Distance: Sabbath days journey, stadion, cubit 3.3 Volume: ephah, kor Velocity: slow, fast, quickly 3.5 Temperature: hot, cold, lukewarm Color: black, purple, scarlet, white 3.7 Number: one, two, three Attractiveness: attractive, beautiful, ugly 3.11 Age:

24 2.10.2 crush-smash: crush, shatter, smash into pieces 2.10.3 cut-stab: cut, hew, shear, wound, pierce, sting 2.10.4 beat: beat, strike, hit, slap, knock down 2.10.5 kill: kill, murder, slay, stone, choke, behead 2.10.6 ruin-destroy: ruin, destroy, abolish, demolish, lay waste 2.10.7 harm-injure: harm, injure, inflict, wound 2.11 Transfer 2.11.1 distribution: distribute, give, divide among, waste 2.11.2 receiving: take, receive, accept, acquire, gain 2.11.3 transfer of assets: deposit with, invest, entrust to 2.11.4 transfer by force: plunder, steal, rob 2.11.5 commercial transactions, often reciprocal: buysell, borrowlend, pledgeredeem, exchange 2.12 Complex activities

2.12.1 agricultural: sow, plow, harvest 2.12.2 involving domesticated animals: herd, care for, shear

2.12.3 food processing: cook, prepare a meal 2.12.4 involving cloth: spinning, weaving, sewing

2.12.5 involving constructions: build, erect, tear down 2.12.6 religious rites: sacrifice, worship, circumcision, celebrating the Passover 3 Abstracts 3.1 Time: today, tomorrow, future, year

3.2 Distance: Sabbath days journey, stadion, cubit 3.3 Volume: ephah, kor

3.4 Velocity: slow, fast, quickly 3.5 Temperature: hot, cold, lukewarm

3.6 Color: black, purple, scarlet, white 3.7 Number: one, two, three

3.8 Status: rich, poor, slave, free 3.9 Religious character: holy, profane, clean, unclean, godless, devout

3.10 Attractiveness: attractive, beautiful, ugly 3.11 Age: old, young, ancient, new

3.12 Truth-falsehood: true, false, honest, deceitful 3.13 Good-bad: good, bad, right, wrong, righteous, unrighteous 3.14 Capacity: able, unable, capable, incapable, strong, weak 3.15 State of health: well, sick, strong, weak 4 Relationals 4.1 Spatial: up, down, around, before, behind, through

