Abstract： Semantics is about the study of meaning. In the field of semantics， componential analysis is an indisapensable approach to the study of meaning which analyses a lexeme into a set of sense components. This paper aims to analyze the strength and limitations of this approach. Although componential analysis has some limitations and unsolved problems， the functions of this technique in respects of denotation the conceptual meaning of lexemes， comparison among lexemes， judgment of the appropriateness of the lexeme match， evaluation of the truth of sentences， and explanation of the relations among sentences are omniscient. Therefore， the componential analysis is well suited for certain semantic fields.

Key words： semantics componential analysis leceme meaning conceptual meaning

【中圖分類號(hào)】G642 【文獻(xiàn)標(biāo)識(shí)碼】A 【文章編號(hào)】2095-3089（2013）08-0109-02

1.0. Introduction

Semantics is a branch of linguistics， which focus on the study of meaning. Being one of the important methods in studying semantics， componential analysis is an approach to the study of meaning which analyses a lexeme into a set of sense components. Componential analysis， which is initially introduced to analyze the lexemes as to kinship of various cultures， is later adopted by linguists to study meaning of lexemes. According to John Lyons （1977）， componential analysis is the method of extracting common features of a group of related lexemes； the common features are sense components or semes. This method is different from traditional semantics， which regards sememe is the smallest， the most basic and indivisible unit and the study is about meaning of sentences， meaning of phrases， and meaning of lexemes； while componential analysis is based on Structuralist semantics， that is， Semantic components are parallel to phonetic components， just as phonemes are discriminated by position of articulation， manner of articulation， voice or voiceless and some other distinctive features， sememe is sub？鄄divided into smaller semantic features or sense components， which are comparable to phonetic distinctive features. Therefore， the meaning of a particular lexeme is considered as the combination of a group of semantic features and one or some of these features can differentiate this particular lexeme from the others.

2.0. Limitations and Problems of Componential Analysis

This method has its limitations and problems， for example， componential analysis allows for a particularly compact representation of meaning if the features are binary， or have a small number of values， but binary features are not always the best way of analyzing a semantic field； besides， researchers face unsolved problems such as finding a complete and stable set of semantic primitives by way of cross linguistic research on lexical universals； moreover， this analysis is not suitable for abstract concepts and cannot deal with metaphors. However， from my perspective， it has many functions and the applications， the advantages of this method outweigh its limitations.

3.0. Componential Analysis as a Useful Approach in the Study of Meaning

3.1. Denote the Conceptual Meaning of Lexemes

According to Su Dingfang （2000）， conceptual meaning refers to the central meaning or core meaning of a lexeme. The number of sememes is far fewer than the number of semes， for it’s a common phenomenon that common sememes are included in various semes. Therefore， componential analysis is a precise and effective method to infer the meaning of lexemes. For example， we can analyze bachelor and spinster by using componential analysis： bachelor=[+human] [+male] [Adult] [？鄄married]， while spinster=[+human] [？鄄male] [+adult] [？鄄married]. After the analysis， we can conclude that bachelor is a male adult unmarried human while spinster is a non-male adult unmarried human and the core meaning of each lexeme is obvious.

3.2. Denote and Analyze the Relationship Among the Lexemes

Componential analysis can reveal and analyze the symmetric relations among lexemes. Because the semantic features [+male] and [？鄄male] are symmetric， the pairs of lexemes such as spinster and bachelor， boy and girl， father and mother， uncle and aunt are symmetric. It can be discovered that the symmetric relation of the pairs of lexemes results from symmetric relation of a semantic feature. Similarly， if we analyze man， woman， child， bull， cow， calf， rooster， hen， and chicken， we can infer the following equation： man：woman：child=bull：cow：calf=rooster：hen：chicken.

Besides， synonymy can be realized by using componential analysis. According to Gao Wencheng （2007）， if both the number and content of components of two lexemes are the same， one lexeme is the synonym of the other. For example， bachelor and unmarried man contain the same components [+human]， [+male]， [adult]， and [？鄄unmarried]， so they are synonym for each other.

In addition， componential analysis discriminates homoionym accurately. Between two lexemes， if the majority of semantic features are the same， one is regarded as a homoionym of the other. For example， kill and murder， they can be analyzed as the following： kill = [+intend] [+cause] [+die]； murder =[+intend] [+cause] [+die]. One the one hand， kill refers to cause somebody or something to die either intentionally or unintentionally， on the other hand， murder refers to cause intentionally. The differences of one feature contributes to the distinction of the two words， while the other two features， [+cause] [+die]， are shared by both of the lexemes. As the similarities outweigh their dissimilarities， they are homoionym for each other.

Moreover， componential analysis provides a clear explanation of homonymy. For example， Andy is a handsome man， every man is mortal， and be a man， in every sentence， “man” can be respectively analyzed as： man= [+human] [+adult] [+male]； man=[+human][+adult] [+male]； man=[+human] [+adult] [+male] [+strong][+brave]. According to the analysis， the features of each group are different to some extent from the other two； therefore， the meaning of “man” is accordingly dissimilar to the other two. The combination of the first group of features determines the meaning of the first sentence as an adult male human being， the second group of features denotes the meaning as a person in the second sentence， and in the third sentence， man refers to a person who is strong and brave， which attributes to the third group of features. Accordingly， child is also a homonymy， because it can be analyzed as： child = [+human] [+adult] [？鄄male]， or as： child = [+human] [+adult] [+male] [+young generation]， as in “Tommy is a five？鄄year？鄄old child”， child refers to “a young human being who is not yet an adult”； and “they have five grown？鄄up children”， here the meaning of child is “a son or daughter of any age”.

