Semantics is the study of meaning. The term was invented by M. Bréal (1897) and is therefore relatively recent, but, as Plato's Cratylos shows, the discipline itself is old (see Robins 1979).
Given that in semantics, as in all other branches of structural linguistics, structure is defined as the sum of the relationships between the elements of a system, we may distinguish a number of legitimate ways to approach semantics:
One problem which bedevils research in semantics is the question of circularity. How can we describe the meaning of other words if not by means of words themselves? This has led some scholars to develop a semantic metalanguage usinc concepts which, although they may look like natural language, are in fact quite distinct. Others simply accept the circularity as a built-in feature of natural languages, which naturally produces the fuzzy edges so typical of human languages.
Modern semantics concentrates largely on the sense of linguistic expressions rather than their reference.
Examples would be
{BIG} : {LARGE}
{HIDE} : {CONCEAL}
{FEEL} : {SENSE}
{BEGIN} : {COMMENCE}, etc.
It is often observed that there are no true (or "complete") synonyms. Languages rearely have words which are completely interchangeable in all contexts. Usually, there is some difference in the connotations associated with a particular word. - hence the term connotative meaning (or emotive meaning, sometimes contrasted with cognitive meaning). Sometimes a regional or stylistic distinction obtains between expressions which are otherwise synonymous. Consider, for example, the regional expressions {STREAM}, {BROOK}, {BECK} and {BURN} on the one hand, or the stylistic variants {HANDKERCHIEF}and {SNOT-RAG} on the other.
Synonymy is also context-dependent. Words may be synonymous in some contexts but not others. Lyons uses the example of {BUY} vs. {GET}:
I'm going to the shop to buy some bread.
I'm going to the shop to get some bread.
Frequently, asymmetries occur in what first appears to be a simple structure. Crystal notes the case of {ANIMAL}, which can be its own hyperonym on three levels. There are also gaps, but these tend to be language-specific. Compare the German terms for "bodies or stretches of water" with their English equivalents. There is one word for the superordinate term in German, but English has to do with a phrase:
Similarly, there is a superordinate term for {CHAIR} and {TABLE}, namely {FURNITURE}, but there is no superordinate term which brings together other related lexemes such as {DOOR} and {WINDOW}.
Complemenarity
Lexemes are said to be complementary if the assertion of one normally implies the denial of the other. Examples are
{SINGLE} : {MARRIED}
{MALE} : {FEMALE}
{LIFE} : {DEATH}
Lyons (1968:461) notes that complementarity can be seen as a special case of incompatibility. For example, if we assert that something is red, we are simultaneously denying that it is another colour belonging to the conventional set {green, blue, orange, ...}.
The test is therefore to see whether one term does deny the other, e.g.:
If X is not ______________, then X must be _____________.
Antonymy Proper
The term antonym is conventionally reserved for opposites which are usually gradable. Examples include:
{BIG} : {SMALL}The test is therefore to see whether the terms can be graded, e.g. by using {VERY} or {REALLY} in a sentence:
{SWEET} : {SOUR}
{THICK} : {THIN}
We have a __________ big house.It is possible to use modifiers with complemenary terms as well, but the results do not imply any degree of gradability, but merely emphasize the (probably prototypical) features associated with the term:
This apple tart is __________ sour.
"That was a really male thing to do."
i.e. That's just the sort of thing I'd expect a man to do."
Converseness
Lexemes are converse if the difference between them can be captured in an equivalence relationship. Examples include:
{HUSBAND} : {WIFE}The test is therefore to place terms in a sentence such as:
{FATHER} : {SON}
{OLDER} : {YOUNGER}
{SISTER} : {BOTHER}
If John is Jill's husband, then Jill is John's wife.Family relationships are a fruitful source of convese terms. Others examples are {BUY} : {SELL} (If Peter bought the car from John, then John sold the car to Peter.), {GIVE} : {RECEIVE} (If James gave the keys to Gordon, then Gordon received the keys from Peter.), {TEACH} : {LEARN} and the like.
If David is Peter's father, then Peter is David's son.
If David is older than Peter, then Peter is younger than David.
If Paul is Jane's brother, then Jane is Paul's sister.
Sometimes, converse terms are expressed by the same word, e.g. {RENT}:
If John rents the house to Bill, then Bill rents the house from John.Occasionally, converse terms can become mixed up, e.g. {LEND} / {LOAN} : {BORROW}, sometimes only in colloquial language:
He lent me a bike. vs. I borrowed a bike from him.
He borrowed me a bike. vs. I loaned / lent a bike from him.
Examples of homographs and/or homophones in English are:
Homophones and homographs usually come into existence by regular linguistic change. In the case of {FOUND}1 and {FOUND}2, for example, they are derived from different Latin verbs (fundare and fundere) and are still distinct in French fonder vs. fondre (Lyons 1977:22). It is sometimes not straightforward to decide whether we are dealing with a homonym (i.e. two or more lexemes), or simply with one lexeme with a variety of meanings. The latter might be the case with {EYE}, for example. The meanings "organ of sight" and "hole in a needle" might easily be regarded as related by metaphor. One might also imagine that the same is true for the two meanings of {EAR}, i.e. "organ of hearing" and "ear of corn", but in fact they were distinct words in Old English (OE êare and OE êar respectively), and are still kept apart in German (i.e. Ohr and Ähre respectively), so we have to posit {EAR}1 "organ of hearing" and {EAR}2 "spike of corn". In fact, there is also {EAR}3 "plough". Ultimately, etymological studies will sort out the homonyms (see Onions 1966). Examples of homonymic clash are relatively rare: homonyms are disambiguated by context or by the fact that they are different parts of speech (e.g. {BURN}1 "to burn" vs. {BURN}2 "stream or brook" or {LEAD}1 "to take with one, conduct" vs. {LEAD}2 "soft heavy metal; Pb").
Return to the SML112 Home Page | JW's Home Page