Componential analysis is a method of semantic analysis based on the assumption that the meaning of words can be adequately described by a set of primitive semantic features

Willems, Klaas

English

Ghent University Academic Bibliography

    Wörterbücher zur SprachEd. by Schierholz, Stefan J. / Wiegand, Herbert ErnstBerlin/New York: De Gruyter (2013 Vol. 11: Theories and Methods in Linguistics  Klaas Willems (Gent) DOI: 10.1515/wsk.35.0.componentialanalysiscomponential analysismethod of semantic analysbe adequately described by a set of primitive semantic features. Komponentenanalyse: semantische Analysemethode, die auf der Annahme beruht, dass der Inhalt von Wörtern anhand von konstitutiven Bedeubeschreibbar ist.  Proponents of componential analysisbroken down analytically (semantic features or componentssemantic analysis can be as systematic and verifiable as phonology and syntax. it is imperative for a proper understanding not to mix up different versions of this method. One of the most important forerunners was with his elucidation of classinfluential early presentations of and Europe virtually at the same time in the 1950s and 1960s. On the one hand, American anthropologists and ethnolinguists (Conklin, A. Wallace, C. Frakanalyses of kinship and similar terms. Their method of analysis soon found its way into studies on word meaning and lexicology (well as on sentence meaning (cf. in partiFodor (1963) and J. McCawleyauthors even pursued the integration of componential word and sentence semantics - und Kommunikationswissenschaft (WSK) Online – )   Editor: Bernd Kortmann   is based on the assumption that the meaning of words can  tungsmerkmalen  agree that the contents of lexical items can be semantic decomposition) into smaller units (so). This is considered to be proof of the fact that L. Bloomfield (in particular -meanings in Language [1933]), but the two most componential analysis were developed in the USA F. Lounsbury, W. Goodenough, H. e, among others) came up with a series of feature U. Weinreich, E. Nida, E. Bendixcular the generative accounts by , e.g., kill = ‘cause to become not alive’). Some   -called Yet ) as J. Katz/J. into a unified theory (e.g., Nida 1975). In Europe, on the other hand, the first structural methods for systematic linguistic feature analyses were developed independently of the early tradition in the USA and go back to the structuralist hypothesis, advanced in the 1930s by R. Jakobson and L. Hjelmslev, that the structural procedures used for phonological analysis can also be adopted felicitously in semantics. A famous example is Hjelmslev’s (1943 / 1963: 70) account of ram vs. ewe in terms of ‘sheep’ + ‘male’ vs. ‘female’. However, it was Hjelmslev’s seminal paper (1957) which sparked interest in detailed feature analyses, e.g., by L. Prieto, B. Pottier, E. Coseriu, A. Greimas, H. Geckeler, among others (see Geckeler 1971: 205-232 for a succinct overview). Although (ultimately unsuccessful) efforts have been made to integrate the European and North-American versions of the componential method (e.g. by G. Wotjak and G. Hilty), these two traditions must not be identified with one another, as they are based on different theoretical assumptions and pursue different (partly complementary) goals. The North-American tradition is onomasiologically oriented and relies on the explicitation of truth conditions. Its purpose is to answer the question what the objective features are that constitute the necessary and sufficient conditions which an object must satisfy to be a denotatum of the lexical item or which allow words (including scientific terms) to be properly disambiguated in a sentence (cf. bachelor in the account presented by Katz/Fodor [1963]). Moreover, features are conceived as finite and universal constitutive atoms of meanings. In the European tradition, componential analysis is commonly intended as a semasiological account of meaning based on the explicitation of distinctive features. Its purpose is to determine the functional oppositions that hold between lexical items of a given natural language to the exclusion of universal scientific terms in order to establish, paradigmatically as well as syntagmatically, the invariant meaning of each lexical item in the language (see Coseriu 2001). Prototype semantics and cognitive semantics in general have partly emerged from a critique of the North-American version (checklist theory) of componential analysis. Literature COSERIU, E. [2001] L’homme et son langage. Louvain [etc.] GECKELER, H. [1971] Strukturelle Semantik und Wortfeldtheorie. München HJELMSLEV, L. [1953] Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. Bloomington, IN HJELMSLEV, L. [1957/1971] Pour une sémantique structurale. In: Essais linguistiques: 96-112 NIDA, E. [1975] Componential analysis of meaning. The Hague. 

Componential analysis

https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/5782732/file/5782744.pdf

Componential analysis

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Ghent University Academic Bibliography