 |
АвтоАвтоматизацияАрхитектураАстрономияАудитБиологияБухгалтерияВоенное делоГенетикаГеографияГеологияГосударствоДомДругоеЖурналистика и СМИИзобретательствоИностранные языкиИнформатикаИскусствоИсторияКомпьютерыКулинарияКультураЛексикологияЛитератураЛогикаМаркетингМатематикаМашиностроениеМедицинаМенеджментМеталлы и СваркаМеханикаМузыкаНаселениеОбразованиеОхрана безопасности жизниОхрана ТрудаПедагогикаПолитикаПравоПриборостроениеПрограммированиеПроизводствоПромышленностьПсихологияРадиоРегилияСвязьСоциологияСпортСтандартизацияСтроительствоТехнологииТорговляТуризмФизикаФизиологияФилософияФинансыХимияХозяйствоЦеннообразованиеЧерчениеЭкологияЭконометрикаЭкономикаЭлектроникаЮриспунденкция
Two levels of analysis
|
Читайте также: |
When analysing the semantic structure of a polysemantic word, it is necessary to distinguish between two levels of analysis.
a) On the first level, the semantic structure of a word is treated as a system of meanings. For example, the semantic structure of the noun fire could be presented as following (see also the scheme p.133):
II An instance of destructive burning: a forest fire.
Fire, n → I Flame → III Burning material in a fireplace: A camp fire.
IV The shooting of guns, etc: to open (cease) fire.
V Strong feeling, passion: a speech lacking fire.
The above suggests that meaning I (flame) holds a kind of dominance over the other meanings conveying the concept in the most general way whereas meanings II – V are associated with special circumstances.
Meaning I (generally referred to as the main meaning) presents the centre of the semantic structure of the word holding it together. It is mainly through meaning I that meanings II – V (they are called secondary meanings) can be associated with one another.
b) Yet, it is not in every polysemantic word that such a centre can be found. Some semantic structures are arranged on a different principle. In the following list of meanings of the adjectve dull one can hardly find a generalized meaning covering and holding together the rest of the semantic structure (see also p. 134):
Dull, adj
I. Uninteresting, monotonous, boring; e.g. a dull book, a dull film.
II. Slow in understanding, stupid; e.g. a dull student.
III. Not clear or bright; e.g. dull (пасмурная) weather, dull day.
IV. Not loud or distinct; e.g. a dull (глухой) sound.
V. Not sharp; e.g. a dull knife.
Yet, one distinctly feels that there is something that all these meanings have in common, and that is the implication of deficiency, be it of colour (m. III), wits (m. II), interest (m. I), sharpness (m. V). The implication of insufficient quality, of something lacking, can be clearly distinguished in each separate meaning.
The scheme of the semantic structure of dull shows that the centre holding together the complex semantic structure of this word is not one of the meanings but a certain component that can be singled out within each separate meaning. This brings us to the second level of analysis of the semantic structure of a word. The semantic structure of the word is “divisible” not only at the level of different meanings but, also, at a deeper level.
Each separate meaning seems to be subject to structural analysis in which it may be represented as sets of semantic components. In terms of componential analysis, one of the modern methods of semantic research, the meaning of a word is defined as a set of elements of meaning which are not part of the vocabulary of the language itself, but rather theoretical elements.
Therefore, the semantic structure of a word should be investigated at both these levels: a) of different meanings, b) of semantic components within each separate meaning. For a monosemantic word (i.e. a word with one meaning) the first level is excluded.
Поиск по сайту: