Componential Analysis

1
Componential Analysis
2
Componential analysis is a way proposed by the
structural semanticists to analyze word meaning.
The approach is based upon the belief that the
meaning of a word can be dissected into meaning
components, called semantic features.
3
Plus and minus signs are used to indicate whether
a certain semantic feature is present or absent
in the meaning of a word, and these feature
symbols are usually written in capitalized
letters.
4
Man HUMAN,ADULT,MALE WomanHUMAN, ADULT,
-MALE BoyHUMAN, -ADULT, MALE girlHUMAN,-ADU
LT,-MALE
5
This is parallel to the way a phoneme is analyzed
into smaller components called distinctive
features. /b/ PLOSIVE,BILABIAL,VOICED /P/P
LOSIVE,BILABIAL,-VOICED
6
Componential analysis provides an insight into
the meaning of words and a way to study the
relationships between words that are related in
meaning.
7
A feature of belongingness distinguishes to
return, when it takes an object, from to take
back, We took Junior back to the zoo might refer
to letting him visit the place again, but We
returned Junior to the zoo calls him an inmate.
8
A feature enemy
distinguished U-boat from the neutral submarine
in the First World War.
9
Predications,Arguments and Predicates
10
Before the analysis of sentence meaning is
discussed, two points should be made clear.
First, the meaning of a sentence is not the sum
total of the meanings of all its components. It
cannot be worked out by adding up all the
meanings of its constituent words.
11
Second, there are two aspects to sentence
meaning grammatical meaning, which means the
grammaticality or grammatical well-formedness of
a sentence, and semantic meaning, which is
governed by selectional restrictions.
12
Grammaticality is governed by the grammatical
rules of the language while Selectional
Restrictions are constraints on the combination
of words to ensure semantic well-formedness. Some
sentences which are grammatically well-formed may
not be semantically meaningful.
13
For example The brown concept jumps
sympathetically.
14
The predication analysis, proposed by Leech, is a
way to analyze the meaning of sentences. A
sentence, composed of a subject and predicate, is
a basic unit for grammatical relation. The basic
unit for meaning analysis is called predication,
which is the abstraction of the meaning of a
sentence.
15
The grammatical form of the sentence does not
affect the semantic predication of the sentence,
therefore the following forms have the same
predication HE(JUMP)
He jumps. He is jumping. He
will jump. He has been jumping. Did
he jump?
16
Consider the three sentences The children ate
their dinner, Did the children eat their dinner?
And Eat your dinner, children! Leaving aside
differences of tense and pronouns, these
sentences have a common content which can be
expressed in a kind of Pidgin English Children
eat dinner. It is this type of structure which
are called predication,
17
A predication consists of argument(s) and
predicate. An argument is a logical participant
in a predication. It is generally identical with
the nominal element (s) in a sentence. A
predicate is something that is said about an
argument or it states the logical relation
linking the arguments in a sentence.
18
According to the number of arguments in a
predication, predication can be divided into
one-place predication, two-place predication and
no-place predication.
19
For example Children like sweets.
(two-place predication) CHILDREN,
SWEET(LIKE) John is ill. (one-place
predication)JOHN(BE ILL) It is hot.(no-place
predication)(BE HOT)
20
It is hot. is a meteorological utterance. It is
difficult to accept that the element expressed by
it is an argument, since it has no meaning
independent of the predicate. it is so
predictable that one cannot construct a question
for which it is an appropriate answer,
therefore it is a no-place predication
What is hot? It!
?
21
The predicate is the main element in a
predication, for it includes tense, modality,
etc., determines the number and nature of the
arguments and governs the arguments. Componential
and predication analyses together will enable us
to represent the greater part of the meaning of
sentences.
22
(No Transcript)
23
Could be broken down into two arguments ( or
logical participants), my uncle and this
car, with a relational element linking them
(owns). This linking element may be called,
following logical rather than grammatical
terminology, predicate.
24
Rather as subject,verb, object, adverb, etc., are
constituents of sentences, so argument and
predicate are constituents of the predications
expressed by sentences.
25
Arguments sometimes match syntactic elements
like subject, verb and object, and sometimes do
not.
26
One has to avoid associating the predicate in
this sense with the predicate of traditional
grammar.
A tall woman was in front of the car
27
Assuming that all predications can be divided up
into arguments and predicates, we have to ask how
the content of these units themselves can be
analyzed. The examples we have looked at suggest
that these units can be analyzed componentially.
28
For example A tall woman Tall, Human,
Adult, -male, singular
29
A similar analysis, containing features such as
private, motor, and vehicle, could be
supplied for the car.
30
Predicates, too, can be broken down into
features. The predicate boiled ( in the
sentence Adam boiled an egg) might be analyzed
into three components cook, in water, and
past.
31
Adam boiled an egg entails
Adam cooked an egg.
Boil cook, in water, past
32
a? In front of b a? In front of b But
this does not go far enough. The analysis of in
front of fails to show its relation to the
locative meanings, such as over, under, by,
on the left of, etc. For this purpose, three
semantic oppositions are needed
33

• Directions
• Directions
• Directional contrast between
  in front of and behind, over and under,
  etc. )

