Semantics and LexicologySVEM21 3. Structuralist SemanticsJordan Zlatev

1

General characteristics

Semantic approaches can be:

Onomasilogical (from concept/domain to lexeme) vs. semasiological (from lexeme to concept/meaning)

Have diachronic vs. synchronic focus

“Maximalist” vs. “minimalist” Mentalist vs. non-mentalistStructure vs. usage -oriented

2

Historical-philological, mostly:

Semasiological (from lexeme to concept/meaning) - though Stern (analogy)

Diachronic focus – though change between A and B requires analysis of A and B

“Maximalist” – “the emotional value of words” (Erdmann on Nebensinn)

Mentalist – though different notions of “psychological”?

Structure-oriented (little use of texts)

3

Saussure’s chess analogy

Structuralism: language as a system

We can describe the rules of chess, without (a) particular games, (b) individual mentalities (c) material properties of the chess figures

“the fact that we describe the linguistic sign as being part of the system implies that we characterize the sign within the system, in its relations to other signs in the system” (: 49)

4

Weisgerber’s critique of historical-phylological semantcis

Asking for an approach that is:Non-mentalist: Linguistic meaning

is “part of the system”, not “in the head” of the user

Has synchronic focus: Languages form self-contained systems in particular times

Privileges onomasiology: “from a semsiological interest in polysemy, to a onomasiological interest in naming” (: 50)

Example: kinship terms

5

Types of structuralist semantics

Lexical fields: Weisgerber, Trier, Ullmann

Componential analysis: Goodenough, Hjelmslev, Coseriu, Pottier

Semantic relations: Lyons, Cruse

6

Lexical fields

The “moasic” metaphor

Trier (1931: 3) “The fact that a word within a field is surrounded by neighbours with a specific position gives it its conceptual specificity” (: 54)

7

Lexical fields: Example

German 1200

Wîsheit (General)

Kunst (for Nobles)

List (for others)

German 1300

Wîsheit (Religious)

Kunst (Science and Art)

Wizzen (Skills)

8

Semantic change as restructuring of the lexical field of “Knowledge”, according to Trier (1934)

Lexical fields: ExtensionsSyntagmatic relations: gå vs. åka

“essential meaning relations” (Porsig 1934)

“collocations” Firth (1957) “selection restrictions” Katz and Fodor

(1963) “lexical solidarities” Coseriu (1967)

“Distributionalist method” (Bloomfield, Harris, Apresjan):

Formal relations (in historical change) Similarity of forms (folk etymology:

hangmat) Contiguity of forms (“ellipsis”: the rich)

9

Lexical fields: Extensions

Lexical gaps (see Figure 2.5)“the conception of a closed system has been generally abandoned” (: 65)

Discrete core + vague periphery (cf. Figure 2.6): a precursor of prototype semantics

Overlapping fields: the deficiency of the “moasic metaphor” 10

Componential analysis

“If the semantic value of a word is determined by the mutual relationships between all the lexical items in a lexical field, how do we get started? (: 70)

Analysis in terms of semantic “components” or “features”: On the model of structuralist phonology Europe: A natural development from

lexical field analysis USA: Anthropological “ethnosemantics”

11

Componential analysis: European tradition

Hjelmslev: “content figurae” Coseriu (1964): “Lexical field theory has to

be supplemented with the functional doctrine of distinctive oppositions” (: 75)

The structural method [of oppositions] cannot be applied to the whole lexicon” (: 78): Not to: Idioms (“repeated discourse”) Specialized vocabularies “Purely associative” fields (e.g. beauty) Referential (real-world) distinctions

12

Coseriu: a pure structuralist? “a deliberate and methodical attempt to draw

the consequences of a structuralist theory of meaning” (: 77)

“A strict implementation of the Saussurean view that languages have their own, non-encyclopedic conceptual structure seems to come with a price: a severe reduction of the descriptive scope of the theory” (: 79)’

But: Coseriu (1985) make an explicit, three-level distinction of the concept of language - and meaning: (1) denotation, (2) meaning and (3) sense – emphasizing the need for “integrating” the three (cf. Zlatev in press)

