How to Teach Lessons on Color Theory

At its core, color theory is essentially an artist's understanding of color and how to apply that understanding to their work. Reinforce lectures with exercises that let students practice their mixing and color scheme development skills. To effectively teach color theory to budding artists, spread the lectures and exercises out over the span of several weeks, teaching one concept per lesson. Read more: How to Teach Lessons on Color Theory | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_7737634_teach-lessons-color-theory.html#ixzz1imUbBkmg

Instructions
Things You'll Need

1 six-slot color wheel worksheet per student 1 twelve-slot color wheel worksheet per student 1 eleven-slot value chart worksheet per student 1 palette knife per student 1 mixing tray per student 1 set of acrylic brushes per student 1 HB drawing pencil per student 3 sheets of 9x12 canvas paper per student 5 bulk, student-grade, acrylic paint bottles (1 each of mars black; titanium white; chrome or Cadium yellow; ultramarine or Phthalo blue; Naphthol crimson or Cadium red)

Suggest Edits 1.
o

Explain to the students the first concept of mixing equal parts of the primary colors of red, yellow and blue to create the secondary colors of green, orange and violet. Introduce the terminology of hue and intensity in this lesson. Instruct the students to practice the concept by filling in their six-slot color wheel worksheet, using their palette knife to blend the acrylic paint on their mixing trays, then applying the color to the worksheet with their acrylic brushes.
o

Introduce the second concept of the tertiary colors, including red-orange, yelloworange, blue-green, yellow-green, blue-violet and red-violet. Reinforce the students' understanding of color intensity by explaining that high intensity colors such as yellow can overpower low intensity colors such as blue. Instruct students to complete their twelve-slot color wheel using the same paint mixing techniques learned in the first lesson. Remind students that variations in color intensity may

mean that the ratios may not be precise; for example, mixing a true green may take 55% blue and 45% yellow rather than a precise 50/50 mix due to intensity differences.
o

Teach the students the third concept of color value with the introduction of the neutral mixing colors of white and black. Explain the term value as the lightness or darkness of a hue and introduce the idea that white can be added to lighten a color while black can be added to darken it in a process known as tinting or shading. Ask students to fill in their eleven-slot value chart beginning with 100% black and ending with 100% white, with a gradation of grays in between that steps down from a 90% dark gray to a 10% light gray.
o

Establish the fourth concept of color schemes by introducing the simplest monochromatic color scheme. Reinforce the third lesson's concept of value by asking students to create a one-hour painting using only one color off their twelve-slot color wheel. For example have students draw a simple line drawing with their HB pencils on one of their canvas sheets. Ask the students to paint in the figures and background using various values of only one acrylic paint color by tinting and shading the hue with the addition of black and white.
o

Expand upon the fourth concept with a lesson that explores more complex color schemes. Introduce new terminology of analogous and complementary color schemes. Instruct the students to create two additional one-hour paintings demonstrating their understanding of these color schemes. The first painting should use the analogous scheme of hues next to one another on the twelve-slot color wheel, such as yellow, yellow-orange and orange. The second, complementary color scheme painting should use tints and shades of two colors directly opposite one another on the wheel, such as violet and yellow.
Sponsored Links

Red Dot Machinerywww.reddotmachinery.com.au

Affordable And High Quality CNC Routers and Laser Machines

Auto And Bike Gallerywww.autoandbikegallery.com

Leroy Neiman and Salvador Dali oils, serigraphs, lithographs

LangLab Softwarewww.elanglab.com

A multimedia platform for teaching all four language skills--for less!

CNCs for Plasma and Oxywww.linatrol.com

Complete range of solutions Retrofits and OEMS serviced

Read more: How to Teach Lessons on Color Theory | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_7737634_teach-lessons-color-theory.html#ixzz1imUhXanx http://www.ehow.com/how_7737634_teach-lessons-color-theory.html

LLAS Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies

Home | Contact us | Join the mailing list
Search

Go

form-8cef952b6e

search_theme_fo

Please note: The University of Southampton IT systems will be undergoing essential maintenance between Tuesday 3rd until Friday 6th January 2012. There will be limited functionality of this website during this period. If you have an urgent enquiry please call +44 (0)23 8059 4814.

About Events News Resources Projects Papers and articles Materials Bank

Home Resources

Lexical semantics
Author: Lynne Murphy

Dr M. Lynne Murphy, University of Sussex

Abstract
The nature of lexical semantics has changed markedly in the twenty-to-thirty years since classic texts like Lyons (1977) and Cruse (1986) were published. Such texts were written at a time when Structuralist lexical semantics essentially carried on separately from major [Generative] theories of grammar. During and since the 1980s, however, theories of grammar have become much more lexically-driven, necessitating much deeper attention to issues of lexical meaning. Unfortunately, there is a tendency in lexical semantics courses and in semantics textbooks to present lexical semantics essentially as it was 30 years ago, with the focus limited to polysemy/homonymy and the nym relations (synonym, antonym, etc.). This guide examines ways to construct a modern classroom approach to lexical semantics, with a broader definition of the field.

Table of contents

1. Introduction: motivations and assumptions 2. Teaching lexical semantics 3. Teaching through student-led research 4. Closing note Bibliography Related links

1. Introduction: motivations and assumptions

The nature of lexical semantics has changed markedly in the twenty-to-thirty years since classic texts like Lyons (1977) and Cruse (1986) were published. Such texts were written at a time when Structuralist lexical semantics essentially carried on separately from major [Generative] theories of grammar. During and since the 1980s, however, theories of grammar have become much more lexically-driven, necessitating much deeper attention to issues of lexical meaning. Unfortunately, there is a tendency in lexical semantics courses and in semantics textbooks to present lexical semantics essentially as it was 30 years ago, with the focus limited to polysemy/homonymy and the nym relations (synonym, antonym, etc.). This guide examines ways to construct a modern classroom approach to lexical semantics, with a broader definition of the field.

2. Teaching lexical semantics

Lexical semantics could be defined as the study of word meaning, but in practice it is often more specifically concerned with the study of lexical (i.e. content) word meaning, as opposed to the meanings of grammatical (or function) words. This means that lexical semanticists are most

interested in the open classes of noun, verb and adjective and with more contentful members of the adverb and preposition classes (for instance over but not of). Lexical semantics is thus mostly exempt from considering issues that arise from the use of grammatical words, such as definiteness and modality. But while lexical semantics focuses on content words, such words cannot be studied in an agrammatical vacuum. Some lexical properties, like Aktionsart (lexical aspect) have effects throughout the sentence. So, for instance, a difference between the verbs spot and see can be described in terms of aspectual properties of the verbs: spot describes a punctual event, while see does not. This in turn affects which tense and aspect markers can be present in the same clause and how such markers are interpreted. So, I saw the bird all day long can describe a continuous seeing event, while I spotted the bird all day long must be interpreted as repeated instances of spotting events. Because of the effects of the verbs semantics on other elements in the sentence, Aktionsart (and other topics, like thematic role assignment) is often presented as semantics in textbooks, rather than as lexical semantics. This can create problems both for students understanding of lexical semantics and for instructors planning of a lexical semantics course that complements a general semantics course. The approach taken below is to offer a broad range of lexical semantic topics.
2.1 Topics in lexical semantics

Lexical semantics fits into linguistics curricula in various ways. Some of the most common ways are:

as a sub-module in a semantics course (often lower-mid level in degree) as part of a course on vocabulary/lexicologyincluding morphology, etymology, lexicography as well as semantics (often lower-mid level) as a free-standing course (often upper level)

Plainly, what one covers is determined by the type of course, the number of sessions devoted to lexical semantics, the level of the students and what has been presented already in other courses. The following table presents an outline of key topics in lexical semantics. The rightmost column suggests issues that could be studied in more depth in courses that can presuppose or develop more background information. This is not intended as a week-by-week syllabus, but as a list of major concepts and areas of investigation, which may be presented in a different order, different combinations and different levels of depth than presented here.

