Language and Lexicon

Language and the Lexicon
This page intentionally left blank
LANGUAGE AND THE

LEXICON
An Introduction
DAVID SINGLETON
Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics
Trinity College Dublin
A member of the Hodder Headline Group

LONDON
Co-published in the United States of America by
Oxford University Press Inc., New York
First published in Great Britain in 2000 by

Arnold, a member of the Hodder Headline Group,
338 Euston Road, London NW1 3BH
http://www.arnoldpublishers.com
Co-published in the United States of America by
Oxford University Press Inc.,
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY10016
2000 David Singleton
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronically or mechanically,
including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval
system, without either prior permission in writing from the publisher or a
licence permitting restricted copying. In the United Kingdom such licences
are issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency: 90 Tottenham Court Road,
London WIP OLP.
The advice and information in this book are believed to be true and
accurate at the date of going to press, but neither the author nor the publisher
can accept any legal responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress
ISBN 0340 73173 7 (hb)
ISBN 0340 73174 5 (pb)
12345678910
Production Editor: Anke Ueberberg
Production Controller: Bryan Eccleshall
Cover Design: Terry Griffiths
Typeset in 10/12 Sabon by Saxon Graphics Ltd, Derby
Printed and bound in Great Britain by MPG Books Ltd, Bodmin, Cornwall
What do you think about this book? Or any other Arnold title?
Please send your comments to feedback.arnold@hodder.co.uk
In memoriam
This book is dedicated to the memory of my much-missed friend
Andrew Corrigan, unvanquished jazzman, wordsmith extraordinaire and
irreplaceable companion.
Too irreverent for the clergy,

Too irrelevant for the sages,
I tinker on,
Lost in a maze of words
That hide their meanings
In a jovial host
Of irreverence
And irrelevance.
Andrew Corrigan, 'Disbelief Between', October 1973
Contents
Prefacefai
xi
1 Introduction: the lexicon - words and more

1.1 Some preliminary definitions
1.2 Words and language
1.3 What's in a word?
1.4 The domain of the lexicon
1.5 Summary
Sources and suggestions for further reading
Focusing questions/topics for discussion
1
1
1
5
10
12
13
14
2 Lexis and syntax

2.1 Colligation
2.2 The computational perspective
2.3 The 'London School' perspective
2.4 The Valency Grammar perspective
2.5 The Lexical-Functional perspective
2.6 The Chomskyan perspective
2.7 Summary
Sources and suggestion for further reading
17
17
18
20
21
22
23
28
29
30
3 Lexis and morphology

3.1 The inner life of words
3.2 Morphemes and allomorphs
3.3 'Lexical' morphology and inflectional morphology
3.4 Inflectional morphemes and the lexicon
3.5 Summary
33
33
34
35
38
42
42
44
4 Lexical partnerships
4.1 Collocation: the togetherness factor
4.2 Collocational range
47
47
48
via
Contents
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
Fixed expressions and compounds

Collocations and the dictionary
Corpora and collocations
Creativity and prefabrication in language use
Collocations, the lexicon and lexical units
Summary
49
51
52
55
56
58
58
61
5 Lexis and meaning

5.1 Words making the difference
5.2 Meaning seen as reference or denotation
5.3 Structuralist perspectives on meaning
5.4 Componential analysis
5.5 Cognitive approaches to meaning
5.6 Summary
63
63
64
66
75
77
80
80
83
6 Lexis, phonology and orthography

6.1 Lexis and 'levels of articulation'
6.2 Phonemes, stresses and tones
6.3 Lexical phonology as a reflection of lexical grammar and
lexical meaning
6.4 Association between particular sounds and particular
(categories of) lexical items
6.5 Lexis and orthography
6.6 Orthography as a reflection of lexical grammar and lexical
meaning
6.7 Association between particular written signs and particular
(categories of) lexical items
6.8 Summary
85
85
85
99
100
100
102
7 Lexis and language variation

7.1 Variety is the spice of language
7.2 Language variation: sociolinguistic perspectives
7.3 Lexical aspects of geographical variation
7.4 Lexical aspects of social variation
7.5 Lexical aspects of ethnic variation
7.6 Lexical aspects of gender-related variation
7.7 Lexical aspects of context-related variation
7.8 Lexical variation, culture and thought
7.9 Summary
105
105
106
109
111
114
116
119
123
127
127
131
88
89
91
97
Contents
ix
8 Lexical change
8.1 Language in motion
8.2 The comparative method and internal reconstruction
8.3 Changes in lexical form
8.4 Changes in lexical meaning
8.5 Changes in lexical distribution
8.6 Lexical changes associated with language contact
8.7 The case of proper names
8.8 Lexical engineering
8.9 Summary
133
133
134
138
143
146
148
150
152
156
156
158
9 Acquiring and processing lexis

9.1 The'mental lexicon'
9.2 Meeting the lexical challenge
9.3 Before the first words
9.4 First words and beyond
9.5 Models of lexical processing
9.6 L2 dimensions
9.7 Summary
161
161
162
163
167
170
180
184
184
190
10 Charting and imparting the lexicon

10.1 Dictionaries and didactics
10.2 Lexicography: a potted history
10.3 The lexicon - lexicographer's bane!
10.4 Approaches to lexis in the language classroom
10.5 Lexical learning and other aspects of language learning
10.6 Summary
193
193
194
201
211
226
229
229
234
Conclusion
235
Index
239
Thits page intentionally left blank
Preface
A number of people have made valuable contributions to the process of

which this book is the product. I especially need to acknowledge the
absolutely indispensable assistance I received in the initial stages of planning
and writing the volume from Lisa Ryan, now Research Fellow in Linguistics
at University College, Dublin. Without Lisa's input, some of the early chapters might never have reached any kind of conclusion, never mind a happy
one. I am also indebted to Jennifer Pariseau for using some of the time she
spent teaching in Thailand in 1998-99 to collect examples in Thai, which
she was then good enough to pass on to me for recycling in the pages that
follow.
Various other colleagues have shown their usual generosity in agreeing to
cast a critical eye over parts of the book relating to areas where their
expertise easily outstrips mine. In this connection I should like to thank
Nicola McLelland of the Department of Germanic Studies, Trinity College
Dublin, Breffni O'Rourke of the Centre for Language and Communication
Studies, Trinity College Dublin, Vera Regan of the Department of French,
University College Dublin, and Carl Vogel of the Department of Computer
Science, Trinity College, Dublin. A further very helpful sounding board was
provided by the editorial team at Edward Arnold, and in particular by
Christina Wipf Perry, to whom I am most grateful indeed not only for the
unflagging encouragement she offered but also for her great sensitivity and
aplomb in guiding me away from all manner of blind alleys.
At an institutional level my thanks are due to the Trinity College Dublin
Arts/ESS Benefactions Fund for financial support of my research in the
lexical area and to the Board of Trinity College Dublin for granting me a sixmonth leave of absence while I was preparing this book.
Finally, I should like most warmly to thank my wife, Emer, and my sons,
Christopher and Daniel, for various kinds of help they have given me over
the past two years and perhaps above all for their forbearance!
I am all too aware that, despite all the advice and assistance I have
received from the above, the volume is very far from perfect and contains
xu
PrPreface
eface
many faults and failings, for which I am entirely unabashed to recognize my

sole responsibility. After all, in the words of the Chevalier de Boufflers, perfectibility is to perfection what time is to eternity.
Greystones, County Wicklow
February 2000
1
Introduction:
The lexicon - words and more
1.1
Some preliminary definitions
This book is about the lexicon. Lexicon is the Anglicized version of a Greek
word (Afî/cov), which basically means 'dictionary', and it is the term used
by linguists to refer to those aspects of a language which relate to words,
otherwise known as its lexical aspects. Lexicon is based on the term lexis
(Af'î^), whose Greek meaning is 'word', but which is used as a collective
expression in linguistic terminology in the sense of 'vocabulary'. The study
of lexis and the lexicon is called lexicology.
In fact, as we shall see in the course of the next 200 pages or so, almost
everything in language is related in some way or other to words. We shall
also see that, conversely, the lexical dimension of language needs to be conceived of as rather more than just a list of lexical items.
1.2
Words and language
'In the beginning was the Word ...'

This opening pronouncement of the Gospel of John in the New Testament
may or may not be a true claim about the origins of the cosmos. However, if
taken as a statement about where our thinking about language started from
(and continues to start from) it is hard to fault.
The original version of John's Gospel was written in Greek, and in this
version the term used for 'word' is logos (Ao'pg), which, significantly
enough, meant (and in Modern Greek still means) 'speech' as well as 'word'.
This kind of association between the concept of word and a more general
concept of speech or language is by no means confined to Greek culture. For
example, to stay with the Gospel of John for just a little longer, the Latin
translation of the above quotation is : 'In principio erat Verbum . ..', where
hoyoq is replaced by verbum, an expression which, like the Greek term, was
Language and the lexicon
applicable to speech as well as to individual words. Thus, for example, one

way of saying 'to speak in public' in Latin was verbum in publico facere (literally, 'word in public to make').
A similar association between 'word' and 'speech' is to be found in many
other languages. For example, this dual meaning attaches to French parole,
Italian parola and Spanish palabra. Similarly, in Japanese the term kotoba
('word', 'phrase', 'expression') is often abbreviated to koto or goto and is
used as a suffix in expressions referring to speech such as hitorigoto o iu (literally, 'by-oneself-word say' = 'talk to oneself) and negoto o iu (literally,
'sleep-word say' = 'talk in one's sleep'); in Swedish the expression en ordets
man (literally, 'an of-the-word man') is used to refer to a skilled speaker; and
in German one way of saying 'to refuse someone permission to speak' translates literally as 'from someone the word to remove' - einem das Wort
entzieben. In English, too, the association between the word and language in
use is very much a feature of the way in which linguistic events are talked
about in ordinary parlance, as the following examples illustrate:
That traffic warden wants a word with you.
A word in the right ear works wonders.
When you are free for lunch just say the word.
The Prime Minister's words have been misinterpreted by the media.
The wording needs to be revised.
Nor is it particularly surprising that words should loom so large in people's
understanding of what language is. After all, words are vital to linguistic
communication, and without them not much can be conveyed. For instance,
a visitor to a Spanish-speaking country anxious to discover where the toilets
are in some location or other may have a perfect command of Spanish pronunciation and sentence-structure, but will make little progress without the
word servicios (in Spain) or sanitarios (in Latin America).
It needs perhaps to be added that awareness of words is not limited to literate societies. The American linguist Edward Sapir, for example, conducted
a great deal of fieldwork among Native Americans in the early part of the
twentieth century. His goal was the transcription and analysis of Native
American languages which had not previously been described. He found
that although the Native Americans he was working with were illiterate and
thus unaccustomed to the concept of the written word, they nevertheless had
no serious difficulty in dictating a text to him word by word, and that they
were also quite capable of isolating individual words and repeating them as
units.
Interestingly, a child acquiring language appears to develop an awareness
of words earlier than an awareness of how sentences are formed. For
example, research has shown that children in the age group 2-3 Vi correct
themselves when they make errors with words before they start self-
Introduction: the lexicon - words and more
correcting in the area of sentence construction. Thus, examples like the first
one given below will begin to appear earlier than examples like the second
one cited.
you pick up . . . you take her (substitution of take for initial wordchoice pick up)
The kitty cat is . . . the . . . the spider is kissing the kitty cat's back (reordering of elements in order to avoid the passive construction The
kitty-cat's back is being kissed by the spider)
With regard to the specialist study of language, this too has been highly
word-centred. For instance, in phonology, under which heading fall both the
sound-structure of languages and the study of such sound-structure, a major
focus of attention is the identification of sound distinctions which are significant in a particular language. Anyone with any knowledge of English, for
example, is aware that in that language the broad distinction between the 'sound' and the 'p-sound' is important, whereas no such importance attaches
to the distinction between an aspirated t (i.e. a t-sound pronounced with a
fair amount of air being expelled) and an unaspirated t sound (i.e. a -sound
pronounced without such a voluminous expulsion of air). This last distinction is, in English, determined simply by the particular environment in which
the t-sound occurs; thus, aspirated t occurs at the beginnings of words like
ten, tight and toe, whereas unaspirated t occurs after the s-sound in words
like steer, sting and stool. Phonologists talk about environmentally conditioned varieties of the Z-sound in a given language as belonging to or being
realizations of the /t/ phoneme, and label them as allophones of the phoneme
in question. (Notice that the convention in linguistics is for phonemes to be
placed between slashes - /t/ -, whereas allophones are placed between square
brackets - the transcription of the aspirated allophone of /t/, for example,
being [th]).
To return to the role of words in all this, one of the crucial tests for
phonemic distinctions is that of lexical differentiation - that is, the test of
whether a particular sound distinction differentiates between words. This
can be tested by use of minimal pairs - pairs of words which differ in respect
of just one sound (pin/tin, top/tot, gape/gate etc.). Distinctions between
sound segments which serve to differentiate between words in this way such as the difference between the English p-sound and the English f-sound
- are called phonemic distinctions, whereas distinctions between sound segments which do not differentiate between words - such as degrees of aspiration of English consonants are described as non-phonemic. It should be
noted, incidentally, that in other languages (such as Sanskrit and its modern
descendants) the distinction between aspirated and unaspirated consonants,
which in English is merely allophonic, is as important in differentiating
between words as the distinction between /p/ and /t/ in English.
There are other ways of studying the sounds used in human languages ways which do not need to refer to phonemes and hence have no particular
connection with lexical issues. For example, it is perfectly possible, without

