studies in functional and structural linguistics
Semantic
Structure
in English
Jim Feist
John Benjamins Publishing Company
73
Semantic Structure in English
Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics (SFSL)
issn 1385-7916
Taking the broadest and most general definitions of the terms functional and structural,
this series aims to present linguistic and interdisciplinary research that relates language
structure – at any level of analysis from phonology to discourse – to broader functional
considerations, whether cognitive, communicative, pragmatic or sociocultural. Preference
will be given to studies that focus on data from actual discourse, whether speech, writing
or other nonvocal medium.
The series was formerly known as Linguistic & Literary Studies in Eastern Europe (LLSEE).
For an overview of all books published in this series, please see
/>
Founding Editor
Honorary Editors
John Odmark
Eva Hajičová
Charles University
Petr Sgall
Charles University
General Editors
Yishai Tobin
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Bob de Jonge
Groningen University
Editorial Board
Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald
James A. Matisoff
Joan L. Bybee
Jim Miller
Ellen Contini-Morava
Marianne Mithun
Nicholas Evans
Lawrence J. Raphael
Victor A. Friedman
Olga Mišeska Tomić
Anatoly Liberman
Olga T. Yokoyama
La Trobe University
University of New Mexico
University of Virginia
University of Melbourne
University of Chicago
University of Minnesota
Volume 73
Semantic Structure in English
by Jim Feist
University of California, Berkeley
Emeritus, University of Edinburgh
University of California, at Santa Barbara
CUNY and Adelphi University
Leiden University
UCLA
Semantic Structure
in English
Jim Feist
John Benjamins Publishing Company
Amsterdamâ•›/â•›Philadelphia
8
TM
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of
the╯American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence
of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.
doi 10.1075/sfsl.73
Cataloging-in-Publication Data available from Library of Congress
isbn 978 90 272 1583 3 (Hb)
isbn 978 90 272 6652 1 (e-book)
© 2016 – John Benjamins B.V.
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any
other means, without written permission from the publisher.
John Benjamins Publishing Company ·
Table of contents
Chapter 1
Introduction1
1.1 Goals of the book 1
1.2Approach 1
1.3 Argument of the book 2
1.4 Plan of the book 5
Chapter 2
Semantic structures in the strata of English
2.1Introduction 7
2.2 Semantic structure in lexis 7
2.2.1 Paradigmatic lexical relations 7
2.2.2 Syntagmatic lexical relations 8
2.2.3 Words without paradigmatic or syntagmatic relations 9
2.3 Semantic structure in morphology 9
2.3.1 Semantic classes 9
2.3.2 Grammatical meaning 10
2.3.3 Dependency and modification 10
2.4 Semantic structure in syntax 10
2.4.1 Semantic structure of clauses: The figure 10
2.4.2 Semantic structure in groups 13
2.5 Semantic structure in phonology 14
2.5.1Introduction 14
2.5.2 Semantics of tonality 14
2.5.3 Semantics of tone 15
2.5.4 Semantics of tonicity 16
2.5.5 Semantics of rhythm 17
2.5.6 Semantic structure in phonetics 18
2.5.7 Discussion: Semantic structure in phonology 19
2.5.8 Conclusion: Semantics in the phonological stratum 21
2.6 Conclusion: Semantic structure in the strata of English 22
7
vi
Semantic Structure in English
Chapter 3
Basis of semantic structure
3.1Introduction 25
3.2 The intention to speak 25
3.2.1 Main intention 25
3.2.2 Subordinate intentions 26
3.2.3Discussion 27
3.2.4Conclusion 27
3.3 Functions, as the formulation of intention 28
3.3.1Introduction 28
3.3.2 Expressive function 28
3.3.3 Interpersonal function 30
3.3.4 Ideational function 31
3.3.5Conclusion 31
3.4 Constraints on meaning 32
3.4.1Introduction 32
3.4.2 Linguistic constraints 32
3.4.3 Semiotic constraints 33
3.5 Conclusion: Basis of semantic structure 37
Chapter 4
Elements of semantic structure
4.1Introduction 39
4.2Preliminaries 39
4.2.1 Areas of meaning: Cognitive and linguistic meaning 39
4.2.2 Aspects of meaning 42
4.3 Dimensions of linguistic meaning 43
4.3.1Introduction 43
4.3.2 Quality dimension 43
4.3.3 Intensity dimension 43
4.3.4 Specificity dimension 44
4.3.5 Vagueness dimension 44
4.3.6 Basicness dimension 45
4.3.7 Viewpoint dimension 45
