Lexical properties and lexical relations in spoken language

The complex relations between orthographic, phonological, syntactic and semantic properties of lexical units  make a theoretically satisfying definition of ``lexical sign'' quite elusive. Lexical relations are either paradigmatic , and define classes of similar items, or syntagmatic , and define complex items in terms of relations between their parts.

Present discussion is restricted to the main paradigmatic relations   in traditional terms. The expression of these relations in terms of semantic features, semantic markers or semantic components is not dealt with explicitly, though it figures implicitly in the attribute-value structures which are referred to in the examples.

The syntagmatic relations  (semantic roles; collocational relations; syntactic subcategories, valencies) are more complex. Introductions to linguistics may be consulted on syntagmatic relations in sentences (constituent structures and dependency structures). For further information on semantic properties, reference should be made to standard textbooks such as [Lyons (1977)] or [Cruse (1986)]. Reference should also be made to the results of the EAGLES Computational Lexica Working Group.

The following systematised versions of traditional definitions express the main paradigmatic relations  between lexical signs.

1. The main relations of form between lexical signs are as follows:

   Homonymy: 

   Two words with the same orthographic and phonological forms, but different syntactic categories and/or meanings are homonyms . Example: mate /met/ `friend' or `final state of play in a chess game'.

   Homography: 

   Two words with the same orthographic form and different phonological forms are (heterophonic ) homographs . Example: row /r/ `horizontal sequence', /ra/ `noise, quarrel'.

   Homophony: 

   Two words with the same phonological form and different orthographic forms are (heterographic ) homophones . Example: meet /mi:t/ `encounter' - meat /mi:t/ `edible animal tissue'.

   Heterography: 

   Two orthographic forms of the same word are heterographs . Example: standardise - standardize /stænddaz/.

   Heterophony: 

   Two phonological forms of the same word are heterophones . Example: either /a/ - /i:/ `disjunction'.

2. The main relations of function between lexical signs:

   Hyperonymy: 

   If the meaning of one word is entailed by the meaning of another, it is a hyperonym  of the other (a superordinate term relative to the other). Example: book is a hyperonym  of manual as the meaning of book is implied by the meaning of manual (in one of its readings).

   Hyponymy: 

   The converse of hyperonym . If the meaning of one word entails the meaning of another, it is a hyponym  of the other (a subordinate term relative to the other). Example: manual is a hyponym  of book as the meaning of manual implies the meaning of book.

   Co-hyponymy: 

   Two words are co-hyponyms  if and only if there is a word which is a hyperonym  of each (in the same reading of this word). Example: manual and novel are co-hyponyms  in relation to book.

   Synonymy: 

   Two words are synonyms  if and only if they have the same meaning (or at least have one meaning in common), i.e. if the meaning of each entails the meaning of the other. They are partial synonyms  if either has additional readings not shared by the other. They are full synonyms  if they have no reading which is not shared by the other. Example: manual and handbook are partial synonyms  (manual is also, among other things, a term for a traditional organ keyboard). Full synonyms  are rare. By implication, synonyms  are also co-hyponyms .

   Antonymy: 

   Two words are antonyms  (a) if they are co-hyponyms  with respect to given meanings, and (b) if they differ in meaning in respect of those details of the same meaning which are not shared by their hyperonym . Example: manual and novel are antonyms . Note that the term is sometimes restricted to binary oppositions, e.g. dead - alive.

In addition to these lexical relations, there are a number of syntagmatic complexities which hold between different types of information.

• Semantically, recursion in word formation is unrestricted, with left- or right branching, or centre-embedding.
• Morphologically, recursion is restricted to flat, linear concatenation, as in:
  Spracherkennungsevaluationsmethode -
  Sprach#er+kenn+ung#+s#evalu+ation#+s#method+e,
  or operationalisation - oper+at+ion+al+is+at+ion, which can be efficiently described and implemented by finite state devices.
• Morphophonological modifications of the basic concatenative structure occur, with superimposed word stress or tone patterns, vowel and consonant modifications, as in telephone - telephony, bring - brought.
• So-called bracketing paradoxes  occur because of the different morphological structures determined by semantics and phonology; the most well-known example is transformational grammarian, semantically bracketed as ((transformational grammar) ian), morphologically bracketed as (transformational (grammar ian)).
• Note, too, that morphological (lexical, semantic oriented) bracketing does not necessarily correspond with non-lexical, phonologically motivated syllabic bracketing, as in operation operate - ion - /. p. re. n/.