The use of Componential Analysis in language teaching

1

The use of Componential Analysis

in language teaching

Michal Kociumbas

Keywords: Componential Analysis, Feature Analysis, Meaning, Vocabulary, Lexis,

Phraseology, Connotations, Denotations, Equivalents, Translation, Semantic Markers,

Semantic Primitives, Semes, Methodology, Teaching

Abstract: Parents and students often seem to believe that knowing a foreign language may enable

the latter to be more successful in the future. Teaching and learning of any language

requires both considerable effort as well as proper instruction. Teachers can explain

grammar, vocabulary and other aspects of language using many different techniques and

methods. There is a tendency, however, to use the mother tongue in teaching. It is easy to

give students the equivalent of a word. The problem is that very often words have no

direct equivalents in different languages, which is a fact that seems to be very often

neglected in schools. There, therefore, exists the need for a technique for presenting the

meaning of words without referring to the mother tongue. The technique should, apart

from the meaning itself, present other aspects of word meaning, too. The technique

described in this paper is called Componential Analysis. It enables the meaning of a word

to be distinguished by 'decomposing' it into different pieces called 'component parts'.

Componential Analysis can be very useful for differentiating words that are very similar

in meaning as well as for presenting vocabulary in context.

1. Componential Analysis as a technique

When trying to compare different objects of the same kind (for example various types

of trees) it can be easily noticed that objects have many features and attributes in common

(McCarthy 1990). Thus a fir, a pine tree and a larch are not only trees, but also conifers,

which distinguishes them from, for example, an oak. A fir and an oak, however, share the

attribute of being plants, and this distinguishes them from, for instance, a pigeon. Similarly

both an oak and a pigeon are 'living beings' while a house, for instance, is an inanimate object.

These features enable the organisation of all lexical terms into classes and categories that have

something in common (McCarthy 1990). The categories are called semantic markers,

semantic primitives or simply semes (Bright 1992).

One conclusion that follows from the above example is that every word is a unit

consisting of a number of features. These features can be similar in the case of similar words,

but no two words with at least a slight difference in meaning can have all of them the same,

i.e. have all the semantic markers identical. This situation makes it possible to analyse lexis

from the point of view of the differences in semantic markers and thus deduce what each unit

2

denotes. This method of defining the meaning of words is called Componential Analysis or

Feature Analysis. According to Carter (1987), it is 'a technique for describing relations of

meaning by breaking down each word into its irreducible features: those components which

are absolutely minimal for its reference' (Carter 1987:16). In other words, it is a technique

with which it is possible to 'dissect' a word and deduce its meaning.

According to the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics (Bright 1992),

Componential Analysis was invented by two groups of scientists: in Europe, in the 1940s, and

in America, in the 1950s. The two groups were working on ways of showing semantic

relationships between words, which had no phonological similarities. They also wanted to

define sets of related words in terms of small numbers of semantic markers. Finally, they

wished to create a metalanguage that would enable people to translate lexical units, which had

no equivalents in particular foreign languages, or their nearest equivalents were inexact

(Bright 1992).

2 Examples of Componential Analysis

Below are examples of how Componential Analysis was successfully used to describe

kinship terms as well as phonological distinctions between consonants. The first example will

show the application of Componential Analysis to the analysis of vocabulary. This is taken

from Henning (1995). However, it has been altered slightly to avoid misinterpretations and

make it easier to understand.

The basic kinship terms are: father, mother, son and daughter. Father differs from

mother in gender. Furthermore, mother differs from daughter in age. Son, however, differs

from mother both in age and gender. Thus the basic semantic markers for these two pairs of

words are gender and age:

father = male & older;

mother = female & older;

son = male & younger;

daughter = female & younger.

Componential Analysis uses two markers to signalise the presence and absence of

certain features. These are: '+' when a lexical item possesses a feature and ‘–‘ when it does not

(McCarthy 1990). Sometimes three other markers are also used: '±' when a word cannot be

distinguished by the feature (Newmark 1995), for example cousin can be both male and

3

female, '0' when the feature does not apply to the word, and '?' when the answer is not certain.

Thus with the markers the previous example would be:

father +male, +older;

mother +female, +older;

son +male, +younger;

daughter +female, +younger.

