A D E B R E C E N I K O S S U T H LAJOS TUDOMÄNYEGYETEM
ANGOL TANSZEKENEK KIADVÄNYAI
PUBLICATIONS OF T H E ENGLISH D E P A R T M E N T
OF T H E L. K O S S U T H U N I V E R S I T Y , D E B R E C E N
ANGOL
F I L O L O G I A I TANULMÄNYOK
XII.
H U N G A R I A N STUDIES
IN E N G L I S H
XII
K O S S U T H LAJOS T U D O M Ä N Y E G Y E T E M , D E B R E C E N
1979
CONTENTS
SANDOR MALLER:
Inauguration
Cancelled
7
LÄSZLÖ ORSZÄGH: Anglomania in Hungary, 1780-1900
19
G.F. CUSHING:
Forty Years of Hungarian Literature
JOHN FLETCHER:
From 'Gentle
GÜNTHER KLOTZ:
Changing Functions
Reader* to 'Gentle
in English
37
Skvrmer*; Or, Does It Help
to Read Swift as If He Were Samuel Beckett?
ORM 0VERLAND:
Ole Edvart
and Forms of Modem British
Rtflvaag and Giants
49
Drama
in the Earth: A Writer
61
Between
Tue Countries
77
JOHN B. VICKERY: Myths and Fiction
in Contemporary American Novel: The Case
of John Barth
89
ZSOLT VIRAGOS:
Myth: The Dilemma of the American Novelist
JOHN ANDERSON:
Subjecthood
3
YOSHIHIKO IKEGAMI: Goal*
121
over 'Source*;
Linguistic
RATAL I N
fi.KISS:
BfiLA KORPONAY:
107
in
Orientation
A Note on the Interpretive
The Ablative
A Case in Dissimetry
139
Theory of Pronominalization
and the Instrumental
LEONHARD LIPKA: Semantic Components of English
Nouns and Verbs and Their
Justification
WOLFGANG VIERECK: The Dialectal
Lowman*s Evidence
159
171
187
Survey of British
....
English:
2
°3
LEONHARD LIPKA ( M u n i c h )
SEMANTIC COMPONENTS OF ENGLISH NOUNS AND VERBS AND
THEIR JUSTIFICATION
1.
GENERAL PROBLEMS. T h i s p a p e r i s a b o u t t h e m e t a l a n g u a g e o f l i n ­
g u i s t s , w i t h w h i c h t h e y a n a l y s e and d e s c r i b e t h e meaning o f elements
of
t h e o b j e c t - l a n g u a g e , i n t h i s c a s e : E n g l i s h . I n o r d e r t o make t h i s
d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e m e t a l a n g u a g e c l e a r , I must f i r s t
l a n g u a g e , i . e . my u s e o f s u c h t e r m s as meaning, sense,
and
d e f i n e my own meta­
denotation,
reference,
referent.
1.1.
I will
u s e meaning
in a relatively
l o o s e a n d i m p r e c i s e sense,
as i t i s n o r m a l l y f o u n d i n e v e r y d a y l a n g u a g e . S i n c e 1923, when Ogden
and R i c h a r d s p u b l i s h e d t h e i r book o n The Meaning of Meaning
the lack
of
a g r e e m e n t a b o u t t h i s b a s i c t e r m s i s common k n o w l e d g e i n l i n g u i s t i c s .
Lyons
( 1 9 7 7 : 5 0 f ) d i s t i n g u i s h e s t h r e e t y p e s o f meaning:
social,
three d i f f e r e n t
Leech
descriptive,
and e x p r e s s i v e m e a n i n g , w h i c h f o r h i m a r e c o r r e l a t e d
f u n c t i o n s o f language denoted by i d e n t i c a l
( 1 9 7 4 : 2 6 f ) d i s t i n g u i s h e s seven t y p e s o f meaning:
notative, stylistic,
with
labels.
conceptual,con-
a f f e c t i v e , r e f l e c t e d , c o l l o c a t i v e , and t h e m a t i c
m e a n i n g , a n d u s e s t h e a l t e r n a t i v e t e r m communicative value
f o r the
sense o f meaning, w h i l e i d e n t i f y i n g
sense.
h e r e u s e t h e t e r m sense
conceptual
meaning w i t h
wide
I shall
f o r t h e conceptual communicative value
words a n d l e x i c a l morphemes, a n d w i l l
of
oppose i t t o denotation
stands f o r t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e f u l l
which
l i n g u i s t i c s i g n and
a
c l a s s o f o b j e c t s , s t a t e s , e v e n t s , a n d p r o c e s s e s . Such e x t r a - l i n g u i s t i c
denotata w i l l
be c a l l e d - as g e n e r a l l y i n c u r r e n t l i n g u i s t i c
l o g y - t h e referents
o f l i n g u i s t i c s i g n s o r l e x e m e s . Reference
termino­
i s here
r e g a r d e d as a s p e e c h - a c t , p e r f o r m e d b y a s p e a k e r o r w r i t e r , s u c c e s s ­
f u l l y o r u n s u c c e s s f u l l y , a n d n o t a p r o p e r t y o f s i n g l e lexemes i n i s o l a ­
tion.
1.2. P e r h a p s o u r p o s i t i o n c a n be seen more c l e a r l y i f we l o o k a t
the
sion
d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n meaning
( o r sense)
( d e r i v e d f r o m t h e noun referent)
inclusion
and referential
a s r e p r e s e n t e d i n F i g u r e 1 . As
p o i n t e d o u t b y L e e c h ( 1 9 7 4 : 1 0 1 ) t h e r e i s an i n v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p
ween t h e t w o , a n d I w i l l
the
traditional
inclu­
add t h a t t h i s i s ,
o f course, equivalent
bet­
to
l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e i n t e n s i o n and
the
e x t e n s i o n o f a t e r m . I t m i g h t seem t h a t t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n
sense
187
inclusion
a n d referential
e x p l i c i t l y discussed
inclusion
i s so obvious t h a t i t should
n o t be
here.
Sense (meaning) i n c l u s i o n
vs.
referential inclusion.
FIGURE 1
However, e v e n i n a r e c e n t book b y N i d a ( 1 9 7 5 : 1 5 f ) , w h e r e " m e a n i n g i n ­
clusion"
i s represented
by c o n c e n t r i c c i r c l e s ,
ture of the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s not recognized,
tion
t h e complementary
as t h e
na­
f o l l o w i n g quota­
shows:
The
m e a n i n g o f poodle
c a n be s a i d t o be i n c l u d e d
m e a n i n g o f dog, a n d t h e m e a n i n g o f
meaning o f
Clearly,
i n the
dog i n c l u d e d i n t h e
animal.
i t i s n o t t h e m e a n i n g b u t t h e c l a s s o f r e f e r e n t s o f poodle
that
i s i n c l u d e d i n t h e c l a s s o r s e t o f dogs. An e x a m p l e s u c h as t h i s
de­
m o n s t r a t e s how i m p o r t a n t
and
denotation.
i t i s t o make a d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n sense
I t may be d i f f i c u l t
t o draw i n p r a c t i c e a t t i m e s , b u t i t
must be made i n p r i n c i p l e i n o r d e r
has
t o avoid confusion.
This p o s i t i o n
been a d v o c a t e d i n h i s p u b l i s h e d w o r k b y E u g e n i o C o s e r i u f o r e x a m p l e
i n C o s e r i u (1973:49 ) , w h e r e Bedeutung
1.3.
i s separated
from
Bezeichnung.