getting involved in questions of word differentiation and without any regard
to the semantic implications of using one sound rather than another in a particular language, to study the acoustic properties of human speech (in terms
of the physics of sound) or the physiological aspects of speech production
(the interplay of the lips, the tongue, the vocal cords etc.). These kinds of
phenomena and their investigation go under the heading of phonetics. The
Greek root phon6 ((/)ovr\ - 'sound', 'voice',), is shared by both phonetics and
phonology, but whereas phonology deals with the sound systems of individual languages (and any universal organizational principles which may
emerge from such investigations) - and in doing so uses lexical differentiation as an important reference point - phonetics is concerned with speech
sounds without reference to linguistic system and meaning. Thus it can be
said that what differentiates phonology from phonetics is an interest in
lexical differentiation in the above sense.
At the grammatical level too, the distinction between two major areas of
interest essentially revolves around words - although in a somewhat different manner. Grammar has traditionally been seen as having two
branches - syntax and morphology - and in both cases the very definition
of terms is lexically based. Thus, the term syntax, a derivative of the Greek
word syntaxis (ovvragig- 'putting together in order'), denotes the whole
range of regularities which can be observed in the combination of sentence
components (and the study of such regularities), and it turns out that these
components are largely identifiable as words and groups of words. For
example, the distinction between the syntax of statements in English (e.g.
John can swim.) and the syntax of questions (e.g. Can John swim?) is, at
least from one perspective, a distinction between different ways of ordering
words. The term morphology, for its part, owes its origins to the Greek root
morphe* (nopQrf - 'form', 'shape') and denotes the internal structure of
words (and the study thereof) - that is, how words are built up out of basic
units (known as morphemes) which may or may not be capable of standing
alone as words in their own right (e.g. un-fust-ly, de-nation-al-ize, re-enact-ment etc.).
A third area right at the heart of linguists' interests, namely semantics that is, the domain of meaning (and its investigation) - is also very much
bound up with words. Although the coverage of the term semantics (from
the Greek s$ma (afîa) - 'sign', 'signal') extends well beyond the limits of the
lexicon, and semanticists certainly do not confine their attention to the
meanings of individual words, the lexical level of meaning has always been
the starting point for semantic study and theorizing, and remains a focus for
debate. Thus, for instance, there is continuing discussion over whether the
meaning of a word like man should be seen as an aggregate of the relations
between man and words such as animal, woman, child etc., whether it
should be treated as decomposable into smaller atoms of meaning (human,
male, adult etc.), whether it should be envisaged as some kind of idealized or
Introduction: the lexicon words and more
stereotypical mental image against which actual instances of men are compared, or whether all three approaches should be integrated in some way.
1.3
What's in a word?
Although, as is clear from the above, the word is central to the way in which
non-specialists and specialists alike think about language, defining what a
word is poses a problem or two. To begin with, what we mean by word will
depend very much on whether we are talking about actual occurrences of
any items that might qualify or whether we are intent on grouping or classifying items in some way or other.
To illustrate this, let us begin by looking at the chorus from the Beatles'
song She Loves You:
She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah;
She loves you, yeah, yeah yeah;
She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
How many words are there in these three lines? If we take actual occurrences
of any items - word tokens - as the basis of our count, we shall come up with
6 words in the first line, six in the second, and seven in the third. That is 19
overall. On the other hand, if we base our count on word types - items with
different identities - the overall figure for the entire extract will be just four
(she, loves', you and yeah). Similarly, the phrase going, going, gone will be
considered a three-word expression on a count of tokens but will be considered to contain only two words (going and gone) on a count of types.
In another sense of word, the sequence going, going, gone may be thought
of as containing just one word - the verb go, represented by two of its forms
(going and gone). This approach to the notion of the word - seeing it as a
'family' of related forms or as an abstract unit which is realized by one or
other of these forms as the linguistic environment demands - calls to mind
the concept of the phoneme and its allophones (see above). This linkage with
the phoneme idea is expressed terminologically: the notion of the word as a
family of forms or as an abstract unit is captured in the term lexeme, while a
lexeme's concrete representatives or realizations are referred to as wordforms. When we want to refer to a given lexeme in, for instance, a
dictionary-entry, we typically do so using just one of its various forms, and
the choice of this form, known as the citation form, is determined by convention, which varies from culture to culture and language to language. For
example, the citation form of a French verb lexeme is its infinitive form
(donner, sortir, prendre etc.), whereas the citation form of a Modern Greek
verb is the first-person singular form of the present indicative (kdno/KavG),
thelo/dsô), akuo/amvcoetc.).
We can also see words in different perspectives according to the particular
level of linguistic classification we are applying. For example, if we look at
the English word thinks from the point of view of the English orthographic
(spelling) system we shall see it as a series of letters -t + h + i + n+ k + s; if we
consider it as a phonological entity we shall perceive it as a sequence of
phonemes - /i)/ + N + /n/ + /k/ + /s/ - one of which, A)/, corresponds to the
letters th in the English writing system; if we view thinks in grammatical
terms, we shall focus on the fact that we have before us the third-person singular present form of a verb; and if we approach it as a carrier of meaning,
we shall be led to relate it to (among other things) the synonyms which can
replace it in different contexts, for example:
I think/believe I can do it.
The philosopher's task is to think/cogitate.
I'll think about/consider your suggestion.
Mention of meaning brings us to the distinction which has been drawn
between what are termed content words (also called full words or lexical
words) and form words (otherwise known as grammatical words, empty
words or function words}. Words described as content words are those
which are considered to have substantial meaning even out of context,
whereas words described as form words are those considered to have little or
no independent meaning and to have a largely grammatical role. Some
examples of content words are: bucket, cheese, president-, some examples of
form words are: a, it, of. This distinction is not unproblematic, since many
so-called form words - such as prepositions like around and towards and
conjunctions like although and whereas - are clearly far from empty of
semantic content. In any case, we need to be careful with the idea of
'semantic content'. We have to keep in mind that it is a metaphor, and that
people not words are the sources of meanings, even if words are used as
instruments to signal such meanings. Actually, a more satisfactory way of
distinguishing between content words and form words is in terms of set
membership: grammatical words belong to classes with more or less fixed
membership (at least during any individual speaker's lifetime), while content
words belong to open classes whose membership is subject to quite rapid
change, as new terms come into being and others fall into disuse.
In the light of all that has been said so far in this section, it is hardly surprising that linguists' attempts to provide a general characterization of the
word have made reference to quite a wide variety of possible defining properties. The main lines of these different approaches are set out below.
The orthographic approach

In the orthographic approach the word is defined as a sequence of letters
bounded on either side by a blank space. This definition works up to a point
for languages using writing systems such as the Roman or Cyrillic alphabet,
but is not at all useful in relation to languages (like Chinese and Japanese)
whose writing-systems do not consistently mark word-boundaries or in relation to language varieties which do not usually appear in written form (e.g.
local varieties of Colloquial Arabic) or which have never been written down
(e.g. many of the indigenous languages of the Americas). Also, there seems
to be something rather odd about defining words in terms of the written
medium given that, as we have seen, the word is in no sense a product of literacy, and given that, both in the history of human language and in the
development of the individual, written language arrives on the scene well
after spoken language. We can note further that defining words in terms of
letter-sequences and spaces is very much a form-oriented, token-oriented
exercise which takes absolutely no account of more abstract conceptions of
the word.
The phonetic approach

Another possible way of trying to define the word is to look for some way in
which words might be identifiable in terms of the way they sound - irrespective of the particular sound-systems of specific languages. It might perhaps
be imagined, for example, that words are separated from each other in
speech by pauses. Alas, life is not that simple! In fact, individual words can
rarely be pinpointed in physical terms in the ordinary flow of speech, which
is in the main a continuous burst of noise. (Anyone who needs to be convinced of this should tune to a radio station broadcasting in a totally unfamiliar language.) Indeed, the lack of phonetic independence of individual
words is precisely what explains linguistic changes such as the loss from
some words in English of an initial /n/ (because this was felt to belong to the
preceding indefinite article, e.g. auger from Old English nafu-gar; apron
from Old French naperon) and the addition of a 'stolen' /n/ in some other
cases (e.g. a newt from an ewt; a nickname from an eke-name). It is, of
course, true that pausing is possible between words, and that linguists in the
field working on hitherto undescribed languages may sometimes be able to
make use of the 'potential pause' criterion when gathering data from native
speakers - as Sapir did (see above) - but, since speakers do not normally
pause between words this criterion has rather limited value.
The phonological approach

At first glance a more promising approach to defining words on the basis of
sound is to think in terms of the characteristics of words in particular soundsystems. For example, in some languages - English being a case in point words tend to have only one stressed syllable, which may occur in various
positions (e.g. renew, renewable, renewability etc.). Another instance of a
word-related phonological feature is that of vowel-harmony in languages

such as Estonian, Finnish, Hungarian and Turkish. In this case the nature of
the vowel in the first part of a word determines the choice of vowels in what
follows. This is illustrated by the following two Hungarian words : kegyetlen-seg-uk-ben (literally, 'pity-less-ness-their-in' = 'in their cruelty') versus
gond-atlan-sdg-uk-ban (literally, 'care-less-ness-their-in' = 'in their carelessness'). Also to be considered in this context is the fact that in a given language a particular phoneme or combination of phonemes may be found only
rarely or not at all in a specific position in the word; for instance, in English
/z/ is seldom to be found at the beginning of words and the lng sound' (/rj/)
never occurs at all in this position. One problem with phonological characterizations of words is that, of their very nature, they relate to specific languages or, at best, to specific language-types. Also, such characterizations
often have to be seen as descriptions of broad tendencies rather than as
absolutely reliable; thus, with regard to stress in English, many units that are
recognized as words in that language typically do not actually take stress in
ordinary speech, e.g. and, but, by, if, the - and, on the other hand, in some
groups of words which constitute fixed expressions (see below, Chapter 4)
only one main stress is applied in the entire group, e.g. building worker,
dancing lesson, lifeboat crew.
The semantic approach

