Chapter 1

Semantics is a branch of linguistics, which is the study of language; it is an area of study interacting
with those of syntax and phonology.
Phonology is the study of what sounds combine to form words; syntax is the study of how words
can be combined into sentences; and semantics is the study of the meanings of words and sentences.

To remember! Semantics is a domain which deals with the content side of linguistic signs, being in
strong connection with the other linguistic branches, in the same way in which morpho-syntactic
competence combines with semantic competence. Words collocate not only considering the syntactic
rules of a language, but also their meaning.
In ancient Greece, philosophers spent much time debating the problem of the way in which words
acquired their meaning. The question why is a thing called by a given name, was answered in two
different ways.
Some philosophers believed that the names of things were arrived at naturally, physei, that they
were somehow conditioned by the natural properties of things themselves. They took great pains to
explain for instance that a letter like "rho" seems apt to express motion since the tongue moves rapidly
in its production. Hence its occurrence in such words as rhoein ("to flow"), while other sounds such
as /s, f, ks/, which require greater breath effort in production, are apt for such names as psychron
("shivering") or kseon ("shaking"), etc. The obvious inadvertencies of such correlations did not
discourage philosophers from believing that it is the physical nature of the sounds of a name that can
tell us something about its meaning. Other philosophers held the opposite view, namely that names are
given to things arbitrarily through convention, thesei.
The physei-thesei controversy or physis-nomos controversy is amply discussed in Plato's dialogue
Cratylus. In the dialogue, Cratylus appears to be a part of the physei theory of name acquistion, while
Hermogenes defends the opposite, nomos or their point of view. The two positions are then debated by
Socrates in his usual manner.
Socrate concludes that "we must admit that both convention and usage contribute to the
manifestation of what we have in mind when we speak".
In two other dialogues, Theatetus and Sophists, Plato dealt with other problems such as the relation
between thought language, and the outside world. In fact, Plato opened the way for the analysis of the
sentence in terms which are partly linguistic and partly pertaining to logic.
To remember! The form of a word can indicate to a certain extent some features of its meaning, but
convention is the main factor in establishing how to make reference to something.

Aristotle's works (Organon as well as Rhetoric and Poetics) represent the next major contribution of
antiquity to language study in general and semantics in particular.
In the field of semantics proper, he identified a level of language analysis - the lexical one - the
main purpose of which was to study the meaning of words either in isolation or in syntactic
constructions. He deepened the discussion of the polysemy, antonymy, synonymy and homonymy and
developed a full-fledged theory of metaphor.
 The contribution of stoic philosophy to semantics is related to their discussion of the nature of
linguistic sign. In fact, as it was pointed out (Jakobson, 1965: 21, Stati 1971: 182, etc.) centuries ahead
of Ferdinand de Saussure, the theory of the Janus-like nature of the linguistic sign - semeion - is an
entity resulting from the relationship obtaining between the signifier - semainon - (i.e. the sound or
graphic aspect of the word), the signified - semainomenon (i.e. the notion) and the object thus named -
tynkhanon -, a very clear distinction, therefore, between reference and meaning as postulated much
later by Ogden and Richards in the famous "triangle" that goes by their name.
During the Middle Ages, it is worth mentioning in the field of linguistics and semantics the activity
of the "Modistae" the group of philosophers so named because of their writings On the Modes of
Signification. These writings were highly speculative grammars in wich semantic considerations held
an important position. The "Modistae" adopted the "thesei" point of view in the "physei-thesei"
controversy and their efforts were directed towards pointing out the "modi intelligendi", the ways in
which we can know things, and the "modi significandi", the various ways of signifying them (Dinneen,
1967: 143).
It was only during the 19th century that semantics came into being as an independent branch of
linguistics as a science in its own right.
In his lectures as Halle University, the German linguist Ch. Reisig was the first to formulate the
object of study of the new science of meaning which he called semasiology. He conceived the new
linguistic branch of study as a historical science studying the principles governing the evolution of
meaning.
Towards the end of the century (1897), M. Bréal published an important book Essay de sémantique
which was soon translated into English and found an immediate echo in France as well as in other
countries of Europe. In many ways it marks the birthday of semantics as a modern linguistic discipline.
Bréal did not only provide the name for the new science, which became general in use, but also
circumscribed more clearly its subject-matter.
The theoretical sources of semantic linguistics outlined by Bréal are, again, classical logic and
rhetoric, to which the insights of an upcoming science, namely, psychology are added. In following the
various changes in the meaning of words, interest is focused on identifying certain general laws
governing these changes. Some of these laws are arrived at by the recourse to the categories of logic:
extension of meaning, narrowing of meaning, transfer of meaning, while others are due to a
psychological approach, degradation of meaning and the reverse process of elevation of meaning.
Alongside these theoretical endeavours to "modernize" semantics as the youngest branch of
linguistics, the study of meaning was considerably enhanced by the writing of dictionaries, both
monolingual and bilingual.
Jost Trier's book, as well as his other studies, is visibly influenced by W. von Humbold's ideas on
language, and it represents an attempt to approach some of the Saussurean principles to semantics.
Analysing the meaning of a set of lexical elements related to one another by their content, and thus
belonging to a semantic "field", Trier reached the conclusion that they were structurally organized
within this field, in such a manner that the significative value of each element was determined by the
position which it occupied within the respective field. For the first time, therefore, words were no
longer approached in isolation.
 To remember! Words were no longer approached in isolation, but analysed in terms of their position
within a larger ensemble - the semantic field - which in turn, is integrated, together with other fields,
into an ever larger one; the process of subsequent integrations accounts for the structure of the whole
lexicon.
To remember! The period of crisis in the history of semantics was due to the extreme interest in the
linguistic structure, seen as the ‘engine’ which governs correct and meaningful communication. Focus
on word form and sentence structure proved beneficial for the future development of semantics,
because of the data gained.
In linguistic terminology the word semantics is used to designate the science of word-meaning.
One particular meaning of the term semantics is used to designate a new science, General
Semantics, the psychological and pedagogical doctrine founded by Alfred Korzybsky (1933) under the
influence of contemporary neo-positivism. Starting from the supposed exercise upon man's behaviour,
General semantics aims at correcting the "inconsistencies" of natural language as well as their tendency
to "simplify" the complex nature of reality.
In the more general science of semiotics, the term semantics is used in two senses:
(a) theoretical (pure) semantics, which aims at formulating an abstract theory of meaning in
the process of cognition, and therefore belongs to logic, more precisely to symbolic logic;
(b) empirical (linguistic) semantics, which studies meaning in natural languages, that is the
relationship between linguistic signs and their meaning. Obviously, of the two types of semantics, it
is empirical semantics that falls within the scope of linguistics.
The most commonly agreed-upon definition of semantics remains the one given by Bréal as "the
science of the meanings of words and of the changes in their meaning". With this definition, semantics
is included under lexicology, the more general science of words, being its most important branch.
Obviously, a distinction should be made between lexosemantics, which studies lexical meaning
proper in the traditional terminology and morphosemantics, which studies the grammatical aspect of
word-meaning.
To remember! As with any science, many more or less synonymous terms are introduced, the
difference being given by the perspective adopted. Terms such as ‘semantics’ and ‘semasiology’ reflect
the perspective of meaning as a property of the word, the latter being the basic element of interest.
‘Plerematics’ considers the whole lexicon of a language, as the all-inclusive class.

