EEN 3504: Semantics

Topic 1: Componential analysis

 Componential analysis
• Componential analysis was proposed by the
structural semanticists with an aim to analyse
word meaning.
• The approach is based upon the belief that
the meaning of a word can be analysed in
terms of meaning components which are
referred to as semantic features.
• This approach has long been used to analyse
the meaning of certain types of nouns.
 Componential analysis
• The approach uses plus and minus signs to
indicate whether a certain semantic feature is
present or absent in the meaning of a word
and these feature symbols are usually written
in capitalized letters.
 Componential analysis
• The analysis for the words ‘man’, ‘woman’,
‘boy’, and ‘girl’, according to this approach, is
presented below.
• Man [+HUMAN, +ADULT, +MALE]
• Woman [+HUMAN, +ADULT, -MALE]
• Boy [+HUMAN, -ADULT, +MALE]
• Girl [+HUMAN, -ADULT, -MALE]
 Componential analysis
• The approach is similar to the way a phoneme
is analysed into smaller components called
distinctive features as shown below.
• /b/ [+PLOSIVE, +BILABIAL, +VOICED]
• /p/ [+PLOSIVE, +BILABIAL, -VOICED]
 Advantages of componential analysis
1. It allows us to group entities into natural classes.
For instance, ‘man’ and ‘boy’ could be grouped
together as [+HUMAN, +MALE] whereas ‘man’
and ‘woman’ could belong to one class defined
by the features [+HUMAN, +ADULT].
2. This approach can be used to analyse verb
meaning even though the semantic components
are not represented by binary features (i.e. + or -
). One example is the way the meaning of the
verb ‘go’ may be analysed to represent change
of various sorts as shown below.
 Advantages cont’d
a) Positional GO e.g. ‘Chimwemwe went from
Lilongwe to Blantyre’.
b) Possessional GO e.g. ‘The inheritance went
to Maria’.
c) Identificational GO e.g. ‘Yohane went from
being a responsible gentleman to a notorious
crook’.
 Advantages cont’d
• The concept GO is manifested in many verbs
other than just ‘go’ as illustrated below.
a) Positional GO is present in the meaning of ‘fly’
(‘go through the air’), ‘walk’ (‘go on foot’),
‘crawl’ (‘go on hands and knees’), etc.
b) Possessional GO is manifested in the meaning of
‘give’, ‘buy’, and ‘inherit’, all of which involve a
change of possession.
c) Identificational GO is manifested in the meaning
of ‘become’ and ‘turn into’ (e.g. ‘the caterpillar
turned into a butterfly’).
 Advantages cont’d
3. Componential analysis allows us to uncover and
represent similarities among semantically related
words. Semantic features enable us to capture
the similarities and differences among sub-
classes of people (men, women, boys, and girls)
as indicated above. Componential analysis also
reveals a surprising similarity in the meaning of
words such as ‘travel’, ‘give’, and ‘become’. All of
these words incorporate the GO concept
(positional GO, possessional GO and
identificational GO).
 Advantages cont’d
4. Certain fields of terminology can be
adequately analysed using componential
analysis
– Manufactured items
– Tertiary fields where categories are often implicit
• such as insurance
 Advantages cont’d
• This could be done through the following
ways:
Provide definitions for each of the terms
Extract each feature from the definitions
Find the common feature(s)
Find all the other features
Determine by comparison which are
defining features and which are redundant.
 Features of the term ‘insurance’
• Under a term insurance policy the benefits are payable upon
the death of the life insured, provided that death occurs
within a specified period. If the life insured survives to the end
of the period the cover ceases and no benefits are payable.
• What would be the features of the term
‘insurance’?
 Features of the term ‘insurance’
• Features of the term ‘insurance’:
– a life insurance policy
– benefits payable on death of insured
– death must occur within specified period
– if not, no benefits!
 Limitations of componential analysis
1. Language specific
– can chairs have arms in English? (Definition of the
word chair in English: a piece of furniture to sit on
with a back, without arms and for one person).
2. Only works for certain semantic fields
– footware, means of transport, etc.
• therefore not a very comprehensive method of
semantic analysis
• but particularly appropriate for regulated fields (i.e.
certain terminologies)
 Limitations cont’d
3. What value is there in analysing the meaning
of words such as ‘dog’ into semantic features
such as [+ANIMAL, +CANINE] if there is no
further analysis of these features?
Componential analysis becomes useful when
there is further analysis of semantic features.
 Limitations cont’d
4. It is difficult to analyse the meaning of certain
words in terms of semantic features e.g. the
word ‘blue’.
Do we say that the meaning of blue consists of
the feature [+COLOUR] and something else?
-If so, what is that other thing?
-Is it blueness?
-If so, then we still have not broken the meaning of
blue into smaller components.
 Meaning and Concepts
• Now, what can we say about meaning?
• Meaning must be something that exists in the
mind rather than the world.
It must be more abstract than pictures.
There is more to it than just features.
• Therefore, other approaches to semantics try to
relate meaning to mental concepts.
• Concepts do not have to correspond to objects,
images, or sets of features.
• However, equating meaning of linguistic forms
with concepts in the mind requires determining
what a concept is.
 The conceptual system
• Underlying the use of words and sentences to
express meaning in human language is a
conceptual system.
• This conceptual system is capable of
organizing and classifying all aspects of our
life:
inner feelings and perceptions,
cultural and social phenomena,
the physical world that surrounds us, etc.
 Fuzzy concepts
• Do concepts, expressed by words and phrases of
our language, have precise definitions, clear-cut
boundaries?
• Think about the concepts expressed by the
phrases Member of Parliament, Vice Chancellor,
etc. At least they have clear-cut boundaries.
• In contrast to the examples above, consider the
concept associated with the word rich! How
much does one have to own to be called rich?
• This is a fuzzy concept.
• Many linguists believe that this type of fuzziness
pervades the human conceptual system:
tall, old, clever, strong, fast, clean, genius, etc.
 Graded membership
• Concept members can be graded in terms of their
typicality:
Consider the concept ‘bird’
Prototypical >> … >> Least typical
Sparrows >> Pigeons >> Penguins
• Fuzzy concepts and graded membership provide
important insights into the nature of the human
conceptual system.
• There are no clear-cut boundaries, or all-or-nothing
notions.
• Concepts recognize degrees of typicality and fuzzy
boundaries that make categorization uncertain in
some cases.
 Lexicalization
• There is no reason to believe that human beings, in
different linguistic communities have different
conceptual systems.
• But, do all languages express concepts in the same way?
• No, they don’t:
English Spanish
rolled entró … rodando motion & manner
‘entered rolling’
moved-down bajó motion & path
‘…’
• These examples illustrate that the motion and manner
have to be expressed separately in Spanish whereas the
motion and path are expressed separately in English.
 Grammaticalization
• Some concepts are expressed by affixes and
non-lexical (functional) categories.
• These are said to have been grammaticalized:

