Sematic Theories

In the study of semantics, we are guided by a number of theories of meaning in natural human
languages. Among these are: Lexical Decomposition (Componential Analysis), Prototype
Theory and Behaviourist Theory.

Lexical Decomposition/Componential Analysis Theory

In this approach, we represent a word’s meaning by breaking it (decompose) into smaller
semantic components called semantic features or semantic primes. This process is called
semantic decomposition or componential analysis. We analyze the meaning of words by
assuming that they are ‘built up’ from basic meaning; the semantic features which come in
binary form and are enclosed in square brackets, thus [- or +]. These semantic features are what
constitutes the sum total of the word’s meaning. We therefore decompose the meaning of a word
into smaller units; the features. If a word has the feature, it is preceded by a plus [ +FEATURE]
sign, if it luck it, we assign it a minus [-FEATURE] sign. For example, the difference in meaning
between ‘man’ and ‘boy’ is in the features [+ADULT] for man and [- ADULT] for boy. We can
represent the meaning of ‘boy, girl, man, woman in a semantic feature matrix as shown below

Semantic Feature Matrix for Nouns: Boy. Girl, Man and Woman
Features Boy Man Girl woman
[HUMAN] + + + +
[MALE] + + - -
[ADULT] - + - +

We can therefore define the meaning of the term ‘man’ as ‘an adult male human being’ and
conversely a woman as ‘an adult non-male (female) human being’.
We can do the same for English furniture terms; chair, armchair, stool, sofa and beanbag below.

Semantic Feature Matrix for English Furniture Terms

Chair Armchair Stool Sofa Beanbag
[with back] + + - + -
[with legs] + + + + -
[for single person] + + + - +
[for sitting] + + + + +
[with arms] - + - + -
[rigid] + + + + -

We can, therefore, define these English furniture as used for sitting because they all share the
feature [+for sitting] and what differentiates a beanbag from all the others is the fact that it is not
rigid and it has no legs. Similarly, a sofa is the only one used by more than one person.
Look at the following English transfer terms; buy, sell, steal, give and swap.

Semantic Feature Matrix for English Transfer Verbs

Buy Sell Steal Give Swap
[transfer of + + + + +
possession]
[voluntary + + - + +
transfer]
[exchange] + + - - +
[price] + + - - -
[subject receives] + - + - +

We can conclude that these verbs are called transfer verbs because they are all marked [+transfer
of possession] positively. Similarly, stealing is different from all the others because it involves
non-voluntary transfer. In addition, selling and buying share one feature, they both involve some
price. What distinguishes selling and giving from all the other transfer terms? What is shared
between stealing and giving? What is the main difference between buying and selling?
On the other hand, its shortcoming was also visible:

• The discovery procedures for semantic features are not clearly objectifiable.
• Only part of the vocabulary can be described through more or less structured sets of
features.
• Metalinguistic features are expressed through language again.
• Features used may not have clear definitions.
• Limited in focus and mechanical in style.
Exercise:
Draw a semantic feature matrix for these English terms: mare, stallion, hen and rooster. Use the
features; [ANIMAL], [HORSE], [CHICKEN], [MALE], [FEMALE]. Explain the meaning that
is common to all based on some feature and for each term, explain what makes it different from
all the other terms.