1.1. Semantics and Semiotics

When the Stoics identified the sign as the constant relationship between the signifier and the
signified they actually had in mind any kind of signs not just linguistic ones. They postulated a new
science of signs, a science for which a term already existed in Greek: sêmeiotikê.
Ferdinand de Saussure too, probably quite independently from Peirce, but undoubtedly inspired by
the same Greek philosophers' speculations on language, suggested that linguistics should be regarded
as just one branch of a more general science of sign systems which he called semiology. In other words
he saw no basic difference between language signs and any other kinds of sings all of them
interpretable by reference to the same general science of signs.
Peirce distinguished three main types of signs according to the nature of the relationship between
the two inseparable aspects of a sign: the signans (the material suport of the sign, its concrete
manifestation) and the signatum (the thing signified):
(i) Icons, in which case, the relationship between the signans and the signatum is one of similarity.
The signans of an iconic type of sign, resembles in shape its signatum. Drawings, photographs, etc.,
are examples of iconic signs. Yet, physical similarity does not imply true copying or reflection of the
signatum by the signans. Peirce distinguished two subclasses of icons- images and diagrams. In the
case of the latter, it is obvious that the "similarity" is hardly "physical" at all. In a diagram of the rate of
population or industrial production growth, for instance, convention plays a very important part.
(ii) Indexes, in which the relationship between the signans and the signatum is the result of a
constant association based on physical contiguity, not on similarity. The signans does not resemble the
signatum to indicate it. Thus smoke is an index for fire, gathering clouds indicate a coming rain, high
temperature is an index for illness, footprints are indexes for the presence of animals, etc.
(iii)Symbols, in which the relationship between the signans and the signatum is entirely
conventional. There is no similarity or physical contiguity between the two. The signans and signatum
are bound by convention; their relationship is an arbitrary one. Language signs are essentially symbolic
in nature. Ferdinand de Saussure clearly specified absolute arbitrariness as "the proper condition of the
verbal sign".

To remember! The act of semiosis may be both motivated and conventional. If semiosis is
motivated, than motivation is achieved either by contiguity or by similarity.
Any system of signs endowed with homogeneous significations forms a language; and any
language should be conceived of as a mixture of signs.
Chapter 2
Any sign is a convention, a symbol, standing for something else. As it has already been mentioned,
linguistic signs are characterised by the highest degree of conventionality, which explains the existence
of so many natural languages.
2.1.2. To remember! Ogden and Richards have pointed out in 1923 that at least three factors are
involved in any symbolic act- the symbol itself ‘the material aspect of the linguistic sign, be it phonic
or graphic’; the thought/reference ‘the mental content that accompanies the occurrence of the symbol in
the minds of both the speaker and the listener’; the object itself/ the referent ‘the object in the real
world designated by the symbol’.
Depending on what it is understood by meaning, we can distinguish two main semantic theories:
- the referential/ denotational approach-meaning is the action of putting words into relationship
with the world;
- the representational/ conceptual approach-meaning is the notion, the concept or the mental image
of the object or situation in reality as reflected in man’s mind.
Denotational / Referential Theories of Meaning.
Before describing the characteristics of these theories, a clarification of the terms used is
necessary. All languages allow speakers to describe or model aspects of what they perceive. In
semantics the action of picking out or identifying individuals/ locations with words is called
referring/denoting. To some linguists the two terms, denote and refer are synonymous. J. Saeed (1997:
23) gives two examples of proper names whose corresponding referents are easily recognizable
e. g. I saw Michael Jackson on TV last night.
We have just flown back from Paris.
The underlined words refer to/denote the famous singer, respectively the capital of France, even if
in some contexts they may be used to designate a person different from the singer, or a locality other
than the capital of France.
To John Lyons the terms denote and refer are not synonymous. The former is used to express the
relationship linguistic expression- world, whereas the latter is used for the action of a speaker in
picking out entities in the world. In the example
A sparrow flew into the room.
a sparrow and the room are NPs that refer to things in the world.; room, sparrow denote classes of
items.

