Among the many and diverse treatments of the concept of “field” scattered through a wide range of literature is to be found a marked and growing tendency to interpret the “field” as a psychic phenomenon, notably as witnessed in the various attempts which have been made to explain associative groups of elements as field phenomena. Such an approach, however, is by no means always justified, if for no other reason than the fact that various associative groups are by their nature non-identical. Such non-identity is in particular to be explained by the existence of various types of associations, so that unifications of elements may, for example, have both a paradigmatic and a syntagmatic nature.

This paper is based in part on evidence and insights found in various studies. These studies had as their objects to prove (or at least to demonstrate the plausibility of) either an analysis of a language or a theory of grammar. Their evidence, in addition to that which is new here, demonstrates the difficulty of using superficial relational information for semantic interpretation. It may be noted that, some years ago, Jespersen pointed out many such difficulties, though not with the orientation of relating syntax to semantics.