CURRENT APPROACHES AND NEW RESEARCH IN
MODERN SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
26
THE PROBLEM OF COMPONENTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEANING IN
PRESENT DAY LEXICOLOGY
Ismoilov Alimardon Alisher o'g'li
2
nd
year MD student of Oriental University,
Bakhtiyorova Maftuna Bakhtiyorovna
Scientific advisor:
PhD, assoc. prof. teacher of “Western Languages” department
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11524883
There are many different ways to approach the problems of meaning,
since meaning is related to many different functions of language. The meanings
of words in a language are interrelated and they are defined in part by their
relations with other words in the language. Analyzed in the same semantic
domain, words can be classified according to shared and differentiating features.
Breaking down the sense of a word into its minimal distinctive features,
componential analysis of meaning can be a useful approach in the study of
meaning, particularly in determining the meaning of a lexeme. Although
componential analysis has some difficulties and limitations in its application, it is
still used in modern linguistics.
Finegan
1
distinguishes three types of meaning, i.e. linguistic, social, and
affective meaning. Linguistic meaning encompasses both sense and reference.
One way of defining meaning is to say that the meaning of a word or sentence is
the actual person, object, abstract notion, event, or state to which the word or
sentence makes reference. Referential meaning may be the easiest kind to
recognize, but it is not sufficient to explain how some expressions mean what
they mean. For one thing, not all expressions have referents. Social meaning is
what we rely on when we identify certain social characteristics of speakers and
situations from the character of the language used. Affective meaning is the
emotional connotation that is attached to words and utterances.
A word or lexeme presents a complex semantic structure. A lexeme is built
up of smaller components of meaning which are combined differently to form a
different lexeme. The meaning of a lexeme is a complicated structure where
elements of meaning have definite interrelation
2
. All semantic elements in a
word are not equally important. One (or some) of them is the dominant semantic
1
Finegan, Edward. 2004. Language. Its Structure and Use. 4th ed. United States of America: Thomson Wadsworth,
181-182 pp.
2
Crystal, David. 1987. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 104 p
CURRENT APPROACHES AND NEW RESEARCH IN
MODERN SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
27
element and it organizes around itself all the other ones, which may be more or
less important for the meaning of a lexeme
3
.
A lexeme can be analyzed and described in terms of its semantic
components, which help to define different lexical relations, grammatical and
syntactic processes. The semantic structure of a lexeme is treated as a system of
meanings. To some extent we can define a lexeme by telling what set it belongs
to and how it differs from other members of the same set. Some abvious sets of
this sort are sports (
tennis, badminton, soccer, golf, basketball,
…), colors (
red,
blue, yellow, green, pink
, …) and creative writing (
novel, poem, short story, essay,
biography
,…). It is not difficult to say what the members of each set have in
common.
According to Semantic field (or semantic domain) theory, lexemes can be
classified according to shared and differentiating features. Here are more
examples. Wasp, hornet, bee and other items denote ‘flying, stinging insects’;
moth and housefly, among others, denote insects that fly but do not sting; ant
and termite are names of insects neither fly nor sting. The semantic features
explain how the members of the set are related to one another and can be used
to differentiate them from one another. The determination of such features has
been called componential analysis
4
. This writing treats only the componential
analysis of referential meaning.
Palmer
5
says that the total meaning of a word can be seen in terms of a
number of distinct elements or components of meaning (1976: 85). Components
have a distinguishing function and serve to distinguish the meaning of a lexeme
from that of semantically related lexemes, or more accurately they serve to
distinguish among the meanings of lexemes in the same semantic domain. To
determine the meaning of any form contrast must be found, for there is no
meaning apart from significant differences. Nida
6
states “If all the universe were
blue, there would be no blueness, since there would be nothing to contrast with
blue. The same is true for the meanings of words. They have meaning only in
terms of systematic contrasts with other words which share certain features
with them but contrast with them in respect to other features”. Jackson in
“Words and their meaning”
7
dan Nida in “Componential Analysis of Meaning”
8
3
Lyons, John. 1995. Linguistic semantics: An introduction. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1408 p.;
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Semantics. Harmondsworth: Penguin Ltd, 89 p
4
Kreidler, Charles. 2002. Introducing English Semantics. New York: Routledge, 87 p; Wardhaugh, Ronald.1977.