If definitions in terms of sound have their limitations, what about definitions
in terms of meaning? Might it not be possible, for example, to define words
as the basic units of meaning in language? The answer to this question is
unfortunately 'No'. There are admittedly individual units of meaning which
are expressed in single, simple words. For example, the English words ant,
bottle and shoe are individual and indivisible forms which convey specific
individual meanings. However, the relationship between single words and
particular meanings is not always quite so straightforward.
Let us consider, for instance the English word teapot. This is written as a
single item and can be thought of as denoting a single entity, but, on the
other hand, it does actually contain two elements which are words in their
own right - tea and pot. Similarly, there are combinations which are not necessarily written as one word, such as: public house, cricket pavilion, icecream kiosk etc. Actually, if we think more carefully about the meanings of
such combinations we can recognize the semantic contributions of each individual word, but the image which each combination of words first brings to
mind is unquestionably that of a single building or type of building. A
further obvious point to be made about the idea of words being minimum
units of meaning is that there are actually units below the level of the word
which function as semantic units. Reference has already been made to the
fact that words may contain units that cannot stand alone as words in their
own right. For example, the word un-just-ly has the word just as its core but
also contains two elements (un- and -ly) which are vital to its meaning - un
meaning roughly 'not' and -ly meaning something like 'in a ... manner'.
The grammatical approach

The characterization of the word that seems to be least problematic is that
which defines words in grammatical terms. The grammatical approach uses
the criteria of 'positional mobility' and 'internal stability'. Words are said to
be 'positionally mobile' in the sense that they are not fixed to specific places
in a sentence. For example, in a sentence like The cat drowsily stretched her
elegant forelegs we can re-order the words in various ways without
removing or disrupting anything essential.
The cat stretched her elegant forelegs drowsily.
Drowsily the cat stretched her elegant forelegs.
Her elegant forelegs the cat drowsily stretched.
'Internal stability' refers to the fact that within words the order of morphemes remains consistent. Thus the morphemic constituents of, for
example, forelegs (fore + leg + s) cannot be altered - so that *sforeleg, *slegfore, *legfores, foresleg and legsfore are not possible versions of the word in
question.
Definition of the word as units which are positionally mobile but internally stable works well across languages. However, even this on the whole
successful definition needs some qualification. For example, the English definite article the would normally be considered a word, but its positional
mobility is distinctly limited. That is to say, except when it is being talked
about as an object of study (as it is now), it has to be part of a noun phrase,
occurring before the noun and any other elements that are included to
qualify the noun; thus, the wolf, the large wolf, the extremely large wolf etc.
Interestingly, the words that have such tight restrictions imposed on their
possible positions in sentences are typically grammatical words, notably,
definite articles (the), indefinite articles (a, an), prepositions (in, on, to, from
etc.), which, as we have seen, have traditionally been regarded as lesser
species of words, not 'full words'.
Defining the word: a summary

Having looked at a number of possibilities for defining the word, then, what
can we say about this problem? Well, one thing is clear: there is not just one
way of looking at words. We can see them as types or tokens; we can see
them as lexemes or word-forms; we can see them as orthographic units,
10
phonological units, grammatical units or semantic units. We can also make a

distinction between content words and form words.
Regarding the various approaches to providing a general characterization
of the word, it is clear that the grammatical approach in this connection is
not only the least problematic but also the one that works best across languages. Phonetic and semantic perspectives offer little in the way of definitional criteria, but they do suggest some procedures which may be of use to
the field linguist working with informants. As far as orthographic and
phonological approaches are concerned, the criteria which emerge from
these approaches apply in different ways and degrees to different languages.
One result of particular sets of criteria operating differently from language to language is that words in one language may have some characteristics which have little or nothing in common with the characteristics of words
in another language. For example, a word in Finnish - with word-stress and
vowel-harmony - is rather different from a word in French, a language in
which neither word-stress nor vowel-harmony operates. This does not
mean, though, that it is inappropriate to use the term word in a cross-linguistic context. Finnish words and French words are recognizable on the
basis of other criteria - grammatical criteria, the 'potential pause' criterion
etc. - which are not tied to any particular language or language-group.
1.4
The domain of the lexicon
We have seen how the word is not perhaps as easy to characterize as one
might have imagined before starting to reflect on this problem. Alas, even
when we have arrived at some reasonably satisfying conclusions about how
to define words, we are still rather a long way from defining what the
lexicon is.
As we noted earlier, lexicon is the Anglicized version of a Greek word
meaning 'dictionary'. It may be instructive, then, in the context of a discussion of the domain of the lexicon, briefly to consider what kind of information is typically to be found in a dictionary. The following example is drawn
- more or less at random - from the pages of the Concise Oxford English
Dictionary.
kin /km/ n. &c adj. One's relatives or family. - predic. adj. (of a person)
related (we are kin\ be is kin to me) (see also AKIN) nkith and kin see
KITH, near of kin closely related by blood, or in character, next of
kin see NEXT, nnkinless adj. [OE cynn f. Gmc]
What is interesting about such an entry is that, although the focus of the dictionary-maker is obviously on the individual word - in this specific instance
on the word kin - a broader range of information seems inevitably to find its
way into the picture. Thus, as well as information about the spelling (kin),
sound-shape (/kin/) and meaning ('one's relatives or family') of the particular
11
item in question, we are provided with information about its various grammatical roles - n. [= noun] & ad}. [=adjective], some examples of how it is
used as a predic. adj. [= predicative adjective] (we are kin; he is kin to me),
some examples of expressions in which it occurs (kith and kin, near of kin,
next of kin), an example of a word formed by adding a suffix to kin
(kinless), and a potted history of kin OE cynn f. Gmc [ = Old English cynn
from Germanic].
And so it is generally when one begins to look closely at any given individual word. Other issues simply cannot be kept at bay - especially issues
having to do with how the word in question interacts with other elements.
Take the very simple and unremarkable word dog, for instance. As soon as
we home in on this word we have to recognize that part of its essential profile
is that it is both a noun and a verb. Its grammatical categorization in these
terms implies that it can appear in sentences like We all pat the dog as well as
in sentences like The President was dogged by misfortune. We also have to
recognize that dog is a participant in a wide range of frequently occurring
combinations, or collocations, with other words, not all of which have meanings which are easily relatable to canineness - dog in the manger (= 'a person
who refuses to let others have something for which he/she has no use'), dog's
dinner (= 'a mess'), raining cats and dogs (= 'raining hard') etc.
One especially interesting aspect of such interaction between a word and
its linguistic environment is the way in which the choice of one word may
have one set of repercussions in this environment, while the choice of
another word - even a word with a fairly similar meaning - may have quite
a different set of repercussions. The examples below - from English, French
and German respectively - illustrate this point.
We are forbidden to leave the building after midnight.
We are prohibited from leaving the building after midnight.
[choice of forbid entails choice of to + VERB; choice of prohibit entails
choice of from + VERBmg]
Nous esperons qu'elle chantera.
(literally, 'We hope that she will sing.' = 'We hope she will sing.')
Nous voulons qu'elle chante
(literally, 'We want that she sing.' = 'We want her to sing.')
[choice of verb esperer entails choice of future indicative form of verb
- chantera - in following clause; choice of verb vouloir entails choice
of present subjunctive form of verb - chante - in following clause]
Sie hat mir geholfen.
(literally, 'She has me helped.' = 'She (has) helped me.')
Sie hat mich getrostet.
(literally, 'She has me comforted.' = 'She (has) comforted me.'

[choice of verb helfen - past participle geholfen - entails choice of dative
form of object pronoun - mir; choice of verb trosten - past participle
getrostet - entails choice of accusative form of object pronoun - mich]
This discussion of the interplay between lexis and other aspects of language
continues in the chapters that follow. However, even from the foregoing brief
excursion into this topic we can draw the conclusions that, on the one hand,
any plausible conception of the lexicon has to be broad enough in scope to
include elements other than just individual words, and that, on the other,
aspects of language not customarily thought of as lexical - notably grammatical phenomena - have to be recognized as at least having a lexical dimension.
1.5
Summary
This chapter has noted the extent to which language is popularly conceived
of in terms of words - even in the absence of literacy - and of the extent to
which awareness of language as words features in child language development. It has also pointed to evidence of 'lexico-centricity' in the way in
which linguists have traditionally approached language as an object of
study. It has shown that, despite all of this, it is no easy matter to define what
a word actually is, illustrating this point by reference to possible phonological, orthographic, semantic and grammatical perspectives on the problem.
It has then offered some first thoughts on the proposition that words cannot
be seen in isolation from other aspects of language.
With regard to the content of the remaining chapters:
Chapter 2 continues the discussion begun in the present chapter on the
relationship between lexis and syntax.
Chapter 3 looks at the ways in which words are structured.
Chapter 4 focuses on habitual lexical combinations - collocations.
Chapter 5 explores various approaches to lexical semantics.
Chapter 6 examines the relationship between the lexicon and the
phonology and orthography of particular languages.
Chapter 7 scrutinizes the ways in which the lexicon relates to social,
regional and situational variation in language.
Chapter 8 describes and exemplifies different types of lexical change in
the historical development of languages.
Chapter 9 addresses the question of what is involved in the construction
of a 'internal' or 'mental' lexicon in the context of the acquisition of a language and also discusses ways in which the mental lexicon might be
organized and accessed.
Chapter 10 surveys the evolution of dictionary-making - lexicography from its origins down to its very recent, technologically based manifestations and offers an account of how lexis has been treated in the context of
language teaching.
Introduction: the lexicon - words and more 13
Finally, the Conclusion draws together the threads of the various parts of the
discussion in some final comments on the expanding perception of the
extent and the role of the lexicon.

See 1.2. Edward Sapir's comments on his work with Native Americans can
be found on pp. 33-4 of his book Language: an introduction to the study of
speech (New York: Harcourt Brace & World, 1921).
The source of the examples of children's self-corrections is a paper by E. V.
Clark and E. Andersen entitled 'Spontaneous repairs: awareness in the
process of acquiring language', which was presented at the Biennial Meeting
of the Society for Research in Child Development, San Francisco, 1979. The
paper is summarized and discussed in S. Bredart and J-A. Rondal, L'analyse
du langage chez I'enfant: les activites metalinguistiques (Brussels: Pierre
Mardaga, 1982).
See 13. The discussion of different approaches to defining the word draws
heavily on the relevant sections in: R. Carter, Vocabulary: applied linguistic
perspectives (second edition, London: Routledge, 1998); D. Cruse, Lexical
semantics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986); J. Lyons,
Introduction to theoretical linguistics (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1968) and S. Ullmann, Semantics: an introduction to the science of
meaning (Oxford: Blackwell, 1962).
The examples of lexical change in the section dealing with the phonetic
approach to defining the word and the Hungarian examples in the section
on the phonological approach are borrowed from Ullmann.
See 1.4. The kin entry in the Concise Oxford Dictionary (eighth edition,
edited by R. E. Allen, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991) is to be found
on p. 650.
Readers in search of further reading matter on some of the issues raised in
this chapter may like to consult some or all of the following:
R. Carter, Vocabulary: applied linguistic perspectives (second edition,
London: Routledge, 1998);
G. Finch, Linguistic terms and concepts (Houndmills: Macmillan, 2000);
H. Jackson, Words and their meaning (London: Longman, 1988), especially Chapter 1;
M. Lewis, The lexical approach (Hove: Language Teaching Publications,
1993), especially Chapter 5;
J. Lyons, Linguistic semantics: an introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1995), especially Chapter 2;
F. Palmer, Grammar (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1971), especially
Chapter 2;
14

S. Pinker, The language instinct (New York: William Morrow 8c Co.,
1994), especially Chapter 5;
H. G. Widdowson, Linguistics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996),
especially chapters 3, 4 and 5.