To remember! In conclusion, referring is what speakers do and denoting is a property of words.

Denotation is a stable relationship in a language, it doesn’t depend on anyone’s use of the word, unlike
the action of referring.

Returning to the problem of theories of meaning, they are called referential/ denotational when their
basic premise is that we can give the meaning of words and sentences by showing how they relate to
situations: proper names denote individuals, nouns denote entities or sets of individuals, verbs denote
actions, adverbs denote properties of actions.
Referential theories consider meaning to be something outside the world itself, an extra-linguistic
entity. This means reducing the linguistic sign, i.e. the word, to its material aspect, be it phonic or
graphic.
The impossibility of equating meaning with the object denoted by a given word can be explained
considering three major reasons
a. the identity meaning-object would leave meaning to a large extent undefined because not
all the characteristic traits of an object as an extra- linguistic reality are identical with the distinctive
features of lexical meaning;
b. not all words have a referent in the outside world; there are:
- non- referring expressions so, very, maybe, if, not, etc.
- referring expressions used generically:
e. g. A murder is a serious felony.
- words like nouns, pronouns with variable reference depending on the context:
e. g. The president decides on the foreign policy.
She didn’t know what to say.
- words which have no corresponding object in the real world in general or at a certain
moment:
e. g. The unicorn is a mythical animal.
 She wants to make a cake this evening.
- different expressions/words that can be used for the same referent, the meaning
reflecting the perspective from which the referent is viewed
e. g. The morning star is the same thing as the evening star.
The president of the USA/ George Bush/ Barbara Bush’s husband was to deliver a
speech.
A distinction currently made by modern linguists is that between the denotation of a word and the
connotations associated with it. For most linguists, denotation represents the cognitive or
communicative aspect of meaning (Schaff, 1965), while connotation stands for the emotional overtones
a speaker usually associates with each individual use of a word. Denotative meaning accounts for the
relationship between the linguistic sign and its denotatum
Talking about reference involves talking about nominals- names and noun phrases-. They are labels
for people, places, etc. Context is important in the use of names; names are definite in that they carry
the speaker’s assumption that his/ her audience can identify the referent (Saeed, 1997: 28).
One important approach in nominals’ analysis is the description theory (Russel, Frege, Searle). A
name is taken as a label or shorthand for knowledge about the referent, or for one or more definite
descriptions in the terminology of philosophers. In this theory, understanding a name and identifying
the referent are both dependent on associating the name with the right description.
e. g. Christopher Marlowe was murdered in a Deptford tavern.
The writer of the play Dr. Faustus was murdered in a Deptford tavern.
The Elizabethan playwright was murdered in a Deptford tavern.
Another interesting approach is the causal theory (Devitt, Sterelny, 1987), based on the ideas
of Kripke (1980) and Donnellan (1972). This theory considers that names are socially inherited or
borrowed. There is a chain back to the original naming/ grounding. In some cases a name does not get
attached to a single grounding. It may arise from a period of repeated uses. Sometimes there are
competing names and one wins out. Mistakes can be made and subsequently fixed by public practice.
This theory recognizes that speakers may use names with very little knowledge of the referent, so it
stresses the role of social knowledge in the use of names. The treatment chosen for names can be
extended to other nominals, like natural kinds (e. g. giraffe, gold), that is nouns referring to classes
which occur in nature.

To remember! Referential theories consider meaning to be something outside the world, an

extra-linguistic entity. It is impossible to equate meaning with the object denoted because not all object
traits have correspondents at the level of meaning features and not all words have a referent in the
outside world. A word designates classes of objects; its denotation represents the cognitive aspect of
meaning and its connotations stand for the emotional overtones. An exception is represented by proper
names, their reference being accounted for by descriptive or causal theories of naming.