4.3.8 Boundedness dimension 45
4.3.9 Expectedness dimension 46
4.3.10 Salience dimension 47
4.4 Content meaning 47
4.4.1Introduction 47
4.4.2 Descriptive meaning 49
4.4.3 Affective meaning 52
4.4.4 Attitudinal meaning 56
4.4.5 Social meaning 58
4.4.6 Conclusion: Types of content meaning 59
25
39
Table of contents vii
4.5 Grammatical meaning 61
4.5.1Introduction 61
4.5.2 Types of grammatical meaning 64
4.5.3 Dimensions of grammatical meaning 65
4.5.4Discussion 66
4.5.5 Conclusion: Grammatical meaning 67
4.6 Semantic classes 68
4.6.1Introduction 68
4.6.2 Basic classes 69
4.6.3 Discussion: Semantic classes 71
4.6.4 Conclusion: Semantic classes 72
4.7 Uses of meaning 72
4.7.1Introduction 72
4.7.2 Marked use 73
4.7.3 Defining and descriptive uses 73
4.7.4 Literal and figurative uses 76
4.8 Discussion: Elements of semantic structure 77
4.9 Conclusion: Elements of semantic structure 77
Chapter 5
Network structure
5.1Introduction 79
5.1.1 General introduction 79
5.1.2 Introduction to networks 80
5.2 Structure within a word’s meaning 80
5.2.1Introduction 80
5.2.2 Word senses as a structure of meaning types 82
5.2.3 Structure within descriptive senses 87
5.2.4 Structure within non-descriptive senses 92
5.2.5 Discussion: Compositionality of sense structure 93
5.3 Structure among word senses 95
5.3.1Introduction 95
5.3.2 Sense relations: Synonymy 96
5.3.3 Other sense relations 98
5.3.4 Variation in sense structure 99
5.3.5 Conclusion: Structure among word senses 107
5.4 Structure of sublexical meaning 108
5.4.1Introduction 108
5.4.2Dimensions 109
5.4.3 Elements and their sublexical relations 110
5.4.4 Elements’ external relations 112
5.4.5 Discussion: Structure of sublexical meanings 113
5.4.6 Conclusion: Structure of sublexical meaning 115
79
viii Semantic Structure in English
5.5 Networks in other strata 116
5.5.1 Networks in clause syntax 116
5.5.2 Networks in group syntax 118
5.5.3 Lexical network: Cohesion 119
5.6 Discussion: Network structures in English 120
5.6.1 Whole utterances as networks 120
5.6.2 Networks in imaginative English 121
5.6.3 Relations among one word’s various senses: Polysemy 121
5.7 Conclusion: Network structures in English 123
Chapter 6
System structure
125
6.1Introduction 125
6.1.1 General introduction 125
6.1.2 Introduction to system structure 126
6.2 System processes 127
6.2.1 Introduction: Grammatical meanings 127
6.2.2 Preliminary process: Obtaining content for the main procedure 128
6.2.3 Processes applying within words and groups 129
6.2.4 Processes applying within figures and figure complexes:
Complementation
134
6.2.5 Processes applying to a whole figure 135
6.2.6 Discussion: System processes 137
6.2.7 Conclusion: Grammatical meaning 138
6.3 System procedures: Using the processes 138
6.3.1Introduction 138
6.3.2 Constructing hierarchic structures 139
6.3.3 Constructing network structures in morphosyntax 140
6.4 Discussion: System structure 140
6.4.1 Details not yet explained 140
6.4.2 Signs used for grammatical meaning 141
6.4.3 Grammatical meanings in figurative and other uses 141
6.4.4 Grammatical meaning as backgrounded meaning 142
6.4.5 Other views of grammatical meaning 143
6.5 Conclusion: System structure 144
Chapter 7
Hierarchic structure (1): Figures
7.1Introduction 147
7.1.1 Introduction to hierarchies in semantics 147
7.1.2 Introduction to figures 148
147
Table of contents
7.2 Figure structures 149
7.2.1 Introduction: Processes 149
7.2.2 Material-Process structure 150
7.2.3 Mental-Process structures 151
7.2.4 Relational-Process structures 152
7.2.5 Discussion: Figure structures 153
7.2.6 Conclusion: Summary of figure structures 154
7.3Processes 155
7.3.1 Introduction: Processes 155
7.3.2 Internal structure of Processes 155
7.3.3 Syntagmatic structure of Processes 156
7.3.4 Semantic class: Process 158
7.3.5 Conclusion: Summary of Processes 159
7.4Participants 159
7.4.1Introduction 159
7.4.2 Internal structure 160
7.4.3 Syntagmatic structure 160
7.4.4 Participant as semantic class 161
7.4.5 Discussion: Participant roles and “semantic roles” 161
7.4.6 Conclusion: Summary of Participants 162
7.5Circumstances 162
7.5.1Introduction 162
7.5.2 Internal structure of Circumstances 163
7.5.3 Syntagmatic structure of Circumstances 164
7.5.4 Semantic class of Circumstances 166
