INTRODUCTION

Semantics is a branch of linguistics which studies about meaning in language. Shortly,

semantics concerns the study of meaning. There is relationship among a word and the other
words in semantics and it is called meaning relation.
We consider two approaches to the description of lexical relations, semantic
field theory and truth conditional semantics. Field theory is an attempt to classify lexemes
according to shared and differentiating features. For example, wasp, hornet, bee and other
items denote flying, stinging insects; moth and housefly, among others, denote insects that
fly but do not sting; ant and termite are names of insects that neither fly nor sting. (And what
differentiates wasp, hornet and bee from one another? What differentiates insects from other
living things?) Entomologists develop a careful classification on a scientific basis but
semanticists often need to pay more attention to folk taxonomy, the traditional ways in which
non-scientists classify the phenomena of their world.
Truth conditional semantics studies lexical relations by comparing
predications that can be made about the same referring expression. Its task is to account for
the meaning relations between different expressions in a language. Three such relations are
entailment, paraphrase and contradiction. Entailment is the relation between two
propositions lets label them p and qsuch that if p is true, q must also be true, but if q
is true, it does not necessarily follow that p is true. If it is true that my necktie is (entirely)
maroon, is it true that my necktie is red? If it is true that my necktie is red, is it true that my
necktie is maroon? Paraphrase is the relation between two propositions, p and q, such that if
either is true, the other is necessarily true also, and if either is false, the other is false. If it is
true that my necktie was cheap, is it true or false that my necktie was inexpensive? If it is
true that my necktie was inexpensive, is it true or false that my necktie was cheap?
Contradiction is the relation between two propositions such that if either is true, the other is
necessarily false. If my necktie was cheap, is it true or false that my necktie was expensive?
If it was expensive, was it cheap?
Basically, the principle of meaning relation consists of four major fields, such as
synonymy, antonymy, polisemy, and hyponymy. Synonymy concerns the sameness of
meaning, while antonymy concerns the oppositeness of meaning. The focus here is on
antonymy which has a sense of relation, as well as synonymy. Sense is the meaning of word,
especially the conceptual meaning in which it is usually derived from definition of the lexical
items which can be found in dictionaries.

DISCUSSION
LEXICAL RELATIONS
1 |lexical relations

The branch of semantics that deals with the word meaning is called lexical semantics.
It is the study of systematic, meaning related structures of words. Lexical field or semantic
field is the organization of related words and expressions in to a system, which shows their
relationship with one another, for example angry, sad, happy, depressed, afraid ; this set of
words is a lexical field all its words refer to emotional states.
Lexical semantics examines relationships among word meanings. It is the study of
how the lexicon is organized and how the lexical meanings of lexical items are interrelated,
and it principle goal is to build a model for the structure of the lexicon by categorizing the
types of relationship between words.

A. Antonymy
Antonymy is oppositeness of meaning between a word and the other word or among
words in the same part of speech, such as good-bad (adjective-adjective) and fast-slowly
(adverb-adverb). According to Lyons (1977:286) who states that antonymy covers the relation
between lexical items whose meanings stand in opposition to each other and it is often
thought as the opposite of synonymy.
Antonymy, oppositeness of meaning, has long been regarded as one of the most important
semantic relations. Human thinking and language are closely related, and the significance of
antonymy in human thinking is inevitably reflected in human language. Lyons (1968) says
that human beings have a general tendency to polarize experience and judgmentto think in
opposites. And this would explain the existence of a large quantity of antonyms in the
vocabulary of human languages.
Antonymy is one of the semantic relations that are very useful. Antonym pairs are often
used in texts and in a large number of proverbs and idioms to achieve rhetorical effects, for
example, a friend to everybody is a friend to nobody, no matter it is in common speech or
in the literary writing. As a matter of fact, it is even one of the indispensable factors in those
figures of speech such as oxymoron, paradox, and irony. In addition, antonymy plays a
remarkably significant role in language teaching and learning, which can be shown in many
definitions, for example, tall is defined as not short, trivial is said to be not
important. It is often the same case when lexicographers define a word. Just as Jackson
(1988) notes that, antonymy ranks the second (only next to synonymy), in terms of frequency,
among the various semantic relations used in dictionary definitions.

2 |lexical relations

Alvin is watching television now.

