The Semantic Structure of English Words

Seminar overview
1.   Lexical semantics as a branch of linguistics.
2. The English word: problems of definition. Words, word-forms, lexemes, lexical items, phrasal lexemes. 
3.  Words as linguistic signs. Semasiological and onomasiological perspectives on the lexicon.  
4.   Models of meaning (Saussure’s model, semiotic triangle, “organon” (instrumental) model). Approaches to word
meaning (referential approach, conceptual approach, language-immanent approaches).
5. Meaning and concept. Are senses "images in the mind"?
6. Different approaches to a typology of meaning (grammatical and lexical meaning,    - denotation and
connotation, types of connotation, etc.).  
7.   Semantic change: causes and types (extension, narrowing, elevation, degradation)
8. Componential analysis. Modern componential  approaches. 
9.  Semantic marking (markedness). 

Ke Semantics- In linguistics, semantics is the subfield that studies meaning

y
, lexical semantics,- Lexical semantics is the study of word meaning. Descriptively speaking, the main topics
wo
studied within lexical semantics involve either the internal semantic structure of words, or
rds the semantic relations that occur within the vocabulary
:
a word, - a unit of language, consisting of one or more spoken sounds or their written
representation, that functions as a principal carrier of meaning.
a word-form,- A (particular) form of a word; especially each of the possible forms taken by a given lexeme,
typically distinguished by their grammatical inflections.

a lexeme, - s a unit of lexical meaning that underlies a set of words that are related through inflection.
a lexical item,- is a single word, a part of a word, or a chain of words (catena) that forms the basic elements of a
language's lexicon (≈ vocabulary). Examples are cat, traffic light, take care of, by the way, and it's raining cats and dogs.

a phrasal lexeme, - A phrasal lexeme is a short string, usually only two words where adding the extra word tends to qualify
the meaning of both, although I suspect eventually the phrasal lexeme enters the language as an idiom as it gets longer,
because it acquire "universal" acceptance as a specific meaning, and no longer has the flexibility to be used in several different
situations.

a seme, - the smallest unit of meaning recognized in semantics, refers to a single characteristic of a sememe.
a sememe,-  is a semantic language unit of meaning, analogous to a morpheme.
semasiology,- The branch of Lexicology that is devoted to the study of meaning
onomasiology,- is a branch of linguistics concerned with the question "how do you express X?" It is in fact most commonly
understood as a branch of lexicology, the study of words (although some apply the term also to grammar and conversation).

 a linguistic sign, -
any unit of language (morpheme, word, phrase, or sentence) used to designate objects or phenomena of reality. Linguistic signs are bil
ateral; they consist of a signifier, made up of speech sounds (more precisely, phonemes), and a signified, created by the linguistic sign’
s sense content.

signified, signifier
is a concept, most commonly related to semiotics, that can be described as "the study of signs and symbols and their use or
interpretation."[1] Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, one of the two founders of semiotics, introduced these terms as the two
main planes of a sign: signified pertains to the "plane of content," while signifier is the "plane of expression."[2]

, a semiotic triangle-pplied the structure of a triangle of meaning (reference, referent, and symbol) to show that the object which is
referred to by a given symbol or word is not static, but relative to each language user. Peirce (1931-1958) later utilized a similar notion,
using concept instead of reference, object instead of referent, and sign instead of symbol.

, functions of linguistic signs- 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

, denotation and reference- The terms denotation and reference are commonly used as synonyms. A more fine-grained
analysis of natural language as offered by TIL 1 shows that we can distinguish these terms in the case of empir-ical
expressions. The latter are shown to denote non-trivial intensions while their reference (if any) is the value of these intensions
in the ac-tual world.

, denotation and signification The first order of signification is that of denotation: at this level there is a sign
consisting of a signifier and a signified. Connotation is a second-order of signification which uses
the denotative sign (signifier and signified) as its signifier and attaches to it an additional signified.

, meaning,- the nonlinguistic cultural correlate, reference, or denotation of a linguistic form;

expression.
Concept- a principle or idea:
, lexical meaning and grammatical meaning,
denotative meaning and connotative meaning,
componential analysis,
semantic component / semantic feature,
semantic marking / markedness
semantic change (extension / generalization, narrowing / specialization,  elevation / amelioration,
degradation / pejoration)  

READING ASSIGNMENTS
I. Read thoroughly the sources below for the seminar and be prepared to discuss the following questions in class. 
1. Lipka L. An Outline of English Lexicology. – 2 ed. – Tübingen Niemeyer, 1992. – P. 46–67; 72–77; 98–120.   
             What are the principle differences among the models of the sign under review?
We have already seen that Coseriu stresses the importance of the distinction between signification ("Bedeutung") and designation
("Bezeichnung"). Desig-nation, for him, denotes the relationship between the full linguistic sign (combining signifiant and signifif)
and the extralinguistic object or referent. Only signification, however, is purely linguistic and linguistically structured, and it alone
is therefore relevant for structural semantics. Nevertheless, he does not deny the importance of designation for communication and
actual speech. He distinguishes three types of designation (cf. Kastovsky 1982a:26f.): 1. Desig-nation in speech, as when pig is used
instead of man; 2. multiple designation, as when the same referent is classified as either house, building, cottage, etc. and 3. the
coalescence or syncretism of classes of referents, as when in Greek the human species is classified as either dnthrdpos ('man as non-
animal') or as brotds ('man as non-god'). According to Coseriu the distinction between 'signification' and 'designation' is necessary
for two reasons. Firstly, it is possible to denote the same extralinguistic object with different linguistic means. Secondly, linguistic
and extralinguistic relations must not be confused, since knowledge of the language is not to be identified with the knowledge of
the world and of objects.
  Why is there a need to distinguish between the meaning of a linguistic expression and its relationship to an
extralinguistic object in reality?
That meaning is a notational term (like several others we have already discussed) becomes particularly apparent if we look at
Ogden/Richards's book ( 1949:186f.) entided The Meaning of Meaning where a list of 22 definitions of meaning is given. There is
2

certainly no single, correct explanation of mean-ing. Lyons (see 2.2.4.) distinguishes three kinds of meaning, or semantic in-
formation, namely 'descriptive meaning', 'social meaning', and 'expressive meaning'. For him, these are correlated with the
descriptive, social, and expressive functions of language. In most chapters of his book, however, he is solely concerned with
'descriptive meaning'. Leech 01981:23) identifies meaning in the widest sense with communicative value. This comprehensive notion
may be split up into three groups: 1. sense, 2. associative meaning and 3. thematic meaning (see 2.2.4.).

Coseriu, Lyons (1977:197ff.) and other linguists often quote famous examples from philosophers such as Frege and Husserl which
demonstrate the need to distinguish between the meaning of a linguistic expression and its relationship to an extralinguistic object
in reality. These are often treated in the context of a discussion of what to understand by reference. Thus, according to the
logician Frege's classic example, the complex words morning star (Mor-genstern) and ev£mng_siar (Abendstern) both refer to the
same extralinguistic referent, namely the planet They obviously have a different meaning. Similarly, as Husserl noted, the
expressions the victor at Jena and the loser at Waterloo clearly differ in meaning (or 'sense' in Lyons's terminology), buT have
the same reference, or, as Coseriu would call it, designation. Although victor and loser are not only different in meaning, but
opposites, they may be used for referring to an identical referent, to whom, for instance, the proper name Napoleon could also
have been applied.
   What does the notion of prototype reveal about boundaries of semantic categories?
The notion of 'prototypic category' or 'prototype' derives from research in psychology, from which it has been argued that we
recognize members of a category by matching them with a 'prototype'. It has recently been adopted into linguistics, e.g. in the
work of Fillmore and Leech ( 1981:84-86, 120). Fillmore (1978:153) even opposes a "prototype semantics" to what he calls the
2