7.5.5 Discussion: Circumstances 166
7.5.6 Conclusion: Summary of Circumstances 168
7.6 Relations among Participant, Process and Circumstance 168
7.7 Structures larger than the figure 169
7.8 Discussion: Figures 170
7.8.1 Co-ordination and linearity 170
7.8.2Constructions 171
7.8.3Ergativity 172
7.8.4 Compositionality in figures 174
7.9 Conclusion: Figures 175
Chapter 8
Hierarchies (2): Groups and senses
8.1Introduction 177
8.1.1 General introduction 177
8.1.2 Introduction to groups 177
177
ix
x
Semantic Structure in English
8.2 Entity groups 178
8.2.1Introduction 178
8.2.2Classifiers 180
8.2.3Descriptors 189
8.2.4Epithets 193
8.2.5Reinforcers 200
8.2.6Determiners 203
8.2.7Postmodifiers 205
8.2.8Heads 206
8.2.9 Entity group as a unit 211
8.2.10 Discussion of Entity groups 217
8.3 Process groups 222
8.3.1Introduction 222
8.3.2 The Finite 223
8.3.3 Grammatical auxiliaries 224
8.3.4 Modal auxiliaries 225
8.3.5 Negative as modifier 226
8.3.6Premodifiers 226
8.3.7 Postposed particles as modifiers 231
8.3.8 Heads of Process groups 232
8.3.9 Process groups as units 236
8.3.10 Discussion: Process groups 237
8.3.11 Conclusion: Process groups 239
8.4 Property groups 239
8.4.1Introduction 239
8.4.2 Property groups with Property heads 240
8.4.3 Headless Property groups: Prepositional phrases 242
8.4.4 Conclusion: Property groups 244
8.5 Words and morphemes 245
8.5.1 Internal structure 245
8.5.2 Syntagmatic structure 247
8.5.3 Semantic classes: Content meaning 248
8.5.4 Grammatical meaning in words and morphemes 249
8.5.5 Discussion: Compositionality of word senses 249
8.6 Discussion: Hierarchic structure in groups and senses 250
8.6.1 Language constraints 250
8.6.2 Semantic change 251
8.7 Conclusion: Hierarchic structure in groups and senses 252
Table of contents
Chapter 9
Hierarchic structure (3): Information structure
255
9.1Introduction 255
9.1.1 General introduction 255
9.1.2 Introduction to information structure 255
9.2 Relevance structure 258
9.2.1Introduction 258
9.2.2 Reporting structure 260
9.2.3 Loose structures 261
9.2.4 Topic-Comment structure 262
9.2.5 Conclusion: Relevance structure 265
9.3 Orientation structure: “Theme” 266
9.3.1Introduction 266
9.3.2 Classes of Theme 267
9.3.3 Themes occurring at ranks other than the figure 269
9.3.4 Discussion: Orientation structure 270
9.3.5 Conclusion: Orientation structure 271
9.4 Salience structure: Rheme 272
9.4.1Introduction 272
9.4.2 Salience within an information item 273
9.4.3 Salience of items within an information unit: Rhematic structure 276
9.4.4 Salience of information units in larger units 279
9.4.5 Conclusion: Salience structure 281
9.5 Discussion: Information structure 282
9.5.1 Relation of information structure to the bases and elements
of language 282
9.5.2Compositionality 283
9.5.3Case 284
9.5.4Cohesion 286
9.6 Conclusion: Information structure 287
9.6.1Summary 287
9.6.2 Conclusions drawn 288
Chapter 10
Other structures
10.1Introduction 291
10.2 Semantic units with indeterminate structure 291
10.2.1Introduction 291
10.2.2 Ideational function 292
10.2.3 Interpersonal function 292
10.2.4 Expressive function 294
291
xi
xii Semantic Structure in English
10.3 Semantic units with multifunctional structure 295
10.3.1Introduction 295
10.3.2Holophrases 295
10.3.3Ideophones 299
10.3.4 Discussion: Semantic units with multifunctional structure 300
10.3.5 Conclusion: Semantic units with multifunctional structure 301
10.4 Semantic units with field structure 301
10.5 Semantic units with wave structure 304
10.5.1Introduction 304
10.5.2 Wave structure in information 304
10.5.3 Wave structure in aesthetics and emotion 306
10.5.4 Conclusion: Wave structure 306
10.6 Discussion: Other structures 307
10.7 Conclusion: Other structures 307
Chapter 11
Realisation (1): Interpersonal functions
11.1Introduction 309
11.1.1 General introduction 309
11.1.2 Introduction to realisation 310
11.2 Realising the Expressive function 312
11.2.1Introduction 312
11.2.2 Holistic realisation of Expression 312
11.2.3 Phonological realisation of Expression 313
11.2.4 Phonetic realisation of Expression 314
11.2.5 Lexical realisation of Expression 315
11.2.6 Conclusion: Realisation of Expression 315
11.3 Realising emotion and attitude 316
11.3.1Introduction 316
11.3.2 Conveying emotion by phonology and phonetics 316