C o s e r i u ' s p o s i t i o n c a n p e r h a p s be c h a r a c t e r i z e d as a l a n g u a g e -
i n t r i n s i c o r language-immanent approach t o s t r u c t u r a l s e m a n t i c s .
his theory
lexical
items
a r e opposed t o each o t h e r and t h i s
or contrast y i e l d s s p e c i f i c d i s t i n c t i v e
n e t s . The m e t h o d s and t e c h n i q u e s
language-intrinsic
In
opposition
f e a t u r e s o r s e m a n t i c compo-
o f p h o n o l o g y , as a f u n c t i o n a l a n d
d i s c i p l i n e , are c a r r i e d over t o l e x i c a l
and semantic
s t r u c t u r e s and a p p l i e d i n s e m a n t i c a n a l y s i s . C o m p o n e n t i a l a n a l y s i s i n
the t r a d i t i o n o f Hjelmslev
guage-intrinsic
i s t s have c o n c e n t r a t e d
linguistic
188
( s e e 2.1.1.) i s a f u r t h e r e x a m p l e o f a l a n ­
a p p r o a c h t o s e m a n t i c s . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , many
lingu­
on t h e p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e r e f e r e n t s d e n o t e d
s i g n s , a n d c a n t h e r e f o r e be s a i d t o be d o i n g
by
referential
s e m a n t i c s . A p a r a d i g m a t i c e x a m p l e i s L e i s i ' s book
1975),
dee
Der Vortinhalt
i n which t h e second c h a p t e r bears t h e t i t l e ;
Bezeichneten"
(1952;
"Die Darstellung
[my i t a l i c s ] . N i d a - a n d t o some e x t e n t L e e c h - a r e
a l s o c o n c e r n e d w i t h r e f e r e n t i a l s e m a n t i c s , when t h e y u s e w o r d s d e n o ­
t i n g p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e r e f e r e n t s as l a b e l s f o r s e m a n t i c components i . e
as e l e m e n t s o f t h e i r m e t a l a n g u a g e .
2. SEMANTIC COMPONENTS IN THE LITERATURE. L e t us now l o o k a t some s e ­
m a n t i c components o f E n g l i s h l e x i c a l i t e m s w h i c h have been p r o p o s e d i n
the
l i t e r a t u r e . A d e t a i l e d r e v i e w o f r e c e n t -work i n s e m a n t i c s up
to
1972 i s f o u n d i n c h a p t e r t w o o f my book ( L i p k a , 1972:30-83) i n w h i c h I
i n t r o d u c e d a t e r m i n o l o g i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n component a n d
( 1 9 7 2 : 3 5 ) . I n t h e p r e s e n t p a p e r feature
component,
the
tic
will
w i t h a g r e a t e r tendency t o i n d i v i s i b i l i t y ,
p o s s i b i l i t y of a binary
features
will
essarily
be
semantic
of
u n i v e r s a l i t y , and
f e a t u r e n o t a t i o n . C o n s e q u e n t l y , a l l seman­
components;
but not a l l
components are n e c ­
features.
2.1.
S e m a n t i c c o m p o n e n t s o f E n g l i s h nouns h a v e been
discussed i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e .
frequently
The c l a s s i c a l m e t h o d o f c o m p o n e n t i a l ana­
l y s i s as d e r i v e d f r o m H j e l m s l e v ( c f .
L i p k a , 1972:35) may be r e g a r d e d
as an e x a m p l e o f t h e l a n g u a g e - i n t r i n s i c a p p r o a c h . O t h e r
as L e i s i
feature
be u s e d as a hyponym
and N i d a , c o n c e n t r a t e on r e f e r e n t i a l
linguists,such
semantics.
2 . 1 . 1 . I t h a s o f t e n been o b s e r v e d t h a t s e t s o f E n g l i s h w o r d s s u c h
as man, woman, child;
in
bull,
cow, calf;
stallion,
mare, foal
have c e r t a i n
common w h i c h a l l o w s t h e s e t t i n g up o f p r o p o r t i o n a l e q u a t i o n s .
L y o n s ( 1 9 6 8 : 4 7 0 f f ) i n h i s Introduction
and L e e c h ( 1 9 7 4 : 9 8 f ) i n h i s book
on s e m a n t i c s have d e s c r i b e d t h e r e s e m b l a n c e t o t h e a r i t h m e t i c a l
of
ial
senses
Both
process
f a c t o r i z i n g a number and t h e r e s u l t s f o r t h e t e c h n i q u e o f component­
analysis.
tals,
I f we r e p r e s e n t t h e common s e m a n t i c c o m p o n e n t s b y c a p i ­
since they are elements o f t h e metalanguage, t h e techinque
be i l l u s t r a t e d
can
as i n F i g u r e 2.
^
HUMAN^
^
J Man ; woman ; c h i l d
BOVINE
.· ;
MALE^FEMALE NON-ADULT
ADULT
b u l l ; cow : c a l f j
HALE
FEMALE NON-ADULT
FIGURE 2
A c c o r d i n g t o L e e c h ( 1 9 7 4 : 9 6 f ) t h r e e " d i m e n s i o n s o f m e a n i n g " c a n be d i s ­
tinguished
i n t h e l e f t - h a n d s i d e o f F i g u r e 2, v i z .
sex, adulthood,
189
and
human s p e c i e s .
1
He f u r t h e r p o i n t s o u t t h a t i f " f e a t u r e symbols * a r e
used, t h e meanings o f i n d i v i d u a l items
t i o n o f f e a t u r e s and represented
tions"
c a n b e e x p r e s s e d as a c o m b i n a ­
b y what he c a l l s
"componential
defini­
such as i n t h e f o l l o w i n g :
woman: + HUMAN + ADULT - MALE
boy:
+ HUMAN - ADULT + MALE.
Lyons (1968:472)
h a d a l r e a d y p o i n t e d o u t i n 1968 t h a t t h e t e c h n i q u e
of componential a n a l y s i s has a long h i s t o r y and:
i s i n h e r e n t i n t h e t r a d i t i o n a l method o f d e f i n i t i o n by
d i v i d i n g a genus i n t o s p e c i e s a n d s p e c i e s i n t o
and
subspecies;
t h i s method o f d e f i n i t i o n i s r e f l e c t e d i n most o f t h e
dictionaries.
It
should
f u r t h e r be n o t e d t h a t d e f i n i t i o n s s u c h a s a stallion
adult horse o r a calf
is a young bovine
animal n e c e s s a r i l y c o n t a i n
is a male
paraphrases
o f t h e w o r d i n s u b j e c t p o s i t i o n ( c f . 4.2.) A l t h o u g h t h e component MALE
denotes a p r o p e r t y o f t h e r e f e r e n t , obvious d i f f e r e n c e s i n s i z e
and
c o l o u r o f t h e r e f e r e n t s do n o t p l a y a r o l e f o r d i s t i n g u i s h i n g f o r e x ­
ample
rooster
and hen o r drake
f e a t u r e o f t h e male l i o n ,
and duck.
The m o s t p r o m i n e n t d i s t i n g u i s h i n g
t h e presence o f a
s e m a n t i c f e a t u r e o p p o s i n g t h e lexemes l i o n
mane, i s n o t a d i s t i n c t i v e
a n d lioness.
I n general,although
p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e denotatum o r r e f e r e n t p l a y a r o l e i n componential
a n a l y s i s , i t i s b a s i c a l l y a l a n g u a g e - i n t r i n s i c approach t o semantics.
2.1.2. The p r o b l e m s o f a p u r e l y r e f e r e n t i a l a p p r o a c h t o s e m a n t i c s
become a p p a r e n t i f we l o o k a t t h e s o - c a l l e d " d i a g n o s t i c
which Nida (1975:34) g i v e s
2.
f o r t h e word
" t o t a l l y a q u a t i c " , 3. " t o o t h e d " ,
-porpoise,
and 4. " r e l a t i v e l y
p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e r e f e r e n t d i s t i n g u i s h i t from:
components"
n a m e l y : 1 "mammal",
small*.
1. fish,
Such
2. l i o n s a n d
s e a l s , 3. some w h a l e s , a n d 4. w h a l e s g e n e r a l l y .
L e i s i ' s approach t o t h e content
o f a w o r d (der Wortinhalt)
f i n e d as t h e c o n d i t i o n s f o r i t s u s e (Gebrauchsbedingungen)
also
t h a t i s de­
largely
depends o n p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e e x t r a - l i n g u i s t i c r e f e r e n t . A l t h o u g h s u c h
c o n d i t i o n s o f u s e , i n h i s t h e o r y , may be r e l a t i v e l y c o m p l e x , t h e y b a ­
s i c a l l y depend on p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e r e f e r e n t , w h i c h i n t h e case
of
v e r b s may be s t a t e s , p r o c e s s e s , a n d r e l a t i o n s . To i l l u s t r a t e w i t h s i m p ­
l e concrete
nouns, L e i s i
use
a n d nugget
o fclot
ent plays
190
a role:
(1952;
1975:29)
as o p p o s e d t o lump,
i t m u s t be b l o o d
notes t h a t f o r t h e c o r r e c t
t h e substance o f t h e r e f e r ­
i n one case, g o l d i n t h e o t h e r . F o r
t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n tower,
a l l b e t r a n s l a t e d b y Turm
steeple,
t h e f o r m o r shape o f t h e d e n o t a t u m
if
s p i r e , and t u r r e t - w h i c h
i n German - a c c o r d i n g t o L e i s i
can
(1973:34-36)
i s relevant. This i s not
surprising
we r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h e same e x t r a - l i n g u i s t i c w o r l d may b e c a t e g o r i ­
zed d i f f e r e n t l y i n d i f f e r e n t languages,
as e x p r e s s e d b y t h e
o f t h e i r v o c a b u l a r y . To q u o t e a n o t h e r example f r o m L e i s i
i n b o t h E n g l i s h and French s n a l i l
limaoe
a n d a lug
structure
(1973:13):
a s w e l l a s eecargot
may b e d i s t i n g u i s h e d , b u t t h e y a l l f a l l
together i n a single
c l a s s o f r e f e r e n t s i n "German, d e n o t e d b y t h e l e x e m e Sohnecke.
d i s t i n c t i o n we may p o s t u l a t e a b i n a r y s e m a n t i c
presence
o r absence w i l l
account
feature
o f r e f e r e n t i a l se­
m a n t i c s i l l u s t r a t e d b y E n g l i s h n o u n s , l e t me m e n t i o n t h e
and c i t y .
For t h i s
SHELL],whose
f o r t h e l i n g u i s t i c d i f f e r e n c e between
t h e t w o w o r d s . As a f i n a l e x a m p l e f o r t h e p r o b l e m s
b e t w e e n town
and
distinction
The d i s t i n g u i s h i n g f e a t u r e t a u g h t a t B r i t i s h
s c h o o l s , and even used f o r t e s t i n g c h i l d r e n , i s t h e presence
o r absence
o f a b i s h o p o r , e q u i v a l e n t l y , o f a c a t h e d r a l . On t h e o t h e r h a n d
a p p a r e n t l y f u n c t i o n s as a d i s t i n c t i v e
n o t know w h e t h e r
size
f e a t u r e , e s p e c i a l l y i f one does
a p a r t i c u l a r p l a c e h a s been g r a n t e d t h e r i g h t s o f a
c i t y b y some s o v e r e i g n i n t h e p a s t .
2.2.
Semantic components o f E n g l i s h v e r b s have perhaps
been
most
w i d e l y d i s c u s s e d i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e method o f l e x i c a l
decomposition
of s o - c a l l e d Generative Semantics,
publications
but also i n Fillmore's
and i n t h e w o r k o f A n d e r s o n a n d I k e g a m i . My own a n a l y s i s o f v e r b - p a r ­
t i c l e c o n s t r u c t i o n s w i t h out a n d up i n L i p k a ( 1 9 7 2 ) was b a s e d o n
l a r g e corpus which t r i e d t o c o l l e c t a l l c u r r e n t l y used
of t h i s
constructions
kind.
2 . 2 . 1 . We w i l l h e r e d i s r e g a r d t h e h i e r a r c h i c a l
p o s t u l a t e d f o r verbs i n Generative Semantics,
atomic
a
tree-structure
andsimply consider the
p r e d i c a t e s , w h i c h have been s a i d t o be c o n t a i n e d i n s p e c i f i c
l e x i c a l i t e m s , as i n t h e f o l l o w i n g * examples:
kill
break
remind
apologize
persuade
The
(DO) CAUSE BECOME NOT ALIVE
(CAUSE) BECOME NOT WHOLE
STRIKE as SIMILAR, STRIKE LIKE/MAKE THINK
REQUEST FORGIVE
CAUSE BELIEVE, (DO) CAUSE BECOME INTEND
a d d i t i o n o f a n a t o m i c p r e d i c a t e DO i n t h e p a r a p h r a s e
the l a t e r stage o f G e n e r a t i v e Semantics
three-way
foir k i l l
i n
was m o t i v a t e d b y t h e a l l e g e d
a m b i g u i t y i n a s e n t e n c e m o d i f i e d b y almost.
This
assumption,
as w e l l a s t h e e q u i v a l e n c e o f a n a t o m i c p r e d i c a t e DO t o a deep c a s e
191
'Agent' i s d i s c u s s e d
i n greater d e t a i l i n Lipka (1976).
t i c l e i t i s f u r t h e r pointed
out t h a t l e x i c a l decomposition
p a r a p h r a s i n g , a n d t h a t McCawley h i m s e l f a d m i t s
of t h e proposed semantic
In
this
ar­
i s based
on
that a large portion
s t r u c t u r e s h a v e been p o s t u l a t e d w i t h
c a r e . The n o t a t i o n a l d e v i c e o f u s i n g c a p i t a l s f o r a t o m i c
little
predicates
c l e a r l y m a r k s t h e l a t t e r as e l e m e n t s o f t h e m e t a l a n g u a g e , a l t h o u g h t h e
d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e o b j e c t - l a n g u a g e
a n d t h e m e t a l a n g u a g e was drawn
e x p l i c i t l y very r a r e l y i ne a r l y Generative
of causative verbs
Semantics. For t h e a n a l y s i s
a f e a t u r e [- c a u s a t i v e ] has been p o s t u l a t e d i n
L y o n s ( 1 9 6 8 : 3 8 3 ) as w e l l as i n A n d e r s o n ( 1 9 7 1 : 6 6 ) .
years
t h e l i t e r a t u r e on c a u s a t i v e v e r b s
I n the last
ten
a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n s h a s become
so o v e r w h e l m i n g , t h a t i t i s p r o b a b l y i m p o s s i b l e f o r a s i n g l e p e r s o n t o
do j u s t i c e t o i t .
L e t me t h e r e f o r e t r y t o s k e t c h b r i e f l y my own
t r i b u t i o n t o t h e f i e l d i nLipka
con­
(1972)
2.2.2. I n t h i s s t u d y , v e r b - p a r t i c l e c o n s t r u c t i o n w i t h out a n d up
3
f u n c t i o n i n g as t r a n s i t i v e a n d i n t r a n s i t i v e v e r b s , w e r e r e g a r d e d
- p l a c e o r many-place p r e d i c a t e s i n t h e sense o f s y m b o l i c
were broken
up i n t o s e m a n t i c
logic,
and
components. T h i s l e d t o t h e s e t t i n g
of s p e c i f i c formulas f o r t h e semantic
c o n s i s t i n g o f formators
as o n e up
s t r u c t u r e o f such c o n s t r u c t i o n s ,
a n d designators,
as c a n b e s e e n i n F i g u r e
3.
S e m a n t i c c o m p o n e n t s s u c h as BE, BECOME, CAUSE, a n d HAVE a r e r e g a r d e d
as
'connectives' o r 'formators' which
relate certain variables either
t o a c e r t a i n p l a c e , p o s i t i o n , o r s t a t e , o r t o o t h e r v a r i a b l e s . The
v a r i a b l e s , as w e l l as PLACE, POSITION, STATE a r e r e p r e s e n t e d b y
'de­
s i g n a t o r s ' which
which
c o n s i s t o f semantic
f e a t u r e s . Those f e a t u r e s
were found r e l e v a n t i n t h e a n a l y s i s o f t h e comprehensive corpus a r e
l i s t e d o n t h e r i g h t h a n d s i d e o f F i g u r e 3, b e g i n n i n g w i t h
p a r e n t ] and f i n i s h i n g w i t h
FIGURE 3
192
[±'VerticalJ.
