tema

11 LENGUA EXTRANJERA
INGLÉS
The Word as a Linguistic Sign.
Homonymy. Synonymy. Antonymy.
False Friends. Lexical Creativity
27-14156-13

Temario 1993
 tema 11

inglés

1. The Word as a Linguistic Sign

1.1. The Controversial Definition of Word

1.2. The Word as a Linguistic Sign: Semiotic Approaches

1.3. The Analysis of Meaning: Semantics, Componential Analysis and Sense Relations

2. Homonymy
2.1. Defining Homonymy

2.2. Types of Homonyms

2.3. Polysemy

3. Synonymy
3.1. Defining Synonymy

3.2. The Origins of Synonyms

3.3. Measuring Synonymy

3.4. Types of Synonyms

3.5. Hyponymy

4. Antonymy
4.1. Defining Antonymy

4.2. Types of Antonyms

5. False Friends
5.1. The Concept of Cognates and False Cognates

5.2. False Friends and False Cognates

5.3. The Origin of False Friends

5.4. False Friends between English and Spanish

6. Lexical Creativity
6.1. The Concept and its Motivations

6.2. Productivity vs. Creativity

6.3. Three Characteristics of Lexical Creativity

6.4. Figurative Language

3
 tema 11

inglés

INTRODUCTION

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet.
W. Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Gospel of John, 1-1

Words. Our existence is full of them. We hear words since we are born, coming out
from our family and friends. We hear words when we make our first attempts to
stand up, among our constant falls. We hear and try to utter words when our pace
is firm and become children. We hear and utter words, and try to read them and
write them when we enter school.
However, how very difficult it is to try to say what a word is! A word is a sound,
a whisper, a tool, a bunch of letters on a piece of paper. For centuries, scholars
and linguists have tried to find out the ultimate definition, the one which could
account for the wonderful phenomenon of their power to refer, their power to
communicate. It remains elusive, though. Different theories of meaning, within
the field of Semantics, approach it in different ways, and provide categories and
criteria for their analysis and study. But these are always partial, incomplete; they
may place us near the goal, but it seems we are condemned never to reach it: to
know exactly what a word is, how it conveys meaning, and how it is framed within
the infinite field of language.
In this unit, on the basis of the difficulties in defining the concept of word, the first
section will try to account for the different conceptions of word, from general to
linguistic areas, and the role of the word as a linguistic sign. Before advancing, a
basic reflection on semantic relationships between words will be provided. The
following sections will focus on homonymy – with a brief reflection on polysemy –,
synonymy and hyperonymy, and antonymy. After that, the phenomena of false
friends will be analyzed in the context of cognates and false cognates. Finally, a
framework for the understanding of lexical creativity will be provided, as well as an
indication of some of its major resources.

5
tema 11

inglés

1 The Word as a Linguistic Sign

1.1. The Controversial Definition of Word

The term word is frequently used, and speakers refer to it in order to discuss the meaning of words,
their spelling and their pronunciation, to select the most appropriate word for a situation or purpose,
and many other instances. At the same time, all speakers have a perception of words as the basic
units of language. When dealing with written language, in any support, words are easily recognizable:
the (orthographic) word is isolated on either side by a space or a combination of a space and
one or more punctuation marks. However, these criteria are not valid when we face a number of
manuscripts written before the invention of the print, as there was dramatic variability in writing and
some arbitrary divisions into words. For instance, medieval manuscripts did not isolate words with
spaces, and Roman inscriptions show abundant abbreviations and dots to separate words. When
we deal with the word in spoken language, its recognition becomes even a more difficult task, as
they are usually uttered in a continuous flow with little pause between them. This is particularly
observable when we are learning a foreign language and, in initial stages, we can only grasp isolated
words either at the beginning or the end of utterances, but not in the flow of speech.
A major problem comes when we are asked to provide a definition of the term word. The Oxford
English Dictionary, in one of the senses of word, defines it as «a combination of vocal sounds, or one
such sound, used in a language to express an idea (e.g. to denote a thing, attribute or relation), and
constituting an ultimate minimal element of speech having a meaning as such». However, despite
being a good working, broad definition of the term, it is not adequate for Linguistics. In Linguistics,
the basic unit for vocabulary and grammar is the morpheme, rather than the word, since there have
been many attempts to provide for a definite definition of word, but none of them has achieved the
comprehensiveness required for scientific rules.
Acknowledging the difficulty in defining the term, some efforts have been turned to establish a
set of criteria for its identification. In this sense, these criteria must be independent of any specific
theory of how morphology and syntax work and interact, and independent of our ideas of how
words ought to behave. One of the authors who tried to define the term is Greenbaum’s (1996), who
distinguishes five criteria:
„„ In speech, they can be identified by a pause between words, or some vocal pauses such as uh, eh.
This criterion implies that a word has phonetic boundaries. Some languages have particular rules
of pronunciation that make it easy to spot where a word boundary should be, such as regular
stress at the last syllable of a word, as it is the case of French. However, not all languages have such
convenient phonetic rules.
„„ It can occur in isolation as a response utterance: How many apples are there? Three. However, not
all words can function as utterances: How many apples are there? *Numerous.
„„ A word has internal stability, e.g. it is indivisible, in the sense that no other word can be inserted
within it. A word can also be separated from words before and after it by being moved elsewhere
in the sentence, even in the case of phrasal verbs: I just don’t find out anything; I just don’t find
anything out. In this sense, Bloomfield (1933) defined them as the «minimal free form», in the sense

6
 tema 11

inglés

that words are thought of as the smallest meaningful unit of speech that can stand by themselves.
However, some words are not minimal free forms, as they make no sense by themselves (for
example, the and of).
„„ Inflections may be attached to the end of a word (booklet), although a few compound nouns,
however, may take the plural inflection on the first segment: mothers-in-law/ mother-in-laws.
„„ In short, traditional Semantics distinguishes phonological and morphological-syntactic
features when defining the notion of word:
Stress
Phonological Vowel harmony (in some languages)
Phonological processes

Mobility
Morphological-syntactic Uninterruptibility
Internal stability

Though these criteria may serve for most cases, there are still certain problems, as in the case of
compounds, which are words composed of other words and phrases. Additionally, in writing,
compounds may appear as two orthographic words (hay fever, lager lout) or vary in their orthography
(ice cream/ ice-cream, for ever/ forever). Other conflicting cases are:
„„ Semi-words (all right, nonetheless, today).
„„ Contracted forms (there’s, haven’t).
„„ Phrases: to take into account, to take for granted.
„„ Idioms: to jump out of the frying pan into the fire.
„„ Phrasal verbs.
„„ Clitics, as it is the case of the negative word not and a relatively small number of frequently
occurring words (mostly verbs) can be contracted and attached to other words. Usually, they are
attached at the end as enclitics: she’s (for she is or she has), don’t (do not).
„„ The group genitive: Tom and Paula’s wedding. The genitive – represented by the apostrophe plus
s – is attached to the last noun of the group, but it applies to the whole group: They are the
grandchildren of the Queen of England (not England’s grandchildren). Some grammarians have,
therefore, argued that the group genitive is more like a word than an inflection.
In order to overcome the ambiguities and generalities of the definition of word, in linguistics we may
distinguish between:
a) The orthographic word
It is the word understood in terms of alphabetic or syllabic writing systems: A visual sign with
space around it. As it has been indicated, it maybe subject to variation according to spelling,
standardization or spaces.
b) The phonological word
Understood in terms of sound, it is a spoken signal that occurs more commonly as part of a
longer utterance than in isolation, and is subject to rhythm. Traditional spoken English is a series
of stressed and unstressed syllables which behave in more or less predictable way. In English, the
most useful criterion is this one: A phonological word contains only one main stress. However,

