1/33

UNIT 11

THE WORD AS A LINGUISTIC SIGN. HOMONYMY,
SYNONYMY, AND ANTONYMY. FALSE FRIENDS AND
LEXICAL CREATIVITY.



OUTLINE


1. INTRODUCTION.
1.1. Aims of the unit.
1.2. Notes on bibliography.

2. HISTORICAL SOURCES.
2.1. On the origin and nature of words.
2.2. The power of words: language and religion.

3. A THEORETICAL APPROACH TO THE LINGUISTIC SIGN.
3.1. Words and meaning within language as a system.
3.2. On defining semantics, linguistic semantics, and semiotics.
3.2.1. What is meaning?
3.2.2. Semantics: the study of meaning.
3.2.3. Linguistic semantics: language and meaning.
3.2.4. Semiotics: the study of signs.
3.3. On the nature of the linguistic sign.
3.3.1. Ferdinand de Saussure and linguistics.
3.3.2. The linguistic sign : signifi vs. signifiant.
3.3.3. Synchronic vs. diachronic studies.
3.3.4. Syntagmatic vs. paradigmatic relations.

4. THE WORD AS A LINGUISTIC SIGN.
4.1. Homonymy.
4.1.1. On defining homonymy.
4.1.2. Homonymy vs. polysemy.
4.1.3. Absolute vs. partial homonymy.
4.1.4. Types of homonyms.
4.2. Synonymy.
4.2.1. On defining synonymy.
4.2.2. Absolute vs. partial synonymy.
4.2.3. Types of synonyms.
4.3. Antonymy.
4.3.1. On defining antonymy.
4.3.2. Types of antonyms.
4.4. Minor types of semantic relationships.
4.5. False friends.
4.6. Lexical creativity.

2/33
4.6.1. On defining lexical creativity.
4.6.2. Creativity and productivity.
4.6.3. Types of lexical creativity.

5. FUTURE DIRECTIONS ON LANGUAGE TEACHING.
6. CONCLUSION.
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY.




3/33
1. INTRODUCTION.

1.1. Aims of the unit.

The present study is aimed to serve as the core of a survey on the notion of the word as a linguistic
sign, and in particular of the major processes of homonymy, synonymy, and antonymy, and other
minor processes, such as hyponymy and hypernymy and meronymy, together with the concepts of
false friends and lexical creativity. In order to discuss these notions in more detail, we shall provide
first some background knowledge on word associations in order to frame the discussion in terms of
lexical semantics. Since these processes are part of lexis within a theory of linguistics, word
knowledge background on this issue is a useful framework to discuss what it means to know a word
in order to explain lexical acquisition and processing.

The structure of this study shall be divided into four main sections. Chapter 2 provides a historical
background on the origin of words in order to relate it to Chapter 3, which provides the reader with
a theoretical account of words within a theory of linguistics. Therefore, we shall include a) those
terms that are necessary to discuss the aspects of knowing a word concerning meaning and
organization, such as the arbitrariness of the sign, paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships, and
so on; (b) Saussures view on the nature of the linguistic sign; and (c) the different kinds of lexical
knowledge which will provide us a framework to explain the processes of homonymy, synonymy,
antonymy, minor types, false friends, and lexical creativity. In fact, this section is an introductory
and elementary account of key terminology so as to prepare the reader for the linguistic background
which is analysed in subsequent sections.

Chapter 4 provides a theoretical discussion of the process of homonymy, synonymy, antonymy,
minor types, the notions of false friends and lexical creativity. Chapter 5 provides future directions
for some lexical implications on language teaching, and Chapter 6 draws a conclusion from all the
points involved in this study. Finally, in Chapter 7, bibliography will be listed.

1.2. Notes on bibliography.

In order to offer an insightful analysis and survey on the word as a linguistic sign, we have dealt
with the works of relevant figures in the field. For instance, an approach to the nature of words as
linguistic signs is namely provided by Ferdinand de Saussure in his work Cours de Linguistique
Gnrale (1916,1983), since he represents one of an active group of scholars in Prague School
whose research has put the linguistic sign at the forefront of contemporary applied linguistics. Two
more reference books, still indispensable, is that of Cruse, Lexical Semantics (1983) in which we
are presented careful considerations to the many complex kinds of sense-relations and types and
Aitchinson, Thesaurus construction and use: a practical manual.(2000).

Another essential work on this field is Bauer, English Word-Formation (1983), and other classic
references of interest are those of Aitchinson, Words in the mind: An introduction to the mental
lexicon (1994); and Lyons Linguistic Semantics, An Introduction (1995), Besides, other influential


4/33
works on the origins and development of vocabulary are Crystal, Linguistics (1985), Baugh &
Cable, A History of the English Language (1993), and Algeo Problems in the origins and
development of the English language (1982).

In order to do so, we shall follow the most prominent figures in this field from the past to the
present-day are and Schmitt (2000). Other contributions are drawn from F. R. Palmer (1981) and
Nelson (1974). Ludwig Wittgenstein (1953). Finally, for more information on educational
implications, see B.O.E. (2002), and for future directions in vocabulary assessment, see
Vocabulary in Language Teaching (2000) by Norbert Schmitt.

Finally, three good places for vocabulary research on the Internet are: (1) www.geocities.com; (2)
www.esl.about.com; and (3) http://earth.vol.com.



2. HISTORICAL SOURCES.

In this section, we address those historical sources that account for the nature and origin of words in
order to provide a relevant framework to understand what it means to know a word and the subtlety
and magic of lexis. We shall see below that the study of words has indeed a respectable history, and
that we need all this information to satisfy the demands of subsequent chapters on theoretical
matters.


2.1. On the origin and nature of words.

The origin and nature of words is linked to the concepts of language and communication process.
Since ancient times the way of improving communication preoccupied humans beings as they had a
need for communicating and presenting reality through messages. In fact, the existence of words
traces back some forty or fifty thousand years since it is related to the homo sapiens and the first
appearance of language.

Research in cultural anthropology (Crystal, 1985) has shown that the origins of communication are
to be found in the very early stages of life when there was a need for animals and humans to
communicate adequately for their purposes, in order to express their feelings, attitudes and core
activities of everyday life. However, even the most primitive cultures had a constant need to express
their ideas by other means than gutural sounds and body movements as animals did. Concerning
humans, their constant preoccupation was how to turn thoughts into words.

Hence, before language was developed, non-verbal codes were used to convey information by
means of icons and symbols which were presented, first, by means of pictorial art, and further in
time, by writing. Also, an art that sprang from the tangible, were probably grimaces, gestures,
pauses, and laughter as bodily paralinguistic movements that belong to a situation which is not
exclusively oral but it is part of an extraordinary heritage linked to body language and meaning.


5/33

At first, this primary orality was consequently in charge of preserving and memorising for the future
the narratives of the past, and therefore, acquiring knowledge of this type was an anthropological
task based on language, that is, on a combination of spoken and heard sounds. This oral
communication, which involves numerous kinetic and corporal elements, has undergone over the
centuries a series of changes ranging from oral to written systems and, more recently, the present
world of mass communication, technological and visual extensions.


2.2. The power of words: language and religion.

According to Crystal (1985), most primitive cultures developed a deep-rooted connection between
divinity and language, and therefore, approached language with a clearly religious purpose. They
firmly believed in the power of language, and they felt that the word had a life of its own. Thus,
there are regular tales in the anthropological literature of natives where alphabets began to be
interpreted mystically, as a proof of the existence of God.

Similar stories are not hard to find in other cultures. Thus, the god Thoth was the originator of
speech and writing to the Egyptians. The Babylonians attributed it to their god, Nab. A heaven-
sent water-turtle with marks on its back brought writing to the Chinese, it is said. According to
Icelandic saga, Odin was the inventor of runic script. And Brahma is reputed to have given the
knowledge of writing to the Hindu race (Crystal 1985).

The apparently miraculous power of language is early appreciated by children, thus a cry produces
comfort, makes food materialize, and in a sense, controls objects, people and situations. Also, there
is a clear awareness of word taboos, for instance, name-calling is a highly effective insult. For the
primitive also, it is not difficult to see how language can control everything around.

It is only a short step from the belief that words were somehow connected with things to the notion
that words were things with a separate existence in reality. In fact, the notion of word-souls is found
in places as far apart as Ancient Egypt, modern Greenland, and the pages of Plato. Words, then,
were seen as all-powerful and are clearly involved with religious beliefs and superstitious and
mystical ideas. Thus, runes were originally charms, and the power of a charm or an amulet
depended largely on the writing upon it, the more spiritual the subject-matter, the better the charm.

Furthermore, magic formulae, incantations, rhythmical listing of proper names, and many other rites
exemplify the intensifying power of words. In folklore, there are many examples of forbidden
names which could control not only physical objects but also devils or people. However, examples
of this kind abound in the history of cultures. They only indicate how deeply ideas about words and
language can come to be ingrained within the individual or group psyche, and how they exercise
considerable influence in the development of particular issues to be examined later.




6/33
3. A THEORETICAL APPROACH TO THE WORD AS A LINGUISTIC SIGN.

In this section, we provide the reader with a theoretical approach to the word as a linguistic sign.
Therefore, we shall start by defining several terms that are necessary to discuss the role of words
within a theory of linguistics in order to provide a relevant framework to explain the processes of
homonymy, synonymy, antonymy, false friends, and lexical creativity. In order to do so, we shall
follow the most prominent figures in this field from the past to the present-day, namely Ferdinand
de Saussure (1916; 1983), Ludwig Wittgenstein (1953), Crystal (1985), Cruse (1986), Lyons
(1995), and Schmitt (2000). Other contributions are drawn from Nelson (1974), F. R. Palmer (1981)
and Baugh & Cable (1993).