4.2 Temporal: when, while, during, since 4.3 Deictic: this, that, former, latter, the, a

4.4 Logical: since, because, in order that, whereas, although, moreover, therefore, however, but, and 25 Jackson 1988 defines semantic features as a subclass of semantic components, which serve to identify a semantic domain and then help to distinguish lexemes from each other within this domain. Many linguists, such as Leech, use the terms semantic features and semantic components interchangeably as synonyms. Lipka 1980 did not distinguish these two terms either, but in his recent book he begins using the term „feature‟ for a subclass of components Lipka, 2002: 126. Lipka also argues that semantic features as metalinguistic elements can be derived in two ways. The first is by purely language-immanent procedures from the opposition of lexical items, or the second is from properties or attributes of the extralinguistic referent or denotatum in a referential approach semantics. He then classifies semantic features into seven different types. The first semantic feature is „denotative features‟. According to Lipka 2002, denotative features are based on cognitive features, properties, or attributes of the extralinguistic denotatum and may be derived by purely language immanent procedures on the basis of acceptable paraphrases. Based on this argument, he states that denotative features are the most important and central features of a lexeme. The reason of this is that denotative features are inherent, i.e. always obligatory present or absent. An example of a denotative feature is [± HUMAN] in girl vs. filly. HUMAN here is a property of the referent of the word girl . Lipka‟s denotative features correspon d to Leech‟s conceptual or denotative meaning and Lyons‟s descriptive meaning. The second type is „connotative features‟. Lipka 2002 formulates the connotative features indirectly by giving examples such as feature [± ARCHAIC] 26 needed to capture differences between the words steed and horse or to smile and to strike . English dictionaries use labels such as „archaic, literary, humorous‟ for connotative features Lipka, 2002: 127. Lipka claims that connotative features are inherent components of a lexeme and do not concern properties of the denotatum. In other words, connotative features are properties of a lexeme. Krisnawati 2003 formulates connotative features as additional features that the speaker or hearer catches when he hears or reads a pair of lexemes in terms of lexemes themselves. The third type is „relational features‟. Some lexemes that involve relations, for example, father and son, according to Lipka, cannot be explained with the help of properties or binary contrast. Such lexemes require different explanations. He proposes relational features as a way to analyze converses or relational lexemes. Thus, the relational father of is symbolized by [→ PARENT] and son of by the feature notation [← PARENT] Lipka, 2002: 128. In writing this feature, Lipka adopted the notational convention of arrows from Leech. The fourth type is „transfer features‟. Transfer features are fundamentally syntagmatic in nature Lipka, 2002: 18. Taking Weinrich‟s example, Lipka explains the representation of the sentence He was drinking carrot with transfer features: [+SOLID] → − SOLID. The feature − SOLID is transferred from the verb drink to its grammatical objects carrots. There it replaces the contradictory inherent feature [+ SOLID]. As a result of the transfer process, carrots will be interpreted as carrot juice. The angular bracket, , used in this feature are adopted by Lipka from Weinrich. He further notes that transfer features are also needed for explaining metaphorical process. 27 The fifth type is „deictic features‟. Lipka notes that deictic features are used to explain certain locative, temporal relations and direction. For example the feature [± PROXIMATE] symbolizes proximity to the speaker for lexemes now vs. then, or come vs. go. The sixth type is „inferential features‟. According to Lipka, inferential features IFs do not occur in traditional semantics. From a synchronic point of view, as he sees it, only variable IFs can explain fuzziness in meaning, polysemy, regional, stylistic, and other variations. On the diachronic scale, they capture semantic restriction, extension, shift and other changes in meaning. According to Lipka, IFs may be used for formalizing the properties of a referent or denotatum and may occur in paraphrases, e.g. feature {STICK} to explain the word to beat and feature {TO GET ATTENTION} to the word to nudge. The braces used in this notation of IFs are taken from Lehrer Lipka, 2002: 126. The seventh type is „distinctive features‟. Distinctive features are a super-class of features discussed in points 1-5 above. Lipka defines distinctive feature as all semantic features that serve to distinguish a pair of lexemes that are otherwise identical in meaning. Thus for example cat and kitten are only distinguished by denotative feature [± ADULT], or steed and horse by the connotative feature [+ARCHAIC].

