Words of a Feather Flock Together: Semantic Fields and Consistency in Word Choice
(Rawluck, 2009) One
One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn’t belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others?
By the time I finish my song?
Did you guess which thing was not like the others?
Did you guess which thing just doesn’t belong?
If you guessed this one is not like the others,
Then you’re absolutely…right! (Raposo & Stone, 1970)
What the words from this famous song from the television show, Sesame Street are trying to tell us is that when something or someone is different from what is around it, it should be obvious and fairly easy to detect, just like the spoon is easy to pick out from the group of forks around it. However, when people or objects break a pattern that has been established or appear in settings where they seem not to belong, confusion may be the result. The same can be said of words you choose use in your writing.
When you write or speak, you string together words to form sentences. These sentences, in turn, build up, one after the other, to form paragraphs. Finally, the paragraphs you create, when logically connected together and organized by an underlying thematic skeleton, build up to become speeches, essays, reports, letters, novels, and the myriad of other forms of human oral and written communications, both of which I will refer to as, “texts.” Since this blog deals with ideas for better writing, I will confine my further commentary to written texts only, but the concepts I will be discussing in this posting apply equally as well to oral ones. Anyway, as you can see from the processes just described, there is an accumulation of meaning that begins from the moment you write your first word in a text until the time you type the concluding period. As will be shown, this meaning is built up through the collection of words you choose and build upon as you write. Basic words, such as prepositions, articles, conjunctions, etc. are used primarily as placeholders that convey additional, extraneous information and smooth out and make your sentences and paragraphs more eloquent. However, the essential meaning of a text is determined by a different set of words that you select specifically because they convey the significance and rhetorical basis of whatever your topic, premise, and underlying theme (domain) is presenting. Expressed another way, this set of words share a common semantic property (meaning) or domain of interest (theme or thesis). Linguists call these meaning related word groups (lexemes), semantic fields, which is a refined way of saying a vocabulary that is unique to a particular piece and topic.
Just as every career field and workplace has its own specialized language and word set, called jargon, that it uses to communicate privileged knowledge between its initiates, its journeymen, and its professionals, so, too, does every text have
its own unique semantic field, which is developed as the composition is written and which communicates the writer’s underlying semantic strategies. This semantic field influences the reader’s perceptions of and expectations for what is being written. For example, if you are writing a piece, and you wish to express a semantic field that communicates an atmosphere of serenity and peace, you will, most likely, choose a lexeme consisting of words such as:
pacific, peaceable, calm, mild, neutral, quiet, relaxed, serene, tranquil; affable, amiable, amicable, benevolent, gentle, kind, kindly; nonbelligerent, unaggressive; submissive, yielding
This word group is filled with expressions that communicate peaceful imagery. Because the words in a semantic field
all share a common semantic property, the reader, rightfully so, forms the perception about the text that its underlying domain is one consisting of peaceful, harmonious, and non belligerent concepts. He or she also makes the assumption that the text will continue in this fashion because of the expectations the writer has led them to by the semantic relationships made in the composition. Stephan Witte and Lester Faigley describe these expectations as “cohesion ties”. What the authors are expressing here is that the semantic field and the words forming it gives a written text continuity because “lexical and grammatical relationships [are formed across sentence boundaries] that allow sentence sequences to be understood as connected discourse rather than autonomous sentences” (Witte & Faigley, 1981). Expressed differently, it is the connectedness of the words in the semantic field that permit the composition to be perceived a continuous text rather than an assortment of unrelated, separate sentences. It is this aspect that also determines whether or not a text appears focused, on task, and cohesive or diffuse, off task, and wandering. For example, if apples are the domain, the semantic field should only include talk about Delicious, Macintosh, Gala, and cider, but not grapes and bananas. If you are writing about fruit (a broader semantic domain), the semantic field can include apples, oranges, and pears, but not carrots, celery, and turnips. If you are writing
about edible plants (an even broader domain) then your semantic field could contain apples, oranges and carrots, but not poison ivy or redwood trees. Lastly, if you are writing about all plants, your semantic field, obviously, could include all plants (Pere, 2009)
In opposition to this desired cohesiveness,, if the writer, either intentionally or unintentionally, throws in words such as “belligerent”, “combative”, and “violent”, the semantic field is disturbed, the pattern and cohesive ties weaken, the cohesiveness begins to break down and get lost, and the reader becomes disoriented. Look at the following example lexeme:
bottle formula diapers cradle
What semantic relationships and cohesive ties are created among these four words? What impression does this semantic field give you of the underlying domain or connecting theme? Now, let us add the word, “cyborg” to the lexeme giving us:
bottle formula diapers cradle cyborg
What semantic relationships and cohesive ties are created among these five words? What impression does this semantic field give you now of the underlying domain or connecting theme? How does the word that does not fit alter your perception of the new domain? Now, let us add the words, “rattle” and “nurse” to the lexeme giving us:
bottle formula diapers cradle cyborg rattle nurse
What semantic relationships and cohesive ties are now created among these seven words? What impression does this new semantic field give you now of the underlying domain or connecting theme? How does the word that does not fit,violate the semantic field,. How do the words that follow the out of lace word alter your perception of the meaning of the original domain? Following the word, ”cyborg”, the word, “rattle” now begins to take on mechanical connotations, which may not be what was intended if it had simply followed the word, “cradle” instead. This can cause confusion as to what is meant by this word in the mind of the reader. Similarly, the word “formula” as used in the original lexeme, was most likely interpreted as meaning nourishment for a baby, but, after the word, cyborg, is included, “formula” could also be interpreted as having a mathematical or chemical meaning, again, throwing off the reader. Also, think about how the words, “cradle” or “nurse”, for example, could be used appropriately as either nouns, if the infant domain is assumed, or as verbs, which bring somewhat more unusual meanings if the more scientific domain is assumed. Most English words have multiple meanings. The particular meaning intended is clarified for the reader by the other words surrounding and associated with the semantic domain (Old Dominion University, 2006). Furthermore, compare the following two examples taken from a theoretical manual for a construction crane.
