SEMANTIC(LEXICAL)FIELDS

SEMANTICDOMAINS

Emergenceofthetheoryofsemanticfields
heavilyinfluencedbydeSaussures structuralismandGermanidealism Origins:ideasofHumboldtandHerderinthe mid19thct ct. firstproposedbyGermanandSwissl.inthe 20sand30softhe20thct.:Trier,Porzig,Ipsen

Trier(1931;1933)
S.Ullmann:Trierstheoryofs.f.openedanew chapterinthehistoryofsemantics s.f.demonstratevocabularyorganizationonthe paradigmaticlevel basicassumption:vocabularyofal.isanintegrated system sys e of o lexemes e e eswhich c a are einterrelated e e a edinm.The e wholeofl.consistsofalargenumberofs.f.which accumulatelexemeswhicharecloseinm.

 vocabularyofal.isamosaicwithoutgaps or overlaps thatsystemoflexemesisnotfixed notonlycan lexemesdisappear pp andnewonesappear, pp ,but whatalsochangesarethem.relationsbetween neighbouringlexemes drawback d b kof ftraditional, di i l diachronic di h i semantics: i atomic descriptionofthehistoryofchangeinm. ofindividuall. l insteadofinvestigationofm. m changesinthewholevocabularystructure

 doesntdescribesuccessivestatesofthe wholev.,butcomparesthestructureofal. fieldint1 withthestructureofthel.fieldin t2(comparablebecause2l.fieldsreferto thesameconceptualfield) fieldsarerealitieswhicharemidway betweenindividualwordsandthewholeof v.

Exampleofaconceptualfield
lexemebrauncoveredawiderareaofthec. fieldofcoloursinthe18thct.Germanthanit doestodayasapartofthatareaiscoveredby thelexemeviolett: violett :whathaschangedisthe internalstructureofthec.field. semanticfield f l # conceptual lf field l

 ifsth.happenstothem.ofonelexeme,it automatically t ti ll i influences fl th them.of f neighbouringl. seeslexicalitemsasveryorderly without gaps inthesystem mostinterestingidea:behindeverys.field thereisac.field thereisaconcept behind everylexeme

Comp.of2diachronicallydifferentlexicalf. coveringthesamec.field
1 1.nochange h i inthe th set tof fl lexemesnori inthe th m. relationsbetweenthem 2. 2 onel. l ischanged(substituted)byanewlexeme withoutchangeininternalstructure 3.nochangeinthesetoflexemes,butchangeinthe internalstructureofthec.f. 4.oneormorel.issubstitutedbynewone(s)and thestructureofthec.f.changed 5.oneormorel.addedorlostwithachangeofthe i t internal lstructure t t of fc.f. f

Triers Trier sexample(ofthe4thsituation)

change h i inthe h structureof fthe h c.f. f of f knowledgeandunderstanding(withlexical substitution)intheperiod12001300in MiddleHighGerman 1200:c.f.coveredbyl.f.consistingof: ,kunst, ,list wsheit, 1300:coveredbyl.f.consistingof:wsheit, kunst ,wizzen wizzen kunst

 By1300listtransferredtoanotherf. whichcoversadifferentc.f.andwizzen g and transferredtothel.f.ofknowledge understandingbutdidntsimplyfillthe placeoflist list 1200:kunstreferredtohigher,courtly knowledgeandlisttolower,technicalk.; wsheitwastheiralternativeorsynthesis

 1300:wsheitcoversthedeepestformof k knowledge l d (religion, ( li i myth) h)and dcouldnt ld b beused d asalternativeforwizzen(lowestformofk.)or k kunst ( (areab between) ) samec.f.shapedbydifferentl.f.indifferent periods ychanges g insociety yandbreakdownof causedby Medievalsynthesisofwhatistodayknownas: science,p philosophy p yandtheology gy

