TOPIC 11: THE WORD AS A LINGUISTIC SIGN. HOMONYMY, SYNONYMY, ANTONYMY.

‘FALSE
FRIENDS’. LEXICAL CREATIVITY.
1. INTRODUCTION
2. THE WORD AS A LINGUISTIC SIGN
2.1. Semiotic theories
2.2. The linguistic sign: definition and characteristics
3. HOMONYMY AND POLYSEMY
4. SYNONYMY
5. ANTONYMY
6. FALSE FRIENDS
7. LEXICAL CREATIVITY
8. CONCLUSIONS
9. BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. INTRODUCTION
“Nothing has its name by nature, only by usage”. Hermogenes
The present study is aimed to serve as the core of a survey on the notion of the word as a linguistic sign.
Therefore, in subsequent sections, we will become better informed about the relationships among words paying
attention to the major processes of homonymy, polysemy, synonymy, and antonymy, together with the concepts of
false friends and lexical creativity.
The relations between different linguistic expressions such as homonymy, polysemy, antonymy and polysemy
are covered by the are of study of Semantics, a sub-field of linguistics that is traditionally defined as the study of
meaning of words, phrases, sentences and texts. Semantic relations are the associations established between words
based on their meaning. They may be paradigmatic or syntagmatic.
- Paradigmatic relations: the relation between words that belong to the same class and can substitute each other in a
specific position within a sentence.
- Syntagmatic relations: the relation between words that co-occur and combine with others in the same sentence.
In this topic, we will be mainly concerned with paradigmatic relationships, analysing the three major types of them in
detail: homonymy, synonymy and antonymy.
On the other hand, the linguistic sign is covered by Semiotics, which is the study of signs and symbols and their use in
human communication, referring not only to language, but also to cultural and social elements. Unlike linguistics,
semiotics extends the concept of language to include not only words but many systems of communication. This
concept can involve different ways of communicating - sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch - and it can cover all
contexts, including clothing, politics, eating, or housing. The relation between semantics and semiotics might seem
straightforward: semantics is the study of the meaning and reference of linguistic expressions, while semiotics is the
general study of signs of all kinds and in all their aspects. Semiotics comprises semantics as a part. Charles W. Morris
in Foundations of a Theory of Signs (1938) divides semiotics into three branches: syntax, semantics and pragmatics;
so semantics is comprised as a part of Semiotics.
2. THE WORD AS A LINGUISTIC SIGN
2.1. Semiotic theories
The word has always been described by its concepts of signification, that is, how words and other parts of the speech
constitute signs that represent things. However, the concept of “word” has not been satisfactorily defined yet. Some
linguists define it as an indivisible entity, another ones state that a word is an element between potential pauses, or that
is an element lying between phonetic boundaries. For Bloomfield, a word is the smallest unit of speech that can
meaningful stand on its own. However, for each of these definitions there are always some possible objections, so at
the end, the concept of word seems to remain a little ambiguous.
The first profound analysis towards the word regarding most current concepts was done by the S wiss linguist
Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913). Notes taken by his pupils constituted what became later the “Course of General
Linguistics” (1916), the first research on modern languages and it marked up the beginning of Structuralism, it is
stated for the first time that a scientific study of a language needs to develop and study the system rather than the
history of linguistic phenomena. Among the concepts introduced by Saussure stands out the definition of the linguistic
sign. The emergence of the sign theory in the field of linguistics started when he felt that the theory of linguistic signs
should be placed in a more general basis theory. Inspired and grounded from that thought, he has proposed the term
‘semiology’ to refer to the study of signs.
De Saussure saw language as a system of signs, a structure which only exists and is comprehensible because its
elements (signs) enter into relations of opposition, which fill them with meaning. Using this assumption as a starting
point, de Saussure tried to define components of meaning in a sign. He compared a linguistic sign to a coin or a sheet
of paper and said that on one side we can find what is signified by the sign and on the other what is capable of
transmitting this meaning or signifier. As with a sheet of paper, the two components are inseparable and necessary for
the sign to function in communication. As such, the linguistic sign, the word, is bilateral, i.e. every linguistic sign has
two aspects which are inseparably connected: the sound sequence (signifier) on the level of expression, and the
concept (signified) on the level of meaning. Signifier and signified are abstract concepts and should not be understood
as a real sound and a thing but as a sound pattern and a concept, according to de Saussure. The sound pattern is not
actually a sound; for a sound is something physical. A sound pattern is the hearer’s psychological impression of a
sound, as given to him by the evidence of his senses. He also stated that the sound sequence and the concept of a
linguistic sign is said to be arbitrary, i.e. predetermined by convention only. The sign is arbitrary because there is no
reason that the letters "c-a-t" (or the sound of those phonemes) produce a four-legged domesticated feline on our
brains. Therefore, simply put, the signifier is the sound associated with or image of something (e.g., a tree), the
signified is the idea or concept of the thing (e.g., the idea of a tree), and the sign is the object that combines the
signifier and the signified into a meaningful unit.
At around the same time as Saussure was formulating his model of the isgn, across the Atlantic independent work was
also in progress by the American pragmatist philosopher and logician Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914), who
proposed the other major semiotic theory. In his theory, he emphasized that the way we interpret a ‘sign’ is what allows
it to be signified — what gives it its meaning. Unlike Saussure who has introduced the term ‘semiology’, Peirce
proposed the term ‘semiotic’ to refer to the study of signs and symbols and their interpretation.
In contrast to the binary concept of Saussure’s theory, Peirce’s theory of sign focuses on three-dimensional or triadic
and trichotomy system. Peirce classifies sign into three aspects, namely: representamen or sign vehicle (the specific
physical form of the sign – not necessarily material); the object (also referred to as the referent, it is teh aspect of the
world that the sign carries meaning about, i.e. to which the sign refers), and the interpretant (not an interpreter but
rather the meaning of the sign as understood by an interpreter).

