Lexicología y Semántica Inglesas

THEORY
1. The Word-formation process. Lexicon.
The lexicon of a language is a listing of its unpredictable signs, including idioms. This
listing ideally provides information about the form and meaning of each, as well as (for
a word) its classification and the words it collocates with. Speakers of a language have
mental lexicons in which these types of information are stored.
Words and morphemes are classified into parts-of-speech according to their
grammatical behaviour, which varies from language to language.
The lexicon of a living language is open, and new words are regularly added while old
words may be lost. New lexemes can be constructed by inventing novel forms via
processes such as:
Clipping: is the shortening of an existing word of more than one syllable, generally to a
single syllable. Example: Ad-advertisement.
Acronyming: are words formed from the first letters of a string of words. There are two
types; word acronyms: are pronounced as single words following the spelling
pronunciation. Example: RAM and spelling acronyms: are pronounced as sequences of
the names of the letters used. Example: CD.
Blending: involve a combination of parts of two separate words to from a single word.
Example: Smog= Smoke + fog.
Borrowing: the process of incorporating into one language words from another, is
perhaps the most common source of new words. Words that have been borrowed are
called loanwords. Example: kangaroo.
Coinage: when a word is completely novel, an entirely creative invention. Example:
nerd.
They can also be constructed by re-using old forms and processes, including:
Derivation: forming new words by use of derivational morphemes. Example:
Darwinian.
Compounding: two separate words are sometimes joined together to form a single
word, a new word with a new meaning of its own. Example: loanword.
Reduplication: repeat an existing word either in full or in part. Example: lau-lau.
Backformation: a shorter word is created from a longer one by removing a part that is
wrongly taken to be an existing morpheme. Example: revise-revision.
Meaning extension: extending the meaning of an existing word, broadening it to
embrace new senses. Common way to forming words. Example: policeman.
Meaning narrowing: a word’s sense becomes restricted. Example: Doctor, person
holding a doctorate degree.
Words may be attitudinally charged. Some are prohibited in particular circumstances;
these are taboo words. Other illustrations of the affective values of words come from
euphemisms; used to avoid direct mention of unpleasant or taboo ideas and
dysphemisms; direct or harsh term with offensive overtones.
2. Lexical semantic relations.
The lexemes of a language can relate to one another semantically in various ways, and
form a structured system, the lexicon. We find 4 different types of semantic relations:
Synonymy: The relation of sameness or close similarity of meaning; lexemes related in
this way are synonyms. Some examples: small and little, mother and mum, car and
automobile.
Antonymy: The relation of opposite in meaning, examples can be: big and small, dead
and alive.
There are different types of antonymy:
Gradable antonyms: allow intermediate degrees between the two opposite
extremes, like rich and poor. Can be used in comparative constructions. The
negative of one does not necessarily imply the positive of the other.
Non-gradable antonyms: are polar opposites, and allow no intermediate
degrees. Examples: dead and alive. The negative of one implies the negative of
the other.
Converses: describe de same relation from contrasting viewpoints. Example:
own and belong.
Hyponymy: The meaning of one lexeme includes the meaning of another. A hyponym
includes the meaning of a more general word. Examples: hammer, saw, chisel …=
hyponymies of tool.
Meronymy: The part -whole relation- Examples: door and window = meronyms of
room. Meromymic relations in the lexicon can be represented in hierarchies similar to
taxonomies.
3. Semasiology and onomasiology.
A dictionary usually starts from a word form and lists the various senses and therefore
