Semantics and Lexicology SVEM21 3. Structuralist Semantics

1. Jordan Zlatev Semantics and LexicologySVEM21 3. Structuralist Semantics

2. 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-mentalist • Structure vs. usage -oriented

3. 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)

4. 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)

5. Weisgerber’scritique of historical-phylologicalsemantcis 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 semsiologicalinterest in polysemy, to a onomasiological interest in naming” (: 50) Example: kinship terms

6. Types of structuralist semantics • Lexical fields: Weisgerber, Trier, Ullmann • Componential analysis: Goodenough, Hjelmslev, Coseriu, Pottier • Semantic relations: Lyons, Cruse

7. 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)

8. Lexical fields: Example Semantic change as restructuring of the lexical field of “Knowledge”, according to Trier (1934)

9. Lexical fields: Extensions • Syntagmatic 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)

10. 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”

11. 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”

12. 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

13. 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)

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

15. 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)

16. “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)

17. “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)

18. “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

19. “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

20. “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”

21. Structuralist semantics: Contributions Geeraerts: • Giving synchronic description its proper dues • By focusing on languages as “systems”, focusing on onomasiological analysis Furthermore: • Giving credit to the social/communal level of language and meaning • The idea that languages may differ considerably (though not “arbitrarily”)

22. 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!

23. 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