2.1.6. Contrastive Meaning

Lexicon is the part of the grammar that contains the knowledge speakers have about individual words and morphemes, including semantic properties. Fromkin et al. 1996:154 says that words that share a semantic property are said to be in a semantic 28 class, e.g. the semantic class of „female‟ words. Semantic classes may intersect, such as the class of words with the properties „female‟ and „young‟. In some cases, however, the presence of one semantic property can be inferred from the presence or absence of another. For example, words with the property „human‟ also have the property „animate‟, and lack the property „equine‟. One way of representing semantic properties is through the use of semantic features. Semantic features are a formal or notational device for expressing the presence or absence of semantic properties by pluses and minuses. For example, the lexical entries for words such as woman, father, girl, mare, and stalk would appear in the table as follows: Table 2.2: semantic features Fromkin et al., 1996: 155 woman father girl mare stalk + female + male + female + female + motion + human + human + human – human + slow – young + parent + young – young + purposeful In order to analyze any referential meaning, whether of a root word, such as dog, of an idiom, such as dog in the manger, we must identify those necessary and sufficient features that distinguish the meaning of any one form from every other from which might compete for a place within the same semantic territory. It is necessary also to find out what the relations are between the components, since that also is crucial for the understanding of meaning. To determine the meaning of any lexical unit, from the level of a morpheme to the level of an entire discourse, it is essential to establish the basis of contrast. To do so effectively, those units most closely related semantically must be identified, that is to say those units which share the greatest number of common components and differ 29 from one another in the smallest number of diagnostic components. Such meanings should be on the same hierarchical level, since on this basis they are likely to share the greatest number of common components, while differing most clearly with respect to crucial contrasts. The analysis is then called a contrastive meaning analysis. One simple example to illustrate the analysis is the set of words chair, stool, bench, and hassock. Four of them obviously share a number of common components: First, artifacts in contrast with stone ledges on which one might sit; second, pieces of furniture in contrast with other constructions, e.g. banks or sawhorses which can serve for sitting; and third, for sitting in contrast with beds or dressers on which one may sit, but which are not designed for sitting. In order to determine the diagnostic feature of the meanings of these four units, we can then establish three basic types of features evidently to provide the contrasts: First, the number of persons for which the piece of furniture is designed; second, the occurrence or lack of a back; and third, the occurrence or lack of legs. These related features may be clearly indicated in the table below: Table 2.3: Analysis on features related in semantics Nida, 1975: 71 Number of persons Existence of back Existence of legs One One With back Without back With legs Without legs CHAIR – + + – + – BENCH + – + + + – STOOL – + – + + – HASSOCK – + – + – + Nida 1975 also highlights that for the purpose of understanding the possible variety of components and the relations of sets of meanings to one another, one of the most useful series consists of meanings involving physical movement through space. He begins with a related set of meanings represented by the terms run, Words Semantic Features 30 walk, hop, skip, jump, crawl, and dance. It is important as to insure not being confronted at first with a number of variables, e.g. the hopping of toads, the dancing of trained bears, and the crawling of cars through traffic. Although we already know that what appears to be an obvious contrast between run and walk is relative speed, the important diagnostic feature is the nature of the contact between the feet and the supporting