Topics 1-4 (basic issues) should be covered in any linguistics degree, and may be covered in courses other than lexical semantics. Topics 3-4 and 6 are covered in most short lexical semantics modules (e.g. within a general semantics course). Coverage of topics 5 and 7-9 is more uneven across departments, but at least some aspects of these would normally be covered in an upper-level lexical semantics course.

The sources cited below are useful places to start in thinking about issues to raise in the classroom.

Table 1. Teachable issues in lexical semantics General Topic Basic issues to discuss and useful resources

Taking it further

What is a lexicon?

key terms: lexicon, mental lexicon, lexis, lexeme/lexical item, lexical entry lexicon/grammar (idiosyncrasy of lexical information) definitions of word/lexeme (Trask 2003b) word classes (Internet Grammar of English; Trask 2003a) aspects of meaning: denotation, connotation, social meaning (Leech 1981, Allan 2002) semantics/pragmatics sense/reference ambiguity/vagueness, polysemy/homonymy Classical theory of meaning (covered well in most semantics texts) Problems with classical theory (e.g. prototype effects) (Taylor 2003)

Does the lexicon include only arbitrary information? (Bybee 1998)

What is a word?

Is word class semantically determined? (Givn 1984, Wierzbicka 1988) treatments of polysemy (Ravin & Leacock (eds.) 2000, esp. introduction, and chapters by Cruse, Fillmore and Atkins) is there a continuum of formmeaning variance? (Tuggy 1993) Selectional restrictions, projection, redundancy rules (Katz & Fodor 1963)

What is meaning?

Meaning components: basics

Primary theory sources: Some selection of the following (covered briefly in Lbner 2002, Saeed 2003more specific textbooks listed below): Alternatives to Classical Theory

modern componential approaches, e.g.: Conceptual Semantics (Jackendoff 2002), Natural Semantic Metalanguage (Goddard 1998) schematic approaches from Cognitive Linguistics (Croft and Cruse 2004; Evans and Green 2006)

Conceptual Semantics: Jackendoff 1983, 1990, 2002 Generative Lexicon: Pustejovsky 1995 Natural Semantic Metalanguage: Wierzbicka 1996 Cognitive Semantics: Talmy 2000 Frame Semantics: see FrameNet site How are these relations represented in the lexicon? (Murphy 2003, forthcoming.) Are the relations semantic or also lexical? (Murphy 2003,

Semantic relations

synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy, (meronymy, others) (Cruse 2000b) semantic fields (Lehrer 1974) Classical theory approach relation to propositional relations

Table 1. Teachable issues in lexical semantics General Topic Basic issues to discuss and useful resources (entailment, contradiction)

Taking it further forthcoming.)

Topics in verb meaning

Ontological categories: event, state (Frawley 1992) Aspectual classes/Aktionsarten (Hofmann 1993; some basic coverage in Saeed 2003)

Levin (1993) classes Typology of motion verbs (Talmy 1985)

Topics in noun [basic issues generally raised under topics 4/5] meaning

Countability (Jackendoff 1991) Nouns and names (Allan 2002) Gradable meaning (Bierwisch & Lang 1989) Markedness, opposition (Lehrer 1985) Variability of adjective meaning (Pustejovsky 1995)

Topics in adjective meaning

2.2 Approaching lexical semantics from other angles

Stand-alone lexical semantics courses are fairly unusual, but aspects of lexical semantics can be taught within a range of other disciplinary and cross-disciplinary courses. As already mentioned, this most commonly happens in general semantics courses, and can also be part of lexicography or lexicology courses. The latter, under various names, have become more common lately, particularly as introductory linguistics coursesas words provide an accessible gateway to many linguistic concepts. Lexical semantics courses can incorporate other (inter-)disciplinary interests. Courses in other (sub-)disciplines, including the following, can benefit from inclusion of some lexical semantic topics: Pragmatics No semantics course can help but to tread on the toes of pragmatics, and some theoretical approaches (particularly Cognitive Linguistics) have done away with the distinction between semantic and pragmatic competence. Still, one of the first challenges in learning about lexical semantics is to be able to make the distinction between a words contribution to the meaning of an utterance and the contributions of context (pragmatics) and co-text (the phrasal context). Pragmatic accounts have been proposed for many lexical semantic issues, such as polysemy (e.g. Nunberg 1979, Blutner 1998) and semantic relations (Murphy 2003).

Morphology Just as there are many interfaces between syntax and sentential semantics, so there are between morphology and lexical semantics. One is the question of whether word class is semantically determined (see Table 1, topic 2). The semantics of derivational morphemes and derived words also provides fertile thinking ground. Kreidlers Introducing English semantics (1998) has an accessible chapter for beginners, while Lieber (2004) provides a theoretical account that fits with Jackendoffs Conceptual Semantics. Psycholinguistics Most lexical semantic issues can be addressed from a psycholinguistic perspective, and psycholinguistic methods offer evidence concerning how words and meanings are organised in the mind. Aitchison (2002) provides an introduction to many of these issues. Reeves et al. (1998) outline some of the experimental methods used in investigating the mental lexicon, some of which can be replicated in the classroom. Language acquisition Unlike grammar, vocabulary is acquired throughout life, so some of the issues in lexical acquisition can be addressed from an adult first- or second-language angle. An appreciation for some basic issues in semanticssuch as the arbtrariness of the sign and how we solve Quines (1960) gavagai problem (discerning the meanings of words in context) can be gained through consideration of how one initially discovers that bits of sound have meaning. Most child language textbooks include sections on lexical acquisition. Clark (1993) and Bloom (2000) take particular perspectives on some of these issues. In second language acquisition, Carter (1998) introduces many of the relevant issues, and the recent influence of lexical teaching/learning strategies provides another point of engagement with the lexicon. Anthropological linguistics, field linguistics, typology Cross-linguistic lexical comparison has a long history in anthropology, particularly with reference to kinship terms, biological classification and colour (Berlin and Kay 1969). Lexical-semantic typology (e.g. Talmy 1985) and contrastive lexical semantics (e.g. Weigand 1998) raise issues that are relevant to language courses as well. Linguistic relativity, the idea that the language one knows can affect ones means of thinking, is enjoying some reconsideration (e.g. Gumperz & Levinson 1996). Some of the more promising avenues for such study involve morphological categories, such as gender. The converse idea, that lexis is affected by culture, has been explored in depth in Anna Wierzbickas work (particularly 1992 and 1997). These issues are usually very popular with students. Computational linguistics Much lexical semantic work nowadays is done in computational linguistics/natural language processing (NLP), including much work on polysemy/ambiguity resolution and the development of semantic networks. WordNet (Fellbaum 1998) has enjoyed particular success as an NLP tool and model of lexical structure. There is a large body of work on ambiguity resolution, and Pustejovskys (1995) Generative Lexicon Theory (see below) has arisen though and been applied to such NLP concerns.
2.3 Lexical semantic theories