Conceptual/ Representational Theory of Meaning

It proposes to define meaning in terms of the notion, the concept or the mental image of the object
or situation in reality as reflected in man’s mind.
 On the other hand, complete identification of meaning with the concept or notion is not possible
either. This would mean to ignore denotation and to deprive meaning of any objective foundation.
Signification and Sense. Meaning should be defined in terms of all the possible relations
characteristic of language signs. The use of a linguistic sign to refer to some aspects of reality is a
semiotic act. There are three elements involved in any semiotic act- the sign, the sense, the
signification.
Two distinguishable aspects of the content side of the sign can be postulated- its signification, the
real object or situation denoted by the sign, i. e. its denotation and a sense which expresses a certain
informational content on the object or situation.
Extensional and Intensional Meaning. The definition of meaning by signification is called
extension in symbolic logic (Carnap, 1960) and what has been called sense is equivalent to intension.
Two distinguishable aspects of the content side of the sign can be postulated- its signification, the
real object or situation denoted by the sign, i.e. its denotation and a sense which expresses a certain
informational content on the object or situation. Defining meaning in terms of symbolic logic, we can
distinguish between extension, which stands for the class of objects corresponding to a given predicate,
and intension, based on the property assigned to the predicate. The presence of a referent associated
with the word accounts for extensional meaning, whereas its absence represents a case of intensional
meaning.
2.2. Dimensions of Meaning.
2.2.1. The multiple facets of meaning. Meaning is so complex and there are so many factors
involved in it, that a complete definition would be impossible. We are dealing with a plurality of
dimensions characteristic of the content side of linguistic signs (Chiţoran, 1973: 37).
There is a first of all a semantic dimension proper, which covers the denotatum of the sign
including also information as to how the denotatum is actually referred to, from what point of view it is
being considered. The former aspect is the signification, the latter is its sense.
e. g. Lord Byron/ Author of Child Harold have similar signification and different senses.
The logical dimension of meaning covers the information conveyed by the linguistic expression on
the denotatum, including a judgement of it.
The pragmatic dimension defines the purpose of the expression, why it is uttered by a speaker.
The relation emphasized is between language users and language signs.
The structural dimension covers the structure of linguistic expressions, the complex network
of relationships among its component elements as well as between it and other expressions.
Types of Meaning. Considering these dimensions, meaning can be analysed from different
perspectives, of which G. Leech distinguished seven main types (Leech, 1990: 9).
a. Logical/ conceptual meaning, also called denotative or cognitive meaning, is considered
to be the central factor in linguistic communication.
b. Connotative meaning is the communicative value an expression has by virtue of what it refers to.
c. Social meaning is that which a piece of language conveys about the social circumstances of its
use. In part, we ‘decode’ the social meaning of a text through our recognition of different
dimensions and levels of style.
d. One account (Crystal and Davy, Investigating English Style) has recognized several dimensions of
socio-linguistic variation. There are variations according to:
e. - dialect i.e. the language of a geographical region or of a social class;
f. - time, for instance the language of the eighteenth century;
g. - province/domain, i.e. the language of law, science, etc.;
h. - status, i.e. polite/ colloquial language etc.;
i. - modality, i.e. the language of memoranda, lectures, jokes, etc.;
j. - singurality, for instance the language of a writer.
d.The way language reflects the personal feelings of the speaker, his/ her attitude towards his/ her
interlocutor or towards the topic of discussion, represents affective meaning.
e.Reflected meaning arises in cases of multiple conceptual meaning, when one sense of a word forms
part of our response to another sense.
f.Collocative Meaning consists of the associations a word acquires on account of the meanings of
words which tend to occur in its environment/ collocate with it.
g.Thematic Meaning means what is communicated by the way in which a speaker/ writer organizes the
message in terms of ordering, focus or emphasis. Emphasis can be illustrated:
k. - by word-order:
l. e.g. Bessie donated the first prize.
m. The first prize was donated by Bessie.
n. -by grammatical constructions:
o. e. g. There’s a man waiting in the hall.
p. It’s Danish cheese that I like best.
q. -by lexical means:
r. e. g. The shop belongs to him
s. He owns the shop.
t. - by intonation:

Chapter 3

u. 3. 1. Absolute Motivation
v. To remember! Absolute motivation includes language signs whose sound structure reproduces
certain features of their content. Given this quasi-physical resemblance between their signifiant and
their signifié, these signs are of an iconic or indexical nature in the typology of semiotic signs,
although symbolic elements are present as well in their organization.
w.
x. There are several classes of linguistic signs, which can be said to be absolutely motivated:
y. Interjections. It would be wrong to consider, as is sometimes done, that interjections somehow
depict exactly the physiological and psychological states they express. The fact that interjections
differ in sound from one language to another is the best proof of it. Compare the Romanian au!
aoleu! vai! and the English ouch!, which may be used in similar situations by speakers of the two
 languages.
z. Onomatopoeia. This is true of imitative or onomatopoeic words as well. Despite the relative
similarity in the basic phonetic substance of words meant to imitate animal or other sounds and
noises, their phonological structure follows the rules of pattern and arrangement characteristic of
each separate language. There are instances in which the degree of conventionality is highly
marked, as evidenced by the fact that while in English a dog goes bow-wow, in Romanian it goes
ham-ham. Also, such forms as English whisper and Romanian şopti are considered to be motivated
in the two languages, although they are quite different in form.
aa. Phonetic symbolism. Phonetic symbolism is based on the assumption that certain sounds may
be associated with particular ideas or meanings, because they somehow seem to share some
attributes usually associated with the respective referents. The problem of phonetic symbolism has
been amply debated in linguistics and psychology and numerous experiments have been made
without arriving at very conclusive results.
bb. It is quite easy to jump at sweeping generalizations starting from a few instances of sound
symbolism.
cc. Jespersen attached particular attention to the phonetic motivation of words and tried to give the
character of law to certain sound and meaning concordances. He maintained for instance, on the
basis of ample evidence provided by a great variety of languages, that the front, close vowel sound
of the [i] type is suggestive of the idea of smallness, rapidity and weakness. A long list of English
words: little, slim, kid, bit, flip, tip, twit, pinch, twinkle, click, etc. can be easily provided in
support of the assumption, and it can also be reinforced by examples of words from other
languages: Fr. petit, It. piccolo, Rom. mic, etc. Of course, one can equally easily find counter
examples - the most obvious being the word big in English - but on the whole it does not seem
unreasonable to argue that a given sound, or sequence of sounds is associated to a given meaning
impression, although it remains a very vague one.
dd. Sapir (1929) maintained that a contrast can be established between [i] and [a] in point of the
size of the referents in the names of which they appear, so that words containing [a] usually have
referents of larger size. Similar systematic relations were established for consonants as well.
ee. Initial consonant clusters of the /sn/, /sl/, /fl/ type are said to be highly suggestive of quite
distinctive meanings, as indicated by long lists of words beginning with these sounds.
ff. 3. 2. Relative Motivation
gg. To remember! In the case of relatively motivated language signs, it is not the sounds which
somehow evoke the meaning; whatever can be guessed about the meaning of such words is a result
of the analysis of the smaller linguistic signs which are included in them. Relative motivation
involves a much larger number of words in the language than absolute motivation. There are three
types of relative motivation: motivation by derivation; by composition and semantic motivation.