7
tema 11

inglés

examples of phonological words that do not correspond to what we would intuitively take to
be a word can be found in many – perhaps all – languages (Julien, 2006). It is not unusual for an
element with word-like behaviour in the syntax, that is, with independent syntactic distribution,
to be a part of a phonological word. For example, the English sentence I’ll come consists of two
phonological words, I’ll and come, but we presumably do not want to say that I’ll is just one word
outside of the phonology. Instead, we say that ‘ll is a short form of will, which clearly has its own
representation in the syntax, although so has the pronoun I. Hence, I’ll is a phonological word
consisting of two syntactic elements.
c) The lexical word (also «full word», «content word», «lexeme» and «lexical item»)
The concept of lexical word refers to the word in terms of content related to things, actions
and states in the world, in other words, to a lexical item which has semantic content – a readily
identifiable meaning that can be translatable to other languages. This definition is close to that
of linguistic sign: A pairing of a particular orthographic and phonological form with some form of
symbolic meaning representation (sense). They are the focus of Lexical Semantics.
This lexical word can be realized by one or more morphemes. They are generally fitted into the
flow of language through mechanisms such as affixation, suppletion, stress shift and vowel
change. Lexical words include nouns, verbs, and adjectives. To this respect, we must take into
account the abstract concept of lexeme, which includes all the possible inflected forms of a lexical
word. In this sense, the entries we find in dictionaries refer to lexemes, as they do not explicitly
signal the possible inflections.
d) The grammatical word (word form, function word, structure word)
Jeffries (2006) defines a grammatical word (or empty word) as having little or no identifiable
meaning, but one or more grammatical functions. A grammatical word cannot be defined, and
looking for an equivalent in another language is often pointless. English grammatical words
include of, the, and, have, who and if. A dictionary cannot provide a definition of one of these, but
can only give an account of its grammatical functions. Some words appear to be borderline in this
classification, with clear grammatical functions but some degree of identifiable semantic content,
such as in, with, we, this and for. The best policy is to classify these items as grammatical words,
since their grammatical functions are usually much more important than any traces of meaning
they may possess.
The word, in terms of syntactic function, contrasts with the lexical word, and is an element in the
structural system of a language. It serves to link lexical words. In English, conjunctions, determiners,
interjections, particles and pronouns are grammatical words. In principle, such words are a close
set to which new items are seldom added.

1. How does the OED define ‘word?

2. What criteria does Greenbaum distinguish in order to define the term?
3. What are the setbacks for a definite definition of ‘word’? In the domain of
linguistics, what conceptions of the term ‘word’ can be appreciated?

8
 tema 11

inglés

1.2. The Word as a Linguistic Sign: Semiotic Approaches

Probably the most enriching contribution for the definition of word comes from Semiotics. This
discipline is concerned with the study and analysis of signs, whether linguistic or non-linguistic, verbal
or non-verbal, although Philosophy has dealt with questions of meaning and reference throughout
history. In fact, the binary conception of the word as twofold (the fact that when we communicate
through language we actually use sounds to convey meanings) was inherited into modern linguistics
from the Middle Ages, but it was the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure who first gave a coherent
and scientific interpretation of language as a system of signs. In Saussure’s theory, linguistic signs
have a dual structure: Any linguistic sign is made up of a signifier, that is an «acoustic image» (the
phonological side of the word) and a signified, or a concept, to which the respective acoustic image
sends. Saussure’s acoustic image should not be taken as the real sounds we produce when we utter
a word: The acoustic image is primarily a psychological and not a material reality, which is proved
by the fact that we can speak to ourselves without actually articulating the words whose acoustic
image is only present in our mind.
The linguistic sign shows two essential features: Arbitrariness and the linearity of the signifier. There
is arbitrariness in the relation holding between its constituent parts, the signifier and the signified,
because there is no reason whatsoever for which a particular string of sounds should be associated
with a certain meaning. The association between the acoustic image and the concept is arbitrary in
the sense that it lacks motivation; it is not arbitrary, however, in the sense that it depends on the free
choice of the speakers, because once this association has been established, it becomes immutable.
Languages tend to be very conservative systems and it is not up to any of the speakers in a linguistic
community, and, indeed, not even to the entire collectivity itself, to change the association between
the signifiers and the signifieds in the language they use. There are only two situations in which
there is some sort of match between the acoustic image and the concept it is associated with:
onomatopoeic sounds and interjections.
The second essential feature that defines the sign is the linearity of the signifier. Both in articulatory
terms and in auditory ones, the signifier is characterized by duration. This duration is unidimensional
and is conventionally represented as a line including the successive moments in time. It takes time
to utter a word and it takes time to perceive and understand it. On the contrary, the signified is
something of which we have an instantaneous perception. We can compare this to our perception
of visual signs, which is simultaneous and multidimensional. This is more obvious, Saussure argues,
if we think of the written aspect of languages. Any writing convention is, indeed, based on the
principle of linearity.
Ferdinand de Saussure’s Cours de linguistique générale marked a turning point in the history of modern
linguistics, and his theory of the linguistic sign (though much refined by other linguists) remained a
cornerstone for all subsequent theories of reference.

1.3. The Analysis of Meaning: Semantics, Componential Analysis and

Sense Relations

The analysis of linguistic meaning is then carried out by Semantics, the branch of Semiotics that
studies the meanings in language. Meaning can be defined as the function of signs in language, or
in Wittgenstein’s definition (1953), «the meaning of a word is its use in the language».
It is important to distinguish here between semantic meaning and pragmatic meaning. Semantics
analyzes meaning in terms of a conventional, literal, stable set of minimal features which make up
the meaning of lexemes. Being an abstraction, the lexeme is attributed a constant set of semantic

9
tema 11

inglés

features, which does not depend on the context (also called sentence meaning or propositional
meaning). Pragmatic meaning, on the other hand, is the meaning of a word or phrase in the exact
contexts where it is uttered (speaker meaning). In order to give a full account of pragmatic meaning,
factors external to language must be analyzed. The ethnography of communication, together with
systemic-functional linguists, have provided models to analyze language in use: Consider the Field-
Tenor-Mode analysis of context proposed by M. A. K. Halliday, and the SPEAKING model created by
Hymes. For further information, see unit 3 on the Communication Process.

XX Componential Analysis
Brinton (2000) defines componential analysis as an attempt to give a semantic analysis of words in terms
of semantic features or components. It consists of determining the basic components constituting
the semantic content, or sense, of a word. These components, sometimes called semantic primitives,
are assumed to be the most basic notions expressed by linguistic meaning, the «givens» of the
semantic system which cannot be broken down further by semantic analysis. Furthermore, they are
thought to be universal, not language specific, part of the cognitive and perceptual system of the
human mind. Semantic features are usually presented as a matter of opposition, paired positive and
negative features, denoting the presence or absence of the particular feature in the meaning of the
word. Since semantic features are theoretical elements, not part of the vocabulary of the language,
they are represented abstractly by capitalizing and placing them in square brackets. For example, in
the word wife: [FEMALE] [ADULT] [HUMAN] [MARRIED].
Componential analysis is extremely relevant for the creation of semantic fields, which are like areas
of lexis describing aspects of the world by means of word senses with related meanings. Semantic
fields are sometimes described as if they were a mosaic of words mapping out the whole of the
semantic picture of a language, with different languages inevitably mapping out slightly different
pictures (Jeffries, 2006). However, there are many exceptions to this mapping, so that semantic fields
have come to be understood as groupings of words that share some of their semantic features,
usually the core ones. They may operate at a general level of the vocabulary, so that the field of
movement includes walk, run, swim and fly, or they may be seen to operate at increasingly specific
levels, such as the walking verbs listed above, or swimming words such as crawl, butterfly, breaststroke
and backstroke.