At this stage, however, the difference in meaning for a 'lay' person may still be unclear

and the result difficult to understand. The analysis can be simplified: if someone is older, this

person cannot be younger at the same time. Therefore, father can be +older while son –older.

Consequently, a male cannot be a female, which gives: father +male, mother –male. If certain

semantic markers are common to all the terms, they may be enclosed in round brackets, for

example, mother and daughter are (+human, +female). If all the markers are distinguishing

features, they may be enclosed in square brackets, for example, man [+male, +parent],

daughter [–male, –parent] (McCarthy 1990). The result of the analysis at this stage is:

father [+male, +older];

mother [–male, +older];

son [+male, –older];

daughter [–male, –older].

The semantic markers are not immutable and the choice depends mostly on the person

who applies them. Consequently it is also possible to analyse the four terms in a more

'feminist' way:

father [–female, +older];

mother [+female, +older];

son [–female, –older];

daughter [+female, –older].

The same, of course, can be done to the word older. Looking at the last stage of this

analysis, however, it can be seen that the description of each object is not precise: it is known

that father is older, but who he is older than is not stated. It might be better to use the word

parent instead (any father must be older that his son, and must be a parent at the same time).

Therefore the final stage of this analysis of the four kinship terms would be:

4

father [+male, +parent];

mother [–male, +parent];

son [+male, –parent];

daughter [–male, –parent].

As has been shown, two semantic markers are enough to present the meaning of four

words. (Krifka 2001), after Bierwisch (1969), presents a table, in which he analyses fourteen

kinship terms using four semantic markers only (Table 1):

Table 1. The analysis of kinship terms. Source: Krifka (2001) after Bierwisch (1969).

When looking for the above terms in a monolingual dictionary, far longer definitions

would be encountered. With a larger number of terms, there would certainly be a need for

more semantic features to be used. Nevertheless, Componential Analysis gives clear results

which are ready for use, for example, in translation or teaching. Moreover, the steps to follow

are not difficult and do not take much time. These are, however, not all the advantages of

Componential Analysis. It also enables the user to be aware of slight differences in meaning

between the equivalents in different languages (an important fact often neglected by bilingual

dictionaries).

It can be easily noticed that the semantic markers used by Componential Analysis are

binary features: they may usually be either true or false (i.e. they either apply to certain

objects or not). A difference in meaning is shown when a feature changes its plus or minus

value. This is best shown in articulatory phonetics. The table of consonants (Table 2) is used

to show the differences and similarities of individual consonants in terms of pronunciation:

5

Table 2. The International Phonemic Alphabet adapted to show English consonants only. Source: Gimson

(2001:31).

Each consonant in the table has fifteen phonological components that distinguish it

from another sound. These are the headings of each column and row. For instance, the sound

/p/ is:

/p/ +bilabial, –labio-dental, –dental, –alveolar, –palato-alveolar, –palatal,

–velar, –glottal, +plosive, –nasal, –fricative, –affricate, –lateral, –approximant

and +voiceless (marked in the table with the position further to the left of

each field).

This set of features distinguishes the sound /p/ from all other sounds. If all the

consonants from the table were presented using the '+' and '–' markers, it would appear that

the closest consonant to /p/ is /b/, as it differs in only one component: it is –voiceless (and

indeed in terms of phonetics, /b/ is the closest sound to /p/). Thus, the table is a typical

example of Componential Analysis used in linguistics.

3 Applications of Componential Analysis

The above examples suggest that Componential Analysis has a range of applications

and can be used in various fields of science. According to Bright (1992), it affords the

creation of a metalanguage that could be able to define the vocabulary of all languages. It also

makes it possible to show that some translation equivalents are exact and others are not.

Bright (1992) claims that it is a useful device in comparative lexicology. It can be a very

useful tool for language teaching. According to Newmark (1995) the main uses of

Componential Analysis in teaching are:

6

spotting differences in meaning between closely related words;

analysing families of words (such as houses, cars or, as in the example earlier,

kinship terms);

finding the most precise equivalents of words in different languages;

distinguishing the meaning of synonyms, especially in one language;

showing cultural differences in the use of words, in terms of grammar, collocations

and meaning;

exposing and filling in the gaps in a language (for example when looking for the

equivalent of fortnight in Polish).

