1. Semantics and Lexicology SVEM21 3. Structuralist Semantics
Jordan Zlatev

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’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

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
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)

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…
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

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