In fact, this section is an introductory and elementary account of key terminology and technical
terms on word as a linguistic sign so as to prepare the reader for the linguistic background which is
analysed in subsequent sections. We shall deal with a number of concepts which are fundamental to
the whole enterprise of putting the word as a linguistic sign on a sound theoretical footing, that is, a
theory of linguistics (language) and semantics (meaning) that leads us to lexical semantics, on the
discussion of word meaning. We would like to emphasize the fact that everything that is dealt with
here hangs together and is equally relevant throughout.


3.1. Words and meaning within language as a system.

This section deals with the relationship between words and meaning within language as a system.
From the field of linguistics, since language is defined as a highly elaborated signaling system with
particular design features, we find the distinction between human and animal systems as they
produce and express their intentions in a different way. Yet, the most important feature of human
language that differs from animal systems is to be endowed with an auditory vocal channel which
allowed humans to develop language.

Therefore, within the human system, we may establish a distinction in terms of types of
communication, where we distinguish mainly two, thus verbal and non-verbal codes. Firstly, the
verbal code is related to those acts in which the code is the language, both oral and written (i.e.
singing or writing a letter); and secondly, when dealing with non-verbal devices, we refer to
communicative uses involving visual and tactile modes, such as kinesics, body movements, and
also paralinguistic devices drawn from sounds (whistling), hearing (morse) or touch (Braille).

As we have previously mentioned, prior to language development, non-verbal codes were used to
convey information, and therefore meaning, by means of icons and symbols which were presented
by means of pictorial art, gestures, and further on, by writing. Later developments in the direction of
the study of meaning were labelled during the nineteenth century under the term semantics, which
had a linked sense with the science related to the study of signs, semiology, also known as
semiotics. The development in the direction of explicit messages and knowledge was soon followed


7/33
by anthropologist researchers interested in the findings of written accounts in earlier societies (i.e.
icons and symbols found in burial sites and prehistoric caves).


3.2. On defining semantics, linguistic semantics, and semiotics.

The study of signs is directly related to the fields of semantics, linguistic semantics, and semiotics.
However, before examining these three concepts, we shall start with the most fundamental question
of all, the question to which semantics, linguistics and non-linguistic, seeks to provide a
theoretically satisfying answer: what is meaning? by means of well-known philosophical theories.

3.2.1. What is meaning?

According to Lyons (1995), many answers have been proposed by philosophers, linguists and
others in the past and more recently in order to answer the question of what meaning is and what we
understand by this word. The term meaning can be defined in many ways, but the definition most
pertinent to linguistics is that meaning is the function of signs in language. This understanding of
meaning corresponds to the German philosopher Ludwig Wittgensteins definition (1953) by which
he states that the meaning of a word is its use in the language, that is, the role a word plays in the
language.

Although the term semantics was coined in the nineteenth century, the subject of meaning has
interested philosophers for thousands of years. The Greek philosophers were the first people known
to have debated the nature of meaning, by holding two opposing views. Thus, first, the naturalist
view, held by Plato and his followers, claimed that there as an intrinsic motivation between a word
and its meaning since word meanings emerge directly from its sound, that is, each language sound
like what they mean. Thus, onomatopoeic words such as bow wow, splash, snif, meow, boom, chirp,
whoosh, and so on. In fact, just a few words follow this convention.

On the other hand, the conventionalist view, held by Aristotle and his followers, claimed that the
connection between sound and meaning is completely arbitrary, and is a matter of social convention
and agreement between speakers. Hence, its similarity to current trends on this issue. However, it is
worth noting that the meaning of a word is arbitrary from the point of view of the real world, and
therefore, often motivated by the system of the language it is a part of. We make the distinction
between meaning and concept, since the term meaning is a category of language and concept is
the totality of real world knowledge about an item. Therefore, we may know the meaning of a word
without knowing everything about the concept referred to by that meaning.

In fact, there are several distinguishable and well-known philosophical theories of meaning which
seek to provide an answer to the question of What is meaning? among which we may mention (1)
the referential theory, whereby the meaning of an expression is what it refers to; (2) the
mentalistic theory, by which the meaning of an expression is the concept associated with it in the
mind of the person who knows and understand the expression; (3) the behaviourist theory,

8/33
whereby the meaning of an expression is either the stimulus that evokes it or the response that it
evokes, or a combination of both, on particular occasions of utterance; (4) the meaning-is-use
theory, by which the meaning of an expression is determined by its use in the language; (5) the
verificationist theory, by which the meaning of an expression is determined by the verfiability of
the sentences containing it; and finally, (6) the truth-conditional theory, whereby the meaning of
an expression is its contribution to the truth-conditions of the sentences containing it (Lyons,
1995:40).

We must bear in mind that meaning is to a large extent imposed and arbitrary rather than inherent in
the nature of things, and therefore, it differs from one language community to another. This is why
it is often very difficult to translate from one language to another, especially if the two languages
are used by people with very different ways of looking at the world (i.e. colours, weather, food,
clothes item, and so on). Yet, the study of all these nuances is carried out by the field of semantics.

3.2.2. Semantics: the study of meaning.

As seen before, since ancient times the way of improving communication preoccupied humans
beings as they had a need to express some basic structures of the world and of human life, such as
feelings, attitudes and everyday situations. Although the term meaning has been a subject of study
for thousand of years, the study of meaning as such was labelled during the nineteenth century
under the term semantics, which had a linked sense with the science related to the study of signs,
semiotics.

Thus, semantics, which derives from the Greek form sma (sign) is by definition the study of
meaning in language. Linguists study meanings of words (lexical semantics) and phrases or
sentences (sentential or compositional semantics), as well as how meaning is shaped by social
context (pragmatics). In subsequent sections we shall consider some concepts in lexical semantics
(or word meaning) in order to relate words semantically by means of the major types of semantic
relationships between words such as homonymy, synonymy and antonymy, from which we get
homonyms, synonyms and antonyms respectively. Also, we shall see other minor types such as
hyponym and hypernym.

Studies of symbolism began in the modern sense of the word only when people had learned to
analyse the content of a message from the form. Thus, the German philosopher G.F.W. Hegel
(1770-1831) laid down the road for later research in the field when he considered Babylonian and
Egyptian architecture to be the best exponent of early symbolism when linking nature to religious
thoughts. In fact, the earliest real study on the logic of symbolism was given by Edmund Burke
(1729-97) in his work A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origins of Our Ideas of the Sublime and
Beautiful from 1757. In it, Burke gives numerous examples of architecture linked to expressing
feelings.

The first attempt to formulate a science of signs dates from the late nineteenth century, when a
French linguist, Michel Bral, published Essai de smantique (1897), which was a philological

9/33
study of language. Also, many scholars have wondered whether the language we speak determine or
not the way we perceive the world. This idea was proposed and popularized by Edward Sapir
(1921) and Benjamin Lee Whorf (1956), and the concept is known as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.
Some years later, Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) divided language into two components,
symbols, and syntax as it is stated in his book, Cours de linguistique gnrale (1916; trans.1983). It
is relevant to mention that, in the first half of the twentieth century, phonology and grammar were
included in the study of meaning as another branch of linguistics.

Grammar and phonology were included as post-Saussurean semantics in the study of meaning as a
branch of linguistics. Both were concerned with relations within language (sense) and relations
between language and the world (reference). Generally, their study is known as structural or lexical
semantics. Reference is concerned with the meaning of words and sentences in terms of the world
of experience: the situations to which they refer or in which they occur.


3.2.3. Linguistic semantics: language and meaning.

It is worth noting that there are many different, but intersecting, branches of semantics, thus
philosophical semantics, psychological semantics, anthropological semantics, logical semantics, and
among many others, we shall highlight linguistic semantics for our current purposes. Hence, given
that semantics is the study of meaning, linguistic semantics is defined as a branch of linguistics
which establishes its own theoretical framework with respect to meaning.

Linguistic semantics can be held to refer either to the study of meaning in so far as it is expressed
in language, that is, systematically encoded in the vocabulary and grammar of natural languages or,
alternatively, as the study of meaning within linguistics. Since the field of linguistic semantics is
connected to a theory of language, it deals similarly with linguistic and non-linguistic features
which are meaningful to word and meaning.

Thus, features such as arbitrariness (no link between form and meaning), iconicity (similarity
between form of the sign and what it signifies), and onomatopoeic words (phonological and
orthographical similarities). Among non-verbal components we may mention prosodic features
(particular intonation-contour and stress-patterns in spoken utterances) and paralinguistic features,
that is, body language (gestures, posture, eye movements, facial expressions) in order to modulate
and punctuate the utterances produced.

Also, the feature of indexicality which originates in the notion of gestural reference together with
the use of deictic terms (personal pronouns, demonstrative adjectives, and so on). When dealing
with written language, we find punctuation marks (full stop, period, comma, question-marks) which
is considered to be meaningful for both spoken and written language, and capitals, italics,
underlining, and so on.



10/ 33
3.2.4. Semiotics: the study of signs.

The term semiotics
1
(also called semiology) is drawn from Greeks mantiks (significant) and sma
(sign), which means a feature of language or behaviour which conveys meaning. Meaning, then,
has a prominent role on the study of signs, that is, what signs refer to, and of responses to those
signs. Signs are used conventionally within the language system since semiotics investigates the
study of signs in communication processes in general (i.e. oral, written, paralinguistic).

Therefore, semiotics concerns itself with the analysis of both linguistic and non-linguistic signs as
communicative devices and with their systems. Therefore, it deals with patterned human
communication in all its modes and in all contexts. When the act of communication is verbal, the
code is the language. Regarding the structured use of the auditory-vocal channel, it may result in
speech, but also non-verbal communicative uses of the vocal tract are possible by means of
paralanguage, such as whistling or musical effects.

