While it has often been criticized, the notion of the lexical field can constitute a powerful tool in both intralingual and interlingual analysis. This paper provides a broad overview of topics which are relevant in the discussion of lexical field analysis. Afterwards, these topics will be brought into context by presenting a selection of outstanding approaches to field theory. Finally, the German word field tradition will briefly be compared to the parallel development in the USA.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Structuralism
2.1 The Saussurean Dichotomies
2.2 Componential Analysis
2.3 Sense Relations
3 Relativism and Functionalism
4 The Development of Lexical Field Theory
4.1 Trier and Weisgerber
4.2 Porzig
4.3 Coseriu
5 Folk Taxonomies
6 Criticism
7 Conclusion
8 Works Cited
Objectives and Topics
This paper explores the theoretical foundations and historical development of lexical field analysis, examining its role in understanding linguistic meaning and its evolution from early structuralist approaches to modern applications.
- Evolution of the structuralist tradition in linguistics
- Methodological approaches: Componential analysis and Sense relations
- Core theories: Lexical field theory (Trier, Weisgerber) and Syntagmatic relations (Porzig)
- Coseriu's structural semantics and structural preconditions
- Contrastive analysis between American folk taxonomies and European tradition
- Critical review of field theory's limitations and modern relevance
Excerpt from the Book
4.1 Trier and Weisgerber
In his often quoted doctoral thesis Der deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des Verstandes, Trier elaborates on the concept of the lexical field and applies it in a diachronic study of the German words of INTELLECT, thus taking the “first step towards a more comprehensive understanding of the vocabulary of a language” (Schwyter 1996: 30). After Trier ceased publishing on lexical field theory, his ideas were expanded upon and systemized by Leo Weisgerber (1954, 1963), so that we can speak of Trier-Weisgerber field theory.
In line with the structuralist tradition and ultimately Humboldt, Trier regards structure (‘Gliederung’) as the most deeply rooted characteristic of any language (cp. Trier 1934: 429). He states that the lexicon of a language is structured in smaller systems, or word fields (“ein gegliedertes Ganzes, ein Gefüge, das man Wortfeld oder sprachliches Zeichenfeld nennen kann.” Trier 1931: 1), the organization of which, in turn, consists in lexemes and their interrelation in sense: “Welche Einzelstücke des Blocks als solche herausgehoben und als gesonderte Begriffe mit Worten bezeichnet werden, […] ist gegeben in dem gegliederten Nebeneinander der Worte im Feld“ (1-2). This structure can be compared to a mosaic with clearly determined outer borders and a gapless interior.
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: Provides an overview of the lexical field concept and outlines the paper's focus on the development of field theory.
2 Structuralism: Delineates the structuralist background, including Saussurean dichotomies, componential analysis, and various sense relations.
3 Relativism and Functionalism: Examines the connection between language structure, linguistic relativism, and functionalist theories.
4 The Development of Lexical Field Theory: Discusses the foundational work of Trier and Weisgerber, the syntagmatic focus of Porzig, and the structural approach of Coseriu.
5 Folk Taxonomies: Explores the American anthropological approach to linguistic classification and contrasts it with traditional field theory.
6 Criticism: Addresses the limitations and disputes surrounding the various lexical field theories.
7 Conclusion: Summarizes the legacy and ongoing relevance of lexical field analysis in modern semantics.
8 Works Cited: Lists the academic sources referenced throughout the paper.
Keywords
Lexical Field Theory, Structuralism, Semantics, Ferdinand de Saussure, Jost Trier, Leo Weisgerber, Walter Porzig, Eugenio Coseriu, Componential Analysis, Sense Relations, Linguistic Relativism, Folk Taxonomies, Archilexeme, Lexeme, Syntagmatic Relations.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper examines the theoretical foundations, historical evolution, and critical assessment of lexical field analysis within linguistics.
What are the primary thematic areas covered?
The main themes include structuralism, the history of word field theory (Trier/Weisgerber), syntagmatic sense relations (Porzig), and structural semantics (Coseriu).
What is the main objective of the research?
The objective is to provide a broad overview of lexical field analysis, tracing its development and comparing different methodological approaches.
Which linguistic methods are discussed?
The paper discusses componential analysis, analysis of sense relations (synonymy, hyponymy, etc.), and the study of linguistic structures via synchronic and diachronic research.
What topics are explored in the main body of the work?
The main body treats the structuralist tradition, specific theoretical frameworks, American folk taxonomies, and the critical reception of these theories.
Which keywords define this work?
Key terms include Lexical Field Theory, Structuralism, Semantics, Lexeme, and Semantic Relations.
How does Porzig differ from Trier in his approach?
While Trier focuses on paradigmatic relations in word fields, Porzig emphasizes syntagmatic relations, particularly through the concept of "lexical solidarity" between word pairs.
What is the role of the "archilexeme" in Coseriu’s work?
The archilexeme represents the content of a whole lexical field, serving to connect all members of that field, though it does not necessarily have to be lexicalized in the language.
- Arbeit zitieren
- B.A. Lea Rebecca Kawaletz (Autor:in), 2012, Theoretical Problems in Lexical Field Analysis, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/197277