Proto-type and Categorization Theory of Meaning

Meaning can be seen from a categorization point of view, that is in using a word, we cognitively
perform categorization of our experiences, things and feelings. Words in natural human language
are seen a categories themselves. A word such as flower, categorizes a large number of entities in
the world as all examples of a single kind of thing, the category FLOWER. The actual type of
flowers vary widely (e.g. tulip, rose, sunflower etc) but these differences does not affect the
categorization. Similarly, when you say; ‘I am writing’
This may cover a large number of meanings’ ‘filling in a form with a biro, typing on a keyboard,
drawing letter in freshly poured concrete with a stick, sitting in front of a blank sheet of paper
with a pen. These differences are glossed over when we use any categories.
In traditions classical approach, only two truth values were recognized, true or false; any
proposition is either true or false. There is no room for the proposition to be partly true and partly
false based on classical view of definitions which argues that a definition of a concept must be
complete. It must unambiguously determine an object whether or not it belongs to the concept.
Secondly, that definitions are a list of necessary and sufficient conditions on particular
meaning. For example, the definition of a bird has the following list of conditions: feathered,
egg laying, flying, vertebrate involving four properties that constitute the necessary and
sufficient conditions of birdhood;
(a) The conditions are necessary because something must meet all of them if it is to count as
a bird, if any lacks part of the four, e.g., a bat (neither lays eggs nor feathered) is not a
bird.
(b) The conditions are sufficient because anything that has all the four properties counts as a
bird and no further condition is required
This is also to say that the category bird is constituted by the four properties. This is the
Classical view (Aristotelian) of categorization
The shortcomings of the classical view are that one, there seem to be no definitions that
successfully specify necessary and sufficient conditions for membership of any category (see
definition of food as ‘substance taken into body to maintain life and growth’ apply equally to
medicines and foods such as bread. The same is true for definition of a game as ‘played
according to rules and decided by skill, strength or luck’ (may include exams and wars!)
Secondly, the classical view treats categories analytically as all-or-nothing which is not true of
may categories. As speakers of a language, we know that ‘chair’ is a better example of the
category ‘furniture than say, a radio and that some chairs fit our idea of a chair better than others.
Thirdly, the classical view fails to recognize that there are different statuses of category
membership with some members of the category as better examples of that category than others
Fourthly, there are categories in which the boundaries of membership are not clear-cut; it is not
always possible to say whether something is a member of the category. For example, the concept
rich: who belongs in it? How much should you possess to be called ‘rich’ ten, fifty, two hundred
or five hundred thousand? A million, three, ten or fifty million? There is no clear boundary but
falling short by five or twenty thousand does not disqualify you from the category. In other
words, category membership in them is graded, is a matter of degree.
Prototype Categorization
This theory of meaning assumes that category membership is graded and not all-or-nothing view,
that some concepts give a better example of a category than others. Concept membership are
often graded in terms of their typicality. Even in a case where people agree on the concept ‘rich’,
bird, pop star’ etc, some will provide better examples of these than others. Even concepts whose
boundaries can scientifically be defined, show this type of graded membership. A typically
example is the concept ‘bird’ mentioned earlier. Classical view excluded the ‘bat’ yet it is a bird
because it failed to recognize the fact that boundaries are fuzzy and category membership may be
graded from the most typical bird to the less.
In English speaking community, a bird is assumed to be ‘warm-blooded, egg-laying, feathered
vertebrates with forelimbs modified to form wings’ as defined in the dictionary, they still
consider some creatures as more bird-like than others. A robin or sparrow is considered a better
(prototypical) example of a bird than a hummingbird, ostrich or a penguin. The most
characteristic instance of a bird is a robin. Concepts have an internal structure with the best or
prototypical example (a robin etc.) close to the core and less typical members arranged in
successfully more peripheral regions. The existence fuzzy concepts and graded membership
indicate that the concepts or meaning expressed in language are not rigid, all-or-nothing notions
with precise boundaries. They have internal structure with degrees of typicality as well as fuzzy
boundaries that may overlap with other categories (e.g., a bat is both bird and mammal).
Categories are structured by attributes and degrees of membership or partial class inclusion.
Members of a category simply have a network of family resemblance, a set of attributes which
tie together the members of the category but not every member need not possess all the
attributes. Given the category ‘furniture’ we are quick to recognize ‘chair’ as a better example
than ‘bench’ or ‘stool’. Similarly, given ‘clothing’ people will recognize the ‘shirt’ quicker than
‘shoes’ and given ‘vegetable’ we recognize cabbage/kale before carrot or potato or tomato. For
each the three terms; KILL, SPEAK, and WALK, in terms of typicality, the most left verb is the
most typical of the term while the one to the far right is the least typical of the term
KILL: murder, assassinate, execute, massacre, sacrifice, commit suicide
SPEAK: recite, mumble, shout, whisper, drone, stutter
WALK: stride, pace, saunter, march, stumble, limp
However, there are shortcomings
(a). Individual difference may lead to substantial variation in interpretation of word meaning.
Most of us do not consider carrot or potato as a vegetable unlike the western world. Is an
avocado and a tomato a fruit or a vegetable?? Consider the Kenyan contexts. The two may be
treated as co-hyponyms of both fruit or vegetable in different contexts.
(b) There are problems in identifying the attributes: they may only be identified after the
category has been identified. Attributes are highly context dependent and there are many
different ways of describing attributes of a given category
(c) Accounting for category boundaries is a challenge. Though membership of category is graded
and fuzzy, some attributes may include what people or language does not consider as not a
member e.g., a bird as ‘winged and flies’ may include a ‘plane. People also have intuition that
some categories have absolute unfuzzy boundaries, e.g., bats are simply not birds
(d). The scope and application of prototype theory in natural language semantics. It may only be
possible for concrete visible objects. The theory cannot work with abstract non-visual categories
whose attributes may not be easily identified or agreed upon by language users
(e) The idea in prototype theory that category boundaries are fuzzy is criticism that it leads to
lack of clear and painstaking attempt to provide accurate definitions. Prototype theorist argue
that actual usage of words is too messy and unpredictable to be accountable by definitions

