in different ways. It «s to be preferred that the label to use here is field rather than theory because theories are supposed to be complete and have explicit definitions of the matter in question, and this isn» t what happens in the semantic field approach. We just have ideas of how things seem to be. Moreover, the semantic field approach isn «t formalized and it was born on the basis of just a handful of ideas of how words work.basic notion behind any semantic field approach is the notion of association: words are associated in different words. We also have the idea of ??a mosaic. The words form it in such a way that for it to be complete you need all the words in their correct place. We also have to distinguish between lexical and semantic fields. Semantic fields have something to do with prototypically. One of the main difficulties in the semantic field approach is to establish the exact number of words that are part of a set. Here is where Prototype Theory enters because it defines the basic features of a category.of focal points.and Key concluded that the basic words of a category are very easy to identify by a native speaker but they say that the interesting point is the area a native speaker doubts whether to call something A or B. There are concepts which cannot be expressed in words. From the psychological point of view there are concepts which cannot be verbalized but that really exist in the mind. The aim of this model is to identify the relationship between the lexical fields and the semantic fields. And there are fields where the relationship doesn »t exist.idea behind semantic fields is the arrangement of words in sets depending on the organizing concepts. Many semantic linguists say that it «s difficult to think of a word outside a semantic field because if you say that a word is outside a semantic field, you say it» s outside the lexicon. The problem with this is what happens with words which don «t evoke a concept. Many words in English are meaningful but don »t have a concept: Even / onlywords clearly make a semantic contribution to the sentence. It's not the same to say: Only John drinks milk. Then: Even John drinks milk.
Сonclusion
, the conclusion is that some words of a language don «t lend themselves well to the analysis in terms of semantic fields. Other important idea is the difficulty of finding finite sets of words. In any case, there »s an internal contradiction between the ideas of a set with the structuring of words of a language. A set is a close set. A word can belong to several fields depending on the organizing concept. Speakers of the language clearly identify the central example but not the peripheral ones. This doesn't mean that it would never happen that. The degree of flexibility in the discrepancy of the categorization of words is smaller.
Ex: Please give me some more tables (`Table« is here a mass noun meaning `space in a table»).
E.G. Two races are grown in India. Here two races « refers to `two types of rice»
The idea behind this is that the dynamic character of a vocabulary cannot be reflected in the static character of the semantic fields, which are a static way of organizing the vocabulary of a language.analyzed the problem of synonymy in Modern English we could do the following conclusions:
a) The pr...