However, when we refer to non-verbal communication, visual and tactile modes are concerned.
They may be used for a variety of linguistic purposes such as the use of sign languages. For
instance, the receiver may get the message by sound (as in speech and birdsong), by sight (as in
written language, reading, morse or traffic signs) or by touch (as in the Braille alphabet of the blind
or secret codes).

Within the study of signs, we may distinguish three types: icons, symbols, and indexes. For
instance, from the presence of a red flag or smoke, anyone with the requisite knowledge can infer
the existence of what it signifies, danger or fire. There is an important difference between both
signs, since smoke is a natural sign of fire, causally connected with what it signifies, whereas the
red flag is a conventional sign of danger, which is a culturally established symbol. These
distinctions between the intentional or non-intentional, on the one hand, and between what is natural
and what is conventional, or symbolic, on the other, have long played a central part in the
theoretical investigation of meaning and continue to do so.

Hence, in the twentieth century, and more recently, in this century, the field of linguistics as the
scientific study of language, has seen a quite extraordinary expansion. The study of language has
held a notorious fascination for some the greatest thinkers of the century and their relevant
contributions, namely Ferdinand de Saussure (1916), Edward Sapir (1921), Ludwig Wittgenstein
(1953), Benjamin Lee Whorf (1956), and Noam Chomsky (1972), whose influence has been felt far
beyond linguistics.

As this section deals with semiotics, we need to look at the concept of sign in relation to the main
theoretical basis of these relevant linguists, and in particular, to Saussures ideas as it was he who
laid the foundation principles of semiotics. However, before discussing some relevant concepts, it is

1
Note that French linguists (i.e. Saussure) prefer the term semiology whereas the term semiotics is more widespread in English-
speaking countries (i.e. C.S. Peirce; especially in the USA).


11/ 33
necessary for us to draw a distinction between the concepts of icons, symbols, and indexes in order
to accurately deal with the concept of sign.

(1) First, icons are defined as those signs whose signifier bears a close resemblance to the thing they
refer to (i.e. a photo, non-smoking signs, animal-crossing). Thus, a traffic sign which shows the
silhouette of a car and a motorbike would be highly iconic because there is an image as a reference.
Onomatopoeic words are iconic as well, although they are just a few (i.e. whisper, cuckoo, splash,
crash, and so on).

(2) Second, symbols are defined as conventional and culturally established signs, that is, there is no
natural relationship between them and their meanings, that is, between the signifier and the
signified
2
. Most words, though, are symbolic signs, thus again traffic signs with no image
references, but colours (i.e. a white background with a red circle around it, which signifies
something is forbidden).

(3) Third, indexes are said to lie between the concepts of icons and symbols. An index is defined as
a sign whose signifier (sound or image) is associated with a particular signified (concept) because
we have learnt it previously, conventionally or culturally. For instance, a thermometer is an index of
temperature as well as a weathercock, a barometer and a sundial; other examples emerge from
films where, for instance, the passing of time is shown by the quick forward movement of the
clock-hands.

It is worth remembering that these three categories are not mutually exclusive. Thus, a sign can
belong to the three types at the same time. For instance, in a TV commercial, we can see a shot of a
woman speaking about make-up products (iconic), the words she uses (symbolic), and the effect of
what is filmed (indexical). Also, with any kind of sign, we may learn cultural conventions that are
necessary to the understanding of any sign, no matter how iconic or indexical it is. Convention is
the social dimension of signs whereby there is an agreement among the users about the appropriate
uses of and responses to a sign.


3.3. On the nature of the linguistic sign.

To understand the nature of the linguistic sign, we must therefore have some ideas about how
language itself works. Yet, we shall review the most relevant contributions to our subject that
remain outstanding, such as Ferdinand de Saussures concept of sign, and the main theoretical
dichotomies related to this term, which will lead our study to a description of word associations
within lexical semantics (i.e. homonyms, synonyms, antonyms, false friends and lexical creativity
processes). These useful concepts will help us to understand relationships between lexemes in terms
of their meanings.


2
The distinction between signifier and signified will be addressed in next section: Saussure: on the nature of the linguistic sign.

12/ 33
3.3.1. Ferdinand de Saussure and linguistics.

Ferdinand de Saussures theoretical ideas in relation to linguistics were published in the Course in
General Linguistics (Cours de Linguistique Gnrale) in 1916, three years after his death. This
work is a collection and expansion of notes taken by Saussure during various lecture courses he
gave. Yet, although there is little in the way of detailed illustration of his views, its influence has
been unparalleled in European linguistics since, and had a formative role in the shaping of linguistic
thought after its publication.

Saussure, as a structuralist, was interested in language as a system and structure, and his ideas were
applied to any language and to anything we may call a signifying system. Within this theoretical
approach, Saussure describes the structures within any language which make meaning possible,
although he was not interested in what particular meanings were created. He was only interested in
the design of the structure itself.

In opposition to the totally historical view of language of the previous hundred years, Saussure
emphasized the idea of language as a living phenomenon, of studying speech instead of written
texts, of analysing the underlying system of a language in order to demonstrate an integrated
structure, and of placing language firmly in its social milieu. We shall extract four main theoretical
dichotomies from his work, thus (1) signifi vs. signifiant; (2) synchronic vs. diachronic studies; (3)
langue vs. parole; and (4) syntagmatic vs. paradigmatic relations within a language system, but
before we shall analyse Saussures view of the linguistic sign.


3.3.2. The linguistic sign: signifi vs. signifiant.

Following Crystal (1885), Saussures main contribution was to clarify the concept of language
system, and his view of meaning. A naturalistic view of language that had taken place since Plato
saw the relationship between words and things as a naming process by which things were
associated with a word or name. Saussure accepted there were two sides of meaning, but
emphasized their relationship was arbitrary.

Saussure (1983) names the two notions concept vs. acoustic image (the latter, not as a physical
sound but rather the psychological imprint of the sound), and also content vs. expression. The
linguistic sign, then, is made of the union of a concept and a sound image. His labels for the two
sides were signifi (also signified, concept, content) which means the thing signified or the
concept of a word, and signifiant (also signifier, acoustic image, expression) which means the
thing which signifies or the form of a sign.


Saussure was insistent that meaning was a relationship between two equally participating
characteristics (the objects, ideas, etc. on the one hand, and the language used to refer to them on
the other). He calls this relationship of signified to signifier a linguistic sign. For him, the sign is

13/ 33
the basic unit of communication, a unit within the language of the community, and therefore,
Saussure sees language as a system of signs.

The linguistic sign, as the combination of a signifier and a signified, has two main characteristics.
First of all, as stated before, the bond between them is arbitrary, that is, there is no natural, intrinsic,
or logical relation between a particular acoustic sound and a concept. For instance, we refer to the
concept of house with different acoustic sounds in different languages (i.e. English house,
German Haus, Spanish casa, French maison). The second characteristic is that the signifier or
the auditory signifier, is linear, that is, it exists in time. Thus, you cannot say two words at the same
time since language operates as a linear sequence.


3.3.2. Synchronic vs. diachronic studies.

Regarding synchronic vs. diachronic studies, Saussure highlighted the importance of language from
these two distinct and largely exclusively points of view (Crystal, 1985). Synchronic studies focus
on language as a living whole which exists as a state at a particular point in time, that is, the focus
in on all the linguistic activities that a language community engages in during a specific period (i.e.
the language of the present-day teenagers in the area of London) regardless of any historical
considerations which might have influenced the state of the language up to that time.

However, diachronic linguistics deals with historical material concerning the evolution of a
language through time, as a continually changing medium, a never-ending succession of language
states. Thus we may study the change from Old English to Middle English or the style changes from
youth to maturity of any writer.

Saussure drew the inter-relationship of the two dimensions by means of an axis, where a horizontal
line is the synchronic axis of simultaneities which represents a language state at an arbitrarily
chosen point of time. On the other hand, a vertical line is the diachronic axis of successions which
represents the historical path the language has travelled, and the route which it is going to continue
travelling. This distinction is necessary to be drawn since the synchronic view had been neglected
before Saussure. More recently, and especially after the work of Roman Jakobson
3
the focus of
attention in discussions of synchrony and diachrony has settled on the point of intersection, as
clearly the potentiality for change in a language system is a factor to be considered regarding
language competence.




3
The Russian linguist Roman Jakobson was a member of the Linguistic Circle of Prague School (founded in 1926) in the
late twenties and early thirties. Jakobson and many other scholars of Prague School, such as the Russian Nikolai
Trubetskoy and the Austrian Karl Bhler, contributed to linguistics with the formulation of a phonological theory based
on the Saussurean notion of a functional system. Also, they made important contributions to our understanding of other


14/ 33
3.3.3. Langue vs. parole.

This relationship to language competence leads us on to the second Saussurean diachotomy: the
distinction between langue and parole. This distinction is related once more to the concept of
language and sign since Saussure insisted that language was not a thing but a form, a structure, a
system where signs are both material/physical (like sound) and intellectual (like ideas). This notion
is important as you can distinguish between the two, but you cannot separate them.

Similarly, Saussure made a distinction between three main senses of language. He envisaged
langage (human speech as a whole) to be composed of two aspects, which he called langue (the
language system) and parole (the act of speaking). Following Crystal (1985) langage is that faculty
of human speech present in all normal human beings due to heredity, but which requires the correct
environmental stimuli for proper development.

The arbitrary nature of the sign explains why langage (language) is a system (langue) which
arises in social relations, and in order to set up those relations between any particular sound image
and any particular concept (paroles). Langue was considered by Saussure to be the totality of a
language as the sum of word-images stored in the minds of individuals(1983), and argued strongly
that the characteristics of langue are really present in the brain, not simply abstractions. He
presented langue as a social phenomenon.