Whether to teach a particular theoretical perspective on lexical semantics is a tricky question, since in a sense, theres no such thing as a free-standing lexical semantic theory, but instead there are semantic theories that pay more or less attention to representation at the lexical level. If

one were to try to cover the topics listed in Table 1 with reference to a single theory, it is unlikely that even coverage of the topics would be possible, since different theoretical perspectives have taken different starting points. For first-year courses, a pre-theoretical approach is usually most attractive. This can be done, for instance, by taking a lexicographical approachi.e. what are the issues that one needs to understand in order to write dictionary entries? Jacksons textbook Words and their meaning (1988) took this kind of approach. Hudsons workbook Word meaning (1995) introduces basic lexical semantic concepts with minimal theoretical discussion, and Cruses Meaning in language (2000b) is heavily focused on lexical issues. In addition, there are lexicology textbooks (Jackson and Z Amvela 2000, Singleton 2000) that are suitable for lower-level courses. These are generally more suitable for courses that intend an introduction to linguistics through words, since their treatments of basic semantic issues, such as polysemy, are rather cursory. In more advanced courses, theoretical approaches are appropriate, but which ones should be tackled is to some degree a matter of taste and of the rest of the curriculumin that it could be confusing to teach a theory for lexical semantics that is incompatible with the theories taught in the department for general semantics and grammar. That said, while general semantics courses are often taught from a formal, model-theoretic perspective, lexical semantics teaching is generally approached from non-formal stances. My own preference is to contrast different theoretical approaches to a particular topic (without presenting formalisms that require knowledge of particular logical languages)but this presents particular challenges. First, the approaches to be contrasted may have very different basic assumptions about the nature of meaning or the lexicon, and thus a fair amount of background to the theories must be presented. Second, they may not be trying to answer exactly the same questions or to cover the same set of phenomena. There are at least three ways of getting around these issues. One is to present from the beginning two general types of approach (e.g., componential vs image-schematic), examining in detail first their basic assumptions, and then investigating how the contrasting theories have (or would) approach particular phenomena. We can call this the comparative approach. Because one is dealing with families of theories in this way, it can be possible to examine a range of problems from contrasting perspectives. Still, it does require some theoretical juggling. (This is the approach of Murphy, forthcoming.) Another possibility is to take an envelope-pushing approach, in which a particular theory is taken as a starting point, but then challenged to account for issues that have been discussed from purely descriptive or other theoretical approaches. This is most suitable to upper-level courses, in which the students are ready to develop their own theoretical accounts. The final option is to simply teach a theory as it is presented in its fundamental literature. However, while this last option may be appealingly straightforward, it is the least promising for instilling critical thinking skills or a broad perspective on the field. The comparative and envelope-pushing approaches can also be valuable for inspiring further research projects, for example in a final-year dissertation. One of the greatest challenges for teaching semantics from a theoretical standpoint is the lack of theory-specific textbooks for the undergraduate level. The only current texts in this vein that I am

aware of are Goddards Semantic Analysis (1998), which introduces mostly lexical issues in the Natural Semantic Metalanguage framework, and Cognitive Linguistics texts (most of which are not limited to lexical semantic issues). Some general semantics textbooks (e.g. Lbner 2002, Saeed 2003) give comparative overviews of some theoretical approaches, but for the most part, it can be difficult to find textbooks that are suitable to non-formal theories. Frawleys Linguistic Semantics (1992) covers many issues of lexical interest at some level of comparative theoretical detail. Another option is to develop a reading pack, based on shorter primary materials, including book chapters, journal articles and encyclopedic overviews. Some relevant, mostly current theoretical approaches are listed below, with citation of their foundational literature or (where possible) textbooksmarked here by T. In general, they can be divided into two types: componential and schematic. Componential approaches rely on a language-like system of meaning representation involving a limited number of primitive symbols in some kind of grammarthe classic example being the model in Katz and Fodor 1963. Schematic approaches take the position that word meaning must be approached within more complex conceptual structures, often relying on a more image-driven representational form, such as the image schemas of Lakoff 1987. Componential approaches are more generally associated with the goals of generative linguistics, and schematic ones with cognitive linguistics, although there is a wide range of variation among all these approaches.
Table 2. Some theories of (lexical) semantics Theory Cognitive Semantics

Characteristics family of theoretical approaches schematic componential not strictly lexical strong on argument structure and other interfaces between semantics and grammar schematic links to lexicographical and machine translation projects componential; qualia structure strong on meaning variation in context; argument structure componential; universal primes; nonformal structure strong on names of abstract entities;

Starting point references

Evans and Green 2006 T Croft and Cruse 2004 T

Conceptual Semantics

Jackendoff 1983, 2002

Frame Semantics

FrameNet website [no real overview text] Pustejovsky 1995 [generally not undergraduate-friendly reading] Goddard 1998 T Wierzbicka 1996

Generative Lexicon

Natural Semantic Metalanguage

cross-cultural comparison

3. Teaching through student-led research

Words provide self-contained packets of language about which many types of investigation can be carried out. Teaching lexical semantics is thus particularly exciting for the opportunities that it allows for student-led, original research.
3.1 Research methods for lexical semantics

Students can research word meaning using a variety of tools, including introspection, fieldwork, dictionaries, corpora and (where appropriate) psycholinguistic experimentation, as discussed in turn below. Introspection: Asking oneself how one uses language is the classic linguistic method, and it should be used throughout a lexical semantics course. Beginning students usually need some guidance to bring them from what does this word mean to me? (a question whose answer may not be reliable) to finding answers for the question how can I test the semantic properties of this word? For students whose native language is not the language of the course, introspection is usually not a suitable main means of discovery. I therefore allow students to treat any assignment that calls for introspection as also allowing field methods. Field methods: Where native intuitions are not available or where they may vary, one may instead (or in addition) quiz native-speaker informants about the acceptability of a word in various contexts (or about the boundaries of the words sense, etc.). Here, a little more training is needed, in part to avoid wasting informants time and patience. This can be achieved by modelling field methods practice in the classroom and then asking the students to devise a list of questions/examples that they will ask their informants about. For any assignment that is the same for all students on the course, I enforce a rule that their informants cannot be members of the class, nor other Linguistics students, so that the field methods cannot be mistaken for collusion. Dictionaries: Dictionary definitions can provide a good starting point for thinking about a words meaning, the nature of polysemy and the relation between descriptive and prescriptive attitudes to language. Advanced learners dictionaries often provide more grammatical information about words, including information about collocations and more specific grammatical categories (e.g. count/mass nouns), which can be valuable for both non-native and native speakers. The Oxford English Dictionary, on the other hand, provides plenty of etymological information and examples of usage. Both types can be valuable for different kinds of activities. Some activities using dictionaries include: using a number of dictionaries to map the sense boundaries of a particular word, comparing actual uses of words to their dictionary definitions (are their senses more fluid than the dictionary records?), and determining the principles underlying the organisation of information in a thesaurus.