"checklist theory of semantics", and argues that the former makes it possible to talk about a central or nuclear sense of a word, and ...
about the various weightings of the individual criteria that go into specifying the prototype. For him (1978:167) the "prototype definition" of
murder involves killing somebody, intending to kill the person mat got killed, and having a malignant heart about the whole thing.
   What lexemes are considered semantically marked?
The notion of 'prototypic category' or 'prototype' derives from research in psychology, from which it has been argued that we
recognize members of a category by matching them with a 'prototype'. It has recently been adopted into linguistics, e.g. in the
work of Fillmore and Leech ( 1981:84-86, 120). Fillmore (1978:153) even opposes a "prototype semantics" to what he calls the
2

"checklist theory of semantics", and argues that the former makes it possible to talk about a central or nuclear sense of a word, and ...
about the various weightings of the individual criteria that go into specifying the prototype. For him (1978:167) the "prototype definition" of
murder involves killing somebody, intending to kill the person mat got killed, and having a malignant heart about the whole thing.

ccording to Lyons it may make sense to ask a question like: Is that dog a dog or a bite hi Such a question would then contain both
lexemes (or 'lexical units') dog and dog However, Lyons decides against such a solution, as could be expected. He argues that the
l r]1

phenomenon of semantic marking is widespread and that it is necessary only in exceptional cases to refer to sex by a marked
lexeme like bitch. Since for him polysemy has to be distinguished from semantic marking, he is against treating dog as an instance
of polysemy. Lyons's notion of (formal, distributional, semantic) 'marking' is not identical with my use of markedness in connection
with connotation. There is a certain amount of overlap, however, since semantically marked lexemes as well as words with
additional connotations have a more specific meaning than the unmarked, neutral lexeme.
  Why is the term word ambiguous?
The term word can be used in at least three different senses, as has been demonstrated by Matthews (1991:24-31), originally
in 1974, (cf. Jackson 1988:1 ff.). His views can be summarized as follows: (21) word, = phonological/orthographic ~ (dies/died,
man/men) = WORD-FORM word = abstract unit (DIE, MAN)
2 = LEXEME word = grammatical ~ (come 1.
3

present, 2. past participle) = WORD. Word consists of a sequence of sounds, syllables or letters. Dies and died are obviously different
l

words in this sense. On a deeper level, such different forms obviously belong to the same abstract unit (Dm or MAN), the dictionary
word , or in technical terms, the same lexeme. Finally, the same sequence of sounds or letters (such as come) may represent a
2

different grammatical word Matthews proposes to retain the term word for this third sense. In connection with the ambiguity of
y 23

the term word Matthews also draws attention to the important distinction between type and token, originally introduced by
the American philosopher C. S. Peirce (cf. Lyons 1977:13 ff., Kastovsky 1982a: 74). Although there are some more likely correlations,
basic-ally words in all the senses distinguished in (21), as well as letters or sounds, can be regarded as either types or tokens.
Thus, the total number of occurrences of words in a novel (the word 'tokens') is far greater than the number of differ-ent words
(the word 'types') in it. The relationship between tokens and types can be characterized as one of realization or instantiation.
Concrete tokens can be said to realize or instantiate abstract underlying types.
 What is the principle difference between the terms lexeme and word-form? What are phrasal lexemes? 
Before we continue with our discussion, some terminological clarification will not be out of place. As in (11a) (p. 58) we will
henceforth use the terms lexeme for the abstract unit of the lexicon and word-form for the (inflectional or other) variants of
the lexeme on the morphological, phonological, or graphemic level. In contrast to Matthews's usage represented in (21), I will use
word in a general sense when there is no need for the specific technical terms and no ambiguity arises. I will continue to use the
established term word-formation, although it« should really be lexeme-formation, because it has a long tradition in linguistics ] and
is lexicalized and institutionalized. I
Some books (e.g. Quirk et al. 1985) prefer the term lexical item to lexeme.! I will occasionally use both terms as synonyms,
for stylistic variation, but wil| normally prefer lexeme for various reasons. It is shorter, seems to be more current in English and
general linguistics (especially for Romance languages), and furthermore stresses the parallel with the concept of morpheme. Like the
latter, the lexeme is: 1. A complete sign on a particular linguistic level, namely the lexicon; 2. A class of variants, namely word-
forms; 3. An abstract unit of the language system. Unlike the morpheme, the lexeme is not the smallest unit and may be a simple,
a complex, or a phrasal lexeme. Let us look again at some examples which illustrate the necessity of the distinctions introduced.
The lexemes FIND and TAKE are realized (amongst others) by the word-forms find, found and take, 73
took, taken. On the other hand singer does not belong to the lexeme SING despite its close phonological and morphological
connection with sing, singing. The last two word-forms, however, are related to the phonologically more different forms sang and
sung. The lexeme, as a unit, therefore comprises a group of word-forms, in analogy to the morpheme and its variants, the allo-
morphs. Thus, the complex lexeme SINGER also includes, besides the unmarked form singer, the genitive singer's and the plural
singers. It is itself composed of the morphemes {SING} and {-ER}.

