Enas Abdul Razzaq Hobi ٩٨ ‫ ﺍﻟﻌﺩﺩ‬/ ‫ﻤﺠﻠﺔ ﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﺩﺍﺏ‬

Componential Analysis of Meaning

Asst . Instructor :
Enas Abdul Razzaq Hobi
Al – M'moon University College
Department of Translation

 
 

 
 
 
Abstract
This study aims to give an account for the subject of
componential analysis of meaning as it is considered to be an
important approach to the study of meaning .
The first section acts as an introduction to the subject of
componential analysis , and what is meant by this term.
The second section deals with componential theory and also its
relation with the theory of conceptualism .
The third section is devoted to the componential analysis as a
device and the components of meaning and the advantages of
adopting such approach to the study of meaning .
:‫اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﻠﺺ‬
‫ھﺬه اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﺗﮭﺪف إﻟﻰ ﺗﻘﺪﯾﻢ ﺳﺮد ﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮع اﻟﺘﺤﻠﯿﻞ اﻟﺘﺮﻛﯿﺒﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎره وﺳﯿﻠﮫ‬
. ‫ﻣﮭﻤﺔ ﻟﺪراﺳﺔ اﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ‬
. ‫ ھﻮ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﮫ ﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮع اﻟﺘﺤﻠﯿﻞ اﻟﺘﺮﻛﯿﺒﻲ وﻣﻌﻨﻰ ھﺬا اﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺢ‬:‫اﻟﻔﺼﻞ اﻷول‬
. ‫ ﯾﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻊ اﻟﻨﻈﺮﯾﺔ اﻟﺘﺮﻛﯿﺒﯿﺔ وﻋﻼﻗﺘﮭﺎ ﻣﻊ ﻧﻈﺮﯾﮫ اﻟﻤﻔﺎھﯿﻤﯿﮫ‬:‫اﻟﻔﺼﻞ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ‬
‫ ﻣﺨﺼﺺ ﻟﻠﺘﺤﻠﯿﻞ اﻟﺘﺮﻛﯿﺒﻲ ﻛﺎداه و ﻣﺮﻛﺒﺎت أو ﺟﺰﯾﺌﺎت اﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ و ﻓﻮاﺋﺪ‬:‫اﻟﻔﺼﻞ اﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‬
. ‫ﺗﺒﻨﻰ ھﺬه اﻟﻮﺳﯿﻠﺔ ﻟﺪراﺳﺔ اﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ‬

١٠٩
 Enas Abdul Razzaq Hobi ٩٨ ‫ ﺍﻟﻌﺩﺩ‬/ ‫ﻤﺠﻠﺔ ﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﺩﺍﺏ‬

ٍ ection One
S
Preliminary Discussion
A comparatively new way to study lexical meaning , is by

analyzing lexemes into series of semantic features of

components . For example , "man" , can be analyzed as ADULT,
HUMAN and MALE . This approach was originally devised by
anthropologists as a means of comparing vocabulary from different
cultures and has been developed by semanticists as a general
framework for the analysis of meaning . ( Crystal , ١٩٨٧:١٠٧)
Furthermore , the term componential analysis could be explained
by considering the example stated below :
Man woman child
Bull cow calf
Rooster hen chicken
Drake duck duckling
Stallion mare foal
Ram ewe lamb

By examining the meaning of those words , we can set up the

following proportional equation :
Man : woman : child , Bull : cow : calf
From the semantic point of view , this equation displays the fact
that the words man , woman and child on one hand and bull , cow
and calf , on the other hand share something in common . ( Lyons ,
١٩٦٨ :٤٧٠ )
In addition , we can see that man and bull have something in
common which is not shared by the other two pairs , and woman
and cow have also something in common which is not shared by
either man and bull or woman and cow. The factor that is shared by

