Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:14:06.862Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Semantic Components, Meaning, and Use in Ethnosemantics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Cecil H. Brown
Cecil H. Brown*
Affiliation:
Northern Illinois University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The epistemological status of semantic components of ethnosemantics is investigated with reference to Wittgenstein's definition of the meaning of a word as its use in language. Semantic components, like the intension of words in logistic philosophy, constitute the conditions which must pertain to objects in order that they are denoted by particular words. “Componential meaning” is determined to be another form of “unitary meaning” and hence subject to the same critical arguments made by Wittgenstein against the latter's three fundamental types: (1) meanings are objects, (2) meanings are images, and (3) meanings are feelings and mental experiences. A rebuttal to D'Andrade's labeling rule objection to the usage theory of meaning is presented.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 43 , Issue 3 , September 1976 , pp. 378 - 395
Copyright
Copyright © 1976 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

I would like to thank Harold W. Burris, Jr., J. L. Fischer, James W. Springer, and Stanley R. Witkowski for reading and commenting upon earlier drafts of this paper. I am also grateful for the many good suggestions for change offered by Philosophy of Science referees.

References

REFERENCES

Ayer, A. J. Language, Truth, and Logic. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1952.Google Scholar
Bendix, E. H. Componential Analysis of General Vocabulary: The Semantic Structure of a Set of Verbs in English, Hindi, and Japanese. Publication 41; Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics, 1966.Google Scholar
Burling, R. Man's Many Voices: Language in its Cultural Context. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1970.Google Scholar
Brown, C. H. “Formal Semantic Analysis of Huastec Kinship Terminology: A Case for an Unusual Marriage Rule.” Anthropological Linguistics 15 (1973): 259–266.Google Scholar
Brown, C. H. “Psychological, Semantic, and Structural Aspects of American English Kinship Terms.” American Ethnologist 1 (1974): 415–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, C. H. Wittgensteinian Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1958.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The M.I.T. Press, 1965.Google Scholar
D'Andrade, R. G. “Structure and Syntax in the Semantic Analysis of Kinship Terminologies.” In Cognition: A Multiple View. Edited by Garvin, Paul L. New York: Spartan Books, 1970.Google Scholar
DeCamp, D. “Review of Jamaica Talk by Frederic G. Cassidy.” Language 39 (1963): 544.Google Scholar
Goodenough, W. H. “Componential Analysis and the Study of Meaning.” Language 32 (1956): 195–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodenough, W. H. “Yankee Kinship Terminology: A Problem in Componential Analysis.” American Anthropologist 67(5, pt. 2) (1965): 259–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallett, G. Wittgenstein's Definition of Meaning as Use. New York: Fordham University Press, 1967.Google Scholar
Kroeber, A. L. “Classificatory Systems of Relationship.” The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 39 (1909): 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, G. E. Philosophical Papers. New York: Collier Books, 1959.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. Word and Object. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The M.I.T. Press, 1960.Google Scholar
Romney, A. K. and D'Andrade, R. G. “Cognitive Aspects of English Kin Terms.” American Anthropologist 66(3, pt. 2) (1964): 79–98.Google Scholar
Scheffler, H. W. and Lounsbury, F. G. A. Study in Structural Semantics: The Siriono Kinship System. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1971.Google Scholar
Thompson, R. A. “Transformational Theory and Semantic Analysis.” Journal of Linguistics 4(1968): 73–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, S. A. “Introduction.” In Cognitive Anthropology. Edited by Tyler, Stephen A. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1969.Google Scholar
Wallace, A. F. C., and Atkins, J. “The Meaning of Kinship Terms.” American Anthropologist 62 (1960): 58–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werner, O. et al. “Some New Developments in Ethnosemantics and the Theory and Practice of Lexical/Semantic Fields.” In Current Trends in Linguistics. Volume 12: Linguistics and Adjacent Arts and Sciences. Edited by Sebeok, Thomas A. The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1974.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1922.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1953.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. The Blue and Brown Books. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1958.Google Scholar