ELEMENTS OF ENGLISH LEXICOLOGY

nadina visan

AN INTRODUCTORY LECTURE

1. Properties of Language

Languages – natural/ „animal”

Common properties (for all kinds of languages):
a) language is communicative
b) language is informative

Unique properties (that characterize only natural languages) (Charles Hockett, 1960):
a) displacement (Languages can be used to communicate ideas about things that are not in the
immediate vicinity either spatially or temporally.Natural languages can refer to the past, present,
future, to abstract concepts, imaginary worlds) e.g. mythical creatures (the unicorn), imaginary
realms (Middle Earth, etc)
b) arbitrariness (There is no natural connection beetween linguistic form and its meaning. E.g. there is
nothing intrinsically ‚doggy’ about the word ‚dog’.)

Word for study: doggie bag – is this lexeme completely arbitrary?

Comment upon the concept of ‚motivation’ / ‚transparency’ and upon the existence of a scale of
transparency (or layers of motivation): compare doggie bag/ dog/ bag

c) productivity (capacity of creating novel utterances, words. A finite number of units can be used to
create an indefinitely large number of utterances.)
d) cultural transmission (language is passed from one lg user to the next, consciously or unconsciously;
acquiring language depends upon the context of one’s birth)
e) discreteness (Language is composed of discrete units that are used in combination to create meaning.
Distinction in meaning is therefore due to distinction in sound)
Compare: pack/back
f) duality (Language is organized at two levels simultaneously: sound/meaning)
g) metalinguistic (the ability of language to discuss itself)
Provide your own examples of metalanguage.

2. Word (lexeme), constituent, string, distribution, relations between units

Word/lexeme = a lexical unit

Constituent = any part of a sentence regarded as forming a distinct syntactic unit within the overall
structure of the sentence
String = a sequence fragmented at random that has no structural semantic unity

Consider: Eminem hates Marriah’s guts apparently.

Eminem = both a lexeme and a constituent

How many lexemes? How many constituents in this sentence? Is the sentence itself a constituent?

Compare: guts apparently/ hates M’s guts (which is a constituent, which is a string?)

Relations between lexemes: syntagmatic/ paradigmatic

Syntagmatic: combinations between items (concatenation < Lat. Catena)
Paradigmatic: contrast (opposition) between items (substitution) [substitution = an operation on the elements
in a paradigm; switching]

E.g. Eminem would murder Marriah if he could.

He
The rapper
The guy

(while the paradigmatic relations work vertically, the syntagmatic ones work horizontally. The items
‚eminem’, ‚would’, ‚Marriah’, ‚if’, ‚he’, ‚could’ are in a syntagmatic relation. The combination between
these items forms syntagmas (the same thing as phrases or constituents). On the other hand, between the
items ‚eminem’, ‚he’, ‚the rapper’, ‚the guy’ there is a paradigmatic relation, they form a paradigm. One
element in the paradigm can be substituted by another.)
Provide other examples of paradigm. Consider also verb conjugations and noun/pronoun declensions. Do
they form paradigms?

The distribution of an element (lexeme, constituent) = the full range of environments in which a lexical
and/or grammatical form can occur

e.g. There is a cat on the mat.

‚there’ – is analysed as an empty subject – it can only appear in combination with a certain class of
verbs (such as be, appear, live, etc.) => the distribution of ‚there’ is represented by these classes of special
verbs with which it can co-occur.

Complementary distribution – two elements belonging to the same paradigm, i.e. close in meaning and
function; so close that they cannot appear in the same context

e.g. the definite article ‚the’ and the demonstrative pronoun ‚this/that’
Consider and compare:
(1) a. this book and that book [+ proximous]/ [+ distal]
b. this book and the book [+ demonstrative]/ [+definite]
c. *this and the book
d. this and that book
(2) a. Ion a intrat în clasă şi ne-a salutat. [preterite meaning, but deictic]
b. Ion intră în clasă şi ne salută. [preterite meaning, no connection with now]
c. * Ion intră în clasă şi ne-a salutat.
Free variation = the opposite to ‚complementary distribution’; the situation when two (or more) items are
so similar in meaning and function that they can freely co-occur:
(3) Cînd mă voi scula, pre mulţi am să popesc...