11.3.3 Conveying emotion by lexis and syntax 317
11.3.4 Conveying attitude 318
11.3.5 Conclusion: Conveying emotion and attitude 319
11.4 Establishing personal and social relations 319
11.4.1 Establishing personal relations 319
11.4.2 Establishing social relations and social status 320
11.4.3 Discussion: Personal and social relations 320
11.4.4 Conclusion: Personal and social relations 321
11.5 Guiding hearers’ use of meaning 321
11.5.1 Introduction: Realisation of grammatical meaning 321
11.5.2 Guiding hearers’ overt response 322
11.5.3 Guiding hearers to syntagmatic structure 323
11.5.4 Guiding hearers to information structure 324
309
Table of contents xiii
11.5.5 Guiding the hearer’s attitude to content: Irrealis 330
11.5.6 Discussion: Guiding hearers 332
11.5.7 Conclusion: Guiding hearers 333
11.6 Provoking imaginative responses 333
11.6.1Introduction 333
11.6.2 How imaginative responses are provoked 334
11.6.3 Discussion: Provoking imaginative responses 337
11.6.4 Conclusion: Provoking imaginative responses 337
11.7 Discussion: Realisation of interpersonal meanings 338
11.8 Conclusion: Realisation of interpersonal functions 339
Chapter 12
Realisation (2): Ideational function
12.1Introduction 341
12.1.1 General introduction 341
12.1.2 Introduction to ideational realisation 341
12.2 From intentions to words 343
12.2.1Introduction 343
12.2.2 Unmarked realisation into words 344
12.2.3 Marked realisation into words 348
12.2.4 Conclusion: From intentions to words 349
12.3 Syntacticisation (1): From words to groups 350
12.3.1Introduction 350
12.3.2 Grouping the words 351
12.3.3 Structuring the group 352
12.3.4 Ordering the group 356
12.3.5 Signalling the group structure 357
12.3.6 Discussion: Syntacticisation into groups 360
12.3.7 Conclusion: Syntacticisation into groups 360
12.4 Syntacticisation (2): From groups to clauses 361
12.4.1Introduction 361
12.4.2 Structuring the units 361
12.4.3 Ordering clause units 365
12.4.4 Signalling the structure 366
12.4.5 Conclusion: Syntacticisation into clauses 367
12.4.6 Grouping figures in a clause complex 367
12.5 Physical realisation 368
12.5.1Introduction 368
12.5.2 Realisation in sound 369
12.5.3 Realisation in writing 371
12.6 Discussion: Realisation of ideational function 372
12.6.1 How we conceptualise realisation 372
12.6.2 Incongruent realisation: Grammatical metaphor 372
341
xiv Semantic Structure in English
12.6.3Construal 373
12.6.4Statives 373
12.6.5 Domains offering alternative realisation 374
12.6.6 Comparison between morphosyntactic layers 376
12.7 Conclusion: Realisation of ideational meaning 376
12.8 Conclusion: Both forms of meaning realisation in English 378
12.8.1 Relation between the two forms of realisation 378
12.8.2 Sequence of steps 380
12.8.3 Realisation strategies 381
12.8.4 Adequacy of realisation as a semantic concept 382
12.8.5 Constraints on realisation 383
12.8.6 Looking forward 384
Chapter 13
Discussion385
13.1Compositionality 385
13.1.1Introduction 385
13.1.2 Full compositionality 386
13.1.3 Limited compositionality 387
13.2 Word classes 388
13.2.1Introduction 388
13.2.2 Needlessness and unworkability 388
13.2.3 Lack of explanatory power 389
13.2.4Support 391
13.2.5Discussion 392
13.2.6Conclusion 393
13.3Prototypes 393
13.3.1Introduction 393
13.3.2 Needlessness of prototype theory in English grammar 394
13.3.3 Unworkability of prototypes in grammar 395
13.3.4 Confusions in acceptance of prototypes 395
13.3.5 Conclusion: Prototypes 398
13.4Lexicon 399
13.5Systematisation 401
13.6 Minor topics for discussion 402
13.6.1Semiotics 402
13.6.2 Distinction between descriptive and referential use 402
13.6.3 Distinction between grammatical and content meaning 403
13.6.4 Distinction between cognitive and linguistic areas of meaning 403
13.6.5 Formalisation of linguistic description 404
13.6.6 Concept of classes 404
13.6.7 Philosophical tradition in linguistics 405
Table of contents
Chapter 14
Conclusion407
14.1Introduction 407
14.2 Nature of meaning 407
14.2.1Introduction 407
14.2.2 Symptomatic meaning 408
14.2.3 Semiotic meaning 409
14.3 Nature of semantic structure 410
14.3.1Introduction 410
14.3.2 Analytical view of semantic structure (1): Structures of units 410
14.3.3 Analytical view of semantic structure (2): Structures in a medium 412
