On Fri, 17 Mar 1995, JILL BLUE wrote:
> Jayne - I am *very* interested in what you referred to as semantic field
theory
> . I am wondering if you could suggest some books/articles on the subject that
> would be of help to someone such as myself just looking into the topic?
Thank-
> you. I'm wondering about this notion of language occurring in a context of oth
> er *hidden* referents, i.e. such as the idea that you mentioned, that if
someone utters the word "wife" there is simultaneous refernce to the male
words in which the term is couched/in contrast to... I am curious as to how
this idea might relate to language used then speaking of the environment.
I don't have any
> examples, this idea just popped into my mind. Anyway, any info. you could
send> regarding semantic field theory would be greatly appreciated!
> - Jill Blue, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Because Faith expressed concern about converstations going off-list, I am
posting this publicly. If it is not of interest to the general
membership, please let me know and Jill and I can carry on a sidebar
discussion of the intricacies of semantic field theory... :)
Jill,
I am probably not very far ahead of you in terms of looking into this
whole issue. I came across semantic field theory in a book by Eva Kittay
called "Metaphor: Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure". She
argues that metaphors bring together two different semantic fields and
transfer the component parts and their relationships from one field to
another. (e.g., The forest is a farm leads to transferring concepts such
as weed, pest, farmer, and harvest from the semantic field of agriculture
to the semantic field of forest management. I am currently writing a
paper about the different metaphors underlying competing fields of
*practice* in forest management.)
When I tried to look up more on semantic field theory, I found myself
deep into linguistics -- a field about which I have very little
knowledge. I also found myself into some cognitive psych literature on
categorization. This looks at the processes by which people group or
categorize "things" they "find" in the world. -- Note the liberal use of
quotes -- our language does not lend itself well to discussing the basic
social constructionist (i.e., not positivst) assumptions upon which this
research rests.
For the semantic field literature, I am wading through: (Please note that
wading is not a reflection of their writing, but rather of my ignorance
of assumptions and need to educate myself as I go along....)
Semantic Fields and Lexical Structures by A. Lehrer. American Elsevier
Publishing, 1974.
Frames, Fields and Contrasts ed. by A. Leherer and E. Kittay. Lawrence
Erlbaum, 1992.
For the literature on categorization, see:
Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things by G. Lakoff. (especially parts 1 and 2).
------------
Re: the relationship to the ways that people speak about nature:
The original motivation for my research was my concern that many
environmental conflicts have a "cognitive" component which is being
neglected in environmental conflict resolution processes. Parties to the
conflict have different beliefs/assumptions about or constructions of
nature. This means that conflict resolution procsses which are based on
"splitting the difference" or "finding common ground" may be doomed to
failure. You cannot split the difference or find common ground if you
are talking about different "things". My working hypothesis is that
different constructions of nature will be reflected in the language of
the parties. Specifically, they will use different metaphors in relation
to "nature" or "the forest" or whatever is the focus of the conflict.
Note: I also think that constructions of nature not withstanding, that
nature does have organizing principles and limits. Thus, the "real"
nature -- which we can only partially "model" -- can and does "kick
back". So, some metaphors *are* "better" than others and total
relativism is not a real option if we want to "resolve" enviro conflicts
in a manner which is long-lasting and sustainable. Perhaps, "nature"
needs to be a "party" at the table in enviro conflict resolution
processes? :)
To find out whether I am correct in assuming that different parties to these
conflicts use different metaphors, I need to record
and analyze the metaphors that people use in relation to the "contested
reality". I am doing this by recording and analyzing the semantic fields
which they bring into relationship in their metaphors. So, yes, I do
think that semantic field theory could offer useful insights into the
ways that people understand nature.
Sorry for the LONG response. This is my dissertation research and like
most people writing a dissertation, I eat, drink, sleep, and live this
stuff. If you get me started, I may never shut up! At least you can
resort to the delete function!
Jayne