Corpora: Corpus linguistics offers a means to supplement and/or challenge introspective evidence. The problem for any lexical semantics course, however, is whether the facilities and time are available to provide students with access to a corpus, corpus software and the requisite skills to use them. For my own courses, the answer has been no, but it is still possible to introduce corpus analysis. A basic way is to provide students with printouts or wordprocessor/pdf files of pre-prepared concordances. Once students know a bit about corpora, they can have a hand in designing the methodology for a particular corpus investigation, with the tutor or technician still charged with executing it. If the question to be put to the corpus is simply can one say X in English?, it will usually suffice to have students search for exact phrases on the internet using a standard search engine. Experiments: Most lexical semantics courses will not have the time/facilities to teach experimental methods, nor to teach students to use the types of software usually used in psycholinguistic experimentation. Some experiments, however, like some used by Eleanor Rosch (1978) to demonstrate prototype effects, can be carried out with pen and paper and extended to different words/categories.
3.2 Structuring a course around original research

Stand-alone assignments and seminar activities can be based on any (or several) of the above methodologies. It is also possible to devise a course in which student-led research provides the themes to be discussed. Adopt-a-Word: My own lexical semantic courses are structured around an assignment called Adopt-a-Word, which allows students to apply a number of key concepts and methodologies to a single word, thus building up a portfolio of short assignments around the theme of a word. (The Adopt-a-Word scheme for a year 1 lexicology course is described in more detail at the LLAS event report, listed in the web links below.) That course is also designed to establish key disciplinary, academic and transferable skills. (See Hudson 2003 for discussion of skills development.) For a more advanced/specific lexical semantics course, suitable assignments can be designed. (Murphy, forthcoming, provides a number of ideas, most of which have been tested in a final-year course in the US.) In my courses, students receive at the beginning of the term a document with a dozen or so possible Adopt-a-Word assignments. After each student is assigned (or chooses) their own word, it is up to the student to determine (with some guidance) which assignments suit the word. For instance, an assignment on argument structure may not be suitable for many nouns. The student then does a number of assignments on the same word. The same assignments can be used without adopting a wordi.e. the tutor could assign different words for each assignment, thus allowing students to be assessed on every element of the course, rather than just those that suit their word. One advantage of the Adopt-a-Word method is that the student becomes an expert on a word, and thus later assignments are informed by work for previous ones. Another is that using the adopted word as a theme for the term allows for greater continuity and coherence in a survey course that flits from descriptive/theoretical topic to topic. Finally, involving students in original

research greatly reduces the potential for (intentional or unintentional) plagiarism in essaywriting. Dissertations in lexical semantics: While Adopt-a-Word allows for a broad-based approach to semantics/lexicology, some upper-level courses require more in-depth research projects, as can be assessed through a dissertation. Here, again, it is very doable for students to tackle original lexical semantic research, preferably using more than one of the methodologies discussed above. To give some examples, here are short descriptions of some recent final-year dissertations at Sussex: Is David Beckham black? An investigation of the meaning of the racial term black in the UK, testing hypotheses based on Social Identity Theory posited in Murphy 1997. Data sources included dictionary definitions, questionnaire responses and examples of usage from the press. Child and adult in Japan and Britain. A study by a Japanese native speaker based on Wierzbickas (1997) contention that the meaning/use of particular words can offer insight into cultural differences. The student used dictionary definitions, legal definitions and questionnaire responses to contrast the denotations and connotations of words for child and adult in the two cultures. Bizarre: a case study of near-synonymy. This student used corpus data and affect-based questionnaires both to demonstrate that exact synonyms for bizarre do not exist and to determine the semantic prosody (Louw 1993) of bizarre and its synonyms.

4. Closing note
This guide has briefly raised some issues concerning the teaching of lexical semantics, but it has necessarily been based mostly on my own experience. In order to improve the guide, please contact me (m.l.murphy@sussex.ac.uk) with information on your successes in teaching lexical semantics and/or feedback on your experience of any of the methods discussed here.

Bibliography
Aitchison, Jean. (2002). Words in the mind (3rd edn). Oxford: Blackwell. Allan, Keith. (2002). Natural language semantics. Oxford: Blackwell. Bierwisch, Manfred and Ewald Lang (eds.). (1989). Dimensional adjectives. Berlin: Springer. Bloom, Paul. (2000). How children learn the meanings of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Blutner, Reinhard. (1998). Lexical pragmatics. Journal of Semantics 15:11562. Bybee, Joan. (1998). The emergent lexicon. In Chicago Linguistic Society 34: The Panels. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 42135.

Carter, Ronald. (1998). Vocabulary: applied linguistics perspectives (2nd edn.). London: Routledge. Clark, Eve V. (1993). The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Croft, William and D. Alan Cruse. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cruse, D. A. (2000a). Aspects of the micro-structure of word meanings. In Ravin and Leacock 2000: 3051. Cruse, (D.) Alan. (2000b). Meaning in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Evans, Vyv and Melanie Green. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: an introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Fellbaum, Christiane (ed.). (1998). WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Frawley, William. (1992). Linguistic semantics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Givn, Talmy. (1984). Syntax, vol. 1. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Goddard, Cliff. (1998). Semantic analysis: a practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gumperz, John Joseph and Stephen C. Levinson (eds.). (1996). Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hofmann, Th. R. (1993). Realms of meaning. London: Longman. Hudson, Richard. (1995). Word meaning. London: Routledge. Hudson, Richard. (2003). How can key skills "sell" Linguistics to students and employers? Guide to Good Practice for learning and teaching in Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies. www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/2568 Jackendoff, Ray. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jackendoff, Ray. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jackendoff, Ray. (1991). Parts and boundaries. In B. Levin and S. Pinker (eds.), Lexical and conceptual semantics. Oxford: Blackwell, 946.