He categorised the signs we use to communicate ideas with each other into three types: icon, index and symbol. Icons
have obvious physical connections between the sign vehicle and sign object, for example, a map or a portrait. Indices
have some factual relationship between sign vehicle and sign object. For example, a thermometer used indicate the
temperature or the smells coming from a kitchen will suggest what is being cooked. Finally, symbols are defined by
culture or arbitrary social conventions and do not need to resemble their mental concepts. There is no reason why blue,
for example, is used to signify masculinity. It is simply tradition and convention.

In 1923, Ogden and Richards expanded the view by Saussure. They argued that there is no direct relation between
signified (or, as they put it, referent) and signifier (in their words, the symbol). They said that this link is only
established through the Thought or reference, which is not the real-word signified itself, but rather the mental
concept that we have in our mind.

Therefore, they proposed a three-part (rather than two-sides) model, called the semiotic triangle, in which the symbol
is the external form of the word, the referent is the thing that exists in the real world of experience and that is named
by that word, and the thought or reference which is the concept we have in our minds, singling out all the qualities taht
define that particular thing. Therefore, it is a theory similar to that of Peirce, using reference instead of concept,
referent instead of object, and symbol instead of sign.

These structuralist ideas on linguistic signs were partly continued in the school of functionalism. In the Organon model
of language designed by Bühler (1934), a linguistic sign serves as a tool by means of which one person communicates
with another person about the world. Thus, Bühler distinguishes between three functions of the linguistic sign:
- It is a symptom that allows a sender to express his own beliefs and feelings (expressive function).
- It is a signal that appeals to the receiver (appelative function).

- It is a symbol that refers to objects and states of affairs in the real world (representational function).