14.3.4 Functional view of semantic structure 412
14.3.5 Conclusion: Nature of semantic structure 413
14.4 Stratification of the semantic structure 413
14.4.1 Introduction 413
14.4.2 Semantics 414
14.4.3 Lexical items 414
14.4.4 Morphology 415
14.4.5 Morphosyntax 415
14.4.6 Information structure 419
14.4.7 Phonology and graphology 419
14.4.8 Phonetics 421
14.4.9 Discussion: Stratification 422
14.4.10 Conclusion: Stratification 422
14.5 Contribution to semantics 425
14.6 Further research 425
References427
Index443
xv
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1
Goals of the book
The primary goal of this book is to set out the semantic structure of English.
“Semantic” here is contrasted with “syntactic” and “phonological”, and also with
“pragmatic” (concerned with “meaning” which relies on social conventions such as
the Gricean maxims, and on inferences from them). “Semantics” means “to do with
studying what is expressed in language”, which includes “meaning” and “significance”;
that meaning of the term will be refined later in the book. It is not the study of propositional or truth-conditional meaning alone, but the study of significance and meanings that are “coded” in linguistic items and structures, be they truth-conditional or
not (Hansen 2012, p. 233). “Structure” is also taken widely, having a range of applications, as it does in syntax. In particular, it includes the abstract sense in which social
structure, for example, is thought of as consisting of class and other relationships; and
it includes the more concrete sense in which we may itemise individual structures.
The study of semantic structure is to be linguistic. That will exclude sociolinguistics, conversation analysis, and discourse analysis, and paralinguistic features (e.g.
volume, tone of voice, speed and voice quality). The book also excludes “dynamic”
semantics, dealing with the building of a whole text, utterance by utterance, as in
Discourse Representation Theory; see Kamp and Reyle (2011), for instance. Further,
the study will be limited to English, although my knowledge of French and my reading about other languages indicates that what is true of English semantic structure is
true widely.
Researching this book has led me to change my understanding of language, particularly in how it carries meaning, and in how meaning is structured in expression.
A secondary goal of the book is therefore to persuade readers to adjust their understanding if necessary – crucially, perhaps, in how they understand “semantics”
and “syntax”.
1.2Approach
Approach to language. The book will treat language as it exists in use; meaning will be
taken as contextual, and the argument will be empirical, citing utterances as evidence.
Language is assumed to be functional: each utterance is presumed to have a cognitive, personal or social function, which may be deliberate or only semiconscious; and
2
Semantic Structure in English
language itself is seen as functional in the evolutionary sense of being adapted to a
beneficial result, representation of knowledge being one of the functions – only one
of them. Language is also seen as functional in the further sense that it involves operations, with “input” of some sort, and the “output” of speaker utterances or hearer
response.
The approach to language is also semiotic, rather than logical (to do with thinking). That seems necessary to deciding what “meaning” is, since conceptions of it
vary widely. The fundamental sense of “meaning”, according to the Shorter Oxford
English Dictionary (“SOED” hereafter), entails being expressed “by a sentence, word,
dream, symbol…”; that is, meaning is the meaning of a sign. (I have adopted in my
own thinking, as a rule of thumb, the maxim, “No sign, no meaning”.) Further, we
need to be conscious of the nature of linguistic signs; we should not assume that all
signs are symbols, giving full expression or representation of the meaning; the SOED
definition quoted just above says, more fully, that meaning is “…expressed or indicated by a sentence…”; signs may be mere indications of the meaning. Finally, the
semiotic approach reminds us that meaning in its broad sense may include intention;
the SOED definition of the fundamental meaning of “mean” as a verb reads, “Have as
one’s purpose or intention…”.