4 Componential Analysis used for presenting equivalents of words

Very often, there is the need for a direct and precise equivalent of a lexical unit either

in the mother tongue or in the target language. This situation may occur in a writing or

reading task, as well as during a lesson based on a particular notion when many words have

only a slight difference in meaning. The teacher should follow a number of steps to solve this

problem. Firstly, the distinctive features (i.e. the semantic markers) must be chosen.

Secondly, the Componential Analysis of the given term or terms must be done as well as the

analysis of different possible equivalents in the other language. Finally, the results may be put

into a table. For example, in the sentence Dziecko karmiło łabędzie rzucając im chleb, the

term rzucać may cause problems, as it has different meaning from the English term throw. For

teachers the best place to find the semantic markers is by consulting a good dictionary. It may

be deduced that: the pieces of bread were released from the child's hand, travelled through the

air and landed somewhere near the swans; the child wanted to feed the animals and thus the

action must have been light and somewhat careless (i.e. not rapid or violent), nevertheless, the

pieces of food must have been released in a specific direction (i.e. in the direction of the

swans). Consequently, the analysis and semantic markers are as follows (Table 3):

7

Table 3. The analysis of rzucać and its possible equivalents in English. Based on Rudzka (1985:188).

Blank spaces mean that the description does not apply to the adjective (i.e. the marker

‘-’ may be put in the space). By comparing the semantic markers it may be deduced that the

best equivalent for the word rzucać in the context of the above sentence would be the word

toss, as its features are the same as those of rzucać. Of course, sometimes the results may be

less precise. Nevertheless, the words with the greatest possible number of common semantic

markers will most probably be the best equivalents. The students are given clear 'definitions'

of words as well as a chance of comparing their meanings. Moreover, they may choose

equivalents that suit the needs of the particular situation.

5 Componential Analysis used for presenting lexis in notions

Componential Analysis is very useful for presenting vocabulary in sets of closely-

related words. Carter (1987) presents the analysis of seven adjectives: beautiful, lovely, pretty,

charming, attractive, good-looking and handsome (Table 4). He calls the table a semantic

grid.

8

Table 4. Componential Analysis of words used for descriptions. Source: Carter (1987:172).

The table presents the adjectives with their appropriate features. The words are

commonly used in various situations and thus make the table suitable for many purposes.

During a writing task, for example, students may look at the table and decide which adjective

may be used in a particular context. Having the necessary information on one sheet of paper

and in a concise form makes any task easier and thus students may be more willing to perform

it. However, Carter does admit that the explanatory terms may be more complex than the

words being explained (1987). Thus, it could be difficult for students with little proficiency in

English to understand them. The grids, though, are not to be treated as immutable. Teachers

may find it useful to adapt the descriptions to their students by substituting some unknown

words or by omitting some of the distinctions (for example from the last five columns which

refer only to the word handsome).

The adjectives may also be analysed in terms of collocations. Very often, the students

know what the words mean, but still have problems with putting them together. They simply

use wrong adjectives with wrong words. The plasticity of Componential Analysis allows the

application of different semantic markers to a unit of lexis, depending on the purpose of the

analysis. The adjectives from Table 4 may be analysed in a way that stresses collocations

(Table 5):

9

Table 5. The analysis of adjectives in terms of collocations. Source: Carter (1987:172).

Table 5 is less complicated in terms of vocabulary than Table 4. Looking at the table

students may decide at a glance which adjective collocates with, for example, woman, which

with village and which with proposal. Conversely, when a student wants to describe, for

instance, a bed, he immediately knows which adjectives may be applied to it. The nouns used

as semantic markers may, of course, be replaced with those which are needed for the topic of

the lesson. Nevertheless, the table shows words in relation to each other and this is the best

way of defining words (Carter 1987).