Furthermore， componential analysis precisely determines antonyms. In modern semantics， the concept of antonyms is dissimilar from the traditional one， according to which， if the meaning of the two lexemes are opposite， they are antonyms of each other； on the contrary， modern semantics define antonym differently， that is， provided the number of components of two lexemes is the same and any one component of the lexeme converses to one component of the other， one lexeme is the antonym of the other. For example， what is the antonym of woman？ As a matter of fact， both man and girl can be the antonym of woman. In order to account for this， componential analysis is necessary here： woman = [+human] [+adult] [？鄄male]； man = [+human] [+adult] [+male]； girl = [+human] [？鄄adult] [？鄄male]. Because one feature of man opposites to the feature of woman and a feature of girl reverses to the feature of woman， both girl and man are antonyms of woman.

Last but not least， componential analysis can reveal hyponymy. If the components of lexeme B are included in the features of Lexeme A， they create the relationship of hyponym； lexeme A is the hyponym of Lexeme B while Lexeme B is the super-ordinate of Lexeme B. To elaborate this， I would like to cite another example， that is， child and boy can be respectively analyzed as： child=[+human] [？鄄adult] and boy=[+human] [？鄄adult] [+male]. As the components of child are contained in the components of boy， boy is the hyponym of child while child is the super？鄄ordinate of boy.

3.3. Componential Analysis Judges the Appropriateness of Lexeme Match

According to Su Dingfang （2000）， the match of lexemes are not arbitrary， it’s guided and determined by various syntactic and semantic rules. Once we judge the appropriateness of the lexemes match， we need to consider whether it follows the grammatical structure， whether it’s applicable in communication， whether it’s justifiable and makes sense. Therefore， what type of nouns should be adopted to function as subject of a verb is determined by meaning selection. For example： A. A boy kicked a ball； B. A ball kicked a boy， the two sentences share the same grammatical structure， that is， subject + predicate + object， so it’s syntactically correct. However， sentence A is acceptable while sentence B makes no sense； and it is inappropriate， for this match breaches a certain meaning selection rule. According to componential analysis， the verb “kicked” requires one of the features of the subject should be [+animate] and this feature is not included in “ball”， so “A ball kicked a boy” is semantically incorrect and it makes no sense. Similarly， “A cat studies semantics” is grammatically correct； as study requires one of the features of the subject should be [+human]， it’s not justifiable and acceptable semantically， which is an abnormal and inappropriate match.

3.4. Componential Analysis Judges the Truth of Sentences

Primarily， I would like to analyze the lexeme “bachelor”， bachelor = [+human] [+male] [adult] [？鄄married]. After this analysis， the truth of the sentence “He is a married bachelor” can be determined. As the feature [？鄄married] is in contradiction with the modifier “married”， which is a paradox， this sentence is abnormal and it’s not true. The other way round， “he is a beard bachelor” or “he is a beardless bachelor” are philonym， for [+beard] or [？鄄beard] are not features of bachelor. Following this reasoning， it can be inferred that the following sentences are paradox. A： John killed Bill but Bill didn’t die； B： John killed Bill but he was not the cause of Bill’s death； C： John murdered Bill without intending to.

3.5. Componential Analysis Explains the Relationship among Sentences

According to Su Dingfang （2000）， componential analysis provides sufficient explanations of diverse relations among sentences. Two sentences probably share inclusion relation， for example， a： “He picked a tulip”， b： He picked a flower， according to componential analysis， the all of components of flower are included in the components of tulip， therefore， tulip and flower is hyponymy， tulip is the hyponym of flower while flower is the super？鄄ordinate， and the two sentences share inclusion relation. Additionally， sentences may be in contradiction of each other， for example， c： “Elizabeth Ⅱ is Queen of England”， d： “Elizabeth Ⅱ is a man”， because the feature [？鄄male] of queen， which is composed in the components of queen， is in contradiction with the feature [+male]， which is the one contained in the components of man， the relation of the two sentences is a paradox. Moreover， two sentences may be synonymous to each other， for example， e. “Ben is a bachelor”， d. “Ben is a man who has never married”， as “bachelor” and “never married” share the same features [+human]， [+male]， [adult] and [？鄄married]， the two lexemes are synonyms and the two sentences are synonymous to each other.

4.0. Conclusion

To sum up， although componential analysis has some limitations and unsolved problems， the functions of this technique in respects of denotation the conceptual meaning of lexemes， comparison among lexemes， judgment of the appropriateness of the lexeme match， evaluation of the truth of sentences， and explanation of the relations among sentences are omniscient. Therefore， like being implicated in the analysis of kinship terminology， the componential analysis is well suited for certain semantic fields； it is a useful approach in the study of meaning. As for its limitations and unresolved problems， further commitment for developing and improving of this method is required.

References：

[1]John Lyons， （1977）. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.

[2]Gao Wencheng， （2007）. Guidelines for semantics. Qinghua University Press

[3]Su Dingfang， （2000）， Modern Semantics. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

[4]WIERZBICKA A， （1996）. Semantics primes and universals. New York：Oxford University Press.