Talk:Semantic field

For example, the semantic field of "dog" includes "canine" and "to trail persistently" (also, to hound).

Is this article correct? This example seems to me to be more a list of dictionary definitions than an example of a semantic field.

I was always taught that a semantic field was a collection of words that fell under one category. For example, a semantic field of bugs/insects could include bees, wasps, spiders, moths, flies etc. Thus, a semantic field of "dog" might include, for example, Labradors, alsations, poodles, terriers etc, rather than a list of different ways in which the word "dog" can be used. Put simply, it's not so much words that define dogs, it's words that are examples of dogs.

Just by Googling lazily I found a few sites that seem to support this definition:

http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/sesll/englang/lilt/semanfield.htm http://bible.gen.nz/amos/glossary/semanticfield.htm http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/computing/users/paul/publications/tokyo2002/tsld005.htm

Jodamu 18:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right. The information in the article isn't correct. Feel free to make it more accurate.--Ethicoaestheticist 18:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you are entirely right. Semantic field in fact is BOTH what you claim here and what you deny here. E.g. the semantic field of "dog" is the way of presenting how we perceive "dog" through both examples of different types of dogs (and though words of similar meaning, like wolf, jackal, fox, etc. on the perifery) and also through the dimensions of the idea of "dogness" - eg. faithfulness, being best friend of a human, alertness, good smell, through various functions of a typical dog: shepherd, guide of blind, guard of property, thief spy, etc. and even through negation, through declaration of what dog is NOT: eg. not so individualistic like a cat, not wild like a wolf, ... NoychoH (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct. It is both, and as such is a kind of example of itself. The original notion is of a class of meanings related through the use of the same word. That can naturally extend to a class of objects and its members. As such it is a kind of polysemy or metonymy. Bracton (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

So what is exactly the difference between a semantic class and a semantic field? Is it that words belonging to the same semantic field (like names of different types of dogs) share more that just one semantic property? --Botev (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Semantic field covers clusters of words with clearly related meanings, but also clusters of words where the meanings are linked by association and collocation. The term semantic class implies a grammatical category, but this is not implied by the term semantic field, and a semantic field can contain terms linked by usage which share no semantic features. 'Wolf' and 'faithful' are not part of the same semantic class, but they are part of a semantic field.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

semantic field may be used metaphorically and it too is polysemic: it does not just relate to lexemes but cultural artifacts or any sign, refer a modern academic usage in cultural anthropology: "Mountain deities in China: the domestication of the mountain god and the subjugation of the margins" Journal of the American Oriental Society, The, April-June, 1994 by Terry F. Kleeman

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be that the article is not factually inaccurate, and indeed it seems fine to me (though there is room for expansion and clarification of course). The tag is in any case old. I'm therefore removing it. --Picatrix (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

History

We can trace further influences back to German idealism, only not in a systematic manner; Schopenhauer, in his magnus opus "The World as Will and Representation" says: "Correct and accurate conclusions may be arrived at if we carefully observe the relation of the spheres of concepts". Furthermore, Schopenhauer divides concepts between pure and empirical, which we can broadly associate with the semiotic relation between symbol (word, in linguistics domain) and object, so that this 'sphere of concept', in Schopenhauer perspective, seems a very close approximation to the modern definition of semantic field. Perhaps the article should mention this.--Wcris (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Example?

This article really needs an example or two. Dualus (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)