Alvin isnt watching television now.
Two sentences that differ in polarity like these are mutually contradictory. If one is
true, the other must be false. Two sentences that have the same subject and have predicates
which are antonyms are also mutually contradictory.
The television is on now.
The television is off now.
Mr Adams is an old man.
Mr Adams is a young man.
The road is wide here.
The road is narrow here.
Lexemes like on and off, old and young, wide and narrow are pairsof antonyms.
Antonyms are opposite in meaning, and when they occur as predicates of the same subject the
predications are contradictory. Antonyms may be nouns like Communist and non-Communist
or verbs such as advance and retreat, but antonymous pairs of adjectives are especially
numerous.
English has various pairs of measure adjectives:
long
short
tall
short
high
low
wide
narrow
old
young
deep
shallow
old
new
thick
thin
They are measure adjectives because they can be combined with expressions of
measurement: four feet long, two meters high, nineteen years old, etc. We note, first, that
these adjectives, like others relating to size (e.g. big/little, large/small, heavy/light) are
antonymous, and, second, that their meanings are very much dependent on the topics
they are associated with; a big rat is not as big as a small elephant, for instance.
In each of the pairs of measure adjectives above, one member is marked and one
unmarked. The unmarked member is also the global member of the opposition. For example,
in the pair old and young, old is the global, unmarked adjective. It is used with units of time
to express age. When we say The baby is four days old, we are not saying that the baby is old,
and in saying The box is three inches deep we are not saying that the box is deep. (Which is
the global member of the pair long/short? wide/narrow?) We sometimes say things like She
is 40 years young but this is precisely a marked expression. Presumably, She is 40 years
young is equivalent in truthvalue to She is 40 years old.

B. Binary and non-binary antonyms

3 |lexical relations

There are different kinds of antonymous relationships. On and off are binary antonyms:
an electric light or a radio or a television set is either on or off; there is no middle ground.
Other binary pairs are open/shut, dead/alive, asleep/awake. The terms old and young are nonbinary antonyms and so are wide and narrow. They are opposite ends of a scale that
includes various intermediate terms: Mr Adams may be neither old nor young, the road may
be something between wide and narrow. (Non-binary antonyms are also called polar
antonyms; like the North and South Poles, they are at opposite ends with territory between
them. Analogously, binary antonyms might be called hemispheric antonyms; as with the
Northern and Southern hemispheres [or the Eastern and Western hemispheres], there is no
space in between, only a line of demarcation. Some semanticists use the term
complementary antonyms in place of binary antonyms and contrary instead of nonbinary.
Adjectives that are non-binary antonyms can easily be modified: very old, rather young,
quite wide, extremely narrow, and the like. Logically it would seem that binary antonyms do
not accept modifiers an organism is either dead or alive, a door is either open or shut, a
floor is either clean or dirty, one is either asleep or awake. But language is not logic. Quite
dead, very much alive, wide open, slightly dirty are meaningful expressions. Speakers cannot
agree as to whether a door which is ajar is open or shut, nor on the precise location of the
distinction between clean and dirty. Language is fluid-flexible. The other side of this
flexibility is that language is, in some respects, necessarily vague.
Non-binary adjectives are also gradable adjectives. We can say, for instance, very long,
rather short, quite strong, somewhat weak, too. old, young enough, extremely rude, utterly
happy. Each such expression constitutes a measurementa rather imprecise oneagainst
some norm or standard. The standard may or may not be explicit, and indeed in most
everyday use of language usually is not. Arguments about whether something is, for instance,
really soft are often due to failure to establish a standard. Of course, a standard is more easily
established for descriptive adjectives like long, heavy, expensive than for evaluative ones such
as pleasant, clever, or tiresome.
From a logical point of view binary adjectives are not gradable. What can it mean to
say that some action is very legal, some product is perfect enough, some person is too asleep?
But people treat these essentially ungradable adjectives as if they were gradable. Something
is either complete or incomplete, but we sometimes say more complete.
Some pairs of antonyms are morphologically related; one member of the pair is
formed by adding a prefix to the other: happy, unhappy; proper, improper; trust, distrust; tie,
4 |lexical relations

untie; or by changing a prefix: exhale, inhale; converge, diverge; progress, regress; inflate,
deflate.

C. A comparison of four relations

Synonyms
(p) Jack is a seaman.
(q) Jack is a sailor.

