^Perspectives on Language

in Performance
Studies in Linguistics, Literary Criticism,
and Language Teaching and Learning

To H o n o u r Werner Hllen
on the Occasion of H i s Sixtieth Birthday

E d i t e d by
Wolfgang Lrscher and R a i n e r Schulze

ffilW Gunter N a r r Verlag Tbingen

Deutsche Bibliothek Cataloguing in Publication Data

Perspectives on language in performance : studies in linguistics,

literary criticism and language teaching and learning ; to honour Werner Hllen
on the occasion of his 60. birthday / ed. by Wolfgang Lrscher u. Rainer Schulze. -
Tbingen : Narr, 1987.
(Tbinger Beitrge zur Linguistik ; B d . 3 17)
ISBN 3 - 8 7 8 0 8 - 3 7 7 - 7

N E : Lrscher, Wolfgang [Hrsg.]; Hllen, Werner: Festschrift: G T

Gedruckt mit U n t e r s t t z u n g der Universitt Essen-Gesamthochschule

1987 Gunter Narr Verlag, P . O . Box 25 67, D - 7 4 0 0 Tbingen

A l l rights, including the rights of publication, distribution and sales, as well as the right
to translation, are reserved. N o part of this work covered by the copyrights hereon may
be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means - graphic, electronic or
mechanical including photocopying, recording, taping, or information and retrieval
systems - without written permission of the publisher.

Printed in Germany

ISBN 3 - 8 7 8 0 8 - 3 7 7 - 7
Contents

Volume 1

Preface V

Werner Hllen: A Biographical Sketch XV

Werner Hllen: A Bibliography XIX

Reinhold Freudenstein
Hochschule und Schule im Dialog. Analyse einer
fremdsprachlichen Verbandszeitschrift 1

Parti Linguistics
Foundations of Language

Horst Arndt, Richard W. Janney

The Biological and Cultural Evolution of Human Communication 19

Walter A. Koch
Genes and Mernes: Modes of Integration for Natural and
Cultural Evolution in a Holistic World Model ('ELPIS) 46

Lexemic and Morphemic Studies

Wolf-Dietrich Bald
Reduced Structures in English Grammar 69

Wolfram Bublitz, Jrgen Strau

Heah Cyning vs. Heahcyning - Time-Stability
in Old English Compounding 88

Ren Dirven
Diminutives in Afrikaans and Dutch 100

Klaus Faiss
Words, Words, Words: Compound or Suffixation
in German and English 110

Reinhard R.K. Hartmann

The Dictionary in Vocabulary Learning, with Particular Reference
to English Learners of German 133

Udo O. H.Jung
'Nemini Parcetur': Morphological Aspects of Acronyms
in English and German: A Contrastive Analysis 148

Dieter Kastovsky
Boundaries in English and German Morphology 159

Ekkehard Knig, Bernd Kortmann

Absolute Complementation in the Lexical Structure
of English and German 171

VII
Alfred Schopf
TAKE and TOOK: English Morphology from Various Points of View 199

John Speicher
Word Play in Shop and Business Names 208

John R. Taylor
Tense and Metaphorisations of Time in Zulu 214

Syntactic and Related Issues

Flor G. A. M. Aarts
Imperative Sentences in English: Properties and Constraints 230

Dafydd Gibbon
Notes on Computational Linguistics (and Language Teaching) 250

Raymond Hickey
Sie hat ihn versucht zu erreichen: On Interlocking in
Present-Day German Syntax 271

New Semantic Approaches

Leonhard Lipka
Prototype Semantics or Feature Semantics: An Alternative? 282

Rainer Schulze
The Perception of Space and the Function of Topological Prepositions
in English: A Contribution to Cognitive Grammar 299

Pragmatics and the Text

Hans-Jrgen Diller
Always Irreverent, Never Uncharitable: The Style and Status
of Katherine Whitehorn 323

Nils Erik Enkvist

More About Text Strategies 337

Rosemarie Glser
Metakommunikative Sprachhandlungen in Fachtexten - dargestellt
an englischen Lehrbuchtexten fr Schler und Studenten 351

Lothar Hoffmann
Basic LSP for Academic Studies 369

Carl James
On the Pragmatics of Examination Questions 380

Bernd Spillner
Pragmatische und textlinguistische Anstze in der klassischen Rhetorik 390

Eija Ventola
Textbook Dialogues and Discourse Realities 399

Karl-Heinz Wandt
Schweigen - ein Desiderat sprachwissenschaftlicher Forschung? 412

VIII
Translation and Performance

Wolfgang Lrscher
On Analysing Translation Performance 424

Danica Seleskovitch
Context-Free Language and Sense in Translation 441

Special Languages: Current and Historical Perspectives

Richard J. Brunt
"My waterworks are playing me up something chronic."
The Description of the English of Medicine and Some Didactic Implications .. 447

Achim Eschbach
Salomon Maimons Abhandlung ber die symbolische Erkenntnis
im Lichte der Geschichte der Semiotik 470

Lilith M. Haynes
Of Pineapples, Pomelos, and Unknown Plants:
Maria Sybilla Merian and the Language of Science 485

Michael Isermann
Thomas Hobbes: Natur und Kunst in der Sprache 509

Gabriele Stein
Reference Point and Authorial Involvement in John Palsgrave's
Esclarcissement de la langue francoyse 530

Languages in Contact

Werner Enninger
Amish English: Dutchified? 547

Leo Loveday
Sino-Japanese Language Contact: A Case for Historical Sociolinguistics 579

Partii Literary Criticism

Literary Case Studies

Rdiger Ahrens
The Educative Paradigm of the Modern Novel of Initiation 611

Peter Freese
'Teaching People How to Write Who Don't Know What to Write':
Bernard Malamud's A New Life and the Myth of the West 642

Albert-Reiner Glaap
From Albert to Werner: Conscious Linguists and Communication
in Contemporary Drama 658

Fredrik J. Heinemann
'Beowulf 665b-738: A Mock Approach-to-Battle Type Scene 677

Valerie Heitfeld
'With the ear not the eye' - On Reading Hopkins 695

IX
Ruth Freifrau von Ledebur
Der 'Geist' von Shakespeares Sommernachtstraum :
berlegungen zu Botho Strau' Der Park 712

Elmar Lehmann
A Grammar of Historiography and the Art of Historical Fiction.
On Robert Graves' Claudius Novels 738

Helmut Schrey
Language at Play. A Philologist as Author -
J. R. R. Tolkien with Horses 747

Literature in the Classroom

Lothar Bredeila
From New Criticism to Response Theory: The Epistemologica!,
Aesthetic, and Pedagogical Implications 760

Hans Weber
Tom Stoppard als Schulautor? 786

Franz Rudolf Weller

Literatur im Fremdsprachenunterricht der Sekundarstufe I 799

Volume 2

Part III Foreign Language Teaching Practice

Historical and Political Aspects

Herbert Christ
Fremdsprachenlehrer im Portrait. Biographisches und
Autobiographisches aus vier Jahrhunderten 819

Ingeborg Christ
Die Entdeckung Hispanoamerikas fr den Spanischunterricht 839

Wolfgang Khlwein:
Roger Ascham: An Early Elizabethan Linguist 857

Franz Josef Zapp

Politische Vorgaben fr den Fremdsprachenunterricht.
Versuch einer Bestandsaufnahme 878

Practical Aspects

Albert Barrera-Vidal
Pragmatische Didaktik und didaktische Praxis 884

Michael Bludau
Some Thoughts on Desiderata of EFL Syllabuses
at the Intermediate Level 897

Wolfgang Butzkamm
Grammar in Context: Theory on Trial 906

X
Francizsek Grucza, Karl-Dieter Bunting
Das Konzept einer Grammatik der deutschen Sprache
fr polnische Muttersprachler 917

Albert Raasch
Video fr den Fremdsprachenerwerb -
am Beispiel des Franzsischen 927

Part IV Language Learning and Teaching Research

Research Methodology and Language Measurement

Arbeitsgruppe Fremdsprachenerwerb
Welcher Typ von Forschung in der Fremdsprchendidaktik?
Zum Verhltnis von qualitativer und quantitativer Forschung 943

Waldemar Pfeiffer
Zur Methodologie der Methodiken 976

Douglas K. Stevenson
Authority, Accountability, and Modern Language Measurement 993

