonymy. Rather, it has been used bring out the logical relations that are associated with them. Nonetheless, componential analysis does not handle all semantics relations effectively and efficiently.
First, it is difficult to reduce the relational opposites to components. For the relation of ‘parent-child’ cannot simply be handled by assigning components to each, unless those components are in some sense directional.
Secondly, the componential analysis cannot remove the hierarchical characteristic of hyponymy. For the distinction (+-male)/(-male) applies only to living things. Distinction in terms of these components, e.g. between ‘ram’ and ‘ewe’, will hold only for items that also marked as (+ animal). Therefore, componential analysis has to state that, only if something is animate, may it be male or female with a formula such as (+animate +-male).
Again, it will be obvious that such rules are simply a disguised way of stating the hierarchical nature of the semantic distinctions.
Turning to the structure of vocabulary, it is pointed out that a dictionary would distinguish between four meanings of the word “bachelor”—
1. A man who has never married.
2. A young knight serving under the banner of another.
3. Someone with a first degree.
4. A young male unmated fur seal during the mating season.
These four meanings can, moreover, be partly differentiated by what are called ‘markers’ which are shown in round brackets, eg. (human) (animal) and (male), together with some specific characteristics which are called ‘distinguishers’ and placed in square brackets, c.g. [first degree] in the case of the academic.
Finally, the componential analysis theory has one major drawback, as there is no limit to the number of markers that can be established. In addition, this theory is not always capable of dealing with the phenomena which are dealt with in the relational senses. Notwithstanding, it is a theoretical framework for handling all the relations. Therefore, it is more scientific than the other relational analyses.