3.6. Componential analysis

Componential analysis is an attempt to describe the meaning of Ws in terms of a universal inventory of semantic components & their possible combinations.

Man, woman, boy, girl, bull, cow – binary oppositions man :: woman = boy :: girl = bull :: cow. The meanings of man, boy, bull on the 1 hand, & woman, girl, cow, on the other, have something in common (a semantic component / seme) – the semantic distinctive feature is that of sex. Man :: boy = woman :: girl. – the distinctive feature is that of age. Man :: bull = woman :: cow – the distinctive feature contrasting human & animal beings.

L . Hjelmslev’s commutation test: proportions from which the distinctive features d1, d2, d3 are obtained:

The meaning boy contains the semes male, young, human.

R. Ginzburg: componential analysis describing semantic components in terms of categories represented as a hierarchic structure (each subsequent category is a sub-category of the previous one), the analysis of dictionary meanings into semantic markers (common with other lexical items) & distinguishers.

The analysis of spinster (N, count N, human, adult, female, who has never married). Parts of speech are the most inclusive categories pointing to major classes. This component is a class seme. As the grammatical function is predominant when we classify a W as a count N, this feature is a subdivision of a class seme. It may, on the other hand, be taken as a marker because it represents a sub-class within Ns, marks all Ns that can be counted, & differentiates them from all uncountable Ns. Human is the next marker which refers the W spinster to a sub-category of Ns denoting human beings. Adult is another marker pointing at a specific subdivision of living beings into adult & not grown-up. Female is also a marker, it represents a whole class of adult human females. ‘Who has never married’ is a distinguisher, it differentiates spinster from other Ws which have other features in common.

The analysis shows that the dimensions of meaning may be regarded as semantic oppositions because the W’s meaning is reduced to its contrastive elements. The segmentation is continued as far as we can have markers needed for a group of Ws, & stops when a unique feature is reached.

A very close resemblance to componential analysis is the method of logical definition: dividing a genus into species & species into subspecies indispensable to dictionary definitions.

It is possible to describe parts of the vocabulary by formalising these definitions & reducing them to some standard form according to a set of rules. The explanatory transformations thus obtained constitute an intersection of transformational & componential analysis. The result of this procedure applied to collective personal Ns:

e. g. team → a group of people acting together in a game, piece of work, etc.

3.7. Types of semantic change

3.7.1. Specialization

The change of the semantic structure of a W is a source of qualitative & quantitative development of the vocabulary. All the types of semantic change depend upon comparison of the earlier (extinct / still in use) & the new meaning of the W. The comparison is based on the difference between the concepts expressed / referents pointed out, the type of psychological association, evaluation of the latter by the speaker, LG categories.

The diachronic classification of Michel Bréal & Herman Paul. M. Bréal: in passing from general usage into a special sphere of communication a W undergoes specialisation of its meaning. The difference is revealed in the difference of contexts Ws occur in, their different valency.

W which formerly represented a notion of a broader scope has come to render a notion of a narrower scope. It can name fewer objects, i.e. have fewer referents. The content of the notion is enriched: it includes a greater number of relevant features by which it is characterised. H. Paul: this type of semantic change is frequent in professional & trade vocabulary.

This type is fairly universal: OE deor ‘wild beast’ > ME deer ‘wild ruminant of a particular species’ (Shakespeare: Rats & mice & such small deer); OE mete ‘food’ > ME meat ‘edible flesh’, (the earlier meaning is noticeable in sweetmeat).

Both meanings can coexist in the structure of a polysemantic W / be differentiated locally. Token < OE tac(e)n || Germ Zeichen originally meant ‘sign’. Brought into competition with the borrowed sign it became restricted in use to a fixed context & in meaning (a love token, a token of respect, a token payment). In ME token – something small, unimportant / cheap which represents something big, important / valuable: room (‘space’); corn (originally ‘grain’; locally the leading crop of the district: in England ‘wheat’, in Scotland ‘oats’, in the USA, as an ellipsis for Indian corn, ‘maize’).

A special group is the formation of proper Ns from common Ns, chiefly in toponyms: the City; the Highlands; Oxford; the Tower. The change of meaning occurred without change of sound form / any intervention of morphological processes.

In many cases semantic & morphological processes go hand in hand: the agent suffix -ist added to the N-stem art- ≠ ‘a representative of any kind of art’, but a synonym of painter.