XX Basic Semantic Relationships and Sense Relations

After the analysis of the semantic features of lexemes and its groupings into semantic fields,
it is possible to establish a number of basic semantic relationships among which stand out: (a)
Paraphrase, when one statement has the same meaning as another: Philip purchased an automobile
and Philip bought a car; (b) entailment, or implication, when a statement is a necessary consequence
of the first: Alan lives in Toronto entails Alan lives in Canada (This relationship is one-way: Living in
Canada does not imply living in Toronto); (c) inclusion, when one statement includes another, as I
like fruit includes I like apples; this relation is also unidirectional; (d) contradiction: He is an orphan and
His parents are living; (e) anomaly, when a sentence violates semantic rules: He swallowed a dream
(although lexical creative factors must be taken into account); (f ) lexical ambiguity, when a word
allows more than one meaning in context, e.g. an old friend; (g) denotation/ connotation: referential
meaning vs. feelings, attitudes or opinions: soldier – warrior, fat-obese; (h) part-whole, when a word
denotes part of whole: week and month (this has also been termed meronymy; (i) homonymy, when
two words sound are written the same but are different in meaning, e.g.: Sound: «noise», «body of
water», «free from defect»; (j) polisemy, when a word has more than one meaning out of context
and its meanings are related to one another: Bug: «insect», «enthusiast», «electronic device for
eavesdropping», «design defect in a computer» (Brinton 2000). Special lexematical relationships are

10
 tema 11

inglés

those established by sense. Sense, in semantic terms, refers to the meaning of a lexeme in terms of its
links with other words. The interrelations of word senses are collectively known as sense relations, and
in a structuralist model of language they are seen as one of the systematic aspects of the linguistic
code, defining word meaning in terms of the word’s relations with other words, rather than seeing
language as a simple naming of the world.
There is a range of possible sense relations into which a word sense can enter, based on the similarities
and differences between them. Among them, this unit will focus on synonymy, hyponymy and
antonymy.

1. Explain Saussure’s definition of word and linguistic sign.

2. What are the components of the linguistic sign? What are its two essential
features?
3. What is meaning? What senses of the word ‘meaning’ can be distinguished?
4. What is Componential Analysis?
5. What are the basic semantic and sense relations among words?

11
tema 11

inglés

2 Homonymy

2.1. Defining Homonymy

Homonymy is not included in the sense relations because, in fact, what is shared by some signs is the
signifier, and there is no other relation between them.
A simple definition of the phenomenon of homonymy is that it occurs when two words sound and
are written the same but are different in meaning, e.g.: bark, sound, band, swallow. Lyons (1985) defines
homonyms as «words which have the same pronunciation, same spelling but different meanings».
Homonyms represent different entries in a dictionary because, actually, they are different lexemes
which share a same form (signifier). Nevertheless, without consulting a dictionary, it is often difficult
to distinguish between polysemy, that is, when we are dealing with two meanings for a single word,
and homonymy. In addition, it is not always clear whether two words are distinct: Some people, for
example, might see a relationship between the homonyms of ear (the ear of corn looks like the ear
of an animal) and the homonyms of duck (the verb refers to an action that ducks habitually perform).
In many instances, the semantic relationship is clear. Hand (of a human) and hand (of a clock) are
polysemes rather than homonyms, and so are grasp (a stick) and grasp (an idea). These two meanings
of hand, as well as many others, appear under one entry in dictionaries.
In fact, two criteria may be applied in order to know if we are dealing with homonyms: (a) etymology,
tracing back the history of the lexemes, and (b) relatedness of meaning, which, as Lyons (1995)
suggests, accounts for the cases in which coincidence is the reason. A third criterion may be applied,
on a semantic basis. In homonymy, the form is similar, but the meanings are completely unrelated: a
bank holds money, and the river bank is full of vegetation, but there is nothing in common between
them. In the case of polysemy, the meanings are related (either literally or figuratively), though the
connection between different meanings may sometimes be difficult to perceive (as in the meanings
«a series of connected mountains» or «a unit for cooking» for range). In some cases, the meanings
may have become so far apart from one another over time that an originally single word is divided
into two dictionary entries (as in pupil «a student» and pupil «the opening in the centre of the iris of
the eye») (Jeffries, 2006).

2.2. Types of Homonyms

XX Homophones
When two lexical items are pronounced the same but are spelled differently, they are called
homophones: altar, alter; brake, break; cell, sell; sight, site; threw, through. Since pronunciations vary,
what may be a homophone for one speaker may not be for another, as Grenbaum (1996) explains.
Those who use a rhotic accent (retaining /r/ before a consonant or in final position) will pronounce
father and farther differently, whereas for speakers with a non-rhotic accent the two words are
homophonous. In some dialects ate and eight are homophones; in other dialects the vowels of the
two words are distinguished as /e/ and /eI/ respectively. Homophones are much easier to identify
than homonyms as they are spelt differently, despite sounding the same. Their great attraction is
their potential for punning, especially as they do not seem to be stored in our memories as a pair,
and we can therefore be quite surprised that some words apparently sound the same (though it
does sometimes depend on your accent). Here are some examples: Bear (a large wild animal)/ Bare
(wearing no clothes or without adornment); allowed (permitted)/ aloud (in an audible voice).

12
 tema 11

inglés

XX Homographs
On the other hand, homographs are spelled the same but pronounced differently, and have very
different uses or meanings. Lead represents two nouns: the lead /li:d/ attached to a dog and the metal
lead /led/; the same written form is also used as a verb: to lead /li:d/ the patrol. The spelling system
makes more distinctions than the sound system, so there are fewer homographs than homonyms
(Greenbaum, 1996). In this sense, Jeffries (2006) considers that homographs are not central to the
structure of the language, and are accidental in many cases, but they nevertheless form part of our
linguistic consciousness, and can be used in jokes and visual punning: invalid /in’vlid/ (someone
who has a disability) and invalid /in’vƏlid/ (not valid or acceptable); sewer /su:w/ (underground
pipes to carry away waste water) and sewer /sƏυwƏ/ (someone who sews).

XX Homomorphs
Greenbaum and other scholars use the term homomorphs for words with the same form that may
have an affinity in meaning but are distinct grammatically. Frequently the pairs of words which
present these conditions are related by means of conversion: The verb laugh and the noun laugh, the
adjective calm and the verb calm. In other cases, they belong to different word classes, such as duck
and bear (a large mammal) and bear («carry»). Homomorphs may be different grammatical forms of
the same word: Put as present tense and past tense. In some instances, the relationship in meaning is
unclear, although there is an etymological connection, and therefore their status as homomorphs is
in doubt; for example, but as conjunction («They do nothing but complain»), preposition («We’ve had
nothing but trouble from them»), and adverb («She is but a child»), where the meaning relationship
of the adverb to the other two is obscure.

2.3. Polysemy

In the case of polysemy, we are dealing with a word or lexeme which has a number of multiple
related meanings, i.e. one signifier has several signifieds. We usually think of one meaning as literal
or basic and the others as extended meanings that are derived from the first. As a brief inspection
of a dictionary shows, words generally have more than one meaning and some have very many
meanings. The most frequent words tend to be the most polysemous, as it is the case of have: be in
possession of (have an apartment); be in a relationship to (have a son); experience (have a headache);
cause (have the car repaired); hold (have a party); give birth to (have a baby).
As Jeffries points out, being a set of related senses of a single lexeme, there may be variation of
word class among the different senses without altering the semantic relationship, although the
grammatical features of a word sense will have some impact on their usage.