The concept of parole is defined as the concrete act of speaking on the part of an individual, that is,
the controlled psycho-physical activity which we hear. It is a personal dynamic, social activity,
which exists at a particular time and place and in a particular situation, as opposed to langue, which
exists apart from any particular manifestation in speech. The term parole denotes the product or
products of speech.

Consequently, according to Lyons (1995) the Saussurean distinction has frequently been
misrepresented in English, and also in several other European languages including German and
Russian, as a distinction between language and speech. The essential distinction, anyway, is
between a system (comprising a set of grammatical rules and a vocabulary) and the products of (the
use of ) the system. This brings us to a point which must be made about the Chomskyan distinction
between competence and performance, which has also given rise to a good deal of theoretical
confusion.

We must note that the term parole is the only object available for direct observation by linguists and
therefore, it is identical with the Chomskyan notion of performance (like the term behaviour).
What Chomsky calls competence in particular natural languages, is stored neurophysiologically in
the brains of individual members of particular language-communities, and may be identified for
present purposes with Saussures langue.

areas of knowledge, such as syntactic analysis. Jakobson, an original member of the group, was later to move to the
United States, where he further developed notions of the various functions of language, and of diachronic linguistics.


15/ 33

As Chomsky distinguishes competence from performance, so Saussure distinguishes langue
from parole. However, performance cannot be identified with parole as readily as
competence can be identified with langue. Thus, performance applies to the products of the use
of the language-system, whereas parole applies to the products of the use of the system.


3.3.4. Syntagmatic vs. paradigmatic relations.

The distinction between syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations is also drawn from Saussures ideas
on language structure or of any signifying system. For him, everything in the system was based on
the relations that can occur between the units in the system and on relations of difference, where the
most important type of relation between units in a signifying system is the syntagmatic relation, that
is, a linear relationship between the signs which are present in the sentence (Crystal, 1985).

In spoken or written language, words come out one by one because language, as stated before, is
linear. Thus, we would refer to this particular configuration of signs in a more abstract way as a
structure, where word order governs meaning. We must note that each language has a word order
structure, for instance, English (subject-verb-object), German (subject-object-verb), Spanish (may
vary depending on the type of sentence), and so on.

In written and spoken language, syntagmatic relations are essential in discourse where the ideas of
time, linearity, and syntactical meaning are important. Yet, there are other kinds of relations that
exist outside of discourse which are to be called paradigmatic relations (also called associative by
Saussure). A paradigmatic relationship is a particular kind of relationship between a sign in a
sentence and a sign not present in the sentence, but part of the rest of the language.

For example, imagine a sentence like He is an architect in a lexical axis. The horizontal axis is
where syntagmatic relations are to be found, and on the vertical axis, paradigmatic ones. Then, there
is a clear relationship in the syntagmatic axis between the sign he and the rest of words in the
sentence (part of speech: subject function) and, on the other hand, on the paradigmatic axis, with the
pronouns I, she, you, we, they although they are not present in the sentence. This set of signs form a
little system in themselves (personal pronoun sub-system), one of which can be used at this point in
the structure, and only one (not you he can do it).

In fact, signs are stored in our memory, not in syntagmatic links or sentences, but in associative
groups. The idea of associative groups or linkages are not in the structure of language itself, but in
our minds whereas syntagmatic relations are a product of linguistic structure. However, it is worth
remembering that both syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations are necessary to carry out the
complete analysis of any sentence.

Whereas syntagmatic relationships involve the contiguity (occurring in close proximity) of words in
language, paradigmatic relationships are more semantic in nature. Associative (or paradigmatic)

16/ 33
relations establish word associations in various ways. Thus, (1) first, the meaning of a word depends
to some extent on its relationship to other similar words, often through sense relations (semantic
linguistics) and (2) words in a family are related to each other through having a common base form,
but different inflectional and derivational affixes (etymology) (Schmitt, 2000).

Of the two dimensions, the paradigmatic has been the more fully studied, as part of the explication
of a languages sense-relations. A sense-relation, as its name suggests, is a relationship between
sentences in which we perceive their lexemes to be in some kind of systematic correspondence. We
intuitively see a connection between them. When analysing these relationships in detail, we may
distinguish several types, among which some are considered to be major types: homonymy,
synonymy, and antonymy, and others are considered to be minor types: hyponyms, hypernyms, and
meronyms. When teaching "concepts", we teach "meanings of words" where the main strategy is to
draw on meaning relationships.



4. ON THE WORD AS A LINGUISTIC SIGN.

On examining the role of words as a linguistic sign, we deal with lexical semantics, which examines
the relationship among word meanings between words at a paradigmatic level, and therefore with
the fairly traditional concepts of homonymy, synonymy, and antonymy. These concepts are mainly
studied from two branches of linguistics: etymology, on the origin of words, and semantics, on the
study of meaning of words. Therefore, in the following sections, when we look at words, phrases,
and sentences as meaningful units, we also have to deal with the fact that, on the one hand, a single
form may be combined with several meanings and, on the other, the same meaning may be
combined with several word-forms. This fact is well recognized in traditional grammar and
lexicography (Lyons, 1995).

When addressing the term word, we have to take into account two quite different distinctions
which is quite relevant to our concerns, that is, (1) the distinction between words as tokens
(individual units) and words as types (groups of individual units); and similarly (2) the difference
between words as forms and words as expressions. Hence, a sentence may be composed, for
instance of thirteen word-forms as individual items (i.e. If you call him tonight, he may come and
have dinner on time) and less word-expressions as grammatical categories (i.e. subject, pronouns,
verbs, time adverbs, and so on). It is word-expressions, not word-forms, that are isted and defined
in a conventional dictionary according to an alphabetic ordering.

However, not all the expressions listed in a dictionary are words. Some of them are traditionally
called phrases or phrasal expressions . The expressions of a language fall into two sets. The first set
is made up of finite lexically simple expressions, that is, lexemes which are the vocabulary-units of
a language, out of which the members of the second set, lexically composite expressions, are
constructed by means of the grammatical (i.e. syntactic and morphological rules) rules of the
language.

17/ 33
All these distinctions account for what is commonly referred to as word-meaning, and the concepts
of homonymy, synonymy, and antonymy as major types, and also other minor types, such as
hyponymy and hypernymy, taxonomy and meronymy All these concepts would also need to be
formulated somewhat differently in relation to particular theories of phonology, syntax and
morphology from a rather traditional view of the grammatical and lexical structure of languages.
We should also include the concepts of false friends and lexical creativity in order to study and
classify all posible lexical relations into sense-relations in paradigmatic terms.


4.1. Homonymy.

4.1.1. On defining homonymy.

The term homonymy emerges from Greek homonymos, from homos (equal) and onoma
(name). Following Lyons (1995), homonyms are traditionally defined as words which have the
same pronunciation, same spelling but different meaning (i.e. bank as financial institution vs.
sloping side of a river,bear as animal vs. carry, and cleave meaning to cut vs. cleave
meaning to adhere), that is, words that have the same form but different meanings. As we shall
see later, we may distinguish two main types of homonyny concerning pronunciation and spelling:
first, homophones with the same pronunciation, different spelling, and different meaning (i.e. see
look at vs. sea ocean), and homographs with the same spelling, different pronunciation, and
different meaning (i.e. wind /wind/ air in motion vs. wind /waind/ move in a twisting manner).

It is worth noting that homonyms cannot be predicted by any rules of grammar or diction since you
cannot systematically search the dictionary for homonyms. You just have to find them. Yet, the
definition of homonymy is still defective in that it fails to take account of the fact that, in many
languages, most lexemes have not one, but several forms. Therefore, we shall start by establishing
two main distinctions: (1) between homonymy and polysemy, and (2) between absolute and partial
homonymy.

4.1.2. Homonymy vs. polysemy.

Regarding the distinction between homonymy and polysemy, we must point out that whereas
homonymy (whether absolute or partial) is a relation that holds between two or more distinct
lexemes, polysemy, or multiple meaning, is a property of single lexemes (i.e. plain: clear,
unadorned, obvious; chip: piece of wood, food, electronic circuit). Yet, this traditional distinction is
not always clear-cut since there are many instances about which native speakers will hesitate or be
in disagreement. For instance, sometimes it is impossible to tell whether two words of identical
form are true homonyms (historically unrelated) or polysemous homonyms (historically related),
such as ice scate vs. skate the fish: skate -fish (from Old English skata') ice skate (from Dutch
schaat').



18/ 33
Regarding (1) homonymy, there are two major types, based upon whether the meanings of the word
are historically connected or result from coincidence. Yet, in theory the two criteria that are usually
involved in this connection are (i) etymology (the historical source of words) and (ii) relatedness of
meaning, that is, resulting from coincidence (Lyons, 1995).

(i) For instance, most native speakers of English would probably classify (a) bat (furry mammal
with membranous wings) and (b) bat (implement for striking a ball in certain games) as
different lexemes. However, these two words do indeed differ in respect of their historical source,
since bat (a) traces back to a regional variant of Middle English bakke, and bat (b) to Old
English batt meaning club, cudgel. Another example is bank meaning financial institution
from French whereas bank meaning shore of a river has Scandinavian origin.

(ii) Coincidental homonyms are the result of such historical accidents as phonetic convergence of
two originally different forms or the borrowing of a new word which happens to be identical to an
old word. There is usually no natural link between the two meanings: the bill of a bird vs the bill
one has to pay; or the bark of a dog vs the bark of a tree.

(2) The second type of homonym, the polysemous homonym, results when multiple meanings
develop historically from the same word. The process by which a word acquires new meanings is
called polysemy. Unlike coincidental homonyms, polysemous homonyms usually preserve some
perceptible semantic link marking the development of one meaning out of the other, as in the leg of
chair and the leg of person; or the face of a person vs. the face of a clock.

