The Word as a linguistic sign. Homonymy. Synonymy. Antonymy. “False Friends”. Lexical Creativity.
1. n ntr trod oduc ucti tion on Meaning is the central issue in the present topic and it has been one of the central questions in linguistics throughout its history. When When analysing synonyms, antonyms or homonyms, one finds many questions which so far have not received a satisfactory and definite answer, like those about the relationship the form and the concept to which the form (the word) refers, or about the possibility of one form referring to two different concepts. Answers to such questions can be found in this paper, which follows the following order the concept of word as a unit of analysis and a linguistic sign, concepts of homonyms, synonyms and antonyms, the phenomenon of !false friends" and the creative use of words to e#press the desired meaning.
!. The Word Word as as a Lingui Linguistic stic Sign !.1 "e#inition o# the Word as a Linguistic Sign
$irstly the word has always been described by its concepts of signification, that is, how words and other parts of the speech constitute signs that represent things. A word has been often defined as a sequence of letters limited by a typographical space in both sides. %his idea of word is also conveyed by the term lexeme whose most simple definition would be that of the set of words and phrases included in a dictionary as separate entries. $or a more accurate difference between word and le#eme we will say that for e#ample wrote and written are different $ord #orms of a same le#eme which is write. We can also use the term mor%hosyntactic $ords for e#ample in the case of man and men, which are associated to the le#eme man. &n the case in which we find that morphosyntactic words share the same form i.e. loved as past simple and past participle, this will be called syncretism.
%he first profound analysis towards the word regarding r egarding most current concepts was done by Ferdinand de Saussure in the lectures he gave in the
'niversity of eneva between *+ and *. -otes taken by his pupils constituted what became later the !Course on General Linguistics” (*) the first research on modern languages and it marked up the beginning of /tructuralism, it is stated for the first time that a scientific study of a language needs to develop and study the system rather than the history of linguistic phenomena. Among the concepts introduced by /aussure stands out the definition of the sign as a composition of signi#ier and signi#ied. /ignifier is the sound and signified is the thought0 the
linguistic sign will be the link that unites them, creating at the same time a relationship between them completely arbitrary. And signs will be created by their value relationships with other signs. %hus signs derive their meaning by contrast with coe#isting signs of the same nature, that is, opposition. /aussure states in his theory of linguistics that the central tenet of /tructuralism is that the phenomena of human life, whether language or media are not intelligible e#cept through their network of relationships, language becomes a !social activity", so language will be sociali&ed at every level from the production of phonemes to the interpretation of comple# meanings. 1. Hel'mslev also distinguishes two levels in the linguistic sign, he talks about content and ex%ression, being content the universal and the e#pression its reali2ation through language. %hey are at the same time made of two aspects su(stance that in the e#pression would be the sounds as well as in the content
would be the universals0 and #orm that in the e#pression would be the phonemes and in the content is made by philosophy, e#tra linguistic. 1et3s see now some characteristics of linguistic signs. !.! Characteristics o# Linguistics Signs
&n order to study the characteristics of linguistics signs, language has been considered as something that transmits a message of direct communication, that is, giving special importance to the oral function of language. %he first characteristic to be considered is linearity, it makes reference to the chain of speech which implies a succession of units, and these will be positioned at different levels in language
structure. /ince two units cannot be in the same place in the chain of speech the position of each one will be relevant in the distinction of them. Another characteristic which is ar(itrariness has been previously mentioned regarding /aussure4s tenets. )alm(erg goes on with the distinction of signs according to opposition. 5e
