Albert-Ludwigs-University, Freiburg i.Br.

Semantics: analysis or interpretation of word meaning?
A linguistic approach to cup

by

Christopher Golz

Table of contents

1. Introduction 1

2. An approach to the cup 1

3. The semantic field 3

4. Lexical decomposition 5

5. A linguistic revolution 8

6. Linguistic relativity 11

7. Conclusion 13

8. Bibliography 14

1. Introduction

Daher erfordert man auch, einen abgesonderten Begriff sinnlich zu machen, d.i. das ihm korrespondierende Objekt in der Anschauung darzulegen, weil, ohne dieses, der Begriff (wie man sagt) ohne Sinn, d.i. ohne Bedeutung bleiben würde. 

(Kant 1998: 768)

Semantics tries to fulfill that demand and this paper is thought to present the ordinary research methods, exemplified on the word cup. The structure of the paper and some details especially in chapter 4 are similar although neither intended nor grounded on Wierzbicka (1985) who focuses on lexicographic aspects of cup trying to give a satisfying dictionary entry. I begin with a very brief etymology of this word. The OE word cuppe is generally taken from the Late Latin cuppa, which is a variant of Latin cupa meaning "a tub". The origin is probably the Proto-Indo-European word *keup- standing for "a hollow". In the 18th century, the most common drinking vessel, a mug, was replaced due to the introduction of the cup for hot liquids like tea, coffee or chocolate and the glass, used for cold liquids. The basis of this paper is once more Ferdinand de Saussure′s "Course in general linguistics" and his demand that "language is a system of interdependent terms in which the value of each term results solely from the simultaneous presence of the others […]" (1960: 114). The consequence of this statement is mentioned later in his book: "Their [i.e. the linguistic signs] most precise characteristics is in being what the others are not" (ibid: 117). The meaning of one word can therefore only be derived by comparing the sense relations to other words in the system. This interdependence of meaning complicates a simple analysis. I will therefore start with a list of semantically related words to work with grounded on the synonym dictionary The Synonym Finder: cup (teacup, demitasse and cannikin), mug (tumbler, beaker, tankard and chalice), jug (can, stein and pitcher), goblet (pot), glass (beer glass, wine glass), drinking horn and bowl. The Oxford Advanced Learner′s Dictionary describes a cup as "a small container shaped like a bowl, usu with a handle, used for drinking tea, coffee etc." This paper deals with cup in that sense, used in present day English.

2. An approach to the cup

There is a need to have a closer look on this word to avoid false evocations. Semantics distinguishes natural signs (perceived physical objects) from conventional signs (meaningful by human customs, culture etc.) and considers language as a system of conventional signs (at least from a structuralist point of view). Within the class of conventional signs, there are iconic (e.g. onomatopoeic) and arbitrary signs (no inference from form to meaning). Semantic knowledge includes reference (relationship between language and the world) and sense (semantic links between elements within the vocabulary system) of a word. It′s common to assume that all words refer to something (e.g. Paris refers to the French capital), but cup obviously doesn′t refer to a particular cup but also not to a whole class of cups. Therefore, we have to distinguish the denotation as the "class of things to which it [a word] can be correctly applied" (Cruse 1990a: 146) from the connotation as "the property or set of properties the possession of which is a necessary and sufficient condition for the word to be correctly applied" (ibid: 146).

As a first result, cup is a conventional and arbitrary sign with a set of defining properties (maybe like The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary specifies) as connotation and denoting to all objects in the world that are called cup in its correct meaning. Figure 1 is to give a small selection of possible cup-like objects.

[...]