Jackendoff, Ray. (2002). Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jackson, Howard. (1988). Words and their meaning. London: Longman. Jackson, Howard, and Etienne Z Amvela. (2000). Words, meaning and vocabulary: an introduction to modern English lexicology. London: Cassell. Katz, Jerrold J. and Jerry A. Fodor. (1963). The structure of a semantic theory. Language 39:2/1.170-210. Kreidler, Charles W. (1998). Introducing English semantics. London: Routledge. Lakoff, George. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Leech, Geoffrey. (1981). Semantics (2nd edn). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Lehrer, Adrienne. (1974). Semantic fields and lexical structure. Amsterdam: North Holland. Lehrer, Adrienne. (1985). Markedness and antonymy. Journal of Linguistics 21:397-429. Lehrer, Adrienne and Eva Feder Kittay (eds.). (1992). Frames, fields, and contrasts. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Lieber, Rochelle. (2004). Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge: UP. Levin, Beth. (1993). English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lbner, Sebastian. (2002). Understanding semantics. London: Arnold. Louw, Bill. (1993). Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. In M. Baker, G. Francis and E. Tognini-Bonelli (eds.), Text and technology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lyons, John. (1977). Semantics (2 vols.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Murphy, M. Lynne. (1997). The elusive bisexual: social categorization and lexico-semantic change. In Kira Hall and Anna Livia (eds.), Queerly phrased: language, gender, and sexuality. New York: Oxford UP, 3557. Murphy, M. Lynne. (2003). Semantic relations and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Murphy, M. Lynne. (forthcoming). Lexical meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunberg, Geoffrey. (1979). The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy 3: 143-84. Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pustejovsky, James. (1995). The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ravin, Yael and Claudia Leacock (eds.). (2000). Polysemy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reeves, Lauretta M., Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, and Roberta Golinkoff (1998). Words and meaning. In Jean Berko Gleason and Nan Bernstein Ratner (eds.), Psycholinguistics, 2nd edn. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace, 157-226. Rosch, Eleanor. (1978). Principles of categorization. In Eleanor Rosch and Barbara B. Lloyd (eds.), Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 2747. Saeed, John I. (2003). Semantics (2nd edn). Oxford: Blackwell. Singleton, David. (2000). Language and the lexicon: an introduction. London: Arnold. Talmy, Leonard. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 57-149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Talmy, Leonard. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics (2 vols.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Taylor, John R. (2003). Linguistic categorization (3rd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Trask, R.L. (2003a). Parts of speech. Department of Linguistics Working Papers 11/04, University of Sussex. www.sussex.ac.uk/linguistics/1-4-1-2.html Trask, R.L. (2003b). What is a word? Department of Linguistics Working Papers 11/04, University of Sussex. www.sussex.ac.uk/linguistics/1-4-1-2.html Tuggy, David. (1993). Ambiguity, polysemy and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics 4, 27390. Weigand, Edda (ed.). (1998). Contrastive lexical semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wierzbicka, Anna. (1988). Whats in a noun? (or: How do nouns differ in meaning from adjectives?). In The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins. (Orig. published in 1986 in Studies in Language 10.) Wierzbicka, Anna. (1992). Semantics, culture, and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wierzbicka, Anna. (1996). Semantics: primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wierzbicka, Anna. (1997). Understanding cultures through their key words. New York: Oxford University Press.

Related links
Adopt-a-word (PowerPoint presentation) In Event report: Resources and methods for teaching linguistics (LLAS Subject Centre). www.llas.ac.uk/events/archive/597#report FrameNet http://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu Internet Grammar of English www.ucl.ac.uk/internet-grammar Key Skills: Developing Key Skills and PDP in Higher Education www.llas.ac.uk/resources/mb/1418 The Lexis Website (Cardiff University) www.cardiff.ac.uk/encap/clcr/gordon/lexindex.html Suggested readings for postgraduate lexical semantics (Linguist List) www.ling.ed.ac.uk/linguist/issues/10/10-1601.html

Referencing this article

Below are the possible formats for citing Good Practice Guide articles. If you are writing for a journal, please check the author instructions for full details before submitting your article.

MLA style: Canning, John. "Disability and Residence Abroad". Southampton, 2004. Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies Guide to Good Practice. 7 October 2008. http://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/2241. Author (Date) style: Canning, J. (2004). "Disability and residence abroad." Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies Good Practice Guide. Retrieved 7 October 2008, from http://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/2241.

http://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/2821

Semantics - meanings, etymology and the lexicon

Navigation Home page Contents Forum Maximize Search Comment Mail me Author

Introduction What is semantics? Symbol and referent Conceptions of meaning Words and lexemes Denotation Connotation Implication Pragmatics Ambiguity Metaphor, simile and symbol

Semantic fields Synonym, antonym and hyponym Collocation, fixed expression and idiom Semantic change and etymology Polysemy Homonymy, homophones and homographs Lexicology and lexicography Thesauruses, libraries and Web portals Epistemology Colour Sources of further information

Introduction

This web page is intended for students who are following GCE Advanced level (AS and A2) syllabuses in English Language. This resource may also be of general interest to language students on university degree courses, trainee teachers and anyone with a general interest in language science. Note: This Web page uses symbols which may not display correctly in all browsers. If you are using Netscape Navigator, you should upgrade to the latest version. Click here to go to the download page for this browser.
What is semantics?

Semantics is the study of meaning. It is a wide subject within the general study of language. An understanding of semantics is essential to the study of language acquisition (how language users acquire a sense of meaning, as speakers and writers, listeners and readers) and of language change (how meanings alter over time). It is important for understanding language in social contexts, as these are likely to affect meaning, and for understanding varieties of English and effects of style. It is thus one of the most fundamental concepts in linguistics. The study of semantics includes the study of how meaning is constructed, interpreted, clarified, obscured, illustrated, simplified negotiated, contradicted and paraphrased.
Back to top

Some important areas of semantic theory or related subjects include these:

Symbol and referent Conceptions of meaning Words and lexemes Denotation, connotation, implication Pragmatics Ambiguity Metaphor, simile and symbol Semantic fields Synonym, antonym and hyponym Collocation, fixed expression and idiom Semantic change and etymology Polysemy Homonymy, homophones and homographs Lexicology and lexicography Thesauruses, libraries and Web portals Epistemology Colour

You will find explanations below of how each of these relates to the theoretical study of semantics.
Back to top

Symbol and referent

These terms may clarify the subject. A symbol is something which we use to represent another thing - it might be a picture, a letter, a spoken or written word - anything we use conventionally for the purpose. The thing that the symbol identifies is the referent. This may sometimes be an object in the physical world (the word Rover is the symbol; a real dog is the referent). But it may be something which is not at all, or not obviously, present - like freedom, unicorns or Hamlet.
Back to top

Conceptions of meaning

Words things: This view is found in the Cratylus of Plato (427-347 BC). Words name or refer to things. It works well for proper nouns like London, Everton FC and Ford Fiesta. It is less clear when applied to abstractions, to verbs and to adjectives - indeed wherever there is no immediately existing referent (thing) in the physical world, to correspond to the symbol (word). Words concepts things: This theory was classically expressed by C.K. Ogden and I.A. Richards, in The Meaning of Meaning (1923). It states that there is no direct connection of symbol and referent, but an indirect

connection in our minds. For each word there is a related concept. The difficulty is in explaining what this concept is, and how it can exist apart from the word. In Nineteen Eighty-Four George Orwell imagines a society whose rulers remove disapproved thoughts by removing (from print and broadcasting) the corresponding words. However there are many real-world examples of concepts which came before the words which described or named them (hovercraft, Internet) or where the symbols have changed, but not the concepts they refer to (radio for wireless, Hoover for vacuum cleaner). This suggests that the concept is independent of particular language symbols.
Back to top

Stimuli words responses: Leonard Bloomfield outlines this theory in Language (1933). A stimulus (S) leads someone to a response (r), which is a speech act. To the hearer the speech act is also a stimulus (s), which leads to a response (R), which may be an action or understanding. S r.................s R Jill is hungry, sees an apple (S) and asks Jack to bring it her (r). This new language stimulus, Jack's hearing her (s) leads to his action (R) of bringing her the apple. Bloomfield's behaviourist model leads to obvious problems - Jack doesn't bring Jill the apple because of a quarrel years before, or he brings several apples and a glass of beer.
Back to top

Words and lexemes

As a lexical unit may contain more than one word, David Crystal has coined the term lexeme. This is usually a single word, but may be a phrase in which the meaning belongs to the whole rather than its parts, as in verb phrases tune in, turn on, drop out or noun phrase (a) cock up.
Back to top

Denotation

This is the core or central meaning of a word or lexeme, as far as it can be described in a dictionary. It is therefore sometimes known as the cognitive or referential meaning. It is possible to think of lexical items that have a more or less fixed denotation (sun, denoting the nearest star, perhaps) but this is rare. Most are subject to change over time. The denotation of silly is not today what it was in the 16th century, or even the 18th, when Coleridge referred to the silly buckets on the deck. Denotation is thus related to connotation, which

leads to semantic change.

