A Basic Course in Anthropological Linguistics (Studies in Linguistic ...

106 A BASIC COURSE IN ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS
as lexicalfields. For example, one such field is that of colors, which all share
the feature [+chromatic]. Now, distinguishing between individual color terms
will depend on what wavelength a specific word denotes. The opposition is
thus no longer one that involves feature differentiation, but rather degree. The
topic of color terminology will be discussed in more detail in chapter 8. In
essence, lexical fields are characterized by distinctive semantic features that
differentiate the individual lexemes in the field from one another, and also by
features shared by all the lexemes in the field. For example, items that have the
feature [+seat] (i.e., “somethmg on which to sit”), such as chaiq sofa, bench,
obviously belong to the same lexical field. Within the field they can be
distinguished from one another according to how many people are
accommodated, whether a back support is included, and so on.
Research on identifying a universal set of semantic features is ongoing,
but it has yet to yield a manageable set of features. The theoretical problem
that it poses has proven to be quite intractable. Unlike phonological systems,
which are closed, semantic systems are open-ended and constantly changing
to meet new social needs. This makes it virtually impossible to develop a core
set of features for describing them.
Moreover, the technique is limited to determining literal meaning. It is
virtually useless in helping the fieldworker unravel figurative meanings, such
as those associated with cat in example (3) on page 100-He let the cat out of
the bag. In traditional semantic approaches, this type of meaning, also called
metaphorical, was considered to be a matter of ornamental style, rather than a
feature of predictable semantic structure. It was thus largely ignored by
linguists. However, since the late 1970s this view has changed radically. Many
semanticists now see figurative meaning, not only as systematic and regular,
but also as central to language.
Defining metaphor poses an interesting dilemma. In the metaphor The
professor is a snake, there are two referents, not one, that are related to each
other as follows:
There is the primary referent, the professor, which is known as the
topic of the metaphor.
Then there is another referent, the snake, which is known as the
vehicle of the metaphor.
Their correlation creates a new meaning, called the ground, which is
not the simple sum of the meanings of the two referents.
In the process of associating the two referents it is, obviously, not the
denotative meaning of the vehicle that is transferred to the topic, but rather its