Socio-Psychological Implications

Rupprecht S. Baur
Kein Huhn im Topf? Alltagswissen
und interkulturelle Kommunikation 1006

Karlfried Knapp
English as an International lingua franca
and the Teaching of Intercultural Communication 1022

Gerda Lauerbach
Sprache, Identitt, Persnlichkeit -
Interkulturelle Kommunikation als Krise? 1040

Gnter Raddn
National Stereotypes: The English, the Americans,
the French, and the Germans 1061

Cognitive and Psycholinguistic Issues: Theoretical Studies

Willis J. Edmondson
1
'Acquisition' and 'Learning : The Discourse System
Integration Hypothesis 1070

Lothar A. Jung
Psycholinguistik und Lernphasen im Fremdsprachenunterricht 1090

Gertrud Jungblut
Begrndungen fr eine einsprachige Wortvermittlungsphase
im Fremdsprachenunterricht 1107

Annelie Knapp-Potthoff
Speaking for Others - On a Neglected Aspect
of Using a Foreign Language 1125

XI
Gudula List
Trumen in fremden Sprachen. Psychologische Reflexionen
ber ein vernachlssigtes Thema 1143

Dorothea Mhle, Manfred Raupach

The Representation Problem in Interlanguage Theory 1158

Jrgen Quetz
Child-Adult Differences in Second Language Learning:
Reformulating the Approach 1174

Kari Sajavaara
Intake in Second Language Acquisition 1190

Cognitive and Psycholinguistic Issues: Empirical Studies

Hans W. Dechert
Pseudo-Discrimination in Second-Language Processing:
Answers and Questions 1200

Claus Faerch
Focus Shifts in FL Classroom Discourse 1226

Juliane House, Gabriele Kasper

Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requesting in a Foreign Language 1250

Andrew Radford, Michelle Aldridge

The Acquisition of the Inflection System 1289

Dieter Wolff
Auf- und absteigende Verarbeitungsprozesse
bei der Textverarbeitung in einer zweiten Sprache 1310

Research and the Classroom: Some Implications

Karl-Richard Bausch
Anmerkungen zum Prinzip der G e n e r a l i s i e r u n g bei der
Erforschung und Durchfhrung von Fremdsprachenunterricht 1324

Wolfgang Brner
Schreiben im Fremdsprachenunterricht:
berlegungen zu einem Modell 1336

Hans-Jrgen Krumm
Effecting Change in Teaching Behaviour
in the Modern Language Classroom 1350

Dieter Mindt
New Ways for Research on Grammar for English
as a Foreign Language: Outline and Application 1361

Rudolf Nissen
Beyond Sinclair/Coulthard: 'Free Didactic Conversations'
in the German EFL Classroom 1373

Joachim Raith
Englischunterricht und trkische Lerner - Bereich Aussprache 1385

Johannes-Peter Timm
Operationelle Regeln fr den Englischunterricht 1398

XII
Albert Valdman
Interlinguistic Variability: The Control of Variable ''
by American Graduate Student French Instructors 1418

Wolfgang Zydati
Fossilized Grammar Proficiency? A Developmental View
of German Obers tu fen-Pupils' Written English 1429

Tabula gratulatoria 1447

XIII
 P r o t o t y p e Semantics or F e a t u r e Semantics: An Alternative?*

Leonhard L i p k a (Mnchen)

1. D e f i n i t i o n s

Over the last few years, a new approach toJLej^caJL jneaning has devel-
oped, which may be l a b e l l e d P r o t o t y p e Semantics ( h e r e a f t e r PS). It has
a r i s e n m a i n l y under the i n f l u e n c e of psyc^ho^
nature of human c a t e g o r i z a t i o n . Rosch ( 1 9 7 7 ) and Rosch/Mervis (1975)
are p o s s i b l y the most s i g n i f i c a n t publications in this f i e l d . This a l -
t e r n a t i v e semantic theory sees i t s e l f as being in opposition to A r i s t o -
t e l i a n Semantics, which F i l l m o r e ( 1 9 7 5 ) has l a b e l l e d " c h e c k l i s t theo-
r i e s of meaning". Other l i n g u i s t i c r o o t s can be seen i n e m p i r i c a l i n -
v e s t i g a t i o n s i n t o the denotative s t r u c t u r e of E n g l i s h nouns, as sum-
marized i n Labov (1978). Recent c o n t r i b u t i o n s to PS are the articles
by Lakoff, Posner, T v e r s k y , and Givn i n C r a i g (1986), with Lakoff
(33-36) d i s t i n g u i s h i n g d i f f e r e n t "types of p r o t o t y p e s " . At first sight,
y there i s a very considerable d i f f e r e n c e between PS and the classical
feature theory of semantics. We will see i n the f o l l o w i n g whether i t
is a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e , as F i l l m o r e (1975) claims.

1.1. To answer t h i s q u e s t i o n , we first have to look at some e x p l i c i t

d e f i n i t i o n s of p r o t o t y p e s . In g e n e r a l , 'prototypes' can be defined as
best examples of a c a t e g o r y or "the c l e a r e s t cases of c a t e g o r y member-
ship" (Rosch 1978: 36). The f o l l o w i n g s i x d e f i n i t i o n s each f o c u s on
different a s p e c t s of t h i s phenomenon. Thus, Rosch/Mervis ( 1 9 7 5 : 575)
1
first define 'prototype very vaguely as:

1. "the abstract representation of a c a t e g o r y " .

T h e i r second d e f i n i t i o n (1975: 575) emphasises the p o i n t of view of

comparison (as i n d e f i n i t i o n 6 ) . P r o t o t y p e s are therefore:

2. "those c a t e g o r y members to which s u b j e c t s compare items when

judging c a t e g o r y membership".

Rosch ( 1 9 7 7 : 2 f . , 46) speaks of c o g n i t i v e p r o t o t y p e s . These are de-

fined as:

3. "perceptually salient points i n the domain (around which cate-

g o r i e s form)", and
4. "the o b j e c t s which most s t r o n g l y r e f l e c t the attribute struc-
t u r e of the c a t e g o r y as a whole".

Here, the c o g n i t i v e and perceptual aspect i s obviously relevant. At

the same time, p r o t o t y p e s are r e g a r d e d as s t r u c t u r e d c a t e g o r i e s , in

282
which a t t r i b u t e s p l a y a r o l e . The c o g n i t i v e aspect i s a l s o stressed
i n Coleman/Kay ( I 9 8 I : 27), wljo say t h a t a semantic prototype:

5. " a s s o c i a t e [ s ] a word or phrase w i t h a p r e l i n g u i s t i c , cognitive

schema or image" they a l s o c l a i m t h a t
6. "speakers are equipped w i t h an a b i l i t y to judge the degree to
which an o b j e c t . . . matches t h i s p r o t o t y p e schema or image".

T h e i r n o t i o n of schema i s not p r e c i s e l y d e f i n e d . At any rate, i t i s

not i d e n t i c a l w i t h the concept used i n some p u b l i c a t i o n s on t e x t lin-
guistics (e.g. de Beaugrande (I98O: 164, 171 ff.), de Beaugrande/
Dressler ( 1 9 8 I ) , where i t i s c o n s i d e r e d as a dynamic sequence or 'pro-
gression ' ) .

1.2. A l l d e f i n i t i o n s of p r o t o t y p e s quoted so f a r are concerned with

the p s y c h o l o g i c a l , c a t e g o r i a l comprehension of the w o r l d , i . e . the
extralinguistic c l a s s e s of r e f e r e n t s or d e n o t a t a . We can t h e r e f o r e
c o n s i d e r and d e f i n e PS as a r e f e r e n t i a l , or d e n o t a t i v e semantics. T h i s
approach i s to be d i s t i n g u i s h e d from language-immanent semantic theo-
ries, such as e.g. C o s e r i u ' s or Lyons' theory.

