Intra-Lexical relations

Shukurova Zilola
I. INTRALINGUISTIC RELATIONS OF WORDS
1. SYNTAGMATIC RELATIONS
2. PARADIGMATIC RELATIONS
II. SEMANTIC SIMILARITY
III. SEMANTIC CONTRAST
IV. BASIC TYPES OF SEMANTIC RELATIONS
1. PROXIMITY
2. EQUIVALENCE
3. INCLUSION. HYPONYMIC STRUCTURES
4. OPPOSITION.
I. Intralinguistic Relations of Words
Ferdinand de Saussure:
 Intralinguistic relations that exist between

words
 They are basically of two types:

syntagmatic and paradigmatic

1.1. Syntagmatic Relations -

are the relationships that a linguistic

unit has with other units in the stretch of
speech in which it occurs.
1. He got a letter (to receive);
2. He got tired (to become);
3. He got to London (to arrive);
4. He could not get the piano through the
door (to move smth. to or from a
position or place).
syntagmatic relations are linear
relations between words
 The adjective yellow:
1. colour: a yellow dress;
2. envious, suspicious: a yellow look;
3. corrupt: the yellow press
Context - the minimal stretch of speech
determining each individual meaning of the
word.
 free or denominative meanings - the
meaning or meanings representative of
the semantic structure of the word and
least dependent on context:
table – a piece of furniture;
make - construct, produce’
1.2. PARADIGMATIC REALTIONS -

are the relations that a linguistic unit has

with units by which it may be replaced:
sets of synonyms, pairs of antonyms,
lexico-semantic groups, etc.
E.G. to get synonymic set: to obtain, to
receive, to gain, to acquire, etc.
The distinction between syntagmatic and
paradigmatic relations is conventionally indicated
by horizontal and vertical presentation.
 II. SEMANTIC SIMILARITY
 Lexical units may also be classified by
the criterion of semantic similarity and
semantic contrasts. The terms generally
used to denote these two types of
semantic relatedness are synonymy and
antonymy.
 Similar relations between word-groups
and sentences are described as
semantic equivalence.
 Synonyms may be found in different

parts of speech and both among notional

and function words. For example,
though and albeit, on and upon, since
and as are synonymous because these
phonemically different words are similar
in their denotational meaning.
 Synonyms are traditionally described as
words different in sound-form but
identical or similar in meaning. This
definition has been severely criticised on
many points.
 Firstly,
 itseems impossible to speak of identical
or similar meaning of words as such as
this part of the definition cannot be
applied to polysemantic words. It is
inconceivable that polysemantic words
could be synonymous in all their
meanings.
 The verb look, is usually treated as a
synonym of see, watch, observe, etc.,
but in another of its meanings it is not
synonymous with this group of words but
rather with the verbs seem, appear (cf.
to look at smb and to look pale).
 The number of synonymic sets of a

polysemantic word tends as a rule to be

equal to the number of individual
meanings the word possesses.
 One of the ways of discriminating
between different meanings of a word is
the interpretation of these meanings in
terms of their synonyms, e.g. the two
meanings of the adjective handsome
are synonymously interpreted as
handsome — ‘beautiful’ (usually about
men) and handsome — ‘considerable,
ample’ (about sums, sizes, etc.).
 Secondly,
 itseems impossible to speak of identity
or similarity of lexical meaning as a
whоle as it is only the denotational
component that may be described as
identical or similar. If we analyse words
that are usually considered synonymous,
e.g. to die, to pass away; to begin, to
co’mmence, etc.,
 we find that the connotational component
or, to be more exact, the stylistic
reference of these words is entirely
different and it is only the similarity of the
denotational meaning that makes them
synonymous.
 The words, e.g. to die, to walk, to
smile, etc., may be considered identical
as to their stylistic reference or emotive
charge, but as there is no similarity of
denotational meaning they are never felt
as synonymous words.
 Thirdly,
 itdoes not seem possible to speak of
identity of meaning as a criterion of
synonymity since identity of meaning is
very rare even among monosemantic
words. In fact, cases of complete
synonymy are very few and are, as a
rule, confined to technical nomenclatures
where we can find monosemantic terms
completely identical in meaning as, for
example, spirant and fricative in
phonetics.
 Words in synonymic sets are in general
differentiated because of some element
of opposition in each member of the set.
The word handsome, e.g., is
distinguished from its synonym beautiful
mainly because the former implies the
beauty of a male person or broadly
speaking only of human beings, whereas
beautiful is opposed to it as having no
such restrictions in its meaning.
 Thus
 itseems necessary to modify the
traditional definition and to formulate it as
follows: synonyms are words different in
sound-form but similar in their
denotational meaning or meanings.
Synonymous relationship is observed
only between similar denotational
meanings of phonemically different
words.
 Differentiationof synonyms may be
observed in different semantic
components — denotational or
connotational.
 However, the difference in denotational
meaning cannot exceed certain limits,
and is always combined with some
common denotational component.
 The verbs look, seem, appear, e.g., are
viewed as members of one synonymic
set as all three of them possess a
common denotational semantic
component “to be in one’s view, or
judgement, but not necessarily in fact”
and come into comparison in this
meaning (cf. he seems (looks),
(appears), tired).
 There is a certain difference in the
meaning of each verb:
 seem suggests a personal opinion

