1.3. Lexical fields and componential analysis
A lexical field is a set of semantically related lexical items whose meanings are mutually interdependent. The single most influential study in the history of lexical field theory is Trier’s (1931) paper, in which he presents a theoretical formulation of the field approach. In his writing Trier emphasizes that only a mutual interconnection of the words under consideration can provide a decisive answer regarding their exact value. Words should not be considered in isolation, but in their relationship to semantically related words: demarcation is always a demarcation relative to other words.20
One method which has been developed in the framework of structural semantics is componential analysis. As a tool to discover, predict and explain the semantic relations among the items in a lexical field, it is an attempt to provide field theory with a solid theoretical and methodological basis. The crucial insight of componential analysis is that word meanings are made up of atomic elements or components21.
While different conceptions of the notion ‘lexical field’ were suggested after Trier’s initial formulation, the most important development is the emergence of componential analysis as a technique for formalizing the semantic relationships between the items in a field: once a lexical field has been demarcated, the internal relations within the field will have to be described in more detail.
It is not sufficient to say that the items in the field are in mutual opposition—these oppositions will have to be identified and defined. Componential analysis is a method for describing such oppositions that takes its inspiration from structural phonology: just like phonemes are described structurally by their position on a set of contrastive dimensions, words may be characterized on the basis of the dimensions that structure a lexical field.
Componential analysis provides a descriptive model for semantic content, based on the belief that meanings can be described on the basis of a restricted set of conceptual building blocks—the semantic ‘components’ or ‘features.’
To demonstrate the principles of componential analysis there was taken a field consisting of the terms siège, pouf, tabouret, chaise, fauteuil, and canapé (a subfield of the field of furniture terms in French). The word which acts as a superordinate to the field under consideration is siège, ‘seating equipment with legs.’ If it is used the dimensions s1 ‘for seating,’ s2 ‘for one person,’ s3 ‘with legs,’ s4 ‘with back,’ s5 ‘with armrests,’ s6 ‘of rigid material,’ then chaise ‘chair’ can be componentially defined as [+ s1, + s2, + s3, + s4, − s5, + s6], and canapé ‘sofa’ as [+ s1, − s2, + s3, + s4, + s5, + s6], and so on.22
An especially intriguing possibility of componential analysis is the potential to determine universal meaning components across different languages. Many believe that the elementary components of sound and meaning are language-neutral, while complexes of components such as phonemes and word-meanings as well as their paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations are unique to particular languages.23
While componential forms of description are common in formal types of semantic description, the most important theoretical development after the introduction of componential analysis is probably attempt to identify the components words consist of.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |