Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T09:23:54.303Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Componential analysis: the sememe and the concept of distinctiveness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Rodney Huddleston
Rodney Huddleston*
Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The term ‘componential analysis’ is used here to refer to the theory of semantic structure developed by Goodenough (1956, 1965, etc.), Lounsbury (1956, 1964, etc.) and others. Obviously the notion of a semantic component - or ‘feature,’ or whatever other term is applied - is common to a wide variety of semantic theories, and ‘componential analysis’ is sometimes used (e.g. by Lyons 1968) to cover the whole of this wider field; nevertheless the Goodenough-Lounsbury theory is sufficiently unified and different from others to warrant separate treatment.

Although the theory is intended to be, and undoubtedly is, much more widely applicable, a great deal of the descriptive work in componential analysis is in the field of kinship terminologies, and the basic concepts of the theory may conveniently be exemplified from this semantic domain. Drawing on the sign theory of Charles Morris, Goodenough distinguishes between the denotatum, designatum and significatum of a word (1965: 286 n.3):

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , Spring 1974 , pp. 1 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bazell, Charles E. 1953 Linguistic Form. Istanbul: Istanbul Press.Google Scholar
Bazell, Charles E. 1954 The choice of criteria in structural linguistics. Word 10.126–35.Google Scholar
Bendix, Edward H. 1966 Componential analysis of general vocabulary. International Journal of American Linguistics 32, 2, Part 2. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard 1933 Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Burling, Robbins 1964 Cognition and componential analysis: God’s truth or hocus-pocus? American Anthropologist 66.20–28. [Reprinted in Tyler, 1969: 419–28.]Google Scholar
Goodenough, Ward H. 1956 Componential analysis and the study of meaning. Language 32.195–216.Google Scholar
Goodenough, Ward H. 1957 Cultural Anthropology and Linguistics. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. [Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics, 9.]Google Scholar
Goodenough, Ward H. 1965 Yankee kinship terminology: a problem in componential analysis. In Hammel, 1965: 259–287. [Reprinted in Tyler, 1969: 255–88.]Google Scholar
Rammel, Eugene A. (ed.) 1965 Formal semantic analysis, American Anthropologist Special Publication, 67, 5, Part 2. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1954 Two models of grammatical description. Word 10.210–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, Dell H. 1964 Discussion of Burling’s Paper. American Anthropologist 66.116–19. [Reprinted in Tyler, 1969: 428–32.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter 1971 The limits of phonology. In L. L. Hammerich et al. (eds.), Form and Substance. Presented to Eli Fischer-Jøzirgensen, February 11, 1971. København: Akadernisk Forlag. Pp. 47–56.Google Scholar
Lamb, Sydney M. 1965 Kinship terminology and linguistic structure. In Hammel, 1965: 37–64.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, Floyd G. 1956 A semantic analysis of Pawnee kinship terminology. Language 32.158–94.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, Floyd G. 1964 The structural analysis of kinship semantics. In Lunt, H. G. (ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguisticst. The Hague: Mouton. Pp. 1073–90. [Reprinted in Tyler, 1969: 193–212.]Google Scholar
Lyons, John 1968 Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, Stephen A. (ed.) 1969 Cognitive Anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Wallace, Anthony F. C. 1965 The problem of the psychological validity of componential analyses. In Hammel, 1965: 229–248. [Reprinted in Tyler, 1969: 396–418.]Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel 1966 Explorations in semantic theory. In Sebeok, T. A. (ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics, 3: Theoretical Foundations. The Hague: Mouton. Pp. 395–477.Google Scholar