Journal of Linguistics

http://journals.cambridge.org/LIN

Additional services for Journal of Linguistics:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

Igor A. Mel'čuk, Semantics: From meaning to text,

vol. I (Studies in Language Companion Series
129). Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John
Benjamins, 2012. Pp. xvii+436.

Hongxin Zhang and Haitao Liu

Journal of Linguistics / Volume 49 / Issue 03 / November 2013, pp 710 - 715

DOI: 10.1017/S0022226713000212, Published online: 17 October 2013

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0022226713000212

How to cite this article:

Hongxin Zhang and Haitao Liu (2013). Journal of Linguistics, 49, pp 710-715
doi:10.1017/S0022226713000212

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/LIN, IP address: 129.49.23.145 on 16 Mar 2015

 JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS

J. Linguistics 49 (2013). doi:10.1017/S0022226713000212

f Cambridge University Press 2013

Igor A. Mel’čuk, Semantics : From meaning to text, vol. I (Studies in

Language Companion Series 129). Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA : John
Benjamins, 2012. Pp. xvii+436.

Reviewed by HONGXIN ZHANG & HAITAO LIU, Zhejiang University

Igor A. Mel’čuk’s Semantics : From meaning to text (henceforth SMT) is a

work in Benjamins’ Studies in Language Companion Series and an essential
component in Mel’čuk’s Meaning–Text Models (MTMs). Before SMT,
books on various levels in MTMs, including syntax, morphology, and com-
municative organization have been published (Mel’čuk & Pertsov 1987,
Mel’čuk 1988, 2001, 2006). The long time coming of SMT manifests both its
core position in MTMs and the difficulty in semantic research. Mel’čuk
based the writing on his life-long study and answers in a unique way the
fundamental question : How is meaning expressed in a language ? In the
opinion of the present reviewers, SMT presents an innovative and novel
approach to the field, and is a paradigm-shifting contribution to the
language sciences.
SMT is presented in five parts over three volumes. The present volume, or
the first two parts, is composed of six chapters, which contain the problems
of Semantic Representation (SemR), including the semantic structure
of utterances, the semantics of causation in English, and communicative
structure.
The general introduction provides an informal characterization of
meaning–text semantics with its brief history, indicating its different focus of
attention from other semantic approaches (e.g. Lappin 2001, Cruse 2004,
Davis & Gillon 2004) and its nature of being purely linguistic, synchronic
and static. Although psychological and neurological aspects of language are
quite important, SMT leaves them out and concentrates on correspondence
between linguistic meanings and the linguistic expressions that carry them,
i.e. mapping from meaning to text, hence the names Meaning–Text Models
and Meaning–Text Theory (MTT). While an MTM is a functional linguistic
model or, in other words, a finite set of formal rules, MTT is a theory
for building MTMs of actual languages. Mel’čuk distinguishes linguistic
semantics as meaning–text oriented, cognitive semantics as meaning–
reference oriented, and logical semantics as meaning-centered. SMT
considers exclusively the first, namely the {Meanings} , {Texts} corre-
spondence, where the braces indicate sets. According to Mel’čuk, the very
essence of natural language is formalizing the transition between linguistic
meanings and linguistic texts. Thus, MTT is synthesis-oriented rather than
analysis-oriented, which makes it quite unique.

710
 REVIEWS

The first three chapters of SMT (Part I, ‘ Meaning–Text Approach and

Meaning–Text Models ’) sketch out a general theoretical framework of
MTT. Chapter 1 (21–44) is an inventory of basic linguistic notions used in
SMT, like an ‘ utterance (U)’ as a speech segment or a linguistic expression,
the ‘linguistic meaning (here in this book, meaning) ’ of U as the only in-
variant property of all possible paraphrases, a ‘ grammeme ’ as an inflectional
value, and a ‘semanteme ’ as the signified of a full lexical unit of language.
It also introduces two major types of rules. Correspondence rules take
the general form X q corr p Y|C, where X and Y are configurations
of linguistic units, q corr p stands for correspondences like , (between
two adjacent levels of representation), w (between units in the same level),
) (X to be replaced by Y of the same level), and , (X, Y being semantically
equivalent). A filter rule *XY|C indicates that XY is ill-formed when con-
dition (C) holds.
Chapter 2 (45–83) is dedicated to linguistic paraphrase, an essential notion
denoting the relation of synonymy between sentences. It deserves the elab-
oration as the whole formal system of the MTT framework is based on the
assumption that an important part of the linguistic competence of native
speakers is to judge whether two given sentences are paraphrases.
Chapter 3 (84–159), entitled ‘MMT and MTMs ’, starts with the basic
tenet of MTT, admitting that strictly speaking, MTT is in fact rather a
methodology or an approach than a theory. Then it states the three postu-
lates formalizing the basic tenet and describing the MTM : language as
a many-to-many correspondence between meanings and texts, linguistic
description as a functional model and multiple levels of linguistic represen-
tation. In sequence, these levels go from SemR through the Syntactic
Representation (SyntR) to the Morphological Representation (MorphR)
and, ultimately, Phonetic Representation (PhonR). SemR, SyntR and
MorphR are further divided into their surface (S) and deep (D) levels, hence
the seven levels in the model, which are in turn connected by six modules,
or sets of rules, namely semantics, deep syntax, surface syntax, deep
morphology, surface morphology and deep phonology. Each level of rep-
resentation is composed of one central structure and several peripheral
structures, e.g. SemR=nSemS ; Sem-Comm(unicative)S ; Rhet(orical)S ;
Ref(erential)Sm. The main properties of MTT are : its non-generative
character (it is equative, or translative), the exclusion of linear order as a
formal means of expression of its statements (all relations are denoted
by appropriate symbols), and especially its meaning-to-text orientation (it is
synthetic rather than analytical). Various representations of linguistic
utterances are written each in their own artificial formal language. The
semantemes are language-specific but the formalized semantic networks
operate with the same syntax across languages.
If the first three chapters serve as the necessary background, laying the
foundation of the basic linguistic notions on which SMT relies across all