Behaviourist Theory of Meaning

Behaviourist theory argue that language is a behaviour and the use of a language is
also a behaviour; there is no language use unless it is observable. They believe in
what is observable and nothing else, Therefore, the meaning of a word is how it is
used (The Use theory of meaning). Advanced by Behaviourist linguist such as
Bloomfield, they argue that there is nothing like hidden, unobservable thing called
‘meaning’ because meanings are inherently unobservable. Because meaning is not
observable, it doesn’t exist. They strongly believe in scientific explanation of
language which is based on observable, objective description, because meaning
which is not observable, cannot be the concern of linguists.
Behaviourist argue that the scientific explanation of language must avoid reference
to unobservable objects called ‘meaning’ but attend to what is actually observable
like the sequence of words and expressions in actual language use and situations in
which they occur and describe the relationship between the linguistic forms and the
situations in which they are used. The role of a semanticists is to provide an
account of the way a language is actually used, to predict the kind of linguistic
behaviour likely to be produced in different situations. According to Bloomfield,
the only meaning a linguistic form has, is ‘the situation in which the speaker utters
it, and the response which it calls forth in the hearer’. The external analysis of the
situation is all that is required. They argue that the notion of meaning traditionally
was based on language use; the meaning of a linguistic expression is based on how
it is used. Words are used in accordance with their meaning.
According to them, definitions of words must focus on definition of the thing, the
object. They argue that definitions of words differ in no way with definitions of
things. We define the underlying nature of things which requires scientific
formulation. That all definitions must be scientifically formulated and therefore
since meaning is unobservable, it cannot lend itself to scientific definitions
Shortcomings
1. Situations that prompt people to utter speech are diverse and may include
every object and happening in their universe and its is not possible to have
 accurate scientific knowledge of everything in the speaker’s mind. Yet the
extent of human knowledge is very small
2. This approach is only possible for objects and things that are visible, yet
language has so many words that refer to abstract and non-visible entities
like heaven, love etc. does it mean that such words have no meaning? Of
course not, they have meaning thought not observable.
3. Similarly, scientific conceptualization of the nature of objects is continually
changing; e.g., the theory of space, earth or mass have changed so much
over the years, yet it doesn’t really change our everyday meaning of this
entities
4. There are too many varieties of situation in which a linguistic form may be
used and yet there are few if any linguistic expressions that are immediately
called upon in such situations, if its meaning is the situation in which it is
uttered and the response it evokes from the listener
5. It is not always possible to predict what will be said in specific situations
because human language is very productive and speakers can use different
words in the same situation or same words and expressions in different
situation. Only formulaic speech like greetings or congratulations can be
predicted based on the situation
6. Speakers have huge number of phrases that are very novel and have nothing
do with a specific situation of utterances, situations are limited yet our
utterances are infinite