Introduction to Linguistics. United States: McGraw-Hill, 163 p.
5
Palmer, F. R. (1983). Semantics (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 85 p.
6
Nida, Eugene A. 1975. Componential Analysis of Meaning. Belgium: Mouton, 31 p.
7
Jackson, Howard. 1996. Words and Their Meaning. New York: Addison Wesley Longman Inc, 83 p.
8
Nida, Eugene A. 1975. Componential Analysis of Meaning. Belgium: Mouton, 32 p.
CURRENT APPROACHES AND NEW RESEARCH IN
MODERN SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
28
categorize the types of components into two main types, i.e. common component
and diagnostic or distinctive component.
a. Common component.
This is the central component which is shared by
all the lexemes in the same semantic domain or lexical field.
b. Diagnostic or distinctive components.
They serve to distinguish the
meaning from others from the same domain. A very simple example to explain
these two types is provided by the words man, woman, boy, girl, and other
related words in English
9
. These words all belong to the semantic field of ‘human
race’ and the relations between them may be represented by the following
matrix.
components man woman boy girl
[human]
+
+
+
+
[adult]
+
+
-
-
[male]
+
-
+
-
Table 1. Common and Diagnostic Components of the words
man, woman,
boy
,
and
girl
In the semantic domain of man, woman, boy, and girl, [human] is the
common component, and they are distinguished by [adult], [male], [female] as
the diagnostic components. The meanings of the individual items can then be
expressed by combinations of these features:
Man +[human] +[adult] +[male]
Woman +[human] +[adult] -[male]
Boy +[human] -[adult] +[male]
Girl +[human] -[adult] -[male]
Before going further with the componential approach, it is important to
consider possible differences in the roles of diagnostic components. The
differences can be best designated as (1)
implicational
, (2)
core
, and (3)
inferential
.
Implicational component are those implied by a particular meaning,
though they do not form an essential part of the core meaning. On the contrary,
implicational components remain associated with a meaning, even when other
components are negativized by the context. The word repent has three
diagnostic components: (1) previous wrong behavior, (2) contrition for what has
been done, and (3) change of behavior, and the first component is implicational.
Whether in a positive or negative context, e.g. he repented of what he did or he
didn’t repent of what he did, the implication is that the person in question did
9
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Semantics. Harmondsworth: Penguin Ltd, 96 p.
CURRENT APPROACHES AND NEW RESEARCH IN
MODERN SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
29
something wrong. The negation affects the core components which specify the
central aspects of the event, but does not modify the implicational component.
The inferential components of meanings are those which may be infered from
the use of an expression, but which are not regarded as obligatory, core
elements. In the expression the policeman shot the thief, ‘the thief was killed’ is
the inference, and without further contextual condition assumed to be the case.
However, it is possible to deny this inference, e.g. ‘
the policeman shot the thief
but didn’t kill him’
. At the same time an inferential component may be explicitly
stated, e.g. the policeman shot the thief to death or the policeman shot and killed
the thief.
References:
1. Finegan, Edward. 2004. Language. Its Structure and Use. 4th ed. United States
of America: Thomson Wadsworth, 181-182 pp.
2. Crystal, David. 1987. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 104 p
3. Lyons, John. 1995. Linguistic semantics: An introduction. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press, 1408 p.; Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Semantics.
Harmondsworth: Penguin Ltd, 89 p
4. Kreidler, Charles. 2002. Introducing English Semantics. New York: Routledge,
87 p; Wardhaugh, Ronald.1977. Introduction to Linguistics. United States:
McGraw-Hill, 163 p.
5. Palmer, F. R. (1983). Semantics (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 85 p.
6. Nida, Eugene A. 1975. Componential Analysis of Meaning. Belgium: Mouton,
31 p.
7. Jackson, Howard. 1996. Words and Their Meaning. New York: Addison Wesley
Longman Inc, 83 p.
8. Nida, Eugene A. 1975. Componential Analysis of Meaning. Belgium: Mouton,
32 p.
9. Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Semantics. Harmondsworth: Penguin Ltd, 96 p.