Triers Trier sgeneralpoints

lexical l i lfi fields ld areneatly l structured d thewhole ofvoc.isorganizedinfields introductionofthenotionofconcept.field conceptualfieldwhenconceptschangeinour heads,sodoesthem.ofalexeme hisfollowers:disregardedc.f.; c f ;preservedvery neatandrigidstructures,butcouldntexplain howandwhyl.f. l f change

Examplesofl l.fields fields

1.lexical l i lfield fi ldof fstriking: iki kick, ki k punch, h slap l but,notsoneat,bordersarevague; g m. overlapsopartofm.liesininterrelatedness 2 lexicalfieldofcookingexpressions 2. but,everythingconnectedtocookingis culturallycoloured vocabularyis structuredandorganized,but notinsuchaneatandunnaturalway

Lexicalgaps(holes ( holesinthepattern) pattern )

absenceofaparticularlexemeinapointina particularlexicalfield p Trier:therearenogapsinthesystem.Ifthey arise(byconceptualinovation) inovation),quicklyfilled byborrowing orbyextendingthem.ofan existinglexeme l Chomsky:therearenogapsinthesystem

 l.fieldcontaininglexemesreferringtothe d dof dead fsth th noconceptbehindthehypotheticallexeme torefertothedeadofplantto demonstratethatthereactuallyisagap nol.gapfromtheviewpointofaparticular nativespeaker;eachl.structuresther. betweenl.andrealityinitsownway

 gapsappearwhenyoucomparelanguages culturallexicalgaps (Yorkshirepudding/ trukle; ;aunt/ujna, / j ,strina, ,teta) ) gapsingrammaticalsystem?yes,butnative speakersdonotfeelit(cup/cups (cup/cups, dress/dresses,0/trousers,chaos/0; may/might, / can/could, / must/0) /

EvaluationofTrier Triers stheory

Acceptedpoints:

1 vocabularyisstructured(butnotas 1. neatlyasheproposes) 2.nol.gaps (fromtheviewpointofnative s) s.) 3.enduranceofthenotionofc.fields

 Weakpoints: 1. hisfieldisarigid andlimited structure;in realityboundariesbtw btw.lexemesandfields arenotsorigid 2. imposesstructureswhere h they h cannotbe b found 3. proposesstrictAristoteliancategories

Aristotelian(traditional)categories
1.categoriesaredefinedintermsofa j ofnecessary yandsufficient conjunction features 2 featuresarebinary 2. 3.categorieshaveclearboundaries 4.allmembersofacategoryhaveequalstatus

 TriersviewsimilartodeSaussures wordsdonotexistinisolation,theirm.is definedexclusivelyinrelationtothem.of other h l. l l.isaproductofhistoricalchangenecessityto analyzeparticularsynchronicstages Wortfeld linguistic g reality, y reflectionof Begriffsfeld(conceptualfield)

Porzig
criticizesTrier:definesthefieldbyextralinguistic means;excludesthesyntagmaticrelations developsatheoryofs.f.basedontherelationsbtw. pairsofsyntagmaticallyrelatedlexemes relations notinherenttol.itselfbutconnectedto mans a sworldview o d e and a dpe perception: cep o verb e bnoun, ou ,verb e b object C Fillmore(1970s) similarproposals:C.Fillmore

Weisgerber
Triers i drawback: d b k fields fi ld arenotneatly l structuredwholes(thereareoverlapsbtw. meaningsofwordsandgapsinthesystem) Greatestcontribution:firsttorealizeTriers failuretoexplaintherelationbtw.the g andtheextralinguistic g linguistic Americananthropologists:independent, corpusanalysissimilartofieldtheory

Evaluationofthefieldtheory
mostagreethat h what h lacks l k is i amoreexplicit li i formulationofthecriteriaonwhatcanbe calledal.f. mostl.f.arenotclearly ystructuredor separated noclearboundariedbtw. btw lexemesina particularfield noclear l boundaried b d i dbt btw.fi fields ld th themselves l