1. Why is Homonymy not included in the sense relations? How can you define it?
2. How can we know if we are dealing with homonymy or with polisemy?
3. What types of homonyms are there?
4. What is polisemy?

13
tema 11

inglés

3 Synonymy

3.1. Defining Synonymy

As mentioned in previous pages, Structural Semantics recognizes three major types of relationships
between senses: Synonymy, hyponymy and oppositeness (antonymy) (Lyons, 1995, and Brinton
2000). Synonymy is a relationship of identity, where the semantic features are largely the same;
hyponymy is a relationship of hierarchy, where the semantic features of a more general word form
part of the description of a more specific word (Jeffries, 2006).
According to Cruse (1986), synonyms are «lexical items whose senses are identical in respect of
central semantic traits, but differ, if at all, only in respect of what we may provisionally describe as
minor or peripheral traits in which they are used». Julien (2006) argues that, in a general sense, we
could say that synonymy is the semantic relation of sameness of meaning either among lexical items
or grammatical ones. In terms of the linguistic sign theory, synonyms share the signified but differ in
the signifier. However, although they are said to have the same meaning in the everyday use of the
term synonym, all speakers recognize that synonyms are similar – but not identical – in meaning.
Most semantically similar lexical items differ by some dimension or degree of meaning and use; this
is because language generally avoids lexical synonymy.

3.2. The Origins of Synonyms

In fact, English is known for the size and richness of its vocabulary, arising, it is often claimed, from
the many languages that have influenced it over the ages (Jeffries, 2006). English has borrowed
terms from other languages or dialects (e.g., chic-stylish), or developed synonyms via different
morphological processes (e.g., poor-penniless-impoverished) or different metaphors (high-stoned).
This extensive vocabulary might lead us to conclude that there must be many synonyms in the
language but in fact there are very few, or at least very few exact synonyms. Language abhors
absolute synonymy, according to Cruse (1986). For a language to have two words that do exactly the
same job is inefficient but, furthermore, it is pragmatically prevented. Pragmatic forces encourage the
introduction or maintenance of differences between word meanings, such that when a new word is
introduced into one’s (or one’s language’s) vocabulary, we act on the assumption that it must differ
in meaningful ways from any words already in the vocabulary. Avoidance of synonymy is so strong
that, in some cases, different spellings or pronunciations of the same word are used for different
senses of the word. For example, in some varieties of American English, the British pronunciation of
vase /va:z/ has been imported, although just in the case of vases which are important or valuable
in some way. Therefore, there is a contrast in meaning between /va:z/ and /veIs/: The museum has
acquired a precious Ming vase /va:z/, whereas we would say The vase of flowers is empty /veIs/. So
while a language’s vocabulary expands, so does its range of lexical meaning differentiations. Thus,
avoidance of synonymy is a key motivator of semantic change.

3.3. Measuring Synonymy

For word senses to be truly synonymous they would have to be identical in their semantic features,
connotations and grammatical identity and behaviour (they should have the possibility of being
use in similar collocations) (Jeffries, 2006). Such synonyms would cause a problem of redundancy,
as speakers would be storing two words for a single meaning and use. To avoid that redundancy,
synonymous words have developed specialist meanings, or particular connotations, or sometimes

14
 tema 11

inglés

even particular syntactic contexts in which they occur. English, then, has a very large number of
what we might call partial synonyms, which overlap in some core parts of their meaning but differ
in detail. Therefore, we could establish a differentiation between absolute and partial synonymy.
The first is rare in English. As for partial, Lyons identifies it with near-synonyms, in lexical units which
are more or less similar but not identical in meaning, with which we will deal later. There is overlap
between partial synonyms, at different levels. We might argue that talk and speak are quite close
synonyms, though their range of use is different and their grammatical features vary. There are many
words that share no semantic features, or only the most general ones. The words carrot and car,
for example, are both [TANGIBLE] but share no further semantic features. There are many words
between these two extremes that could be described as partial synonyms. Nouns that describe
human emotions are one example: Anger, fury, rage and resentment are quite close in meaning, as are
fear, terror, trepidation, anxiety and so on. Membership of semantic fields is a more useful analytical
tool than synonymy, except when we wish to draw attention to the partial synonymy of pairs of
members of a semantic field.
For absolute or full synonymy to exist, lexical items should be able to substitute for each other in a
sentential context without changing the truth conditions of its proposition. Therefore, substitution
or interchangeability is the criterion for defining synonymy. As hinted, such synonymy is rare, and is
typically found only in words with a rather narrow range of senses, such as some duplicate scientific
or species names. More common and more polysemous words tend to be synonymous for some
of their senses, but not others; they are partial synonyms. Such partial sense similarity is called
either near-synonymy or plesionymy (Cruse, 1986). Near-synonyms may be substitutable in particular
contexts but are not substitutable across a range of contexts. The notion of substitutability can be
extended, however, to consider other non-denotative aspects of meaning and usage. For example,
child and kid are sense synonyms, but they differ in formality. Thus, if kid is substituted for child in an
utterance, then the range of social situations where that utterance is appropriate changes. Therefore,
logical synonyms depend on a variety of factors: Register (salt/ sodium chloride); implicatures (mislay/
lose); dialect (UK motorway/ US highway/freeway); affect (freedom fighter/ rebel); collocation (ret/
steep).

3.4. Types of Synonyms

Though we have already seen a distinction between absolute and partial synonymy and near-
synonyms or plesionyms, there have been many classifications of the different types of synonymy.
Lyons (1995) and Cruse (1986) distinguished:
„„ True synonyms, for expressions that have the same descriptive meaning and are not altered by
other factors (absolute synonyms): big/ large.
„„ Stylistic synonyms (Lyons: expressive), defined as lexical units that have a similar range of reference
but which are differentiated by the speaker’s intention, the audience and the situation (Cruse,
1986): say/ demand, bring up/ educate).
„„ Generic nouns and trade names: tissues/ kleenex; in many cases they differ in approval, neutrality or
disapproval: statesman/ politician; (d) variant names for concepts: coast/ seaside.
„„ Current names and older terms: (swimming costumes/ bathers), which in many cases refer to
loanwords: ask/ question/ interrogate.
„„ Jargon or slang terms (bloody/ disgusting).
„„ Cultural or dialectal variants: film/ movie, lift/ elevator.