hh.
 Chapter 4 . Componential Analysis
ii. Componential Analysis cannot be discussed without mentioning the role of
structuralism.Though structuralism in linguistics should be connected to structuralism in other
sciences, notably in anthropology, it should also be regarded as a result of its own inner laws of
development as a science.
jj. Generally, structuralist linguistics may be characterised by a neglect of meaning, but
this must not lead to the conclusion that this direction in linguistics has left the study of meaning
completely unaffected. Structural research in semantics has tried to answer two basic guestions:
kk. – is there a semantic structure/system of language, similar to the systemic organisation of
language uncovered at other levels of linguistic analysis (phonology and grammar) ?
ll. can the same structure methods which have been used in the analysis of phonological and
grammatical aspects of languages be applied to the analysis of meaning ?
In relation to question a), the existence of some kind of systemic organisation within the lexicon of a
language is taken for granted.
But this aaceptance does not mean it is an easy job to prove the systematic character of the lexicon.
One solution was to group together those elements of the lexicon which form more or less natural
series. Such series are usually represented by kinship terms, parts of the human body, the term of
temporal and spatial orientation etc, that can be said to reveal a structural organisation. Structural
considerations were applied to terms denoting sensorial perceptions: colour, sound , swell, taste, as well
as to terms of social and personal appreciation.
To remember! Keeping in mind the basic isomorphism between expression and content, it is
essential to emphasize some important differences between the two language levels:
- the expression level of language implies sequentiality, a development in time
(spoken language) or space (written language); its content level is characterised by
simultaneity;
- the number of units to be uncovered at the expression level is relatively small,
and infinitely greater at the content level.
To remember! Componential Analysis assumes that all meanings can be further analysed into
distinctive semantic features called ‚semes’, ‚semantic components’ or ‚semantic primitives’, as the
ultimate components of meaning. The search for distinctive semantic features was first limited to
lexical items which were intuitively felt to form natural structures of a more ar less closed nature.
- Binary oppositions frequently have marked and unmarked terms. That is, the terms are not
entirely of equivalent weight, but one (the unmarked) is neutral or positive in contrast to the
other.
- e.g. Eng. book # books
- duck # drake
- long # short
- Fr. petit # petite
 Markedness is definable as a relation between form and meaning: if two words contrast on a
single dimension of meaning, the unmarked one is the one which can also apply neutrally to the whole
dimension.
To remember! Componential Analysis is based on binary or multiple oppositions, within which
redundancy rules play an important part, from the point of view of the semes making up the meaning
of the words. An opposition obligatorily contains a marked element; in many cases, the latter is more
frequently used, moreover so when the unmarked counterpart is missing.
P a r a d i g m s i n t h e L e x i c o n . T h e S e m a n t i c F i e l d T h e o r y.
The idea of the organization of the entire lexicon of a language into a unitary system was for the
first time formulated by Jost Trier. Actually, Trier continued two lines of thought. On the one hand, he
was directly influenced by W. von Humboldt and his ideas of linguistic relativism. Wilhelm von
Humboldt, influenced by the romanticism of the early 19 th century, advanced the theory that languages
are unique.
Given the principle of relativism, it follows that the vocabularies of any two languages are
unisomorphic, that there are no absolute one to one correspondences between two equivalent words
belonging to two different languages.
The other line of thought which Trier continues springs from Ferdinand de Saussure's structuralism,
more specifically from the distinctions made by the latter between the signification, and value of lexical
items. According to de Saussure, words have signification, in that they do mean something, positively,
but they also have value, which is defined negatively by reference to what the respective words do not
mean. Linguistic value is the result of the structural relationships of a term in the system to which it
belongs. Thus, Trier postulated that no item in the vocabulary can be analysed semantically unless one
takes into account the bundle of relationships and oppositions it enters with the other words in a given
subsystem or system. One cannot assess the correct meaning of "green" for instance, unless one knows
the meaning of "red" and all the other colours in the system.
Trier advanced the idea, that vocabulary as a whole forms an integrated system of lexemes
interrelated in sense, a huge mosaic with no loopholes or superposed terms since our concepts
themselves cover the entire Universe. According to his dynamic conception of language viewed as
"energeia", Trier pointed out that the slightest change in the meaning of a term within a semantic field
brings about changes in the neighbouring terms as well.
To remember! Semantic fields with a more restricted number of terms are incorporated into larger
ones, the latter are themselves structured into even larger ones, until the entire lexicon of a language is
integrated into a unitary system. In Trier's opinion therefore semantic fields act as intermediaries
between individual lexical entries, as they appear in a dictionary, and the vocabulary as a whole. UNIT
V