34
Horizontal horizontal -Horizontal
vertical Lateral
side-to-side -Lateral front-to-back
35
The prepositions over, under, in front of,
behind, etc., may now be defined (a) over
spatial direction -horizontal
36
(b) under
spatial
direction
-horizontal
37
(c) in front of
spatial
direction
horizontal
-lateral
38
(d) behind
spatial
direction
horizontal
-lateral
39
(e) on the left
spatial direction
horizontal lateral
40
(f) on the right
spatial
direction
horizontal
lateral
41
(g) beside, by
spatial
proximate
horizontal
lateral
42
1)The shell exploded by the wing of the
airplane. 2)Place the one coin by the
other. 3)The red car was parked by the green
one.
43
1)The shell exploded by the wing of the
airplane.
In (1), by simply means in spatial proximity
to. Here by could include over or under.
44
2) Place the one coin by the other.
In (2), the most likely sense is near to on a
horizontal plane---that is, excluding over and
under.
45
3)The red car was parked by the green one.
In (3) the meaning is even more specific it is
beside, in contrast to in front of or
behind.
46
1)The shell exploded by the wing of the
airplane.
by (1) spatial proximate

47
2)Place the one coin by the other.
by (2)
spatial
proximate
horizontal
48
3)The red car was parked by the green one.
by (3)
spatial
proximate
horizontal
lateral
49
This discussion of spatial relations has
emphasized the point that predicates, like
arguments, can be analyzed componentially. So
arguments and predicates are comparable units on
the one hand they are the elements of
predications, and on the other they consist of
features.
50
Predications
Arguments, predicates
features
51
(No Transcript)
52
The predicate is the major element in the sense
that it determines ( in ways that will shortly be
made clear ) the number and nature of the
arguments. In the above case, the relational
meaning of in front of requires the presence of
two arguments which can be placed in a spatial
relationship without them, in front of would
not make sense.
53
Three general types of predicate are
distinguished two-place, one-place and no-place.
54
It is doubtful whether there are three- or
four-place predications because they usually turn
out to be combinations of two-place and one-place
predications.
55
Thus , John gave the dog a bone can by analyzed
as follows
John gave the dog a bone
John caused X X The dog
received a bone.
56
Entailment and Inconsistency In predication
analysis, hyponymy and incompatibility are
treated as relations between arguments and
between predicates, rather than between
word-meanings.
57
An entailment relation exists between two
propositions which differ only in that an
argument of one is hyponymous to an argument of
the other. For example, a is a hyponym of b in
(16) a
b I saw a boy Entails I saw
a child
58
The hyponymy relation can also be between
predicates (17) P
Q Turpin
stole a horse Entails Turpin took a horse
59
The following general rules for entailment and
inconsistency may now be stated X entails Y if
X and Y are identical except that 1. X contains
an argument a and Y contains an argument b,
and 2. a is a hyponym of b a
b
I saw a boy Entails I saw a child
60
or 1. X contains an argument a and Y contains
an argument b, and 2. b is a hyponym of a
a
Children are a nuisance.
b entails Boys are a nuisance.
61
P
Q
Turpin stole a horse Entails Turpin took a
horse
or 1. X contains a predicate P and Y
contains a predicate Q, and 2. P is a
hyponym of Q
62
P
Q
Mary dislikes work. Mary likes work.
X is inconsistent with Y if X and Y are identical
except that 1.X contains a predicate P and Y
contains a predicate Q 2.P is incompatible with
Q
63
The rules of entailment and inconsistency apply
cumulatively, in the following ways (A)If X
entails Y and Y entails Z, then X entails Z
(i.e. entailment is a transitive
relation) (B)If X entails Y and Y is
inconsistent with Z, then X is
inconsistent with Z.
64
These two supplementary rules may be illustrated
by supposing X,Y,and Z to be the following (A)X
Boys ran down the street Y Boys went
down the street Z Children went down the
street (B)X John was singing
drunkenly Y John was singing Z John
was silent.
65
Tautology arises, roughly speaking, when
information contained in an argument of a
prediction includes the information contained in
the rest of the predication. In a one-place
predication, this means simply that the argument
is hyponymous to the predicate
66
The argument is hyponymous to the predicate
( a
P ) HUMAN ADULT -MALE
-MALE ltwho.?LOVE.
yougt The woman you love
is female
67
In a two-place predication, a tautology arises
wherever a qualifying predication in one of its
arguments semantically includes the rest of the
main predication. ( a
.SELL. food ) HUMAN MALE ltwho.SELL.meatgt
A butcher sells food
68
These rules can be stated more precisely in
linear notation Rules of tautology a) If a is
hyponymous to P, (aP) is a tautology
This boy is male.
69
The third type of deviation, semantic anomaly
arises when one of the arguments or the predicate
of the main predication is self-contradictory.
This orphans father drinks heavily.
This programme is for the music-lover who
dislikes music.
70
Contradiction Contradiction arises when the
information contained in an argument of a
predication is incompatible with the information
contained in the predicate.
That man is female.
71
In a two-place predication, a contradiction means
the qualifying predication is inconsistent with
the rest of the main predication, e.g.
This orphan has a father.