711
 JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS

three volumes, then the ensuing three chapters are devoted to SemR, the
starting point of linguistic synthesis, or the input to a MTM.
Three further chapters constitute Part II (‘ Semantic representation in
a meaning–text linguistic model ’). Chapter 4 (167–241) concentrates on
the notion and requirements of SemR, presenting a feature of semantics
in SMT as distinct from other semantic approaches in that it is at the core
of a complete theory MTT, and for a formalizable model MTM. The
representation SemR=nSemS ; Sem-Comm(unicative)S ; Rhet(orical)S;
Ref(erential)Sm indicates that SemR is composed of four structures, with
SemS expressing the propositional meaning of U, Sem-CommS(U) express-
ing its communicative organization, RhetS(U) presenting its ‘artistic’ or
expressive effects, and the RefS(U) linking semantemes in the SemS(U) to
their referents. Structured in the same way in any language, the SemS is
cross-linguistically universal. Its characterization is networks whose labels
on the nodes are semantemes and whose arcs are numbers. Semantemes are
classified into predicates and (semantic) names, which Mel’čuk calls two
semantic ‘parts of speech ’. A predicate has argument slots, which is the
combinatorial property of genuine predicates. All semantic (and syntactic
and morphological) links between the elements of utterances are expressed in
terms of dependency relations. Using numeral labels as mere distinguishers
rather than semantic roles constitutes a major difference from other semantic
approaches.
Chapter 5 (243–288) is about semantemes of causation, with ‘ cause1 ’
(=‘be the cause of ’) referring to non-volitional causation, and ‘ cause2 ’
(=‘be the causer of ’) referring to volitional or agentive causation. Employed
in a great proportion in semantic decompositions, causation maintains its
crucial place in semantic description.
Chapter 6 (289–394) focuses on Sem-CommS, the first peripheral structure
of SemR, but its significance is by no means peripheral. Being the ‘framing ’
or ‘packaging ’ of meaning, it concerns communicative organization of the
meaning expressed by U, rather than the communicative organization of U
itself. The latter is specified in the MTT framework by DSynt-CommS. This
novelty of MTT sets it apart from other approaches. Unlike the SemS, which
is conveniently and naturally represented by using genuine linguistic
units, Sem-CommS’s formal description must be based on an artificial
metalanguage, which makes use of eight oppositions, namely Thematicity,
Givenness, Focalization, Perspective, Emphasis, Assertivity, Unitariness,
and Locutionality, each with two or three values. The most universal one,
Thematicity, has three semantic values, Thematicity={Theme, Rheme,
Specifier}, and can be illustrated by the sentence ‘[In 2005]Sem-Spec [this
student]Sem-T [passed his final exam]Sem-R ’.
In volume 2 of SMT (Studies in Language Companion Series 135,
published too late for inclusion in this review), the author introduces Deep-
Syntactic Representation (DSyntR), or the endpoint of semantic operations