[ - Appa-
In
a d d i t i o n , t h e more g e n e r a l f e a t u r e s
Evaluation]
were a l s o
constructions.
The a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e f o r m u l a s i s i l l u s t r a t e d as f o l ­
l o w s , where t h e f e a t u r e
tor,
[DEGREE], [ D y n a m i c ] , [ N e g a t i v e
found relevant i n the study o f v e r b - p a r t i c l e
[ - A p p a r e n t ] i s seen f u n c t i o n i n g as a d e s i g n a ­
and where t h e second argument o f t h e two-place p r e d i c a t e
ted i n brackets,
w i t h t h e Agent as t h e f i r s t
argument l e f t
is
lis­
unspecified:
CAUSE • BE + POSITIONt
hold oot (ana, hand, baby)
bend up (wire, piece of Metal, edge o f a book)
CAUSE • BE +I^Apparent]t
*
b l u r t out (secret)
bring out (aeaning of a passage/young lady, book)
c a l l up
(scenes froe childhood)
conjure up ( s p i r i t s , visions of the p a s t ) .
The
postulation o f the binary
nators,
semantic f e a t u r e s
f u n c t i o n i n g as d e s i g ­
was b a s e d on t h e u s e o f s e m a n t i c t e s t s , w h i c h w i l l
be d i s c u s s e d
presently.
3.
COMPONENTS AND SEMANTIC FEATURES. B e f o r e we t a k e u p t h e s t a t u s o f
s e m a n t i c components and f e a t u r e s ,
metalinguistic constructs
tic
l e t us look
once a g a i n a t t h e v a r i o u s
used i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e f o r d e n o t i n g
3.1.
easily
A r e f e r e n t i a l a p p r o a c h t o s e m a n t i c s , s u c h as L e i s i ' s may
l e a d t o r e n o u n c i n g t h e p o s t u l a t i o n o f s e m a n t i c components
features,
Merkmal
although
t h e author i n L e i s i
may d e n o t e t h e same t h i n g as h i s own Gebrauchebedingung.
of a "bundle o f c o g n i t i v e f e a t u r e s , associated
unit i n question".
the designation
as c o n s i s t i n g
with the lexical
of necessary and s u f f i c i e n t conceptual f e a t u r e s "
gely
"the
of a "set
and d i s t i n g u i s h e s
f o u r t y p e s o f s u c h c o m p o n e n t i a l f e a t u r e s : common, d i a g n o s t i c ,
that:
unit,
o f a l l t h e d e n o t a t a by t h e l e x i c a l
N i d a goes o n t o s a y t h a t m e a n i n g c o n s i s t s
mentary, and i m p l i c a t i o n a l f e a t u r e s .
That a
mean a b a n d o n i n g f e a t u r e s i s
d e m o n s t r a t e d by N i d a (1975:26) where meaning i s d e f i n e d
w h i c h make p o s s i b l e
or
(1973:30) i m p l i e s t h a t t h e t e r m
r e f e r e n t i a l a p p r o a c h does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y
by
a seman­
element.
supple­
I n Leech (1974:11) i t i s c l a i m e d
c o n c e p t u a l m e a n i n g s o f a l a n g u a g e , seem t o be o r g a n i z e d
i n terms o f contrast!ve
f e a t u r e s " , and such f e a t u r e s ,
lar­
symbolized
c a p i t a l s , a r e u s e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e book. F u r t h e r m o r e , " t w o t y p e s o f
semantic category" a r e d i s t i n g u i s h e d
formators.
ria!
( 1 9 7 4 : 3 4 ) , v i z . designators
L e e c h ( 1 9 7 4 : 1 2 3 ) a l s o mak^s a d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n
and
"crite­
c o m p o n e n t s " a n d " o p t i o n a l f e a t u r e s " . The l a t t e r a r e needed f o r
193
the e x p l a n a t i o n o f semantic
He
j u s t i f i e s h i s analyses
statements"
change, as Leech demonstrates
convincingly.
(1974:104) w i t h t h e h e l p o f s o - c a l l e d " b a s i c
(1974:85) which
t i o n s h i p s between sentences
amount t o t h e e v a l u a t i o n o f l o g i c a l
ment, i n c o n s i s t e n c y , t a u t o l o g y ,
c o n t r a d i c t i o n and r e l a t i o n s h i p s
synonymy, p r e s u p p o s i t i o n a n d s e m a n t i c
a n o m a l y . The p r e l e x i c a l
use
Their
of
elements
o f Generative Semantics are c o n s i d e r e d as u n i v e r s a l m i n i m a l
elements.
rela­
c o n t a i n i n g l e x i c a l i t e m s , such as e n t a i l ­
semantic
s t a t u s as i t e m s o f t h e metalanguage i s marked by t h e
o f c a p i t a l s . The a t o m i c n a t u r e o f t h e p r e d i c a t e s i s somewhat
ful,
doubt­
e s p e c i a l l y i f we c o n s i d e r t h a t t h e I n c h o a t i v e p r e d i c a t e i s u s u a l l y
symbolized
as BECOME i n McCawley's p a p e r s ,
b u t a s COME ABOUT
i n an num­
ber o f Lakoff's p u b l i c a t i o n s .
3.2.
features.
L e t me now b r i e f l y
sketch
my p r e s e n t v i e w s
I r e g a r d b o t h types o f semantic
on components a n d
elements as i t e m s o f
m e t a l a n g u a g e , as t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t s p o s t u l a t e d b y t h e
A l t h o u g h t h e y are based on c o n c e p t u a l elements,
the
linguist.
t h e i r p o s t u l a t i o n has
t o be o b j e c t i v e l y j u s t i f i e d . The s y m b o l s u s e d f o r t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n
i n some n o t a t i o n a r e t o a l a r g e e x t e n t a r b i t r a r y , b u t may be o f c o n s i ­
d e r a b l e mnemonic v a l u e .
Features,
as
a subclass o f
components
Λ
c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y h a v i n g some v a l u e a s s i g n e d t o t h e f e a t u r e , w h i c h
not n e c e s s a r i l y a b i n a r y + o r - value. M u l t i p l e taxonomies,
are
i s
scalar
o p p o s i t i o n s , and the o t h e r types o f non-binary c o n t r a s t s mentioned i n
L e e c h ( 1 9 7 4 ) a r e t h e r e f o r e h e r e c o n s i d e r e d as f e a t u r e s . S e m a n t i c
p o n e n t s need n o t h a v e v a l u e a s s i g n e d
t o t h e m . Such c o m p o n e n t s
German nouns a n d v e r b s a r e d i s c u s s e d
i n Baumgärtner ( 1 9 6 7 )
d e t a i l . A s p o i n t e d o u t i n my b o o k i n 1972 ( L i p k a , 1 9 7 2 : 4 2 )
i n great
he
t o t h e n - t o my k n o w l e d g e - t h e o n l y l i n g u i s t who e x p l i c i t l y
how
semantic
com­
for
components a r i s e b y t r a n s f o r m i n g o b j e c t - l a n g u a g e
was u p
discussed
items
i n t o elements o f t h e metalanguage.
3..3.
as
I propose t h e f o l l o w i n g t y p o l o g y o r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f
illustrated
i n F i g u r e 4 ( c f . a l s o L i p k a , t o appear:
1. Denotative features:
2. Connotative features:
(D I n f e r e n t i a l features:
4. Relational features:
5. Transfer features:
6. Deictic features:
girl/filly
steed/horse
smite/strlfce
nudge, beat
nugget, holiday
father/son
drink
1+ HUMAN]
j J^^Q^JQJ
~
{- HARD) {+ STICK)
(GOLD) {- WORK)
I-PARENT1 [-PARENT)
<- S0LID> o r
<2 PENETRABLB>
+
push/pull
now/then
± ^ΧΙΜΑΤΕ]
1.-6. except®.