Hyponym and Superordinate

(p) Rover is a collie,
(q) Rover is a dog.

p q -p -q

p q -q -p

(The symbol indicates double entailment: the truth of [p] entails the truth of [q], and the
truth of [q] entails the truth of [p].)
Non-binary antonyms
(p) Luke is rich.
(q) Luke is poor.
p - q q - p

Binary antonyms
(p) The window is open,
(q) The window is closed,
p -q -p q

We see from this table that synonyms and binary antonyms are mirror images of each
other: if one of two sentences containing synonyms is true, the other is true; if one is false,
the other is false. Of two sentences with binary antonyms, if one is true, the other is false, and
if one is false, the other is true. Non-binaries are like bnaries in that the truth of either
member of the pair entails the falsity of the other member, but unlike binary antonyms, both
members of a non-binary pair can be false. Hyponym and superordinate form a still different
pair: the truth of the hyponym entails the truth of the superordinate, and the falsity of the
superordinate entails the falsity of the hyponym.

D. Converse antonyms
To illustrate synonymy, hyponymy and antonymy in the previous sections we presented
pairs of sentences; each sentence of a pair had the same subject and different predicates; each
predicate had a valency of onethere was only a subject and no other referring expression.
The next paired sentences contain converse predicates, which necessarily have a valency of
2 or more.
20a
20b
21a
21b

The map is above the chalkboard.

The chalkboard is below the map.
Sally is Jerrys wife. (Sally is the wife of Jerry)
Jerry is Sallys husband. (Jerry is the husband of Sally)

5 |lexical relations

Converseness is a kind of antonymy between two terms. For any two converse
relational terms X and Y, if [a] is the X of [b], then [b] is the Y of [a]. In 20a map has the role
of Theme and chalkboard the role of Associate; in 20b the roles are reversed. The same
applies to Sally and Jerry in 21a and 21b.
The features [parent] and [offspring], are converse features: if A is the parent of B, B
is the offspring of A (represented symbolically: A parent-of B ? B offspring-of A). Common
converse pairs include kinship and social roles (husband-of/ wifeof, employer-of/employee-of)
and directional opposites (above/ below, in front of/behind; left-of/right-of; before/after,
north-of/south-of; outside/inside).
There are a few pairs of converse 3-argument predicates: giveto/ receive-from; sellto/buy-from; lend-to/borrow-from.
22a
22b

Dad lent me a little money.

I borrowed a little money from Dad.
If A gives X to B, B receives X from A. All three of these pairs of predicates are built

around the relationship of source and goal.

23a
23b
24a
24b
25a
25b
26a
26b

Danny broke a window.

A window was broken (by Danny).
Olga wrote a marvelous essay.
A marvelous essay was written (by Olga).
Simon climbed the wall.
The wall was climbed (by Simon).
This package weighs two kilos.
*Two kilos is/are weighed by this package.
If a predicate consists of a verb and its object and the object has the role of Affected

(23), Effect (24), or Theme (25), there is a converse sentence in which the original object
becomes subject, the verb is passive, and the agent may be deleted. Of course there is no such
passive converse when the object of the verb, or apparent object, has the role of Associate
(26a).
27a
27b

Some conjunctions, or clause connectors, like before and after form converse pairs.
Herbert left the party before Jean (left the party).
Jean left the party after Herbert (left the party).
We see that in all these examples of sentences with converse pairs, [a] and [b] are

paraphrases. Since above and below are converse antonyms, sentences [a] and [b] have the
same truth value. Thus,
ab
-a -b
Consider these paraphrastic sentences:
28a

The dictionary is heavier than the novel.

6 |lexical relations

28b

The novel is lighter than the dictionary.

Although heavy and light are non-binary antonyms, the comparative forms are

converse: more heavy=less light; more light=less heavy.

29a
29b

The dictionary is more expensive than the novel.

The novel is less expensive than the dictionary.
These are also equivalent sentences; more expensive and less expensive are converse

terms. Factoring out the common term, more and less are converse.
In the discussion of simple antonymy we recognized non-binary antonyms like rich
and poor, which are gradable, and binary antonyms, like asleep and awake, which are not. In
converse relations most adjectives allow for gradiencemore A and less A, with a scale
along which there are various amounts of more or less. Converse relations with other
parts of speech are more like binary antonymy: parent and offspring, over and under, give and
receive are not relationships that occur on a scale.
There are practical constraints on converseness. Though we can say A newspaper
kiosk is in front of the Grand Hotel, it would be unusual to speak of the Grand Hotel as being
behind a newspaper kiosk. Converseness requires the two arguments, theme and associate, to
be of about the same size, rank, or importance. Talmy (1975) uses the terms figure and
ground for entities of unequal rank like these. The figure, here the newpaper kiosk, is located
with respect to the ground, here the Grand Hotel, but not the ground with respect
to the figure.

