Componential analysis

Cliff Goddard
Table of contents

Componential analysis (CA) in the broadest sense, also known as ‘lexical decomposition’, is any attempt to formalize and standardize procedures for the analysis of word meanings. CA often has the ambition to represent the cognitive or psychological reality of the speakers, and to shed light on correlations between language and culture.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.


Ameka, F
1992Interjections. Journal of Pragmatics 18(2/3): 101–118. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Apresjan, J
1974Leksiceskaja semantika. [Lexical semantics.] Nauka.Google Scholar
Bogusławski, A
1970On semantic primitives and meaningfulness. In A. Greimas, M.R. Mayenowa & S. Zolkiewski (eds.) Sign, Language and Culture: 143–152. Mouton.Google Scholar
Burling, R
1970Man’s many voices. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Coseriu, E. & H. Geckeler
1974Linguistics and semantics. In T.A. Sebeok (ed.) Current trends in linguistics: 103–171. Mouton.Google Scholar
Geckeler, H
1971Strukturelle Semantik und Wortfeldtheorie. Fink.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. & A. Wierzbicka
(eds.) 1994Semantic and lexical universals. John Benjamins. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Goodenough, W.H
1956Componential analysis and the study of meaning. Language 32(1): 195–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greimas, A.J
1966Sémantique structurale. Larousse.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, L
1943Omkring sprogteoriens grundlæggelse. [Prolegomena to a theory of language.] Lunos.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R
1983Semantics and cognition. MIT Press.Google Scholar
1990Semantic structures. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Katz, J.J
1972Semantic theory. Harper & Row.Google Scholar
1987Common sense in semantics. In E. Lepore (ed.) New directions in semantics: 157–233. Academic Press.Google Scholar
. & J.A. Fodor 1963The structure of a semantic theory. Language 39: 170–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G
1972Linguistics and natural logic. In D. Davidson & G. Harman (eds.) Semantics of natural language: 545–665. Reidel. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Leech, G
1981Semantics. Penguin.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, A
1974Semantic fields and lexical structure. North-Holland.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, F.G
1956A semantic analysis of the Pawnee kinship usage. Language 32(1): 158–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J
1977Semantics. Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Mel’čuk, I.A
. & A.K. Zholkovskij 1970Toward a functioning meaning-text model of language. Linguistics 57: 10–47.Google Scholar
Miller, G.A
. & P. Johnson-Laird 1976Language and perception. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nida, E.A
1964Linguistic and semantic structure. In A.S. Dil (ed.) 1975 Language structure and translation. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1975Componential analysis of meaning. Mouton.Google Scholar
Porzig, W
1934Wesenhafte Bedeutungsbeziehungen. Beiträge zur deutschen Sprache und Literatur 58: 70–97.Google Scholar
Pottier, B
1963Recherches sur l’analyse sémantique en linguistique et en traduction méchanique. University de Nancy.Google Scholar
1974Linguistique générale. Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Schank, R.S
1973Conceptual information processing. North-Holland.Google Scholar
Talmy, L
1985Lexicalization patterns. In T. Shopen (ed.) Grammatical categories and the lexicon: 57–149. Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Trier, J
1934Das sprachliche Feld. Neue Jahrbücher für Wissenschaft und Jugendbildung 10: 428–449.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A
1972Semantic primitives. Athenäum.  BoPGoogle Scholar
1985Lexicography and conceptual analysis. Karoma.Google Scholar
1987English speech act verbs. Academic Press.Google Scholar
1991Cross-cultural pragmatics. Mouton de Gruyter.  BoPGoogle Scholar
1992Semantics, culture, and cognition. Oxford University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Wilks, Y
1975A preferential, pattern-seeking semantics for natural language inference. Artificial Intelligence 6: 53–74. DOI logo[See also: Lexical field analysis]Google Scholar