follows a semasiological approach. Semasiology is thus an approach to the lexicon
which describes the polysemy of a word form and the relationship between these
various senses. Sometimes the same form may in reality stand for two entirely different
words, as in Pole, used for inhabitants of Poland and for the North and South Pole: this
is called homonymy, two different forms having the same form.
Onomasiology: we start with a concept and see which other words or expressions we
can use as synonyms to denote the same or similar concepts. This is what a thesaurus
does. Onomasiology deals with the fact that different words may express similar
meanings like rich and wealthy, called synonymy; with the fact that words have
opposite meanings like rich vs poor, called antonymy; and with the fact that the
meanings of groups of words are related, like richness, affluence, wealth, poverty,
called lexical field.
4. The problem of idioms.
Certain exceptions to the principle of the generality of rules governing larger
grammatical structures have been made in the history of generative grammar.
It is difficult to give a precise definition of the category if idioms. Nunberg, Sag and
Wasow offer a prototype of definition of idioms with one necessary feature and a
number of typical features. The necessary feature is conventionally: ‘their meaning or
use can’t be predicted’. The other properties of idioms they list are:
a. Inflexibility: restricted syntax.
b. Figuration: figurative meaning.
c. Proverbiality: description of social activity compared to a concrete activity.
d. Informality: typically associated with informal speech styles or registers.
e. Affect: usually have an evaluation or affective stance towards what they
describe.
The linguists who ended up proposing the original construction grammar approached
the problem of idioms from the opposite direction. Instead of treating idioms as a
problematic phenomenon from the point of view of the componential model of
grammar, they analysed the wide variety of idioms, and their analysis became the basis
for a new model of grammatical organization.
Idioms can be characterized in many different ways. Fillmore et al. 1988 used their
analysis to argue for a construction grammar. Fillmore et al. begin with three features
that can be used to classify the idioms:
1. An encoding idiom is one that is interpretable by the standard rules for interpreting
sentences, but is arbitrary for this expression with this meaning. Examples: answer the
door, bright red. These are expressions that the hearer could figure our upon hearing
them.
2. Defining idioms between grammatical and extra grammatical idioms. Grammatical
idioms are parsable by the general syntactic rules for the language, but are semantically
irregular. Examples: kick the bucket. Extra grammatical idioms are idioms that cannot
be parsed by the general syntactic rules for the language. Example: so far so good.
3. Substantive and formal idioms. A substantive, or lexically filled, idiom is one in
which all elements of the idiom are fixed. Example: It takes one to know one.
4. Idioms with or without pragmatic point. Idioms with pragmatic point are idioms that,
in addition to having a meaning in the usual sense of that term, also are specifically used
in certain pragmatic context. Example: See you later.
Fillmore et al. use this features for a final, three -way categorization of idioms.
1. Unfamiliar pieces unfamiliarly arranged. Certain words occur only in an
idiom. Such idioms are lexically, semantically and syntactically irregular.
2. Familiar pieces unfamiliarly arranged. Such idioms are lexically regular but
semantically and syntactically irregular.
3. Familiar pieces familiarly arranged. Such idioms are lexically and
syntactically regular but semantically irregular.
Types of idioms compared to regular syntactic expressions.
Lexically Syntactically Semantically
Unfamiliar pieces Irregular Irregular Irregular
unfamiliarly
arranged
Familiar pieces Regular Irregular Irregular
unfamiliarly
arranged
Familiar pieces Regular Regular Irregular
familiarly arranged
Regular syntactic Regular Regular Regular
expressions