1. In this chapter a number of expressions were cited - expressions like /
want a word with you which show that our everyday conception of
language is very much bound up with words. Think of some further
examples of such expressions - in English or any other languages you
know.
2. It was mentioned in the chapter in connection with phonology that lexical
differentiation was one of the tests for phonemic distinctions. For
example, in the 'minimal pair' tie/dye, the two words are differentiated by
the distinction /t/ and /d/ and by that distinction alone. Which of the following pairs of words are 'minimal pairs' in which lexical differentiation
similarly depends on a single phonemic distinction?
beat - peat
breath - breathe
deep - sleep
dot - doll
phoney - pony
role - bowl
scope - rope
wreath - wreathe
witch - filch
wreck - neck
3. We saw in the chapter that the smallest units of meaning are not words
but morphemes. For example, in the word unwise there are two morphemes, un and wise, the second of which is a word but the first of which
is not. Try to analyse the following expressions into their constituent
morphemes:
antidepressant
bowler
disembarked
encage
hateful
misfire
poetically
resting
unl
ulfaw
wedding-bells
4. 'Positional mobility' was presented in the chapter as one of the grammatical criteria for defining words. Put together a list of English words including both 'content words' and 'form words' - and then examine
these words in the light of the 'positional mobility' criterion. Are some of
the words more 'positionally mobile' than others? Are the equivalents of
these words in other languages you know more or less 'positionally
mobile' than the English words, or about the same?
is
5. It was noted in the chapter that choosing one lexical item may have one
set of repercussions on other choices in the sentence in question, while
choosing a different item (with a similar meaning) may have a different
set of repercussions. Thus, for example: The residents protested against
the development plan vs. The residents objected to the development plan.
Try to think of some further instances - in English and in any other languages you know - of different lexical choices having different implications for the form of the sentence in which the relevant words are
situated.
Thits page intentionally left blank
2
Lexis and syntax
2.1
Colligation
We saw in the previous chapter that particular syntactic patterns are associated with particular lexical items. This kind of association has sometimes
been labelled colligation - from the Latin cum ('with') and ligare ('to tie'),
the image underlying this term being that of elements being 'tied together'
by, as it were, syntactic necessity.
In the past the notion of colligation has tended to be applied to a fairly
restricted range of rather 'local' syntactic relationships - such as the relationship between a verb and the form of the verb that follows it (its verbal
complement], for example:
She will eat chocolate tonight, [will + VERB/
She wishes to eat chocolate tonight, [wish + to + VERB/
She intends to eat/intends eating chocolate tonight, [intend + to +
VERMntend + VERBmg/
She regrets eating chocolate tonight, [regret + VERBmg/
She is indulging in eating chocolate tonight, [indulge + in + VERRing]
She is refraining from eating chocolate tonight, [refrain + from +
VERRing]
However, the recent trend in linguistics has been towards a much wider conception of the interaction between lexicon and syntax - to the point, indeed,
where it is becoming increasingly difficult to pronounce with any confidence
on the question of where lexicon ends and syntax begins.
In this chapter we shall look briefly at the way in which the relationship
between syntax and the lexicon has been approached in a number of different varieties of linguistics, notably computational linguistics, the 'London
School', the Valency Grammar tradition, Lexical-Functional Grammar and
Chomskyan linguistics.
is
2.2 The computational perspective

Computational linguistics refers to more or less everything that goes on at
the intersection between computer science and the study of language. One
dimension of computational linguistics is its interest in the relationship
between what computers can do and what we humans do when we acquire
and use language. Thus, some computational linguists spend their time
trying to model aspects of language acquisition and processing on computers, often with very practical objectives in mind - automatic translation,
speech synthesis etc. Another aspect of computational linguistics is the use of
computers as an aid in the analysis of language. For example, computers are
now widely used in the analysis of very large collections (corpora - singular
corpus) of naturally occurring language in order to provide information
about the frequency of particular items or the frequency with which certain
items co-occur with certain other items. From both kinds of computational
linguistics there emerges a strong sense of the difficulty of neatly separating
the lexicon from syntax.
With regard to the language-modelling aspect of computational linguistics, an interesting instance of such research is the work that is being undertaken at the Laboratoire d'Automatique Documentaire et Linguistique
(LADL) in Paris, where the object is to design systems which will enable
computers to perform operations (such as machine translation) on texts.
The systems that the LADL researchers are endeavouring to put in place
have to be capable of recognizing, decoding, selecting and combining words
without the online assistance of human speakers. It transpires that the principal problems which emerge from the construction of such electronic lexicons have to do with the difficulty of separating lexis and grammar.
Thus, very annoyingly, from the LADL researchers' point of view, sentences which are identical in structure and perhaps quite close in meaning do
not necessarily behave identically when it comes to adjusting them in various
ways, such behaviour seeming to be entirely dependent on the particular
words used, for example:
Cette question concerne Pierre.
(This question concerns Pierre.')
(Works also in the passive - in

both French and English: Pierre
est concerne par cette question.
'Pierre is concerned by this
question.')
Cette question regarde Pierre.

('This question regards Pierre.')
(Does not work in the passive in either French or English:

*Pierre est regarde par cette
question. '* Pierre is regarded by
this question.')
With regard to the light shed on the lexis-syntax interface by the use of computer technology as a tool of linguistic analysis, an obvious example to cite
Lexis and syntax
19
here is the research carried out under the auspices of the Collins Birmingham
University International Language Database (COBUILD), which will be discussed at greater length in Chapter 4. The relevant point to emerge from
such research with reference to the present context is that there is a strong
tendency for particular words or particular senses of words to be associated
with particular syntactic structures. For example, the word yield has two
main senses - 'give way/ submit/surrender' and 'produce'. It turns out that
the first sense is almost always associated with uses of the word as an intransitive verb (verb without a direct object), for example:
But we did not yield then and we shall not yield now.
Love yields to business . . .
In Sweden the authorities yielded at once to the threats ...
The second sense, on the other hand, is mostly associated with uses of the
word as a noun, for example:
... a nuclear shell with a 15 kiloton yield. ..
.. . more fertilizer than Europe to achieve similar yields ., .
... Bangladesh's low annual yields ...
A particular approach to syntax which is very widely used in computational
linguistics is Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG). HPSG is very
widely used in machine translation, especially in Europe. Its particular usefulness to computational linguists derives from the fact that it attempts to provide
a totally explicit specification of how syntax operates. With regard to the
lexicon, HPSG, in common with Valency Grammar and Lexical-Functional
Grammar, sees words as extremely rich in grammatical information and as
playing a key role in determining the syntactic shape of the sentences in which
they occur. This is the sense of head-driven in the expression Head-driven
Phrase Structure Grammar. The concept of the structure of the phrase in HPSG
is that the head of a given phrase, such as a noun phrase or a verb phrase
(i.e. the single word - the noun, the verb etc. - around which it is built), has
attributes out of which crucial properties of the surrounding syntax are
derived. For example, the lexical entry for the verb bakes would have to specify
that it takes a subject noun, that it may also take a direct object noun and that
where both a subject and a direct object are involved the relation between them
is that of agent (doer of an action) and patient (undergoer of an action).
Accordingly, the head of the verb phrase components of the following sentences determines the legitimacy of the nouns present in the sentence, and also
determines their grammatical functions and the relations between them.
VERB PHRASE
Joanna [bakes].
HEAD
(VERB)
20
VERB PHRASE
Joanna [bakes bread],

HEAD
(VERB)
2.3 The 'London School' perspective

The COBUILD project took its inspiration from the work of a mid-twentiethcentury British linguist, J.R. Firth, founder of the so-called 'London School' of
linguistics, who took the view that the meaning of a word could be equated
with the sum of its linguistic environments, and that, therefore, linguists could
essentially find out what they needed to know about a word's meaning by
exhaustively analysing its collocations. Firth's general approach to the study
of language continues to have echoes in modern linguistics through the work
of eminent heirs to the 'London School' tradition such as John Sinclair, the
leading light in the COBUILD project, and Michael Halliday.
We have already begun to look at Sinclair's work and shall return to it in
Chapter 4. With regard to Halliday and his followers, they see lexis and
syntax not as separate entities but rather as merely different ends of the same
continuum, which they label the lexicogrammar. In the Hallidayan perspective, a lexical distinction such as that between man and woman is seen in
terms of the different environments in which they are likely to occur, just as
the distinction between, for instance, a count or countable noun (e.g. dog)
and a mass noun (e.g. mud) is seen in terms of the different syntactic frames
in which these categories can occur. Thus, a count noun can occur after
numerals (She has two dogs. He drank three litres of water.} and after quantifiers like several and many (The child had to have several stitches. We've
visited Ireland on many occasions.), whereas a mass noun cannot occur after
numerals nor after several/many, but can occur after a quantifier such as
much (There was too much mud and not enough grass for a decent game.
We didn't get much enjoyment out of it.}. Similarly, man but not woman can
occur in the close company of a word like prostate (in a sentence such as The
poor man had prostate problems.}, while woman but not man can occur in
the close company of a word like pregnant (in a sentence such as That
woman is pregnant.}.
One argument that has been put against Halliday's contention that syntactic distinctions are not qualitatively different from lexical distinctions is
that, whereas syntax is a 'purely' linguistic phenomenon, lexical distinctions
are based on the nature of the real world. For example, one can argue that the
fact that we do not juxtapose man and pregnant has simply to do with the
limitations of male physiology. However, it also possible to argue that syntactic categories and processes are the way they are at least in part because of
how things are in the world. To return to the case of the distinction between
count nouns and mass nouns, for instance, it would be perfectly plausible to
Lexis and syntax
21
say that the reason why we do not normally put numerals in front of words
like mud, air, enjoyment, darkness etc. is that the very nature of the substances or experiences to which they refer encourages a perception of them as
continuous wholes rather than individual entities, a notion which receives
support from the fact that across languages where the count/mass distinction
exists, while there are certainly many differences in the detail of classification,
the same kinds of substances and experiences tend to be referred to with mass
nouns. For example, the translation-equivalents of mud and air in French
(boue, air), German (Schlamm, Luft), Spanish (barro, aire] and Modern
Greek (AaoTrrj, aspag) all (in those senses) normally function as mass nouns.
The most sensible position would seem to be that the nature of both the
lexicon and the syntax of any given language are determined by an interaction between extra-linguistic reality (the way things are 'outside language')
and intra-linguistic reality (the way things are 'inside language').
2.4
The Valency Grammar perspective
Valency Grammar is particularly associated, historically, with German linguistics, but it has a wide influence on thinking about grammar generally.
The term valency in this context derives from its application in chemistry,
where a given element's valency is defined in terms of its capacity to combine
with other elements. In linguistics valency refers to the number and types of
bonds syntactic elements form with each other. Valency Grammar traditionally presents the verb as the fundamental or central element of the sentence
and focuses on the relationship between the verb and the elements which
depend on it (which are known as its arguments, expressions, complements
or valents). The relevance of Valency Grammar in the present discussion is
that it recognizes the shape of sentence structure as a consequence of lexical
choice, that is, the choice of a particular verb with a particular valency. Some
examples of verb valencies follow.
Exist, snore, vanish
Verbs like these require only a subject.
Poverty exists.
He was snoring.
The problem vanished.
In traditional terms they are labelled intransitive. In valency terminology
they are said to be monovalent, having a valency of 1.
Annoy, damage, scrutinize
Verbs like these require both a subject and a direct object.
You annoy me.
22