Now words are not simply names f o r i n d e p e n d e n t l y e x i s t i n g extralinguis-

tic o b j e c t s . The r e l a t i o n s h i p between language and extralinguistic
reality i s f a r more complex. The c a t e g o r i e s f o r our p e r c e p t i o n of the
w o r l d are o n l y c r e a t e d by i n d i v i d u a l languages, as c l a s s e s of denotata.
2
A c c o r d i n g to L e i s i ( 1985: 15), the d i f f e r e n t ways of drawing bounda-
r i e s and d i v i d i n g up the same e x t r a l i n g u i s t i c world i n two languages
A and B can be r e p r e s e n t e d as follows:

(.1)

Sprache A | Worti| | Wort 21 | Wort 3

auersprach-
liche Welt

Sprache B | Wort i' |wjWort^

o Wort 3'

Leisi's t h e o r y can a l s o be d e s c r i b e d as r e f e r e n t i a l or d e n o t a t i v e s e -
mantics. Before t u r n i n g to some c l a s s i c a l examples of p r o t o t y p e s , l e t
us l o o k at some f u r t h e r p a r a l l e l s between t h i s approach and Leisi's
2
theory. L e i s i ( 1985: 57) s t a r t s out from some r e l a t i o n a l norms ('Be-
1
zugsnormen ' ) , i n c l u d i n g a species-norm ( Speziesnorm'). By t h i s he un-
d e r s t a n d s an i m p l i c i t comparison w i t h an average r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of a
s p e c i e s . For example, he says t h a t a p e n c i l 75 cm l o n g may be des-
c r i b e d as 'enormous', w h i l e a s k i of the same s i z e would be 'tiny'.

283
Another important concept i n L e i s i ' s t h e o r y o f meaning i s h i s c o n d i -
1
t i o n s f o r the use o f words ('Gebrauchsbedingungen ) (see 4. below). In
c o n n e c t i o n w i t h PS, L e i s i ' s ( 1985:
2
3 8 , 40) two complementary defini-
t i o n s o f meaning are a l s o r e l e v a n t . For him, meaning ('Bedeutung') i s :

a) " E i n Bezug zwischen der L a u t g e s t a l t und a l l e n Gegenstnden e i n e r

bestimmten K a t e g o r i e ( . . . e i n e r Menge von Gegenstnden)", and
b) the meaning of a s p e c i f i c word: " d i e Bedeutung des Wortes A...
ist i d e n t i s c h mit den Bedingungen, u n t e r denen d i e L a u t g e s t a l t
des Wortes A... i n der Z e i g e d e f i n i t i o n v e r w i r k l i c h t werden darf".

L e i s i t h e r e f o r e s t a r t s - as do the p s y c h o l o g i s t s Rosch and M e r v i s -

from a s e t , a c a t e g o r y o f e x t r a l i n g u i s t i c r e f e r e n t s , which a r e r e l a t e d
to the form o f a word (definition a ) . Membership i n such a c a t e g o r y
depends on c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s (definition b).

2. Some C l a s s i c Examples

I now wish t o i l l u s t r a t e PS by i n t e g r a t i n g some c l a s s i c examples

which are t r e a t e d i n Rosch ( 1 9 7 7 ) , (1978), Rosch/Mervis ( 1 9 7 5 ) , and
Leech ( 1 9 8 l )
2
i n t o the t h e o r y . As when d e a l i n g w i t h d e f i n i t i o n s , I
will again contrast some model examples of PS w i t h p a r a l l e l cases i n
Leisi ( 1985: 37).
2

2.1. The c a t e g o r y BIRD i s s a i d t o be c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the f o l l o w i n g

' a t t r i b u t e s ' , as r e p r e s e n t e d i n ( 2 ) : ' c e r t a i n ' S I Z E , SHAPE, l a y s eggs,
has f e a t h e r s , has wings, can f l y , e t c . ' . In both the diagram and the
t e x t , c a t e g o r i e s and semantic dimensions ( l i k e SIZE) a r e symbolized
by c a p i t a l s , p r o t o t y p i c a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s are i n i t a l i c s , and impor-
t a n t a t t r i b u t e s are i n d i c a t e d . In (2) t h e r e i s an i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e bet-
ween 'has wings' and 'has f e a t h e r s ' on the one hand and 'can f l y ' on
the o t h e r . T h i s l a s t attribute i s m i s s i n g f o r example w i t h the o s t r i c h ,
the penguin, and the c h i c k e n . From the p o i n t of view o f s i z e and shape,
sparrow, r o b i n , and swjTlow can be r e g a r d e d as p r o t o t y p i c a l representa-
t i v e s o f the c a t e g o r y .

(2)
owl, f l a m i n g o c e r t a i n SIZE, SHAPE
l a y s eggs
BIRD sparrow, r o b i n , swallow

(ostrich, penguin, c h i c k e n )

284
Several a t t r i b u t e s from t h i s c a t e g o r y , such as ' l a y i n g eggs' and 'hav-
ing a beak', may occur i n c o n j u n c t i o n i n completely d i f f e r e n t other
categories. This i s demonstrated by the Australian platypus, also
c a l l e d a d u c k b i l l or d u c k b i l l e d platypus. A l t h o u g h i t has a beak or
bill like that of a duck, and l a y s eggs, i t i s f u r r y and suckles its
young.

In the c a t e g o r y DOG, the Alsatian (or German shepherd) i s generally

c o n s i d e r e d to be the p r o t o t y p e . Other r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , like the St.
Bernhard and the P e k i n e s e , are rather on the p e r i p h e r y of the category.
On the o t h e r hand, the r e t r i e v e r a g a i n belongs to the prototypical
kernel. This c l a s s of dogs i s not determined by a s p e c i f i c breed, but
by i t s function. Thus, FUNCTION a l s o can be a relevant attribute for
p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y . The irrelevance of b i o l o g i c a l a t t r i b u t e s i n t h i s case
i s apparent from t h i s d e f i n i t i o n of r e t r i e v e r i n the LDCE: 'Any of
several types of s p e c i a l l y bred m i d d l e - s i z e d h u n t i n g dog, trained to
bring back shot b i r d s ' . A l l t h i s i s summarized i n the following dia-
gram :

(3)

St Bernard, Pekinese SIZE, SHAPE

DOG Alsatian (= German Shepherd) barking, tail-wagging

retriever FUNCTION

In the c a t e g o r y FISH, the members t r o u t and herring are normally count-

ed as p r o t o t y p e s , w h i l e e e l and octopus are often s a i d to be on the
border of the category (Leech 2
198l: 84; but c f . a l s o guppy - a vivi-
parous f i s h - , whale, p l a i c e , seahorse, and starfish). Rosch/Mervis
(1975: 573, 578 f.) d i s c u s s empirical, psychological research into the
c a t e g o r y FURNITURE. The experiments show t h a t c h a i r and t a b l e are pro-
t o t y p i c a l , while radio and vase are not. For these experiments attri-
butes such as f o r example 'has l e g s ' were used. S i m i l a r t e s t s f o r the
c a t e g o r y VEHICLE show that c a r and truck belong to the prototypical
kernel, while r a f t and elevator do not. Here, a t t r i b u t e s l i k e 'you
drive i t ' were employed ( 1 9 7 5 : 576).

2.2. In h i s 'Praxis der englischen Semantik', L e i s i investigates the

etymologically r e l a t e d words Turm and tower and i l l u s t r a t e s his discus-
s i o n w i t h the following, s i m p l i f i e d s i x types of b u i l d i n g ( 1985:
2
37):

285
 (4)

The conditions o f use i n German and E n g l i s h a r e d i f f e r e n t , a l t h o u g h

FORM and POSITION p l a y a r o l e i n both languages. The" o b j e c t s o f type
3 and 4 cannot be denoted i n E n g l i s h by tower. I n s t e a d the words steep-
l e , s p i r e , t u r r e t , or pinnacle must be used. As opposed t o L e i s i ' s des-
c r i p t i o n , Turm would not be used i n German f o r type 4 , but r a t h e r Trm-
chen o r the t e c h n i c a l term F i a l e . A c c o r d i n g to L e i s i ( 1985:
2
4 5 ) , the
use o f tower r e q u i r e s t h a t the denotatum be not p o i n t e d and s t a r t from
the ground.

These p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e conditions o f use o f L e i s i o b v i o u s l y corre-

spond t o t h e r e l e v a n t a t t r i b u t e s o f PS. On the o t h e r hand, both can
be i d e n t i f i e d w i t h the f e a t u r e s o f s t r u c t u r a l and g e n e r a t i v e lexical
s e m a n t i c s , a l t h o u g h the proponents o f PS do not admit t h i s . B e f o r e r e -
turning t o t h i s problem, l e t us look a t another f i e l d ( i n the n o n - t e c h -
nical sense) f a v o u r a b l e t o PS.