understands as discrete elements those which are delimited among them with precision. %hus, in a le#ical level hot would be opposed to cold while in the phonetic level heat is opposed to eat because of the presence or not of the phoneme 6h6. %he linguistic sign can be studied regarding two points of view according to the time of reali2ation, thus it can be studied synchronically and diachronically. &n the first case the linguistic sign would be immuta(le, especially if we consider that there e#ists a necessity for the language to function as a communication system that implies that the language of a community of speakers is not modified voluntarily by them, since its linguistic signs constitute their means of communication. &n the second case we can say that language is mutable since time changes the linguistic signs slowly or immediately and in order to make the system more perfect. -ow let3s going to consider some other types of analysis of meaning in words. !.*
+ther Ty%es o# Analysis o# )eaning in Words
%he approach we are going to deal with is called com%onential analysis and represents a word intention by breaking it into smaller semantic components. /emantic differences and equivalences between words can be deduced from the comparison of their markers of meanings also called semantic components. We can consider a set of markers called classemes, they work in pairs some e#amples of them are animate / inanimate ; animal / human ; male / female ; alive / dead ; causing / having . 7lassemes help to identify some anomalies in a sentence for
e#ample if we consider the sentence !8ohn is pregnant" we distinguish in John the classeme 9 male which can not be related to pregnant which is 9female. %hus words are analy2ed according to their semantic components, as we have seen those
usually come in pairs. /o we will again use the concept of opposition to analy2e words according to variations in pairs due to how they are related to each other and how they can be used with other words. $inally, a word may have different layers of meaning, the basic layer of a word is provided by denotation. "enotative meaning can be defined as the meaning conventionally ascribed to a word, we may call it the meaning of dictionaries, which is permanently stable. Connotative meaning is more elusive and some different attributions are given to the word in addition to the denotative meaning. /o, conte#t or shared knowledge between speakers may be helpful for the understanding of connotative meanings. -ow that a definition of the word as a linguistic unit as been given in addition to some types for its analysis let4s going to consider some concepts related to it, such as homonymy, synonymy and antonymy.
*. Homonymy 5omonyms are words which have the same form but which differ in meaning. for e#ample, we can find the word found in the following sentence :When nobody expects it they
found one
of the maor sugar companies
!"ome especial e#uipment is necessary to found iron and cupper
;ach of them coincides in their set of forms found$ founds$ founding$ founded% And it is interesting that they can also be contrasted with past tense of find% &n conclusion three following conditions are necessary for absolute homonymy between two le#emes. ) 1e#emic distinction <) /yntactic equivalence =) $ormal identity A similar case is that of %olysemy which somehow could lead to confusion between it and homonymy. %he contrast between them lies in the fact that in polysemy the
meanings keep some affinity, whereas in homonymy the meanings do not keep any referential affinity. 1et4s see some e#amples 7onsidering the word &outh$ it can refer the opening on the face as well as the opening on a cave, or even on a tunnel but all them keep some relationship, that of an opening. 'ye is another valuable e#ample, when talking about the organ of sight we think about a quasi round shape similar to the one we think about when referring to the eye of a needle. %he main criterion to differentiate homonymy and polysemy has to do with the historic evolution of words. &n the case of homonymy that we have seen previously we consider that the two le#emes have evolved from two other different ones, the first case found will come from the 1atin fundare while the second one it would come from the 1atin fundire% &n polysemy we don4t find any case of etymological evolution but some affinity of meaning0 for e#ample the word (ort means the >ortuguese city and the wine which is also elaborated in that area, it can also be noted in the e#amples above. -ow let4s go ahead with another concept, that of synonymy.
,.