Since polysemy is so difficult to separate from true homonymy, dictionaries usually order entries
according to i) the first recorded appearance of word or ii) frequency of meaning use. This is a
problem for lexicographers, the people who study words and write dictionaries, and therefore,
studies of polysemy follow these directions: (a) body parts to part of object (i.e. hands, face, fingers,
nose, lip, elbow, vein of gold or of a leaf, but appendix); (b) animal to human for personality traits
(i.e. stubborn as a mule, quiet as a fish, but my cat is a reat Einstein); (c) space to time (i.e. long,
short, plural), (d) spatial to sound (i.e. melt, rush); (e) sound to color (i.e. loud, clashing, mellow);
(f) physical, visible attribute to emotional or mental, invisible quality (i.e. crushed, big head, green
with envy, yellow coward, sharp/dull, spark). Note how directionality in polysemy seems to be
logically motivated by which concrete meanings give rise to abstract ones (i.e. sharp knife: sharp
mind), and mundane gives rise to the technical (chip of wood: computer chip).

Generally speaking, etymology supports the intuitions of native speakers about particular lexemes,
as for instance, shock as in shock of corn is the same as shock as in shock of hair. Yet
historically, they have different origins. On the other hand, regarding semantic change we refer to
metaphoric al extensions, as in foot meaning terminal part of a leg and also lowest part of a hill
or mountain. Metaphorical creativity is part of everyones linguistic competence.




19/ 33
4.1.3. Absolute vs. partial homonymy.

Regarding absolute vs. partial homonymy, we shall state that absolute homonyms involve three
main conditions: (1) to be unrelated in meaning, (2) all their forms to be identical, and (3) the
identical forms to be grammatically equivalent. Absolute homonymy is quite common as in sole
(bottom of foot or shoe) vs. sole (kind of fish), and bear (animal) vs. bear (carry). There are
also many different kinds of what we refer to as partial homonymy, that is, those cases where there
is identity of minimally one or two conditions in the word-form (pronunciation, spelling, and
meaning), but not all the three.

4.1.4. Types of homonyms.

Therefore, we may distinguish two types of homonyms: (1) homophony and (2) homography,
concerning pronunciation and spelling respectively. (1) Firstly, in a language like English where
spelling often diverges widely from pronunciation, there is a special type of homonym called the
homophone. Homophones are defined as one of two or more words which have the same
pronunciation but different meaning or spelling (i.e. as the words to, too, and two /tu:/, see /si:/ vs.
sea /si:/ ocean, meat /mi:t/ food vs. meet /mi:t/ gather, and threw /thru:/ pt. of throw vs.
through go across, and similarly ant-aunt, Barry-berry-bury, liar-lyre, male-mail, and so on).

Homophones are usually true homonyms in that they derive from completely unrelated sources.
There are also occasional polysemous homophones: draft (into the army), draught (of beer), or the
Russian voskresenie (Resurrection): voskresenye (Sunday).

(2) Secondly, homographs are defined as one of two or more words spelt alike but different in
meaning or pronunciation (i.e. as in bow /bau/ front or forward end of a boat vs. bow /bou/ piece
of wood curved with a tight string -the bow of a ship and a bow and arrow-, and similarly, dove
(bird) vs. dove (p.t of dive), and tear (pull sharply apart) vs. tear (drop of water from the eyes).

Since these words are pronounced differently in each of their meaning, in English, most
homographs are polysemous homographs: use (i.e. the noun vs. the verb), record (i.e. the noun vs.
the verb). But there are a few true homonyms that are homographs: wind (i.e. a noun meaning
moving air vs. a verb meaning what is done to a watch or clock).


4.2. Synonymy.

4.2.1. On defining synonymy.

Synonymy is the second sense-relation which is at the core of lexical semantics in our study. This
term comes from Latin synonymum and Greek synonymos, where the Latin prefix syn- means the
same. Cruse (1986) defines synonyms as lexical items whose senses are identical in respect of


20/ 33
central semantics traits, but differ, if at all, ony in respect of what we may provisionally describe
as minor or peripheral traits in which they are used.

In other words, synonyms refer to a relationship between two or more lexical units (or expressions)
which have identical or a slightly different meaning as another and which differ only with respect to
their supplemental or peripheral components, that is, context (i.e. look at, gaze, stare at, watch, see,
and so on). Often, synonyms occur together in certain types of expressions, such as explanations
and clarifications on the meaning of another word. The relationship between the two words is
frequently signalled by expressions such as that is to say, or, in other words, more exactly , or or
rather.

According to Aitchinson (2000), when the same concept can be expressed by two or more terms,
one of these is selected as the preferred term. Then, an equivalence relationship is established since
each term is regarded as referring to the same concept, which in effect substitutes for other terms
expressing equivalent or near equivalent concepts. The decision is based on the needs of the
majority of users such as the choice of spelling (i.e. American vs. English), the preference for
scientific terms rather than popular or well-known equivalents and cultural variants that describe,
broadly speaking, the same concept.

Nuances in meaning may be drawn from (1) cultural differences in English speaking countries (i.e.
Australia). For instance, we may see that the words togs-swimming costumes-bathers describe the
same concept but they reflect cultural differences between areas. Thus, togs is a term used in
Queensland; swimming costumes has been used in New South Wales and bathers tends to be used in
South Australia and Victoria. Another criterion is given at (2) the educational level since difference
between year levels in schooling may establish word differences. Thus, salt might be used in
primary schools to describe sodium chloride which might be used by upper secondary school
science students. Yest, both terms are equally valid.

Synonymy is one of the three types in which equivalent subject terms have been broadly
categorised (NISO, 1994). Yet, the other two categories are lexical variants, and quasi-synonyms.
Lexical variants differ from synonyms in that they are different word structures representing the
same concept, for instance, hyphens and abbreviated forms (i.e. online/on-line; AIDS/Acquired
Inmune Deficiency Syndrome). On the other hand, quasi-synonyms are synonyms whose meanings
in ordinary usage have different properties. There are two types: first, those synonyms which are
regarded as being different within a certain subject term (i.e. car parks/parking spaces, urban
areas/cities). Second, those subject terms that fall under the definition of an antonym (i.e.
dryness/wetness, literacy/illiteracy).


4.2.2. Absolute vs. partial synonymy.

As in the previous section, we must draw again the distinction between absolute vs. partial
synonymy (Lyons, 1995). On the notion of (1) absolute synonymy we must say that it is extremely

21/ 33
rare to find, at least as a relation between lexemes, in natural languages as they would have identical
meanings and this does not happen in any language. Also, it has been referred to as cognitive
synonyms as those synonyms which have certain semantic properties in common (Cruse, 1986).

For instance, McCawley (1972) stated that when you change the structure of a sentence, and replace
a synonym by another one, the total effect is destroyed (i.e. Where is he hiding? meaning in normal
circumstances and Where is he concealing? in odd ones). True synonyms or absolute cannot
exist due to factors such as (a) geographical differences of dialects (i.e. autumn-fall), (b) stylistic
differences (i.e. nasty smell-obnoxious effluvium-horrible stink), (c) emotive differences (i.e.
liberty-freedom), (d) collocational differences (i.e. rancid-addled), and (e) context differences (i.e.
holiday-vacation).

However, recent studies have shown that they have been admitted in scientific, medical, industrial
and technological fields (i.e. Chemistry nomenclature, chemical materials). Yet, Lyons (1986)
defines absolute synonyms as expressions which satisfy at least one, but not all three of the
following criteria: (a) to have identical meanings, (b) synonymous in all contexts, and (c) being
identical on all dimensions of meaning.

(2) On the other hand, partial synonymy meets the criterion of identity of meaning by following the
condition of being semantically equivalent. They fail on being synonymous in all contexts since
synonyms must not only manifest a high degree of semantic overlap and a low degree of implicit
contrastiveness. Lyons relates partial synonymy to near-synonymy in lexical units which are more
or less similar, but not identical in meaning (i.e. fast, rapid, quick; begin, commence; scandalous,
outrageous).

Standard dictionaries of English treat some adjectives as polysemous (i.e. big and large)
although they may vary in the number of meanings that they assign to each. Although those certain
pairs or groups of lexical items bear a special sort of semantic resemblance to one another, there is a
scale of synonymity. Within the class of synonyms, some pairs of items are more synonymous than
others, and raises the possibility of a scale of synonymity of semantic difference.

4.2.3. Types of synonyms.

Since synonyms are defined as words whose meanings are said to be identical or nearly identical in
a range of contexts, or collocational range (Lyons (1995:62), they have been subject to many
different categorisations. However, we shall establish different types of synonyms following general
lines drawn from the most relevant figures in this field, thus Cruse (1986); Lyons (1995), and
Aitchinson (2000).

It is worth noting that the probability of expressing a concept in a particular way is governed by
situational factors connected to genre, formality, domain, identity, social group, and attitude. For
instance, in referring to a slight injury, we may call it a bruise whereas a doctor may refer to it as

22/ 33
a contusion. As we may say, these nuances in meaning reveal something else about the speaker
regarding cultural, social, personal, and many other features.

Hence, synonyms are categorised into the following types: (1) true synonyms (also called
descriptive) (i.e. sweat/perspiration), (2) stylistic (also called expressive) (i.e. huge, enormous,
gigantic, colossal), (3) generic nouns and trade names (i.e. tissues/kleenex), (4) variant names for
concepts, new or existing (i.e. arid zones/deserts), (5) current names and older terms, also called
loanwords (i.e. swimming costumes/bathers), (6) current jargon or slang terms (i.e. graffiti/pieces),
and (7) cultural variants or dialectal differences (i.e. tramping/bushwalking; film/movie;
lift/elevator ).