[
7. D i s t i n c t i v e Features (DF):
FIGURE 4
194
5.2.).
features
1.
Denotative
inherent
the
extra-linguistic
2.
as
features:
Connotative
features:
are
an
they
and
inherent
use
l a b e l s s u c h as
One
criterion
"archaic",
f o r s e t t i n g up
i m p o r t a n c e and
also
3.
ing
applies
and
t o the
needed t o c a p t u r e d i f f e r e n c e s
lexeme and
and
lexeme,
i s the
lesser
of suc^
f o l l o w i n g class of
features. This c r i t e ­
features.
t h i s group i s supplementary l i k e the
features
context.
I n my
are
not
w i t h an ox
definition
t h i s class
or
" u s u a l l y " , as when beat
r e s p e c t i v e l y , and
nudge
h a r d " . I h e r e use
f e a t u r e s . The
costool
or something q u i t e l o w l y " depending
u s u a l l y m a r k e d i n d i c t i o n a r i e s by
and
both,
influence of
o r a workshop i s mentioned. I n f e r e n t i a l
w i t h a s t i c k ) " , nugget
"not
the
covers
slyness w i t h
i n t h e e x a m p l e m e n t i o n e d i n N i d a ( 1 9 7 5 : 7 2 ) where
"suggests... c o n v i v i a l i t y . . .
preced­
inherent, but o p t i o n a l .
e t c . - as w e l l as
pecially",
normally
of the
a fox, clumsiness
are
such
Such
group i s the p r o p e r t y
w i t h a r e f e r e n t - s u c h as
definition,
smite.
dictionaries
properties usually associated
whether a bar
of
o r " l i t e r a r y " , o r "humorous" f o r them.
this
However, i n f e r e n t i a l
s u c h as
centra]
o f t h e r e f e r e n t . A n o t h e r one
features:
They o f t e n d e p e n d on
text,
most
conceptual features
o r between s t r i k e
rather marginal character
Inferential
one.
are
steed,
p a r t of the
opposed t o t h e p r o p e r t y
rion
t h e most i m p o r t a n t
referent.
t h o s e b e t w e e n horse
features
as
these are
s e m a n t i c f e a t u r e s . They a r e b a s e d on
clot
as
i s defined
denoting
is said to contain
b r a c e s as
on
features, i n
l a b e l s s u c h as
as
my
"es­
" h i t (especially
e s p e c i a l l y g o l d and
blood
an e l e m e n t " s l i g h t l y " ,
or
a n o t a t i o n a l d e v i c e f o r m a r k i n g such
o p t i o n a l p r e s e n c e o f a component NO
WORK a t an
earlier
s t a g e o f d e v e l o p m e n t i n t h e p r e s e n t - d a y lexeme holiday
i s discussed
i n L e e c h ( 1 9 7 4 : 1 2 3 ) . T h i s e x a m p l e shows, how
optional
ferential
(cf.
features
are
diachronic
in­
linguistics
5.2. )
4.
Relational
features:
they
lexemes s u c h as f a t h e r o r son,
Bierwisch
has
5.
Transfer
indispensable
and
pupil,
i n the analysis
own
and
belong
c a r e f u l l y i n various
i . e . the
of
to.
papers.
of features, syntagmatic influence i s
portant here. This c r i t e r i o n ,
more i m p o r t a n t
are
teacher
i n v e s t i g a t e d such f e a t u r e s
As w i t h t h e p r e v i o u s c l a s s
viz.
important
f o r s e m a n t i c change and
im­
r e l e v a n c e o f c o - t e x t , i s even
i n the next group.
features:
i n the
sense W e i n r e i c h ( 1 9 6 6 ) d e f i n e s
f o r e x a m p l e t h a t t h e v e r b drink
contains
t r a n s f e r r e d t o i t s o b j e c t - t h e y may
be
p r o c e s s e s . They a r e
and
less r e s t r i c t i v e
them -
a f e a t u r e < - SOLID >
used t o c a p t u r e m e t a p h o r i c a l
more a c t i v e i n s e m a n t i c i n -
195
t e r p r e t a t i o n than
For
the theoretical construct o f selection
t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between s o l i d ,
liquid,
restriction.
a n d gas L e e c h
(1974:121)
uses t h r e e d e g r e e s o f a s i n g l e f e a t u r e PENETRABLE, s y m b o l i z e d b y num­
bers .
6. Deictic
ferences
features:
features such as [ - PROXIMATE] may e x p l a i n
b e t w e e n p u l l a n d push,
t h e r e . The c r i t e r i o n
dif­
here
and
f o r s e t t i n g up t h i s c l a s s o f f e a t u r e s i s c l e a r l y
a pragmatic one, s i n c e
linguistic
come a n d go, now a n d then,
i t depends on t h e o r i e n t a t i o n o f t h e u s e r s
of
signs.
7. Distinctive
of i n f e r e n t i a l
features
(DF): except f o r t h e very
important
f e a t u r e s , which are n o t i n h e r e n t i n l e x i c a l
o t h e r f e a t u r e s f u n c t i o n as d i s t i n c t i v e
f o r t h i s comprehensive c l a s s
ings o f l e x i c a l items
class
items, a l l
f e a t u r e s . The o n l y
criterion
i s f u n c t i o n , a n d t h e y d i s t i n g u i s h mean­
i n t h e same way as d i s t i n c t i v e
f e a t u r e s i n pho­
n o l o g y s e p a r a t e a d i f f e r e n t phoneme.
4. THE JUSTIFICATION
articles
OF SPECIFIC
COMPONENTS, I h a v e a r g u e d i n v a r i o u s
( L i p k a , 1 9 7 5 : 2 1 6 f , 219; 1976:124) t h a t t h e r e a r e a t l e a s t
three types
o f evidence f o r t h e p o s t u l a t i o n o f u n d e r l y i n g
elements: morphological
evidence i n word-formative
r a p h r a s e r e l a t i o n s h i p , and s e m a n t i c t e s t s .
semantic
r e l a t i o n s h i p s ,pa­
I here leave
d e r a t i o n s y n t a c t i c and l o g i c a l a r g u m e n t s as t h e y h a v e
out of consi­
been
advanced
by McCawley, P o s t a l , L e e c h , a n d L y o n s . T h e r e i s no o n e - t o - o n e
corres­
pondence b e t w e e n t h e s y n t a c t i c and t h e s e m a n t i c l e v e l , a n d t h e
tionship
rela­
b e t w e e n l o g i c and n a t u r a l l a n g u a g e i s a l s o n o t n e c e s s a r i l y
a d i r e c t one.
4.1.
I f we l o o k a t t h e f o l l w o i n g l e x i c a l
number o f i n t e r e s t i n g o b s e r v a t i o n s :
invent /or, dish/wash/er,
black/en,
as
solid/ify,
thief,
kill,
wife/swapp/ing,
break/0.
dog, a n d
dog : bitch,
de/nrilitar/izv,
i t e m s we c a n make a
lion
The s e m a n t i c c o m p l e x i t y
bitch
: lion/ess;
material/ ize,
o f simple
and c a l l s t h e l a t t e r an i n s t a n c e
regard
t o t h e f e a t u r e , o r r a t h e r d i m e n s i o n , o f SEX, teacher,
dishwasher
o f "formal marking".
to
With
inventor,
agent ( i n t h e l a s t case) i n t h e u n d e r l y i n g
s t r u c t u r e , i s c l e a r l y e x p r e s s e d on t h e s u r f a c e
the a c t i o n nominalization
196
of the
a r e n o t f o r m a l l y marked. However, t h e p r e s e n c e o f
animate o r inanimate
tic
decom­
Lyons (1977:305-307) opposes b i t c h
lioness
and
wife-swapping
such
t h a t o f morph­
i t e m s . The l a t t e r a r e t h e s u b j e c t
d i s c i p l i n e o f word-formation.
items
- which i s t h e subject o f l e x i c a l
p o s i t i o n i n Generative Semantics - i s l e s s obvious than
o l o g i c a l l y complex l e x i c a l
teach/er,
f
legal/ize,
an
seman­
by t h e s u f f i x .