15
tema 11

inglés

Cruse (2004) reformulates and summarises into three degrees of synonymy:

a) Absolute synonymy refers to complete identity of meaning: Items which are equally normal in all
sorts of contexts. As said, there are a few pairs, if any: Sofa-settee, pullover-sweater.
b) Propositional synonymy is defined in terms of entailment: If two lexical items are propositional
synonyms, they can be substituted in any expression with truth-conditional properties without
effect on those properties: John bought a violin entails and is entailed by John bought a fiddle.
Differences in the meanings of propositional synonyms necessarily involve one or more aspects
of non-propositional meaning, the most important being:
−− Differences in expressive meaning.
−− Differences of stylistic level (on the colloquial-formal dimension).
−− Differences of presupposed field of discourse.
Most usually, more than one come into play at the same time. Cruse poses an enlightening
example:
This was the first time they had had intercourse
This was the first time they had made love
This was the first time they had f*
The first version would be more likely than the others in a court of law, the second is probably
the most neutral, and the third is likely to be found in a typical porn novel.
c) Near-synonymy
Usually, words that are close in meaning are near-synonyms (or plesionyms): very similar, but not
identical, in meaning; not fully intersubstitutable but instead, varying in their shades of denotation,
connotation, implicature, emphasis or register. Indeed, near-synonyms are pervasive in language
and easy to find: Lie, falsehood, untruth. All denote a statement that does not conform to the
truth, but they differ from one another in some aspects of their denotation. The words also differ
stylistically: Falsehood is quite formal, and untruth can be used euphemistically to avoid some of
the derogatory implications of some of the other terms.
Within near-synonyms, some minor differences can be found:
(I) Adjacent position on scale or degree: Fog/ mist, hot/ scorching; big/ huge.
(II) Certain adverbial specializations of verbs: Drink, quaff.
(III) Aspectual distinctions: Calm/ placid (state vs. disposition).
(IV)Difference of prototype centre: (Brave – physical; courageous – intellectual and moral) (Cruse,
2004).

3.5. Hyponymy

Somewhat related to synonymy, hyponymy is a relationship of inclusion: A general term (a

superordinate or hypernym) covers terms that are more specific (its hyponyms) (Jeffries, 2006). In
semiotic terms, the signified of the hyponym is included, or shares a basic feature, with that of the
superordinate. The word meat refers to a type of food: The superordinate term is food, and meat
is its hyponym. Similar words, such as fish, is a co-hyponym of food. Since each of these in turn
have hyponyms, we have a hierarchy of hyponymy for food. Some other examples of superordinates
followed by some of their co-hyponyms are: Go: walk, run, ride, drive, fly; walk: stroll, saunter, amble,
march; get: buy, borrow, steal; cook: bake, boil, fry, grill, poach, roast.

16
 tema 11

inglés

According to Julien (2006), not all words have superordinates. For example, there is no term to
cover the adjectives happy and sad, though the nouns emotion or feeling might be considered
quasi-superordinates for these and other adjectives in the same semantic field. Similarly, there are
no superordinates for teacher/ student, old/ young, live/ die. There may also be some variation in
the use of superordinates. Vegetable is ordinarily felt to be a superordinate of potato and tomato.
However, a restaurant menu may specify vegetables and potatoes as separate sets of items. In certain
instances involving sexual distinctions, a term may be a superordinate and a hyponym of itself. Dog,
for example, may be used for both sexes of the animal or just for the male dog: Is it a dog or a bitch?
Similarly, man is sometimes used – but less so than in the past, to avoid accusations of sexism – as a
synonym for the noun human: «Man’s inhumanity to man»; «All men are born equal».

1. How would you define synonymy?

2. How do synonyms appear throughout the history of the language?
3. What conditions must be fulfilled in order to consider that a word is a true synonym
of another?
4. What is near-synonymy?
5. How synonyms be classified?
6. What is hyponymy?

17
tema 11

inglés

4 Antonymy

4.1. Defining Antonymy

Perhaps one of the most important sense relations in language is that of oppositeness. It is also like
other sense relations in that the words concerned share the majority of their semantic features. They
are only significantly different in relation to one semantic feature, usually one that has strong social
significance.
The relationship of oppositeness, then, is really a special case of partial synonymy, with the particular
dimension of contrast being socially important.
The term antonymy is used in two ways. Some people (Palmer, 1976; Lyons, 1977; Lehrer and Lehrer,
1982) use it specifically to refer to contrast between gradable predicates, so that cold/ hot are
antonyms but aunt/ uncle are not. Others (Jones, 2002; Murphy, 2003) use it to refer to any lexical
pairs that constitute semantic opposites. In this general sense, antonymy can be defined as a relation
in which two words share all relevant properties except for one that causes them to be incompatible
(Julien, 2006).

4.2. Types of Antonyms

In this unit we will follow the second approach and shall consider the main types of antonyms, in
accordance with Jeffries (2006), although different labels have been applied to most of them and
some categories are not universally acknowledged.
a) Complementaries (complementary pairs, bynary antonyms)
Complementaries are what one might view as the stereotypical kind of opposite, though they are
not necessarily the most common. Being in a binary relation of absolute difference, they involve
word senses that are mutually exclusive, so that if one applies, by definition the other does not: if a
person is male, by definition he is not female, and vice versa; if a statement is true it cannot also be
false. These are adjectival examples, although complementaries can also be nouns and verbs. One
cannot be a man and a woman, live and die at the same time, or tell both the truth and a lie at the
same time. This categorisation can, however, be manipulated in context: We can say I’m half dead
when we are tired, or He’s such an old woman when we want to insult a man. However, in these
cases, speakers know that they are deliberately flouting the known sense relationships.
b) Gradable antonyms (gradable pairs, gradable opposites, polar opposites, antonyms)
Gradable antonyms are the (usually adjectival) opposites that represent the two ends of a
spectrum with intermediate points along its length. Thus, although hot–cold, big–small, good–
bad, dirty–clean and so on are opposites, they do not mutually exclude the other in the same way
as complementaries. Something that is not big is not necessarily small, a person who is not bad is
not necessarily good. As they are gradable, they can be intensified by premodifying adverbs: Very
hot, quite big, rather good. Intermediate terms may have positive or negative meaning (different;
slightly different, quite different, etc.) and their interpretation may depend on contextual or
cultural factors, such as «very old».
In a few very common cases, some of the intermediate points are also named by an inner set of
opposites: Hot . . . warm . . . cool . . . cold.

18
 tema 11

inglés

c) Antonymous pairs
Greenbaum distinguishes this category and describes it as pairs that are morphologically related
in that one term has a negative prefix. They may be either contradictories (continue/ discontinue,
curable/ incurable, legal/ illegal) or contraries (approve/ disapprove; friendly/ unfriendly; happy/
unhappy). However, this category has not been generally acknowledged by most scholars.
d) Converses (relational antonyms)
Converses are logically interesting because both words apply to a particular situation but represent
two different, reciprocal perspectives of that situation. Whilst the same transaction is implied by
the words buy–sell and borrow–lend, they look at it from the point of view of the buyer/ borrower
or seller/ lender, respectively. Whereas complementaries explicitly negate their opposite (to be a
man is not to be a woman), converses invoke their opposite; to be a husband necessarily means
that there is a wife, and vice versa. Another converse relationship is teacher–student. The converse
is sometimes not a true opposite because the opposing words are not contradictory. However,
they are popularly treated as opposites and make an interesting contrast with complementaries,
being mutually dependent rather than mutually exclusive.
Greenbaum (1996) points out that, in some cases, the same verb may be used for both directions
of the action: Sylvia rented the apartment to Diane and Diane rented the apartment from Sylvia. Also
for verbs and combinations with verbs: Marry, be related to, be associated with. Adjectives and
verbs denoting similarity or difference may be identical converses: Resemble, differ, equal; similar
to, identical with, different from, equal to.
e) Directional and reversive antonyms
Many taxonomies include this category within that of converses. In fact, this is a smaller category
than the others, and introduces a different perspective on opposition, as it describes processes
that reverse the effect of each other. Thus, button–unbutton, enter–leave and marry–divorce are all
directional in this sense. Prepositions fall into similar patterns, so that up–down, towards–away
and so on indicate reverse directions.
f) Other types of opposition
Julien (2006) indicates that many words that are considered to be opposites do not fit the above
categories. For example, learn/ teach seem to go together in a converse-like way, although they
are not different perspectives on the same action, but rather two actions that typically co-occur.
Gender opposites (female/ male, aunt/ uncle) are often considered to be complementary, althoguh
the existence of hermaphrodites calls that judgment into question. Other binary opposites are
seemingly part of larger contrast sets, for example happy/ sad (rather than happy/ angry or angry/
sad), raising the question of whether they are true contraries (on the same scale) or not. Other
pairs of words that go together, such as gin/ tonic can be argued to be minimally different (they are
similar in being part of the same drink, but different in being alcoholic/ non-alcoholic), although
many definitions of antonymy would not include such pairings. Still others, such as Heaven/ Hell,
contrast on so many levels (reward/ punishment, ecstasy/ agony, up/ down, cool /hot) that they
seem to flout the definition of antonyms as minimally different (Cruse, 1986).

