#4395. Porzig の「意味の場」[semantics][semantic_field][collocation][cognitive_linguistics][terminology]


 一昨日と昨日の記事「#4392. Trier の「意味の場」の言語学史上の意義 (1)」 ([2021-01-27-1]) と「#4393. Trier の「意味の場」の言語学史上の意義 (2)」 ([2021-01-28-1]) では,Trier の「意味の場」 (semantic_field) の学史的背景をみた.今回は,Trier と同じ時代にかなり異なる種類の「意味の場」を提起した Porzig に注目してみたい.参照する論文は昨日と同じ Öhman である.
 Trier の「意味の場」が paradigmatic な視点からのものであるのに対し,Porzig の「意味の場」は syntagmatic である.現代の術語でいえば語の共起 (collocation),あるいは共起制限の発想に近い.また,Trier は「意味の場」を論じるのに名詞を重視するが,Porzig は動詞や形容詞などの述語的な語彙を重視する.

The field concept of Porzig is of quite a different type than Trier's. Porzig finds certain "essential semantic relationships" between verbs and nouns or between adjectives and nouns. 'To go' presupposes 'the feet', 'to grasp' presupposes 'the hand', and 'blond' (in German and English) presupposes 'the hair'. These relationships form the basic articulations of the meaning system and therefore Porzig calls them "elementary semantic fields" (elementare Bedeutungsfelder). The nucleus of such a semantic field can only consist of a verb or an adjective, because these classes of words have a predicative function and are therefore less ambiguous than nouns. One can grasp with the hand only, but one can do many things with the hand. (129)

 両者のもう1つの大きな違いは,Trier の「意味の場」が最終的には意味や語彙の全体を覆う大構造を前提としているのに対して,Porzig のそれは基本的で具体的な場に主たる関心があるという点だ.後者には現代の認知意味論的な風味も感じられる.

Trier protests against Porzig's use of the term "field" in this new sense. Trier based his theory on the entire vocabulary, dividing it into large field units, and subdividing these until he reached the smallest entities---single words. Porzig's field, on the other hand, is conceived as primitive concrete situations linguistically designated. By means of it the speech community succeeds in grasping higher and more abstract spheres.


 ・ Öhman, Suzanne. "Theories of 'the Linguistic Field'." Word 9 (1953): 123--34.

[ | 固定リンク | 印刷用ページ ]

Powered by WinChalow1.0rc4 based on chalow