3. The D e n o t a t i o n o f Some C o n t a i n e r Terms

In a h i g h l y i n t e r e s t i n g and s t i m u l a t i n g a r t i c l e entitled "Denotational

Structure", Labov (1978) reports on s e v e r a l e m p i r i c a l investigations
o f the use o f c o n t a i n e r terms l i k e cup, bowl, g l a s s , e t c . A number o f
c o n t r o l l e d experiments w i t h i n f o r m a n t s were c a r r i e d out and e v a l u a t e d
1
statistically. The aim o f Labov s study was t o e x p l o r e the " c o n d i t i o n s
f o r the d e n o t a t i v e use o f cup, bowl, g l a s s , and o t h e r container terms"
(1978: 2 2 1 ) . This formulation reminds one s t r o n g l y o f L e i s i ' s condi-
t i o n s f o r use ('Gebrauchsbedingungen').

3.1. Labov i s not p r i m a r i l y i n t e r e s t e d i n the p r o t o t y p i c a l k e r n e l of

categories, but r a t h e r i n t h e i r boundaries^. He t h e r e f o r e approaches
categories not from the i n s i d e , but r a t h e r from the o u t s i d e , from their
periphery. In h i s o p i n i o n , c a t e g o r y boundaries have been l a r g e l y neg-
lected i n previous research. H i s experiments a r e designed to q u e s t i o n
the assumption t h a t sharp and r i g i d boundary l i n e s e x i s t between cate-
gories. For t h i s purpose, Labov makes use o f 'continuous s e r i e s ' o f
o b j e c t s , normally presented i n the form o f i l l u s t r a t i o n s . The i n f l u -

286
enee of context i s taken i n t o account. F i r s t the s u b j e c t s i n the ex-
periments were asked to name items without any particular context.
In a second experiment they were asked to assume t h a t the containers
were f i l l e d with c o f f e e , food, soup, or f l o w e r s , or t h a t they saw some-
one stirring i n sugar w i t h a spoon or d r i n k i n g out of them.

Besides diameter, h e i g h t , and shape, Labov a l s o i n t r o d u c e d material

(e.g. c h i n a or g l a s s ) as a v a r i a b l e . The examples ( 5 b ) and (5c) are
extremes of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between h e i g h t and diameter. T h i s ratio
of h e i g h t to width proved r e l e v a n t f o r the d i s t i n c t ^ cup
and bowl. ( 5 a ) shows the p r o t o t y p i c a l p r o p o r t i o n f o r the use of cup.
The prototype f o r mug i s represented by (5d). The following illustra-
tion (Labov 1 9 7 8 : 222) demonstrates the r e l e v a n c e of SHAPE and of the
presence or absence of a handle f o r some c o n t a i n e r terms:

(5)

BOWL TUMBLER

1
In g e n e r a l , a c c o r d i n g to Labov s f i n d i n g s , the f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s or
parameters are r e l e v a n t i n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g c o n t a i n e r terms: shape, pro-
p o r t i o n , m a t e r i a l , f u n c t i o n , handle, e t c . These 'parameters' can be
i d e n t i f i e d with the ' a t t r i b u t e s ' of PS.

Labov shows c o n v i n c i n g l y t h a t the b o u n d a r i e s between cup and bowl are

vague and that context p l a y s an important role. In s p i t e of i n c r e a s i n g
width, a container like e.g. (5b) is s t i l l c a l l e d a cup i f i t is filled
with c o f f e e . The presence or absence of a handle a l s o has considerable
i n f l u e n c e . Labov (1978: 223) a r r i v e s at the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t referential

287
or d e n o t a t i o n a l b o u n d a r i e s have two fundamental p r o p e r t i e s : They are
1. vague and 2 . m u t u a l l y i n t e r d e p e n d e n t . By i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e Labov means
t h a t v a r i a b l e s l i k e h e i g h t , w i d t h , or f u n c t i o n are not i s o l a t e d and
independent of each o t h e r .

I t can be c l a i m e d t h a t f o r the p r o t o t y p i c a l cup (5a) 100 % o f the sub-

j e c t s would always use cup. In t h i s , a c c o r d i n g to Labov (1978: 221),
the r a t i o of h e i g h t to width i s 0 . 6 8 . The prototypical shape f o r MUG
is (5d), t h a t of BOWL and TUMBLER are ( 5 e ) and (5f). The latter are
i d e n t i c a l to ( 5 b ) and (5d), but do not have a h a n d l e . A tumbler may a l -
so be c o n i c a l , l i k e figure (5g), but i t must have a f l a t bottom.

3.2. Labov (1978: 229-231) briefly d i s c u s s e s B o o r t i e n ' s study o f b o t -

t l e s . He states that "the p r o t o t y p i c a l b o t t l e . . . appears t o be a g l a s s
o b j e c t w i t h a narrow opening and a neck o n e - t h i r d the w i d t h o f the b o t -
le" (1978: 231). I w i l l here extend t h i s d i s c u s s i o n and c o n t r a s t the
c a t e g o r i e s BOTTLE and DECANTER. T h i s , i n my o p i n i o n , demonstrates both
the problem of b o u n d a r i e s d i s c u s s e d by Labov and the u s e f u l n e s s of
the concept of prototype.- In a d d i t i o n , i t illustrates the concept o f
''family resemblances' which i s the t i t l e of Rosch/Mervis (1975). Con-
s i d e r the f o l l o w i n g illustration:

(6)

BOTTLE vs. DECANTER

a) b) c) d)

O b v i o u s l y , a l l v e s s e l s or c o n t a i n e r s i n ( 6 ) have a g r e a t d e a l i n com-
mon. Consequently, the d e f i n i t i o n s of d e c a n t e r i n LDCE and COD 7 both
c o n t a i n the s u p e r o r d i n a t e term b o t t l e . On the o t h e r hand, the p r o t o -
t y p i c a l DECANTERS ( 6 b ) to ( 6 d ) have a t t r i b u t e s i n common, such as 'with
a s t o p p e r ' , which are m i s s i n g i n the c a t e g o r y BOTTLE. They f u r t h e r have
i n common the FUNCTION ' f o r d e c a n t i n g ' . The verb to decant i s defined
i n LDCE as:

288
 "To pour (liquid, esp. wine) from one container,into another,
esp. so as to leave a l l the u n d r i n k a b l e p a r t s (sediment) i n
the f i r s t c o n t a i n e r " .

It cannot be denied t h a t a c a t e g o r y of c o n t a i n e r s l i k e DECANTER, whose

function i s t i e d up w i t h the consumption of M e d i t e r r a n e a n wines like
s h e r r y or p o r t , which c o n t a i n a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount of sediment, i s
a highly culture-specific c a t e g o r y . A s o c i e t y which f o r b i d s alcoholic
d r i n k s f o r r e l i g i o u s reasons w i l l not develop such a r t i f a c t s or lin-
guistic signs f o r t h e i r denotation.

3.3- The names of n a t u r a l o b j e c t s as w e l l , such as c e r t a i n c l a s s e s of

l i v i n g b e i n g s , are by no means independent of language and c u l t u r e . As
mentioned above i n 1.2., the phenomena of the e x t r a l i n g u i s t i c world are
not i n themselves s t r u c t u r e d by independent, sharp b o u n d a r i e s . Although
t h e r e may be c e r t a i n u n i v e r s a l k e r n e l areas as a f o c u s , as f o r example
w i t h c o l o u r words, the s t r u c t u r i n g o f e x t r a l i n g u i s t i c reality i s i n the
last resort performed-by linguistic c a t e g o r i z a t i o n . A few examples,
some of which are q u i t e w e l l known, w i l l demonstrate t h i s type of o r -
ganization .

4. Language- and Culture-Dependent Categorization

In the f o l l o w i n g I will not r e s t r i c t m y s e l f , however, to n a t u r a l phe-

nomena. T h i s would obscure the f u n d a m e n t a l l y c u l t u r e - d e p e n d e n t c a t e -
g o r i z a t i o n of the complete extralinguistic w o r l d . I t would a l s o intro-
duce d i v i s i o n s between examples from the same language.