Another attempt to render more rigorous and clear Saussure’s general theory of language and semiotics was made by
the Danish linguist and semiotician Louis Hjelmslev (1899-1965), who founded the Copenhagen Linguistic Circle. In
his Prolegomena to a Theory of Language (1953), Hjelmslev states that language is both a sign system and a process
of realisation (for Saussure, the comparable terminology is, respectively, ‘langue’ and ‘parole’). Like Saussure,
Hjelmslev also considers language to be a system of signs, and so it is important to be clear about the nature of the
sign. First of all, we note that no sign exists by itself in isolation; rather, signs are always in a context in relation to
other signs. To mark this fact, Hjelmslev speaks not about a sign as such, but about a sign function. A function he
defines as ‘a dependence that fulfils the conditions for an analysis’. Just as there is a function between a class and its
components, so there is a function between a sign and its components, ‘expression’ and ‘content’. A sign, in short, is
not some mark, or gesture with intrinsic qualities (an arrow might not always be a sign), but is what functions as a sign
in a given context. For a sign function to exist, then, there must be – again, in Hjelmslev’s terminology – an
‘expression’ and a ‘content’.
‘Expression’ and ‘content’, we find, are also the two inseparable functives of the sign-function. Expression can occur
in a variety of ways: through speech, writing, gesture (sign language) – each medium itself being realisable in
numerous other media (books, television, radio, newspapers, pamphlets, telephone, Morse code, semaphore, stone
tablets, inscriptions of all kinds (on walls, floors, tombstones), film, posters, art-works, everyday conversation and
writing). In other words, expression takes a particular form (e.g. in the words ‘I love Ron’), and it exists in a
substance (e.g. the human voice, or as marks carved on a wall). Consequently, there is both an expression-form (the
words), and an expression-substance (the material of the words).
On the content side, too, there is both ‘form’ and ‘substance’. Content can be defined generally as the form in which a
meaning is articulated. Hjelmslev prefers the term, ‘content’, instead of ‘meaning’, because the same meaning can
often be articulated by different contents – the contents of a natural language. Hjelmslev distinguishes three aspects of
content: content-purport, content-substance and content-form. If we compare different languages, such as ‘jeg ved det
ikke’ in Danish, ‘I don’t know’ in English, and ‘en tiedä’ en Finnish, then we find that these sentences, despite all the
differences, have a factor in common, namely the purport, the thought itself. It is as though language, in its different
articulations, divided up the same meaning area (purport) in ways specific to these different articulations (content).
The purport is thus given form by the content-form), and the meaning as such is the content-substance.
In particular, Hjelmslev is remembered as the inventor of Glossematik (glossematics), and for having given a new
rigour to the notion of connotation. Glossematics is a structural linguistic theory which defines the glosseme as the
most basic unit or component of language. The glosseme is defined as the smallest irreducible unit of both the content
and expression planes of language; in the expression plane, the glosseme is nearly identical to the phoneme. In the
content plane, it is the smallest unit of meaning which underlies a concept. A ewe, for example, consists of the taxemes
sheep and female which may eventually be divided into even smaller units – glossemes – of meaning.

2.2. The linguistic sign: definition and characteristics

The concept of ‘linguistic sign’ can be defined as any unit of language (morpheme, word, phrase, or sentence) used to
designate objects or phenomena of reality. By definition, a linguistic sign must have a form component (whose
elements are phonological units), a grammatical component (whose elements are grammatical units), and a meaning
component (whose elements are semantic units).

The formal structure of a linguistic sign is determined by the grammar of a language. Linguistic signs are sometimes
subdivided into complete and partial signs. A complete sign implies an utterance, usually a sentence, directly related to
the designated situation (the referent or denotatum of the linguistic sign). A partial linguistic sign is a word or
morpheme that is actualized only as part of a complete sign. The existence in a language of partial signs of various
degrees of complexity, as well as the divisibility of the signifier and signified of the simplest sign into unilateral
(nonsign) units of content (components of meaning) and expression (phonemes), ensure the economy of the linguistic
system, permitting the creation of an infinitely large number of communications from a finite number of simple units.