Approach to studying language. The aim of studying language is taken here to be not
only description but explanation. By analogy, it may be explanatory in studying the
speech organs to consider not only their anatomy, but their function, their mode of
operation, and their development. Similarly, in studying the semantic structure of
speech, it may be explanatory to call on psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics and development studies – of both language itself and children’s use of it. The explanation
should, moreover, be comprehensive – complete.
Because there is no consensus on the nature of semantics, we should be particularly careful of assumptions – for example, the incompatible assumptions made by the
various approaches listed by Koptjevskaya-Tamm (2012), in which meaning is either
(1) decomposable, descriptive and absolute, or (2) non-composable and denotational,
or (3) always associated with a certain construction.
I have accordingly tried to avoid commitment to particular theories and systems
of description. The approach taken is in fact close to Systemic Functional Grammar in
syntax, as in Halliday (2014), and to Cruse (2011) in semantics. Readers who distinguish between semasiological and onomasiological approaches should note that the
approach here is semasiological – concerned with how language carries meaning, not
with what words assigned to particular meanings.
1.3
Argument of the book
Content of the argument. The nature of syntactic structure will be familiar to readers,
perhaps as a hierarchy represented in tree diagrams, or as dependency structures. The
Chapter 1. Introduction
nature of phonological structure is also clear, with a hierarchy of units from intonation groups down through metrical feet to syllables and phonemes. But there is, to
my knowledge, no overall structure of semantics presented in the linguistic literature.
Three uses of “semantic structure” may be noted. To Langacker, it is conceptual structure, without any distinction between concepts and meaning (1987, p. 99);
there is an “unequivocal identification of meaning with concepts”( 2005, p. 164); other
cognitive linguists take much the same view; so does Jackendoff (1972). Croft (2001,
pp. 19–21 in particular) refers to both “semantic structure” and “semantic structures”
in constructions; but such structure is not distinguished from the syntactic structure
which determines the construction; semantics is in effect simply conceptual for him,
also. In also these instances, “semantic structure” is conceptual relations, such as those
between entities and properties predicated of them, or those of a “semantic field”, i.e. a
group of concepts or things in the same cognitive domain. Evans (2009) sees semantic
structure as consisting of cognitive representations which are specialised for use in
language (2009, p. 42), but does not explain what kind of structure it is, or what specific structures there are; the only distinctions he gives are between concepts such as
MATRIX, DURATION, and EVENT, which are not specialised for language.
Moreover, those discussions of semantic structure do not even include the semantic structure of the relationships among synonyms, antonyms and so on. (Those
relations are not usually thought of as semantic structure, but as “lexical relations”,
for example.) We need an account that integrates those elements into a comprehensive structure, and provides a rationale for the integration. The main argument of the
book, then, is that semantics in English does have structure, and the substance of the
book is an exposition of what that structure is.
Form of the argument. Since there is no generally accepted structure or set of data, the
argument here cannot be simply deductive, or inductive. Instead, it will work from
accepted specific understandings, such as the fact that the relation of modifier to head
is semantic as well as syntactic, and from data introduced for the purpose. It will then
work by inference and generalisation from those bases, using other concepts, used in
some fields or approaches to linguistics but not used universally. Although the conclusions may be new, and in some cases contrary to conventional views, it is intended
that both the starting points and the argument from them be all conventional and
acceptable.
Development of the argument. The argument of the book begins, then, from the relations among synonyms and antonyms. Clearly, they are often related by having the
same conceptual meaning, or by being distinguished by their concepts. However, the
differences are sometimes not conceptual; famous and notorious, for example, both
denote the concept, ‘well-known’; they differ only in that they express different attitudes to being well known – favourable and unfavourable. Words like lovely and
horrible generally have no conceptual meaning, but are meaningful: we must allow
for emotive meaning. Those three forms of meaning – conceptual, attitudinal and
emotive – may be grouped as content meanings; but some meaningful words have no
3
4
Semantic Structure in English
content, as with utter and sheer, in “utter rubbish” and “sheer nonsense”. They intensify the word they modify; that is certainly their significance, although it may not be
what we usually call “meaning”; since it is significance, semantics must account for it.
Those words are “grammatical items” or “functional items”; they contrast with “content items”; since the latter have content “meaning”, can we not say that the former
have “grammatical meaning”? In the first stage of the argument, then, we see a structure of types of meaning; and simple, relatively obvious observations lead naturally
to an unfamiliar, and perhaps uncomfortable, conclusion – that there is such a thing
as grammatical meaning (with the relation of meaning to function, and of the connection between grammatical relations and grammatical meaning yet to be clarified).