  What does the term sememe mean?

Sememe is here defined as a specific meaning, or 'sense' of a lexeme made up of a complex of semantic components. The term
sememe is not used by many linguists, in particular it will not be found in Kastovsky (1982a), Leech ( 1981), Lyons (1977) and in the
2

work of Coseriu (but cf. Lipka 1972:33 f., 43 f.). Kastovsky (1982a: 84 f., 90, 92) only introduces the term archisememe to denote
the features common to all lexemes of a word-field, which may be realized materially as an archilexeme. The following examples
may illustrate the need for introducing such a concept and my use of the term sememe: (1) sememe 1
'round root of plant' The second illustration draws on an example introduced into linguistic research in 1963 by Katz & Fodor (cf.
Kastovsky 1982a: 247 ff.) which has been extremely influential.
  How can semantic features be derived?
Metalinguistic elements like distinctive semantic features or semantic components can basically be derived in two ways: 1.
by purely language-immanent procedures from the opposition of lexical items (cf. Coseriu/Geckeler 99
1981:34 f.), or 2. from properties of the extralinguistic referent or denotatum in a referential approach to semantics (cf.
Coseriu/Geckeler 1981:41 ff.). In the latter case - as opposed to Leisi's Gebrauchsbedingungen - such features have to be standardized
and formalized to some extent in order to be of general use. This can be done in many cases but not all, with the help of a binary
feature notation using + and -. The advantage of such a notation is that it achieves a clearer and more economical description. Also,
the results of a specific analysis can be verified and checked more easily. Such a simple formalization further reveals mistakes and
inadequacies, which may be hidden by a merely verbal characterization of the conditions of use of a lexeme. Examples of a purely
language-immanent semantic approach can be found in Coseriu's position and the so-called componential analysis, which goes back to
Hjelmslev. We will discuss this presently. The method of implicit or explicit paraphrase evaluation, practised e.g. by Generative
Semanticists like Lakoff and McCawley, must also be discussed in this context.

  How is semantic decomposition justified?

The decomposition of lexemes into semantic elements or components has a long tradition both in European structuralism and
American anthropology. In the 1950s anthropologists like W. H. Goodenough applied the componential analysis of meaning to kinship
terminology. As far back as 1943, the Danish linguist Louis Hjelmslev argued that words can be analysed into what he called content
figurae. Some of the examples he gave for such a componential analysis are: ram = 'he-sheep', ewe = 'she-sheep', man - 'he-
human being' etc. (cf. Lyons 1968:470-480; 1977:317-335; Coseriu/Geckeler 1981:34). It has often been noticed that such series of
words have certain meaning components in common. These can be made visible by setting up proportional equations and applying
the mathematical process of factorizing a number.
  What types of semantic features can be singled out?
A considerable number of terms have been used in semantic research for various kinds of semantic elements, such as: content
figurae, semes, sememes, components, semantic markersldistinguishers/features, and atomic predicates (cf.
Sprengel 1980:150). We will have a closer look at the concepts of atomic pre-dicates vs. semantic features in order to show that
these distinctions are not merely matters of terminology. We will see that not only the labels for the different theoretical constructs
differ, but also the range of empirical facts covered by the respective theories. Consequently it can be claimed that tra-ditional
componential analysis and Generative Semantics are complementary (cf. Lyons 1981:75 ff.). The former has almost exclusively been
applied to nouns (but cf. Lipka 1972 for verb-particle constructions), while lexical decomposition into atomic predicates is practically
restricted to verbs, in particular causative verbs (cf. Kastovsky 1973, Lipka 1982). In the following I shall try to charac-terize the main
assumptions of Generative Semantics, especially its theory of lexical decomposition (cf. Lipka 1976; 1982:7 ff.).