The linguistic sign has the following characteristics:

• Oral character
• It is essential for intellectual activity: According to Peirce, without linguistic signs, thought is impossible.
We need signs, linguistic and otherwise, to represent the world to us and to communicate this knowledge.
• The linguistic sign is arbitrary: The union between the signifier (the graphic-vocal manifestation) and the
signified is the result of a cultural convention, not of a natural union between the sign and what it represents,
hence the existence of different languages in the world.
• Linearity: the linguistic sign being auditory in nature has temporal aspects, they are not produced
simultaneously. The linguistic sign extends in space and time: either as a sequence of sounds or letters, the sign
is produced linearly, one after the other, forming a sequence or chain, as in “word”, or in “not”. The linearity
of the linguistic sign allows us to refer to the chain of speech, which implies a succession of units.
• It is part of a system (code): The linguistic sign makes sense, it works, as part of a system that contains it: the
language. It is part of a code shared by a linguistic community, such as the one that speakers of Spanish,
Portuguese, English, etc. Integrate.
• It is mutable and immutable at the same time: The linguistic sign appears as something impossible to
change that has been imposed by the linguistic community and conventions. But this is so, due to the
traditional and conservative nature of the language. However, within a diachronic perspective of the language,
the linguistic sign is mutable and its signifier and signified can be transformed, disappeared or substituted by
others.
• Relationality: The sign is relational; sign only makes sense in relation to other sign in same system.
• Discrete character: Discreteness means that the boundary between linguistic symbols is clear. Malmberg B.
(1963) says that we must understand as discrete elements those which are delimited between each other with
precision, with no gradual step between one and the other. That means that in a language everything works
through opposition, through the presence or absence of a linguistic element. Thus, at a lexical level hot is
opposed to cold, or to warm; at the phonetic level, heat can be opposed to eat by the presence or absence of the
 phoneme /h/ which carries out a change in the meaning, in the signified thing; or pin is opposed to bin by the
presence or absence of voice in the first phoneme. At the grammatical level, table is opposed to tables by the
presence of the final –s.
3. HOMONYMY AND POLYSEMY

Homonyms are words that have the same phonetic form (homophones) or orthographic form (homographs) but
unrelated meaning. Therefore, within the scope of the word homonymy we are confronted with words which have the
same spelling but differ in pronunciation, these are called Homographs. For instance, we have lead (metal) and lead
(dog's lead). On the contrary, there are words which share the same pronunciation but have different spellings, such
words are called Homophones. For instance, we have right, rite and write. In derivation, homonym means the same
name, homophone means the same sound, and homograph means the same letters.

Homonymy is not to be confused with polysemy. While homonyms are two separate words with unrelated meanings
whose external forms happened to converge over time, polysemic words are words that acquired several, related
meanings, such as "branch" of a tree and "branch" of a bank.

4. SYNONYMY AND ANTONYMY

Synonyms are words that, having completely different external forms, have identical or very similar meanings, such as
"rich" and "wealthy". Here, we must make a distinction between strict synonymy and loose synonymy.

Strict synonymy is the relationship between two words that are identical in meaning in all its aspects, and therefore
interchangeable in all possible contexts. They are very rare, and many linguists even argue that they do not truly exist.
This is because having two words with identical meanings goes against the principle of economy of language, creating
unnecessary redundancy. As a result, when two words are about to become strict synonyms, one of them tends to
either become specialised or restricted from the semantic points of view (mouton/sheep), or fade away from the
language and become an archaic term (enemy/foe).

Loose synonymy occurs when two words have very similar (but not identical) meanings, and they are not
interchangeable in all contexts. We can distinguish between 5 types of loose synonymy:

- Synonyms in different dialects: Different words with very similar meanings can exist in different dialects, as is the
case with British and American English (lift/elevator, pavement/sidewalk...).