Language is not only an instrument of communication. It is far more than this - it is the means by
which we interpret our environment, by which we classify or "conceptualize" our experiences, by
which we are able to impose structure on reality, so as to use what we have observed for present and
future learning and understanding. Leech considers language, in its semantic aspect, as a conceptual
system.
The first question which arises in whether language is a single conceptual system, or whether there
are as many conceptual systems as there are languages. Although much of present-day thinking has
tended to hypothesize a universal conceptual framework which is common to all human language,
common observation shows that languages differ in the way they classify experience. A classic instance
of this is the semantics of colour words. English (according to Berlin and Kay, Basic Color Terms,
1969) has a range of eleven primary colour terms (black, white, red, green, yellow, blue, brown, purple,
pink, orange and grey), whereas the Philipine language of Hanunóo (according to Conklein, Hanunóo
Colour Categories, 1955) makes do with four.
5.1. Linguistic Relativism
Semantic relativism and semantic universals are two conflicting points of view in relation to meaning.
Both theses concern the relation between the structure of language and the structure of the universe.
They represent in fact two different ways of interpreting the relation between the universe, as
experienced by man, and language as a tool of expressing that experience. Ever since ancient times it
has been maintained that the structure of language reflects more or less directly the structure of the
Universe as well as the universal structure of the human mind.
Wilhelm von Humboldt in the first half of the 19th century, and many philosophers and linguists after
him, assigned language a much more active role, regarding it not as a passive carrier of thought, but, in
a very direct way as a moulder of it. In their opinion, language imposes upon thought its own system of
distinctions, its own analysis of objective reality. These ideas remained unheeded by linguists until the
advent of European structuralism. The key idea in Saussurean linguistics namely that language signs
have no meaning or "value" outside the system to which they belonged, fits perfectly the principle of
linguistic relativism.
the Sapir-Worf hypothesis. For Sapir (1921) and Worf (1956) objective reality is an undifferentiated
continuum which is segmented by each language in a different way. We obtain a vision of nature, of
reality which is by and large pre-determined by our mother tongue. Each language is a vast system of
structures, different from that of others in which are ordered culturally all forms and categories by
means of which the individual not only communicates but also analyses nature, grasps or neglects a
given phenomenon or relation, in means of which he moulds his manner of thinking and by means of
which he builds up the entire edifice of his knowledge of the world.
The idea that language systems have no points in common at all, and are completely untranslatable is
refuted by empirical evidence. The fact that speakers of a given language are able to learn the
vocabularies of other language, and, indeed, whole other languages, is the best proof of it.
Furthermore, if we draw a distinction between meaning and reference, we can say that even though
there is no corresponding concept in one's own language for a concept in another language, one can
nevertheless provide a description of its referent (Leech 1990: 27).
similarities among languages are more important and more numerous than the differences among
them. These differences can be explained in terms of cultural differences between the respective
language communities.
5. 2. Universal Semantics
Interest in the study of language meaning shifted from what keeps languages apart to what all
languages are said to have in common.
The universalist point of view is based on the idea that language is basically an innate, or
genetically inherited capability, which all human beings are "programmed" from birth to develop. This
implies the adoption of the position that languages share the same basic conceptual framework. It can
be argued that there is a universal set of semantic categories (i.e. categories concerned with time, place,
causation, animacy, etc.) from which each language draws its own subset of categories, and it is only in
the choice from this subset, and in the permitted combinations in which they are expressed, that
languages differ.

UNIT VI
Ferdinand de Saussure directed the linguists’ attention to the necessity of studying the multiple
relationships among words in a systematic way.

To remember! A particular lexeme may be simultaneously in a number of such relations, so the lexicon
must be thought as a network rather than a listing of words. He suggested the existence of a network of
associative fields, covering the entire vocabulary, and this structuring the huge mass of words. So an
important organizational principle in the lexicon is the lexical field.
6.1. Paradigmatic Relations
6.1.1. The primary semantic relation on the paradigmatic axis is that of incompatibility, a
relation which is characteristic of all lexical elements based on the substitution of items:
e. g. I had tea at breakfast.
I had coffee/cocoa/milk.
The wider concept of meaning incompatibility includes distinct types of oppositeness of meaning,
each of them being designated by a separate term (J. Lyons).

a. Complementarity is a type of antonymic relation based on binary oppositions which do not allow
for gradations between the extreme poles of a semantic axis; they are two- term sets of incompatible
terms. Validity of one term implies denial of the other:
e. g. single - married
male - female
alive - dead.

b. Antonymy. The term is used to designate those meaning oppositions which admit certain
gradations with regard to the meaning expressed:
e. g. young- old;
young.........childish/juvenile.............adolescent.............young.........mature...........middle...........
aged...........old.......ancient.........
small- large; ....microscopic....tiny....little....small.....big/large.....spacious.....immense....
c. Reversibility refers to two terms which presuppose one another:
give- take; borrow- lend; buy- sell; husband- wife; offer- accept/refuse; employer-
employee. This type of binary opposition, a relation, involves a contrast of direction.
John is the child of James.
Lexical pairs such as parent and child are called converses. Because of the alternative ways of
expressing the same contrast, there arise cases of synonymy,
John is the parent of James = James is the child of John.
 d. Less common types of semantic opposition include hierarchic oppositions, which are
multiple taxonomies, except that they include an element of ordering. Examples are sets of units of
measurement- inch/ foot/ yard- , calendar units- month of the year- or the hierarchy of numbers
which is an open- ended, that is it has no ‘highest’ term. The days of the week opposition is a cyclic
type of hierarchy, because it has no first/ last member.
e. Last but not least, there is an interesting type of binary semantic contrast, called inverse
opposition:
e. g. all - some willing- insist
possible - necessary still- already
allow - compel remain- become.
6.1.2. Another type of paradigmatic relation is synonymy. There are words which sound different,
but have the same or nearly the same meaning. There is a tendency to limit synonymic status to those
elements, which given the identity of their referential, can be used freely in a given context. To
remember! There are no perfect synonyms, since no two elements can be used with the same statistic
probability in absolutely all contexts in which any of them can appear. Synonymy is always related to
context. Two lexical items are perfectly synonymous in a given context or in several contexts, but never
in all contexts. The term used to describe this is ‚relative synonymy’. Context, i.e. the position on the
syntagmatic axis, is essential for synonymy:
e. g. deep water *deep idea
profound idea *profound water
deep / profound sleep; deep / profound thought.