Back to top

Connotation

Theories of denotation and connotation are themselves subject to problems of definition. Connotation is connected with psychology and culture, as it means the personal or emotional associations aroused by words. When these associations are widespread and become established by common usage, a new denotation is recorded in dictionaries. A possible example of such change would be vicious. Originally derived from vice, it meant extremely wicked. In modern British usage it is commonly used to mean fierce, as in the brown rat is a vicious animal.
Back to top

Implication

This is meaning which a speaker or writer intends but does not communicate directly. Where a listener is able to deduce or infer the intended meaning from what has been uttered, this is known as (conversational) implicature. David Crystal gives this example: Utterance: A bus! Implicature (implicit meaning): We must run.
Back to top

Pragmatics

According to Professor Crystal, pragmatics is not a coherent field of study. It refers to the study of those factors which govern our choices of language such as our social awareness, our culture and our sense of etiquette. How do we know how to address different people like the queen? How do we know how to express gratitude for a gift or hospitality? Pragmatics can be illustrated by jokes or irony which rely on the contrast between expected and subsequently revealed meaning. Consider this example from a 1999 episode of Barry Levinson's TV police drama, Homicide: Life on the Streets. (The TV audience is assumed to know police procedure for arresting suspects.) An arresting officer says to a suspect (whose hands are raised, so he is not resisting arrest): You have the right to remain silent. Instead of continuing with the reading of rights, the officer shoots the suspect. The audience enjoys the wordplay and the dramatic revelation of the officer's real meaning, because pragmatics tells us what You have the right to remain

silent normally leads to - more words and no bullets.

Back to top

Ambiguity

Ambiguity occurs when a language element has more than one meaning. If the ambiguity is in a single word it is lexical ambiguity. If in a sentence or clause, it is grammatical or structural ambiguity. We can illustrate lexical ambiguity with an example from Sue Townsend's Secret Diary of Adrian Mole. Adrian displays a notice in school, advertising a gay society. When a teacher rebukes him, Adrian asks what is wrong with a club for people who want to be jolly or happy. Structural ambiguity can often be seen in punning headlines, like the wartime example CHURCHILL FLIES BACK TO FRONT. The late polar explorer, Dr. Vivian Fuchs, was the subject of a similar headline: DR. FUCHS OFF TO ANTARCTIC. In this case, the structural ambiguity is not present to a reader who knows standard spelling, but might confuse a hearer, if the headline is spoken aloud. The absence of linking grammatical words (articles, conjunctions, prepositions) in headlines makes such ambiguity likely. Consider this example (from The Guardian's sports supplement, Saturday November 20, 1999): Christie back under ban threat. Is back a noun (anatomy or position in rugby) or adverb? Is ban a verb, noun or attributive adjective? Is threat verb or noun? The reader's prior knowledge gives the answer. Christie is the UK athlete, Linford Christie, who has been threatened with a ban previously. So back is short for is back and ban threat is a noun phrase, leading to the structural meaning: (Linford) Christie (is) back (=again) under (=subject to) (the) threat (of a) ban.
Back to top

A real-life forensic example comes from a cause clebre of the 1960s. Derek Bentley was hanged for murder after his accomplice, Christopher Craig (too young to hang) shot a policeman. Bentley allegedly shouted to Craig: Let him have it. Did this mean (as the prosecution claimed and the jury believed) shoot him (the victim) or (as the defence argued) give it [= the gun] to him [= the policeman]. Another example that combines lexical and structural ambiguity is in a joke. Two men are looking at televisions in a shop-window. One says: That's the one I'd get! Around the corner comes a Cyclops, who thumps him. The lexical ambiguity works best in speech - if we read it we must hear the speech to get the point. If you don't understand the joke, tell it to some people

who may see the point. If you still are puzzled, you may lack awareness of the denotation of Cyclops. They have only one eye. Get (like git) is an insult in some regional varieties of spoken English (especially in north-west England).
Back to top

Metaphor, simile and symbol

Metaphors are well known as a stylistic feature of literature, but in fact are found in almost all language use, other than simple explanations of physical events in the material world. All abstract vocabulary is metaphorical, but in most cases the original language hides the metaphor from us. Depends means hanging from (in Latin), pornography means writing of prostitutes (in Greek) and even the hippopotamus has a metaphor in its name, which is Greek for river horse. A metaphor compares things, but does not show this with forms such as as, like, or more [+qualifier] than. These appear in similes: fat as a pig, like two peas in a pod. Everyday speech is marked by frequent use of metaphor. Consider the humble preposition on. Its primary meaning can be found in such phrases as on the roof, on the toilet, on top. But what relationship does it express in such phrases as on the fiddle, on call, on demand, on the phone, on the game, on telly, on fire, on heat, on purpose? Why not in? Launch denotes the naming of a ship and its entering service, but what does it mean to launch an attack, launch a new product, launch a new share-issue or even launch oneself at the ball in the penalty area?
Back to top

Personal computing abounds in metaphor, to suggest a semantic relationship with the real world - thus a user interface has a desktop, wallpaper and Windows, while a suite of useful programs is called Office. Bundles of data are files. Once they went in directories but now are grouped in folders. The Windows interface is an environment. The ideas of waste-disposal and environmental responsibility are both suggested by the recycle bin - the current metaphor for the program which organizes files after the user has deleted them temporarily. A metaphor established by usage and convention becomes a symbol. Thus crown suggests the power of the state, press = the print news media and chair = the control (or controller) of a meeting.
Back to top

Semantic fields

In studying the lexicon of English (or any language) we may group together lexemes which inter-relate, in the sense that we need them to define or describe each other. For example we can see how such lexemes as cat, feline, moggy, puss, kitten, tom, queen and miaow occupy the same semantic field. We can also see that some lexemes will occupy many fields: noise will appear in semantic fields for acoustics, pain or discomfort and electronics (noise = interference). Although such fields are not clear-cut and coherent, they are akin to the kind of groupings children make for themselves in learning a language. An entertaining way to see how we organize the lexicon for ourselves is to play word-association games.
Back to top