 2.  Murphy M. Lynne. Lexical meaning / M. Lynne Murphy. (Cambridge textbooks in linguistics). Cambridge
University Press, 2010. – P. 58-77. 
What are the characteristic features of Conceptual Semantics, Generative Lexicon Theory and Natural
Semantic Metalanguage?  
In what way(s) does the third approach stand in contrast to the first two?
This chapter has provided overviews and evaluations of three currentand influential componential theories: Conceptual
Semantics, Generative Lexi-con Theory, and Natural Semantic Metalanguage. They differ from the KatzianTheory,
discussed inchapter 3, in that they do not distinguish definitional andencyclopedic aspects of meaning. With the possible
exception of Pustejovsky,they are sensitive to the need to account for prototype effects and fuzzy mean-ing. Still,
proponents of image-schematic approaches argue that the componen-tial approaches to fuzziness are too peripheral to
these theories’ treatment ofmeaning.Aside from obvious differences in the forms of their metalanguages, the
threetheories differ in their main areas of focus. Conceptual Semantics is particularlyconcerned with ways in which words
can be built into phrases and sentences,and GL with the problem of how words are ascribed particular senses
withinsentences. Natural Semantic Metalanguage theorists, however, tend to focus onthe inventory of primitives in their
metalanguage and on demonstrating how awide range of linguistic and communicative phenomena can be accounted
forusing NSM.Conceptual Semantics and the Generative Lexicon overlap in many ways,while Natural Semantic
Metalanguage stands in contrast to these in terms of theassumptions about language and thought that inform the
theories. In the followingchapters, we encounter each of these theories again and consider what insightsthey can offer
into various lexical phenomena.
II. Revise your preliminary reading before Lecture 2.1  (Murphy M. Lynne. Lexical meaning / M. Lynne Murphy.
(Cambridge textbooks in linguistics). Cambridge University Press, 2010. – P. 3-24; 29-39) with respect to the
following: 
  •         What is a lexicon?
Thelexicalinlexical semanticsrefers to thelexicon, a collection of meaningful linguisticexpressions from which more
complex linguistic expressions are built.

Alexiconis a collection of information aboutwords and similar linguistic expressions in a language. But which information?
Which expressions? What kind of collection? Whose collection? We’ll coverthese issues in the following subsections, but
first we must acknowledge thepolysemy (the state of having multiple meanings) of the wordlexicon.Lexiconcan refer to:3
4lexical meaninga dictionary, especially a dictionary of a classical language; orthe vocabulary of a language (also known
aslexis); ora particular language user’s knowledge of her/his own vocabulary.For our purposes, we can disregard the first
meaning and leave the study ofsuch dictionaries to students of classical languages. The last two definitions areboth relevant
to the study of lexical semantics. In speaking ofthe lexicon, differentscholars and theories assume one or the other or the
interrelation of both, as thenext subsection discusses.

•         What is a word?
While the loose definition oflexical semanticsis ‘the study of wordmeaning,’ the focus of this textbook is more precisely
lexeme meaning. Never-theless, as a matter of fact, most of the cases discussed in this book (and mostof what is
traditionally considered to be lexical semantics) involve lexemes thatare words rather than bound morphemes or multi-word
lexemes (such as idioms).So, it is worthwhile to say a word about what words are. I have already hinted atone problem with
using the termwordas a technical term:wordis ambiguous inthat it could mean ‘lexeme’ as in (8) or ‘lexical unit’ as in (9):
(8)Colour and color are two spellings of the same word.(9)There are eight words in the sentenceJo’s pet ferret hates Jo’s mother’s
petferret.But aside from the lexeme/lexical unit ambiguity ofword, it can be tricky todetermine which lexemes count as
words in a particular language. Part of thereason for this is that the notionwordcan be defined in a number of
ways,including:
12lexical meaningorthographically– based on the written formsemantically– based on the meaningphonologically– based on
the word’s pronunciationgrammatically– based on positions in phrasesAsk random English speakers what a word is, and
you are likely to hear definitionsbased on orthographic or semantic criteria. Probably the most common belief isthat words
are bits of language that have a space on either side of them in print.The most obvious problem with thisorthographic
definitionis that it employscircular logic. The reason that we put spaces in writing is to signal the beginningsand ends of
words; one must already know which bits of language are wordsbefore one can know where to put the spaces