based on evidence (e.g. nothing seems

right when one is out of sorts);
 look implies that opinion is based on a

visual impression (e.g. the city looks its

worst in March),
 appear sometimes suggests a distorted

impression (e.g. the setting sun made

the spires appear ablaze).
 Thus similarity of denotational meaning
of all members of the synonymic series
is combined with a certain difference in
the meaning of each member.
 Itfollows that relationship of synonymity
implies certain differences in the
denotational meaning of synonyms.
 In this connection a few words should be

said about the traditional classification of

vocabulary units into ideographic and
stylistic synonyms.
 Thisclassification proceeds from the
assumption that synonyms may differ
either in the denotational meaning
(ideographic synonyms) оr the
connotational meaning, or to be more
exact stylistic reference.
 This assumption cannot be accepted as
synonymous words always differ in the
denotational component.
 Thus buy and purchase are similar in

meaning but differ in their stylistic

reference and therefore are not
completely interchangeable.
 That department of an institution which is
concerned with acquisition of materials is
normally the Purchasing Department
rather than the Buying Department.
 A wife however would rarely ask her

husband to purchase a pound of butter.

It follows that practically no words are
substitutable for one another in all
contexts.
 This fact may be explained as follows:
firstly, words synonymous in some
lexical contexts may display no
synonymity in others.
 The comparison of the sentences the

rainfall in April was abnormal and the

rainfall in April was exceptional may give
us grounds for assuming that exceptional
and abnormal are synonymous.
 Thesame adjectives in a different
context are by no means synonymous,
as we may see by comparing my son is
exceptional and my son is abnormal.
 Secondly, it is evident that interchangeability
alone cannot serve as a criterion of
synonymity.
 Synonyms are words interchangeable in

some contexts. But the reverse is certainly

not true as semantically different words of the
same part of speech are, as a rule,
interchangeable in quite a number of
contexts: in the sentence I saw a little girl
playing in the garden the adjective little may
be formally replaced by a number of
semantically different adjectives, e.g. pretty,
tall, English, etc.
 Thus a more acceptable definition of
synonyms seems to be the following:
synonyms are words different in their
sound-form, but similar in their
denotational meaning or meanings and
interchangeable at least in some
contexts.

 III. SEMANTIC CONTRAST
 Antonymy in general shares many
features typical of synonymy. Like
synonyms, perfect or complete antonyms
are fairly rare.
 The relations of antonymy restricted to

certain contexts. Thus thick is only one

of the antonyms of thin (a thin slice—a
thick slice), another is fat (a thin man—a
fat man).
 The term opposite meaning is rather
vague and allows of essentially different
interpretation.
 kind — ‘gentle, friendly, showing love,

sympathy or thought for others’ and

cruel — ‘taking pleasure in giving pain to
others, without mercy’,
 They denote concepts that are felt as

completely opposed to each other.

 Comparing the adjective kind and
unkind we do not find any polarity of
meaning as here semantic opposition is
confined to simple negation.
 Unkind may be interpreted as not kind

which does not necessarily mean cruel,

just as not beautiful does not
necessarily mean ugly.
 II. BASIC TYPES OF SEMANTIC
RELATIONS
2.1. PROXIMITY

Meaning similarity is seldom complete and

nearly always partial which makes it
possible to speak about the semantic
proximity of words and, in general, about
the relations of semantic proximity.
The adjectives are characterized by certain features
of semantic dissimilarity which shows that they are
not absolutely identical in meaning
Beautiful Extremely good-looking, much more so than most
women

Pretty Good-looking in an ordinary way but not really

beautiful or sexually exciting

Attractive Good-looking, especially in a way that makes you feel

sexually interested

Striking Very attractive, especially because a woman has a

particular feature, such as hair or eyes, that is
beautiful and unusual

Handsome Good-looking in an unusual way, especially because a

woman is tall or strong or looks as if she has a strong
character
 Proximity

1. red and green share the semantic features of

‘colour’, ‘basic or rainbow colour’,
‘complementary colour,;
2. red vs scarlet or green vs emerald may be
graded in semantic proximity;
3. table and chair share the semantic features
of ‘thingness’, ‘object’, ‘piece of furniture’ that
forms a good basis for grouping them
together with other nouns denoting ‘pieces of
furniture’.
 2.2. Equivalence
 implies full similarity of meaning of two or
more language units;
 is very seldom observed in words;
 Is oftener encountered in case of

sentences:
John is taller than Bill
Bill is shorter than John
 2.3. INCLUSION. HYPONYMIC STRUCTURE -

type of semantic relations which exists

between two words if the meaning of one
word contains the semantic features
‘constituting the meaning of the other
word’.
The semantic relations of inclusion are
called hyponymic relations:
Vehicle: car, lorry, motorcycle, jeep…
Hyperonym: hyponyms.
In hyponymic structure certain words may be both
classifiers (hyperonyms) and members of the group
(hyponyms):
 2.4. OPPOSITION -

is the contrast of semantic features which

helps to establish the semantic
relations
1) Polar oppositions are those which
are based on the semantic feature
uniting two linguistic units by
antonymous relations, e.g. rich – poor,
dead – alive, young – old.
2. Relative oppositions imply that there
are several semantic features on
which the opposition rests. The verb to
leave means ‘to go away from’ and its
opposite, the verb to arrive denotes ‘to
reach a place, esp. at the end of a
journey’.
 Summary and Conclusions:
 1. Paradigmatic (or selectional) and
syntagmatic (or combinatory) axes of
linguistic structure represent the way
vocabulary is organised.
 Syntagmatic relations define the word-

meaning in the flow of speech in various

contexts.
 Paradigmatic relations define the word-

meaning through its interrelation with

other members within one of the
subgroups of vocabulary units.
2. On the syntagmatic axis the word-
meaning is dependent on different types
of contexts. Linguistic context is the
minimal stretch of speech necessary to
determine individual meanings.
3) Linguistic (verbal) contexts comprise
lexical and grammatical contexts and
are opposed to extra-linguistic (non-
verbal) contexts. In extra-linguistic
contexts the meaning of the word is
determined not only by linguistic factors
but also by the actual speech situation
in which the word is used.
4. The semantic structure of polysemantic
words is not homogeneous as far as the
status of individual meanings is
concerned. A certain meaning (or
meanings) is representative of the word
taken in isolation, others are perceived
only in various contexts.
5. Synonymy and antonymy are
correlative and sometimes overlapping
notions (частично совпадающие).
Synonymous relationship of the
denotational meaning is in many cases
combined with the difference in the
connotational (mainly stylistic)
component.
6. It is suggested that the term synonyms
should be used to describe words
different in sound-form but similar in
their denotational meaning (or
meanings) and interchangeable at least
in some contexts.
7. The term antоnуms is to be applied to
words different in sound-form
characterised by different types of
semantic contrast of the denotational
meaning and interchangeable at least in
some contexts

References:
1. Гинзбург Р.З. Лексикология
английского языка. М. Высшая
школа, 1979. – С.- 47-55.
2. Зыкова И.В. Практический курс
английской лексикологии. М.:
Академия, 2006. – С. – 39-43.