Further reflection leads to the familiar fact that word meanings have an internal
structure, sometimes thought of as definitions, as in dictionaries, and sometimes as
lists of features, as when the meaning of stallion is represented as HORSE + ADULT +
MALE. Those conceptual elements are used in many words, and are related in various
ways; they must be seen as constituting a network, which has nodes with many links
each. Networks are a major semantic structure in English.
The relation between syntax and semantics has been controversial, but there is
now general agreement that the relation between them is very close, and approximates interdependence. There is a semantic structure “underlying” the syntax, or
“embodied” by it, or “interpreted” from it; its relations are not those of Subject, verb
and Object, but must parallel them, perhaps as “semantic roles”. However we describe
the elements of the structure, it must have the same form as the syntactic structure,
namely a hierarchy – which constitutes a second major semantic structure in English.
It is now widely agreed that English has “information structure” or “information
packaging”; but its place in grammar is not agreed. However, it seems to be clearly a
matter of content rather than of syntax; we conclude that it either is semantic, or has
an important relation to semantics. Our account of semantic structure must find a
place for it.
That provides a very brief outline of the argument of the book. It begins, I believe,
from familiar and accepted premises; it will end with some conclusions that will be
similarly unsurprising, but with some others that are likely to seem controversial or
even strange. That is particularly because of detail which has been passed over so far.
The following questions to be answered will give the flavour of the detail. What is
the semantic significance of being a Subject? In what different ways can the meaning
of an adjective modify the meaning of its head word? If we allow grammatical meaning, what is its nature, and what is its structure? Can semantics resolve the apparently
syntactic arguments about the difference between Complements and Adjuncts, for
example? Expression of meaning in words is sometimes called “coding”, but what does
it entail beyond a one-to-one conversion, like coding the letter S into Morse code as
dots and dashes? The substance of the book lies in such detail, rather than in the argument outlined above.
Chapter 1. Introduction
The aim of the book, then, is to set out an orderly explanation of the structure
of meaning in English, with those and other questions resolved, and comprehensive
enough to find a place for all that is valid in present semantic thinking.
1.4
Plan of the book
Outline. The book has been planned to make the argument easy to follow, and to be
persuasive. For example, unfamiliar concepts are presented through examples and
through use, with abstract definition delayed until the concept is clear. The important
generalisations are given after the empirical detail on which they are based, rather
than being given first, without context.
Thus, Chapter 2 surveys familiar knowledge of English, looking for relatively obvious instances of semantic structure, building up some of the concepts and technical
terms that will be used throughout later chapters, and – perhaps most important –
bringing out phenomena that need explanation through semantic structure.
Chapters 3 and 4 formalise the concepts introduced in Chapter 2, and add others,
building the foundation for the remainder of the book. Chapter 3 deals with the basis
of semantic structure in the intentions from which meaning rises, and in the functions which it serves. Chapter 4 outlines the elements from which semantic structure
is built, such as the types of meaning (see above), conceptual elements of meaning,
and the dimensions which define them. Chapter 5 discusses the network structure
built up by those elements and dimensions, chiefly in senses and their relations.
Chapter 6 explains the processes which restructure the elements of the network into
the other main semantic structure, the hierarchy which parallels the syntactic hierarchy. Chapters 7 and 8 set out the nature of that hierarchic structure, from the clause
level down to the level of senses and their constituents. Chapter 9 sets out the nature
of information structure, similarly. Chapter 10 deals with other, less used structures.
That completes the analytical explanation of semantic structure; it is complemented
in Chapters 11 and 12 by a discussion of the structure of realisation; that is, the way
in which specific messages are formulated out of the vast multi-dimensional network
of potential meaning, formed into words, organised into utterances, and delivered
in speech or writing. Chapter 13 discusses implications from the previous chapters
which are relevant to our understanding of linguistics, but outside the narrow scope
of the book. Chapter 14 summarises and draws conclusions.
Conventions observed. Concepts are printed in SMALL CAPITALS. Meanings are printed
in single quotation marks – ‘……’. Words and phrases being discussed as utterances
are printed in double quotation marks – “……” – whereas words being discussed as
words in the language are printed in italics. That avoids the clumsiness of continually
saying “the word ‘table’” and “the meaning ‘table’,” but can cause its own difficulty
when the reader must keep in mind that “Table is…” (i.e. the word is…) does not
mean the same as “ ‘Table’ is…” (i.e. the meaning is…). Initial capitals are used where
5
6
Semantic Structure in English
needed to distinguish technical from general terms, as in “The Subject of the sentence…” and “….a subject for investigation”.