Lyons’ classification of synonyms into:

- absolute synonyms;

- partial synonyms;

- near synonyms.

Absolute synonyms should be fully, totally and completely synonymous.

i. Synonyms are fully synonymous if, and only if, all their meanings are identical ;
ii. synonyms are totally synonyms if and only if they are synonymous in all contexts;
iii. synonyms are completely synonymous if and only if they are identical on all relevant
dimensions of meaning.
Absolute synonyms should satisfy all the three criteria above, whereas partial synonyms should
satisfy at least one criterion (Lyons, 1981: 50-51).
 Synonymy depends largely on other factors such as:
- register used, wife [neutral], spouse [formal, legal term], old lady [highly informal];
- collocation, big trouble *large trouble;
- connotation, notorious [negative], famous [positive]; immature [negative], young [positive].
- dialectal variations, which may be geographical ,- lift (British English), elevator (American
English)-, temporal,- wireless became radio, -, and last but not least, social - toilet replaced lavatory,
settee became sofa-,though the last two subtypes of variations cannot be always separated; (Cruse,
1987: 282-283)
- morpho- syntactic behavior,
e. g. He began/ started his speech with a quotation.
Tom tried to start/ *begin his car.
At the beginning/ *start of the world…
All the examples above refer to lexical synonymy, but there are also grammatical synonyms,
operating at the level of morphology, means of expressing futurity, possibility, etc.
e. g. He will go / is going / is to go tomorrow.
He can/ may visit us next week if the weather is fine.
6.1.3. Hyponymy. Another type of paradigmatic relation is hyponymy / inclusion. It implies as
a rule multiple taxonomies, a series of hypo-ordinate / subordinate terms being included in the area of a
hyper-ordinate/ super-ordinate term. This relationship exists between two meanings if one
componential formula contains all the features present in the other formula. Woman contains the
features /+human/, /+adult/, /-male/.In different contexts, the emphasis is on one of the features
included in the meaning of woman:
e. g. Stop treating me like a child. I’m a woman [= grown- up]
She is a woman [= human being], not an object.
She is a woman [= female] , so she wouldn’t know what a man
UNIT VIII

1. Categorization
The process of categorization is essential because it represents "the main way we make sense of
experience" (G. Lakoff, 1987: XI). This mental operation, which consists in putting together different
things, is present in all our activities: thinking, percept ,speaking.etc
Most of the concepts or mental representations correspond to certain categories and not to
individual entities. Therefore, it is fundamental to know the mechanisms of categorization, trying to
give an answer to the question: What are the criteria which decide that an entity belongs to a category?
The objectivist current gives a clear answer: categorization is made on the basis of common
characteristics. The experiential realism imposes a different view, based on prototype theory. G. Lakoff
considers that the theory of prototype changed our conception about categorization, reasoning and other
human capacities (G. Lakoff 1987: 7).
Necessary and Sufficient Conditions Model. One traditional approach to describing concepts is
to define them by using sets of necessary and sufficient conditions.

This theory views concepts as lists of bits of knowledge: the necessary and sufficient conditions for
something to be an example of that concept.

To remember! The Aristotelian model of necessary and sufficient conditions, very largely used in
philosophy, anthropology, psychology and linguistics is based on the following thesis:
iv. Concepts and categories are entities with very clear borderlines.
v. The model is based on truth and false system: It is a dog provided that it fits the criterial
conditions of the category "dog".
vi. The members of the same category have an equal status since each member has the features
required by the definition of the category. So, each member is a good as any other.

The Prototype Theory. Because of the problems with necessary and sufficient conditions or
definitions, several more sophisticated theories of concepts have been proposed. One influential
proposal is due to Eleanor Rosch and her co-workers (Rosch 1973, 1975, Rosch and Mevis 1975,
Rosch et al. 1976) who have suggested the notion of prototypes. To remember! This is a model of
concepts which views them as structural so that there are central or typical members of a category, such
as BIRD or FURNITURE, but then a shading-off into less typical or peripheral members. So, chair is a
more central member of the category FURNITURE than lamp, for example. Or sparrow a more typical
member of the category BIRD than penguin or ostrich. This approach seems to have been supported by
Rosch's experimental evidence: speakers tend to agree more readily on typical members than on less
typical members; they come to mind more quickly, etc. Another result of this approach and similar
work (e.g. Labov 1973) is that the boundaries between concepts can seem to speakers uncertain, or
"fuzzy", rather than clearly defined.

G. Kleiber (1999) speaks about two sciences of prototype theory: the standard theory and the
extended theory. The standard theory corresponds to the period when E. Rosch and her team publish
their work. According to prototype theory, the category is structured on two dimensions: the horizontal
dimension (the internal structure) and the vertical dimension (intercategorial relations).

To remember! The Horizontal Dimension. The prototype is the best exemplar, the central instance
of a category. This new conception is based on the following principles (Kleiber,1997: 51).
1. The category has an internal prototypical structure.
2. The borderlines of the categories or concepts are not very clearly delimited, they are vague.
3. Not all the members of a category present common characteristics; they are grouped
together on the basis of the family resemblance.
4. An entity is a member of a certain category if it presents similarities with the prototype.

