(英语语言学纲要

(英语语言学纲要

ComponentialAnalysisComponentialanalysisisamethodthatlooksateachwordasabundleofdifferentfeaturesorcomponents.Thefocusofcomponentialanalysisisonfindingthosefeaturesthatarenecessaryandsufficientforagivenitemtobeanexampleofagivenword.Forexample,thewordmancouldbeseenasthesumofthefeatures[+human],[+adult],[+male].Anyonewhohas11ofthesefeaturesqualifiesasaman.Similarly,thewordwomanwouldbedefinedas[+human],[+adult],[-male],thewordboyas[+human],[-adult],[+male],andthewordgirlas[+human].[-adult],[-male].(Notethatwritingfeaturesinbracketswiththesymbols“+”+and“-”isaconventionofcomponentialanalysis.)Incontrast,theworddogwouldbedefinedas[-human],[+/-adult],[+/-male].(The“+/-”symbolmeansthatitmaybelongtoeithergroupandstillbeadog.)Componentialanalysishelpsyoufindthosefeatureswhicharedistinctive,andwhichcreatedifferencesamongagroupofrelatedwords.Thefeaturesofthewordsgivenabovearesummarizedinthefollowingchart.HumanadultmaleBoy+-+Woman++-Girl+--Man__+++Dog-+/-+/-Componentialanalysiscanbeparticularlyusefulinhelpingtounderstandthesubtledifferencesinmeaningbetweenagroupofrelatedwords,asisshowninthefollowingchart:highpitchverbalvoicedhighvolumeScream+-/+++Shriek++-++Shout+/-+++Growl-+/-++/-Whispern/a+--Mumble-/+++-/+Babble+/--++/-Notes:+/-:primarilypositive;-/+:primarilynegative.Mostpeople,native-speakersandEnglishteachersincluded.wouldbehardpressedifsomeoneaskedthemtoexplainthedifferencebetweenthisgroupofwords.Butbydoingacomponentialanalysis,itbecomesquiteclearhowthesystemofEnglishvocabularydividesuptheworldofsuchverbalandnonverbalhumansounds.ComponentialanalysiscanbeofparticularbenefitwhenyouarecalledontotranslatetoorfromEnglish.ThewordheirinEnglish,forinstance,meansapersonwhohasreceived,orwillreceive,somethingofvalueaftersomeoneelsediedordies.Butinmanyothercultures,theuseofthetermclearlyimpliesthatthatotherpersonhasdiedalready.(WhataboutChinese?)Anotherstrengthofthismethodliesinitshandlingoffigurativelanguage.Figuresofspeechtendtobehighlyculture-bound.IfanEnglishspeakersaysthephrase“Heisadog”,theyareprobablycommentingontheperson’sgreedorselfishness,asthisisafeatureassociatedwithdogs.(Ontheotherhand,dogsare\nalsoseeninEnglishasverydetermined,soitispossiblethatthespeakermightbecomplimentingsomeone’sdedicationandhardwork,thoughthisislesscommon.)ButifthesamecomparisonismadeinChinese,thespeakerprobablymeanstocallthepersonasnoborbootlickersincedogsareseenassubmissiveandservile.TheChineselanguagealsohastheexpressionrunningdog,ofcourse,forcollaboratorsofdespoticrulers.Whilecallingsomeoneadogisinsultinginbothlanguages,theflavoroftheinsultisquitedifferent.Byanalyzingintensivefeaturesofthesourceandtargetitems,especiallythosethatarebeinghighlightedinthefigureofspeechathand,thetranslatorcangetafirmergriponthetextandcomeupwithabetterwayofcommunicatingtherealmeaningoftheoriginalutteranceoratleastavoidcreatingadistinctlywrongimpressionbybeingtooliteral.Inspiteofthestrengthsdiscussedabove,componentialanalysisisnotcompletelysatisfactoryfortheanalysisofmeaninginallsituations.Thefollowingarethreemajorlimitationsofcomponentialanalysis.1)Ittendstofocusexclusivelyondenotationandleaveouttheconnotation.Inthechartabove,forexample,shoutusuallyimpliesadegreeofurgency;growlcarrieswithitasenseofangeranddisapproval;whisperoneofsecrecy;andbabbleisassociatedwithbabies.Noneoftheseimportantshadesofmeaningarecapturedbythecomponentialanalysis.2)Componentialanalysisfocusesexclusivelyontypicalcases.Thechartabovecategoricallydefinesscreamingandshrieking,butwhataboutsomehigh-pitched,non-verbalnoisebetweenthetwo?Thewordrun,whendistinguishedfromwalk,jumpandhop,maybedefinedasmovingquicklyontwofeet,withnofootonthegroundforaninstantineachstep.Theanalysis,however,leavesoutthemeaningofrunasitisusedinsentencessuchasThecrabsarerunningaround.Thesnakeranacrossthelawn.Then,wemayalsofindcasesinwhichthereisnophysicalmovement:Herunstheoffice.Heisrunningforpresident.Thecarisrunning.Theroadrunsacrossthemountain.3)Itisoftendifficult,ifnotimpossible,todefineexactlywhatthenecessaryandsufficientfeaturesforagivenwordare.Theexamplesgivenabovearefairlyclear-cut,butpeoplewillnoteasilyagreeaboutwhatarethedefiningfeaturesofmoreabstractwordssuchasfreedom,democracy,socialismandcommunism.Inmanycases,peopleseemtoknowhowwordsdifferfromeachotherwithoutbeingabletodefinitelyidentifytheircomponents.Forexample,anattempttoclassifydifferentplantswillquicklyfallintohighlytechnicalbiologicalterminology,whichisnotpartoftheknowledge-baseofnativespeakerseventhoughtheyhavenotroubledistinguishinganorangetreefromalemontree01adaisyfromanorchid.Someoftheseweaknessesofcomponentialanalysiscanhoffsetbyturningtoamethodknownasprototypetheory.Here.aconceptisseennotasasetofcriticalfeatures,butratherintermsofamosttypicalinstanceor“prototype”.Theadvantageofiiiskindofanalysisisthatitallowsforcategorieswithfuzzyboundaries,ratherthanstrict,binaryplusesandminuses.Suchfuzzyboundariesare,inmostcases,probablymuchclosertothewayinwhichthehumanmindactuallystoreswordsandtheirassociatedconcepts.\nInprototypetheory,agivennoisecanbeviewednotsimplyeitherscreamingornotscreaming,butscreamingtoacertaindegree,dependingonhowsimilaritistothetypicalcaseofscreaming.Forthesametoken,awhaleisamammaltoacertaindegreeeventhoughthemostprototypicalmammalwouldbeonethatlivesondryland,hashair,andbreast-feedsitsyoung(e.g..ahuman,adogoramonkey).Whileswallowsandrobinsareamongthemosttypicalbirdsofall,chickensandturkeysarelessso,andostrichesandpenguinsareperhapsamongtheleasttypical.Anostrichorapenguinisstillabird,butitisnotatalltheimagethatcomestomindwhensomeonesaysthewordbirdbutgivesusnoadditionalinformation.Prototypetheoryisalsousefulinanalyzinggroupsofwordswhosemeaningscanoftenblendtogether,forexampleglass,cupandbowl.Thedifferencesbetweenthesethreewordsareonlyrelative,withnohardandfastboundaries.Wecandistinguishaprototypicalcupfromaprototypicalglassorbowlfairlyeasily.Foritemswhicharemadeoutofglassorceramicandwhoseshapeisindeterminate,however,wefindthatthewayinwhichpeoplechoosetonameitactuallydependsnotontheobjectitself,butonsuchfactorsaswhatitisbeingusedtoserve.Thus,asingleobjectmightbecalledacupwhenitholdstea,aglasswhenitholdswine,andabowlwhenitholdsicecream.(英语语言学纲要，丁言仁、郝克，上海外语教育出版社，2001，147-152.)