•         The boundaries of lexical semantics

As Puzzle 2–1demonstrates,meanis polysemous, and a single thingor word can “be meaningful” in many different ways.
This section distinguishessemantic kinds of meaning from pragmatic ones and denotative meaning fromconnotative and
social meaning.

In addition to pragmatic meaning, which is context-dependent, wordscome with lexical types of meaning – that is, meaning
that is specific to the wordand must be recorded as part of its lexical entry. The most important of these isdenotative
meaning, and so our task here is to differentiate that from other types.Denotative(sometimes also
calledconceptualorcognitive)meaninginvolves the relation between a word and the things (or properties or actionsor
concepts) that it refers to. A word’s denotative meaning is its “literal” mean-ing, the kind of meaning that is most directly
represented in dictionary definitions
What do we mean bymeaning?33of a word. In knowing the denotative meaning of a word, you know what theword can and
cannot refer to, and you know what other words it is semanticallyrelated to or not, and hence what entailments it forces in
particular contexts. Forinstance, because I know the meaning of the wordpetI know that odors cannotbe calledpetsbut
certain animals can, and I know thatpetanddogcan in certaincircumstances be the same thing. That is to say
thatpetanddoghave differ-ent denotative meanings which happen to overlap to some degree, so that theysometimes, but not
always, can be used to refer to (ordenote) the same thing.Besides denotative meaning, words can also haveconnotative
meaning,orconnotation. Use this term with caution, as it has a technical meaning in seman-tics that only partly coincides
with its use in everyday speech. Connotations aresemantic associations that a word has, which are not strictly part of the
denotativemeaning of the word. For instance,felineandcatandkittycan all denote the samethings, yet they are quite different
in their connotations, as can be seen in (7):(7) a.A feline jumped out of the tree.b.A cat jumped out of the tree.c.A kitty jumped out
of the tree.Felinesounds more scientific and less domestic, so you might assume that thefeline in (7a) is some kind of wildcat
that might be found in a zoo. On theother hand, you might picture the kitty in (7c) as something small and cute.
But,denotatively speaking, the sentences in (7) could all be true if any cat jumpedout of the tree, no matter its size,
appearance, or disposition. The assumptionsone makes based on the choice of one of those words or the other are
justassumptions, just connotations. Connotations are often included in dictionarydefinitions, but we need to be careful here
not to confuse connotations, whichare loose associations, with denotative meaning, which indicates what the wordcan and
cannot refer to. If someone tells you about a feline they saw, they arenot lying if the animal they’re talking about is a
common housecat, even if theirchoice of the wordfelineled you to believe that it was not.The last dimension of meaning
we’ll consider issocial meaning, which iswhat an expression can tell you about the person who is saying it and the
socialsituation they are in. If someone sayshowdyto you rather thanhello, you mightfigure out a number of things about that
person: perhaps they are American,perhaps they are from a rural area, perhaps they feel friendly toward you andfeel that the
situation is informal. Again, these are just assumptions that you aremaking – if an English person calls a liftan elevator, you
can hardly accuse him oflying about his nationality just because he used the American word. A particularsubtype of social
meaning isaffect, which indicates the speaker’s feelings orattitude toward the thing that they are talking about. Compare the
cases in (8):(8) a.That artist was a drunk.b.That artist was an alcoholic.If someone said (8a) you would get the feeling that they do
not approve of theartist’s drinking habits, and perhaps do not approve of the artist at all, but (8b)
34lexical meaningsounds more sympathetic to the artist’s condition. Of course, it gets tricky attimes to separate some of the
non-denotative aspects of meaning. In the case of(8) we could also say thatdrunkandalcoholichave different connotations –
wemight associate loud, anti-social behavior more withdrunkthan withalcoholic,for example. The issues of connotation and
affect are often intertwined, since ifyou want to express disapproval, you’ll probably use words that have
unfavorableconnotations. In general, we can contrast both connotation and social meaningwith denotative meaning, since
neither connotation nor social meaning affect thelogical (entailment-related) relations that a word enters into. From now on,
whenwe talk aboutmeaning, we’ll be focusing on denotative meaning.