surface. In run, hop, skip, jump, and some uses of dance, there are moments when neither foot is touching the ground. Whereas crawl, walk, and other uses of dance, at least one foot is always in contact with the ground. Another contrast in this set of meanings is the distinction between crawl, which needs four limbs to perform, and the other meanings, which need only two. Yet, the most specific set of contrasts involves the order of movement of the feet. For walk and run the order of contact with the ground is alternating 1 –2–1–2–1– 2; for hop the order is 1 –1–1–1 or 2–2–2–2; for skip the order is 1–1–2–2–1–1–2–2; and crawl the order is usually 1 –3–2–4–1–3–2–4, if the limbs are numbered clockwise, but there are several different possible orders. Number one represents the right leg, number two represents the left leg, number three represents the left arm, and number four represents the right arm. For dance the order of contact with the ground varies greatly, but one distinguishing feature is that it is rhythmic, while for jump the order of contact at the beginning or end of the jump is irrelevant. What counts is the relatively greater distance involved in which there is no contact with the surface. Nida found that the contrasts in meaning of these seven terms involve only three major types of features, namely the type of contact with the surface, the order of contact and the number of limbs. He showed the contrasts in the following table: 31 Table 2.4: Contrastive analysis of seven terms involving three types of properties one or another limb always in contact vs. no limb at times in contact order of contact number of limbs RUN – 1 –2–1–2 2 WALK + 1 –2–1–2 2 HOP – 1 –1–1 or 2–2–2 1 SKIP – 1 –1–2–2 2 JUMP – not relevant 2 DANCE + – variable but rhythmic 2 CRAWL + 1 –3–2–4 4 Later, Nida found that the adjustment of a set of diagnostic components to a wider range of participants in a series of events is not only a means of testing the original analysis, but also a process by which more generalized descriptions or rules may be ascertained. However, the addition of other meanings to a basic set normally requires the introduction of new diagnostic components. Thus, Nida added four basic series of the related meanings, i.e. swim, fly, roll, and slide. Swim and fly can be differentiated at least from three types of environments: First, a supporting surface for the basic seven meanings, plus those of roll and slide; second, a liquid for swim; and third, air for fly. The meaning of swim is in the same class as crawl with respect to the use of all the limbs, but fly involves the forelimbs of bats or birds and cannot be performed to persons, except with an additional component of „vehicular movement‟, as in the sentence Her husband flew to Chicago. Roll and slide also imply a supporting surface, and in both instances there is continuous contact with the surface. For slide it is not important what part of the body is involved in the contact. With roll the contact is continuous but with different points of the body in a rotating sequence. Nida has extended the series more and added the related meanings of fall, sink, and climb and he added components involving vertical movement. The other Semantic Properties Words 32 verbs before are indeterminate as to the vertical horizontal distinction. One may walk up, down, or on the level, and the same is true of run, hop, skip, crawl, jump, swim, fly, roll, and slide although the gradient in swim is normally horizontal or nearly so, and roll and slide more often than not refer to downward movement. However, fall and sink tend to be related to downward movement. The meanings of fall and sink also contrast with most of the other meanings in being related primarily to the force of gravity rather than involving internal energy. In contrast with the downward movement in fall and sink, climb implies upward movement, i.e. without some seman tic “corrective”, e.g. down or through, climb has a diagnostic component of upward movement. For instance, when one says She climbed the stairs, it implies the upward movement. The downward movement must usually be specifically marked, e.g. He climbed down the stairs. The analysis can be presented in table 2.5.

