Lecture 3

Componential Analysis(I)
Classical structuralism
LF has got nothing to say about the specific interpretation
of lexical phrases. Thus from the point of view of LF the
following pairs of sentences are alike even if they
express vastly different things:

(1) a. Every arrow had hit a target.

b. Every student had read a novel by Dickens

Lexical semantics precisely contributes an interpretation of

phrases like: arrow, student, novel, etc.
Structuralist semantics worked under the at the time novel
hypothesis that meanings are decomposable, and
proposed two complementary methods of semantic
analysis: componential analysis (a paradigmatic method)
and distributional analysis (a syntagmatic method). In the
coming lectures, stress is laid on the development of
componential analysis, starting with the classical
structuralist period
2
 Main assumption:
(2) The sense of every lexeme can be analyzed
in terms of more general sense components,
some, or all, of which will be common to
several lexemes in the vocabulary.

Aims of the method:

a. to discover the elementary units of
meaning, the invariants of the semantic level,
or perhaps the “minimal units”, the primes of
the level.
b. to show the systematicity of the
vocabulary, by revealing the various relations
(similarity, incompatibility) holding between
the lexical items.
3
(3) a. The lexeme, just like the phoneme may differ only with respect
to some distinctive feature from some other lexeme:

(i) stallion : mare

SEX MALE : FEMALE

(4) b. The same opposition is found in many pairs of lexical items;

these pairs establish a correlation in the lexicon, just as there are
correlations in the phonological system:

(i) SEX MALE : FEMALE

stallion : mare
boy : girl
he : she
he-goat : she-goat
jack-ass : jenny-ass
actor : actress
usher : usher
4
(5) c. Like phonological oppositions, semantic
oppositions may be neutralized, with the unmarked,
extended term covering the semantic space named
by the opposition. Here are a few examples where
the opposition is neutralized, respectively functional

man old
MAN (human) OLD (age)
woman young

(i) a. All men are born equal.

b. All men dislike women’s tears.

(ii) a. “How old is the baby?” “Two days old.”

b. He didn’t consider himself old, even if he was past
his prime.
5
(6) d. Lexical semantics adopts the commutation test to investigate
lexical paradigms (subsystems of the vocabulary) uncovering the
relevant semantic component features in terms of which the units
of the system are opposed.

(7) [- CO-LINEAL] [+ CO-LINEAL]

my uncle my father
my aunt my mother

(8) [- APPROXIMATION ] [+ APPROXIMATION ]

blue bluish
red reddish
young youngish

Pairs like the ones below are variants. Substitution of one form by
another does not lead to a change of content, in terms of any
opposition. They are variants contracting a relation of substitution.

(9) he-goat : billy-goat

she-goat : nanny-goat
6
 Units of the analysis

a. The seme (distinctive feature, semantic marker, semantic

feature) is a sense component or constituent of a lexical
meaning; it is a theoretical construct used to characterize
the vocabulary of a language. e.g. [approximation], [age].

b. The sememe is a reunion (product, conjunction) of semes

covering one lexical meaning of a word.

c. The lexeme – is the association of a sememe and a

phonological matrix; one word may represent several
lexemes. Most linguists, however, use the term ‘lexeme’
in the same acceptation as the term word.

The terms ‘seme’ and ‘sememe’ are part of the meta-

language; in contrast lexemes are part of the object
language.
7
 The ‘distinctive’ and ‘minimal’ character of the ‘seme’

On the analogy with phonology, where the features are the ultimate products of
the analysis, the attempt was made to arrive at a possibly universal
alphabet of conceptual primitives, whose combination yielded all the
sememes in a language.

Wordnet.

English nouns, verbs and adjectives are organized into synonymic sets, each
representing one underlying concept.

Word meanings: definitions.