1. How would you define antonymy? How many types of antonyms are there?
2. What other types of opposition may be found in English?

19
tema 11

inglés

5 False Friends

5.1. The Concept of Cognates and False Cognates

To understand the concept of false friends, it is advisable to review its relationship to the concept of
cognates and false cognates.
The word cognate derives from Latin cognatus, from co «with» + gnatus, natus, past participle of
nascor «to be born»[1]. Cognates are, in a general sense, words that have a common origin. They may
occur within a language, such as shirt and skirt in English, but they may also occur across languages,
e.g. night and German Nacht. Cognates need not have the same meaning: Dish (English) and Tisch
(«table», German), because languages develop separately, eventually becoming false friends. In
addition to having separate meanings, cognates may no longer resemble each other phonetically,
due to processes of phonological change: Cow and beef both derive from the same Indo-European
root but have arrived into English from two different ways (Germanic and Romance). Cognates may
arise through borrowings into languages, as in English pay and French payer.
False cognates are a pair of words in the same or different languages that are similar in form and
meaning but have different roots, in other words, they appear to be cognates when they are not.
A basic example is that of the word «mom/ mama» in English (Navajo má, Chinese mma, Swahili
mama, Quechua mama, Spanish mamá), which is a special case resulting from the nature of language
acquisition.

5.2. False Friends and False Cognates

The term false cognate is sometimes misused to describe false friends, which are pairs of words in
two languages that look and/ or sound similar but differ in meaning. While false cognates mean
roughly the same thing in two languages, false friends have distinct (sometimes even opposite)
meanings. In fact, a pair of false friends may be true cognates.
A special kind of false friend can occur when two people speak different varieties of the same
language, as it is the case of British English and American English. For example, you may pay a bill
with a check, whereas in the United States you may pay a check with a bill.
Comedy sometimes includes puns on false friends, which are considered particularly amusing if one
of the two words is obscene.

5.3. The Origin of False Friends

From the etymological point of view, false friends have originated in several ways: (a) Borrowing: If a
language borrows a word from another language, and then the meaning is shifted in any of the two.
The words preservative (English), préservatif (French) and preservativo (Italian, Spanish and Portuguese)
are all derived from the Latin word praeseruatiuum. However, in all of these languages, except English,
the predominant meaning of the word has become condom, whereas in English preservatives are
added to food. A very common false friend, the word actual, has a different meaning in English from
what it means in other European languages, where it means current or up-to-date; (b) Homonyms:
The German word Rat (pronounced with a long a) (= council) is cognate with English read and
German Rede (= speech), while English rat for a variety of rodent has its German cognate Ratte; (c)
Pseudo-anglicisms, which are new words formed from English morphemes independently from
an analogous English construct and with a different intended meaning. For example, in German
Oldtimer refers to an old car rather than an old person, while Handy refers to a mobile telephone. In
Spanish, for example, we have the word footing, which does not exist in English (jogging); (d) Idioms:
Some phrases commonly used in one culture and language may lose context when translated to

20
 tema 11

inglés

another language, conveying a totally different meaning. For example, I’ll call you back means that I
will call you at a later time. Translating literally to Spanish would end up in Te llamaré para atrás. The
correct translation would be Te volveré a llamar.

5.4. False Friends between English and Spanish

Examples of false friends between English and Spanish are frequent. Let us remember that out of
85% of the Old English word stock, only 15% has survived; the other Old English words have either
disappeared or undergone shifts of meaning or connotation (Greenbaum, 1996). The Latin and
French borrowings in English are mainly responsible for many cases of misunderstanding.
In many cases, even in cognates, there are differences between English and Spanish, as they may
not be related semantically at all (which would be the prototypical false friend: large/ grande, not
largo); they may also present some of the meanings but not all (station /estación, for transportation,
but not season of the year; contamination/ contaminación, meaning in English «infection in food or
drink caused by an organism» and not pollution); and even in those cases where the semantic scope
may be said to be equivalent, they are likely to differ in collocational restrictions (depend on, not
depender de), in their syntactic function (relax, which is only a verb in English), in their implications
about register or style (persons (very formal)/ personas) and in their positive or negative connotations
(impressive-positive; serious/ terrible, negative).

XX Implications for Language Teaching

Both false friends and false cognates can cause difficulty for students learning a foreign language,
particularly one that is related to their native tongue, since students are likely to misidentify the words
due to linguistic interference. In fact, lexical transfer is the term used to refer to the phenomenon by
which learners attribute to a lexical item of the foreign language all the features of its assumed
first-language translation-equivalent: Propositional, expressive and evoked meanings, as well as
collocability. Since false friends are a common problem for language learners, teachers sometimes
compile lists of false friends as an aid for their students. There is actually no ideal methodology for
dealing with false friends, other than memorisation.

1. What is the definition of.......... ? Give examples.

a. Cognate
b. False cognate
c. False friend
2. What is the origin of false friends?
3. What are the main characteristics of English-Spanish false friends? What
implications do they have for language teaching and learning?

The origin of false friends can be further understood if you read units 41 and 42, which
deal with the history of the language.
Unit 66, which deals with the presence of English around the world and in contact
with Spanish, also takes false friends into consideration.

21
tema 11

inglés

6 Lexical Creativity

6.1. The Concept and its Motivations

Language is a dynamic system in which all its components are in continuous development. However,
the level of language which is most subject to influence and change is that of vocabulary and
meaning. These are continually extended and revised, as new concepts arise that force the system
to be restructured, and new words, from native or foreign origin, occupy the semantic space which
another word used to represent. Sometimes, new semantic spaces appear, and a new word must
be created in order to cover it, or some old words have to expand or modify their meanings in order
to do so.
The motivations for lexical linguistic creativity are usually due to conceptual motivations, i.e. expressing
a concept or idea that has not been expressed yet, although pragmatic and social motivations also
play an important role.
Lexical creativity is carried out through the different linguistic resources available, including
word-formation, blending, clippings and compounding, among others. However, the notions of
productivity and creativity are to be taken into account.

6.2. Productivity vs. Creativity

In differentiating word-formation rules from word-creation ones, it is important to have in mind the
distinction between productivity and creativity (Zawada, 2005). Both Lyons (1977) and Bauer (1983)
make a distinction between productivity and creativity: The first 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 (or most) of which have never been heard before.
Creativity, on the other hand, is the native speaker’s ability to extend the language system in a
motivated but unpredictable (non-rule-governed) way.
Both productivity and creativity give rise to large numbers of neologisms. Both Lyons and Bauer do,
however, view productivity as rule-governed, which means that they include the recursive syntactic
rules (originally proposed by Chomsky to account for creativity) as part of productivity. Creativity,
on the other hand, and in their view, is not governed by rules. This means that productivity and
creativity are seen as independent and possibly mutually exclusive concepts, the former reflecting
rule-governed behaviour and the latter unpredictable innovation.

