Professor: Abdennour Kharraki

Module: Semantics and Pragmatics

Lectures 5 & 6

LEXICAL SEMANTICS

1. Introduction
Lexical semantics is about the meaning of words. In these lectures , however, we
restrict our study to how each word meaning reveals itself in association with
another related word meaning. Such an association is generally established via
two main sense relations, namely paradigmatic relations and syntagmatic
relations.

2. Syntagmatic relations
To understand this relation, we need to know first that a sentence is a sequence
of signs. Each of such signs contributes to the overall fabric of the meaning of
the sentence. Syntagmatic principle, then, refers to a linear relationship held
among signs (words or concepts). For example, while the structures John
walked, and An hour elapsed make sense, John elapsed and An hour walked do
not. Part of the meaning of elapse, then, is to be seen in relation with hour,
second, minute, day, etc.; but not in relation with John that has other suitable
associations. In other words, signs or words are said to be in a syntagmatic
relation if they are intuitively or naturally associated. To illustrate, the English
words dog, ask and read are associated in meaning with the words bark,
question and book respectively. In Standard Arabic, the word ‘ʕada’ calls
intuitively for two structures that come quickly to our minds, namely xa:wija
lwifa:d or bixuffaj ɦunajn (i.e., returned empty-handed). By contrast,
paradigmatic relation does not work in the same way.
3. Paradigmatic Relations
Paradigmatic principle is that relationship of substitution or contrast of sense
between a sign (linguistic unit) and other units (signs) at a particular place in a
structure. For example, the structures Is he strong? No, he is weak. The
substitution of weak for strong creates a clear change in meaning (opposite).
Similarly, if we consider the structures Is this food delicious? Yes, it is tasty. The
substitution of delicious for tasty results in a change in meaning (synonymy).
Note that a paradigm should agree with another paradigm in grammatical
category: we are not allowed, for instance, to substitute a verb for a noun; that is,
synonymy or oppositeness or any other relation should take into account the
similarity of the grammatical category. To discuss further this issue, we consider
the following paradigmatic relations:

3.1 Synonymy
This relationship involves the semantic similarity between words. The following
are examples of synonymous words:

a. kingly vs. royal

b. tiny vs. small
c. youth vs. youngster
d. freedom vs. liberty

Still, it should be noted that we seldom find perfect or exact synonyms in

the English language.

Structural context should not be overlooked in the study of synonymy, for

there exist some exist some lexemes that can be synonymous in one sentence but
different in another. For example, the deep and profound can be used
interchangeably when they modify thought (i.e., deep/profound thought), but
only deep can be used to modify water (i.e., deep water).

We sometimes find lexemes that are clear opposites like good and bad, yet
they convey the same meaning in structure like good scare and bad scare.

3.2 Hyponymy
This semantic relationship refers to meaning inclusion, whereby we can say
that ‘X is a kind of Y’ or X has the feature of Y. To illustrate, the word lion is a
hyponym of animal, snake of reptile, and apple of fruits; that is, the meanings of
lion, snake, and apple are included in the meanings of the words animal reptile,
and fruits respectively.

The relationship of hyponymy is hierarchical which can be represented in

the form of a tree:

Animal

dog lion cat monkey

Dalmatian dachshund dachshund

The upper term animal is called the superordinate, whereas the lower words
dog, lion, and monkey are the hyponyms. Additionally, we call the set of
hyponyms of the same superordinate co-hyponyms.
It is further noticed in the diagram that the word dog is both a superordinate
of the hyponyms Dalmatian, dachshund, and mongrel and a hyponym of the
superordinate animal.

The way concepts or words are organised in a tree reflects the way
‘language users organize their world, categorizing things in order to make sense
of them’ (Graddol, Cheshire and Swann, 1994:115).

3.3 Antonymy
Antonymy involves words oppositeness. We can distinguish between several
kinds of antonyms, the most important of which are the following:

 Gradable Antonyms
This type of antonymy does not involve an absolute antonymy; that is, one
property is present in one word and is absent in the other. For example, the pairs
big/small, good/bad and sad/happy are gradable antonyms because their
oppositeness is relative. With gradable pairs, the negative of one word is not
synonymous with the other: not big does not necessarily mean small; and not
happy is not necessarily sad. The oppositeness of these pairs is regulated by the
principle of degree: wider means less narrow and taller means less short, etc.
Intensifiers like very, fairly, quite mark this degree or continuum in structures
like very big, quite small, and fairly good.