4.1. My first examples, summarized i n ( 7 ) , are from C h i n e s e , as dis-

2 2
cussed i n L e i s i ( 1985: 14) and Leech ( 1 9 8 l : 26).

(7)

^^sheep ^^cup ^^,table

yang bizi mug zhuzi.^

V
^goat ^glass desk

The Chinese c a t e g o r y yang i n c l u d e s both sheep and goat, bizi covers

the E n g l i s h c a t e g o r i e s cup, mug, and g l a s s , and f i n a l l y zhuozi includes
both t a b l e and desk. From the Chinese p o i n t of view, E n g l i s h i s over-
differentiating by i t s much f i n e r categorization.

289
On the o t h e r hand, French f l e u v e and rivire, as w e l l as German Strom
and Flu, converge i n the E n g l i s h c a t e g o r y r i v e r , as r e p r e s e n t e d i n
(8). French and German d i s t i n g u i s h between a ' r i v e r f l o w i n g i n t o the
sea' and a ' t r i b u t a r y river'.

(8) (9)

fleuve/Strom .ape (Menschenaffe)

river Affe

riviere/Flu monkey (ffchen)

In c o n t r a s t t o t h i s example, the German c a t e g o r y A f f e i s more compre-

h e n s i v e , s i n c e i t i n c l u d e s the E n g l i s h ape and monkey. F o r the d i f f e r -
e n t i a t i o n between these two c a t e g o r i e s , the a t t r i b u t e s 'with o r w i t h o u t
tail' and SIZE p l a y a r o l e . P r o t o t y p i c a l membership i n the c a t e g o r y APE
may be a s s i g n e d t o : g o r i l l a , chimpanzee, and gibbon. With r e g a r d t o
relative s i z e the OALD even g i v e s average size i n c e n t i m e t r e s . In ad-
dition, this dictionary and the LDCE g i v e i l l u s t r a t i o n s . These a r e
more s u i t a b l e f o r r e c o g n i z i n g p r o t o t y p e s o f the i n d i v i d u a l c l a s s e s o f
apes than are the two i n d e t e r m i n a t e and r e l a t i v e attributes.

I t has been known f o r a long time t h a t the German c a t e g o r y Schnecke i s

further differentiated i n the simple primary v o c a b u l a r y o f E n g l i s h and
French into snail and s l u g , e s c a r g o t and l i m a c e . Simple lexical items
do not e x i s t i n German f o r t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n any more than f o r ape and
monkey. I f they need t o make a d i s t i n c t i o n , German speakers have t o
take r e c o u r s e to complex lexemes such as Weinbergschnecke, Nacktschnek-
ke, Menschenaffe, and ffchen.

4.2. At t h i s p o i n t I s h o u l d l i k e to d i g r e s s b r i e f l y and a t the same

time illustrate the advantages o f PS and the d i s a d v a n t a g e s of a Feature
Semantics ( h e r e a f t e r FS) which o n l y makes use o f o b l i g a t o r y f e a t u r e s .
I will here use ' f e a t u r e ' i n a wide sense, without d i s t i n g u i s h i n g be-
tween 'components' and ' f e a t u r e s ' (but c f . L i p k a 1 9 7 9 : 1 9 4 ) . F i l l m o r e
(1978: 153) p o i n t s out t h a t the E n g l i s h verb t o c l i m b - and t h e r e f o r e
the c a t e g o r y o f a c t i o n denoted by i t - c o u l d be a s s i g n e d the two com-
ponents 'clambering' and 'ascending' i n an FS approach. However, a c c o r -
d i n g t o F i l l m o r e both components or a t t r i b u t e s need not n e c e s s a r i l y be
present at the same time, but may be o p t i o n a l . T h i s can be demonstrated
by the f o l l o w i n g sentences:

290
 (10a) The monkey i s c l i m b i n g down the flagpole
(10b) The snail i s climbing up the flagpole.

Fillmore (1978: 153) states: "The p r o t o t y p e has two criteria, but e i -

t h e r one of them can be m i s s i n g " . Thus, PS cannot only be applied to
nouns, d e n o t i n g o b j e c t s , but a l s o t o v e r b s , d e n o t i n g a c t i o n s . As in FS,
the verb climb has two criteria, a t t r i b u t e s , or components, but in PS
one of the a t t r i b u t e s may be absent i n a s p e c i f i c case.

Fillmore (1978: 153) sums up h i s argument i n the f o l l o w i n g way: "the

p r o t o t y p e semantics makes i t p o s s i b l e to t a l k about a c e n t r a l or nu-
c l e a r sense of a word, and then, i f n e c e s s a r y , about the various weight-
ings of the individual criteria t h a t go i n t o s p e c i f y i n g the prototype.
The c h e c k l i s t semantics on the o t h e r hand i s embarrassed by fuzziness
and degrees of c a t e g o r y membership".

It i s obvious that the concept of p r o t o t y p e may be more e a s i l y applied

to n a t u r a l c l a s s e s , noun c l a s s e s and the categorization of objects
than t o v e r b s and more a b s t r a c t categories (Craig 1986). In p r i n c i p l e ,
however, t h i s i s by no means i m p o s s i b l e . The notion may be brought to
bear on the o l d problem of p a r t s of speech (Lipka 1971). Thus the pro-
totypical s y n t a c t i c c l a s s of noun w i l l have a l l the four attributes
C r y s t a l mentions i n h i s d i s c u s s i o n of the problem (Lipka 1971: 234 f . ) :
'subject-function', i n f l e c t i o n f o r number, a r t i c l e , 'morphological i n -
d i c a t i o n ' , w h i l e more p e r i p h e r a l members of the category w i l l not.
W i t h i n the word c l a s s ' a d j e c t i v e ' , a c e n t r a l c l a s s of words w i l l satis-
fy a l l criteria, such as a t t r i b u t i v e and predicative p o s i t i o n , grada-
b i l i t y , m o r p h o l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (e.g. -ous, - i s h , etc.) and the
existence of antonyms, w h i l e o t h e r a d j e c t i v e s w i l l not. The central
or p r o t o t y p e a d j e c t i v e i s f u r t h e r m o r e s t a t i v e ; .and^noJ..s..m...lnlie]2ent.....
property.

4.3. Fillmore's example b r i n g s us to v e r b a l categories, as they are

illustrated i n the following diagram:

(11)

essen with chopsticks (Asia)

prototype (Europe): with knife,

f o r k , and spoon

fressen (peanuts, a p p l e s ) w i t h fingers

291
Here we could speak of an o v e r d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i n German, namely i n t o
essen vs. f r e s s e n , but we could a l s o speak of s p e c i f i c a t i o n gaps i n
E n g l i s h . I t i s t r u e t h a t f r e s s e n may be rendered to some extent by
to guzzle. However, d i c t i o n a r i e s d e f i n e t h i s verb as 'eat o r drink
g r e e d i l y ' , which means t h a t we have a convergence of f r e s s e n and saufen
in t h i s E n g l i s h c a t e g o r y . At any r a t e , the d i f f e r e n t v e r b s demonstrate
clearly the fact of language- and culture-dependent categorizationi.

The wider E n g l i s h c a t e g o r y EAT obviously denotes very different kinds

of a c t i v i t y . The p r o t o t y p e s f o r these are clearly different in Asia
and i n Europe. In the East, eating with chopsticks i s the r u l e , while
in Europe e a t i n g w i t h k n i f e and f o r k or spoon i s the norm. The eating
of peanuts w i t h the f i n g e r s , or of a p p l e s and pears from the hand,
is not a prototypical activity and b e l o n g s to the margin or periphery
of the c a t e g o r y EAT. A l l t h i s goes to show that p r o t o t y p e s can equally
be a p p l i e d to v e r b s , not only to nouns, and are not u n i v e r s a l , but lan-
guage-dependent .

