{"id":252676,"date":"2026-07-13T02:16:24","date_gmt":"2026-07-12T23:16:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/1kitap1.com\/en\/a-componential-analysis-of-meaning-eugene-a-nida\/"},"modified":"2026-07-13T02:16:24","modified_gmt":"2026-07-12T23:16:24","slug":"a-componential-analysis-of-meaning-eugene-a-nida","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1kitap1.com\/en\/a-componential-analysis-of-meaning-eugene-a-nida\/","title":{"rendered":"A Componential Analysis Of Meaning – Eugene A Nida"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"<\/figure>\n

There is no major shift in semantic domain, since both forms belong to the major domain of human beings and the subdomain of status titles. Figurative extension of meaning involves a radical shift in semantic domains in which the semantic relations between base and extended meaning depend upon either a supplementary component or a reinterpreted diagnostic component. Compare the animal is a rat and that thug is a rat.<\/p>\n

The differences between central and peripheral meanings involve linked sets of diagnostic components, which form a semantic chain binding a series together. There may also be certain common components which serve to unite such a set. Compare, for example, paper in the following contexts: he bought a paper, he wrote a paper, and he manufactures paper. There is one important type of semantic relation \u2014 addition \u2014 which is essentially grammatical, rather than referential.<\/p>\n

In the related forms boy and boys there is no essential difference in the referential meaning of the base boy, and the resultant form does not belong to a different semantic domain. The semantic relations between boy and boys might appear to be essentially the same as between count and countess, since one can argue that the compo\u00ac nent of singularity in boy is replaced by the component of plurality in boys. But one and the same referent may be identified either as boy or incorporated into a class designated by boys, but the term countess cannot include a count as one of its referents.<\/p>\n

To this extent there is a minor shift in semantic domain in count! countess, but not in boy\/boys. The referential domain of the base in boy\/boys is the same, but there is an additional factor, namely, the referential meaning of plurality, which is combined grammatically with boy to provide an added meaning, treated traditionally as \u201cinflection\u201d.12 The form boys is semantically not unlike the combination each 12 This relation is traditionally treated as \u201cinflection\u201d, in contrast with derivation, as exemplified by the shift in count!<\/p>\n

countess. boy and every boy, in which an attributive with plural meaning adds a distinctive element. The difference between semantic derivation and what may be called \u201csemantic inflection\u201d may be clearer when one considers a Spanish form such as cantare, consisting of a stem cant-, which carries all the components of \u2018sing\u2019, a suffix -ar, which indicates future time, and -e, which designates the subject as first person singular.<\/p>\n

The semantic relations between these units (the stem and two suffixes) is not essentially different from the semantic relations between the three words in English I will sing. Each element pos\u00ac sesses certain referential meanings, but the relation between the meanings is grammatical. The meanings of the underlying forms, the stem in cant- or the free form sing, are not semantically altered by having certain other meanings added. These additive semantic relations are of great importance in any analysis of grammatical meaning. However, such meanings are beyond the scope of this volume.<\/p>\n

\n

\u00a9 Copyright 1975 in The Netherlands Mouton & Co. N. V., Publishers, The Hague No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers Printed in Belgium by NICI, Ghent CONTENTS Preface .<\/p>\n

7 Chapter 1. An Introduction to Meaning . 11 2. Components of Meaning . 32 3. The Related Meanings of Different Lexical Units . . 68 4. Different Meanings of the Same Lexical Units … Ill 5. Procedures for the Analysis of the Componential Structure of a Single Referential Meaning ….<\/p>\n

151 6. Semantic Domains . 1 74 7. The Nature of Referential Meaning . 194 Appendix Problems . 208 Glossary . 227 Bibliography . 234 Index . 270 240389 PREFACE This volume on the componential analysis of referential meaning has grown out of experience in attempting to communicate to translators some of the basic problems involved in determining the essential features of meaning of lexical units.<\/p>\n

In a sense it is a logical outgrowth of the book on The Theory and Practice of Translation, prepared by Charles R. Taber and myself.1 The audience for which this volume is intended consists primarily of underdivision university students who have had some limited exposure to linguistics, but who are only beginning their interest in semantics. Advanced students in linguistics will no doubt want to skim quickly over the two initial chapters, and then read Chapters 6 and 7 before returning to consider the methodological techniques which constitute the major linguistic contribution.<\/p>\n

As will be quite evident, the general linguistic orientation throughout this volume is generative-transformational,2 and the treatment of the relations between components3 indicates clearly 1 The Theory and Practice of Translation (Nida and Taber 1969) contains one chapter on referential meaning, in which a number of basic concepts of com\u00ac ponential analysis are introduced, especially from the point of view of inter\u00ac lingual communication. There is, however, a confusion in the treatment of the supplementary components, since cognitive and emotive components are combined.<\/p>\n

2 For a discussion of the principal aspects of generative-transformational grammar, the following articles and books are of special relevance: Chomsky 1962, 1965, and 1971, Halle 1964, Harris 1957, Hymes 1972, Jacobs and Rosenbaum 1968, Koutsoudas 1966, G. Lakoff 1970 and 1972, Langendoen 1969, Lees 1960, McCawley 1971, Postal 1966. 3 See especially pages 204-205.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This is a short excerpt from the opening of “” by Unknown, quoted for review and introduction purposes. All rights belong to the copyright holders.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n
\n

Table of Contents<\/p>\nToggle<\/span><\/path><\/svg><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n