 Non-gradable Antonyms
This type of antonyms is also referred to in the literature as Complementarity
which does not permit degrees of contrast as in the following complementary
pairs: single/married, male/female, dead/alive, and asleep/awake.

Logically, linguistic usage like very single or very married and very male or
very female are not acceptable in the real world. We could only be single or
married, male or female, alive or dead, and asleep or awake. It is not possible to
be in two states of affair at a time, because all these pairs are complementary,
for example not alive = dead and not dead = alive. They complement each other
semantically.

 Converse
A further semantic relationship involving oppositeness is converse. It involves
two-way contrasts that are interdependent like teacher/pupil, buy/sell,
parent/child, wife/husband, and borrow/lend. If Mohamed is the husband of
Aicha, this implies that Aisha is conversely the wife of Mohamed. Similarly, if
Ali borrows money from his friend, this implies that his friend has lent Ali some
money. That is one member presupposes the other. This type of oppositeness is
also called relational opposites (Fromkin, Rodman and Hyams, 2003:183).
Gradable pairs which indicate comparison can also form relational
opposites. Thus, if Amr is stronger than Zayd, then Zayd is weaker than Amr.

3.4 Incompatibility
This is a relationship of a mutual exclusion of lexical members having the same
superordinate category. As a case in point, the meaning of red will exclude the
meanings of the remaining colours. They are incompatible members of the
superordinate colour. Crystal (1993:105) maintained that it ‘would not be
possible to say ‘I am thinking of a single colour, and it is green and red.’
Otherwise, we will violate the principle of non-co-occurrence. According to
semanticists, the term white for example is not incompatible with such terms as
round because white and round could co-occur. Something can be at the same
time white and round. But, it is not possible to describe for example an animal
as being both a cat and a dog (see Palmer, 1981 for some discussion).

3.5 Metonymy
Metonymy involves a substitution for 'the object that is meant, te name of an
attribute or concept associated with that object' (Fromkin, Rodman and Hyams,
2003:184). The use of metonymy is normally connected with entities present in
our all day everyday experience. Such use can be based on a container-content
relation like the pairs bottle/coke and can/juice, a whole-part-relation like the
pairs car/wheels and house/roof, or a representative-symbol relationship such
as king/crown and the President/the White House. These are but few examples
of metonymy. We need to use our ability of inference so that we can discover
metonymy.

3.6 . Polysemy and Homonymy

The difference between polysemes and homonyms is subtle. Still, it is possible
to discuss how lexicographers attempted to set the distinction between the two
concepts.
3.6.1. Polysemy
Polysemy is semantic concept of Greek origin. It consists of the prefix Poly,
which means ‘several’ or 'many' and the other remaining bit of the word semy
means meanings. Polysemy therefore is the term used to lexemes having more
than one meaning. For example, the word cell could have as least six meanings,
among which: 1. any small compartment, 2. the basic structural and functional
unit of all organisms, 3. a room where a prisoner is kept.

3.6.2. Homonymy
This concept refers to cases where two (or more) different lexemes are
pronounced or spelled the same way but have different meanings. Homonymy
can be of two types: homophones and homographs.

 Homophones
This refers to two lexemes having a semi-identical shape; that is, two lexemes
which have the same pronunciation, but different spellings like the pairs
(tail/tale), (threw/through), (here/hear).

 Homographs
These are lexemes which have the same spelling, but different pronunciations.
The pairs wind vs. wind are so often used to illustrate homography: wind /wind/
means air movement or blowing, whereas wind /waind/ could mean clock or
blend.
  Polysemy or Homonymy?

Now that we identified homonymy and polysemy, the distinction between the
two concepts do not seem to be clear-cut. Some confusion is still prevailing. To
make a tentative difference, Yule (1996:121) maintained that:

..one indication could be found in the typical dictionary entry for

words. If a word has multiple meanings (polysemic), then there will
be a single entry, with a numbered list of the different meanings of the
word. If two words are treated as homonyms, they will typically have
two separate entries.

Yules argued that homonyms in general have separate dictionary entries

marked with superscripts '1' '2' '3' etc., whereas polysemes have only one entry
or lemma.

While the definition of words is important, the study of the way in which
these words form true or false sentences is much more important. Next lecture
will deal with this issue in detail.