2.1.7. Contextual Meaning

In linguistics, context carries tremendous importance in disambiguation of meanings as well as in understanding the actual meaning of words. Therefore, understanding the context becomes an important task in almost all areas of linguistics since context triggers variation of meaning and supplies valuable information to understand why and how a particular word varies in meaning when used in a piece of text. According to Dash 2008, the term context refers to an immediate linguistic environment rarely detached or isolated in which a particular word occurs. Since it is not always explicit, it may be hidden within the neighboring members of a word used in a piece of text. 33 Table 2.5: Contrastive analysis of verbs with extended semantic features Nida, 1975: 79-80 RUN WALK HOP SKIP JUMP DANCE CRAWL ROLL SLIDE CLIMB SINK FALL FLY SWIM Environment surfaces supporting + + + + + + + + + +     non-supporting           +    between surfaces on different levels            +   air             +  water              + Source of energy animate being + + + + + + +   +   + + animate being andor gravity        + +      gravity           + +   Use of limbs as means of propulsion All four limbs       +       + All the limbs which are normally in contact with the supporting surface, with the optional addition of the forelimbs for bipeds in climbing + + + + +     +     The forelimbs             +  Points of contact with a surface The extremities of the limbs + + + + + + +   +     Any point or portion         +   +   A continuous series of points        +       Nature of contact with the surface No contact during movement     +       +   Intermittent contact +  + +  +         Continuous contact By one and then another limb or set of limbs  +    + +        By the same or contiguous portion        + +      34 RUN WALK HOP SKIP JUMP DANCE CRAWL ROLL SLIDE CLIMB SINK FALL FLY SWIM Order of repeated contact between limbs and surface Alternating + +     +   +     Variable but rhythmic      +         1 –1–1–1 or 2–2–2–2 or continuous series of short jumps   +            1 –1–2–2–1–1–2–2    +           Directional orientation Indeterminant + + + + + + + + +    + + Down           + +   Up          +     35 Further, if we cannot extract the information relevant to the meaning of a word from its immediate linguistic environment, we need to take into account the topic of discussion as a sphere of necessary information. Miller and Leacock 2000 have classified context into two types, i.e. local context, and topical context. The local context refers to one or two words immediately before and after the key word under investigation, and the topical context refers to the topic of the text where the key word has been used. According to them, reference to the two contexts is more of less sufficient in understanding the actual contextual meaning of the key word used in a text. However, Dash argued that the two contexts mentioned above are not enough for understanding the intended meaning of a word. It is because these contexts often fail to provide the necessary information required for the purpose. According to Dash, in certain readings, information acquired from the local context and the topical context may be sufficient, but these are not enough for understanding all possible meaning variations of a word. To acquire more information Dash, therefore, argued to classify context taking these two types into his consideration into four broad types Dash 2005a: local context, sentential context, topical context, and global context. The local context refers to the immediate environment of the key word in a sentence where it has occurred, encompassing its immediately preceding and succeeding words. Conceptually, the immediately preceding i.e., left word LW1, the key word KW, and the immediately succeeding i.e., right word RW1 = LW1 + KW + RW1 constitute a lexical block, where the key word is the main member while the LW1 and the RW1 are supporting members. The sentential context refers to 36 a sentence where the key word has occurred. It supplies syntactic information to know if the key word has any explicit or implicit syntactic relation with the other words used in the sentence. In these cases, the sentential context allows us to explore if there is any variation of meaning of the key word due to its relation with the other members located far away. The topical context refers to the topic of discussion and focuses on the content of a piece of text. Quite often, it is found that the actual meaning of the key word depends heavily on the topic which has a strong role to alter etymological meaning of the key word. For example, in English, based on the variation of topic the word shot refers to „firing‟, „drinking‟, „hitting a ball by bat‟, „kicking a ball‟, „putting a ball in the net‟, „distance between a player and the hole‟, „taking a snap‟, „giving an injection‟, or „making love‟, etc. Dash 2004. In the global context, words are not seen as isolated entities. They are interlinked with other words as well as with the extralinguistic reality Verschueren, 1981: 337. So does the meanings of words. The meaning of the key word is not only related to the meanings of other words occurring within local context, sentential context, and topical context, but also to extralinguistic reality surrounding the linguistic acts undertaken by language users. The Verb, for instance, usually evoke a scene of action constituting an agent, a patient, an item, a place, and a time, all coordinated in a particular discourse Fillmore, 1977: 82. This signifies that understanding the meaning of a verb form under investigation we need to consider of all the elements in a cognitive interface to realize its denotative, connotative and figurative meaning. As we stated before, language is only one of the systems of signs used by human beings to communicate with each other. We can also use symbols, for 37 example color to convey certain meaning. The color of red can be used to indicate danger, blood or brave in Indonesian flag. A certain symbol can carry lots of meanings. Likewise, a single word can also carry a lot of meanings. Let us take an example from the word rat. Generally, we might think that rat is a kind of animal, any of various long-tailed rodents similar to but larger than a mouse. But in a sentence I smell a rat, the word rat here does not refer to a certain animal, but of suspecting that something wrong is being done. Thus, in order to get the precise meaning from a certain word, we need to put the word into its context in a sentence. This is what we refer to contextual meaning analysis.