Quoted utterances are put on a new line as numbered examples when they are to
be given some discussion, but are otherwise run into the text.
Chapter 2
Semantic structures in the strata of English
2.1Introduction
Purpose and approach of the chapter. Like Chapter 1, this chapter prepares for the rest
of the book. It examines the strata of English, identifying some semantic structures
to be described fully later, identifying structural and conceptual elements which will
aid that description, and noting some things that need further explanation and some
that have no familiar explanation at all. The approach is exploratory, looking for representative instances, leaving comprehensive treatment to later chapters. The purpose
is thus to persuade readers fully that the book is needed, and to indicate what they
can expect in the following chapters. Phonology has been given more space than the
other strata, because its semantic significance is much less known, and to allow later
chapters to draw on its explanations.
Arrangement. The remaining sections deal in turn with the strata of lexis, morphology, syntax, and phonology, in relation to semantics. There is no developing argument;
rather, points are made independently, and the conclusion will be general.
2.2
2.2.1
Semantic structure in lexis
Paradigmatic lexical relations
We begin the study of semantic structure in lexis by considering the words that fit into
paradigms of alternatives – sets of synonyms, antonyms and so on. Comparing closely
related lexical items such as sob, whimper, weep, keen, and blubber shows that word
meanings seem to be built up from elements. For example, all those words include ‘to
manifest pain, misery or grief ’ (SOED, on weep); sob adds the element ‘convulsively’,
and whimper adds ‘feebly’ and ‘intermittently’. That analysis shows that weep has a
general sense, and that the other senses are more specific. That is a general pattern;
senses differ on the dimension of “generality” or “specificity”. Dimensions will be important in setting out semantic structure.
Those conceptual elements do not exhaust the differences between synonyms,
however. We use weep in formal contexts, and blub and blubber in informal ones, in my
judgement at least – SOED does not specify their usage. That is part of the significance
of the words, though it may not feel natural to say that it is part of their “meaning”.
8
Semantic Structure in English
We use whimper and blubber to convey disapproval: attitudinal “meaning” is another
aspect of words’ significance. Finally, to keen has Irish “connotations”, which must be
accounted for somewhere in our description of meaning. Among other relations, each
of the synonyms considered has its antonyms; and weep is a hyponym for the others.
The book will argue that these forms of significance are indeed part of meaning, and
will be referred to as “types” of meaning.
The types and dimensions of meaning make “planes” on which word senses are
related, additional to the conceptual elements. The natural term for such for such a set
of patterns on several planes is “network”, which is one of the fundamental semantic
structures of English.
2.2.2
Syntagmatic lexical relations
2.2.2.1 Grammatical and content items
When we compare words in their syntagmatic arrangement, a more familiar distinction quickly arises, the distinction between “lexical” or “content” words and morphemes, and “functional” or “grammatical” ones. It is not obvious whether that is a
semantic contrast, or a contrast between semantics and grammar. Nor is its nature
made clear in the literature: lexical and grammatical items are said to constitute classes, but the classes overlap, with many words belonging in both. The book will distinguish between content meaning and grammatical meaning, as types of meaning. They
need thorough examination; for example, prepositions and conjunctions link chunks
of content, so is grammatical meaning structural? What do content meaning and
grammatical meaning have in common? It will be argued that grammatical meaning
is fundamental to semantic structure.
2.2.2.2 Semantic classes
If we consider repeating patterns, as in such utterances as “Roses are red; violets are
blue; sugar is sweet, and so are you”, it seems obvious that meanings belong to semantic classes – of “entities” (‘roses’, ‘violets’, ‘sugar’) and “properties” (‘red’, ‘blue’, ‘sweet’).
“Events” (‘ran’, ‘broke’, ‘fell’) are an obvious addition. Is and are are not so straightforward – do we need to posit a relationship class?
2.2.2.3 Semantic classes and cognitive classes
Problems emerge very quickly, however. Relationships are so different from the members of the other three classes, which are clearly based on the way we experience the
world directly, that we must enquire whether the classification is valid. Second, it
seems doubtful that there should be semantic classes of kinds of things, such as flowers, grasses, weeds and so on; those are horticultural classes, and part of our knowledge of the world, not of grammar; so we need to resolve the nature of being semantic,
including the relation between the linguistic (e.g. semantic) and cognitive (e.g. horticultural). Since the classes of things, properties and so on support the classes of