١١٠
 Enas Abdul Razzaq Hobi ٩٨ ‫ ﺍﻟﻌﺩﺩ‬/ ‫ﻤﺠﻠﺔ ﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﺩﺍﺏ‬

these different groups of words , is called a semantic component ,

also called ( plereme ) , ( sememe ) , (semantic marker) , (semantic
category ). ( ibid : ٤٧١ )
Matthews (٢٠٠٧ ; ٣٠٦ ) , defines plereme as : " Hjelmslev's term
for a unit of content ". He further defines sememe as : "
Term used by various scholars for a basic unit of meaning ." He
adds that " for Bloomfield a sememe was the meaning of a
morpheme " . ( ٣٦٢ )
Moreover ,the equation mentioned above can be introduced by
using numerical proportion :-
a : b :: c :d
This means that where the first element is divided by the second ,
is equal to the third divided by the fourth . From this proportion ,
man : woman :: bull : cow , we can get four components of meaning
and they are : ( male ) , ( female ) , ( adult – human ) , ( adult –
bovine ) . Furthermore , we can extract the components ( adult )
and ( non- adult ) . We can factorize other components and
eventually we can describe a word as " man " as the product of the
components : ( male ) , ( adult ) and ( human ) . This componential
approach to semantics has a long history in logic , philosophy and
linguistics . ( Lyons , ١٩٦٨ : ٤٧)
Section Two
Componential Theory

There are a number of important assumptions that the

componential theories of semantics are based upon.
The most important assumption suggests that the semantic
components are language – independent or in other words ,
universal components .
In many instances , it has been suggested that the vocabularies of
all human languages can be analyzed partially or totally in terms of

١١١
 Enas Abdul Razzaq Hobi ٩٨ ‫ ﺍﻟﻌﺩﺩ‬/ ‫ﻤﺠﻠﺔ ﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﺩﺍﺏ‬

a limited set of semantic components and these components ,

themselves are independent of the particular semantic structure of
any given language . According to this point of view , the semantic
components might be identified as the same components in
analyzing the vocabularies of all languages . ( Lyons , ١٩٦٨ :٤٧٢ )

Without regarding the linguistic model which any linguist prefers to

use in describing the facts of language , the role of semantic
components is almost universally regarded as being fundamental to
any analysis of semantic structure . Semantic components are
structurally essential if a linguist deals with semantic problems , in
terms of domains , also if one prefers to deal with structure in terms
of generative " trees " . ( Nida , ١٩٧١ :٣٤١ )

٢.١ Componential Analysis and Conceptualism

It is clear that the value of componential analysis in the description

of particular language , is not affected by the status of the semantic
components in universal terms .It must also be realized that
componential theories of semantics are not necessarily "
conceptual " or " mentalistic " . This point should be emphasized
because not only Katz and Chomsky , but also many other linguists
have defended a componential approach to semantics within a
philosophical and psychological framework which takes it for
granted that the meaning of the lexical item , is the " concept " ,
associated with this item in the minds of the speakers of a particular
language . ( Lyons , ١٩٦٨ :٤٧٤ )

As an example , Katz presents the notion of semantic component

or markers by considering for example the idea , each one thinks as
part of the meaning of words " chair " , " stone " , " man " , "

١١٢
 Enas Abdul Razzaq Hobi ٩٨ ‫ ﺍﻟﻌﺩﺩ‬/ ‫ﻤﺠﻠﺔ ﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﺩﺍﺏ‬

building " , etc… , but not part of the meaning of words as " truth "
, " togetherness " , " felling " , etc…

The idea that we adopt to express what is common to the meaning

of words in the first set and that we use to conceptually distinguish
them from the words in the second set . The semantic marker (
physical object ) is introduced to indicate that notion .

It has been suggested that the semantic theory should avoid

commitment with respect to the philosophical and psychological
status of "concepts " , " ideas " and " mind " . Thus the first set
represents things which are related to the acceptability of or un
acceptability of sentences or to the relation which holds between
the sentences , which can be described by assigning to the words of
the first set , a distinctive semantic component which is called "
physical object " . ( ibid )
Section Three

Componential Analysis of Meaning

Leech ( ١٩٧٤ : ٩٨ ) defines the term , componential analysis as "
The method of reducing a word's meaning to its ultimate contrastive
elements ".

Within modern linguistics, the componential analysis of meaning

was adapted from distinctive feature analysis in morphosyntax.

Allan ( ١٩٨٦ :١٦٨ ) points out that " Anthropologists had for many
years been comparing widely differing kinship systems in culturally
distinct societies by interpreting them in terms of universal
constituents that we might reasonably equate with semantic
components. "

١١٣
 Enas Abdul Razzaq Hobi ٩٨ ‫ ﺍﻟﻌﺩﺩ‬/ ‫ﻤﺠﻠﺔ ﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﺩﺍﺏ‬

In analyzing kin terms , a comparison is made for instance ,

between the set of English terms and Spanish terms and we note
that in Spanish there is a regular marking for the sex of kin and
there is no such marking in English .

Male Female
Uncle tio tia aunt
Son hijo hija daughter
Grandfather abuelo abuela grandmother
Brother hermano hermana sister
(ibid)

From this example , we have also obtain a single atom of meaning

, male as opposed to female with which we can define the
difference between uncle , son ,grand father and brother as a set
opposed to aunt , daughter , grand , mother , and sister as a set .

Such descriptions of meaning are done by feature analysis .The

starting point is the notion that components can be taken out as a
group of defining features providing critical information about the
qualities by which such terms are recognized within its field. (Kess
, ١٩٧٦ :١٦٨)

The early writers who wrote on componential analysis in

morphosyntax and kin ship systems had changed contemporary
linguistic opinion on semantic analysis by showing that it can be
carried out by using structural analysis , such as that method by
which we can compare and contrast father , uncle and aunt . These
kin ship terms have in common that they are (ASENDING
GENERATION ). Father and uncle both have in common , that

١١٤
 Enas Abdul Razzaq Hobi ٩٨ ‫ ﺍﻟﻌﺩﺩ‬/ ‫ﻤﺠﻠﺔ ﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﺩﺍﺏ‬

they are ( MALE ), where as aunt is ( FEMALE ), aunt and uncle

are (COLLATERAL) , where as father is (LINEAL) . So by the
semantic components, we can show the meaning of the relationship
between father , uncle and aunt . ( Allan , ١٩٨٦ : ١٦٩ )

Analysis of this kind which is called componential analysis allows

us to provide definition for a larger set of words in terms of few
components . Such labels as ( female ) , ( male) , ( adult ) ---etc ,
are not available as in the two sets of words below :

Come go
Bring take

We can see that come is to go as bring to take , but it is difficult to

name these components . ( Palmer , ١٩٧٦ :٨٧ )

Palmer also provides this example to state that " It is unlikely ,

that components are universal features of language ." . He adds that
we may think perhaps that all the societies differentiate between
(male) and ( female ) , and that thus ( male ) and ( female ) are
universal components of language , but the come , go , bring , take
examples show that , these components are not related to simple
physical features such as sex , and it becomes less reasonable to
assume that they are universal . ( ibid )

If each individual word is seen as having unique dictionary

definitions and yet is to be contained within a uniquely restricted
lexical field , such definitions will have to be dependant on a sort of
componential analysis , which is breaking down the meaning of
words by reference to atoms of meaning . These units were termed
semantic markers by Katz and Fodor , and appears as selectional

١١٥
 Enas Abdul Razzaq Hobi ٩٨ ‫ ﺍﻟﻌﺩﺩ‬/ ‫ﻤﺠﻠﺔ ﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﺩﺍﺏ‬

features in Chomsky's discussion . These markers or semantic

features denote a characteristic , shared by an entire group of words
and set it off from other set of words which presumably are
described by similar defining features . ( Kess , ١٩٧٦ :١٧١ )
In componential analysis , contrasts of features are usually made in
terms of ( + ) or ( -- ) and often drawn in a matrix .
In many instances , the componential analysis becomes interesting ,
as the lexemes become more complex . The example below , is a
possible matrix for some human motion verbs :

NATURAL HURRIED FORWORD ONE FOOT ALWAYS

ON THE GRPOUND

Walk + - + +
March - + + +
Run - + + +
Limp - - + +

Sometimes , it is easy to use a system of this kind , in order to see

what lexical gaps there are in a language . This matrix suggests that
there is no single English lexeme to express the notion of " human
using legs to move backwards" . ( Crystal , ١٩٨٧ : ١٠٧ ).

Allan ( ١٩٨٦ : ١٦ ٩) , summarizes the assumptions implicit in

componential analysis as :
" a – componential analysis seeks to analyze the sense of an
expression E into a set of semantic component corresponds to a
category of which the category labeled by E is a subset . b – Every
expression E in a language L should be analyzable into one or more
semantic components . C – there is no one to one correlation

١١٦
 Enas Abdul Razzaq Hobi ٩٨ ‫ ﺍﻟﻌﺩﺩ‬/ ‫ﻤﺠﻠﺔ ﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﺩﺍﺏ‬

between morphs and semantic components . d – Expressions that

share semantic components reflect the characteristics of
prototypical denotation . f – There is a hierarchy of categories ; e.g.
FELINE , which is a semantic component of cat , entails the
semantic component ANIMAL , which is also therefore a
component of cat . "

٣.١ Components of Meaning

Leech ( ١٩٧٤ : ٩٠ ) defines the analysis of word meaning as " A
process of breaking down the sense of a word into its minimal
distinctive features , that is into components which contrast with
other components . "

A simple example is shown by words such as man , woman , boy ,

girl . These words all belong to the semantic field of the human race
and the relations between them may be represented by this diagram
:

adult man Woman

Young Boy Girl

There are two dimensions of meaning , the first is of " sex " , the
second is of " adulthood " , the third dimension is presupposed by
the isolation of the whole field and it is between human and non –
human species . ( ibid )

١١٧
 Enas Abdul Razzaq Hobi ٩٨ ‫ ﺍﻟﻌﺩﺩ‬/ ‫ﻤﺠﻠﺔ ﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﺩﺍﺏ‬

We can express the meaning of individual items by combinations

of their features and they are called " componential definitions" ,
such as woman : + human , + adult , - male . By using such
formulate , we can show the synonymy of two items , for example :
adult and grown up , can be given the same definitions + human , +
adult although they differ in stylistic meaning .
We can use such formulate also in polysemy , where one lexical
item has more than one meaning or definition . Man is defined by
the features + human , + adult , + male , but also has a wider
definition consisting simply of the feature + human as in the
sentence " man has lived on this planet for over a million years ". (
Leech , ١٩٧٤ :٩٠ )
In determining the semantic components of any one meaning , it is
essential to compare the related meanings of other words . In
treating for example " whistle " , we must know the different
meanings of this word as in :

He will whistle to us
He bought a whistle

And then analyze the two meanings in terms of other words ; then
one can analyze the ways in which different meanings of one term
differ from another . ( Nida , ١٩٧١: ٣٤٣ )

We can see that components are used in analyzing semantic

relationships but a very different approach is analyzing the total
meaning of a word in terms of a number of distinct elements or
components of meaning . The idea of components , does not
introduce a new kind of relation but it offers a theoretical frame
work for handling kinds of relationships . ( Palmer , ١٩٧٦ : ٨٥ )

١١٨
 Enas Abdul Razzaq Hobi ٩٨ ‫ ﺍﻟﻌﺩﺩ‬/ ‫ﻤﺠﻠﺔ ﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﺩﺍﺏ‬

٣.٢ Apparent Advantages of The Componential Approach

The most important advantage of the componential approach to
semantics is that in terms of the same set of components , we can
answer two different questions : the first is about the semantic
acceptability or un acceptability of syntagmatic combinations of
words or phrases , the second question is " what is the meaning '' of
a given or particular combination of lexical items ?

It has been suggested that the significance of any grammatically

well – formed sentence is traditionally accounted for in terms of
specific general principles of compatibility between the meanings
of their constituent lexical items . If we take the word ( pregnant )
and assume that it contains a component which restricts it to the
modification of nouns which contains the component ( female ) ,
according to this rule ( a pregnant woman ) or ( a pregnant mare )
would be significant but the phrase ( the pregnant man ) or ( a
pregnant stallion ) , would be meaningless or uninterpretable . (
Lyons , ١٩٦٨ : ٤٧٥ )

Componential analysis made considerable contribution to the

development of semantics . The most significant thing is that it
brought together both the formalization of syntax and the
formulization of semantics closer together and linguists are
seriously concerned with the relations between syntax and
semantics . ( ibid : ٤٨٠ )

Semantic components represent the conceptual constituents of

senses in the same phrase markers represent the syntactic
constituents of sentences . They represent not only the atomic
constituents of meaning ( the simplest concept ) , but also the
complex ones . ( Katz : ١٩٧٢ : ٣٧ )