Example 1
When using the FMC Link-Belt construction crane, equipped with hydraulic lifts and dealing with concrete pilings for high-moisture content soil, you should use the number three footings to prevent tippage of the machinery, as that could lead to serious injury to persons working in the area as well as irreparable damage to the hydraulic system of the crane (Old Dominion University, 2006).
Example 2
When using the FMC Link-Belt construction crane, all funky and equipped with hydraulic lifts and dealing with concrete pilings for really, really wet soil, you should use the number three footings to prevent a wipe-out, as that could seriously smoosh persons working in the area and cause irreparable damage to the hydraulic system of the crane. (Old Dominion University, 2006)
Upon comparison, we see that the first paragraph seems to be written more professionally and appropriate for its function and domain of interest. It is much more focused, on-task, and cohesive, for its semantic field is consistent and uses words that are appropriate for its audience of professional crane operators. The second paragraph, on the other hand, seems comical by comparison, for it uses many words that are in direct opposition to the semantic domain of professional crane operation. Like the spoon in the picture above, words such as “funky”, “smoosh,” and “wipeout” immediately stand out from the other contextual words around it, seem ridiculously out of place, and immediately give the impression of the author as being cartoonish and immature. It is, therefore, difficult to take this manual entry seriously. Furthermore, if I had just newly purchased a $500,000.00 crane, and I received an operation manual with this second paragraph as an entry in it, I would questing the integrity of the company, its management, and my decision to purchase my crane form them. This same principle also would apply to the use of slang, idioms, obscene words and phrases, racist or sexist language, informal and dialectic expressions, and misused words or phrases. All of these will, normally, violate your semantic field and appear jarringly out of place, distort the semantic flow and cohesion of all the follows, and, especially if you are writing a high stakes communication, negatively impact the reader’s impression of the writer and the company they work for. So, from now on, when you write, practice becoming aware of the ontology, the study of the categories of things that exist or may exist in some domain, of you word choice and whether or not the fit or seem out of place in the work you are writing. Doing so will save you later embarrassment and the potential loss of business, a job, or a passing grade.
So, as we saw previously in the words of the Sesame Street song, when something is different from what is around it and seems not to belong, it should act as a warning to us as writers that a semantic field violation may very well have occurred. If so, as seen in the previous examples, it causes confusion, distortion, and faulty impressions for the reader. It is, therefore, our obligation to identify violation, point it out to ourselves, and to fix it, not before the end of the song, but before anyone can read it and realizes that some of the words are not like the others.
Old Dominion University. (2006, May 17). College of Arts and Letters: Writing Tutorial Services. Retrieved January 30, 2010, from Semantic Fields: http://al.odu.edu/wts/students/process/semantic.shtml
Pere, B. (2009). Playing the Field. Retrieved January 30, 2010, from Songcrafters’Coloring Book: http://www.billpere.com/PDF/Semantic%20Fields.pdf
Raposo, J., & Stone, J. (1970). One of These Things (Is Not Like The Others). Retrieved January 25, 2010, from One of These Things Is Not like the Others: http://www.members.tripod.com/Tiny_Dancer/one.html
Rawluk, M. (2009). Friday, March 13, 2009 One. Retrieved January 25, 2010, from Existential Existence: A Photo blog of Michael Rawluk’s Journey through life.: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_uLsWqfDxgr8/Sbr4TKKJnSI/AAAAAAAACsc/zw3HDpMI1Zg/s800/_mg_8648.jpg&imgrefurl=http://kulwar.blogspot.com/2009_03_01JnSI/AAAAAAAACsc/zw3HDpMI1Zg/s800/_mg_8648.jpg&imgrefurl=http://kulwar.blogspot.com/2009_03_01
Witte, S., & Faigley, L. (1981). Coherence, Cohesion, and. (JStore, Ed.) Retrieved January 30, 2010, from College Composition and Communication,: http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~faigley/work/coherence.pdf
wordscribbler