E. Symmetry and reciprocity

A special kind of converseness is the use of a single term in a symmetrical relationship, seen
in these examples:
30a
Line AB is parallel to Line CD.
30b
Line CD is parallel to Line AB.
This relationship can also be expressed as:
30c

Line AB and Line CD are parallel to each other.

or simply as:
30d

Line AB and Line CD are parallel.

To generalize, if X is a symmetrical predicate, the relationship a X b can also be

expressed as b X a and as a and b X (each other). Here a and b interchange the roles of
7 |lexical relations

Theme and Associate. The features [sibling] and [spouse] are each symmetrical (C sibling-of
D D sibling-of C; E spouse-of F F spouse-of E).
Other examples of symmetrical predicates appear in these sentences:
31
32
33
34

The truck is similar to the bus.

Line AB intersects Line CD.
Hampton Road converges with Broad Street.
Oil doesnt mix with water.

The following sentences have predicates that appear to be symmetrical but are not.
35a
36a
37a
38a

The truck collided with the bus.

Tom agreed with Ann.
Prescott corresponds with Dudley.
The market research department communicates with the sales department.

If the truck collided with the bus, it is not necessarily true that the
bus collided with the truck (35a), and analogous observations can
be made about 36a38a. On the other hand, in
35b
The truck and the bus collided.
36b
Tom and Ann agreed.
37b
Prescott and Dudley correspond.
38b
The market research department and the sales department communicate.
we are informed that the truck collides with the bus and the bus with the truck, and the action
is likewise symmetrical in 35b37b. (34b 37b are ambiguous as they stand, of course, since
these sentences may be the result of ellipsis: The truck and the bus collided with a taxi, Tom
and Ann agreed with me, and so on.) The verbs in these sentences are reciprocal predicates,
not symmetrical predicators. If X is a reciprocal predicate, the relationship a X b does not
entail b X a but a and b X does entail a X b and b X a (leaving aside the possible ambiguity).
Reciprocal predicates are mostly verbs like those in sentences 358 and the following:
argue-with concur-with conflict-with co-operate-with
correlate-with intersect-with merge-with overlap-with
embrace fight (with) hug
Symmetrical predicates are adjectives combined with a preposition
with, from, or to:
1. A and B are congruent (with each other) =A is congruent with B and B is congruent
with A (where = is the sign for semantic identity) commensurate concentric
congruent contemporary identical intimate simultaneous synonymous
2. A and B are different (from each other) =A is different from B and B is different from
A different

8 |lexical relations

3. A and B are equivalent (to each other) =A is equivalent to B and B is equivalent to A

equal equivalent related
Symmetrical predicates may also be participles formed from causative verbs: If I connect
X and Y, X and Y are connected with each other. Other such causative verbs are:
1. A combines X and Y=A combines X with Y and Y with X compare confuse group mix
reconcile.
2. A disconnects X and Y=A disconnects X from Y and Y from X
disconnect distinguish separate
3. A connects X and Y=A connects X to Y and Y to X connect join relate tie

F. Expression of quantity
Our study of hyponyms and superordinates can throw light on some terms that seem at
first to be very far removed from these topics, quantifiers like all, no, some, many, few. What
do these words mean? How did we learn to use them when we were very young? Almost
certainly a child acquires the use of these items in connection with noun phrases that have
quantifiable referents. Told to put away all his toys, a child learns that this means putting
away the doll and the wagon and the toy rabbit and the balland so on until no toy is still
out. The meaning of no (or not any) is acquired in similar contexts: not the doll and not the
wagon and not the toy rabbit. Semanticists may explain these lexemes in a more
sophisticated way, like this:
Given a set X that consists of X1 X2, X3,Xn, all X=X1 & X2 & X3& Xn; no X= -X1
&-X & -X3-Xn. More sophisticated, perhaps, but not more illuminating.
The meanings of some, many (or much in uncountable noun phrases), and few (little in
uncountable NPs) are vague, and the vagueness exists by tacit agreement of the language
community. In a group of 10 items, a few is 2, 3, or perhaps 4; many, or a lot, is 9, 8, or
maybe 7; and some is any number from 2 to 9. A speaker can employ these terms in an
acceptable way without necessarily knowing the exact quantity, and an addressee accepts the
terms without necessarily expecting to know the exact quantity.
Logically, all includes some, few and many. Thus someone who tells us that he has done
some of the assigned exercises, when he has in fact done all of them, is not lying.
Pragmatically, however, some is in contrast with all. If our speaker accents the wordIve

9 |lexical relations

done SOME of the assignmentsthe accent gives some paradigmatic focus and serves to
exclude any quantifier other than some. The study of hyponymy reveals some interesting
facts about these quantitative terms, as Barwise and Cooper (1981) and Larson (1990) have
shown. Consider, first, a two-argument predicate like chase and a subject that includes all.
39a
39b
39c
39d

All dogs chase cats All collies chase cats

All collies chase cats - All dogs chase cats
All dogs chase cats - All dogs chase angoras
All dogs chase angoras All dogs chase cats
Occurrence of a superordinate term in the subject (here dogs) entails the truth of a

similar proposition containing any hyponym, illustrated here with collies, but a statement
about the totality of the hyponym leads to no certain conclusion regarding the superordinate.
In contrast, occurrence of a superordinate in the object (here cats, meaning some cats)
yields no conclusion about the hyponym, (some) angoras, but occurrence of the hyponym in
object position entails the truth of the corresponding proposition with the superordinate.
Note, incidentally, this special case of 39a:
All dogs chase cats Rover chases cats
and this special case of 39d:
All dogs chase Tabby All dogs chase some cat.
The quantifier no also expresses a totality, but it has a somewhat different role in
entailment, as sentences 40ad show.
40a
40b
40c
40d

No dogs chase cats No collies chase cats

No collies chase cats - No dogs chase cats
No dogs chase cats No dogs chase angoras
No dogs chase angoras - No dogs chase cats

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

SOME
Some dogs chase cats - Some collies chase cats
Some collies chase cats Some dogs chase cats
Some dogs chase cats - Some dogs chase angoras
Some dogs chase angoras Some dogs chase cats

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

FEW
Few dogs chase cats - Few collies chase cats
Few collies chase cats - Few dogs chase cats
Few dogs chase cats Few dogs chase angoras
Few dogs chase angoras - Few dogs chase cats

(a)

MANY
Many dogs chase cats - Many collies chase cats

10 |lexical relations

(b)
(c)
(d)

Many collies chase cats - Many dogs chase cats

Many dogs chase cats - Many dogs chase angoras
Many dogs chase angoras Many dogs chase cats

CONCLUSSION
Truth conditional semantics investigates the relations among lexemes that can be
predicates for the same referring expression. Two such predicates may be related to each
other as synonyms, as hyponym and superordinate, or as antonyms.
Antonyms are words with opposite meaning. And antonymy refers to the relationship
of oppositeness. Antonyms are exceedingly valuable in defining the exact meaning of a given
word and its synonyms. Antonyms enable us to express briefly the opposite of a particular
thought, often for the sake of contrast.
Among antonyms we distinguish binary and non-binary antonyms; non-binary
antonyms are opposite ends of a scale along which intermediate degrees exist; for binary
antonyms there are no intermediate degrees. For any pair of sentences in which the predicates
11 |lexical relations

are synonymous, antonymous, or related as hyponym-superordinate a truth table can be

established, setting out what can be known about one sentence if the other is known to be true
or to be false.
Two predicates are converse antonyms if each links noun phrases in the roles of theme
and associate, the noun phrases occur in reverse roles with the two predicates, and the
resulting sentences have the same truth value. A symmetrical predicate also links noun
phrases in the roles of theme and associate; the noun phrases may be reversed without
changing the truth of the predication.
Quantifiers such as all, some, no can be understood and explained by comparing
sentences in which a superordinate term and a hyponym are contrasted in subject position and
in object position.

REFERENCES
Kreidler, Charles W. 1998, Itroducing English Semantic. London and New York. Routledge
Chunming Gao and Qianzhen Zheng. A Linguistic Study of Antonymy in English Texts.
Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 234-238, January 2014
http://amalayka.wordpress.com/grammar-2/semantic/binary-and-non-binary
http://occiie.wordpress.com/2013/07/29/antonymy-in-semantics
http://winsomeanuja.blogspot.com/2009/10/lexical-relations,html

12 |lexical relations