Component analysis

The interest of this study is in concept systems for terminological analysis, which, according to Nuopponen (1994) is a broad area and can be studied from different viewpoints and with varying tools. Concept systems are of interest not only to terminology science but also to philosophy, the general theory of science, psychology, artificial intelligence, lexicology, semantics, pedagogy, information science, classification theory, database development, etc. (Ibid, 236) Concept systems are part of our everyday life, and often needed to evaluate and to develop:

”Concept systems are fundamental to human existence. They are part of man´s mental activity, of his ability to structure experience and knowledge. The organization of concepts and the linguistic coding of experiences, observations, etc. are especially important to the specialist, since more exacting demands are made on concept

formation and classification in special subject fields than in everyday life. The concepts required in everyday communication are vague and more or less unconscious in comparison with those in special fields. The specialist needs a sophisticated conceptual apparatus and a system of terms to cope with his professional duties. He is also frequently faced with the task of developing, revising, defining, standardizing, structuring, classifying and naming concepts.” (Nuopponen 1994, 236)

Nuopponen (ibid.) states, that researchers in the field of terminology science are concerned with the conscious structuring of concept systems as carried out in different special fields, while, for instance, psychologists also investigate unconscious structures.

Concept analysis is also done in everyday life without thinking about it (Nuopponen 2003, 1). In this study emphasis is solely on conscious structuring, and that is thus also the case in the word associations.

Component analysis concerns concepts, i.e. the basic starting point and basic for the terminological analysis is a concept, not a term. The starting point is often questioned – would the term be a natural base and is it already visible in the name of the field – terminology. However, in theories and principles of terminology and terminological work the primary nature of concepts is traditionally emphasised, and the founder of terminology Eugen Wüster⁴⁴ has stated, that all terminological work begins with concepts, its aim is to make precise distinction between different concepts.

(Nuopponen 2003, 2)

In a definition of linguistic or formal equivalence a semantic component analysis is used. It is commonly used by translators and commonly known as denotation analysis⁴⁵. In component analysis the denotative – and sometimes also connotative - meaning of a word is divided into smaller parts, i.e. into semantic components. Component analysis is considered useful especially in polysemous and related cases and in near synonyms.

(Häkkinen 1994, 173-175; Vehmas-Lehto 1999, 67; Nida 1975, 32-67; Engelberg 1998;

Ingo 1982, 71; Ingo 1990, 143-166)⁴⁶

It is not common to relate in terminological guidebooks and standards how to recognise polysemous, homonymous and synonymous expressions, and although terminological worker should have considerable linguistic competens, it is not an axiom to recognise these expressions. For example Ingo (1982, 77) points out the importance of recognising polysemous expressions. According to him a translator must be especially careful, when one word has several meanings. In linguistics polysemia and

44 Eugen Wüster 1979, 1: ”Jede Terminologiearbeit geht von den Begriffen aus. Sie zielt auf scharfe Abgrenzung zwischen den Begiffen.” Cited here Nuopponen 2003, 2. Org. title: Wüster, Eugen 1985/1979, Einführung in die Allgemeine Terminologielehre und Terminologische Lexikographie. 2. Auflage herausg.

Vom Fachsprachlichen Zentrum, Handelshochschule Kopenhagen.

45 Vehmas-Lehto (1999, 67) also uses the term piirreanalyysi (characteristic analysis). In this study, form component analysis is used, because it may also refer to connotative aspects and as discussed before, it is not always possible and/or reasonable to separate connotative and denotative aspects of a word.

46 The originators of component analysis were Floyd G. Lounsbury and Ward H. Goodenough, its most important developers were Jerry J. Katz and Jerry A. Foder, from whom its main ideas were transmitted via Noam Chomsky into generative grammar. (Ingo 1982, 144)

homonymia are usually separated. The criterian is whether it is (language historically) a question of several meanings of one word (polysemia) or about accidental, phonological or graphical, similarity of two or more (homonymy), although it is not easy in every case to make a distinction between these two. (Ibid.)⁴⁷

Ingo (1982) states, that for the translator the nature of the ambiguous (polysemous vs. homonymous) is not so significant, but in the analysis of denotation it is more important to study what the word means in a certain context, that is, what sememe of a lexem⁴⁸ is it about. The translation equivalents for the ambiguous terms should be sought for at the level of sememes, when the context of a word is crucial in the meaning of the kept characteristics. (Ibid, 77, 81)