Concept Affix, Non-lexical category

Past -ed
More than one -s
Again re-
Negation in-, un-
Obligation must
Definite, specific the
Conjunction and
 Conclusion
• This topic has considered one of the approaches
to meaning (componential analysis) that tries to
represent a word’s meaning by breaking it down
into smaller semantic components.
• Componential analysis is useful because it
enables us to uncover similarities and differences
in meaning between words.
• Underlying the use of words and sentences to
express meaning in human language is a
conceptual system.
• This conceptual system is capable of organizing
and classifying all aspects of our life.
 References
• Akmajian, A., Demers, R. A. & Harnish, R. M.
(1984). Semantics: the Study of Meaning and
Reference. In Linguistics: An Introduction to
Languages and Communication. (pp. 236 –
285). (2nd Ed). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
• Leech, G. (1981). Semantics: The Study of
Meaning. (2nd Ed). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
• Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. (2 vols).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Lyons, (1995). Linguistic Semantics: An
Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
 References
• Ogden, C. K. & Richards, I. A. (1923). The
Meaning of Meaning. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
• O’Grady, W., Dobrovolsky, M., & Katamba, F.
(1997). Contemporary Linguistics: An
Introduction. Harlow, England: Pearson
Education Ltd.
• Palmer, F. R. (1981). Semantics: A New Outline.
(2nd Ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
• Saeed, J. I. (1997). Semantics. Oxford:
Blackwell.