4.4. A f u r t h e r example of c u l t u r e - d e p e n d e n t c a t e g o r i z a t i o n , w i t h dif-

ferent p r o t o t y p e s i n Europe and A s i a , i s shown i n the following illus-
tration :

(12)

a) b)

Both the complex lexeme S c h r e i b t i s c h and the simple item desk represent
a c a t e g o r y of a r t i f a c t s whose p r o t o t y p e is characterized by the attri-
bute 'with drawers'. These are m i s s i n g i n object (12b). Ic can never-
t h e l e s s be categorized as a S c h r e i b t i s c h , as was done i n a r e c e n t exhi-
b i t i o n of Japanese a r t i n Munich. In order to understand t h i s , we have
to r e a l i z e that the traditional activity of w r i t i n g i n the East i s car-
r i e d out differently than i n Europe. T h e r e f o r e , both a r t i f a c t s are ap-
propriate to t h e i r FUNCTION ' f o r w r i t i n g ' . In China and Japan w r i t i n g
was traditionally performed s i t t i n g cross-legged or on one's heels,
w i t h a brush.

292
Other examples o f the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f a r t i f a c t s f o r t h e i r FUNCTION
are the d i f f e r e n t types of d e c a n t e r i n ( 6 ) , with t h e i r g l a s s stoppers.
Functionality i s particularly striking i n ( 6 d ) , the s o - c a l l e d ship's
d e c a n t e r , whose p r o t o t y p i c a l shape, w i t h an extremely low c e n t r e o f
gravity, i s p a r t i c u l a r l y w e l l s u i t e d t o the c o n d i t i o n s on a s h i p .

4.5. Obviously, a category like t h a t o f DECANTER c o n t a i n s f u r t h e r pro-

totypical s u b c a t e g o r i e s . Thus, f o r example, ( 6 c ) w i t h i t s square shape,
is a typical spirit d e c a n t e r . W i t h i n the c a t e g o r y o f TUMBLER, the sub-
c a t e g o r y o f whisky tumbler i s d i s t i n g u i s h e d by n o r m a l l y b e i n g decorated
o r ornamented. In the examples j u s t quoted, s u b c a t e g o r i e s are denoted
by complex lexemes which r e p r e s e n t hyponyms of t h e i r determinatum.
From correspondences l i k e ape/Menschenaffe, snail/Weinbergschnecke,
d e s k / S c h r e i b t i s c h i t can c l e a r l y be seen that t h i s l i n g u i s t i c process,
as w e l l as the f i n e r c a t e g o r i z a t i o n itself, i s c u l t u r e - and language-
dependent, r e l a t i v e , and n o n - u n i v e r s a l . F i n a l l y , t h i s i s a l s o demon-
s t r a t e d by the paraphrase 'tributary river' f o r German Flu.

5. A F e a t u r e A n a l y s i s o f C o n t a i n e r Words

I would now l i k e t o r e t u r n t o the d e s c r i p t i o n and a n a l y s i s o f c o n t a i n e r

words and c o n s i d e r mainly the account given i n Lehrer (1974: 85 f . ) .

5.1. Beyond the examples a l r e a d y d i s c u s s e d , L e h r e r i n v e s t i g a t e s a con-

s i d e r a b l e number of o t h e r i n t e r e s t i n g words from this field. She uses
five parameters f o r the d i s t i n c t i o n o f words, namely: 1. m a t e r i a l ,
2. shape, 3- s i z e , 4 . substance used f o r , and 5 . f u n c t i o n ( s t o r i n g ,
e t c . ) . B e s i d e s o b l i g a t o r y f e a t u r e s , which are symbolized by square
b r a c k e t s , she a l s o admits o p t i o n a l f e a t u r e s , f o r whose n o t a t i o n she i n -
troduces braces. A f u r t h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of her approach, which i s not
found i n any o t h e r v e r s i o n s of FS, are d i s j u n c t i o n s , symbolized by 'v'.
L e h r e r a n a l y s e s c o n t a i n e r words i n the f o l l o w i n g way:

(13) bottle : [Narrow neck] [For something pourable {Liquid}] -

{Glass}
carafe : [Narrow neck] [For s e r v i n g beverages] {Glass}
decanter : [Narrow neck] [For l i q u i d s { A l c o h o l i c beverages}]
[For p o u r i n g v d e c o r a t i o n ]
cup : [Shape:..., h a n d l e ] [For d r i n k i n g ] - c f .
{+s a u c e r}
glass : [ G l a s s ] [{For d r i n k i n g } v {Cylindrical}]
bowl : [{For e a t i n g from v food preparation} v
{Shape: H a l f s p h e r i c a l } ] { U t e n s i l } .

293
5.2. T h i s a n a l y s i s c o r r e s p o n d s to the one given i n the d e s c r i p t i o n by
Hansen et a l . ( 1 9 8 5 : 2
180 f . ) of E n g l i s h 1
Behltnisbezeichnungen'. In
t h i s treatment a m a t r i x representation i s used, which c o n t a i n s the b i -
nary f e a t u r e s [ s i c ! ] <METALLIC, NARROW-NECKED, LARGE, LIQUID, STORING>.
Thus f o r example <-NARROW-NECKED> i s to be i n t e r p r e t e d as 'weithal-
sig'. On the s i d e of the m a t r i x , two n o n - b i n a r y f e a t u r e s are added,
1 1
namely: "a = 'aus Glas " and "b = aus P l a s t ' " , which o b v i o u s l y corre-
spond to L e h r e r ' s parameter MATERIAL. Cup i s defined as 'small non-me-
tallic wide-necked bowl ( f o r immediate consumption of d r i n k a b l e s ) ' .

5.3. Lehrer's d e s c r i p t i o n deserves a few comments, which m o s t l y also

h o l d f o r Hansen et a l . ( 1 9 8 5 ) . 2
A l t h o u g h the m o d i f i c a t i o n of the tradi-
tional FS by o p t i o n a l f e a t u r e s and d i s j u n c t i o n s can avoid c e r t a i n d i s - -
advantages, the inadequacy of the approach f o r the d e s c r i p t i o n of con-
crete objects i s obvious. I w i l l not discuss i n d e t a i l the specific
weakness of L e h r e r ' s d e s c r i p t i o n , but I will name a few. Thus, the a l -
ternative {For drinking} or { C y l i n d r i c a l } f o r the c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of
g l a s s i s not r e a l l y convincing or r e v e a l i n g . What does the optional
feature {Utensil}, attached to bowl, mean? A f e a t u r e like {SHAPE: H a l f
s p h e r i c a l } , a l s o with bowl, s t r i k e s one as r a t h e r n a i v e a f t e r the dis-
c u s s i o n of Labov's research.
5.4. The case of c o n t a i n e r words makes c l e a r a l r e a d y the fundamental
d i f f i c u l t i e s of FS as r e g a r d s the d e s c r i p t i o n of o b j e c t s i n which shape
i s r e l e v a n t . I t becomes p a r t i c u l a r l y o b v i o u s when we look at the ana-
l y s i s of cup by means of an o b l i g a t o r y f e a t u r e [Shape:..., handle],
which can almost be c a l l e d an admission of d e f e a t . In the last resort,
such a f e a t u r e r e a l l y i n d i c a t e s a r e n u n c i a t i o n of a n a l y s i s . A verbal
d e s c r i p t i o n of SHAPE - even i f i t were g i v e n - is clearly insufficient.
A l s o the proportion, i . e . the r e l a t i o n s h i p between h e i g h t and width
must be captured i n some way, as we have seen. I n c i d e n t a l l y , n e i t h e r
Lehrer, nor the experimental work r e p o r t e d on by Labov, nor even most
d i c t i o n a r y d e f i n i t i o n s mention an important c o n t e x t u a l a t t r i b u t e , name-
l y the presence of a saucer. We must t h e r e f o r e p o s t u l a t e an a t t r i b u t e
'saucer'. Such c o n t e x t u a l a t t r i b u t e s which can be i d e n t i f i e d with vari-
a b l e , o p t i o n a l semantic f e a t u r e s , are not used i n most work on FS.

6. Problems w i t h Feature Semantics

With these remarks on L e h r e r ' s f e a t u r e a n a l y s i s of c o n t a i n e r words,

we now t u r n to g e n e r a l p o i n t s of c r i t i c i s m l e v e l e d against the concept
of semantic feature.