(1) True synonyms or absolute synonyms refer to two expressions that have the same descriptive
meaning and are not affected by emotive, dialectal, collocational, geographical, and contextual
factors among others, as in big and large or bachelor and unmarried man. They are quite
rare in English, and even, they have been denied by some linguists. However, they have been
recently admitted in scientific, medical, industrial and technological fields due to their format of
reciprocal scope which includes a reference to the other synonyms and its application for a
particular audience or cultural groups (i.e. water/H2O, cosmetic surgery/lifting,urban areas/cities,
radar/Radio Detection and Ranging). These type is to be included into the category of scientific and
popular names (i.e. salt/sodium chloride, short sightedness/myopia).

(2) The second type, stylistic synonyms are also called expressive by Lyons (1995). They are said to
be the most common ones and are defined as a lexical unit that has a similar range of reference but
is differentiated by the speakers intention, the audience, and the situation (Cruse, 1986). In
opposition to true synonyms, stylistic ones are, in fact, affected by several factors, such as
generality (i.e. say-demand), intensity (i.e. like-love), emotion (i.e. soft-tender), morality (i.e. deed-
exploit), professional (i.e. fill in-write), literary (i.e. rise-ascend, liberty-freedom), colloquial (i.e.
bring up-educate), dialectal (i.e. play (London)-lare (York), legal (i.e. last will-testament, goods and
chattels), and childrens talking (i.e. mother-mum, dog-puppy) among others (Collinson, 1939).

This type is mainly applied in literature (prose and verse) since synonyms are quite useful when
providing the appropriate quantity of emotion and emphasis to a literary work, and they are also
useful for poets as Aristotle stated in his Rethoric. Thus, they have been especially applied to
poetry throughout history when filling in verses since the help fit harmoniously the phonetic
structure of a poem. Thus, if we trace back as early as to 1390, in Geoffrey Chaucers The
Canterbury Tales, we find a big amount of French and Latin loanwords with different semantic
fields.

Those adopted or adpated words already acquired various significations depending on the language
used (i.e. English, French, Latin) and consequently, synonymy, as a literary figure, was to be
adopted by subsequent writers such as William Cxton (1422-1491), Sir Thomas More (1477-1535),
and William Shakespeare (1564-1616) among others.



23/ 33
(3) The third type refer to generic nouns and trade names (i.e. tissues/kleenex, cola/Coca-Cola). As
to expressions which differ in the nature of their expressive meaning, the most obvious difference is
between those which imply approval or disapproval and those which are neutral with respect to
expressivity, such as statesman versus politician, thrifty versus mean, stingy versus
economical, or stink vs. stench vs. fragance vs. smell. The fourth type refers to (4) variant
names for concepts, new or existing (i.e. arid zones/deserts, coast/seaside).

(5) The fifth type refers to current names and older terms (i.e. swimming costumes/bathers),
namely refer to loanwords, which are a nearly synonymous lexical unit, borrowed from another
language to fill what is perceived to be a semantic gap. According to Baugh & Cable (1993), the
richness of English in synonyms is largely due to the happy mingling of Latin, French, and native
elements. It has been said that in Middle Ages synonyms entered English at three levels: popular,
literary, and learned (i.e. ask-question-interrogate, goodness-virtue-probity) from English, French,
and Latin respectively.

Thus, the Latinized diction of many seventeenth- and eighteenth-century writers brought up in the
tradition of the classics provoked a reaction in which the Saxon element of the language was
glorified as the strong, simple, and direct component in contrast with the many abstract and literary
words derived from Latin and French. Yet, superior directness is given by Latin whereas hundreds
of words from French are capable of coveying a vivid image, idea, or emotion (i.e. fast-firm-secure;
fire-flame-conflagration; fear-terror-trepidation; holy-sacred-consecrated; time-age-epoch).

(6) The sixth type refers to current jargon or slang terms (i.e. graffiti/pieces, bloody/disgusting),
and the seventh type refers to (7) cultural or dialectal variants, that is, different lexical units that
are part of the vocabulary of different dialects but have very similar ranges of reference. Their
differences emerge from different cultural backgrounds within different English-speaking countries
or dialectal differences within the same country (i.e. British English vs. American English:
torch/flashlight, film/movie, lift/elevator, holiday/vacation; and in different states in Australia:
tramping/bushwalking).


4.3. Antonymy.

4.3.1. On defining antonymy.

Antonymy is the third major type of sense-relations at the core of lexical semantics in our study.
This term comes from Greek anti (opposite, against) + onoma (name) and refers to the notion of
oppositeness of meaning, as in good-bad, cold-hot, happy-sad, or love-hate, or antibiotic and
antivirus. Of all the relations of sense, that of opposite meanings is probably the most readily
apprehended by ordinary speakers in an attempt to organise reality (Cruse, 1986).

Opposites exhibit unique properties, such as the paradox of simultaneous difference and similarity
at the same time since they occupy opposing poles and hence, the feeling of difference (i.e. true-


24/ 33
false, up-down, salt-sugar). Yet, the essence of oppositeness is based on the notion of
complementary pairs , where the presence of one quality or state which signifies the absence of the
other and vice versa. This notion is based on a binary system which leaves out spelling and
pronunciation, but not morphology since it plays an important role in the formation of antonymous
dualities (i.e. suffixes and prefixes to denote oppositeness: care-careless, usual-unusual).

Palmer (1976) claims that antonyms share the following characteristics: (i) they are fully gradable,
among which most are adjectives and a few are verbs; (ii) they are members of a pair denoting
degrees of some variable property such as length, speed, weight, accuracy, among others; (iii) when
more strongly intensified, the members of a pair move, as it were, in opposite directions along the
scale representing degrees (i.e. very light-very heavy); (iv) the terms of a pair do not strictly bisect a
domain as there is a range of values of the variable property (i.e. its long-its short are contrary,
not contradictory statements).

In terms of semantic features, we can contrast them to explain their meaning since one word implies
the negative of the other (i.e. tall-short), that is, we should have at least one positive feature in one
term's description and negative in the other's. However, not all antonyms are opposite in the same
way as they share mutually exclusive properties (i.e. fast/slow). Therefore we may distinguish
different types within this class.

4.3.2. Types of antonyms.

Aitchinson (1987) notes that some antonyms are (1) complementary pairs or true type (i.e.
male/female), while others are (2) gradable and need specification (i.e. hot/cold). In gradeable pairs,
one of them is marked and the other is unmarked; the unmarked one is used to determine the degree
of one or the other, thus how tall is it? being answered with three hundred feet. Other antonyms
are (3) relational opposites (i.e. employer/employee).

Thus, (1) complementary pairs (also contradictory pairs or true type) as in married/single,
complete/incomplete, are pairs of words correspond to binary features where any member of a
particular set is either one or the other but not both. We deal with absolute difference, there are no
intermediate states (i.e. single/married; pregnang/not pregnant) and therefore, it is not gradable, for
instance, you cannot be a little single or married or a little pregnant. Other examples for people
would include alive/dead, Jew/gentile, Rhesus positive / Rhesus negative.

(2) The second type is referred to as gradable pairs. They represent opposite ends of a continuum or
scale (i.e. hot-cold, wide-narrow, big-small) which allows for a natural, gradual transtition between
two poles. Unlike complementary antonyms, they are not contradictory but contrary relationships
which can be measured on a scale, among which we usually find a number of intermediate terms
(i.e. hot-cold: hot-warm-tepid-cool-cold). These intermediate terms may take, firstly, a large
number of values, from positive to negative(i.e. different: slightly different, quite different, very
different, and so on). Secondly, their meaning is relative to cultural norms, thus very very old for
American people might be over 100 years old, whereas for Chinese people it might be only 60

25/ 33
because of differences in life expectancy; but if you're talking about buildings then very very old for
Americans might be over 50 years old whereas for the Chinese it would be at least a millenium.

(3) The third type refers to relational antonyms which represent two opposite roles in an
interdependent relationship which are not on a natural scale. Oppositeness depends on real world
attitudes which share the same semantic features, but the focus or direction is reversed (i.e. tie/untie,
buy/sell, give/receive, teacher/pupil, doctor/patient). They entail a logical relationship through
symbolic systems of thinking. Entailment is a logical relationship that occurs when one meaning
implies another. For instance, in Cold War thinking, the relational opposite of American is Russian;
in current US politics, the relational opposite of Democrat is Republican. These are cultural
relational opposites.


4.4. Minor types of semantic relationships.

Once we have examined the major types of semantic relationships, for instance homonymy,
synonymy, and antonymy and their main features, we shall briefly examine other minor types of
semantic relationships, such as hyponymy and hypernymy, taxonomy and meronymy (Cruse, 1986).

Thus, (1) hyponymyis the lexical relation which refers to relationships of inclusion of one class in
another regarding meaning. Hyponyms are based upon a quotation that states that X is a Y, that is,
subordinate terms whose meaning is included in the meaning of a superordinate term (i.e. rose-
flower, car-vehicle, dog-animal, poodle-dog). Thus, apple and orange are hyponyms of fruit,
where the more general term, fruit is known as a superordinate or hypernym.

Yet, there is a contiguous type related to hyponymy, that of (2) taxonymy which may be regarded as
a sub-species of hyponymy since the taxonyms of a lexic al item are a sub-set of its hyponyms.
Taxonymy, then, is defined as the relation of dominance of a taxonomy, that is, the division which
gives rise to well-formed taxonomies (i.e. from creature we get animal,bird,fish,insect; from
animals we get dog, elephant, cow, and so on; from dogs we get spaniel, bulldog, shepherd,
etc, and so on). Taxonomy is often framed in a useful diagnostic where An X is a kind/type of Y.

