Лексическая семантика

He used Leonard Bloomfield’s term “sememe” (meaning of a morpheme), which is parallel to “phone”: semes constitute the meaning of a morpheme in a particular context, and allosemes are semes in relationship to a specific sememe. (S20)Method of componential analysis was influenced by anthropological-linguistic studies. It consists two stages: identification of the semes and grouping of semes on the basis of their distinctive features. (S21)In Europe the componential analysis was based on assumption that meaning can be analyzed in the form of distinctive oppositions. Pottier provides an example of structural semantic analysis in his description of a subfield of the field of furniture terms in French. (S 22) In Europe the term “sememe”isconsidered a lexical item, and “sememes”, then, are a collection of “semes” components of meaning). (S23)The next point of the presentation concerns major sense relations. There are 4 major sense relations: antonymy, synonymy, hyponymy, meronymy. (S 24-25)Hyponymy is the relationship of semantic inclusion that holds between a more general term - 'hyperonym’ or “hypernym” (such as bird) and a more specific (subordinate) one - 'hyponym' (such as finch). (S26)Synonymy is a relationship of semantic identity. They can be complete (be substituted in all contexts) and partial (may be substituted in definite contexts) – example: “picture” and “film”. (S27)The oppositeness of meaning is expressed by antonymy. It has 3 subtypes: gradable, non-gradable and multiple. (S28). Gradable antonyms can be pollar (exhibit both symmetrical entailment and markedness), committed (entailment, but not markedness) and asymmetrical (an unmarked term). (S 29) Non-gradable also have three subtypes: “complementaries”, “perspectival opposition” and “directional opposition”. (S 30)Meronymy is a part-whole relation. For example, in the pair arm and elbow: arm is the holonym and elbow the meronym. Meronymy also have some subtypes, which you can see on the slide. (S 31)I would like to finish my presentation with problemsof structuralist semantics. Firstly, the relational approach does not really succeed in establishing the structuralist ideal. (S 33). Secondly, the exploration of the different types of structuralist semantics has disclosed a number of problems, concerning the relevance of semasiology, the autonomy of structure and the absence of a use-based onomasiology. (S. 34-38)And now I would like to check your knowledge with a test, based on the material presented….My presentation is over. Thank you for attention!