In
which denotes a n o t p a r t i c u l a r l y
moral
activity,
the animate
are expressed
materialize,
t h e a c t i o n , t h e s p e c i f i c n a t u r e o f t h e p r o c e s s , and
o b j e c t w h i c h moves a b s t r a c t l y a n d p e r h a p s a l s o c o n c r e t e l y
i n the surface structure.
t h e l e x i c a l morphemes de-,
can be a s s i g n e d
In
demilitarize,
militar,
legal,
legalize,
material,
and
and -ize
a s p e c i f i c m e a n i n g o r s e n s e . However, i n t h e l a s t t w o
e x a m p l e s , - i z e m u s t be i d e n t i f i e d w i t h an a t o m i c p r e d i c a t e CAUSE
one
I n b o t h blacken
and s o l i d i f y
t h e s u f f i x c a n be c l a i m e d t o r e p r e s e n t
e i t h e r an i n c h o a t i v e o r a c a u s a t i v e s e m a n t i c
1 9 7 1 : 6 7 ) . The s u r f a c e v e r b break,
homonymously c o l l a p s i n g
verb
in
i n s t a n c e a n d BECOME i n t h e o t h e r c a s e *
( c f . Lipka
single verb
finally,
element
cf.(Anderson
c a n be r e g a r d e d
an i n c h o a t i v e a n d a z e r o - d e r i v e d
1 9 7 5 : 2 1 0 f ) , o r , as i n an a r t i c l e
o c c u r r i n g i n d i f f e r e n t frames,
as e i t h e r
causative
by F i l l m o r e ,
as
a
e i t h e r w i t h o r w i t h o u t an
Agent.
The
problems o f m o r p h o l o g i c a l i r r e g u l a r i t y
p a r t l y be s o l v e d b y
language.
adopting Coseriu's
Semantic i r r e g u l a r i t y ,
lexicalization
i n word-formation
complicates the p i c t u r e .
(1977)
concept
i n w o r d - f o r m a t i o n can
o f t h e 'Norm'
a phenomenon known u n d e r
(whose u l t i m a t e r e s u l t
I h a v e i n v e s t i g a t e d t h i s phenomenon i n
Lipka
and do n o t t h i n k t h a t i t p o s e s a s e r i o u s t h r e a t t o m o r p h o l o g i c a l
I t m u s t be p o i n t e d o u t , h o w e v e r , t h a t u n d e r l y i n g
structure
i s not d i r e c t l y observable
legalize
particular
-er,
a
term
i s idioms) a l s o
evidence.
and
of
the
i n complex l e x i c a l
o b v i o u s l y c o n t a i n semantic
semantic
items.
elements expressed
Dishwasher
by t h e
l e x i c a l morphemes, h o w e v e r , t h e m e a n i n g o f d i s h , wash,
- i z e remain
unanalysed.
Nevertheless, analysis with
legal
t h e means o f
modern w o r d - f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e s some m o r p h o l o g i c a l e v i d e n c e
f o r semantic
decomposition.
4.2.
L e t us now t u r n t o p a r a p h r a s e
196 7, Baumgärtner ( 1 9 6 7 : 1 9 3 f )
lexemes c a n be r e d u c e d
X
is(t)
e
*
n
(
evaluation. I n h i s article of
claims t h a t t h e componential
t o t h e fundamental
)
structure of
r e l a t i o n "X i s Y".
Y.
FIGURE 5
The
t e s t f o r m u l a i n F i g u r e 5 - u s a b l e f o r b o t h E n g l i s h and German -
can be d e v e l o p e d
sentence
on t h e b a s i s o f t h i s c l a i m and i l l u s t r a t e d b y
the
(1) t o ( 4 ) :
197
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The
Gras i s t ein« ( s t l e l i g e ) (schneidbare) Pflanze.
Schlendern 1st e i n (efleigee) (bequemes) (langsames) Gehen.
Der Mann l a u f t Uber die Straße
- χ
Der Mann geht (schnell) aber die Strafte. - ( ) Y.
f o r m u l a c a n be u s e d as t h e b a s i s f o r p a r a p h r a s e e v a l u a t i o n , a p r o ­
c e d u r e whose i m p o r t a n c e Baumgärtner s t r e s s e s t h r o u g h o u t h i s
It
article.
p r o v i d e s a means o f e s t a b l i s h i n g s e m a n t i c c o m p o n e n t s , i f X can
r e p l a c e d i n t h e same s y n t a c t i c s l o t by a m o d i f i e r + Y,
and
i f
t e n t speakers i n t h e i r e v a l u a t i o n c o n s i d e r t h e two r e s u l t i n g
p a r a p h r a s e s . The
elements i n b r a c k e t s i n sentences
t h u s be shown t o be c o n t a i n e d i n Gras
Schlendern
respectively.
sentences
(2)
can
and t h e n o m i n a l i z e d v e r b a l
I f t h e two sentence
d e r e d p a r a p h r a s e s by competent
( 1 ) and
( 3 ) and
(4)
from
are - consi­
s p e a k e r s , Baumgärtner ( 1 9 6 7 : 1 8 2 )
t h a t t h e a d v e r b i a l lexeme s c h n e l l
be
compe­
i s then converted from the
states
object-
l a n g u a g e e l e m e n t i n t o a m e t a l i n g u i s t i c e l e m e n t , and t h e r e b y r a i s e d t o
t h e r a n k o f a s e m a n t i c c o m p o n e n t . The
s u b s t i t u t i o n o f paraphrases
t a i n i n g e x p l i c i t m o d i f i e r s i s t h e r e f o r e a p r i n c i p a l l e d method
con­
for
e s t a b l i s h i n g s e m a n t i c c o m p o n e n t s as e l e m e n t s o f t h e m e t a l a n g u a g e .
p a r a p h r a s e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n s e n t e n c e s s u c h as
( 3 ) and
The
( 4 ) mus
be
e v a l u a t e d and a c c e p t e d by more t h a t a s i n g l e s p e a k e r . P a r a p h r a s e s , i n
t h e f o r m o f e q u a t i v e s e n t e n c e s s u c h as ( 1 ) and
( 2 ) a r e t o be f o u n d i n
s i m p l i f i e d f o r m i n c o n v e n t i o n a l d i c t i o n a r i e s . They a r e u s u a l l y
accepted
b y more t h a n a s i n g l e s p e a k e r . However, t h e l i n g u i s t must n o t t a k e
them o v e r u n c r i t i c a l l y ,
and must a l s o s t a n d a r d i z e t h e m , i n t h e way i t
i s done i n t h e f o l l o w i n g e x a m p l e s ( c f . a l s o L i p k a , t o a p p e a r :
with the d e f i n i t i o n s of kick,
punch
punch,
= h i t (hard) (with f i s t ) ;
nudge
and nudge:
kick
3.1.2.)
= h i t (with
= h i t {usually not hard}
foot£
(with
e l b o w ) ] ( i n o r d e r t o g e t a t t e n t i o n ) . To p r o d u c e e q u a t i v e s e n t e n c e s
like
( 2 ) f o r v e r b s i s no s e r i o u s p r o b l e m , i f t h e v e r b s a r e n o m i n a l i z e d
(including·infinitival n o m i n a l i z a t i o n ) .
4.3.