The storm damaged the sea-wall.
We have scrutinized the documents.
In traditional terms they are labelled transitive. In valency terminology they

are said to be bivalent, having a valency of 2.
Bestow, give, inform
Verbs like these require a subject, a direct object and one further valent.
The king bestowed a knighthood on him.
Jeremy gave the parcel to his aunt.
The police informed Jack of Jill's safe return.
In traditional terms they are labelled ditransitive. In valency terminology
they are said to be trivalent, having a valency of 3.
As has been mentioned, traditionally the notion of valency has been
applied to verbs. However, a number of recent approaches to grammar,
which take much of their inspiration from Valency Grammar and which are
grouped together under the general heading of Dependency Grammar,
extend the basic valency idea to other lexical categories such as adjectives
and nouns. It is clear, for example, that the valency of the adjective tall
(which can 'stand alone' in qualifying a noun) differs from that of the adjective susceptible (which requires something further):
The professor is tall.
The professor is susceptible to pressure.
Similarly with the nouns problem and propensity.
He has a problem.
He has a propensity to violence.
2.5
The Lexical-Functional perspective
Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG) developed in the 1980s as a kind of offshoot of the Chomskyan approach to syntax - one which attempted to bring
the theoretical and descriptive treatment of syntax closer to what was
known about the psychological processes involved in producing and understanding utterances. As its name suggests, Lexical-Functional Grammar
places the lexicon right at the heart of its account of syntax.
In LFG every item in the lexicon is seen as coming equipped not only with
indicators of how it sounds, how it is written and what it means but also
with indicators of the roles of the elements to which it relates in a given sentence (its argument structure) and of the grammatical functions assigned to
Lexis and syntax
23
these roles. For example, the verbs walk and stroke can be portrayed within
this framework as follows:
walk
(subject)
(agent)
(assignment of grammatical function)

(argument structure)
(subject) (object)
stroke (agent, theme)
(assignment of grammatical function)

(argument structure)
In walk the argument structure consists merely of an agent argument (the

role of doer of an action) which is associated with the subject of the verb, as
in:
(subject of the verb walk)
Eric
was walking.
(agent - doer of the walking)

In stroke the argument structure consists of an agent argument (the role of
doer of an action) which is associated with the subject of the verb and a
patient or theme argument (the role of undergoer of the action) associated
with the object of the verb, as in:
(subject of the verb stroke)
Jill
(object of the verb stroke)

stroked
(agent - doer of the stroking)
the cat.
(theme - undergoer of the
stroking)
Thus, like HPSG, Valency Grammar and the various forms of Dependency
Grammar, LFG presents lexical choice as the shaper of the syntax of any
given sentence. A sentence is seen as involving lexical structure, constituent
structure (or c-structure) and functional structure (or f-structure). Because
each lexical element of a sentence is held to specify an argument structure,
the lexical structure of the sentence is seen as determining its constituent
structure (the component parts which make up the sentence and how these
component parts relate to each other); and, because the various roles (agent,
theme etc.) attached to particular lexical items are viewed as associated with
grammatical functions (subject, object etc.), functional structure too is seen
as dependent on lexical structure.
2.6
The Chomskyan perspective
We come finally to what would until fairly recently have been considered the
most syntactic of syntactic models, namely that which is associated with the
name of Noam Chomsky. In the very earliest version of the Chomskyan
model the lexicon was not recognized as an autonomous component at all;
words were considered to be merely the observable elements through which
24
syntax manifested itself - the outward signs of inward syntax - to borrow a

theological expression.
However, the evolution of Chomskyan linguistics since its beginnings in
the 1950s has consistently been in the direction of ascribing more and more
importance to the lexicon. Phenomena which had previously been represented as purely syntactic processes were by this time being treated with reference to the lexicon. A good example of this is the case of passivization. In
Chomsky's first book, Syntactic Structures (published 1957), syntax was represented as generated in the first place by phrase structure rules of the type:
S -NP + VP
[A SENTENCE CONSISTS OF A NOUN PHRASE AND A VERB PHRASE]
NP -> (DET) + N
[A NOUN PHRASE MAY OR MAY NOT INCLUDE A DETERMINER (SUCH AS AN
ARTICLE a, the. etc.), BUT ALWAYS CONTAINS A NOUN]
The basic or kernel structures which were specified by the phrase structure
rules were then subject to various kinds of transformation, including passive
transformation. The passive transformation rule looked roughly like this:
ACTIVE SENTENCE
NPt
[NOUN
PHRASE
1]
+ V + NP2
[VERB]
PASSIVE SENTENCE
=>
[NOUN
PHRASE
2]
NP2
[NOUN
PHRASE
2]
+ be
+ V + by
[VERB]
NPt
[NOUN
PHRASE
1]
This can be exemplified as follows:

ACTIVE SENTENCE
PASSIVE SENTENCE
The man hit the ball
=>
The ball was hit by the man
NPt
NP2
+ V + NP2
+ be + V + by
+ NPt
It later came to be recognized by Chomskyans, however, that passivization

was not something that could be dealt with simply in terms of a syntactic
generalization. Such a generalization might run something like the following: NP2 in the active sentence moves to NPt position in the passivized
sentence and vice versa. This would explain how we get:
A picture was taken of Brett by the official photographer
from:
The official photographer (NP,) took a picture (NP2) of Brett (NP3).
It also accounts for the questionable status of -Brett was taken a picture of
by the official photographer, where the noun phrase which is 'moved' to
subject position is NP3 in the corresponding active sentence (i.e. not the
direct object). However, in some cases non-direct objects can be 'moved' to
subject position in passive sentences. For example, all three of the following
Lexis and syntax
25
sentences are perfectly acceptable, even though in the third sentence John is
NP3, and does not represent the direct object of the active version of the sentence but rather the object of a preposition.
They (NPJ took advantage (NP2) of John (NP3).
Advantage was taken of John.
John was taken advantage of.
The only way to explain this seemed to be in terms of a lexical restructuring
rule which would allow certain whole expressions like take advantage of
optionally to be restructured as a sort of complex transitive verb. Optional
restructuring of this kind turns out to be highly idiosyncratic; thus, it works
perfectly with take care of (e.g. The fob was taken care of] but not so well
with take offence at (-The chairman's remarks were taken offence at}.
Accordingly, specific lexical choice can be seen to determine the possibility
or otherwise of lexical restructuring, which in turn determines the permissibility of certain kinds of passivization.
By the early 1980s the lexicon was being seen as having a crucial influence on syntactic structure. The so-called 'Projection Principle' of the
'Government and Binding' (GB) version of Chomskyan syntax current in the
1980s states that the properties of lexical entries 'project onto' the syntax of
the sentence - which essentially coincides with the perspective of HPSG,
Valency Grammar and LFG in the matter of the lexis-syntax interface.
The Projection Principle can be illustrated as follows. As we have seen, in
early versions of Chomsky's model, the phrase structure component of the
syntax fully specified the basic constituents of the sentence. Thus, for example:
S -* NP + VP
[A SENTENCE CONSISTS OF A NOUN PHRASE AND A VERB PHRASE]
NP - (DET) + N
[A NOUN PHRASE MAY OR MAY NOT INCLUDE A DETERMINER (SUCH AS AN
ARTICLE a, the. etc.), BUT ALWAYS CONTAINS A NOUN]
In this version of things the expansion of the VP element was:

VP -* V (+ NP)
[A VERB PHRASE ALWAYS CONTAINS A VERB AND MAY OR MAY NOT
INCLUDE A NOUN PHRASE]
On the other hand, the lexical entries for verbs specified whether or not they
could be followed by a noun phrase. For example, the entry for a transitive
verb such as hit would have contained the information:
[_NP]
[OCCURS IN THE ENVIRONMENT OF A FOLLOWING NOUN PHRASE]
The entry for an intransitive verb like snooze, on the other hand, would not
have contained the specification of this particular environment.
26
Accordingly, there is duplication between the information provided by the

phrase structure rules and that provided by the lexicon. If we take it that, as
the Projection Principle states, lexical properties intervene in the shaping of
syntax, then the notion of having a general statement at the syntactic level
about the optionality of occurrence of a noun phrase in the verb phrase no
longer makes sense, since the lexicon supplies the information for each particular verb as to whether or not it may be followed by a noun phrase.
Subsequent developments in Chomskyan linguistics went even further in a
lexicalist direction. One of the major distinctive features of Chomsky's view
of language is that every human being is born with a language faculty, and
that it is this language faculty which enables the child to acquire language. A
fundamental corollary of this view is that human languages are essentially
structured along the same lines, lines which reflect the structure of the language faculty. If this were not the case, clearly, the notion of a language
faculty would be unable to explain the fact that a human children will acquire
any human language to which they are given adequate exposure. Chomsky
labels the structural common core of languages which he posits Universal
Grammar. According to the Chomskyan model of the 1980s, Universal
Grammar consists of, on the one hand, a set of principles, applicable to all
languages, and, on the other, a set of parameters, that vary from language to
language within very specific limits. An example of a principle has already
been given, namely the Projection Principle (see previous two paragraphs).
An example of a parameter is the Head Parameter, which states, basically,
that within a particular phrase (prepositional phrase, verb phrase etc.) the
head of the phrase (preposition, verb etc.) occurs consistently either to the left
or to the right of the other elements (the complement). Thus, English is said
to be a 'head-first' language on the basis of data such as:
PREPOSITIONAL PHRASE
[in Japan]
HEAD
(PREPOSITION)
(Preposition head to the left of its complement in a

prepositional phrase)
VERB PHRASE
[am Japanese]
(Verb to the left of its complement in a verb phrase)
HEAD
(VERB)
Japanese, on the other hand, is said to be a 'head-last' language on the basis

of data such as:
[Nihon ni]
(Preposition head to the right of its complement in a
HEAD prepositional phrase)
(PREPOSITION)
[literally, 'Japan in']
Lexis and syntax
27
VERB PHRASE
[nihonjin desu]
HEAD
(VERB)
(Verb head to the right of its complement in a

verb phrase)
[literally, 'Japanese am']

However, towards the end of the 1980s it began to be suggested that parameters were not properties of principles, but rather properties of individual
lexical items, a view known as the lexical parameterization hypothesis.
Let us look briefly at some evidence bearing on the lexical parameterization
hypothesis from English and German prepositional phrases. Both English and
German would be considered 'head-first' languages on the basis of the positioning of heads in prepositional (and other) phrases. For example:
ENGLISH
[in Germany}
(Preposition head - in - to the left of its complement)
HEAD
(PREPOSITION)
[with me]
(Preposition head - with - to the left of its complement)
HEAD
(PREPOSITION)
GERMAN
[in Deutschland]
HEAD
(PREPOSITION)
(Preposition head - in - to the left of its

complement)
['in Germany']
[mit mir]
(Preposition head - mit - to the left of its complement)
HEAD
(PREPOSITION)
['with me']
However, in both languages there are, in fact, prepositions which may occur
to the right of their complements:
ENGLISH
[your objection notwithstanding}

HEAD
(PREPOSITION)
(Preposition head - notwithstanding

- to the right of its complement)
28
GERMAN
[der Schule gegeniiber]

