Beside the definition above, Crystal in Makyun that the lexical meaning as a meaning from lexical forms.
24
Whereas Cruse explains that lexical meaning is the meaning of full lexical items such as nouns, verbs
and adjectives.
25
From some definitions above, it can be summarized that lexical meaning is meaning that exists in every lexeme or word.
3. Lexical Semantics
Lexical semantic is intern semantic that study meaning of lexeme in a lexicon of language.
26
Cruse in A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics explains that lexical semantic is the systematic study of
meaning-related properties of words. Exactly what is included in the field is likely to vary from scholar to scholar, but central topics include: how
best to specify the meaning of a word; paradigmatic relations of meaning such as synonymy, antonymy, and hyponymy; syntagmatic relations of
meaning, including selectional restrictions; structures in the lexicon such as taxonomic hierarchies; change of word meaning over time; and
processes of meaning extension, such as metaphor and metonymy.
27
C. Semantic Field
There are many terms of semantic field, such as word field, lexical field, conceptual field, and semantic domain. These terms are synonyms. But
24
Makyun Subuki. Op.Cit. p. 46
25
Alan Cruse. A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburgh : Edinburgh University Press. 2006. p. 95
26
Makyun Subuki. Op.Cit. p.11
27
Alan Cruse. Loc. Cit.
some authors differentiate among these terms.
28
Lyons in Geeraerts distinguishes between conceptual field as a structure of concepts on the
semantic level, a structured conceptual area, and a lexical field as the set of lexical items that covers a specific conceptual field. Further, Lyons makes a
distinction between lexical field and semantic field according to whether the set of expressions that covers a conceptual
field consists only of words, or also contains other units, such as idiomatic expressions. If the
field of anger terms includes expressions like to boil over or to look daggers rather than
just rage, fume, seethe, and the like, the field could be called semantic rather than lexical.
29
Beside Lyons, Lipka in Geeraerts makes a similar distinction, but distinguishes terminologically between word field and lexical field.
According to Lipka word field and lexical field is the set of lexemes contains only morphologically simple items or includes complex of lexemes next to
simple ones.
30
Kridalaksana in Kamus Linguistik explains that Semantic field is: “Bagian dari sistem semantik bahasa yang menggambarkan bagian
dari bidang kebudayaan atau realitas dalam semesta tertentu yang di realisasikan oleh seperangkat unsur leksikal yang maknanya
berhubungan”.
31
28
Dirk Geeraerts.Theories of Lexical Semantics.Oxford: Oxford University Press.2010. p. 56
29
Dirk Geeraerts.Op.Cit. pp. 56-57
30
Ibid. p. 57
31
Harimurti Kridalaksana. Op.Cit. p. 29
Nida in Pateda explains that a semantic domain consists essentially of a group of meanings which share certain semantic components. Semantic
domain consists simply of meanings which have common semantic components.
32
Whereas, Lyons defines conceptual field as a structure of concepts on the semantic level, a structured conceptual area.
33
Geeraerts in Theories of Lexical Semantics said that lexical field is a set of related lexical items semantically that have meaning interdependent and
provide conceptual structure for a certain domain or reality.
34
Whereas P. Lutzeier in Concise Encyclopedia of Semantic stated that lexical fields are a
useful tool for holistic approaches about lexical meaning, structures of the vocabulary and mental lexicon as well as issues around categorization. He
said that there are any concept of lexical fields will try to capture the following basic ideas and principles:
35
1. Fields have a position somewhere between the individual lexical element
and the whole lexicon. 2.
Fields and individual words have in common that they are part of the lexicon. Fields and the lexicon have in common that they are constituted
from words. 3.
Fields are higher level signs and therefore comprise a form level as well as a content level.
32
Mansoer Pateda. Op.Cit. p. 174
33
Dirk Geeraerts. Op.Cit. p. 56
34
Ibid. p. 52
35
P Lutzier. “Lexical Field” in Keith Allan. Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics. Australia :
Monash University Press. 2009. p. 471
4. Each element of the field receives its position in contradistinction and
interconnection with other elements of the field. 5.
Each lexical field deals with a particular conceptual domain. Eugenio Coseriu admits only
fields that consist of lexical items that exhibit clear oppositions, like young and old, day and night, or tiède
„lukewarm‟, chaud and brûlant „hot‟, where the items unidirectionally or bidirectionally exclude each other.
36
Coseriu also gives the sp ecific formulation of lexical field theory may
be seen as a deliberate and methodical attempt to draw the consequences of a structuralist approach to meaning. According to Coseriu, there are two major
elements in the theory a systematic demarcation of the field of application of structural semantics, and framework for the description of lexical
items.
37
The demarcation of the proper object of investigation takes the form of seven successive distinctions, where with each successive step, one of the
poles of the distinction is rejected as not relevant. First, Coseriu draws the distinction between extralinguistic reality and language, and obviously
singles out language as the object of investigation. This is less straightforward than it seems; we will return to this point in a moment. Second, within the
realm of language, the metalanguage the language we use to talk about language has to be excluded to
the benefit of the primary object language. Third, within the primary object language, the study of synchronic structure
36
Dirk Geeraerts. Op.Cit. p. 79
37
Ibid. p. 77
takes precedence over the study of diachrony —as may be expected in a
structuralist framework. Fourth, fixed expressions like sayings and proverbs
have to be excluded from the analysis, since these may be considered „repeated
discourse ‟, i.e. quotations, rather than productive language use. Fifth, although
language take the form of a „diasystem‟ of geographical diatopical, social
diastratal, and stylistic diaphatic language varieties, the structural analysis should concentrate on the
„functional language‟ that is homogeneous, i.e. free of differences in space, of differences in social layers,
and of differences in stylistic level. Sixth, within that functional language, the object of investigation is the actual productive system of the language, and
not the „norm‟, the socially and traditionally fixed ways of speaking that are
not necessarily functionally distinctive. Finally, the object of semantic analysis is the meaning or sense of a word Bedeu-tung, and not its
reference Bezeichnung: the reference or denotatum of two expressions may be the same while their meaning may be different, as when Napoleon is
referred to as „the victor of Jena‟ and „the defeated of Waterloo‟.
38
There are many linguists who give example of semantic field. For more explanation can be seen on the table and picture as follows:
38
Dirk Geeraerts. Op.Cit. pp. 77-78
Table 1: The field of Stuhl Chair and Sessel Comfortable Chair According to Gipper
39
Stuhl Chair Sessel Comfortable Chair
39
Dirk Geeraerts. Op.Cit. p.67
Picture 2: The Field of Beauty in French According to Duchàček
40
From the explanation and example above, it can be summarized that semantic field is the grouping lexeme or word into a group or field that is
based on formal and functional similarity.
40
Dirk Geeraerts. Op.Cit. p.69
noblesse nobility
divinité greatness
magie magic
amour love
séduction seduction
grander greatness
beauté beauty
amour love
galaté joy
plaire to please
achévemement accomplishment
élégance elegance
perfection perfection
D. Componential Analysis