712
 REVIEWS

(Part III), and describes the semantic module itself by detailing the major
types of semantic rules that perform the {SemRi} , {DSyntRj} transition,
i.e. semantic and deep-syntactic paraphrasing (Part IV). We look forward to
the publication of volume 3 of SMT, which – in the final Part V, entitled
‘Linguistic excursuses ’ – is to address several important semantic phenom-
ena and discuss in depth some corresponding concepts including actants,
Government Patterns, and phraseology (xxi).
As SMT came out after three decades since its conception, we can
expect the whole of this multi-volume ‘crowning achievement of a long
and illustrious career ’ (xiii) to be insightful and well presented, but not
necessarily abstruse. Judging by our reading of the first volume of the work,
the vast and deep topic is in fact very clearly structured and presented, with
the contents and structures for each part and each chapter clearly indicated
at the outset. All the key ideas are highlighted and each key concept is well
defined, exemplified and illustrated. These make it easy for readers to closely
follow the logical thread. With some very basic ideas of semantics, one can
start reading, move quickly and happily with the contents, and really enjoy
the novel ideas presented in the highly readable text. Sharply dissimilar from
other semantic approaches, this theoretically-complete formalizable model
of human language is unique in many ways.
In providing an overview of MTT, we note first that it has deep roots
in many of the schools of early 20th-century linguistics, such as transfor-
mational grammar, generative semantics, stratificational linguistics,
case grammar and rational grammar, whose influences are evident in MTT.
Secondly, as a theory of the fundamental question of the nature of language,
MTT is a unified framework, whose models operate on the idea that
language is a mapping (correspondence) from the meaning (semantics) of
U to its form or text (phonetics), with intermediate levels of syntax and
morphology. Thus, MTT has a stratificational and modular organization,
providing a coherent theoretical framework for semantics, and making it an
essential part of an integrated whole instead of being a stand-alone, distinct
component of grammar. In most other semantic approaches, semantics is
self-contained and is often independently studied with no connection with
other levels. Thirdly, relations (rather than classes) are the main organizing
factor in language and the concept of dependency (rather than constituency)
is used extensively in MTT. The representations at the different levels are
non-linearized, like the unordered network of SemR(U) indicating relations
between the semantemes. In the international context, MTT has established
a very successful model in studying dependency grammar. For instance,
a SyntR of U is a dependency tree-structure. And then the relationships
between representations are translations or mappings, rather than transfor-
mations. Sets of rules, or components ensure transitions between levels.
While many of the current trends treat various levels of language in a more
heterogeneous way, MTT uses different formal languages for different levels

713
 JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS

of representation. The fourth notable feature of MTT is that it attaches

much importance to communication, as can be seen from the first peripheral
structures for SemR, DSyntR, SSyntR, which are all communicative
structures.
Finally and most importantly, because of its formal and theoretical
character, MTT serves as a bridge between theoretical and applied linguis-
tics. MTT actually started from early synthetically-oriented practice of
machine translation, as Mel’čuk maintains his basic tenet that everything
starts from meaning. MTT’s current applications in machine translation,
phraseology and lexicography are good cases in point, proving that the
theory lends itself readily to applied linguistics. The key position of the
lexicon in MTT is particularly worth mentioning : the lexicon is represented
in the form of an Explanatory Combinatorial Dictionary (ECD) (Mel’čuk &
Žolkovsky 1984), a catalogue of the lexical units of the language and condi-
tions governing their use. An ECD has its roots in dependency grammar and
the ECDs for various languages have been a successful marriage between
a modern linguistic theory and lexicography. Emphasizing lexicon and
lexicography has not been practiced in other theoretical frameworks until
recently, while since its very beginnings half a century ago, MTT has held its
interest in linguistic synthesis (rather than analysis), paraphrase and the
lexicon.
Mel’čuk is both creative and not afraid to take a non-mainstream
stance. Though MTT remains relatively obscure to many researches for
various reasons, we have good reasons to foresee a better understanding
from a wider audience. A tremendous contribution in the field, this book
will in due course prove itself to be well worth reading and will yield
more significant and far-reaching theoretical and empirical results. Those
unaccustomed to formalism will find it a great illustration of accurate
description of a wide range of linguistic phenomena. And the formal
schools will find in SMT an utterly novel design since current semantic
theories are centered on truth-conditional logic. Semantics : From meaning to
text is thus strongly recommendable to those interested in natural language
processing, machine translation, lexicography, lexicon, semiotics, anthro-
pology or semantics per se. Open-minded scholars in both theoretical and
applied linguistics can cross the boundary and listen to Mel’čuk’s unique
voice.

R EF ERE NCES
Cruse, Alan. 2004. Meaning in language: An introduction of semantics and pragmatics. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Davis, Steven & Brendan S Gillon (eds.). 2004. Semantics: A reader. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Lappin, Shalom (ed.). 2001. The handbook of contemporary semantic theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Mel’čuk, Igor A. 1988. Dependency syntax: Theory and practice. Albany, NY : State University
Press of New York.

714
 REVIEWS

Mel’čuk, Igor A. 2001. Communicative organization in natural language: The semantic-

communicative structure of sentences. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Mel’čuk, Igor A. 2006. Aspects of the theory of morphology. Berlin & New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Mel’čuk, Igor A. & Nikolaj V. Pertsov. 1987. Surface syntax of English: A formal model within
the Meaning–Text Framework. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mel’čuk, Igor A. & Aleksandr K. Žolkovskij. 1984. Explanatory combinatorial dictionary of
Modern Russian. Vienna: Wiener Slawistischer Almanach.
Authors’ addresses: School of International Studies, Zhejiang University,
No. 866 Yuhangtang Road, 310058, Hangzhou, China
[email protected]
[email protected]
(Received 17 April 2013)

715