2.2 Review of Related Study

The writer found that Nida 1975 also conducted a study on contextual analysis. He highlighted that in order to understand the procedural problems involved in the classification of different types of meaning, it is useful to analyse a rather extensive series of contexts containing the same lexical unit. Nida selected the term run because of two reasons. First, it is because the term run has a large number of meanings occurring in many different types of contexts. He referred to The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, College Edition, 1969, lists 134. Second, it is because the meaning of the term run has already been discussed in several other connections. Nida then made a list of the various contexts in which run, as an event or related object, can occur. The list is arranged in an order which one might encounter in collecting uses of run in texts. 38 Table 2.6: Sentences with the verb run Nida, 1975: 138 No. Sentence with the verb run 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. He ran to the house. The motor is running. The water is running out of the faucet. The color is running. The minutes run as follows. The tune kept running through his head. They ran the blockade. They all ran the risks. He ran across his friend. The grain of the wood runs crossways. The run of sap was light this year. He built a chicken run. In the long run it will work out all right. She runs with a tough crowd. They run around town every Saturday night. He ran the horse around the track. He‟s running for election. The clock is running fast. The train runs every hour. The car ran down the hill. The mayor isn‟t running for another term. They ran him for vice-president. The salmon run each spring. The ferry runs between Staten Island and the Battery. The rope ran through a pulley. He ran the strap around the box. The vine ran over the wall. Her stocking is running. His nose is running. He ran the water into the tub. These are the running prices. His writing runs from fair to bad. The office runs well. Time is running on. The well ran dry. The cow ran dry. The manuscript runs to eighty pages. The run on the bank was disastrous. She has a run in her silk hose. A run of a thousand barrels a day. They ran the edition on an offset press. The play ran for three years. The cattle ran on the range. The run of grunion was early this year. 39 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. He composed a series of runs for the clarinet. The story ran in the Washington Post. He ran an advertisement for a week. The same theme ran throughout the chapter. The sword ran through him. He ran sheep on his farm. He scored a run in the third inning. We have our competitors on the run. They lived near the run. He ran his business poorly. He ran the motor too long. His heart is running too fast. There has been a continuous run on the U.S. dollar. The flour ran out of the sack. The gravel ran down the trough. The line ran off the page. After collecting such series of contexts, Nida then divided the meanings immediately on the bases of syntactic classes, i.e. verbs, nouns, and adjectives. After that, the next step is to separate the idiomatic semantic structures from the non- idiomatic ones, i.e. the occurrences of run which can be separated from those which do not require a larger unit. For instance, the series of contexts 13 in the long run, 9 ran across, and 52 on the run belong to the idiomatic semantic structures while the rest belong to the non-idiomatic ones. Nida identified in each case the domain into which the respective meanings fit. For example, in the long run would be treated in the domain of such temporal expressions as finally, at last, in the end, etc., while ran across would be treated with came across, met with, encountered, etc. At the same time, it is useful to contrast the idiomatic with the non-idiomatic meanings of such phrases as he ran across his friend and he ran across the road. The idiomatic meaning of on the run would be treated in the domain represented by on the defensive, win out against, beat, etc. 40 In dealing with the non-idiomatic uses of run, Nida grouped them into loose assemblies of potentially related meanings. The results of grouping into loosely defined classes of related meanings can be presented below: Table 2.7: Groups of sentences within the same context Nida, 1975: 141-143 Context Sentence number Sentence Movement in space through the use of the limbs, and with successive instances in which no foot touches the ground 1. 16. 51. He ran to the house. He ran the horse around the track. He scored a run in the third inning. Internal or movement of related parts 2. 18. 55. 56. The motor is running. The clock is running fast. He ran the motor too long. His heart is running too fast. Vehicular movement on schedule 19. 24. The train runs every hour. The ferry runs between Staten Island and the Battery. Movement of a liquid or dry mass 3. 4. 11. 29. 30. 35. 36. 40. 53. 58. 59. The water is running out of the faucet. The color is running. The run of sap was light this year. His nose is running. He ran the water into the tub. The well ran dry. The cow ran dry. A run of a thousand barrels a day. They lived near the run. The flour ran out of the sack. The gravel ran down the trough. Extension 10. 26. 27. 34. 37. 49. 