(Preposition head - gegenuber - to the right
HEAD
of its complement)
(PREPOSITION)
['opposite the school' literally, 'the school opposite']
Examples such as these last two seem to indicate that the positioning of
heads of prepositional phrases is not something which is set globally for all
cases within a given language, but rather, as the lexical parameterization
hypothesis suggests, that such positioning is determined by the lexical properties of each particular preposition.
The lexicalizing tendency in Chomskyan linguistics reaches its logical
conclusion in Chomsky's latest version of his model, the 'Minimalist
Programme'. In this model the whole process of deriving a syntactic structure is represented as beginning in the lexicon, since Chomsky and his followers now accept, alongside many other schools of linguists (see earlier
sections), that the particular lexical elements which are selected in any
given sentence will be the principal determinants of both the content and
the form of the sentence. The minimalism of the Minimalist Programme
refers precisely to the fact that syntactic levels and operations are in this
model reduced to an absolute minimum, with many of the most familiar
features of earlier models being discarded, while the lexicon is viewed as
driving the entire structure-building system. Thus, for example, instead of
the syntactic rules beginning with sentence-level and then filling in what
the sentence consists of, as, for example, in S -* NP + VP, the minimalist
model begins by building individual structures around individual lexical
items and then merges these individual, lexically based structures into
larger structures.
2.7 Summary
This chapter has shown that syntacticians from a very wide range of theoretical traditions view the lexicon as having a vital, determining role in the
structuring of sentences. In some instances, for example 'London School'
linguistics and Valency Grammar, the interpenetration of lexis and syntax
was recognized from the outset; in others, for example in computational linguistics, the acknowledgment of such interpenetration was an inevitable
inference arising from working with the 'nitty-gritty' of data; and in still
others, for example the later Chomskyan models, increasing importance was
attributed to the lexicon in respect of syntactic structure as the models in
question developed in response to their perceived inadequacies. The consensus across all of the above schools (and many others) is that the syntactic
Lexis and syntax
29
shape of any sentence is very largely a function of the properties of the

lexical elements out of which it is composed.

See 2.2. The LADL examples were taken from B. Lamiroy, 'Ou en sont les
rapports entre les etudes de lexique et la syntaxe?' (Travaux de Linguistique
23, 1991, 133-9). The account of the lexico-syntactic findings of the
COBUILD project was based on Chapter 4 of J. Sinclair, Corpus, concordance, collocation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991).
Sources for the discussion of Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar were:
R. D. Borsley, Modern phrase structure grammar (Oxford: Blackwell,
1996); C. Pollard and I. A. Sag, Head-driven phrase structure (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press and Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1994); I. A.
Sag and T. Wasow, Syntactic theory: a formal introduction (Stanford: CSLI
Publications, in press). Also consulted in this connection was the website
http://hpsg.stanford.edu/hpsg/hpsg.html.
The bakes example was loosely derived from R.L. Humphreys, 'Lexicon in
formal grammar' (in K. Brown and J. Miller (eds), Syntactic theory, Oxford:
Elsevier Science, 1996).
See 2.3. Discussion of M. Halliday's approach to the lexicogrammar was
based on statements and arguments to be found in his very early work, such
as 'Categories of the theory of grammar' (Word 1961, 17, 241-92), but also
in his recent work - for example, Functional grammar (second edition,
London: Edward Arnold, 1994).
The counter-argument to the Hallidayan position came from G. Sampson, in
Schools of linguistics: competition and evolution (London: Hutchinson,
1980, p. 233).
See 2.4. The principal sources for the discussion of Valency Grammar were
D. J. Allerton's book Valency and the English verb (London: Academic
Press, 1982), and his article 'Valency grammar', in E. F. K. Koerner and R. E.
Asher (eds), Concise history of the language sciences (Oxford: Kidlington,
1995). Material on a broad range of Dependency Grammar approaches was
also consulted at the website http://ufal.mff.cuni.cz/dg/dgmain.html
See 2.5. Sources for the section on Lexical-Functional Grammar included: J.
Bresnan and R. Kaplan, 'Introduction: grammars as mental representations
of language', in J. Bresnan (ed.), The mental representation of grammatical
relations, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1982); S.C. Dik, Functional
Grammar (Dordrecht: Foris, 1981); C. Neidle, 'Lexical-Functional
Grammar', in K. Brown and J. Miller (eds), Syntactic theory, Oxford:
Elsevier Science, 1996). The websites http://clwww.essex.ac.uk/LFG/ and
http: //www-lfg.stanford.edu/lfg/ were also consulted.
30
See 2.6. The discussion of Chomskyan models drew on both editions of

Chomsky's Universal Grammar: an introduction (first edition - authored by
V. J. Cook - Oxford: Blackwell, 1988; second edition - co-authored by V. J.
Cook and M. Newson - Oxford: Blackwell, 1996) and on A. Radford's
books, Transformational syntax (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1981), Syntax: a Minimalist introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1997), Syntactic theory and the structure of English: a minimalist approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). The relevant original N. Chomsky sources were: Syntactic structures (The Hague:
Mouton, 1957), Lectures on Government and Binding (Dordrecht: Foris,
1981) and The Minimalist Program (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995).
The lexical parameterization hypothesis was the brainchild of P. Wexler and
R. Manzini ('Parameters and learnability in Binding Theory', in T. Roeper
and E. Williams (eds), Parameter setting, Dordrecht: Foris, 1987).
Readers who wish to explore syntax further might profitably begin with one
or other of the following:
L. Thomas, Beginning syntax (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994);
C.L. Baker, English syntax (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995).
Good introductions to specifically Chomskyan syntax are provided by:
V. J. Cook and M. Newson, Chomsky's Universal Grammar: an introduction (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996);
A. Radford, Syntax: a minimalist introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1997);
L. P. Shapiro, 'Tutorial: an introduction to syntax' (journal of Speech,
Language and Hearing Research, 40, 1997, 254-72).
Further discussion of the interface between the lexicon and syntax can be
found in:
R. L. Humphreys, 'Lexicon in formal grammar', in K. Brown and J.
Miller (eds), Syntactic theory, Oxford: Elsevier Science, 1996);
T. Stowell, 'The role of the lexicon in syntactic theory', in T. Stowell and
E. Wehrli (eds), Syntax and semantics. Volume 26. Syntax and the
lexicon, San Diego: Academic Press, 1992);
T. Stowell and E. Wehrli, 'Introduction', in T. Stowell and E. Wehrli (eds),
Syntax and semantics. Volume 26. Syntax and the lexicon, San Diego:
Academic Press, 1992).

1. At the beginning of the chapter the following examples were given of different patterns of verbal complementation:
will eat [will + VERB]-,
Lexis and syntax
31
wish to eat [wish + to + VERB];

intend to eat/intend eating [intend + to + VEKB/intend + VERBmg];
regret eating [regret + VERBmg];
indulge in eating [indulge + in + VERBmg];
refrain from eating [refrain + from + VERBmg].
For each of the above cases try to find two verbs whose verbal complementation pattern parallels that of the example given (e.g. must follows
the same pattern as will).
2. We saw in section 2.3 that lexical distinctions, like certain grammatical
distinctions, can be seen in terms of elements with which lexical items
may and may not co-occur. It is also true that co-occurrence possibilities
are affected by context and by the meaning intended. Thus, with regard
to the words man and woman, both of the following sentences would be
unremarkable in Anglican contexts (where female as well as male priests
are often encountered), but the second would be impossible in Roman
Catholic or Greek Orthodox contexts (where female priests are never
encountered).
The priest was a fine man.
The priest was a fine woman.
Similarly, in relation to countable and mass nouns, whereas not many
waters would be perfectly possible in the context of a supermarket with
only a limited range of brands of mineral water, not much water would
have to be the expression used in the context of a reservoir whose water
level had been affected by drought. Try to think of some other instances
of contextual influence on co-occurrence possibilities.
3. In 2.4 we saw that Valency Grammar ascribes valencies to verbs
according to the number of arguments they take. Thus intransitive verbs
like exist, sleep, vanish are labelled monovalent, having a valency of 1,
transitive verbs like annoy, damage, scrutinize are labelled bivalent,
having a valency of 2, and ditransitive verbs like give, inform, characterize are labelled trivalent, having a valency of 3. Try to find five further
verbs belonging to each of the above three valency categories. In performing this exercise, note the way in which some verbs have different
valencies in different contexts. For instance, a normally monovalent verb
like dream may in some contexts be bivalent (e.g. He dreamt a strange
dream).
4. On the basis of the discussion of HPSG in 2.1 and of LFG in 2.5, identify
the agent and, where applicable, the patient in each of the following sentences, and use the information so obtained to specify the argument structure of the verb in each case.
32

The folk-dancers slapped their thighs.
John was working.
Every February we ski in the French Alps.
Mr McVeigh sliced the tomatoes very fine.
Christopher was tuning his guitar.
5. In the account of the development of the Chomskyan model in 2.6 we

encountered the notion of parameter, which was illustrated by means of
the Head Parameter. Another parameter discussed by Chomskyans is the
Pro-Drop Parameter, which relates to whether or not subject pronouns
may be 'dropped' before verbs. Thus Spanish is said to be a pro-drop language, on the basis that, for example, yo [T] in an expression like yo
entiendo ['I understand'] may be, and usually is, 'dropped' - so that the
usual way of saying 'I understand' in Spanish is simply entiendo. In
French, on the other hand, the je [T] of je comprends ['I understand']
cannot be dropped, and on the basis of this and myriad similar examples,
French is said to be a non-pro-drop language. Where, then, would English
stand in relation to the Pro-Drop Parameter? Is there any variation in the
'droppability' of the subject pronoun depending on context and/or on the
particular verb selected?
3
Lexis and morphology
3.1
The inner life of words
We saw in Chapter 1 that morphology is derived from a Greek word

meaning 'form' or 'shape' and that it denotes the internal structure of words
(and the study thereof). A given word is not necessarily just a sequence of
sounds or letters with an overall, indivisible meaning and or grammatical
function; a word may be made up of a whole collection of meaningful components, of which some may in other contexts stand alone as words in their
own right, and others may be used only as parts of words.
Consider, for instance the words underlined in the following sentences:
The enormous fish looked rather fearsome.
If you are going to dance the cancan you will need some fishnet stockings.
This is a story about three little fishes.
There's a fishy smell in here.
Fish is obviously a word which can stand alone in its own right. However, it
can also be conjoined with other elements which can function as independent
words - such as net. Furthermore, it can also be combined with elements
which have no independent existence as words, but which clearly have
meaning and function. Thus the -es ending in fishes signals that more than one
fish is involved and the -y ending in fishy turns the noun fish into an adjective.
Similarly in other languages: for example, the German translations of fish,
fishnet and fishes are respectively Fisch, Fischnetz (Fisch + Netz - both words
in their own right) and Fische (Fisch + the non-word plural ending -e).
The basic building blocks of meaning and grammar are not, therefore,
words but rather the irreducible components out of which words are composed - that is to say, elements which cannot be further decomposed into
anything relevant to their meaning or grammatical function. These irreducible entities are known as morphemes. In this chapter we shall examine
how morphemes function, how they are customarily classified and how they
relate to the lexicon.
34
3.2 Morphemes and allomorphs