Synonym, antonym and hyponym

Synonym and antonym are forms of Greek nouns which mean, respectively, same name and opposed (or different) name. We may find synonyms which have an identical reference meaning, but since they have differing connotations, they can never be truly synonymous. This is particularly the case when words acquire strong connotations of approval (amelioration) or disapproval (pejoration). We can see this by comparing terrorist with freedom fighter or agnostic (Greek) with ignoramus (Latin). Both of the latter terms express the meaning of a person who does not know (something). A pair which remains more truly synonymous (but might alter) would be sympathy (Greek) and compassion (Latin). Both mean with [= having or showing] feeling, as in the English equivalent, fellow feeling. Some speakers will not be aware of synonyms, so cannot make a choice. But those with a wide lexicon will often choose between two, or among many, possible synonyms. This is an area of interest to semanticists. What are the differences of meaning in toilet, lavatory, WC, closet, privy, bog, dunny and so on?
Back to top

Intelligent reflection on the lexicon will show that most words do not have antonyms. When Baldric, in BBC TV's Blackadder, attempts to write a dictionary he defines cat as not a dog - but the two are not antonyms. A cat is not a fish, banana, rainbow or planet, either - it is not anything, but a cat! We can contrast simple pairs like fat/thin but realize that both are relative to an assumed norm. Such lexeme pairs (for example: big/little, clever/stupid, brave/cowardly, hot/cold and beautiful/ugly) are gradable antonyms . True and false may show a clearer contrast. Clear either/or conditions are expressed by complementary antonyms: open/closed, dead/alive, on/off. Another kind (not really opposites at all) are pairs which go together, and represent two

sides of a relation: these are converses or relational antonyms. Examples would be husband/wife, borrow/lend, murderer/victim, plaintiff/defendant. Hyponymy is an inclusive relationship where some lexemes are co-hyponyms of another that includes them. As cutlery includes knife, fork, spoon (but not teacup) these are co-hyponyms of the parent or superordinating term. This traditional term denotes a grouping similar to a semantic field. So cod, guppy, salmon and trout are hyponyms for fish, while fleet has the hyponyms battleship, aircraft carrier, cruiser, destroyer and frigate. David Crystal points out (Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language; page 105) that this is a linguistic, not a real-world, relationship - so it varies from one language to another. In English potato is a hyponym of vegetable but in German the lexeme Gemse does not include Kartoffel (=potato).
Back to top

Collocation, fixed expression and idiom

Some words are most commonly found paired with other words, to create a semantic unit or lexeme. Thus false is often found together with passport, teeth or promise. These pairs are known as collocations. They are very helpful in establishing the meanings of the words in the pair. Porn is likely to be followed by film, mag, star or video. It may be collocated with actor, director or merchant but is less likely to be followed by customer, operative or minister. After estate you expect agent. How often have you seen whole new (whole new ball-game) as a collocation (here whole is redundant)? Think of collocations including these words: American, British, coffee, dirty, first, mad, millennium, native, Ninja, prime, police, rotten, speed, surf. When words become grouped in almost predictable ways these are fixed expressions. Examples include jewel in the crown, desirable residence, criminal mastermind, world of work, address the issues, I put it to you.
Back to top

Sometimes the group is so well rooted in the language that the meanings of the component words are ignored, or metaphorical meanings (in dead metaphors) are never visualised. Such a group has a meaning that is not to be found in analysis of its parts, and is an idiom. Examples include: keep your nose clean, stick your nose/oar in, beneath your station, bed of roses, load of crap, not my cup of tea, a piece of cake, get on your high horse, off your own bat (frequent substitution of back shows the speaker is unaware of the original meaning) or skin of your teeth, get stuffed (what did this originally mean?).

Back to top

Semantic change and etymology

Over time lexemes may change their meaning. This kind of change is semantic change. Perhaps a connotation will take the place of the original denotation. More often a second (or third) meaning will develop side by side with the original. In time, this may come to be the primary reference meaning. Gay has both the sense of happy and homosexual. In spoken British English today the primary meaning is more likely to be the second of these. Queer has the sense of both odd and homosexual, but in contemporary spoken British English is more likely to have the first meaning. For both, however, the context of the lexeme may suggest the meaning. Etymology is the systematic study and classification of word origins, especially as regards forms and meanings - it is therefore an important concept both for semantics and the study of language change. The etymology of a given lexeme denotes an account of its historical-linguistic origin.
Back to top

We can illustrate semantic change through the etymology of gentle. In the 14th century gentil had the meaning of noble, referring both to social class and to character. Because a noble person was supposed to be kind and considerate, the adjective today has the sense of tender, careful or delicate. The older meaning is preserved in gentleman, genteel and gentility. Until recently public toilets in the UK were designated Gentlemen or Ladies where now we usually see a male or female picture representation. But these meanings live on in spoken English, as when someone says, perhaps in a public house, that she is off to the ladies or he is going to the gents. Villain has come to mean a wicked person, especially in drama or literature. Originally, it meant a person who farmed land under the feudal system. It is thus a class insult when used of the noble Romeo by Tybalt (Thou art a villain), or of the common Iago by Othello (Villain, be sure thou prove my love a whore). We may see how this leads to the modern meaning.
Back to top

The Old English and (related) Scandinavian words for a town give us modern forms such as by, burgh, borough and brough. From the German Hamburg came Hamburger, either a person of the town or a kind of sausage. This name was later used in the USA for a slice of the sausage in a bread cake. A mistaken belief that the initial ham refers to pig-meat has led to variants, such as beefburger, cheeseburger and veggieburger. Now burger alone denotes the

food. Its earlier meaning of resident of a town is fading. Holocaust has a fascinating etymology. It is a compound of two elements from classical Greek - holos (meaning whole, as in holistic, hologram) and kaustos (meaning burnt, as in caustic, hypocaust). It was first coined in writing by the translators of the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures made in Alexandria for King Ptolemy II in the third century BC. In its original context, the noun appears over two hundred times to translate Hebrew ol (meaning literally that which goes up, that is, a sacrificial burnt offering). In modern times it has been used to denote the massive destruction, especially of people, in the world wars of the 20th century. Since the 1950s, it has been used more narrowly to denote the Nazis' murder of European Jews between 1941 and 1945.
Back to top

As English contains hundreds of thousands of lexemes, etymology is a vast field of study, of which any examples will be pitifully few and probably not very representative. Many dictionaries will give etymological information. You should though be aware of false etymologies - interesting and plausible stories about word origins: I was told as a child that a bloke was originally a pregnant goldfish and a git a pregnant camel - but both accounts are false. There are similar stories told about quiz, of which the etymology is really unknown. On the other hand, there are some lexemes for which we have an exact etymology. Robot for example first appeared in 1921, in Karel Capek's play Rossom's Universal Robots, as the name of a mechanical servant. And Lewis Caroll made up many words in Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, some of which, like chortled, have become established in the language. Use a good dictionary to check etymologies.
Back to top

Polysemy

Polysemy (or polysemia) is an intimidating compound noun for a basic language feature. The name comes from Greek poly (many) and semy (to do with meaning, as in semantics). Polysemy is also called radiation or multiplication. This happens when a lexeme acquires a wider range of meanings. For example, paper comes from Greek papyrus. Originally it referred to writing material made from the papyrus reeds of the Nile, later to other writing materials, and now to things such as government documents, scientific reports, family archives or newspapers.