6.1. The most comprehensive and d e t a i l e d account of the problems of FS

that I know of i s to be found i n S p r e n g e l ( I 9 8 O ) . He discusses questions

294
of d i s c o v e r y procedures f o r f e a t u r e s ('Merkmale', i n a wide s e n s e ) ,
their circular definition, their metalinguistic status, lexical vague-
n e s s , the d i s t i n c t i o n between l i n g u i s t i c and encyclopedic knowledge,
the hierarchy and c o n c a t e n a t i o n of f e a t u r e s , and finally, their univer-
sality and psychological reality. Not a l l of h i s arguments c a r r y the
same c o n v i c t i o n . N e v e r t h e l e s s , h i s approach i s on the whole b a l a n c e d
and does not r e s u l t i n a r e j e c t i o n of FS.

In t h i s c o n n e c t i o n , i t s h o u l d perhaps be mentioned t h a t (in addition

to work i n TG) a feature a n a l y s i s has been proposed f o r f u n c t i o n words,
l i k e E n g l i s h pronouns, p r e p o s i t i o n s , and q u a n t i f i e r s , e.g. by Thome,
S t r a n g , F i l l m o r e , and Leech.

6.2. In the following, I would l i k e to summarize the most important ;

general arguments a g a i n s t FS, e s p e c i a l l y those advanced i n r e c e n t pub-
l i c a t i o n s . The attacks are often d i r e c t e d against the so-called 'Aris-
totelian Semantics', or i n F i l l m o r e ' s formulation, against the 'check-
list t h e o r y of s e m a n t i c s ' . In such p u b l i c a t i o n s FS i s usually charac-
t e r i z e d g l o b a l l y w i t h the following points. I t i s s a i d to involve:

1. c l e a r category boundaries,
( - - . ...
2. features as d i s c r e t e p r o p e r t i e s ,
3. y e s / n o - d e c i s i o n s on the presence of f e a t u r e s , and
4-. equal s t a t u s of a l l f e a t u r e s (no w e i g h t i n g ) .

As opposed to t h i s , Coleman/Kay ( 1 9 8 I ) and Geeraerts (1984), f o r ex- /

ample, s t r e s s the advantage t h a t only PS can explain: *

1. vague, c o n t i n u o u s c a t e g o r y b o u n d a r i e s (fuzziness),
2. g r a d u a l c a t e g o r y membership, resemblance,
3. categories with p r o t o t y p i c a l kernels, and
4. the d i f f e r e n t importance of a t t r i b u t e s (weighting).

6.3. I would l i k e to c o u n t e r these c l a i m s with a modified and elabor-

ated FS, which can overcome most of the weaknesses exposed i n such
criticism. In p a r t i c u l a r , the a n a l y s i s of the E n g l i s h verb l i e and the
speech act of l y i n g denoted by i t , which Coleman/Kay (I98I) t r e a t as
a model case f o r PS, can definitely be treated successfully within the
framework of such an FS. The diachronic a n a l y s i s of Dutch d a t a i n
Geeraerts (1984) can a l s o be managed e a s i l y w i t h i n a modified FS. The
necessary m o d i f i c a t i o n s will be treated now.

7. I n f e r e n t i a l F e a t u r e s and an Integrated View

The concept of f e a t u r e i s by no means, as i s often claimed, unitary

and indivisible. Nothing p r e v e n t s us from d i s t i n g u i s h i n g v a r i o u s types
of f e a t u r e , which are s u i t a b l e f o r d i f f e r e n t phenomena and purposes.

295
Thus, f o r example, Meinhard ( 1 9 8 4 : 6 0 , 64 f . , 66 f . ) , i n a paper whose
general d r i f t i s s i m i l a r to t h a t of the p r e s e n t article, introduces a
d i s t i n c t i o n between i n v a r i a n t , v a r i a n t , and prototypical features.

7.1. In an a r t i c l e on semantic components of E n g l i s h nouns and verbs,

I have s e t up a taxonomy of seven c l a s s e s of semantic f e a t u r e s , of
which o n l y a few are b i n a r y (1979: 194-196). I would l i k e to summarize
t h i s t y p o l o g y here. On the b a s i s of v a r i o u s c r i t e r i a we can distin-
g u i s h the f o l l o w i n g types of f e a t u r e :

(14) 1. denotative (e.g. [HUMAN] i n g i r l vs. filly)

2. c o n n o t a t i v e (e.g. [ARCHAIC] i n steed/horse)
3. r e l a t i o n a l (e.g. OPARENT] [--PARENT ] i n f a t h e r / s o n )
4. t r a n s f e r f e a t u r e s (e.g. <-S0LID> or <2PENETRABLE>
i n to d r i n k )
5. deictic (e.g. [PR0XIMATE] i n come/go, now/then)
6. i n f e r e n t i a l f e a t u r e s (e.g. {STICK} i n beat, {TO
GET ATTENTION} i n nudge).

7.2. With the e x c e p t i o n of the l a s t type, inferential features, a l l

f e a t u r e s are a l s o D i s t i n c t i v e Features (DFs). These c o u l d be regarded
as a seventh, g e n e r a l , comprehensive type. I n f e r e n t i a l f e a t u r e s , which
I have t r e a t e d i n d e t a i l in Lipka ( 1 9 8 5 ) , have a s p e c i a l s t a t u s a l s o
i n t h a t they enable the l i n g u i s t to c a p t u r e synchronic and d i a c h r o n i c
v a r i a t i o n . An FS which r e s t r i c t s itself to o b l i g a t o r y f e a t u r e s cannot
e x p l a i n change of meaning, because i n such a framework i t i s i m p o s s i b l e
f o r f e a t u r e s to be added or to disappear.

I have adopted the term ' i n f e r e n t i a l f e a t u r e s ' from N i d a , but have de-
veloped the concept myself. The n o t a t i o n i n braces d e r i v e s from Leh-
r e r ' s approach, which, as we have seen, admits o p t i o n a l f e a t u r e s . I n -
ferential f e a t u r e s are not d i s c r e t e , o b l i g a t o r y and i n h e r e n t , but
r a t h e r o p t i o n a l , supplementary, and dependent on l i n g u i s t i c and extra-
linguistic c o n t e x t , from which they are i n f e r r e d . They l a r g e l y c o r r e -
spond to Meinhard's (1984) ' v a r i a n t ' f e a t u r e s .

D i c t i o n a r i e s mark them by u s i n g l a b e l s such as u s u a l l y , e s p e c i a l l y ,

o f t e n . Thus, f o r example the verb beat c o n t a i n s an i n f e r e n t i a l feature
{WITH STICK} and the verb nudge an i n f e r e n t i a l feature {TO GET ATTEN-
TION}. C o n t a i n e r terms may have i n f e r e n t i a l f e a t u r e s f o r MATERIAL, such
as {GLASS} i n b o t t l e or {EARTHENWARE} i n p i t c h e r , but they may also
r e f e r to content or o t h e r a t t r i b u t e s , such as e.g. {DECORATED} and
{WINE} i n decanter.

296
7.3. As we have seen, such f e a t u r e s can a l s o be r e g a r d e d as a t t r i b u t e s
of p r o t o t y p i c a l c a t e g o r i e s . Indeed, I b e l i e v e t h a t f e a t u r e s - especial-
ly i f they are not o b l i g a t o r y - c o r r e s p o n d to the a t t r i b u t e s of PS.
C o n s e q u e n t l y , the problems r a i s e d under 6 . above are solved to a l a r g e
extent i n a modified PS.

However, I would not wish to c o n c e a l the fact that some d i f f i c u l t i e s

remain f o r FS. These c o n c e r n e s p e c i a l l y the s i m u l t a n e o u s presence of
contradictory features. Furthermore, the q u e s t i o n of the i n t e r n a l
s t r u c t u r e of s e t s of f e a t u r e s of a lexeme, which was already raised
in 1966 by W e i n r e i c h ( 1 9 7 2 ) w i t h h i s d i s t i n c t i o n between c l u s t e r s and
configurations, still remains to be answered. F i n a l l y , we have seen
that i n the d e s c r i p t i o n of c o n c r e t e extralinguistic objects i n which
shape and proportion i s r e l e v a n t , PS and the use of i l l u s t r a t i o n s have
many advantages. T h i s i s e s p e c i a l l y t r u e f o r the psychological side of
the perceptual c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of the e x t r a l i n g u i s t i c w o r l d . Rosch
(1977: 36) has pointed out that prototypes, as u n i t a r y Gestalt-percep-
t i o n s , r e l i e v e the human b r a i n of l a b o r i o u s c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s by pro-
v i d i n g an "efficient processing mechanism of matching to a prototype".