Nida (1975) gives an example, where four different words refer to similar objects:

chair, stool, bench and hassock. These objects have in common that they are made by people, they are articles of furniture and meant for sitting. What is then distinctive? A chair has legs, a back and is for one person. A stool has legs, no back and is for one person. A bench has legs, is with or without back and is for two or more people. A hassock does not have legs or a back and is for one person. Distinctive characteristics are the absence or non-absence of legs and backs and concern how many people they are meant to be used by. (Nida 1975, 69-72, also in Vehmas-Lehto 1999, 67-68) Similarly, for example, the word stay-at-home mother (homemother, kotiäiti) can be divided into semantic components as ’woman’, ’mother’, ’stays at home’, ’not in gainful employment’, and ’takes care of her own children’.

In component analysis one can use, for instance, a semantic characteristics matrix, where words are defined by semantic characteristics. With a matrix we can recognise the common characteristics of different words and the distinctive components.

In the material used in this study (dictionary definitions, see chapter 2 The central concepts) semantic component analysis also has its limitations. According to Häkkinen (1994) some parts of the vocabularies are easily describable with semantic characteristics. Words referring to human beings are often used as examples. For example the words man, woman, boy and girl can be separated from each other with the help of opposite pairs such as “adult- non-adult” and “masculine-feminine” or with the help of minus(-)- and plus(+) signs like “+/- adult, +/- masculine”. (Häkkinen 1994, 174)

47 As homonyms are often considered homograps (graphical similarty) and/or homophones (phonological similarity). According to Häkkinen (1989) it is of no benefit to make a distinction between homograps and homonyms in Finnish, since a homograph is usually also a homophone. However, in English the distinction is needed, since a homonym may be a homograph without being a homophone and vice versa. Cf. for example homograps lead [li:d] ‘johtaa’ - lead [led] ‘lyijy’ and homophones sight [sait] ‘näky’ - site [sait]

‘sijainti’. (Häkkinen 1989, 86)

48 ”A lexeme is the minimal unit of language which has a semantic interpretation and embodies a distinct cultural concept. It is made up of one or more form-meaning composites called lexical units.” (Glossary of linguistic terms 2004/2009) ”A Sememe is a proposed unit of transmitted or intended meaning; it is atomic or indivisible. A sememe can be the meaning expressed by a morpheme, such as the English pluralizing morpheme -s, which carries the sememic feature [+ plural].” (The Language of Linguistics 2004/2009) (See also Ingo 1982, 77)

The inadequancy of the semantic component analysis is, however, that the numbers of potential characteristics are considerable and partly indefinable. In addition, some parts of the vocabularies are difficult to define with the help of semantic characteristics.

For example, different mushrooms, grasses and metals are impossible cases. It is not enough to find distinctive components; the characters should also be as universally applicable as possible. In practice most often synonyms, parallel expressions, euphemisms or sometimes even foreign language translations are used to describe the meaning. In these cases the entities of the objects and the description of the lexical meaning are extremely difficult to keep separated. According to some theories there is no reason to aim at this kind of distinction. (Ibid 1994, 174)

In this study, component analysis will be used in studying the meaning of a word represented, especially in dictionary definitions and also in defining (the degree of ISO standard 5964) equivalence. As case terms referring to human beings and human roles are used, they are partly far more complex than the samples given by Häkkinen (in

Below, an example of the way component analysis is used in the study is presented.

In the table, the relevant semantic characteristics used in the studied English online dictionary definitions of the keyword homemaker are illustrated. Symbol ++ refers to a static, invariable characteristic, + to a dynamic characteristic, which is in definition expressed with words such as “often”, “especially”:

The Cambridge International Dictionary of English (2002), for example, defines homemaker as “a person who manages a home and often raises children instead of earning money from employment”. From the definition semantic characteristics are

selected such as ‘family member’, ‘manages a household’, ‘non-paid’, and ‘takes care of children’. The two first mentioned are considered as static and thus invariable characteristics, whereas the two last mentioned as dynamic characteristics, which is expressed in the definition with the word “often”.

The characteristic common to all of the studied definitions was ‘manages a household’. The second most common characteristic was family member’ – managing a household is often done within one’s own family. The third most common character was

‘being unpaid’: taking care of household is usually not a paid duty or work. The fourth most common characteristic was ‘gender’: four out of the six expressed in some way that the homemaker was a married woman. Only one definition was totally neutral in the gender issue while the other ones referred to a female in its example of use. (More analysis in chapter 7.1.1.4 Homemakers and housewives dictionaries.)