•         Conventionality and non-compositionality of lexemes

•         Enrichment of the English vocabulary
•         Methods of investigating the lexicon
•         Questions lexical semanticists ask
This chapter has provided overviews and evaluations of three currentand influential componential theories: Conceptual
Semantics, Generative Lexi-con Theory, and Natural Semantic Metalanguage. They differ from the KatzianTheory,
discussed inchapter 3, in that they do not distinguish definitional andencyclopedic aspects of meaning. With the possible
exception of Pustejovsky,they are sensitive to the need to account for prototype effects and fuzzy mean-ing. Still,
proponents of image-schematic approaches argue that the componen-tial approaches to fuzziness are too peripheral to these
theories’ treatment ofmeaning.Aside from obvious differences in the forms of their metalanguages, the threetheories differ
in their main areas of focus. Conceptual Semantics is particularlyconcerned with ways in which words can be built into
phrases and sentences,and GL with the problem of how words are ascribed particular senses withinsentences. Natural
Semantic Metalanguage theorists, however, tend to focus onthe inventory of primitives in their metalanguage and on
demonstrating how awide range of linguistic and communicative phenomena can be accounted forusing NSM.Conceptual
Semantics and the Generative Lexicon overlap in many ways,while Natural Semantic Metalanguage stands in contrast to
these in terms of theassumptions about language and thought that inform the theories. In the followingchapters, we
encounter each of these theories again and consider what insightsthey can offer into various lexical phenomena.

EXERCISES 
1.     Count the number of words in the following sentence. Make a separate count of: a) orthographic word-forms; b)
grammatical word-forms; c) lexemes.
       In their conceptual world, words are at once containers, tools and weapons, just as in the physical world a bag is a
container, a screwdriver is a tool, and a gun is a weapon. (Adapted from McArthur 1998:38; in Jackson & Ze Amvela
2007)

2.     Match the verbs on the left and their minimal semantic components on the right:   
a)    apologize 1. (do) cause become not alive
b)    break 2. strike as similar, strike like/make think
c)    kill 3. (cause) become not whole
d)    persuade 4. request forgive
e)    remind 5. cause believe, (do) cause become intend
3.      For each group of words given as follows, state what semantic component or components distinguish between
the classes of (a) words and (b) words. Also, indicate a semantic component that the (a) words and (b) words share.
         Example: (a) mother, sister, aunt, widow, maid
                  (b) father, brother, uncle, widower, valet
          The (a) and (b) words share the semantic component “human”.
          The (a) words have the component “female” and the (b) words have the component “male”.
         A.   (a) bachelor, man, son, paperboy, pope
(b) bull, rooster, drake, ram
B.   (a) sugar, salt, flour, rice
(b) sand, concrete, soil, peat 
C.   (a) walk, run, jump, hop, swim
(b) cycle, ski, skate, canoe, ride 
D.   (a) ask, tell, say, talk, converse
(b) shout, whisper, mutter, drawl
                                                                                             (From Fromkin et al. 2011)