6.3. Three Characteristics of Lexical Creativity

First, lexical creativity involves the creation of new lexical items both by means of the more productive
and predictable word-formation processes (derivation, compounding and reduplication), as well as
the apparently less productive and predictable innovations by means of the word-creation strategies
(such as clipping, blending, borrowing, etc.).
In the second place, lexical creativity also involves the creation of new lexical items by changing
the meaning of existing forms, by such mechanisms as metaphor, metonymy, and widening and
narrowing. Lyons deals specially with metaphor and establishes a number of features for lexical
creativity:

22
 tema 11

inglés

a) Extension and restriction of meaning

b) pejoration and amelioration
c) similarity of meaning – metaphor
d) contiguity of meaning – metonymy and synecdoche
e) similarity of form
f) contiguity of form
Many of these traits can be found in the uses of figurative language, which will be analyzed later.
Thirdly, lexical creativity also involves the speaker’s lexical choices in making up any given expression
in real discourse, both in terms of paradigmatic choices between (near) equivalent or related lexical
items, as well as in terms of the syntagmatic choices which will determine their collocational patterns,
and their unexpected reversals in discourse or texts; in this sense, as is the case with synonyms,
dialectal, register, connotation and euphemism elements must be taken into account (Zawada,
2005).

6.4. Figurative Language

Widely used in literature and humour, figurative language has probably been one of the major
sources for lexical creativity throughout the history of the language. The clearest example of its
influence is Shakespeare’s innovations on the English language, and the amount of vocabulary that
the language has adopted from his works. It is estimated that he introduced more words into English
than all the other writers of his time combined: Over 1,700, according to some scholars. Examples of
words and sayings are: fashionable and sanctimonious; full circle, the makings of, strange bedfellows.
Figurative language routinely violates or breaks selectional semantic restrictions. When speakers
use figurative languages, certain semantic features are allowed to shadow others in the context of
utterance. From the rhetorical figures (tropes) of Greece and Rome, the number of linguistic devices
for figurative language is overwhelming, although its most relevant instances are (Brinton, 2000):
a) Oxymoron (paradox), which refers to an expression which contains an explicit contradiction, such
as delicious torment, living death or sweet sorrow.
b) Tautology, in expressions which are «true by definition», offering no new information, such as
information, such as word endings come at the end of words.
c) Synesthesia, in an expression which combines a word from one sensory domain with a word from
another sensory domain, such as cold response, sweet sound, warm reception.
d) Synecdoche refers to expressions which refer to a thing by naming part of it, such as a new face or
new blood. A typical kind of synecdoche is the naming of something by naming the material of
which it is composed, such as a cork, an iron or a glass.
e) Metonymy, in expressions which refer to a thing by naming part of something associated with it:
The bar (the legal profession), the church (religion), the crown (the king), and more recent the law
(the police), and a suit (a businessman).
f) Personification refers to expressions which attribute human qualities to non-human or inanimate
objects: The idea grabbed me.
g) Metaphor, in expressions which transfer a word from one conceptual domain to another, violating
the selectional restriction: Stock prices are falling; There was a pregnant pause; The bad news shattered
her.

23
tema 11

inglés

A typical type of metaphor is the use of body parts to name the parts of other entities: Lip of a glass;
eye of a storm. Also very common is the transference of terms from the physical domain to the mental
domain: Grasp the point; get a joke. In fact, much of our vocabulary from Latin origin which denotes
cognitive processes originally denoted physical processes: Translate, deduce, abstract. The use of
animal terms to denote human beings held in low esteem is also typical: A rat, a wolf, a snake.

1. What is ‘lexical creativity’?

2. What is the difference between ‘productivity’ and ‘creativity’?
3. Lexical creativity has three major characteristics. What are they?
4. What is ‘figurative language’? Can you remember its major devices?

For the distinction between ‘productivity’ and ‘creativity’, see unit 10.

24
 tema 11

inglés

CONCLUSION

The area of Semantics has been one of the most dynamic ones in linguistic
scholarship in recent years. A brief glance at the bibliographical list on the
different components of language shows that the interest of scholars in the field
of Lexical Semantics is highly relevant. Additionally, the area of Semantics is of
great importance to Psychology and computer studies, where research is trying to
analyze and replicate semantic structures in order to create increasingly accurate
dictionaries and machine translators.
This unit presents a review of the different conceptions and criteria for the definition
of word, including its place within Semiotics, in its role as a linguistic sign. Words
occupy a place in the extensive net of meanings which constitutes language.
Within this network, words establish relationships of sameness and oppositeness,
among others, which are intuitively known by speakers, although that show some
particular difficulties for scholars. Homonymy, synonymy and antonymy are areas
of the lexical subcompetence of language which are frequently instinctive for
native speakers, but that may constitute some difficulty for language learners.
Similarly, false friends constitute a challenge to language learning and teaching,
as lexical transfer frequently intervenes negatively in the learning of the foreign
language vocabulary. In fact, they are some of the most frequent mistakes made
by learners of English.
For teachers of English as a foreign language, this unit is of special importance, as
well as of direct application to the classroom. A great amount of our teaching deals
with vocabulary, as one of the major components of the language, and students
must be provided with sufficient resources so that they can face – and use –
homonyms, synonyms and antonyms, especially at intermediate and advanced
levels. At an elementary stage, most of the efforts are devoted to elementary
opposites (cold/ hot, dark/ light, etc.), as well as to create the semantic fields
belonging to the closest domains in their everyday language, i.e. those of families,
professions, hobbies or sports.

25
tema 11

inglés

BIBLIOGRAPHY

REFERED BIBLIOGRAPHY

AITCHINSON, J., GILCHRIST, A. and BAWDEN, D.: Thesaurus Constructions and Use: A Practical Manual.
London: ASLIB Press, 2000.
It provides some enlightening ideas on ways of structuring vocabulary.
BAUER, L.: English Word-Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
A comprehensive survey of the types of word-formation found in English, it has become a reference book in
the matter.
BRINTON, L.: The Structure of Modern English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 2000.
A comprehensive survey of major points of the English language, covering all levels of language.
CRUSE, A.: Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
The author establishes the descriptible and generalizable facts about lexical relations. It deals with idiomaticity,
lexical ambiguity, synonymy, hyponymy and meronymy.
CRUSE, A.: Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2nd ed, 2004.
A comprehensive introduction to meaning in language. It covers essential areas of Semantics, as well as of
Pragmatics.
GREENBAUM, S.: The Oxford English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
An excellent reference grammar for students of English at an advanced level.
HURFORD, J., HEASLEY, B. and SMITH, M.: Semantics. A Coursebook. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2007.
Conceived as an elementary coursebook, it is an excellent introduction to the subject in a step-by-step way.
JEFFRIES, L.: Discovering Language. The Structure of Modern English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.
This text provides students with the basic descriptive knowledge of all levels of language. It is an excellent
global work on the English language.
KEARNS, K.: Semantics. London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005.
The book provides a good understanding of a range of semantic phenomena and issues in Semantics, without
entering into scholarly controversies nor compositional formalism.
LYONS, J.: Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
The author examines in detail all the main contemporary problem areas in the semantics of natural languages.
Homonymy and polysemy, conversational implicature and polysemy, deixis and anaphora, tense and aspect,
mood and illocutionary force.
LYONS, J.: Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
It is the successor to Meaning and Context (1981), and it substantially expands its scope to introduce several
new topics and developments in Linguistic Semantics over the past decade.