7.4. The great majority of our examples were taken from E n g l i s h and
are therefore directly relevant to E n g l i s h l e x i c o l o g y . However, e v i -
dence from o t h e r languages i s a l s o i n d i r e c t l y n e c e s s a r y and useful for
a d e s c r i p t i o n of E n g l i s h . F i n a l l y , the g e n e r a l conclusions from our
t h e o r e t i c a l d i s c u s s i o n w i l l have c o n s i d e r a b l e bearing on the analysis
o f the v o c a b u l a r y of any language.

I f we now weigh up the advantages and d i s a d v a n t a g e s of PS and FS, we

are f o r c e d to acknowledge t h a t here - as w i t h p r o t o t y p e s and features
themselves - t h e r e can be no c l a i m to a b s o l u t e n e s s . In my opinion, we
have a d i v i s i o n of l a b o u r between two complementary approaches. Neither
PS nor FS can claim that they alone can solve a l l problems and describe
all phenomena a d e q u a t e l y . I t h e r e f o r e conclude t h a t the title of my pa-
1
per i s not a t r u e a l t e r n a t i v e . The question i s wrongly put: I t i s not
PS or FS, but rather PS a n d FS. The i n t e g r a t i o n of both approaches
is the most urgent task of semantic theory and practice.

* I should l i k e to thank Monika Krenn and Graham Pascoe f o r h e l p f u l com-

ments on an e a r l i e r v e r s i o n of t h i s a r t i c l e , which was read to a p o s t -
graduate audience at the Humboldt-Universitt, B e r l i n , on 26 June 1 9 8 5 .
References
de Beaugrande, R. 198O. T e x t , D i s c o u r s e , and P r o c e s s . London,
de Beaugrande, R., W.U. D r e s s i e r . 1981. I n t r o d u c t i o n to Text L i n g u i s -
t i c s . London.
Coleman, L. , P. Kay. 1 9 8 I . " P r o t o t y p e s e m a n t i c s : The E n g l i s h word l i e " .
Language 5 7 , 24-44.

297
C r a i g , C., ed. 1 9 8 6 . Noun C l a s s e s and C a t e g o r i z a t i o n . P r o c e e d i n g s o f a
Symposium on C a t e g o r i z a t i o n and Noun C l a s s i f i c a t i o n , Eugene, Ore-
gon , October 1 9 8 3 - Amsterdam, P h i l a d e l p h i a .
F a r k a s , D., W.M. Jacobsen, K.W. T o d r y s , eds. 1 9 7 8 . P a r a s e s s i o n on the
L e x i c o n . Chicago L i n g u i s t i c S o c i e t y . Chicago
F i l l m o r e , C. 1 9 7 5 . "An a l t e r n a t i v e t o c h e c k l i s t t h e o r i e s o f meaning".
In: Cogen, C , H. Thompson, G. Thurgood, K. W h i s t l e r , eds. 1 9 7 5 .
Proceedings o f the F i r s t Annual Meeting o f the B e r k e l e y L i n g u i s t i c s
Society. Berkeley, 123-131.
F i l l m o r e , C. 1 9 7 8 . "On the o r g a n i z a t i o n o f semantic i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e
l e x i c o n " . I n : F a r k a s , D. e t a l . , eds. 1 9 7 8 , 1 4 8 - 1 7 3 .
G e e r a e r t s , D. 1 9 8 4 . "Prototype t h e o r y and d i a c h r o n i c s e m a n t i c s : A case
study". Indogermanische Forschungen 8 8 , 1 - 3 2 .
Hansen, B. e t a l . 1985. E n g l i s c h e L e x i k o l o g i e . Einfhrung i n W o r t b i l -
2

dung und l e x i k a l i s c h e Semantik. L e i p z i g .

Kastovsky, D., ed. I98O. P e r s p e k t i v e n der l e x i k a l i s c h e n Semantik. Bonn.
Labov, W. 1 9 7 8 . " D e n o t a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e " . I n : F a r k a s , D. e t a l . , eds.
1978, 220-260.
Leech, G.N. 1 9 8 l . Semantics. The Study o f Meaning. Harmondsworth.
2

L e h r e r , A. 1 9 7 4 . Semantic F i e l d s and L e x i c a l S t r u c t u r e . Amsterdam.

L e i s i , E. 1 9 8 5 . P r a x i s der e n g l i s c h e n Semantik. H e i d e l b e r g .
2

L i p k a , L. 1 9 7 1 . "Grammatical c a t e g o r i e s , l e x i c a l items, and word-forma-

t i o n " . Foundations o f Language 7 , 2 1 1 - 2 3 8 .
L i p k a , L. 1 9 7 9 . "Semantic components o f E n g l i s h nouns and v e r b s and
t h e i r j u s t i f i c a t i o n " . Angol Filolgiai Tanulmnyok 12/Hungarian S t u -
dies i n English 12, 187-202.
L i p k a , L. 1 9 8 5 . i n f e r e n t i a l f e a t u r e s i n h i s t o r i c a l s e m a n t i c s " . I n :
F i s i a k , J.,ed. I 9 8 5 . H i s t o r i c a l Semantics. H i s t o r i c a l Word-Formation .
Berlin etc., 339-354.
L i p k a , L. 1 9 8 6 . "Semantic f e a t u r e s and p r o t o t y p e t h e o r y i n E n g l i s h
l e x i c o l o g y " . I n : Kastovsky , D.A. Szwedek, eds. 1 9 8 6 . L i n g u i s t i c s
A c r o s s H i s t o r i c a l and G e o g r a p h i c a l B o u n d a r i e s . In Honour o f Jacek
F i s i a k on the O c c a s i o n o f H i s F i f t i e t h B i r t h d a y . Volume 1: L i n g u i s -
t i c Theory and H i s t o r i c a l L i n g u i s t i c s . B e r l i n , e t c . , 8 5 - 9 4 .
Meinhard, H.J. 1 9 8 T ! " I n v a r i a n t e , v a r i a n t e und p r o t o t y p i s c h e Merkmale
der Wortbedeutung". Z e i t s c h r i f t fr ( ^ r j ^ j i i s t i k 5 , 6 0 - 6 9 .
Osherson, D.N., E.E. Smith. I 9 8 I . "On the adequacy o f p r o t o t y p e theory
as a theory o f c o n c e p t s " . C o g n i t i o n 9 , 3 5 - 5 8 .
Rosch, E. 1 9 7 7 . "Human c a t e g o r i z a t i o n " . I n : Warren, N., ed. 1 9 7 7 . S t u -
d i e s i n C r o s s - C u l t u r a l Psychology, Volume 1: London e t c . , 1 - 4 9 .
Rosch, E. 1978. " P r i n c i p l e s o f c a t e g o r i z a t i o n " . I n : Rosch, E., B.B.
L l o y d , eds. 1 9 7 8 . C o g n i t i o n and C a t e g o r i z a t i o n . H i l l s d a l e , N.J. /
N.Y. , 27-48.
Rosch, E. ,C.B. M e r v i s . 1 9 7 5 . "Family resemblances: S t u d i e s i n the i n -
t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e o f c a t e g o r i e s " . C o g n i t i v e Psychology 7 , 5 7 3 - 6 0 5 .
S p r e n g e l , K. I 9 8 O . "ber semantische Merkmale". I n : Kastovsky, D., ed.
I98O, 145-177.
W e i n r e i c h , U. 1 9 7 2 . E x p l o r a t i o n s i n Semantic Theory. The Hague, P a r i s .
Weniger, D. 1 9 8 O . "Die e m p i r i s c h e Relevanz von semantischen Merkmalen
und Selektionsbeschrnkungen". I n : Kastovsky, D., ed. I 9 8 O , I 7 8 -
190.
Dictionaries
COD 7 = The C o n c i s e Oxford D i c t i o n a r y o f C u r r e n t E n g l i s h , ed. by J.B.
Sykes, Oxford '19T.
LDCE = Longman D i c t i o n a r y o f Contemporary E n g l i s h , ed. by P. P r o c t o r ,
London 1 9 7 8 .
1
OALD = Oxford Andvanced L e a r n e r s D i c t i o n a r y o f C u r r e n t E n g l i s h , ed.
by A.S. Hornby with A.P. Cowie, Oxford ' 1 9 7 ^ .

298