6 Other uses of Componential Analysis

Rudzka (1985) extends the use of Componential Analysis by using it to create a kind

of paradigm. For example, Table 6 presents how to fill in the blanks using one of the verbs

strike, hit, punch, clout, slap or smack:

Table 6. The analysis of verbs connected with hitting. Based on Rudzka (1985:14)

10

From the diagram, students may see which words can be put into each particular

context. Componential Analysis seems to be clearer than the traditional paradigms and, more

importantly, may be easily updated if needed. Teachers, however, must examine every

semantic marker they use and adjust it to the students' level. When using Table 6, a student,

who does not know about, or has a problem with, the third person singular '-s' ending may

create the sentence: *He strike her sharply on the arm. This problem, however, is easy to deal

with. The teacher should check each analysis before showing it to students.

7 Difficulties of using Componential Analysis

Componential Analysis is not without its problems and has a number of critics. One

of the disadvantages is that it works best at the level of denotation, rather than at the level of

connotation. For example, the analysis of the words bachelor [+male –married] and spinster

[–male –married] does not convey the idea that the word spinster usually has more negative

connotations than bachelor (Gairns and Redman 1986). The solution to this problem may be

an additional semantic marker (or markers) that would signalise the difference.

Furthermore, Componential Analysis does not take into consideration the concept of

polysemy. For example the word girl, may be analysed as [+female –adult], but may function

in a different meaning (i.e. referring to an adult), for example in the girls in the office or as in

the television programme from the 1980s about four retired women which was entitled The

Golden Girls. Of course students may not need all the aspects of meaning of a particular

lexical unit, but it is very important to include as many semantic markers as required by the

context.

Other problems are discussed by McCarthy (1990). One is that analyses created by

different people may differ from one another, which can cause problems in certain classroom

activities. Secondly, there are many words that appear to be hard to analyse. For example,

they can have a very similar meaning and it would be highly difficult to establish features that

differentiate them precisely. McCarthy gives the example of the words wallet and purse.

Moreover, some teachers may have problems in distinguishing and analysing words which

seem to denote the same thing, such as do and make, as well as say and tell (McCarthy 1990).

Other units of lexis may appear problematic, as they are difficult to describe in words (i.e. in

the way Componential Analysis works). For example, McCarthy asks what the components of

meaning are of red or wait. As a solution to this problem, he proposes the use of analogy, for

example, red is the colour of blood, or the collocation wait +for +bus/train (McCarthy 1990).

11

Finally, another problem arises when the semantic markers used are important for

some people, while for others they are not. The semantic markers will differ depending on the

knowledge, experience, interests and points of view of the people who apply them (McCarthy

1990). They will also be influenced by cultural and personal factors (Bright 1992). For

example, dandelions may be weeds for people with lawns but vegetables for fanners (Bright

1992). McCarthy gives the example of the words falcon and hawk: these are both birds of

prey and for many people there are either no more features to distinguish them or there is no

need to make a distinction between them whatsoever. For an ornithologist, however, a

distinction may be crucial (McCarthy 1990). For teachers, this may not be a problem as they

know the aims of their lessons and may decide themselves which distinctions are important

for students.

On the whole, however, the problems may be dealt with and do not undermine the

possibility of Componential Analysis being a useful technique in language teaching.

8 Conclusions

While words often have many meanings and that it is not easy to describe the

differences in meaning between closely-related lexical units, Componential Analysis seems to

be a very useful technique for presenting new vocabulary to students as well as some elements

of grammar.

References

Bierwisch, M. (1969). Strukturelle Semantik. Deutsch Als Fremdsprache, 6.

Bright, W. (1992). International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Carter, R. (1987). Vocabulary: Applied Linguistic Perspectives. London: Allen & Unwin.

Gairns, R. & Redman, S. (1986). Working with Words: A Guide to Teaching and Learning

Vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gimson, A. C. & Cruttenden, A. (2001). Gimson’s Pronunciation of English. (A. Cruttenden, Ed.).

London: Arnold.

Henning, J. (1995). Model Languages, 1(6).

Krifka, M. (2001). Lexikalische Semantik.

McCarthy, M. (1990). Vocabulary. Oxford University Press.

Newmark, P. (1995). Approaches to translation. Hempstead [UK]: Phoenix ELT.

Rudzka, B. (1985). More Words You Need: Teacher’s Book and Answer Key. Macmillan.