(英语语言学纲要.doc

Componential AnalysisComponential analysis is a method that looks at each word as a bundle of different features or components. The focus of componential analysis is on finding those features that are necessary and sufficient for a given item to be an example of a given word. For example, the word man could be seen as the sum of the features +human, +adult, +male. Anyone who has 11 of these features qualifies as a man. Similarly, the word woman would be defined as +human, +adult, -male, the word boy as +human, -adult, +male, and the word girl as + human. - adult, -male. (Note that writing features in brackets with the symbols “+”+ and “-” is a convention of componential analysis.) In contrast, the word dog would be defined as -human, +/- adult, +/- male. (The “+/-” symbol means that it may belong to either group and still be a dog.) Componential analysis helps you find those features which are distinctive, and which create differences among a group of related words. The features of the words given above are summarized in the following chart.HumanadultmaleBoy + -+Woman + + -Girl + - -Man_ + + +Dog - +/- +/-Componential analysis can be particularly useful in helping to understand the subtle differences in meaning between a group of related words, as is shown in the following chart:high pitchverbalvoicedhigh volumeScream+-/+Shriek+-+Shout+/-+Growl-+/-+/-Whispern/a+-Mumble-/+-/+Babble+/-+/-Notes:+/-: primarily positive; -/+ : primarily negative.Most people, native-speakers and English teachers included. would be hard pressed if someone asked them to explain the difference between this group of words. But by doing a componential analysis, it becomes quite clear how the system of English vocabulary divides up the world of such verbal and nonverbal human sounds.Componential analysis can be of particular benefit when you are called on to translate to or from English. The word heir in English, for instance, means a person who has received, or will receive, something of value after someone else died or dies. But in many other cultures, the use of the term clearly implies that that other person has died already. (What about Chinese?)Another strength of this method lies in its handling of figurative language. Figures of speech tend to be highly culture-bound. If an English speaker says the phrase “He is a dog”, they are probably commenting on the persons greed or selfishness, as this is a feature associated with dogs. (On the other hand, dogs are also seen in English as very determined, so it is possible that the speaker might be complimenting someones dedication and hard work, though this is less common.)But if the same comparison is made in Chinese, the speaker probably means to call the person a snob or bootlicker since dogs are seen as submissive and servile. The Chinese language also has the expression running dog, of course, for collaborators of despotic rulers.While calling someone a dog is insulting in both languages, the flavor of the insult is quite different. By analyzing intensive features of the source and target items, especially those that are being highlighted in the figure of speech at hand, the translator can get a firmer grip on the text and come up with a better way of communicating the real meaning of the original utterance or at least avoid creating a distinctly wrong impression by being too literal.In spite of the strengths discussed above, componential analysis is not completely satisfactory for the analysis of meaning in all situations. The following are three major limitations of componential analysis.1)It tends to focus exclusively on denotation and leave out the connotation. In the chart above, for example, shout usually implies a degree of urgency; growl carries with it a sense of anger and disapproval; whisper one of secrecy; and babble is associated with babies. None of these important shades of meaning are captured by the componential analysis.2)Componential analysis focuses exclusively on typical cases. The chart above categorically defines screaming and shrieking, but what about some high-pitched, non-verbal noise between the two? The word run, when distinguished from walk, jump and hop, may be defined as moving quickly on two feet, with no foot on the ground for an instant in each step. The analysis, however, leaves out the meaning of run as it is used in sentences such asThe crabs are running around.The snake ran across the lawn.Then, we may also find cases in which there is no physical movement:He runs the office. He is running for president.The car is running. The road runs across the mountain.3) It is often difficult, if not impossible, to define exactly what the necessary and sufficient features for a given word are. The examples given above are fairly clear-cut, but people will not easily agree about what are the defining features of more abstract words such as freedom, democracy, socialism and communism. In many cases, people seem to know how words differ from each other without being able to definitely identify their components. For example, an attempt to classify different plants will quickly fall into highly technical biological terminology, which is not part of the knowledge-base of native speakers even though they have no trouble distinguishing an orange tree from a lemon tree 01 a daisy from an orchid.Some of these weaknesses of componential analysis can h offset by turning to a method known as prototype theory. Here. a concept is seen not as a set of critical features, but rather in terms of a most typical instance or “prototype”. The advantage of ii is kind of analysis is that it allows for categories with fuzzy boundaries, rather than strict, binary pluses and minuses. Such fuzzy boundaries are, in most cases, probably much closer to the way in which the human mind actually stores words and their associated concepts.In prototype theory, a given noise can be viewed not simply either screaming or not screaming, but screaming to a certain degree, depending on how similar it is to the typical case of screaming. For the same token, a whale is a mammal to a certain degree even though the most prototypical mammal would be one that lives on dry land, has hair, and breast-feeds its young (e.g. a human, a dog or a monkey). While swallows and robins are among the most typical birds of all, chickens and turkeys are less so, and ostriches and penguins are perhaps among the least typical. An ostrich or a penguin is still a bird, but it is not at all the image that comes to mind when someone says the word bird but gives us no additional informati