5. Explain the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. / Linguistic relativity.

A key question is whether differences in linguistic conceptualization play a central role
in language and thought (linguistic relativity) or whether they are rather marginal
(universalism). When language influences thought, it is known as linguistic relativity;
when thought influences language, it is known as universalism. It assumes that human
thought is significantly similar across cultures – that humankind shares a certain
‘psychic unity’ – and that since language reflects human thought, all languages are
significantly similar as far as their conceptual categories are concerned. In its extreme
version, this position asserts that linguistic conceptualization is essentially the same in
all languages. Though incompatible in their extreme version, it is possible to see some
truth in both linguistic relativity and universalism.
Sapir gives the example of what English is described in terms of “happening” schema,
i.e. ‘The stone falls’. Kwakiutl specifies whether the stone is visible or invisible to the
speaker at the moment of speaking and whether it is nearest the speaker, the hearer or a
third person. But it doesn’t specify whether it is one or several stones. In Nootka,
according to Sapir, the English view of ‘stone’ as time-stable entity is not present;
rather, the ‘thing status’ of ‘stone’ is implied in the verbal element which designates the
nature of the motion involved.
In view of examples like this one, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the different
grammatical categories of different languages invite, or even compel, their speakers to
see the world in distinctive ways. This view is referred to as the “Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis”
6. Define cultural script.
In different societies people not only speak different languages, they also use them in
different ways, following different cultural norms such as directness, formality and
politeness. They can also lead to ethnocentrism because they are usually not translatable
into the language of the people whose culture is being described. These problems can be
largely overcome if we use semantic primes to formulate our descriptions of cultural
norms of communication. When cultural norms are described in this way, they are
referred as cultural scripts.
Let’s focus on an example among Japanese, Anglo-American, and French languages:
-Japanese: culture strongly discourages people from saying clearly what they
want. The culturally approved strategy is to send an implicit message of some
kind, in the expectation that the addressee will respond.
-Anglo-American: attitudes are quite different: it is considered desirable if
people feel free to express their preferences.
-French: people expect that routine instructions given in workplace situation will
take a more forthright from than would be appropriate in English.
The method enables us to state hypotheses about cultural norms without resorting to
technical or language-specific terms, and in a way which is clear and accessible.
Cultural scripts can be used for describing variation and change, as well as continuity in
cultural norms.

PRACTICE
1. List of word and say the word formation process
Typo-> clipping (typological error) boatel->blending (boat + hotel)
Teens->clipping (teenagers) AC/DC-> compounding of acronyms (After Christ/ Devil Comes)
Porn-> clipping (pornographic) Carpeteria->blending (and borrowing)
Asap-> acronym (as soon as possible) Gargantuan-> derivation and borrowing Gargantua + n
Reagonomics-> blending (regan + economics) Sandwich->meaning extension
Wordsmith-> compounding (word + smith) Brolga-> borrowing
Galoot-> coinage Darwinian->derivation (Darwin + ian)
Peddle-> backformation Alcohol->borrowing and meaning extension
Doodad ->coinage la-di-da-> coinage (and phonaesthesia)
Karaoke->borrowing Frigidaire-> derivation (comes from fridge)

American language
Exoplanet: clipping and blending. Zeptoliter: blending.
Wiki: Clipping and borrowing. Pre-bang universe: compounding.
D-GPS: Acronym. Geolocation: derivation.
ADDL: Acronym. Picokelvin: derivation.
2. Highlight the lexical semantic relations in the list of words.
 Maximum-minimum: Antonym  Single-married: Antonymy
 Left-right: Antonym  Open-shut: Antonymy
 East-west: Antonym  Converse-chat: Synonymy
 Mad-crazy: Synonymy  Learned-erudite: Synonymy
 Borrow-loan: Antonymy  Appear-disappear: Antonymy
 Brotherly-fraternal: Synonymy  Mobile-cellphone:Synonymy
 Parent-child: Antonymy  Sane-insane: Antonymy
3. Ambiguity.
Ejercicio que hicimos en clase:
a) Be careful of my glasses: lexical ambiguity, “glasses” can refer to the eye-wear item
or the drinking container.
b) Criminal lawyers can be dangerous: syntactic ambiguity, as it can refer to the
lawyers of the criminal people or the lawyers who are criminal.
c) They’ll hang the prisoner in the yard: syntactic ambiguity, as it can refer to the
prisoner who is in the yard or hanging him in the yard.
d) Helen hater her husband: vagueness, as it can refer to Helen’s husband or someone’s
husband.
e) The pen has fallen down: lexical ambiguity, “pen” can refer to the fence for animals
or the writing tool.
f) The kangaroo is ready to eat: syntactic ambiguity, as the kangaroo can be ready to eat
something or to be eaten.
g) Don’t lie around her: lexical ambiguity, “lie” can refer to the action of saying false
things or to be over something.
h) You can see the man in the park with binoculars: syntactic ambiguity, as it could be
the man who is using binoculars or that you can see him thanks to the binoculars.
i) Smoking pipes will not be tolerated in this office: lexical ambiguity, “smoking pipes”
could refer to the object or to the action of smoking.
j) His photograph appears on page two: vagueness, “his” can refer to a photograph
made by him or a photograph of himself.