4.         Consider differences between lexical and grammatical meanings and illustrate them with Lewis
Carroll’s Jabberwocky.
Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
5.       Using an explanatory dictionary, single out the semantic component of the meaning shared by all the lexemes in
each synonymic string respectively as well as idiosyncratic semantic features pertaining to each lexeme. Identify types
of semantic features and / or types of connotation.  
a)  smell – odour – pong – scent – aroma – stink – fragrance – reek
b)  whizzkid – prodigy – precocious – bright
c)   famous – eminent – notorious – legendary
d)  to eat – to dine – to guzzle – to gobble – to munch – to nibble
e)  to look – to stare – to gaze – to gape – to scowl – to glare – to ogle
6.         Consider the following sentence pairs. Decide if the words in italics are semantically marked or semantically
neutral.
           a)    The burly male nurse in uniform loomed up. – The examination was conducted in the presence of
a female nurse and a female member of the Royal Military Police.
b)    How big is it, nine foot? – Yes, I mean I noticed from the draft PPG thirteen that they do not define
small. How small is small?     
c)    ‘Brilliant! We’ll both have some.’ She summoned a waitress. – A waiter brought smoked salmon.
d)    How good are you with a bow? – In the meantime, just how bad are things going to be? 
e)    She told her story to an officer she didn’t know. – He doubted whether a male officer could have managed to get
Miranda to agree to the ID parade.
(The data come from BYU-BNC)
7.         A distinction between meaning and concept is ultimately a differentiation between linguistic knowledge and
world knowledge. Consider the differences between run and jog as described in the extract. Then consult an
explanatory dictionary and write down the direct meanings of the words run and jog. Compare these data. In what
ways do they differ?  
          While run is basically a form of locomotion that is faster than walking and that involves specific bodily
movements, jogging is a way of running (‘leisurely running’, perhaps) that evokes the conventional background of a
certain lifestyle. Stereotypically, jogging is what middle-class people in affluent societies do as part of their leisure
time, with the explicit purpose of contributing to their health and physical wellbeing.
It involves a particular outfit: you may have to run even on occasions when
you are wearing a business suit, but if you are going to jog, you will put on
sports clothes; performing the movements of jogging in a business suit might
not be recognized as jogging. Also, it implies a specific trajectory: you can
run from any A to B, but if you jog, you typically follow a circular trajectory
that brings you back to your starting point. All of these features distinguishing
running from jogging [..] primarily [..] rely on conceptual knowledge about social groups and individual purposes.
(Geeraerts 2010:142)   
8. Look up the following words in an etymological dictionary (e.g., http://www.etymonline.com) and a dictionary of
contemporary English (e.g., http://www.macmillandictionary.com). What type of semantic change have they
undergone?
doctrine, novice, engine, lean, knight, lewd  
9.      Read the extract from the article Forget Fame: Eurovision Crown No-Names from Azerbaijan taken from the
weekly magazine The Time and do the tasks that follow.
In the run-up to this year’s Eurovision Song Contest, celebrity contestants dominated the headlines and the bookies’
odds tables. But during the grand finale European voters bypassed all the celebrity hype in favour of Ell & Nikki –
two unknowns from Azerbaijan singing a ballad about the madness of love.
Although critics dismiss Eurovision as a cultural eyesore for its garish outfits and lyrics seemingly written with
Google Translate, it remains the world’s most watched non-sporting event, drawing more than 120 million viewers
annually. For the devoted fans who make pilgrimages to these finals, and for the contestants dreaming of pan-
European stardom, Eurovision is practically their religion, its songs their holy scripture.
But look past the glitter and sequins, and the contest transforms into a barometer of contemporary Europe. This year’
Belarusian contestant delivered a patriotic ode to her motherland called “I Love Belarus,” an effort to give the nation
something to sing about following months of mass demonstrations against the embattled President <...>.
At Eurovision, though, European voters sent the popular, outspoken group packing in the semifinals. Perhaps they
should have taken a cue from the Azeris, who ignored politics in favour of good old-fashioned schmaltz – the
cornerstone of any strong Eurovision ballad. Their song “Running Scared” tells the story of a man and woman
frightened by their mutual obsession. “I’m running, I’m scared tonight / I’m running, I’m scared of life / I’m running,
I’m scared of breathing / ‘Cause I adore you”. After the victory, it looks like Europe adores them too.
a)    Providing linguistic evidence to your answer, find words in the text possessing the same:
§  grammatical meaning;
§  lexical meaning.
b)    Using an explanatory dictionary, carry out a componential analysis of the
words schmaltz, scripture, garish, hype, to adore. Define types of connotation.
c)    Study the semantic structure of the polysemantic words embattled and to draw. Determine what meanings of
these words are realised in the excerpt.