- Synonyms at different levels of formality: In English, words from Anglo-Saxon origin tend to be more informal,
while those derived from French and Latin are more learned and formal: begin/commence, go in/enter,climb/ascend…

- Synonyms across jargons: Synonyms may also be differentiated by their level of technicality. Many occupations have
developed jargons that contain technical words that are used in their field and also have less technical equivalents in
everyday language: skull/cranium, heart attack/cardiac arrest…

- Euphemistic synonyms: Euphemistic synonyms are used in order not to refer directly to their taboo equivalents. This
is very common when dealing with subjects such as death, sex, and lavatory functions: die (taboo)/pass away (formal
euphemism)/give up the ghost (informal euphemism).
- Synonyms with different connotations: It is common for one member of a pair of synonyms to have connotations not
shared by the other. For example, "love" and "adore" are loose synonyms where "adore" has a connotation of worship
and passion that "love" lacks.

5. ANTONYMY

Antonymy deals with words that have opposite meanings. Such is the case of antonyms. -short, wide-narrow, new-old,
rough-smooth, light-dark, deep-shallow, fast-slow etc. Antonyms occur within the same style, dialect or register.

In English, we can also derive antonyms by means of prefixes and suffixes. For instance, we have negative prefixes
such as dis-, un-, or in- that may derive in antonyms from the positive root. E.g.: Encourage-Discourage, Entangle-
Disentangle, Infertile Increase-Decrease. Similarly, the suffixes –ful, -less may derive pairs of antonyms e.g.: Useful
and Useless, Thoughtful and Thoughtless.

There are three different types of antonyms, depending on what we understand by "opposite":

- Relational antonyms: They are pairs of words referring to both sides of a relation as seen from either point of view:
doctor/patient, husband/wife, teacher/student.

- Complementary antonyms: They are extremes which deny the other if they are affirmed: dead/alive, open/closed.

- Gradable antonyms: These belong to two extremes of a continuum with more options in between, such as tall/short,
black/white.

Studies of antonyms usually concentrate on adjectives and three characteristic properties of gradable opposites have
been established: implicit comparison, committedness, and markedness.
• Implicit comparison is present in gradable opposites in the sense that what is described as tall, for instance,
implies a comparison with other items from the same class which are short, that is, something is described as
‘tall’ in comparison to other things of the same type.
• An adjective is said to be committed if it implies a particular value when used in a question, and impartial or
uncommittedif it does not have such an implication. For example, tall is uncommitted in a question like "How
tall is Pat?", but ‘short’ is committed because we only ask ‘How short is Pat?’ if there is some reason to believe
that Pat is shorter than average height.
• Finally, in each pair of antonyms one element is termed as marked because a few phenomena coincide in it.
Markedness is used as cover term for several related phenomena: committedness (the uncommitted member of
an antonym pair is unmarked) and another criterion is that the unmarked antonym can appear in a wider range
of situations (we say ‘three feet long’ but not ‘three feet short’).
6. FALSE FRIENDS AND COGNATES

'False friends', are those lexical items which show a similar or identical external form (signifier) in both languages, and
often the same syntactic function, but whose meanings (signified) differ. In other words, false friends are lexical items
whose meaning looks like it should be the same across languages, but it is not. This leads to negative transfers and
more or less serious (and comical) communicative misunderstandings.
Examples of this kind of misleading words are frequent between English and Spanish, and they are responsible for
many cases of misunderstanding. The context is not very likely to offer hints of the fact that the English meaning is
different, and even a good bilingual dictionary will rarely contain a note to warn the user of possible confusion. Latin-
derived entries are among the most numerous within false friends, so this field must be paid particular attention by
Spanish students and their teachers.

Chances are, for almost every English word that resembles a Spanish equivalent, that they differ in some way:

- they are related in origin but their meanings are currently different: library/librería

- they may not be related at all: large/long

- they may present some related meanings, but not all, one of the terms comprising a broader range of meanings than
the other: weather/time/tense = tiempo

- their syntactic function may differ: relax is a noun in Spanish but a verb in English (noun: relaxation)

- their register and connotations may vary: persons (very formal) / personas (neutral)