Synonymy /ynonyms are words whose different morphological forms share the same
meaning, the very term means to have the same meaning without being necessary to have the same reference. $or e#ample the sentence John has a very sharp sight shares meaning with the following one John is haw)!eyed although both of them doesn4t have the same referential scope, 8ohn doesn4t need to have the physical eyes of a hawk. ?ut the most practical criterion to establish identity and difference of sense lies in descri%tive meaning , rather than in metaphorical meaning. /o synonyms will be that e#pressions that can be interchangeable without affecting the descriptive meaning. 1et4s see the following e#ample John is 'nglish$ *+ years old$ tall$ funny and a linguist%
@egarding two features by means of which 8ohn is described funny and a linguist0 if in the sentence John is funny we substitute funny for linguist, we know that we will be dealing with some features about 8ohn but they will not refer to the same
concept, so they won4t be synonyms, they refer to the same veritative meaning but not to the same descriptive meaning. /ome authors have stated that true synonymy is quite rare and it is almost limited to technical terms arguing that not all the words are completely substitutable in all conte#ts. /o they have created a different term which is %lesionymy to talk about this case, regarding words which are very close in meaning but not equal in all aspects. 7onsidering the following words lie$ untruth and fib all these mean a statement that does not conform the truth. ?ut while the first one confronts with a deliberate attempt to deceive, an untruth might be told merely out of ignorance and a fib is possibly to save one own4s or another4s face. %he three of them would be plesionyms. Acknowledgment of the words of a language in such an efficient way to find out which words are plesionyms is a difficult task even for native speakers so it 4s important to take into account some of the ways in which plesionyms may differ as for e#ample denotation as in the case we have seen with lie$fib,0 ;mphasis foe$ enemy 0 $ormality drun)$ pissed 0 or the Attitude of the /peaker s)inny$ slim%
Another and a very important concept would be Antonymy,
-.
Antonymy &t has been a very harsh task for linguists to establish the boundaries of
antonymy, the term o%%osite commonly has been used as referring the same, and different types of semantic oppositions have been applied, especially in cases of such semantic contrast as parent / child , fran) / hypocritical etc. %his relation is one of the most easily apprehended by speakers since probably all languages have morphological processes that can create antonyms0 in ;nglish prefi#es such as -un .married / unmarried -in .formal / informal :dis .regard / disregard or -de .coloni0e / decoloni0e are used to form pairs of antonyms although the most
commonly used opposites tend to be morphologically unrelated ( good / bad ; high / low ; beautiful / ugly we have described antonymy as easily apprehended
because as many linguists have argued the relationship between both opposites is so close, for e#ample when the word !true" is uttered as an automatic reaction the
word false is likely to come into our minds, an special relation is created between the opposites. A more careful study of antonymy by many linguists such as 1yon (*) have referred to a set of grada(le o%%osites which pays special attention to adectives showing some properties of gradability, although there are also nouns (friend / enemy or verbs (love / hate$ there e#ist a wide gap among both terms that can be filled with some other ones. @egarding adectives we will say that they present some characteristics proper of gradable opposites such as m%licit com%arison when something is compared with some other things
of the same type, for e#ample hot and cold$ %he sentence 1oday is hot has not the same value in a city of /pain than in a desert. 'sing hot in /pain we will be comparing with the average that will be much colder than in a desert. Commitedness involves an adective4s behaviour in questions. An adective
is said to be committed when it implies a certain value in questions and uncommitted when it doesn4t. %he committed member is said to be mared as well as the uncommitted unmared. 1et4s see an e#ample &n the sentence 2ow old is (aul3 >aul will be an uncommitted and unmarked element of the sentence because it doesn4t imply any value at all, it4s ust being a part of the sentence that helps to develop the question by means of which the age of >aul is being asked, while in the sentence 2ow young is (aul3 &t is being stated that >aul in young and in addition to this it is asked for his age. A value it is being stated in addition to the question, so it is marked and committed. /ome other cases of 7ommitedness and uncommitedness are heavy / light ; tall / short etc. Most researches on antonymy have been based on the study of gradable opposites, but some other ty%es can be considered, maybe these lack the special properties found with gradable properties but they also show a de%endence on dichotomi&ation. %hus they have been also studied in pairs and it has been said
that they form some e#clusive compartments in such a way that what doesn4t fall in one of them fall in the other. Bifferent types are more developed as follows
"irectional o%%osites are generally adverbs or prepositions which include pairs
such as up / down ; in / out etc. /eversive o%%osites signify an act or state that undoes the quality. Although they
are neither contradictory nor contrary terms, they present a clear opposition. /ome e#amples are tie / untie ; marry / divorce 0 enter / leave ; appear / disappear% /elational o%%osites are pairs of words that indicate such a relationship that one
of the cannot be used without suggesting the other above / below ; teacher / student ; parent / child%
Antonymy has being identified with opposites but we should make a clear distinction between antonyms and near0o%%osites, we have seen that one of the specific characteristics of antonyms is that a pair of them, even they denote contrast they seem to share some kind of semantic dimension being close and far apart at the same time. 1inguists such as 7ruse (*C) or 1ehrer and 1ehrer (*C<) have tried to determine that distinction, arguing that near:opposites share a stronger semantic dimension than antonyms. %hey enumerate some factor which affect the !goodness" of a pair of near:opposites ) >urity of the semantic opposition, when semantic opposition does not e#haust the meaning of words0i.e. whisper / shout in the sentence 1hey whispered something was wrong - 1hey shouted something was wrong 0 We
find a e#tremely different degree of intensity in both sentences although but the result is not different one to the other. <) Bistance from the midpoint of a semantic dimension, in some cases one member of the pair of near:opposites (i.e. terrible) seems to name a more e#treme value than the other member (i%e%4 good ). %he implication is that prototypical opposites are similar in distribution. =) /imilarity in distribution, we find some opposites in some conte#t which are not in a different one. Little - big - Large , here the implication consists of they should keep their opposite relationship no matter the conte#t where they are settled.
Dnce the different cases we have came across during the study of antonyms have been seen let4s go ahead with a typical case that lead students to error when acquiring ;nglish as a second language, this case is $alse $riends.
.
False Friends $alse friends are words or e#pressions which have the same form in two or
More languages but convey different meanings. $alse friends are often associated with historically or culturally related languages such as ;nglish, $rench and /panish, but in fact false friends also abound among totally unrelated languages such as ;nglish and 8apanese. Dnce a word or e#pression has been borrowed into a language, we cannot predict or control its development or the additional meanings it might or might not take. /ome false friends are easy to spot because the difference in their meanings is so great that only an ine#perienced speaker of the foreign language is likely to be unaware of it, case of sympathetic / simpatico between ;nglish and /panish. A funny e#ample of this is the ;nglish 6 8apanese contrast of the term feminist , used in 8apanese to describe a man who is e#cessively soft with women. And finally to end with the topic we have to emphasi2e the fact that both native and competent non native speakers of a language are able to use the maority of its words to produce phrases they have never heard before as well as to comprehend and admit them as correct. &t is what we call le#ical creativity.
2.
Lexical Creativity &n order to achieve le#ical creativity some rules for $ord creation such as
prefi#es and affi#es, conversion, compounding, derivation, and the figurative use of words are applied being regarded useful end economic linguistic strategies for language production and comprehension. Metaphor and Metonymy are frequently found in poetry but they are also e#tensively used in everyday language. )eta%hor can be defined as a figure of speech that implies comparison between
two unlike entities, as distinguished from an e#plicit comparison signalled by the words !like" or !as". %he metaphor makes a qualitative leap from a reasonable
perhaps prosaic comparison, to an identification or fusion of two obects, to make one new entity partaking of the characteristics of both. i.e. eyes: stars on her face. )etonymy, on the other hand, is a figure of speech in which the name of an obect
or concept is replaced with a word closely related to or suggested by the original, as !crown" for !king". Metonymy is closed related to synecdoche the naming of a part for the whole or a whole for the part. Metonymy has the effect of creating concrete and vivid images in place of generalities i.e. the law for a police officer a cutthroat for an assassin. 3x%ressivity is one more resource of creativity. ?y e#pressive it is meant here the
features of an utterance by which a speaker or a writer establishes his or her individuality in an especially original way. &t belongs more to the scope of stylistics than to semantics.
