Lexical semantics is the study of word meaning.

Descriptively speaking, the main topics studied

within lexical semantics involve either the internal semantic structure of words, or the semantic
relations that occur within the vocabulary. Within the first set, major phenomena include polysemy
(in contrast with vagueness), metonymy, metaphor, and prototypicality. Within the second set,
dominant topics include lexical fields, lexical relations, conceptual metaphor and metonymy, and
frames.
Lexical semantics could be defined as the ‘study of word meaning’, but in practice it is often more
specifically concerned with the study of lexical (i.e. content) word meaning, as opposed to the
meanings of grammatical (or function) words. This means that lexical semanticists are most interested
in the open classes of noun, verb and adjective and with more ‘contentful’ members of the adverb and
preposition classes (for instance over but not of). Lexical semantics is thus mostly exempt from
considering issues that arise from the use of grammatical words, such as definiteness and modality.

Lexical semantics relations introduce a different perspective in the sense that they introduce semantic
relations between lexical entries. The basic assumption is that the semantic properties of a lexical
item are fully reflected in a number of relations associated with different types of contexts. Since
relations may be very diverse, we should limit the notion of context to linguistic contexts, which
should cover the whole spectrum of senses of an item, in particular if we assume that extra-linguistic
contexts can in principle be mirrored linguistically. Linguistic contexts are also easier to control,
analyse and manipulate. It is then of much interest to take into account and to study the convergence
of grammatical properties and semantic properties of lexical items, and how they are realized in
utterances. (Aitchison, Jean. (2002). Words in the mind (3rd edn). Oxford: Blackwell.)

We can assume that contexts can be defined either by isolated words or by expressions. Then it is
possible to analyse the affinities of a word with respect to a context. Contrasts will then enable to
define semantic distinctions. There are two ways of analyzing affinities: a syntagmatic way, using an
analytical approach based on the description of properties associated with lexical items and contexts,
and a paradigmatic way, by stating relations between words or between a word and a context. These
relations describe the semantics of the items, without recourse to properties, which would decompose
meanings into components. Lexical semantics relations are essentially paradigmatic (even if they can
be combined directly with, or be based on, some analytical elements, or expression of properties.

Lexical semantics relations establish links between word-senses. The problem, still open, is then to
delimit senses. There are different strategies and perspectives related to this issue. Ex. from a finite set
of resources, an infinite set of senses, usages or lexical combinations can be produced.

Lexical semantics relations are usually binary, but some may require a third item, playing, e.g., the
role of a context. We can distinguish hierarchical and non-hierarchical relations. Hierarchical

Relations include the well-know is-a (or generic-specific) relation, widely used in artificial
intelligence, the part-of relation, and its subrelations, and proportional series. Non-hierarchical
relations include synonymy and various forms of opposition and antonymy. (Bierwisch, Manfred and
Ewald Lang (eds.). (1989). Dimensional adjectives . Berlin: Springer.)

Lexical semantics relations are postulated to be universal. Some relations are clearly better adapted,
or more productive, for certain syntactic categories, for example, the part-of relations are more
central for the structuration of nouns than they are for verbs and adjectives. For verbs, we may
consider the notion of subevent, but then a temporal organization, not included a priori into the part-
of relation, is necessary. Lexical semantics relations have also very different properties, and play very
different roles in a lexical knowledge base.

Finally, lexical semantics relations are based on boolean decisions: A is part of B or not. There is no
room for preferences, e.g. for stating that A is more prototypically a part of B than C. Weights could
be added to each tuple of a relation, scaling the ’prototypicality’ of a tuple, but so far, this has not
been developed.
A FAMILY SUPPER - KAZUO ISHIGURO
Dominant Concepts - tradition, generation gap.
Secondary Concepts – fanatism, Gender stereotypes.

This short story of Kazuo Ishiguro contains dominant concepts and relatively minor concepts. As the
key concept, I myself consider - the significance of tradition and the gap between generations. As for
the minor concepts, I have highlighted obsessive devotion to the particular stuffs, namely, known as
– fanatism and role of the Gender stereotypes.
Below, I have several excerpts from the story with their concepts. And, now I will show you the
specific words with which the objectification of the concepts occurs in those sentences.

Concept - Generation Gap

To begin with, in this excerpt - “My relationship with my parents had become somewhat strained
around that period, and consequently I did not learn of the circumstances surrounding her death
until I returned to Tokyo two years later” - dominant concept is “Generation Gap” , objectification of
the concept is achieved by the following word - strained.

“Inevitably, our conversation since my arrival at the airport had been punctuated by long pauses.” –
Here, objectification of the concept is achieved by the following words - long pauses.

“After a while, the conversation had become even sparser than prior to Kikuko's arrival”.
Objectification of the concept is achieved by the following word – sparser.

“You don't see how it is for some parents. Not only must they lose their children, they must lose
them to things they don't understand.” Objectification of the concept is achieved by the following
words - lose them to things they don't understand.

“If you wish to stay here, I mean here in this house, you would be very welcome. That is, if you don't
mind living with an old man.' 'Thank you. I'll have to think about it.” Objectification of the concept
is achieved by the following words - if you don't mind living with an old man.

“His general presence was not one which encouraged relaxed conversation; neither were things
helped much by his odd way of stating each remark as if it were the concluding one. Objectification
of the concept is achieved by the following words - His general presence was not one which
encouraged relaxed conversation.

Concept – Tradition

“Apparently, my mother had always refused to eat fugu, but on this particular occasion she had made
an exception, having been invited by an old schoolfriend whom she was anxious not to offend.”
Objectification of the concept is achieved by the following words - she was anxious not to offend.

“I think now in retrospect that he much resembled Chou En-lai, although he would not have
cherished such a comparison, being particularly proud of the pure samurai blood that ran in the
family”.
Objectification of the concept is achieved by the following words – retrospect, samurai blood.

“'We were partners for seventeen years.A man of principle and honour. I respected him very much.”
Objectification of the concept is achieved by the following words - A man of principle and honour.
Concept - Fanatism

“Those two beautiful little girls . He turned on the gas while they were all asleep. Then he cut his
stomach with a meat knife.” Objectification of the concept is achieved by the following words - he
cut his stomach with a meat knife.

Concept - Gender Stereotype

“In fact, as I sat opposite him that afternoon, a boyhood memory came back to me of the time he had
struck me several times around the head for ‘chattering like an old woman. ”Objectification of the
concept is achieved by the following words” - chattering like an old woman .

“Kikuko is due to complete her studies next spring,' he said. 'Perhaps she will want to come home
then. She's a good girl.”

“Obediently, my sister rose to her feet once more and returned the picture to the wall.”
Objectification of the concept is achieved by the following word – Obediently.

To draw the conclusion, we can assume that words are dependent on the meaning of the context.
Taken them separately have no real meaning, or they are so general, but in the specific context they
gain positive or negative connotations.