So, this approach allows for borderline uncertainty: an item in the world might bear some resemblance
to two different prototypes.
To remember! The theory brings three new elements of a great importance for lexical semantics.
(i) This theory allows us to integrate in the meaning of a word, characteristics excluded by the
classical model, being considered unnecessary, encyclopaedic features;
(ii) It proves the existence of an internal organization of the category.
(iii) It also explains the hierarchical conceptual structure and intercategorial relations.
We also have to take into account that this theory is a theory of categorization, first intended for
psychological goals.
The Vertical Dimension. Relations between Concepts. The relational nature of conceptual knowledge is
an important issue in semantics.
To remember! Proponents of prototype theory, (Rosch et al. 1976) have also investigated
conceptual hierarchies and have proposed that such hierarchies contain three levels of generality: a
superordinate level, a basic level, and a subordinate level. The idea is that the levels differ in their
balance between informativeness and usefulness.
8.2. Cognitive Semantics
Toward the end of the 20th century, there is both dissatisfaction with the existing formal semantic
theories and a wish to preserve insights from other semantic traditions. Cognitive semantics, the latest
of the major trends which have dominated the last decades, attempts to do this by focusing on meaning
as a cognitive phenomenon.
Cognitive linguists often point to a division between formal and functional approaches to language.
Formal approaches, such as generative grammar are often associated with a certain view of language
and cognition: that knowledge of linguistic structures and rules forms an autonomous module (faculty),
independent of other mental processes of attention, memory and reasoning. This external view of an
independent linguistic module is often combined with a view of internal modularity: that different
levels of linguistic analysis, such as phonology, syntax and semantics, form independent modules.
Functionalism, with which cognitive linguists identify themselves, implies a quite different view of
language: that externally, principles of language use embody more general cognitive principles; and
internally, that explanation must cross boundaries between levels and analysis.
This general difference of approach underlies specific positions taken by cognitive linguists on a
number of issues: in each case their approach seeks to break down the abstractions and specializations
characteristic of formalism. Studies in cognitive semantics have tented to blur, if not ignore, the
commonly made distinctions between linguistic knowledge and encyclopaedic, real world knowledge
and between literal and figurative language. Cognitive linguists consider that syntax can never be
autonomous from semantics or pragmatics. So, the explanation of grammmatical patterns cannot be
given in terms of abstract syntactic principles but only in terms of the speaker's intended meaning in
particular contexts of language use.
A further distinction that is reassessed in this framework is the traditional structuralist division
between, to use Ferdinand de Saussure's terms, diachronic (or historical) linguistics and synchronic
linguistics. In his foundational lectures, de Saussure, attempting to free linguistics from etymological
explanation, proposed his famous abstraction: a synchronic linguistics, where considerations of
historical change might be ignored, as if in describing a language we could factor out or "freeze" time.
This consideration has been accepted in many linguistic theories, but is currently questioned in
functional approaches. From the functionalist perspective, linguistic structures have evolved through
long periods of use and the processes of change are evident in and relevant to an understanding of the
current use of language.
If we turn to meaning, a defining characteristic of cognitive semantics is the rejection of what is
termed objectivist semantics. G. Lakoff (1988) assigns to objectivism the basic metaphysical belief
that categories exist in objective reality, together with their properties and relations, independently of
consciousness. Associated with this is the view that the symbols of language are meaningful because
they are associated with these objective categories. This gives rise to a particular approach to
semantics, Objectivist Semantics, which Lakoff characterizes under three "doctrines" (adapted from
Lakoff 1988: 125-6):
a. The doctrine of truth-conditional meaning: Meaning is based on reference and truth.
b. The "correspondence theory" of truth: Truth consists in the correspondence between
symbols and states of affairs in the world.
c. The doctrine of objective reference: There is an "objectively correct" way to associate
symbols with things in the world.
In rejecting these views, cognitive semanticists place themselves in opposition to the formal
semantics approach. For these writers, linguistic truth and falsity must be relative to the way an
observer construes a situation, based on his or her conceptual framework. The real focus of
investigation should, in this view, be these conceptual frameworks and how language use reflects them.
In the cognitive semantics literature meaning is a cognitive phenomenon, based on
conventionalized conceptual structures. Thus semantic structure, along with other cognitive domains,
reflects the mental categories which people have formed from their experience of growing up and
acting in the world. A number of conceptual structures and processes are identified in this literature but
special attention is often given to metaphor.
Cognitive linguists agree with the proposal by G. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) that metaphor is an
essential element in our categorization of the world and our thinking processes. The conventional
metaphorical expressions are not a purely linguistic phenomenon, but the manifestation of a conceptual
mapping between two semantic domains; hence the mapping is general and productive and, also
assumed to be specific for the human mind (Croft, Cruse, 2004: 198).
Metaphor is seen as related to other fundamental structures such as image schemas, which provide
a kind of basic conceptual framework derived from perception and bodily experience, and Fauconnier's
notion of mental spaces, which are mental structures which speakers set up to manipulate reference to
entities. Cognitive linguists also investigate the conceptual processes which reveal the importance of
the speaker's construal of a scene.
A consequence of this view of language is that the study of semantics and linguistics must be an
interdisciplinary activity. One result is that scholars working within this and related frameworks tend to
stray across intra- and inter-disciplinary boundaries more easily than most. The approach to metaphor
has been applied not only to the study of grammar and semantics, but also to historical linguistics,
categories of thought, poetic language, rhetoric and ethics amongst other areas.