60. The grain of the wood runs crossways. He ran the strap around the box. The vine ran over the wall. Time is running on. The manuscript runs to eighty pages. The sword ran through him. The line ran off the page. General functioning e.g. of an organization 33. 54. The office runs well. He ran his business poorly. 41 Continuous series of steplike actions 28. 39. 45. Her stocking is running. She has a run in her silk hose. He composed a series of runs for the clarinet. Movement in space, not necessarily as in the first context 12. 14. 15. 20. 23. 43. 44. 50. He built a chicken run. She runs with a tough crowd. They run around town every Saturday night. The car ran down the hill. The salmon run each spring. The cattle ran on the range. The run of grunion was early this year. He ran sheep on his farm. Occurrences of special classification Election to office 17. 21. 22. He‟s running for election. The mayor isn‟t running for another term. They ran him for vice-president. Publication 41. 46. 47. They ran the edition on an offset press. The story ran in the Washington Post. He ran an advertisement for a week. Financial operations 38. 57. The run on the bank was disastrous. There has been a continuous run on the U.S. dollar. Contents 5. 48. The minutes run as follows. The same theme ran throughout the chapter. Figurative meanings 6. 7. 8. 31. The tune kept running through his head. They ran the blockade. They all ran the risks. These are the running prices. Miscellaneous 25. 42. The rope ran through a pulley. The play ran for three years. There are some similarities and differences study conducted by Nida and the writer. The similarities are: First, Both Nida and the writer conduct analysis on the word run with the same reasons, i.e. first, it is because the term run has a large number of meanings occurring in many different types of contexts and second, it is 42 because the meaning of the term run has already been discussed in several other connections. Second, both Nida and the writer separate the idiomatic semantic structures from the non-idiomatic ones. Third, after the word run is applied in a sentence, both Nida and the writer determine the context. There are also some differences in analysis conducted by Nida and the writer. First, Nida did not make an analysis of meaning from dictionaries. He used The Random House Dictionary of the English Language to show sentences from different types of contexts. Meanwhile, the writer used Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English published by Longman in 2001 to define the meaning, give the examples in a sentence so that it can be used as the base to determine its context. Second, Nida collected the whole sentences from various types of word, i.e. noun, verb, or adjective. The writer only conducted an analysis with the meaning of run as a verb. Third, Nida‟s analysis came to conclusion where he grouped the sentences based on their context. As we see on the table above that there are nine different contexts where the term run is used in sentences, and no further elicitation or analysis after the contexts were found. The writer after he found the context of the verb run, he conducted further analysis, i.e. to analyze the semantic properties related to the conceptual meaning of the verb run when it is put beyond the conceptual meaning. Another study was conducted by Krisnawati 2003. She explored types of meaning and features as approaches to lexical semantics. For that purpose, she discusses Leech‟s types of meaning, Lipka‟s semantic features, and componential analysis. The question „How do we discover and justify semantic components of lexemes that have the same relationship?‟ was formulated in her study. 43 Krisnawati says that discovering the semantic components of a lexeme can be done by using several procedures. For example, Lipka 2000, borrowing Baumgartner‟s procedures and examples, suggests two kinds of methodologies, i.e. test formula and paraphrasing. Using test formula, Krisnawati argues that the formula is applicable to both German and English and provides a means of establishing semantic features. Following Lipka 2002, she discusses that if X can be replaced in the same syntactic slot by modifier +Y. The following example is taken from Baumgartner: 1 Der Mann laeuft ueber die Strasse = X 2 Der Mann geht schnell ueber die Strasse = Y In this formula, if laeuft [= run] can be replaced by schnell gehen [walk fast], then both lexemes are in the same field, and we can derive a feature for the lexeme laeuft, namely [+ SCHNELL] which means „fast‟ or „quickly‟ in English. There are three major points that can be summed up from Krisnawati‟s study. First, Leech‟s types of meaning, Lipka‟s semantic features, and componential analysis are all approaches to describe the word meaning. Second, they have simila rity in the use of semantic components to describe a word‟s meaning, although Leech does not use components to the extent that Lipka does. Third, compared to componential analysis, Leech‟s seven types of meaning and Lipka‟s semantic features have gone further because they not only identify the meaning of a word using components but also classify the meaning itself into seven groups. There is similarity and difference study conducted by Krisnawati 2003 and the writer. Both Krisnawati and the writer used co mponential analysis and Leech‟s 44 seven types of meaning as the basis of the study. However, Krisnawati did not go to the analysis of contextual meaning and semantic properties as what the writer did.

2.3 Theoretical Framework