Semantics and Lexicology SVEM21 3. Structuralist Semantics Jordan Zlatev

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

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)

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)

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

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

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)

Lexical fields: Example German 1200 Wîsheit (General) Kunst (for Nobles) List (for others) German 1300 Wîsheit (Religious) Kunst (Science and Art) Wizzen (Skills) Semantic change as restructuring of the lexical field of “Knowledge”, according to Trier (1934)

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)

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”

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”

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

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)

“Semantics” vs. “pragmatics”? depends on the definitions… Encyclopedic Lexical Lyons (1977) “meaning”, “content” “sense” Context-independent Context-dependent Coseriu (1985) “meaning” “sense” Paul (1920) Usuelle Bedeutung Okkasionelle Bedeutung RATHER: World-knowledge (Pragmatics 1) Context-independent Context-dependent (Pragmatics 2) Lyons (1977) “meaning” “sense” Coseriu (1985) “denotation” Paul (1920) Usuelle Bedeutung Okkasionelle Bedeutung

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)

“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)

“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)

“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

“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

“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”

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”)

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!

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