The examples under (1c) and (2c) demonstrate that the the/this and PC/PS respectively are in
complementary distribution.
Counterargument: is it possible that PC and PS are synonymous? If they are, then they could be in free
variation:
(4) a. ... s-a înfăţişat (PC) înaintea Domnului Dumnezeu, ş-atâta s-a rugat (PC), că s-a înduplecat (PC) cel
Prea milostiv şi i-a dat (PC) slobozenie să se pogoare între oameni... (Minunile Sfântului Sisoe,
G.Topârceanu)
b. ... se înfăţişă (PS) înaintea Domnului Dumnezeu, ş-atâta se rugă (PS), că se înduplecă (PS) cel Prea
milostiv şi îi dădu (PS) slobozenie să se pogoare între oameni...
Counterargument to counterargument:
‚the reverse order constraint’ (see examplex below) demonstrates that there is no synonymy between PC and
PS:
(5) Ion căzu. Marin îl împinse.
‘Ion fell-PS. Marin pushed him-PS’
e1>e2
(5) demonstrates that PS does not violate the “reverse order constraint”, whereas in (6) it is obvious that PC
does not obey the rule:
(6) Ion a căzut. Marin l-a împins.
Ion fell-PC. Marin pushed –PC him.
e2>e1

Now compare the following translations for the text under (7). What conclusion can you draw about PC and
PS being in complementary distribution. What tendencies does Romanian have with respect to this
problem?

(7) She went through my classes for me, highlighting the best route to each on the map, and gave me a slip
to have each teacher sign, which I was to bring back at the end of the day. She smiled at me and hoped, like
Charlie, that I would like it here in Forks. I smiled back as convincingly as I could. When I went back out to
my truck, other students were starting to arrive. I drove around the school, following the line of traffic. I was
glad to see that most of the cars were older like mine, nothing flashy. At home I'd lived in one of the few
lower-income neighborhoods ... (Stephanie Meyer, Twilight)
(8) Îmi înșiră ce ore aveam, subliniind pe hartă cu creionul drumul cel mai scurt către laboratoare, după care
îmi dădu un formular pe care trebuia să-l semneze fiecare profesor și pe care trebuia să i-l aduc la sfârșitul
zilei. Îmi zâmbi și își exprimă speranța că mă voi simți bine aici în Forks, exact cum făcuse și Charlie. Îi
zâmbii și eu cât mai convingător. Când mă întorsei înapoi la camionetă, deja începeau să sosească ceilalți
elevi. Ocolii școala, urmărind șirul de mașini. Eram bucuroasă să constat că restul mașinilor erau mai vechi
decât a mea, că nu erau cine știe ce. Acasă locuisem într-unul din cartierele mai sărace… (my translation)
(9) Trecu în revistă orarul, subliniind pe hartă cel mai bun traseu către fiecare, apoi îmi dădu un formular pe
care trebuia să îl dau fiecărui profesor la semnat și apoi să i-l returnez la sfârșitul zilei. Zâmbi și îmi spuse, la
fel ca Charlie, că speră să fiu fericită aici, în Forks. I-am zâmbit cât de convingător am putut. Când m-am
întors la camionetă, începuseră să sosească și alți elevi. Am condus în jurul școlii, urmând linia traficului. M-
am bucurat să văd că majoritatea mașinilor erau vechi ca a mea, nici una care să sară în ochi. Acasă
locuisem într-unul dintre puținele cartiere mai sărace… (trad. Laura Frunză, ed. Rao, 2008)

3. Lexicology vs. Lexicography

Lexicology – a branch of linguistics studying the lexicon (i.e. the vocabulary or total stock of words of a
language) and the relations between the items of the lexicon, trying to find out generalizations and
regularities about these items and their relations
Discuss the information that the following paradigms might provide from a lexicological point of view:

(1)
Jail
Cave
Cajole
Concave
Excavation

Lat. Gabiola < gavia < cavea = cage

OF cageoler = to chatter like a bird in a cage => to flatter, to coax
(2)
Fire
Flame
Conflagration

sociolinguistic info (different registers) b) lexical semantics (synonymy) c) historical linguistics (Saxon,
French, Latin origin for each of these items)
(3)
jail (gaol Br.E)
to jail (to gaol Br.E)
jailbird – infml
jailbreak – abstract
jailer (old use) – Agent Noun
(4)
jail – less than one year (in certain US states)
prison – over one year
(5)
jail
gaol
(6)
to jail
to imprison
to incarcerate

lexicography = the science of dictionary-making, the writing and making of dictionaries

the lexicon is not a closed set of items (productive processes: word-formation, metaphor, metonymy, etc)

Case study: OED – jail – one lexical entry with two meanings: Noun/ Verb – a situation of polysemy
Longman – two lexical entries: jail1 (noun) and jail2 (verb) – a situation of homonymy

Why does the noun Jail come first in the dictionary? Because the Verb Jail is supposed to have been derived
from the noun (historical criterion)

What factors did we consider when analysing the items in these paradigms?
a) (lexical) semantics – polysemy, homonymy
b) word-formation – to jail is derived from the noun jail (it is a denominal verb), the compound jail bird
c) diachronical (historical) linguistics – the etymology of ‚jail’, the different origins of
fire/flame/conflagration and of jail/imprison/incarcerate
d) phonology (homonymy)
e) sociolinguistics (American vs British use – regional varieties; register variation for paradigms 2 and
6)

4. Semantic relations between items

Homonymy (homographs and homophones)
Polysemy
Synonymy (strict or loose)
Antonymy
Hyponymy – relation between the contents is not of oppositeness but of hierarchy: hyponym (or subordinate
term) vs hyperonym (or superordinate term): consider tulip vs flower
Meronymy – a part-whole relationship between items (e.g. toe vs. foot) !!! the existence of possible lexical
gaps (consider the word ‚knuckle’ and its translation into Romanian; also fountain pen: cap, clip, barrel, nib
[to nibble], reservoir)

The problem of synonymy = uneconomical, redundancy => pairs of synonyms where only one element was
preserved in the lg, while the other element was ousted:
e.g. Dorp/village; fain/willing; yare/ready

Consider the following paradigm and comment on it wrt synonymy:

Beseech
Beg
Entreat
Supplicate
Importune

Consider the following pairs containing a Standard British English item and a Northern British English one:

Anyway/anyroad; armpit/oxter; brew(tea)/mash; child/bairn; frightening/fleysome; money/brass;

nothing/nowt; sandwich/butty

5. Lexical fields (the lexical-field theory)

Semantic field/domain/lexical field/domain = a named area of meaning in which lexemes interrelate and
define each other in specific ways

E.g. the lexical field of ‚kinship terms’: father, mother, son, daughter cousin, nephew, uncle aunt,
grandfather, grandmother, etc.

According to the lexical-field theory the vocabulary of a lg is eseentially a dynamic and well-integrated
system of lexemes structured by relationships of meaning. The system is changing continuously by the
interaction of various forces such as the disappearance of previously existing lexemes or the broadening or
narrowing of the meaning of some lexems. The system is mainly characterized bythe general/particular and
part/whole relationships, which hold not only between individual lexemes and the lexical field within which
they are best interpreted, but also between specific lexical fields and the vocabulary as a whole.

E.g. the lexical field of ‚colour terms’ includes the lexemes: black, white, red, green, yellow, blue, orange,
etc. Together with other lexical fields, such as ‚kinship terms’, ‚vehicles,’ etc, they are only parts of the
whole English vocabulary. Furthermore, the general lexeme red for instance may in turn be considered a
lexical field (or sub-field) within which the particular lexemes scarlet, crimson, vermillion, etc. may be best
interpreted.

6. Word-families
Words are grouped into ‚families’ on the basis of their morophology, both their inflections and their
derivations. A family consists of a base form, its possible inflectional forms and the words derived from it
by prefixation and suffixation:
State (verb)
States, stated, stating (inflections)
Stateable, statement; misstate, restate, understate (derivations)

7. Word classes
The theory of parts of speech (see lexical and functional categories)