١١٩
 Enas Abdul Razzaq Hobi ٩٨ ‫ ﺍﻟﻌﺩﺩ‬/ ‫ﻤﺠﻠﺔ ﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﺩﺍﺏ‬

Attempts have also been made to explain the relatedness of

meaning in terms of componential analysis of the senses of lexemes
. This approach is also used in the analysis of meaning for the
vocabulary as a whole and shows how it can be used not only in
relatively clear – cut examples but also in complex ones. ( Lyons ,
١٩٧٧ : ٥٥٣ )

Ethno linguistic investigations use this device of componential

analysis successfully although limit its use to relatively restricted
areas of cultural experience like kinship relations or colour
categorization . ( Kess , ١٩٧٦ : ١٦٨ )
Here we have to mention that componential analysis does not
handle all semantic relations with the same affectivity for on one
hand , it is difficult to reduce the relational opposites to components
as in parent / child . We could treat this as having the same
components but in different direction , that they are relational and
not atomic components . On the other hand , the componential
analysis can not remove the hierarchical characteristic of
hyponymy. ( Palmer , ١٩٧٦ :١١١-١١٢ )

CONCLUSION
A further way to the study of meaning is done by the process of the
componential analysis , which is breaking down the meaning of a
word into its components which can be contrasted with other
components .
This method is first used by anthropologists who compared
differing kinship systems in different societies . This device also
has a long history in logic , philosophy and linguistics .

١٢٠
 Enas Abdul Razzaq Hobi ٩٨ ‫ ﺍﻟﻌﺩﺩ‬/ ‫ﻤﺠﻠﺔ ﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﺩﺍﺏ‬

The componential analysis has many advantages and that is why it

becomes essential for the linguist to use such approach in dealing
with different problems of semantics.
The idea of componential analysis does not introduce a new type
of relation , but presents a theoretical frame work for dealing with
such relations .
Its contribution in morphosyntax and kinship systems has changed
contemporary linguistic opinion on semantic analysis by showing
that it can be carried out easily by using structural analysis . Such
analysis provide us with an economical way to treat a set of words
in terms of few components .
On one hand , this componential analysis is also beneficial in
defining what lexical gaps are there in a given language , and on the
other hand is good in handling not only the atomic constituents of
meaning but the complex ones also .

Its clear effect in bringing closer both the framework of syntax

with the framework of semantics , is considered to be a big step
towards the development of semantics in the last few decades .
In the present time , it is widely suggested that semantic
components are language – independent or universal , shared by
vocabularies of all the languages , thus it gained a great deal of
importance .

١٢١
 Enas Abdul Razzaq Hobi ٩٨ ‫ ﺍﻟﻌﺩﺩ‬/ ‫ﻤﺠﻠﺔ ﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﺩﺍﺏ‬

References
Allan , Keith ( ١٩٨٦ ) . Linguistic Meaning . London : Routledge &
Kegan Paul .

Crystal , David ( ١٩٨٧ ) . The Cambridge Encyclopedia of

Language . London : Cambridge University Press .

Goodman , Nelson . " On Likeness of Meaning ". In Leonard

Linsky ( ed ) . Semantics and the Philosophy of Language .
London : University of Illionis Press .( ١٩٥٢ ) .

Katz , Jerrold , J . ( ١٩٧٢ ) . Semantic Theory . London : Harper &

Row , Publishers .

Kess , Joseph , F . ( ١٩٧٦ ). Psycholinguistics : Introductory

Perspectives . London : Academic Press INC .

Leech , Geoffry ( ١٩٧٤ ) . Semantics . Harmonds worth : Penguin

Lyons , John ( ١٩٦٨ ) . Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics .

Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .

Lyons , John . ( ١٩٧٧ ) . Semantics .Vo .٢ . Cambridge :

Cambridge University Press .

Matthews , P.H. ( ٢٠٠٧ ) . Concise Dictionary of Linguistics .

Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Nida , Eugene " Semantic Components in Translation Theory ." In

G . E . Perren and J. L . M . Trim ( eds ) . Applications of
Linguistics . ( ١٩٧٤ ) . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press

Palmer , F , R . ( ١٩٧٦ ) . Semantics . Cambridge : Cambridge

University Press .

١٢٢