5.4   Componential Analysis

    Componential analysis, according to Leech, is the process of breaking down the sense of a word into its minimal components. Every content word, even some of the simplest, harbours(包含；怀有) an amazingly explicit(明确)  set of wayward(难以捉摸的，无法预言的；不规则的)  traits(特征，特性) . Digging them out, classifying them, and showing their relationships is termed componential analysis(成分分析)  ( Bolinger and Sears 1981:114). As an example, let us examine a group of semantically related words man , woman , boy, girl.

	A	B
1	man	woman
2	boy	girl

This diagram represents three-dimensions of meaning of these words. Vertically, Column A and Column B show the dimension of sex 'male' and 'female'; horizontally, Line 1 and Line 2 reveal the dimension of age 'adult' and 'young'. Considered as a whole, these four words form the semantic field(语义场)  'human race', the third dimension. These traits of words are abstracted from the words and are called by semantic analysts semantic features(语义特征) , which are the components of the sense of words. Conventionally, these minimal components can "be symbolized in terms of binarity(两极性) : + ADULT (adult) , —ADULT (young), + MALE (male), —MALE (female), + HUMAN (human), -HUMAN (non-human). Therefore, the meanings of the individual items can be expressed by combinations of these features:

man        ( + HUMAN  + ADULT  + MALE)

woman     ( + HUMAN  + ADULT   -MALE)

 boy         ( + HUMAN   -ADULT    + MALE)

 girl          ( + HUMAN   - ADULT   - MALE)

however, the sexual dimension of the meaning of many lexical items is characteristic of neutralization(中性)  of opposition such as cat, child. Under such circumstances, we might describe the definition as follows (See Leech 1981:90) :

child    ( + HUMAN  - ADULT   OMALE)

cat       ( - HUMAN  + ADULT  OMALE)

    In making componential analysis, it is important to focus on the defining features, i.e. features which can distinguish one word from another. For example, between horse, cattle and machine, chair, the defining feature is ( ± ANIMATE); between road, house and thought, philosophy, the distinguishing feature(区别性特征)  is ( ± CONCRETE); between water, gas and stone , tree, the discriminating feature(区别性特征)  is [ ± COUNTABLE] , etc. . Verbs like nouns also have defining features(区别性特征) , for example, ( ± MOMENTARY), ( ±dynamic) , ( ± transitive) .

    Componential analysis as a theory of word meaning is a useful and revealing technique(展示手段) for demonstrating relations of meaning between words. Knowing the semantic features of a word helps one in grasping the conceptual meaning. For example, the word dog can be defined as ( + ANIMATE, -HUMAN, +CANINE(犬科动物) , + DOMESTIC) plus (OMALE) or (+ COUNTABLE) depending on the intention of the user. Similarly, the meaning of foal()  is composed of [ + ANIMATE, -HUMAN, + EQUINE(马；马科动物) , -ADULT, OMALE], which tell us it is a 'young horse'.

    Secondly, componential analysis can help show the synonymy of two items by giving them both the same componential features. For instance, spinster and maiden are synonymous in that both are [ + HUMAN, - MALE, - MARRIED], but differ considerably in connotations: the former conveying a negative overtone(含蓄之意；暗示) , the latter a positive association.

    Thirdly, by componential analysis of words, we can tell whether a certain collocation or syntactic structure is acceptable or not. Let us look at two sentences:

(1)   * He has left this neighborhood for ten years.

(2)  He has lived in this neighborhood for ten years.

The surface structures of the two sentences are very similar. It seems that one is not any better than the other. However, if we analyze just the semantic features of the verbs, we will come to quite a different conclusion. The verb leave used in sentence (1) is [ + MOMENTARY], and is not supposed to co-occur with 'for+ time' which is characteristic of [ - MOMENTARY]; while in sentence (2), live is a [ - MOMENTARY] verb, and is grammatically compatible with(与…一致的)  'for + time'. Therefore, sentence (1) is not acceptable whereas sentence (2) is. This can be further illustrated:

(1)  The robbers broke into the bank with a hammer.

(2)   * A hammer broke into the bank by the robbers.

Break has the feature of [ + DYNAMIC], entailing a subject which is [+ANIMATE]. The word robber is [ + HUMAN], which is semantically included in the feature of [+ANIMATE], so logically sentence (1) is correct. But sentence (2) is problematic, as hammer is [-ANIMATE], incapable of the agent of the action of breaking. (Consequently, sentence (2) is unacceptable.

    Nevertheless, semanticists do not agree on the merits of componential analysis, which is in fact controversial. The major views are:

   1)  Componential analysis is useful only in a limited scope, for it accounts for only some parts of a language's vocabulary. It is well applicable, to concrete words which have definite referents, but not effective when we deal with words of abstract ideas or words whose referents are not clear. For example, what are the semantic features of beauty, delight, hostility? It is not easy to abstract components of their senses. Even a concrete word like game is hard to analyze. Failing to find the essential defining features that   constitute game, Wittgenstein concluded that we know what the word game means only by virtue of recognizing certain 'family resemblance'(家族相似性) between the activities it refers to. Labov's experiment with the object 'cup' (1973) leads to the same conclusion that often a word can not be defined in terms of a clear-cut, unvarying set of features. Does the cup have a handle, have a saucer? Is it narrow and deep rather than wide and shallow? Is it used for drinking out of or for other purposes? Indeed, it is difficult to pin them down (See discussion by Leech 1981: 117-118).

   2)  Some semanticists hold that it is not enough to break down the sense of a word into its components in terms of their referents' physical aspects. In the actual contexts, many words are used in figurative rather than literal sense. For example, tiger is defined as [+ ANIMATE, +FELINE(猫科动物；猫科的) , +CARNIVOROUS(食肉的)], but it does not explain the sentence 'There is a mixture of the tiger and the ape in the character of the imperialists'. Obviously, tiger in this context does not refer to the animal in its physical sense but the associative qualities of the referent under discussion, i. e. 'cruel and ferocious(凶恶的；残忍的) '.

    Because of the figurative use of words, many collocations which in appearance are impossible are acceptable, e. g. beautiful tyrant, cold fire , honorable villain . 

    Therefore, we say that the usefulness of componential analysis is limited to a certain extent. In the actual use of language, we need to employ it in combination of other techniques to its best advantage.