Back to top

Homonymy, homophones and homographs

Homonyms are different lexemes with the same form (written, spoken or both). For example, bank is both an elevated area of ground and a place or business where money is kept. You may think these are the same words, but this is not so, since the meaning is an essential feature of a word. In some cases, the same form (as with paper) has the same origin but this will not always be the case. The etymology of a lexeme will tell us where it comes from and how it acquired a given meaning. Identity of form may apply to speech or writing only. David Crystal calls these forms half identical. They are:

Homophones - where the pronunciation is the same (or close, allowing for such phonological variation as comes from accent) but standard spelling differs, as in flew (from fly), flu (influenza) and flue (of a chimney). Homographs - where the standard spelling is the same, but the pronunciation differs, as in wind (air movement or bend) or refuse (rubbish or disallow, stress falls on first and second syllable, respectively).

Back to top

Lexicology and lexicography

Lexicology is the systematic historical (diachronic) and contemporary (synchronic) study of the lexicon or vocabulary of a language. Lexicologists study semantics on a mass scale. Lexicography is the art and science of dictionary making. Lexicography also has a history. Although dictionary compilers today, as in the past, wish to create an authoritative reference work, their knowledge and understanding of language has changed radically. Different dictionaries serve very different purposes - some only give information about semantics (word meanings, descriptions or definitions) and orthography (standard spellings). Others give information about etymology, variants and change of meaning over time. An unfortunate by-product of English teaching in the UK is a preoccupation with standard spelling forms to the exclusion of much else. Children are encouraged to use dictionaries for spell checking and not to learn about the language more generally. You should, with any dictionary, read the introduction to discover which principles have been used in compiling it, what models of language the compilers works from. Is it, for example, broadly prescriptive or descriptive? Is it encyclopaedic, or

does it exclude proper nouns? What variety or varieties of English does it include? In checking an etymology cited above (git) I used three dictionaries - Funk and Wagnall's New Practical Standard (US, 1946) the Pocket Oxford (1969) and the complete (1979) Oxford English Dictionary. None of these listed git. Modern dictionaries may well give a range of world Englishes. Dictionary functions built into computer software give the user a choice of different varieties - UK, US, Australia/New Zealand or International English.
Back to top

Thesauruses, libraries and Web portals

Students of semantics attempt to categorize and explain meaning in language. But there are other people who face a similar task. A thesaurus is a reference work in which words are arranged under general, then more specific semantic fields. As with much of language study there is a problem in making a linear representation of a complex model. Libraries organize books under categories and sub-categories, the most popular model by far being the Dewey system named after its inventor. And portal sites on the World Wide Web organize information and links by (usually) a hierarchy of categories. These may all be helpful to you, in understanding semantic fields.
Back to top

Epistemology

This is the traditional name for the division of philosophy otherwise known as theory of knowledge. Epistemology underlies semantics in a fundamental way. Historically, it has had a profound influence on how we understand language. For example, a modern language scientist, looking at the class of words we think of as nouns, might wish to subdivide them further. But there is no very good reason to split them into those that denote physical and material realities and those that denote feelings and concepts - that is concrete and abstract nouns. This division comes from Plato, who divided things absolutely into the categories of mind (nous) and matter (physis). It breaks down when we apply it to modern phenomena, such as artificial intelligence. Plato also divided things into universals and particulars. Some names represent a massive category of things, in which countless individual examples are included - boy, dog, car and cloud. Others are unique to one individual thing - Elvis Presley, Lassie, New York. In English and other European languages the word classes of common and proper nouns mark this

distinction. In written English we signal that a word is a proper noun usually with initial capital letters. In written and spoken English, we also show it by omitting articles or determiners in many (not all) contexts, where a common noun would have these.
Back to top

But the distinction does not bear close scrutiny - many nouns which we capitalize stand for a wide category, not just a single individual, as with VW Beetle or Hoover. And what of eponyms - words named for a single individual, but now applied widely, as with sandwich, Wellington, boycott and quisling (look it up)? At a more fundamental level, epistemology may help us decide whether the concepts of language are coherent and objective - as with word classes: are the notions of noun, verb, pronoun, adjective and so on logical as regards their referents?
Back to top

Colour

David Crystal (Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, p. 106) draws attention to the way the semantic field of colour shows patterns of lexical use in English, because the visible spectrum is a continuum. Crystal points out some interesting features of languages other than English, in identifying colour, such as the absence in Latin of lexemes for brown and grey. He suggests that modern English has eleven basic colour lexemes - white, black, red, green, yellow, blue, brown, purple, pink, orange and grey. You may not agree with this - for example, you may think of orange and purple as secondary, being mixtures of or intermediate between others. Our sense of primary colours may come from the world around us - blue for the sky, green for grass and red for blood, for example. The lexicon of colour is interesting when we study it historically (what colours are most frequent in the writings of Chaucer or Shakespeare) or in a special context. What names do manufacturers of paint or cosmetics favour? For parts of the body (especially hair) we have a special lexicon - hair is not yellow but blonde (the word indicates both hair colour or, as a noun, people with this colour of hair), brunette (although brown is also standard for males) and redhead (where red has a special colour denotation - not the scarlet or crimson it usually suggests). Another special lexicon (which may preserve historical differences) applies to horse colours - bay, grey (which denotes a horse more or less white) and chestnut.

Back to top

Studying semantics: sources of information

For helpful introductions to the subject see the following:

Crystal, D. (1987) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, pp. 100 - 107; Cambridge; ISBN 0-521-42443-7 Crystal, D. (1995) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, pp. 138, 156 - 170; Cambridge; ISBN 0-521-59655-6 Potter, S. (1950) Our Language, pp. 104 - 116; Penguin; ISBN 0-14-02-0227-7 Aitchison, J. (1997) The Language Web, pp. 61 - 78; Cambridge; ISBN 0-52157475-7

Alternatively, listen to the fourth of Jean Aitchison's 1996 BBC Reith Lectures, A Web of Words.
Back to top

DfEE Standards Site BBC Education BBC Education's Bookcase site BBC revision site Public Broadcasting Service Public Broadcasting Service Arts site European Virtual School Virtual Library

AcademicInfo LearnCo Homework High Google Excite Altavista Yahoo MSN

Lycos Metacrawler AOL HotBot iWon Netscape Ask Jeeves About

Monstercrawler Looksmart Dogpile Raging Search All the web Go GoTo Go2Net

Please acknowledge my authorship by giving the URL of any pages you use, and/or include the copyright symbol. Suggestions for improvement are welcome. Thank you. Andrew Moore, 2000; Contact me

Search Now:

blended andrew moorese-

Use the search box on the left or the link below to go to Amazon.com for books, video tapes, DVDs and much more. Go to Amazon.com Home Page

Tools from www.freefind.com: Site Map What's New Search Site search engine from Freefind at www.freefind.com. Traffic analysis from Hitbox at www.hitbox.com

Vv

http://www.teachit.co.uk/armoore/lang/semantics.htm Introduction Color is an extremely important part of most visualizations. Choosing good colors for your visualizations involves understanding their properties and the perceptual characteristics of human vision. It is also important to understand how computer software assigns colors and various hardware devices interpret those assignments. This exercise should help develop your knowledge of color models and your ability to apply this knowledge to your projects.

Read the material provided below and use this information to help you do the assigned exercises and questions.
http://www.ncsu.edu/scivis/lessons/colormodels/color_models2.html