Morphemes can be defined as the smallest elements of any language which
have semantic and/or grammatical significance. As we have seen, some morphemes are also whole words - fish, for example, whereas others are units
below the level of the word which nevertheless have their own meaning
and/or grammatical function in the context of the words in which they
occur, for example -es in fishes, -y in fishy.
Morphemes which can stand alone as words are known as free morphemes while morphemes which can only be meaningful or functional as
parts of words are known as bound morphemes. Bound morphemes very
often manifest themselves as prefixes - elements attached at the beginnings
of words (e.g. dis- as in disobey] - or as suffixes - elements attached at the
ends of words (e.g. -ize as in idolize}. Prefixes and suffixes are known collectively as affixes. Other kinds of affixes to be found in the world's languages
include infixes and circumfixes. Infixes are elements attached within the free
morpheme bases of words; for example in Bontoc, a language of the
Philippines, the infix -um- makes a verb out of an adjective or noun (thus,
fikas -'strong', fumikas 'to be strong'). Circumfixes are elements which 'surround' the relevant base; for instance, in Chickasaw, a Native American language, the negative is formed by the alteration of the base both fore and aft
(thus, lakna - 'it is hot', iklakno - 'it is not hot'). As we shall see later, bound
morphemes may also sometimes be represented by nothing at all in the outer
forms of words, and they may also be expressed as processes rather than or
as well as additions.
Some further examples of free and bound morphemes from English and
French follow.
FREE MORPHEMES
BOUND MORPHEMES
ENGLISH
fire
pre-
(as in predispose]
red
-ize
(as in idolize]
fast
-ing
(as in sailing]
in
-s
(as in considers)
FRENCH
pomme ('apple')
re-
(as in reinventer- 'to reinvent')
jaune ('yellow')
-ment
(as in poliment - 'politely')
la ('there')
-ions
(as in parlions - '(we) talked')
sur ('on')
-s
(as in vins - 'wines')
A morpheme may be realized by different forms - its morphemic alternants

or allomorphs - according to the particular environment in which it occurs.
35
For instance, the English past tense morpheme may be realized as /id/ (as in
wanted], as /d/ (as in stayed], as /t/ (as in jumped], and in other ways besides.
An example of morphemic alternation from Italian is the case of the free
morpheme a, which means 'to', 'at' or 'in' (depending on context). A is the
form used before words beginning with consonants, but where the following
word begins with a vowel the form a d is used - as is illustrated by the sentences below.
Andiamo a Milano.
('We are going to Milan')
Andiamo ad Athene.
('We are going to Athens')
A not dissimilar example from French - in this case involving a 'zero allomorph' is the way in which the bound plural morpheme attached to nouns
behaves: when followed by a word beginning with a consonant it is not pronounced, whereas when followed by a vowel sound it may or may not be
realized as /z/ - depending on speech style and tempo. For instance the s in
the written form of the French word for 'cars' - voitures - is silent in the first
of the sentences below but may be pronounced as /z/ in the second if the
speech is fluent rather than halting and if the speech style is relatively formal.
Les voitures ralentissaient.
('The cars were slowing down.')
Les voitures allaient tres vite.
('The cars were going very fast.')
3.3
'Lexical' morphology and inflectional

morphology
Since, as we have seen, morphology in general relates to the structure of

words, it would be not unreasonable to conclude that all morphology is
lexical. However, many morphologists are inclined to make a distinction
between morphological phenomena that have to do with word formation to which specifically they attach the term lexical morphology - and aspects
of morphology which have rather to do with the grammatical modification
of words - which they label inflectional morphology. An example of lexical
morphology on this definition would be the addition of the bound morpheme -ness to the adjective kind to form the abstract noun kindness', and an
example of inflectional morphology would be the addition of the bound
morpheme -s to the verb run when that verb is preceded by he, she or it in its
present tense.
'Lexical' morphology, as defined above, can itself be seen as divisible into
two further subcategories: composition or compounding on the one hand and
derivation on the other. Composition/compounding is customarily applied to
instances of word formation where the formation process involves free morphemes. For example, the free morpheme light and the free morpheme house
combine to form the compound word lighthouse, which draws on the meanings of its component morphemes but which has a specific meaning all of its
36
own. Derivation, for its part, is applied to instances of word formation in

which bound morphemes play a role. For example, the word unwise is a different word with a different meaning from the word wise, and it is formed
simply by the prefixing of the bound morpheme un- to the free morpheme
wise. Some further examples (from English and Dutch) of words formed by
composition/compounding and words formed by derivation are given below.
COMPOSITION/
COMPOUNDING
DERIVATION
ENGLISH
teapot
payment (bound derivational morpheme:

-ment)
override
enrage (bound derivational morpheme: en-)
bittersweet
smallish (bound derivational morpheme:

-ish)
anyone
swiftly (bound derivational morpheme: -ly)

DUTCH
zeeman (seaman )
grootheid ('greatness'; bound

derivational morpheme: -held)
lichtbruin ('light brown')
verhuizen ('to move house'; bound

derivational morphemes: ver-, -en]
eenmaal ('one time')
katje ('little cat', 'kitten'; bound

derivational morpheme: -je)
welkom ('welcome')
onwel ('unwell'; bound derivational

morpheme: on-)
As can be seen from these examples, bound morphemes involved in derivation may or may not change the grammatical class of the free morphemes to
which they are attached. Thus, the addition of the bound derivational morpheme -ment to the verb pay yields the noun payment (cf. arrange!arrangement, excite/excitement, resent/resentment), whereas, on the other hand, the
addition of the bound derivational morpheme -ish to the adjective small
yields another, different, adjective smallish (cf. grey/greyish, slow/slowish,
warm/warmish).
With regard to inflectional morphology, this can be further exemplified again from English and Dutch - as follows.
INFLECTIONAL MORPHOLOGY
ENGLISH
trees
(as in The trees are lovely; bound inflectional

morpheme: -s)

recognizes
(as in She recognizes me; bound inflectional

morpheme: -s)
lifted
(as in//// lifted her head; bound inflectional

morpheme: -ed)
vaccinating
(as in The doctor was vaccinating the ten-year-olds-^

bound inflectional morpheme: -ing]
37
DUTCH
boeken
('books', as in De boeken zijn thuis - 'The books are

at home'; bound inflectional morpheme: -en]
koopt
('buys', as in Hij koopt sijn krant in de winkel - 'He

buys his newspaper in the shop'; bound inflectional
morpheme -t)
kookte
('boiled', as in Het water kookte - 'The water

boiled'; bound inflectional morpheme -te)
goede
('good', as in Mijn vader was een goede man - 'My

father was a good man'; bound inflectional
morpheme -e; compare Mijn vader was goed - 'My
father was good')
As the above examples illustrate, inflectional morphemes are not involved in

word formation, and they never change the actual grammatical category of
the free morphemes to which they are attached. Rather, they make small
adjustments to words which have important grammatical consequences signalling, for instance, tense, person and number in verbs, and number and
grammatical case in nouns. The following examples, from various languages, provide further illustration of these various roles.
Present-past distinction in German:
er lebt ('he lives') vs. er lebte ('he lived')
First person-second person distinction in Spanish:
regreso ('I return') vs. regresas ('you (sing.) return')
regresamos ('we return') vs. regresais ('you (plur.) return')
Singular plural distinction in French:
elle chantera ('she will sing') vs. elles chanteront ('they (fern.) will sing')
Singular-plural distinction in Swedish:
apelsin ('orange') vs. apelsiner ('oranges')
Nominative (subject case) vs. genitive (possessive case) in Modern Greek:
to nero (TO vepo - 'the water') vs. tu neru (TOV vepov- 'of the water',
'the water's')
38
Because of the grammatical nature of their contribution to word-structure,

and because, at first sight at least, they seem to be assignable by rule rather
than dependent on the particularities of lexical items, inflectional morphemes have been considered by some linguists to lie outside the domain of
the lexicon and to belong rather with the grammatical rules of a language.
We have seen already, with regard to syntax, that making a hard and fast distinction between lexicon and grammar is no easy task. In the case of morphology, as will become clear in the next section, such a distinction makes no
sense whatsoever.
3.4
Inflectional morphemes and the lexicon
A first very basic problem about a claim that derivational morphemes are
lexicon-based while inflectional morphemes are not is that it is not at all
clear in some instances whether a particular morpheme is derivational or
inflectional. A commonly cited illustration of this problem is the case of the
positive, comparative and superlative forms of adjectives in English, exemplified below:
POSITIVE
COMPARATIVE
SUPERLATIVE
bright
brighter,
brightest
dear
dearer,
dearest
quick
quicker
quickest
On the one hand, this seems like a highly rule-governed pattern, and most
native English speakers would probably think of, e.g. quicker and quickest
as forms of quick rather than as different words - which seems to argue for
the morphemes involved (-er and -est) being inflectional. On the other hand,
the changes involved do not seem to involve fitting the adjectives to their
grammatical environment in the same way that, for example, adding a plural
ending to a noun does - which seems to argue for regarding the morphemes
in question as derivational and as having the same kind of status as a morpheme like -ish (in, e.g., quickisb).
Another problem in relation to making a hard and fast distinction between
morphemes that are in the lexicon and morphemes that are supposedly
excluded from it is that a particular morpheme may, in some contexts, have an
inflectional role while having a derivational role in others. For example, the
bound morpheme -ing is the marker of progressive aspect in English verbs.
That is to say it marks a verb as referring to ongoing process or activity rather
than a stable state or completed process or action, for example:
She is being awkward.
(as opposed to: She is awkward.}
39
I was working.
(as opposed to: / worked.)
In this kind of instance -ing has certainly to be seen as having an inflectional
role. However, -ing can also be used in the formation of verbal nouns - just
like derivational morphemes such as -ion and -ment, for example:
Two fudges were responsible for the administering of the oath.
(compare: Two judges were responsible for the administration of the
oath.)
The deferring of the meeting had some unfortunate consequences.
(compare: The deferment of the meeting had some unfortunate
consequences.)
In this case -ing is clearly involved in word formation and has to be considered derivational. Are we going to say that -ing is sometimes supplied by the
lexicon and sometimes not?
A third problem in this connection is that inflectional morphology does
not conform to rules to anything like the extent that it is believed to. For
example, the morphology of the pluralization of English nouns has some
highly idiosyncratic features, as the examples listed below show. Indeed,
there do not seem to be noticeably fewer divergences from the regular plural
pattern in nouns than from the normal (derivational) pattern of adverb formation in English (ADJECTIVE + bound derivational morpheme -ly, for
example: dark/darkly, delicateldelicately, spiteful/spitefully etc., but
fastlfast). One would have thought that in both cases the lexicon would have
to contain at least information as to whether a given word was subject to the
normal pattern or not, and, if not, what the relevant particularities of its
morphology were.
SINGULAR
PLURAL
sheep
sheep
wife
wives
man
men
woman
women
mouse
mice
die
dice
child
children
ox
oxen
phenomenon
phenomena
basis
bases
40

formula
formulae (or formulas)
stimulus
stimuli
datum
data
corpus
corpora
graffito
graffiti
plateau
plateaux (or plateaus)
cherub
cherubim (or cherubs)
Finally, on the question of whether or not inflectional morphemes are