On the other hand, (3) meronymy is defined as the semantic relation between a lexical item
denoting a part and that denoting the corresponding whole. Meronyms are similar to hyponyms but
they express part-whole relationships where the equation X is part of a Y. Thus, a finger is part of a
hand and a sepal is part of a flower. There is no doubt of the central importance of fully integrated
and cohesive physical objects, with well-differentiated parts, in the concepts of part and whole,
where meronyms are the part and holonyms are the whole.

4.5. False friends.

Another related issue to the word as a linguistic sign in lexical semantics is the term false friends or
false cognates (from French faux amis /fo:zami/) for a learner of a foreign language. A false


26/ 33
friend is a word in the foreign language which resembles a word in ones mother tongue, but has a
different meaning. Thus, for a Spanish learner of English, the following words may be false friends:
actually (resembles 'actualmente', but means 'in fact'), eventually (resembles 'eventualmente', but
means 'at last'), or realize (resembles 'realizar', but means 'notice').

As regards the meaning of the cognates, let us remember that out of 85% of the Old English word
stock, only 15% has survived the Scandinavian and Anglonorman invasions; the other Old English
words have either disappeared or undergone shifts of meaning or connotation (obsolete words,
dialect words, place names, poetry, idioms, etc).

It is worth noting that one should translate meanings, rather than words as some words may be
deceptive cognates. Yet, choosing ones words is undeniably an important part of translation, and
Spanish and English often find adequate word-for-word correspondences. The orthographic
relatedness of Spanish and English sometimes poses potential dangers to the translator regarding
nuances in meaning since words that look similar may be used in very different ways, or have
completely different meanings.

For instance, the following words constipated, recipe, preservative, and embarrassed are usual in
everyday language and misleading at the same time. In English if you areconstipated you may ask
for aprescription at the doctors. However, in Spanish, you would not be constipado but
estreido, and you would ask for a receta (medicine) and not a recipe(food). Similarly, you
might find yourself embarrassed (but not pregnant!) if you to the same chemists and ask for a
preservative (preservativo in Spanish), and instead of getting a condom, you get
conservantes.

Sometimes the difference in meaning and usage is often much more subtle than was the case with
constipated/constipado above, where the similarity in form is coincidental. More often, the term
'false friends' refers to words with a common ancestry (often loanwords from Latin or Greek) that
have undergone a different development in the different languages. A good example is the word
pair policy (English=political theory ) and polica (Spanish=police). Also, the pair pretend
(English=fake, hide) and pretender (Spanish=to try).

There are also numerous cognates not having much in common semantically, but many mistakes
caused by false friends are due to popular etymology, analogical reasoning or an intended
meaning. Note that Spanish and English have hundreds of cognates, that is, words that are basically
the same in both languages, having the same etymology and similar meanings. Often, combinations
such as decepcin and "deception" are confusing, and if you make the mistake of using them in
speech or writing you are likely to be misunderstood.

As we have seen, one of the great things about learning a foreign language is that many words often
have the same historical roots and many similar meanings of cognates appear in semantic fields of
interest : the human body, biological functions, everyday life activities, in short everything related
to the common core of English vocabulary. From some cognates chosen in the family /kinship field

27/ 33
(i.e father, mother, brother), we observe that similarities are still more obvious in Indoeuropean
languages: faeder (OE), father (Eng.), vater (German), pater (Lat.), pater (Greek), pitar (Sanskrit),
and pater (Indoeuropean) (Algeo, 1982:92). Yet, we may address to cultural and idiomatic
references beyond the word level to the sentence level, and then, to the paragraph level where
language actually lives, which will help students expand their vocabulary knowledge.



4.6. Lexical creativity.

4.6.1. On defining lexical creativity.

Lexical creativity is a term which is connected to form and meaning in linguistic creativity. What
makes human language creative? How do we produce and understand idioms such as to let the cat
out of the bag, novel words and expressions such as a dot-com company, and novel uses of
familiar words, such as The music screamed the audience into submission? In this section, we
shall explore these creative uses of language, both among adults and among children.

Also, in next chapter, we shall consider the implications of this creativity for the way we think
about language acquisition, about the relationship between form and meaning, and about the
architecture of the human language faculty more generally. Following Bauer (1983), the notion of
creativity is related to that of productivity since, over the centuries, the productivity of word-
formation has been a major factor in providing the huge vocabulary of English, and the fact that the
process of creating new lexemes with new forms has not faded out.


4.6.2. Creativity and productivity.

New forms are constantly occuring nowadays in the press, particularly in headlines and
advertisements, and in relation to new technologies. What about e-mailing and surfing the
Internet? However, there is a tendency to keep using new forms and uses of old forms. In this
sense, the productivity of word-formation, and therefore, lexical creativity is to be called upon to
explain.

Productivity is one of the defining features of human language, and is that property of language
which allows a native speaker to produce an infinitely large number of sentences, many of which
have never been produced before. It is assumed that productivity is to be accounted for by the rules
of generative grammar. However, creativity, is the native speakers ability to extend the language
system in a motivated, but unpredictable (non-rule governed) way (Bauer, 1983).

Both productivity and creativity give rise to large numbers of neologisms and lexical innovation,
but in what follows it is only lexical creativity which will be discussed. Therefore, we shall provide
a taxonomy of types of creativity.


28/ 33
4.6.3. Types of lexical creativity.

In fact, a taxonomy of lexical creativity is closely connected to literature, both prose and verse,
where there are a lot of rhetorical figures in order to give several concepts (signified) to a sound
image (signifier). It is in the context of literature where rhetorical figures of speech are allowed to
display the most surprising imagery in order to decorate, colour, and foster any particular text
on using contextual modulation.

According to Bauer (1983), we may distinguish different types of lexical creativity when addressing
to formal and semantic similarity. Thus, we find (1) words which are similar in form and meaning,
that is, borrowings (i.e. map/mapa, pilot/piloto) or cognates (i.e. son/syn, brew/brow); (2) words
which are similar in form but different in meaning, that is, both borrowings and cognates although
they reflect some kind of narrowing (i.e. rekord, present). Here we may also find false friends as
deceptive words (i.e. actually/actualmente, eventually/eventualmente, insane/insano); (3) words
which are similar in meaning but different in form (most of equivalents); (4) words which are
different in form and meaning but grasp different views of reality (i.e. Am. Eng. first floor vs.
Spanish primer piso); (5) different types of construction which imply the morphological structure of
words (verb+particle vs prefix, i.e. put on, ponerse; put off, posponer); (6) similar in primary
meaning but different in connotation (i.e. social associations) whose equivalent may be offensive or
taboo (i.e. bloody, frequent in body parts (also in phonetic analogy);

Therefore, lexical creativity is namely based on four classes: (1) semantic, (2) phonological, (3)
morphosyntactic, and (4) borrowings. (1) Semantic neologisms refer to the assignment of novel
meanings to existing lexical items (i.e. bride, mistress, bachelor); (2) phonological, which refers to
all neologisms except the semantic type which involves phonology; new words which must
conform to the phonology of language; and onomatopoeias which are common in comic books (i.e.
slithy, from lithe and slimy in Lewis Carrolls Jabberwocky). They are also requent in science and
technology (i.e. google); (3) morphosyntactic neologisms refer to those conditions for survival in
which neologisms must survive against conservative attitudes. They are more likely to survive if
they are introduced by a prominent person/publication (i.e. internet); and finally (4) borrowings,
which are borrowed directly from other countries (i.e. football, corner, paella, siesta).

Lyons (1995) states that one of the principal factor operative in semantic change is metaphorical
extension, as when foot meaning terminal part of a leg also came to mean lowest part of a hill
or mountain. This metaphorical extension is at issue when one refers to the related meanings of
polysemous lexemes. He adds that metaphorical creativity is part of everyones linguistic
competence and that deals with types of semantic change such as the following.

Thus, (1) extension and restriction (i.e. broadcast, sow seeds from radio/TV programmes-, soap
operas); (2) pejoration (worsening value) and amelioration (improvement in value), as devices to
move in evaluative attitude which typically involves women, foreigners, euphemisms (i.e. mistress,
Christian, boy servant). This is an attempt to cover up unpleasant facts by means of more pleasant
labels (i.e. die-decease-pass away). Also, it is a phenomenon coining new names to replace


29/ 33
derogatory ones in order to avoid negative connotations (i.e. coloured people/Negroes/blacks/Afro-
Americans- African Americans/people of colour, or deformity-handicap-disability).

(3) similarity in meaning by means of metaphors, that is, when a word is applied to an object or
action in order to imply a resemblance. We may distinguish man-related metaphors (i.e. the clocks
hands), animal-related metaphors (i.e. cocks foot), metaphors from the concrete to the abstract (i.e.
high-light something), and synaesthetic metaphor, that is, when transferring meaning from one
sense to another (i.e. warm voice, cold voice, hard feelings, tough manners); also, by means of
similes, using similar terms to make comparison (i.e. life is like a bowl of cherries).

(4) Contiguity of meaning by means of metonymy, that is, when a word that refers to an attribute is
substituted for the thing that is meant (i.e. Washington/The Oval-Office), or by synecdoche, that is,
when a part is substituted for a whole or a whole for a part (i.e. the President/Government,
continent/USA); (5) similarity of form, that is, when in folk etymology an unfamiliar word is
misanalysed in terms of familiar words or morphemes (i.e Alzheimers disease/Old timers disease);
and finally (6) contiguity of form, that is, when there is ellipsis and words or morphemes are lost
(i.e. (with)drawing room).


5. FUTURE DIRECTIONS IN LANGUAGE TEACHING.

The various aspects of the meaning of words dealt with in this study is also relevant to the learning
of the vocabulary of a foreign language. Differences between the vocabulary of the learner's native
language (L1) and that of the foreign language (L2) may lead to the following types of problems:
first, false friends as cases where L1 and L2 lexemes have the same (or similar) forms, but different
sense: success ('prosperity') v. suceso ('event'). Second, the distinctions made in L2 which are not
made in L1 (i.e. city/town vs. ciudad/ciudad).