4. The componential analysis.

English has a number of verbs relating to cooking, among them the following
morphologically simple ones: cook, fry, boil, steam, bake, sear, grill, barbeque and toast.
Suggest a set of semantic features that distinguish these verbs from one another, and
provide a full feature description of each verb.

COOK FRY BOLL STEAM

+/- heat + heat + heat + heat
+/- oil + oil - oil - oil
+/- water - water + water + water
+/- outdoor - outdoor - outdoor - outdoor
+/- pot + pot + pot + pot
BAKE SEAR GRILL BARBECUE
+heat +heat +heat +heat
+/- oil +/- oil +/- oil - oil
-water - water - water - water
- outdoor - outdoor - outdoor + outdoor
- pot + pot - pot - pot

TOAST
+ heat
- oil
- water
- outdoor
+/- pot

Otro ejercicio: Suggest semantic features that will distinguish the following verbs of
motion: walk, fly, go, jump, swim, hop, run, crawl, drive, roll and move. Give a full
feature description for each verb.
WALK FLY GO JUMP
+legs -legs +/-legs +legs
+ hands - hands +/- hands +/-hands
+ground -ground +/- ground +/- ground
+physical -physical +/- physical +physical

SWIM HOP RUN CRAWL

+legs +legs +legs +legs
+hands -hands +/- hands +hands
-ground +ground +/- ground + ground
+/- physical +/- physical +physical +/-physical

DRIVE ROLL MOVE

+legs +legs +/- legs
+hands -hands +/- hands
+/- ground +ground - ground
-physical +/- physical +physical
5. Radial networks
c) Maps on a saddle. d) Circular flaps. b) Parts of the dress.
Specialization Specialization Generic

e) A bit of skirt. SKIRT i) Skirting the issue.

Metonym a) Prototypical Metaphor

f) Skirt forest. g) Skirting thing. h) They skirted round thing.

Metaphor Metaphor Metaphor

c) School of artist. d) School of fish

Generalization Metaphoric

b) Lessons. SCHOOL e) university college.

Metonym a) Prototypical Specialization

h) Pupils and teachers g) School of thought. f) Academic field.

Metonym Generalization Specialization

c) Understanding. d) Leader of a group.

Metaphor Metaphor

b) Mind. HEAD
Metonym A part of the body e) Top of something.
a) Prototypical Metaphor

g) (for) each person f) Calm.

Metonym Metaphor

6. Be worth 7. To trust someone 2. Count up to a limit

Figurative meaning Meaning extension Literal meaning/Metaphor (to calm down)
S+V+PP V+PP (on+n) S+V+PP+AP
Unfamiliar pieces Familiar pieces Regular syntactic expression
unfamiliarly arranged unfamiliarly arranged

1.Count things/something
Prototypical meaning
S+V+O
Regular syntactic expression

5.To consider 4. To classify 3. To include

Meaning extension Meaning extension (metonymy) Meaning extension (metonymy)
S+V+O+P.P. S+V+PP S+V+O
Familiar pieces Familiar pieces Familiar pieces
unfamiliarly arranged unfamiliarly arranged unfamiliarly arranged

b) I need this quotation in paper f) Seat sales are down, so we’ll have to
Metonymy paper the house this afternoon
Metaphor

PAPER
(prototype)
a. The letter was written on good quality paper

c. The police officer asked d. The examination consisted of e. The professor is due to
to see my car papers two 3 hour papers give his paper at 4 o’clock.
Specialization Specialization Specialization