The definitions may be
a) constructive (sufficient information to support an accurate construction of
the concept and to generate new meanings).
b) differential (a synonym) Each meaning M1 of a word may be represented
by a list of synonyms{ F1, F2,....Fn}:

(10) BOARD {board, plank} (wash/paint the boards)

{board, committee} (be on the board)
{( a person's meal, provided regularly for money)} (boarding school)
8
(11) copac  tree  arbre
(12)What Wordnet has shown regarding semantic features.

a. Semantic features are simpler or more complex

concepts of a language.
b. Semantic features differ in terms of their complexity.
Some features are extremely abstract and general,
figuring in a large number of lexemes concepts: cause,
become, person, entity, substance, artifact, kind, etc.
c. Semantic features are distinctive, in the sense that two
lexemes are often differentiated in terms of one feature.

(13) BOARD {board, plank}

(14) [ cause ] kill/die; raise/rise, fell/fall, bring/come, etc.

9
d. Semantic features cannot be considered axiomatic or atomic. The
idea of axiomatic word/concept is always relative to a certain
conceptual domain. Thus cause, become, state are axiomatic with
respect to the system of English verbs:

(15) a. The egg is red. (S)

b. Her cheeks reddened. BECOME (S)
c. He reddened the eggs. CAUSE (BECOME (S))

On the other hand, the concept of causality is the subject of a theory of

physics. Concepts like object, entity substance are explained in
physics, philosophy, etc.
Moreover the task of characterizing semes as minimal, or as
conceptual primitives collapses when confronted with semes like
the following:

(16) ‘where one sleeps’ hotel

‘where one eats or drinks’ restaurant

In conclusion semantic features are concepts of a language. They

have a distinctive function. They cannot be considered primitive.
10
(17) Definition:
The semantic dimension is the property or relation
according to which an opposition is constituted.

11
(18) Definition. An opposition is privative when one term of the
opposition is marked for a feature that the other term lacks.
(19)
[consonant]
[+plosive]
b : p
[+voice] [-voice]

(20) bluish : blue

[+approximation] [- approximation]
kitchenette : kitchen
[+small, size] [- small size]

The model of privative oppositions is also successful for triplets like

those in (21), where one term is positively marked [+F], while the
unmarked term is underspecified, functioning as [ F], therefore,
the [F] contrast is neutralized. In the examples below, woman,
mare, etc is [+ female], while man, dog are [ female]. A
redundancy rule of the vocabulary stipulates that [+male]  [-
female]
12
 [ FEMALE] [+ FEMALE] [- FEMALE]
(21) man woman man
horse mare horse
dog bitch dog

Redundancy rule: [+male]  [- female]

(22) [MARRIAGE]
[+MARRIAGE] [-MARRIAGE]
married unmarried
husband bachelor, single
wife spinster, single

13
 Equipollent oppositions

Definition The two terms of an equipollent opposition share the base

and the relevant dimension, but differ in terms of specific
differential features. The form of the opposition is thus aRb, rather
than a R a (the privative opposition):

(23)
SEX
[+MALE] [- FEMALE]
boy girl
stallion mare

14
Attempts to reduce three-term oppositions to binary oppositions. In this
case a hierarchy of the dimensions is introduced to accommodate
the third term.

a) oppositions between [ (either a or b) or (neither a nor b) ]

(24) AGE
|
[NEITHER YOUNG NOR OLD] --------[EITHER YOUNG OR OLD]
|
middle aged [-MIDDLE-AGED]
past his prime young old

b) oppositions between [ (both a and b) or (neither a nor b)]

(25)
STATE
|
[NEITHER LIQUID NOR GAS] [BOTH LIQUID AND GAS]
| |
solid fluid
|
liquid---------------gas
15
(26) [ENTITY]
they
[-PERSON] [+PERSON]
| |
it/ what/something/nothing who/somebody/no one
|
[MALE] [FEMALE]
he she

Two things appear to have been achieved: Apparently ternary

oppositions are reduced to two binary oppositions. Secondly, a
hierarchy of structure of content, resulting from a “geometry of
features” is also achieved. Such a hierarchy, i.e., a cluster of
lexical items hierarchically ordered by the opposing features
represents a semantic/lexical system.