26
 tema 11

inglés

PALMER, F.: Semantics: A New Outline. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
An indispensable reference book for Semantics. Already a classic.
SAEED, J.: Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Limited, 2nd ed, 2003.
It covers the basic concepts and methods of the field and discusses some of the most important contemporary
lines of research.
WITTGENSTEIN, L.: Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Limited, 1953.
It is the philosopher’s main work on the philosophies of mind, language and meaning. It is a classic of twentieth
century Philosophy.
ZAWADA, B.E.: Linguistic Creativity and Mental Representation with Reference to Intercategorial Polysemy.
Doctoral Dissertation. University of South Africa, 2005.
It offers an insight into linguistic creativity and Lexical Semantics.

27

SUMMARY/OUTLINE
The Word as a Linguistic Sign. Homonymy. Synonymy. Antonymy.False Friends.
Lexical Creativity
1. The Word as a Linguistic Sign
1.1. The Controversial Definition of Word
„„ The definition of word is controversial. Different definitions
provided do not give account of all the traits of the term.
„„ Scholars have established sets of criteria for its identification.
Greenbaum proposes:
−− Separation by pauses in speech
−− Appearance in isolation as a response utterance
−− Internal Stability
−− Possibility of being added inflectional endings
„„ Linguistics distinguishes between:
−− Orthographical word
−− Phonological word
−− Lexical word
−− Grammatical word
1.2. The Word as a Linguistic Sign: Semiotic
Approaches
„„ Saussure’s binary conception of the word as twofold:
Signifier + signified.
„„ Two essential features: Arbitrariness and the linearity of the
signifier.
1.3. The Analysis of Meaning: Semantics,
Componential Analysis and Sense
Relations
„„ Semantics is the branch of Semiotics that studies the
meanings in language.
„„ Meaning can be defined as the function of signs in
language. Wittgenstein (1953): «The meaning of a word is
its use in the language».
„„ Distinction semantic meaning (literal)/ pragmatic meaning
(contextual).
„„ Componential analysis attempts to give a semantic analysis
of words in terms of semantic features or components.
„„ Semantic features are relevant in order to constitute
semantic fields in areas of lexis describing aspects of the
world by means of word senses with related meanings.
„„ Words enter into sense relationships with others: Synonymy,
hyponymy, antonymy, etc.
tema 11
inglés
2. Homonymy
2.1. Defining Homonymy
„„ Homonyms are words which have the same pronunciation,
same spelling but different meanings.
2.2. Types of Homonyms
„„ Homophones: Two words sound similarly, although they
are spelt differently.
„„ Homographs: Two words have the same spelling, though
not necessarily the same pronunciation.
„„ Homomorphs: Words with the same form that may have an
affinity in meaning but are distinct grammatically.
2.3. Polysemy
„„ A word or lexeme which has a number of multiple related
meanings.
3. Synonymy
3.1. Defining Synonymy
„„ Synonyms are lexical items whose senses are identical in
respect of central semantic traits, but differ, if at all, only in
respect of what we may provisionally describe as minor or
peripheral traits in which they are used (Cruse, 1986).
3.2. The Origins of Synonyms
„„ English has borrowed terms from other languages
or dialects and developed synonyms via different
morphological processes or different metaphors.
3.3. Measuring Synonymy
„„ For word senses to be truly synonymous, they would have
to be identical in their semantic features, connotations and
grammatical identity and behaviour.
„„ We distinguish between absolute and partial synonymy.
Absolute synonymy is rare.
29
tema 11

inglés

„„ Substitution or interchangeability is the criterion for 5.4. False Friends between English and
defining synonymy.
Spanish
3.4. Types of Synonyms „„ The Latin and French borrowings in English are mainly
responsible for many cases of misunderstanding.
„„ Absolute synonymy. „„ Both false friends and false cognates can cause difficulty
„„ Propositional synonymy. for students learning a foreign language. Lexical transfer
„„ Near-synonymy (Plesionymy). appears when learners attribute to a lexical item of the
foreign language all the features of its assumed first-
language translation-equivalent.
3.5. Hyponymy
„„ It is a relationship of inclusion: A general term (a
superordinate or hypernym) covers terms that are more 6. Lexical Creativity
specific (hyponyms).

6.1. The Concept and its Motivations

4. Antonymy „„ The motivations for lexical linguistic creativity are usually
due to conceptual motivations, i.e. expressing a concept or
idea that has not been expressed yet, although pragmatic
4.1. Defining Antonymy and social motivations also play an important role.
„„ Antonyms represent the sense relation of oppositeness.
They are only significantly different in relation to one 6.2. Productivity vs. Creativity
semantic feature, usually one that has strong social
significance. „„ Productivity is one of the defining features of human
language; it is that property of language which allows a
native speaker to produce an infinitely large number of
4.2. Types of Antonyms sentences.
„„ Complementaries. „„ Creativity is the native speaker’s ability to extend the
language system in a motivated but unpredictable (non-
„„ Gradable antonyms.
rule-governed) way.
„„ Antonymous pairs.
„„ Converses.
6.3. Three Characteristics of Lexical
„„ Directional and reversive.
Creativity
„„ Other types of synonymy.
„„ Lexical creativity involves the creation of new lexical
items by means of the productive and predictable word-
formation processes, and other strategies, such as blending
5. False Friends or clipping.
„„ It also involves the creation of new lexical items by changing
the meaning of existing forms.
5.1. The Concept of Cognates and False
„„ It also involves the speaker’s lexical choices in making up
Cognates any given expression in real discourse.
„„ Cognates are words that have a common origin. They may
happen in the same or different languages. 6.4. Figurative Language
„„ False cognates are a pair of words in the same or different
languages that are similar in form and meaning but have „„ Figurative language routinely violates or breaks selectional
different roots. semantic restrictions.
„„ It is mainly used in literature and humour.

5.2. False Friends and False Cognates

„„ False friends are pairs of words in two languages that look
and/ or sound similar but differ in meaning.

5.3. The Origin of False Friends

„„ False friends may originate through diverse sources:
−− Borrowing
−− Homonyms
−− Pseudo-anglicisms
−− Idioms

30
 tema 11

inglés

EVALUATION

1. Nonetheless and today are considered to be

a. Two words
b. a semi-word
c. a phrase
d. a compound

2. The meaning of a word or phrase in the exact context where it is uttered is called
a. Semantic meaning
b. Componential meaning
c. Pragmatic meaning
d. Contextual meaning

3. The sentences «I like fruit» and «I like apples» are an example of a semantic relation of
a. Entailment
b. Inclusion
c. Part-whole
d. Implication

4. «Hand» (of a human) and «hand» (of a clock) are

a. Polysemes
b. Homophones
c. Homographs
d. Homonyms

5. The words «lead» of a dog and «lead» (metal) are

a. Homophones
b. Homomorphs
c. Homographs
d. Polysemes

6. «Lie», «falsehood» and «untruth» are

a. Absolute synonyms
b. Near-synonyms
c. Propositional synonyms
d. Stylistic synonyms

31
tema 11

inglés

7. «Go», «walk», «run», «ride», «drive», «fly», etc. are examples of

a. synonymy
b. hyperonymy
c. hyponymy
d. near-synonymy

8. «Male»/»female» are examples of

a. Converses
b. Antonymous pairs
c. Gradable antonyms
d. Complementaries

9. «Teacher»/»student» are
a. Converses
b. Reversive antonyms
c. Antonymous pairs
d. Complementaries

10. An expression in which something is to be true «by definition», which offers no new information, is
called
a. Synecdoche
b. Tautology
c. Oxymoron
d. Metonymy

32