This study has looked at the word as a linguistic sign within lexical semantics in order to establish a
relative similarity between the two languages that Spanish-speaking students would find it useful
for learning English if these connections were brought to their attention. An adult Spanish ESL
student generally perceives that there is a great distance from Spanish to English, but a realization
of how many words there are in common between current Spanish and English can offer a learner a
bridge to the new language.

Spanish are taught in their schools that their language has a large number of internationalisms, but
there is an even larger bridge between Spanish and English than many learners realize. It's useful
for teachers as well, to recognize that this perceived distance between Spanish and English is not as
great as the main difficulties in speaking which might lead them to believe. A study of lexical items
shows that these two distant descendents of Indo-European have certain historical influences in
common; they especially have in common a number of procedures for acquiring and forming new
words. With this information, teachers can help students lessen their fear of this perceived distance.


30/ 33
The similarities discussed in this paper are based on a search for phonological and semantic
resemblance. It is worth stressing the importance of similiarity in phonology and semantics because
students learn words more easily when they can attach a new word in their L2 to a word they know
in their L1. Learners assume translation equivalence in order to make their job easier. Current
communicative methods may frown on explic it teaching of similarities, but we must remember that
learners search for equivalents and translate from the L2 no matter how much teachers preach
against it; offering learners metalinguistic information about equivalents in lexical items simply
makes it official. Learners use hooks no matter how much teachers try to avoid them in a
communicatively-based classroom .

It has been suggested that a methodology grounded in part in the application of explicit linguistic
knowledge enhances the second language learning process. Information about these "systematic
properties" can help the teacher in the classroom. When Russian-speakers are learning English, they
look for a "system" to tie the languages together and they expect the Amerian ESL teacher to know
linguistics well enough to help them. Russians I have met particularly like discussions of lexical
similarities. Many know etymology, Latin and Greek roots of international words, since this is the
way they were taught Russian; as a result, they expect a language teacher to know these things
about English.

In the Spanish curriculum (B.O.E. 2002), the study of vocabulary, has been considered an important
element of language teaching, and also word-meaning devices. After all, the importance of
vocabulary cannot be understated since you cannot communicate without it. The popularity of the
communicative method has left the teaching of specific linguistic information on the sidelines, but
in order for ESL teachers to help students recognize new L2 words, the teachers need to know the
linguistic information themselves.

Learners cannot do it all on their own. Language learners, even 2nd year Bachillerato students, do
not automatically recognize similiarities which seem obvious to teachers; learners need to have
these associations brought to their attention. As we have seen, understanding the notions of
semantic features and sense relations is important to teachers because they are typical means of
defining new words. Teachers commonly define new words by giving synonyms and antonyms, for
instance, come accross and meet by chance or shallow and not deep.


However, we must be aware that very few words are completely synonymous or exact opposites,
and so such definitions will only be inexact representations of teh words true meaning. In addition,
once synonyms, homonyms, and antonyms are learned, learner must be exposed to numerous
contexts in order to apply particular meanings to it. One must know more than meaning to master a
word. A person must be able to perceive or produce words in verbal or written modes in terms of its
grammatical constraints.

So far, we have attempted in this discussion to look for similiarities and differences in word-
associations between Spanish and English with obviously no claim to completeness, but only

31/ 33
personal curiosity and a desire to bring some information to the attention of teachers who might find
it useful for their students.



6. CONCLUSION

The question What is meaning? tends to attract answers which are either so general as to be almost
vacuous or so narrow in their definition of meaning as to leave out of account much of what
ordinary users of a language think is relevant when one puts to them more specific questions about
the meaning of this or that expression in their language.

In this study we have attempted to take a fairly broad view of meaning. We are also assuming that
there is an intrinsic connexion between meaning and communication. As was noted earlier, this
assumption is not uncontroversial. It has been strongly challenged, for example, by Chomsky, who
claimed that the meaning of an expression to a concept associated with it in the mind of the person
who knows and understand the expression. However, this position is one that is commonly made
by philosophers, psychologists and linguists. It enables us to give a better account of the relation
between form and meaning in natural languages than does any currently available alternative
(Schmitt, 2000).

We would emphasize that, although we have referred here to various indistinguishable senses of the
English word meaning which may well correspond to different, but related, kinds of meaning. We
have also correlated from this idea the notion of lexical semantics to lead to a discussion of words
as meaningful units.

The history of semantics is a peculiarly complex one because so many fields of study are involved:
it is well surveyed by John Lyons in his book Semantics, published in 1977. It is clear from this that
the subject of meaning is by no means a discovery of modern linguistics; but at the same time, little
of the early work has proved to be of permanent value, except for the theoretical ideas of Ferdinand
de Saussure, Edward Sapir and Lee Whorf. There was much theorizing, but little strict theory on the
word as a means of studying a languages semantic system.

An early technique for investigating this system was based on the notion of semantic fields. A
languages vocabulary is organized into areas of meaning, within which words are said to be related
to each other in specific ways. The analysis of word relations can be made more precise by applying
the distinction between paradigmatic and syntagmatic, that is, paradigmatic relationships between
words at a particular point in a sentence, and syntagmatic, when we deal with different points in a
sentence. The study of the whole network of semantic relationships shich can be identified through
the use of these dimensions is generally carried on under the heading of structural semantics .

Of the two dimensions, the paradigmatic has been the more fully studied, as part of the explication
of a languages sense-relations. A sense-relation, as its name suggests, is a relationship between


32/ 33
sentences such that we perceive their lexemes to be in some kind of systematic correspondence. We
intuitively see a connection between them. When analysing these relationships in detail, and show
that there are several different types, among which some are known by traditional names:
synonymy, antonymy, and hyponymy as major types, and other minor types as hyponymy and
hypernymy, and meronymy. Other devices were the use of false friends and lexical creativity.

There are just some of the issues which arise when we study the lexicon of a language from a
structural point of view. There are several other lexical topics which also require investigation, such
as the problem of how to analyse words which have more than one meaning; the problem of
defining idioms accurately; the problem of deciding how much detail to allow into the definition of
a word; the problem of styles of usage affecting the meanings of words. Dictionaries have principles
about words, about how to define meanings, about the order in which meanings should be defined
and how they should be grouped, about ways of presenting pronunciation and spelling, about ways
of dealing with etymologies, about how much information to introduce concerning stylistic or
idiomatic information, and so on. Dictionaries, then, put semantic information over in a certain way.

Semantics, for the linguist, must be primarily concerned with the problems of how the semantic
system hypothesized for a language is organized, and what kind of model might most usefully be
constructed in order to facilitate analysis. So far, we have considered the lexical s ide of the subject,
together with other aspects such as phonetics and phonology, as they are involved in the symbolism
conveyed by sounds in poetry.

For many years, was considered to be an irrelevance, as far as grammar was concerned. Today, the
study of meaning is recognized that it is possible, and desirable, to study the meaning of a sentence,
and of the grammatical categories and relationships it contains. We have already seen, in fact, that
much of the debate in recent generative grammar has arisen in relation to the way we should draw a
boundary between syntax and semantics, and whether it is possible to set up a basic set of semantic
relations from which grammatical patterns can be derived (actor, action, location)

Thus a words meaning is often partially determined by contrasting it with the meanings of other
related words. The study of these meaning relationships, and meaning in general, as seen before, is
called semantics, and the categories of meaning relationships between words are called sense
relations. Moreover, since vocabulary has proved to play an essential role in communication, it has
recently assumed a more prominent status in the field of language learning.

In fact, the above definition suggests that lexicology is, more than ever, closely related to other
dimensions of linguistic knowledge, such as morphology, etymology and history, semantics,
phonology, and grammar, and therefore, considered to be a central element in communicative
competence and in the acquisition of a second language.





33/ 33
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY.

- Aitchinson, J., Gilchrist, A., and D. Bawden. 2000. Thesaurus construction and use: a practical
manual. 4
th
ed. London : ASLIB Press.

- Aitchinson, J. 1987 (2nd ed. 1994). Words in the mind: An introduction to the mental lexicon.
Oxford: Blackwell.

- Algeo, J. 1982. Problems in the origins and development of the English language. Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, Inc.

- Algeo, J. and T. Pyles. 1982. The origins and development of the English language. Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

- Bauer, L. 1983. English Word-Formation. Cambridge University Press.

- Baugh, A. & Cable, T. 1993. A History of the English Language. Prentice-Hall Editions.

- B.O.E. RD N 112/2002, de 13 de septiembre por el que se establece el currculo de la Educacin
Secundaria Obligatoria/Bachillerato en la Comunidad Autnoma de la Regin de Murcia.

-Chomsky, Noam. 1972. Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar. The Hague: Mouton.

- Crystal, D. 1985. Linguistics. Harmondsworth, England. Penguin Books.

- McCawley, J. 1972. Logical and Syntactic Arguments for Semantic Structures. Reproduced by the
Indiana University Linguistics Club.

- Nelson Francis, W. 1974. The English language. Norton and Company.

- National Information Standards Organization. 1994. Guidelines for the construction, format, and
management of monolingual thesauri. Bethesda, MD: NISO Press, 1993.

- Palmer, Frank R. 1981. Semantics: A New Outline, 2
nd
edn. New York: Cambridge University
Press. (1
st
edn, 1976).

-Saussure, F. 1916. Cours de linguistique gnrale (Course in General Linguistics, trans. Roy
Harris, 1983). New York: Philosophical Library.

- Schmitt, N. 2000. Vocabulary in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.

- Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell; and New York:
Macmillan.