16
 The semantic system
A cluster of lexical items hierarchically ordered by the opposing
features represents a semantic/lexical system.

(27) Nouns [ countable] ( table : water)

[+Countable]  [ Plural] (tables: table)

(28) [FIGURE]
[TYPE OF BORDER LINE]

CURVED STRAIGHT-SIDED

THREE-SIDED FOUR-SIDED FIVE-SIDED

circle triangle square pentagon
ellipsis quadrangle

(29) COLOR

red orange yellow green blue violet black

17
a) All members of the paradigm/taxonomy have at least
one common semantic feature, the root of the paradigm
or taxonomy.

b) The meaning of every form differs from that of every

other form in terms of one or several additional
features.

c) In the perfect paradigm features are unordered, all

dimensions are relevant for all terms, that is, the
features of any dimension combine with all those of any
other dimension. The dimensions behave like the
grammatical categories of inflectional paradigms (see
the paradigm of kinship terms below). In the perfect
taxonomy, features are hierarchically ordered. A given
feature combines with only one feature from any other
dimension.
18
(31) Paradigm considered
grandfather, father, mother, grandmother, uncle, aunt, son, grandson,
grand-daughter, nephew, niece, uncle, aunt, son-in-law

Root of the paradigm: K = kinsman

(32) Dimensions of the paradigm,

a. consanguinity [ consanguine] (son-in-law: son)
b. sex [female]: [male] (aunt, father)
c. generation

(33) G+3 G+2 G+1 G0 G-1 G-2 G-3

great-grandfather grandfather father ego son grandson great-grandson

d. line
(34)
+L : grandfather, father, mother, son, daughter, grandson
-L : brother, sister, niece, uncle, cousin

e. rank opposes the features direct/indirect relationship.

(35) [+D] mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter
[-D] grandfather, grandson, uncle, aunt 19
(36) THE KINSHIP PARADIGM
Term Root Consang Line Rank Sex Generation
K M|F G+2 G+1 G0 G-1 G-2
father + + + + m +
mother + + + + f +
uncle + + - - m +
aunt + + - - f +
brother + + - + m +
sister + + - + f +
cousin + + - - X +
son + + + + m +
niece + + - - f +
nephew + + - - m +
son-in-law + - + - m +

20
 Some results:

1. The analysis allows us to state componential definitions (viewed as

“eliminative” in the classical variant of CA, in the sense that not
only the word used predicatively implies its definition, but also its
definition implies the word):

(37) X is my father  X is my blood relative, in a direct line,

of primary rank, male,
and in the first ascending generation

Word meaning is represented as a conjunction of conceptual semes

(39) woman  +FEMALE, +HUMAN, +ADULT

spinster  +FEMALE, +HUMAN, +NEVER MARRIED
bachelor  +MALE, +HUMAN, +NEVER MARRIED

21
2. Componential definitions serve as a basis for delimiting the class of
analytical statements and contradictory statements:

(40) Husbands are married and male.

+HUMAN
+ADULT
+MALE
+ MARRIED
(41) That bachelor is married
+HUMAN
+ADULT
+MALE
- MARRIED

3. Componential definitions may be viewed as warranting certain

entailments by definition. These are called meaning postulates
(Carnap, 1947).

(42) He is my brother  He is male

He is the same generation with me
x [[ x is my brother]  [x is male]] 22
 Taxonomies
As already illustrated, in the perfect paradigm features are unordered,
all dimensions are relevant for all the terms. In the perfect
taxonomy, features are ordered in a hierarchy and combine with
only one feature of any other dimension.

(44) PLANT
FLOWER TREE

GARDEN FLOWER WILD FLOWER FRUIT TREE WILD TREE

tulip peony rose daisy violet apple pear cherry oak fir
tree tree tree tree tree

23