On the other hand, cognates are words that have a similar etymological origin and, therefore, both sound alike and
have similar meanings. Cognates are very helpful when learning a foreign language whose linguistic background
overlaps with that of English. They can dramatically reduce the number of new words you have to learn, allowing you
to devote more time to other aspects of a language. For example, “piano” refers to the same musical instrument in
Spanish as it does in English. The same holds true for “banana” and “animal.” Therefore, whereas a false friend is a
pair of false friends is a pair of (similar) words in two languages where people are likely to assume (wrongly) that they
have the same meaning, a pair of false cognates is a pair of (similar) words in two languages where people are likely to
assume (wrongly) that they have the same origin. For example, the verb “haber” in Spanish seems to have a common
origin with the English verb “to have”, but although they look similar, they have completely different etymologies.

7. LEXICAL CREATIVITY

Language is not static, but alive and ever-changing, adapting to new realities and needs just like every other human
system does. One of the most remarkable features of language is the existence of inherent tools and mechanisms
allowing the speakers to use existing words in new and creative ways. Lexical creativity refers to the inehrent property
of language that allows human to create new meanings ad concepts through figurative language (metaphor, simile,
personification, etc), irony, wordplay or humour.

Here, Lyons distinguishes between productivity and creativity: while productivity is a rule-governed feature of the
language system (word-formation processes, such as blending, word coinage, conversion, affixation, compounding,
etc), creativity concerns the unpredictable, non-rule-governed innovations resulting from the language user's ability to
extend the language system.

Lexical creativity is, therefore, unexpected, and it is closely related to extensions or shifts of meaning. There are three
main ways in which language users can do so: through metaphor, metonymy and euphemism.
Metaphor: the literal meaning of a word is replaced by another one which is similar to it, but which has to be
interpreted by the reader. It is related to simile in the sense that it compares two things, but, unlike in similes,
metaphors do not have explicit connectives such as "like" or as". Therefore, instead of "her hair bright like gold" (a
simile), we would have "her golden hair" (metaphor).

Both of these are generally referred to as literary devices, and they are indeed often found in prose and verse, but they
also permeate everyday language: The heart of the matter, meaning "the central or most important part"; Dog-eared
pages, meaning "folded down"; Cow-eyed, meaning "with large, sad eyes".

Euphemism: A central psychological factor in lexical creativity is taboo, by which we avoid direct reference to
uncomfortable, unpleasant topics such as death, illness, lavatory functions or sexuality. Instead, as we have seen when
dealing with synonyms, we use euphemisms: words replacing a hard, blunt phrase with a milder, more pleasant one in
order not to cause offence. Some examples include: "to pass away" for "die", "senior citizens" for "old people",
"visually impaired" for "blind", "to be between jobs" for "be unemployed".

There are also euphemistic words at informal levels, such as "kick the bucket" to avoid saying "die" as well or "loo"
for "toilet". In due time, these euphemisms might also be felt as too explicit and be replaced by new ones.

Metonymy: Metonymy refers to a figure of speech where an attribute of a thing is used to represent the thing as a
whole. The interpretation often relies on context and cultural knowledge possessed by the receiver. Some common
examples are: "the crown" to refer to the Monarchy; "I studied Shakespare at university", meaning the works of
Shakespeare; "The pen is mightier than the sword", meaning "words" and "violence".
8. CONCLUSION
Vocabulary is one of the cornerstones to develop an understanding of and an ability to express oneself in a foreign
language. Using these and other semantic relations between words to our students' advantage will help them
systematize their vocabulary, and have the relevant lexical items more readily available when producing and decoding
language.
far-reaching implications of style and register is paramount from the beginning. Spanish learners tend to use too many
high-level synonyms derived from Latin, and therefore their conversation sometimes sounds too formal and stilted.
Likewise, our students should beware of false friends, which can impair communication and result in a failure to
communicate adequately
9. BIBLIIOGRAPHY

Crystal, D. (1985). Linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin

Chomsky, N. (1975): Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon Books.

Quirk, R. Et al. (1985). Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman.

Saussure, F. (2011). Course in General Linguistics. Columbia University Press.