Chapter: lexicology and its object subject matter of Lexicology

VII. SEMANTIC SYSTEMS IN ENGLISH

1. Semantic fields
The majority of linguists nowdays agree that the vocabulary should be studied as a system. We must study interrelated systems. For different purposes of study different types of grouping of words may be effective. Words joined together by one common semantic component form semantic fields. For example the semantic field of time.
One of the most fruitful concepts evolved so far in structural semantics i s that of the 'lexical field', closely associated with Jost Trier and his school. So much has been written of late on this subject that it is unnecessary to go into details. It will be sufficient to recall that lexical fields are highly organized and integrated conceptual spheres whose elements mutually delimit each other and derive their significance from the system as a whole. In each field a sphere of experience, concrete or abstract, is analyzed, divided up and classified in a unique way which embodies a scale of values and a peculiar vision of the world.
The German linguist Jost Trier shows that the significance of each unit in the semantic field is determined by its neighbours, A. Shaikevitch says that semantically related words must occur near one another in the text. If the words often occur in the text together they must be semantically related and they form a semantic field. For example, faint, feeble, weary, sick, tedious and healthy form one semantic field. Face, head, aim, hand, foot etc make up the semantic field with the notion of body. Examples of lexical fields are: the system of colors, the network of family relations; or, among abstract experiences, the terms for intellectual qualities, ethical and aesthetic values, religious and mystical experiences.
The numerous articles and monographs which have recently been published on these problems have all tended to emphasize the differences between these fields in various languages; they have concentrated on what is distinctive in them rather than on what they have in common. Yet, beneath all the diversity, there is likely to be an underlying unity which a systematic comparison of these fields would no doubt reveal Thus "we are told of striking differences between the number and nature of colour distinctions: there was no single term for 'brown' or 'gray' in Latin; Russian has two words for 'blue'— синий 'dark blue' and голубой 'sky blue 1 ;These differences are highly significant, but it would be equally interesting to know whether there are any elements common to all classifications which have to be everywhere and which could therefore rank as lexical constants”( Stephen Uiimann).
The same, point is even more closely noticeable in another closely organized field which has been extensively studied in various languages: the nomenclature of kinship terms. Take for instance the words for 'brother' and 'sister'. These two concepts seem so fundamental to us that we find 'it difficult to imagine any language that could do without them. There was no single term either for younger brother or for younger sister and for elder brother and elder sister in the English language; instead, two pairs of separate words for 'elder' and 'younger brother' and 'elder' and 'younger sister' are used in the Uzbek language (aKa-yica, ona-cHHrHJi).
A comparison of the same field in a number of languages would reveal whether this relationship is a semantic universal. It would also show how many ways there are of'structuring 1 this part of the field and how frequent these various solutions actually are. The same method could then be applied to other sections of the field. Even languages belonging to the same family and culture will sometimes show remarkable discrepancies. Thus there is no single term for 'father in law' or 'mother in law 1 in Russian: a distinction is made between mecc-ceeKop,meii(a- ceeKpoena.
It may be noted in passing that the theory of lexical fields has certain affinities with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Trier and his followers would readily agree with Whorf that each language contains a 'hidden metaphysics' and that 'we dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages'. There are, however, two important differences between the two schools:
(1) lexical fields have so far been explored mainly in the best-known European languages, whereas Whorf deliberately turned away from 'Standard Average European' and concentrated on totally different linguistic systems, notably the American Indian ones;
(2) the theory of lexical fields is focused on vocabulary, while Whorfs most impressive successes were obtained in the grammatical sphere. It would seem, then, that the two approaches, which have developed independently of each other, could usefully supplement one another, and the time may come when they can be combined into a unified theory.