The
s u b j e c t of semantic t e s t i n g
is
d i s c u s s e d i n L i p k a (1972:
5 5 - 6 1 ) and L e e c h ( 1 9 7 4 : 9 0 - 9 3 ) . I n t h e l a t t e r t r e a t m e n t ,
elicitation
experiments f o r the t e s t i n g of the "basic statements" p o s t u l a t e d
by
L e e c h a r e c o n s i d e r e d , and among t h e s e t a u t o l o g y and c o n t r a d i c t i o n p l a >
a prominent r o l e . Both r e l a t i o n s are a t t h e b a s i s o f the b u t - t e s t
d e v i s e d by B e n d i x and W e i n r e i c h , t h a t was
( 1 9 7 2 : 59-61) and s u p p l e m e n t e d
198
f u r t h e r developed i n
as
Lipka
by t h e s o - t e s t . T h a t t a u t o l o g y can r e n d -
er
a s e n t e n c e u n a c c e p t a b l e was
a l r e a d y noted i n Anderson ( 1 9 6 8 : 3 0 8 f ) ,
where the unacceptable sentence
he walked on foot
as far as Sorwich
g i v e n as an e x a m p l e ( c f . L i p k a , 1972:59 P n . ) . The
be
f u r t h e r i l l u s t r a t e d by
#
he kicked
was
same phenomenon c a n
John with his foot* As opposed t o t h e
p a r a p h r a s i n g m e t h o d b a s e d on Baumgartner'β p r o p o s a l s , w h i c h can
used
tic
be
f o r t h e d i s c o v e r y and p o s t u l a t i o n o f s e m a n t i c c o m p o n e n t s , seman­
t e s t i n g i s u s e d t o c o n f i r m o r d i s c o n f ^ r m a h y p o t h e s i s . The
tences
( 5 ) t o ( 7 ) and
(8) t o (10)
i n F i g u r e € may
£ut-test and t h e a o - t e s t c a n be c o m b i n e d p r o f i t a b l y f o r t h i s
BOT-
sen­
d e m o n s t r a t e how
the
purpose.
and S O - f t combined τ
(5) •'She tipped up the dress, BOT I t I s closed.
(6) *She lipped up the dress, BOT i t i s not closed.
(7)
She zipped up the dress, SO t t I s closed.
- {• CLOSEDI.
(8) *She s l i t up the dress. BOT i t i s closed.
(9) 'She s l i t up the dress, BOT i t i s not closed,
UO)
She s l i t up the dress, SO i t i s not closed -
I - CLOSED]
(11) »John opened the door, BOT i t i s closed...
(12) *John k i l l e d Harry, BOT he i s dead...
(13) *John kicked Harry, BOT w i t h h i s f o o t . . .
(- CLOSEDJ
(- ALIVE1
(• FOOT J
(14) *Barry i s a bachelor, BOT he i s n a r r l e d .
[- HARRIED].
FIGURE 6
A c c o r d i n g t o W e i n r e i c h i 1 9 6 6 : 4 4 9 ) t h e c o n j u n c t i o n but
sed as
'and... u n e x p e c t e d l y ' and may
ponents, i f
but
may
be
b o t h a s i m p l e s e n t e n c e and a n e g a t e d s e n t e n c e
are unacceptable. I n the f i r s t
t a u t o l o g y , i n t h e second
paraphra­
be u s e d f o r t e s t i n g s e m a n t i c com­
containing
c a s e t h e u n a c c e p t a b i l i t y i s due
however, i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h t h e e x a c t v a l u e o f a
binary
f e a t u r e , s i n c e i t does n o t d i s t i n g u i s h antonymous f e a t u r e s such
[+
CLOSED]
and
[- CLOSED]. I t has
t o be s u p p l e m e n t e d
i m p l i e s c o n s e q u e n c e and t h u s v e r b s and
as
by t h e s o - t e s t ,
and t h u s , t h r e e s e n t e n c e s a r e r e q u i r e d t o d e t e r m i n e a f e a t u r e .
t i o n w i t h so
to
c a s e due t o c o n t r a d i c t i o n . The £>wt-test a l o n e ,
Conjunc­
verb-particle
c o n s t r u c t i o n s d e n o t i n g a p r o c e s s o r a c t i o n and t h e r e s u l t i n g s t a t e
be t e s t e d s u c c e s s f u l l y . The
p a i r o f c o n j o i n e d senteces c o n t a i n i n g
can
but
m u s t be u n a c c e p t a b l e , w h i l e t h e t h i r d c o n j o i n e d s e n t e c e w i t h so m u s t
109
be a c c e p t a b l e . S e n t e n c e ( 1 3 ) a s o p p o s e d t o ( 1 1 )
o r ( 1 2 ) may demon- :
s t r a t e , t h a t t h e but- a n d βο-test e v e n w o r k s w i t h v e r b s s u c h as k i c k ,
t h a t a r e n o t r e s u l t v e r b s b u t m o m e n t a r y v e r b s . However, a s l i g h t mo­
dification
i s needed. I n t h e
t h i r d s e n t e n c e , c o n t a i n i n g so, a s u p e r -
ordinate term, o r archilexeme (e.g. h i t ) ,
m u s t be i n s e r t e d , a s , f o r
e x a m p l e , i n t h e a c c e p t a b l e s e n t e n c e : He kicked
foot.
him, so he hit him with his
S e n t e n c e ( 1 4 ) i s i n t e n d e d t o show t h a t t h e but- a n d βο-test e v e n
works w i t h m o r p h o l o g i c a l l y s i m p l e nouns.
5.
PROBLEMS AND RESULTS.
5.1.
I n my o p i n i o n t h e r e a r e t w o p r o b l e m a t i c a r e a s f o r s e m a n t i c
components: t h e i n f l u e n c e o f c o - t e x t , o r s y n t a g m a t i c l i n g u i s t i c
rela­
t i o n s - w h i c h we h a v e d i s r e g a r d e d h e r e - a n d t h e i n f l u e n c e o f e x t r a -linguistic
c o n t e x t , problems
arising
from a r e f e r e n t i a l
approach
s e m a n t i c s . I have c o n c e n t r a t e d h e r e on p a r a d i g m a t i c l e x i c a l
to
semantics,
w h i c h does n o t mean t h a t I c o n s i d e r s y n t a g m a t i c r e l a t i o n s a n d s e n t e n c e
s e m a n t i c s as i r r e l e v a n t .
Some i n d i c a t i o n s t o t h i s e f f e c t w e r e g i v e n i n
my c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f s e m a n t i c f e a t u r e s . Some p r o b l e m s
of referential
semantics, e s p e c i a l l y the q u e s t i o n o f boundaries, a r e mentioned i n
L e e c h ( 1 9 7 4 : 1 2 2 - 1 2 5 ) u n d e r t h e h e a d i n g " f u z z y e d g e s " . The r e c o g n i t i o n
of t h e f u z z y n a t u r e o f n a t u r a l languages
i n recent l i n g u i s t i c s .
has r e c e i v e d growing
As f a r b a c k as 1960,
interest
Quine (1960:125-156)
has
d i s c u s s e d r e f e r e n t i a l v a g u e n e s s a n d o p a c i t y i n c h a p t e r 4 o f h i s book
Word and Object,
entitled
" V a g a r i e s o f r e f e r e n t s " . Quine
t a l k s a b o u t " f u z z y edges" a n d m e n t i o n s
(1960:125f)
t h a t terms d e n o t i n g p h y s i c a l
o b j e c t s may be vague i n t w o ways. T h i s i s i l l u s t r a t e d w i t h t h e e x a m p l e
o f t h e t e r m mountain
which i s :
Vague on t h e s c o r e o f how much t e r r a i n t o r e c k o n i n t o
of t h e i n d i s p u t a b l e mountains,
o f w h a t l e s s e r e m i n e n c e s t o c o u n t as m o u n t a i n s
S i m i l a r and o t h e r p r o b l e m s
each
a n d i t i s vague on t h e s c o r e
at all.
are discussed i n a c r i t i c a l
account o f
semantic f e a t u r e s i n a f o r t h c o m i n g paper by Sprenge.
5.2.
