This term paper will focus on an aspect of lexical semantics: interrelations of word meanings on a paradigmatic, as well as on a syntagmatic level.
Starting with paradigmatic word relations, the paper will cover the topic of semantic fields first, describing the history of how this aspect was introduced to semantics and explaining the theoretical background behind the topic. Furthermore the development of different theories from the first structuralist approaches in the 1930s to the more recent approaches of cognitive semantics and the frame theory will be outlined.
In the second part, the paper will cover the topic of syntagmatic relations of word meanings, namely collocations. The term will be defined and examples will be mentioned, before dealing with the important concepts of ‘statistically significant’ and ‘institutionalized collocations’. Finally there will be a demarcation to the phenomenon of idioms, before the term paper finishes with a conclusion about the whole topic.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Paradigmatic relations: semantic fields
2.1 The beginning: structuralist approaches
2.2 Further development: cognitive approaches
3. Syntagmatic relations: collocations
3.1 Collocations: definition and examples
3.2 Statistically significant and institutionalized collocations
3.3 Idioms versus collocations
4. Conclusion
Objectives and Research Themes
This paper examines the lexical semantic interrelations of word meanings, focusing on how words are associated within a language. The primary objective is to analyze word meaning through its relationships with other words rather than in isolation, exploring both paradigmatic and syntagmatic dimensions.
- History and development of structuralist and cognitive lexical field theories.
- The linguistic definition and functional role of collocations.
- Distinction between statistically significant and institutionalized collocations.
- The relationship and demarcation between collocations and idioms.
- Practical implications for language learning and instruction.
Excerpt from the Book
2.1 The beginning: structuralist approaches
In the 1930s, the German linguist Jost Trier published his monograph ‘Der Deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des Verstandes: Die Geschichte eines sprachlichen Feldes’, which is today seen as the “single most influential study in the history of lexical field theory” (Geeraerts 2010: 53). In his study, Trier gives a theoretical outline of the field approach (cf. Geeraerts 2010: 53) and examines the development of so-called ‘lexical fields’ in the German language.
Trier’s theory comes from a structuralist point of view, assuming, that the value of a word depends basically on the demarcation from other words (cf. Geeraerts 2010: 53), or as the structuralist de Saussure (cited in Palmer 1981: 67) said: there are “only differences and no positive terms”. Emphasizing on these semantic relations, every linguistic element is seen as being integrated into the structure of the language just like a stone is integrated into a mosaic (cf. Geeraerts 2010: 53). Words do not exist isolated, but form lexical fields together with other semantically related words (cf. Bieswanger and Becker 2010: 139). The terms robin, parrot and blackbird for example, would therefore belong to the lexical field of birds.
In his study, Trier did not only give a theoretical outline to the lexical field approach, he also examined how a lexical field in Old High German evolved over time (cf. Geeraerts 2010: 53). Therefore, Trier picked the field of the ‘intellectual’ aspect of German language at the beginning of the 13th, respectively at the beginning of the 14th century. Around the year 1200, the field was divided into the notions of kunst (referring to courtly qualities) and list (referring to non-courtly qualities) and the term wîsheit, covering the whole (cf. Palmer 1981: 68). One century later however, the field had changed significantly: list is replaced by the term wizzen, having a slightly different meaning than the former list, as it refers now to rather technical skills, like those of a craftsman. Kunst denotes forms of science and art and wîsheit now refers to rather religious knowledge and is no longer a general term (cf. Geeraerts 2010: 55).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter introduces lexical semantics as a sub-discipline of linguistics and outlines the two primary approaches for analyzing word relationships: paradigmatic and syntagmatic.
2. Paradigmatic relations: semantic fields: The chapter explores how words are grouped into fields, tracing the evolution from Trier's structuralist approach to contemporary cognitive semantics and frame theory.
2.1 The beginning: structuralist approaches: This section details the foundations of lexical field theory established by Jost Trier and explains the structuralist view that word meaning is defined by its demarcation from other words.
2.2 Further development: cognitive approaches: This section examines how cognitive semantics and frame theory have expanded the understanding of how words link to broader conceptual structures and background knowledge.
3. Syntagmatic relations: collocations: This chapter transitions to the horizontal, co-occurrence-based relationships of words, citing the importance of Firth’s work on company-based word meanings.
3.1 Collocations: definition and examples: This section defines the term collocation and illustrates through various linguistic examples how words are restricted by the company they keep.
3.2 Statistically significant and institutionalized collocations: This section differentiates between frequency-based co-occurrences found in corpora and institutionalized collocations defined by conventionalized usage.
3.3 Idioms versus collocations: This section provides a demarcation between collocations and idioms, focusing on the fossilization process and the shift from independent word meanings to unified sequence meanings.
4. Conclusion: The final chapter summarizes the importance of understanding these semantic relations for effective language teaching and acknowledges the vastness of the field.
Keywords
Lexical semantics, semantic fields, collocations, structuralism, cognitive semantics, frame theory, syntagmatic relations, paradigmatic relations, corpus linguistics, idiomaticity, institutionalized collocations, linguistic meaning, word association.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this paper?
The paper explores the interrelations of word meanings within lexical semantics, moving beyond the study of isolated words to examine how words associate with each other in language.
What are the two central thematic fields covered in the text?
The two main pillars are paradigmatic relations, analyzed through semantic fields, and syntagmatic relations, analyzed through collocations.
What is the primary research question?
The research explores how word meanings are interrelated and how these relations can be categorized to better understand linguistic structures and the actual use of language.
Which scientific methodology is primarily employed?
The paper adopts a theoretical literature review approach, synthesizing key linguistic works—ranging from structuralism (Trier, Saussure) to cognitive semantics (Fillmore, Geeraerts) and collocation studies (Firth, Leech, Herbst).
What content is covered in the main body of the text?
The main body details the evolution of field theory from structuralist beginnings to cognitive frames, defines collocations through frequency and institutionalized patterns, and contrasts these with the phenomenon of idiomatic expressions.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include Lexical semantics, Semantic fields, Collocations, Structuralism, Cognitive semantics, and Idiomaticity.
How does Jost Trier characterize the structuralist view of lexical fields?
Trier views words as non-isolated elements that form fields within a language structure, similar to how individual stones contribute to a mosaic; meaning is determined by the demarcation from other words.
What is the difference between a statistically significant and an institutionalized collocation?
A statistically significant collocation is identified through corpus analysis and frequency of co-occurrence, whereas an institutionalized collocation is characterized by conventionalized usage that may not necessarily rely on high statistical frequency.
- Arbeit zitieren
- U. Dürr (Autor:in), 2011, Lexical Semantics: Semantic Fields and Collocations, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/186932