13

“Semantics” vs. “pragmatics”? depends on the definitions…

Encyclopedic Lexical

Lyons (1977) “meaning”, “content” “sense”

14

Context-independent

Context-dependent

Coseriu (1985) “meaning” “sense”

Paul (1920) Usuelle Bedeutung Okkasionelle Bedeutung

World-knowledge(Pragmatics 1)

Context-independent

Context-dependent (Pragmatics 2)

Lyons (1977) “meaning” “sense”

Coseriu (1985) “denotation” “meaning” “sense”

Paul (1920) Usuelle Bedeutung

Okkasionelle Bedeutung

RATHER:

Relational semantics: “senses”

Lyons (1963): not just relations of opposition (like Coseriu), and not deriving word meaning from a separate and independent set of “components”, but:

“… the meaning of a given linguistic unit is defined to bet the set of (paradigmatic) relations that the unit in question contracts with other units of the language” (: 81)

15

“Sense relations”

Hyponymy – hyperonymy (a transitive relation) Taxonomical (X is a kind of Y): dog-

puddle Non-taxonomical (X is a Y): Fido-puddle

“the definition of the more general term is included in the definition of more specific term” (: 83)

bird > penguin (a problem for componential analysis, but not necessarily for sense-relations)

16

“Sense relations”

Synomymy “In context” (pragmatics)

▪ Total: picture-film▪ Partial: movie-film, prostitute-whole

In general (semantics)▪ Total: “in all relevant contexts” – do such

words exist?▪ Partial – “near synonyms” (as above)

17

“Sense relations”: Antonymy Gradable antonyms

Polar antonyms (entailment of neg, markedness): tall-short

Committed antonyms (entailment of neg, no markedness): ferocious-meek

Asymmetrical: good-bad, clever-stupid (“evaluative meaning”)

Non-gradable antonyms Complementaries (strong entailment): dead-alive Converses: parent-child (of) Reverses (directional opposition): up-down, give-take

Multiple oppositions Scale: hot-warm-tepid-cool-cold Ranks: general-colonel-major-captain-lieutenant Cycles: morning-lunch-afternoon-evening-night Multidimensional: left-right-above-below-infront-behind

18

“Sense relations”

Meronymy (non-transitive) Part-whole: head-body Membership: soldier-army Ingredient: wood-table Action-Activity: pay-dine

Derivational relations (cf. Saeed 2003) State-Inchoative: open – opens / öppen -

öppnas State-Causative: open (A) – open (V) /

öppen - öppna State-Resulative: open – opened / öppen

– öppnad

19

“Sense relations”: Problems

On the level of structure (“sense” sensu Lyons), rather then usage?

A “natural set”, excluding “typically referential, encyclopedic relations”? (meronymy, “causonymy”)

Presuppose analysis of polysemy (different “senses”), and more generally: content analysis

Murphy (2003): sense relations are “meta-linguistic” 20

Structuralist semantics: Contributions

Geeraerts:Giving synchronic description its

proper duesBy focusing on languages as

“systems”, focusing on onomasiological analysis

Furthermore:Giving credit to the social/communal

level of language and meaningThe idea that languages may differ

considerably (though not “arbitrarily”)

21

Structuralist semantics: Problems

Underestimating the need for semasiology: “In the extreme… semasiological analysis would be superflous”:

the need for content analysis (problems with “components”, see also next lecture)

dealing with polysemy in a systematic way

Making a “sharp distinction” between lexicon/encyclopedia, semantic knowledge/world knowledge; even if possible, “how relevant would the results be”? (: 95) Open question!

22

Structuralist semantics: Problems

Also: “Languages may still have their structuring of encyclopedic knowledge” (: 96)

Two different types of onomasiology: yes!(a) structuralist: “what are the relations among the alternative expressions?”(b) pragmatic: what are “the actual choices made among a set of expression” by a specific speaker in a specific situation?

But (b) was not an explicit concern of structuralism

23