We now come t o a more p o s i t i v e e v a l u a t i o n . A v e r y c o m p r e h e n ­
sive investigation
linguistics
o f t h e use o f semantic
f e a t u r e s and c o m p o n e n t s i n
i s t o be f o u n d i n a f o r t h c o m i n g book b y K a s t o v s k y
( t o ap­
p e a r , MS). B e s i d e s many i n t e r e s t i n g o b s e r v a t i o n s a n d i n s i g h t s ,
atten­
t i o n i s d r a w n (MS, 1 9 5 ) t o t h e f a c t t h a t s e m a n t i c components h a v e o n l y
d e n o t a t i v e v a l u e , w h i l e o b j e c t - l a n g u a g e elements have b o t h d e n o t a t i o n
and c o n n o t a t i o n . L e t me s t r e s s once more t h a t I r e g a r d s e m a n t i c
20C
com-
p o n e n t s - a n d s e m a n t i c f e a t u r e s a s a s u b c l a s s - as t h e o r e t i c a l
con­
s t r u c t s o f t h e metalanguage t h a t a r e based on n o t i o n a l o r c o n c e p t u a l
elements.
The
p o s t u l a t i o n o f such m e t a l i n g u i s t i c e l e m e n t s must be o b j e c t i v e l y -
justified,
a n d some a t t e m p t s
been discussed
and methods f o r such a j u s t i f i c a t i o n
l i c a t i o n o f s e m a n t i c components i s m o s t f r u i t f u l : d i a c h r o n i c
tics
in
a n d c o n t r a s t i v e l i n g u i s t i c s . The d e v e l o p m e n t o f
Leech
have
h e r e . I n my o p i n i o n t h e r e a r e t w o a r e a s w h e r e t h e a p p ­
linguis­
holiday,discussed
( 1 9 7 4 : 1 2 3 ) i s a good e x a m p l e . I n h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a n e a r ­
lier
o p t i o n a l component NO WORK h a s become o b l i g a t o r y , w h i l e t h e e a r ­
lier
c o m p o n e n t s OF A DAY a n d HOLY h a v e d i s a p p e a r e d . Görlach
i n t e r p r e t s t h e s e m a n t i c change o f O l d E n g l i s h hund
English
bird
a n d mete
(1974:118f)
and M i d d l e
as o p p o s e d t o t h e i r M o d e m E n g l i s h e q u i v a l e n t s
convinc­
i n g l y w i t h t h e h e l p o f b i n a r y f e a t u r e s . The s e m a n t i c d i f f e r e n c e s b e t ­
ween Modern E n g l i s h
contrast!vely
s t a r v e a n d German sterben
and d i a c h r o n i c a l l y b y u s i n g
semantic f e a t u r e ( c f . Lipka,
c a n be i n t e r p r e t e d b o t h
the theoretical construct o f
1 9 7 7 : 1 5 7 - 1 6 1 ) . The p o s t u l a t i o n o f an u n ­
d e r l y i n g semantic s t r u c t u r e , which i s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y u n i v e r s a l
largely
language-independent, provides
but
a framework f o r c o n t r a s t i v e
analysis. This
p o i n t h a s a l s o been made c o n v i n c i n g l y i n I k e g a m i
In
l e t me s a y t h a t i t i s my f i r m b e l i e v e t h a t we c a n n o t
conclusion,
(1976).
d i s p e n s e w i t h t h e t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t o f s e m a n t i c component, d e s p i t e
all
the d i f f i c u l t i e s which s t i l l
e x i s t . We must a t t e m p t
a m e t a l a n g u a g e , even i f i t r e p r e s e n t s
of r e a l i t y .
The u n d e s i r a b l e
t o construct
a s i m p l i f i e d and a b s t r a c t e d
view
a l t e r n a t i v e w o u l d be t h a t we, as l i n g u i s t s ,
r e m a i n dumb and i n a r t i c u l a t e when t a l k i n g a b o u t t h e m e a n i n g o f l a n g u a g e .
REFERENCES
1.
A n d e r s o n , J . M. ( 1 9 6 8 ) ,
Foundations
2.
"On t h e S t a t u s
o f 'Lexical Formatives'",
of Language 4, 308-317.
A n d e r s o n , J . M. (19 7 1 ) , The Grammar of Case. Towards a Loaalistia
Theory,
Cambridge.
3.
Baumgärtner, Κ. ( 1 9 6 7 ) ,
und Wort im heutigen
4.
Deutsch,
" D i e S t r u k t u r d e s B e d e u t u n g s f e l d e s " , Satz
e d . H. Moser, Düsseldorf, 165-197.
Coseriu,
E. ( 1 9 7 3 ) , Probleme der Strukturellen
gehalten
i m W i n t e r s e m e s t e r 1965/66 an d e r Universität Tübingen,
Semantik
(Vorlesung
a u t o r i s i e r t e u n d b e a r b e i t e t e N a c h s c h r i f t v o n D. Kastovsky)Tübingen.
201
5.
Gör l a c h , Μ. ( 1 9 7 4 ) Einführung in die Englische
Sprachgeschichte,
Seidelberg.
6.
Ikegami, Y. (1976) "A L o c a l i s t H y p o t h e s i s
t r a s t i v e L i n g u i s t i c s " , Folia
7.
K a s t o v s k y , D.
8.
L e e c h , G.
9.
( t o appear)
(1974),
Wortbildung
Semantics,
9, 5 9 - 7 1 .
und Semantik, Düsseldorf.
Harmondsworth.
L e i s i , E . ( 1 9 5 2 ; 1975) Der Wortinhalt.
Englischen,
as a Framework f o r Con-
Linguistica
Seine Struktur
im Deutschen
und
5 t h ed., Heidelberg.
10.
L e i s i , E. ( 1 9 7 3 ) ,
11.
L i p k a , L. ( 1 9 7 2 ) , Semantic
Constructions
Praxis
der englischen
Structure
in Contemporary English,
Semantik,
Heidelberg.
and Word-Formation.
Verb-Particle
München.
12.
L i p k a , L. ( 1 9 7 5 ) , " R e - D i s c o v e r y P r o c e d u r e s and t h e L e x i c o n " ,
13.
L i p k a , L. ( 1 9 7 6 ) , " T o p i c a l i z a t i o n , Case Grammar, a n d L e x i c a l
Lingua
3 7 , 197-224.
D e c o m p o s i t i o n i n E n g l i s h " , Archivum Linguisticum
14.
7, 1 1 8 - 1 4 1 .
L i p k a , L. ( 1 9 7 7 ) , " L e x i k a l i s i e r u n g , I d i o m a t i s i e r u n g
Hypostasierung
Perspektiven
a l s Problem e i n e r synchronischen
der Wortbildungsforechung,
e d s . H.E.
und
Wortbildungslehre",
Brekle
8s D . K a s t o v s k y ,
Bonn, 155-164.
15.
L i p k a , L. ( t o a p p e a r ) ,
" M e t h o d o l o g y and R e p r e s e n t a t i o n
S t u d y o f L e x i c a l F i e l d s " , Beiträge zum Wuppertaler
lexikalischen
i n the
zur
Semantik vom 2. - δ. Dezember 7977, e d . D. K a s t o v s k y , Bonn.
16.
Lyons, J. (1968),
17.
L y o n s , J . ( 1 9 7 7 ) , Semantics,
18.
N i d a , E. A. (1975 ) , Componentia I Analysis
19.
Ogden, C.K.
10th ed.
Kolloquium
f
Introduction
& Richards,
to Theoretical
Linguistics,
Cambridge.
Cambridge.
of Meaning, The H a g u e - P a r i s .
I . A . ( 1 9 2 3 ; 1 9 4 9 ) , The Meaning of Meaning,
London.
20.
Q u i n a , W.v.O. ( 1 9 6 0 ) ,
21.
Sprengel,
Word and Object,
Κ. ( t o a p p e a r ) ,
zum Wuppertaler
Kolloguium
C a m b r i d g e , Mass.
"über s e m a n t i s c h e M e r k m a l e " , Beiträge
zur lexikalischen
Semantik vom 2. - Z. Dezember
1977, e d . D. K a s t o v s k y , Bonn.
22.
Weinreich,
Trends
202
U. ( 1 9 6 6 ) , " E x p l o r a t i o n s i n S e m a n t i c T h e o r y " ,
in Linguistics
3, e d . Τ.A. Sebeok, The Hague, 39 5-4 77.
Current