lexicon-based, let us consider the ways in which the addition of inflectional
morphemes affects the free morphemes to which they are attached. In very
many instances there is no perceptible effect at all, in spoken or written
form. Thus, the addition of -ed to the base forms fill, jump, stay or want
changes nothing in these base forms. On the other hand, as can be seen from
the collection of English noun plurals above, there are plenty of other cases
where noticeable alterations to the form of the free morpheme do occur.
Sometimes there is just a slight change 'at the join', as it were. The plural of
wife is a case in point; here the /f/ of the singular form is replaced by a Ivl in
the plural form - wife (/waif/) -> wives (/waivz/). Sometimes - especially in
plurals borrowed from Greek and Latin - the last syllable of the singular
form is replaced by one or more different syllables in the plural, as in: stimulus (/'stimjubs/) -> stimuli (/'stimjulai/). And sometimes pluralization occasions changes in the very core of the pluralized word. This is the case for
children, where the plural is signalled not only by the attachment of the
anomalous morpheme -ren but also by a change in the quality of the vowel
sound (written i) in child from /at/ in child to lIl in children. In man - men
(/mam/ > /men/) the change in the vowel sound in the core of the word from
Isel to // is the only way in which pluralization is signalled.
All of the plurals referred to in the preceding paragraph represent a challenge for linguists. As long as the morphemes they are dealing with are
neatly sequential (jump + ed, cat + s, sing + ing etc.), and as long as the allomorphs of such morphemes resemble each other and are predictable from
the phonological environment, morphologists can provide analyses which
are relatively straightforward and concrete. In the cases of wives, children,
men, stimuli and the like, however, the morpheme takes on a more abstract
quality, and its allomorphs have to be treated partly or wholly in terms of
processes rather than simply in terms of an added element whose variant
forms are determined by phonological environment. Thus, the allomorph of
the English noun plural morpheme represented in wives involves not only
the addition of -s but also a process whereby the last consonant of the word
changes from /f/ to /v/, which in turn means that the -s ending is pronounced
as 111. Similarly, in children, the allomorph involved is the anomalous ending
-ren (/ran/) plus the process which changes /ai/ to /i/ in child. In man men
41
and stimulus - stimuli only a process allomorph is involved, the changes

from // to /e/ and from /as/ to /ai/ respectively.
It is clear, then, that inflectional morphemes are not necessarily just elements that are tacked on to free morphemes without affecting the forms of
those free morphemes. Let us compare the case of inflectional morphology
with that of derivational morphology in this connection. Some derivational
morphemes are said to be 'neutral' in their phonological effects, that is they
do not change anything in the word to which they are attached. For
example, the above-mentioned adverbializing morpheme -ly has no impact
on the forms to which it is attached; thus, the warm element of warmly is
constant in both words. Similarly, 'neutral' derivational morphemes include:
-ment (as in pave - pavement), -ness (as in white - whiteness] and en- (as in
cage - encage). Other derivational morphemes, on the other hand, are recognized as 'non-neutral' in their impact on the free morpheme base, and are
accordingly thought of as at a different level of relationship with that base
and as more deeply 'lexical'. For instance, the addition of -ic to meteor
changes the stress pattern of this latter; thus: meteor, but meteoric As for the
derivational morpheme -ion, it causes all manner of changes in the base form
- sometimes occasioning a shift in stress, sometimes bringing about changes
in or additions to the sound segments making up the word to which -ion is
attached, sometimes causing both, for example:
admire
admiration
admit
admission
assume
assumption
divide
division
revolve
revolution
To return to the case of inflectional morphemes, these can be every bit as 'nonneutral' in the above sense in relation to the words to which they are affixed as
can derivational morphemes. We have seen how the English noun plural morpheme may be expressed via significant alterations in the forms of the nouns
pluralized. The morpheme which marks the simple past tense (what is sometimes known as the preterite) in English is associated with changes in the base
forms of verbs which are no less far-reaching. Thus, alongside play - played,
hope - hoped, want - wanted etc. we have present-preterite oppositions, such
as:
bear
bore
come
came
drive
drove
go
went
sing
sang
42
In sum, then, although in principle one can see the point of distinguishing
between morphology which is involved in word formation and morphology
which is not, it has always to be borne in mind that this distinction is by no
means clear-cut. It also needs to be recognized that inflectional morphology is
quirky and lexically determined in the same way that 'lexical' morphology is.
Finally, it cannot be ignored that inflectional morphemes may have just as large
an impact on the forms of words to which they are attached as 'lexical' morphemes. All in all, there seem to be absolutely no good grounds for suggesting
that inflectional morphemes lie outside the domain of the lexicon; and to the
extent that the term lexical morphology can be interpreted as implying that
there is a morphology which is non-lexical, it needs to be treated with caution.
3.5
Summary
This chapter has explored the internal structure of words. It began by noting
that the morphemes of which words are made up may be either free, that is
units that may stand alone as words in their own right, or bound, that is
units that can occur only as parts of words. The phenomenon of morphemic
alternation - the way in which morphemes may be realized in varying ways
- was also dealt with. The chapter then moved on to discuss the distinction
between 'lexical' morphology - morphology involved in word formation and inflectional morphology - morphology involved in fitting words to their
grammatical environment. It was shown that the distinction between these
two categories of morphology is not entirely clear-cut, that some morphemes sit astride the two categories, and that inflectional morphemes may
have just as great an impact as 'lexical' morphemes on the base forms of
words to which they are attached. In the light of these facts it was argued
that there are no good grounds for considering one particular category of
morphemes, i.e. inflectional morphemes, to lie outside the domain of the
lexicon.

The account of morphemes and allomorphs presented here draws on the
broad tradition of received wisdom in morphological studies as represented
in works such as: F. Katamba, Morphology (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1993);
J. Lyons, Introduction to theoretical linguistics (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1968, Chapter 5); P. H. Matthews, Morphology: an introduction to the theory of word-structure (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1974).
See 3.2. The Bontoc and Chickasaw examples in 3.1 are taken from V.
Fromkin and R. Rodman, An introduction to language (Sixth edition, New
York: Harcourt Brace, 1998, Chapter 3). The distinction between 'lexical'
43
morphology and inflectional morphology sketched follows that to be found

in P. H. Matthews, Morphology: an introduction to the theory of wordstructure (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974). Other works
adopting a similar approach include F. Katamba, Morphology (Basingstoke:
Macmillan, 1993 ). The notion that inflectional morphology is grammatical
rather than lexical has a long history - dating back to Bloomfield (see L.
Bloomfield, Language, New York: Holt, 1933, 274) and beyond.
See 3.4. The ambivalence of the -ing morpheme is referred to by A. Akmajian,
R. A. Demers, A. K. Farmer and R. M. Harnish in their book Linguistics: an
introduction to language and communication (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
1990). The general difficulty of distinguishing between derivational and
inflectional morphology is very widely acknowledged by linguists - even if at
times a little grudgingly - see, for example, A. Spencer, Morphological theory:
an introduction to word structure in generative grammar (Oxford: Blackwell,
1991). The concept of 'neutrality/non-neutrality' in the context of morphology is discussed by F. Katamba (Morphology, Basingstoke: Macmillan,
1993 ) and by J. Harris (English sound structure, Oxford: Blackwell, 1994};
see also P. Kiparsky 'Word formation and the lexicon', in F. Ingemann (ed.),
Proceedings of the 1982 Mid-America Linguistics Conference, Kansas:
University of Kansas Press, 1983). The case in favour of the idea that all morphology is essentially lexically based is put by, among others, J. T. Jensen and
M. Strong-Jensen (1984) 'Morphology is in the lexicon' (Linguistic Inquiry
15, 74-98). Arguments tending broadly in the same direction are also to be
found in M. Aronoff and F. Ashen, 'Morphology and the lexicon: lexicalization and productivity', in A. Spencer and A. M. Zwicky (eds), The handbook
of morphology (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998).
Accessible presentations of basic morphological concepts are to be found in
a number of introductions to linguistics. Particularly recommended in this
connection are:
V. Fromkin and R. Rodman, An introduction to language (sixth edition,
New York: Harcourt Brace, 1998);
R. H. Robins, General linguistics: an introductory survey (London:
Longman, 1989).
Among works treating morphology in greater depth and which would be
suitable for more advanced reading the following is recommended (in addition to the Matthews and Katamba volumes mentioned above):
A. Carstairs-McCarthy, Current morphology (London: Routledge, 1991).
For those looking for particular perspectives on morphology the following
titles may be of interest:
On the recent history of morphology: P. H. Matthews, Grammatical
theory in the United States from Bloomfield to Chomsky (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1993).
a44
On cognitive dimensions of morphology: C. J. Hall, Morphology and the

mind: a unified approach to explanation in linguistics (London:
Routledge, 1992).
On the role of morphology in the Chomskyan framework: A. Spencer,
Morphological theory: an introduction to word structure in generative
grammar (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991).
Also to be noted is the very comprehensive work edited by A. Spencer and
A. M. Zwicky, The handbook of morphology (Oxford: Blackwell,
1998).

1. In the following passage try to find five examples of free morphemes and
five examples of bound morphemes.
I wanted to go to Philip's party, but Robert, my boyfriend, hates
spending time around that particular crowd, so we decided instead to
sample one of the latest delights on offer down at the local multiplex
cinema. As it turned out, we both enjoyed the film in question, but we
definitely did not appreciate the two guys sitting in front of us, who
were very tall and very noisy.
2. Consider the following words. Try to identify which of them respectively
exemplify compounding, derivation and inflection.
grapes
proven
bookshelf
sisters'
seaside
frighten
tightrope
adores
brightly
oldish
sweaty
media
lice
Tim's
oxen
instep
lousy
doorbell
tended
unfit
3. In 3.3 we saw some examples of English noun plural forms which

departed from the normal (+ -(e)s ) pattern. Try to think of five further
examples of such irregular noun plurals in English and try also to think of
five examples of English past tense forms which do not conform to the
normal (+ -ed) pattern. Also, reflect on the inflectional morphology of
any language you know other than English and try to identify some
examples of inflectional irregularity in this other language too.
4. Group the following words into those which show a 'neutral' impact on
the base form on the part of the relevant bound morpheme and those
which show a 'non-neutral' impact.
active
houses
motion
bulbous
action
poetic
movement
harshly
45
had
normal
hooves
Chomskyan
has
swollen
roofs
Hallidayan
proceeded
paying
gracious
titular
5. The following words are often thought of as posing problems for morphologists. Can you say why this might be? Can you think of some
further words that might pose similar kinds of problems?
bilberry
contain
fission
equine
cranberry
maintain
fissile
equestrian
unkempt
retain
locate
invade
dishevelled
select
locomotion
evade
disparage
elect
frantic
pensive
4
Lexical partnerships
4.1
Collocation: the togetherness factor
We saw in Chapter 1 and again in Chapter 2 that a great deal of what was
traditionally seen as coming under the heading of grammar is now considered to be essentially lexical in nature. The basic point we noted was that
once a particular lexical choice has been made in a given sentence, this
choice has a major impact on the determination of what else may or may not
occur in the sentence in question. In addition to this strongly determinant
aspect of lexical choice there is also an effect in respect of word selection
which is rather more probabilistic in nature. This latter effect has to do with
the fact that - for a variety of reasons - particular words are frequently to be
found in the company of certain other words. In such cases the selection of
one or more of the words concerned in a given context is quite likely - or
even very likely - to be accompanied by the selection of another word or
other words from its habitual entourage. For instance, if a radio or television
presenter uses the word breaking, we are anything but surprised if the word
news follows. Similarly with:
at this moment in
time
law and
order
the Middle East peace
process
As has already been indicated in earlier chapters, this phenomenon of words

'keeping company' together is referred to as collocation. Collocation comes
from two Latin words, the word cum ('with') and the word locus ('place').
Words which form collocations are repeatedly 'placed with' each other; that
is to say, they often co-occur within a short distance of each other in speech
and in written texts. In this chapter we shall briefly explore the notion of collocational range, look at fixed expressions and compounds, examine the
role of collocational information in traditional dictionaries, review some of
the recent corpus-based research into collocations, consider the question of
the extent to which language use is based on prefabricated multi-word
48
chunks, and discuss some of the implications of the collocation phenomenon

for our understanding of the notion of lexical unit.
4.2
Collocational range
Even the most casual reflection on the way in which we put words together
in the languages we know will lead us to an awareness of the fact that some
words enter into a great number and variety of lexical partnerships, whereas
other words are, as it were, a great deal more 'choosy' about the combinations they become involved with. At the many-partnered end of the scale is,
for example, the English word nice. The list of items with which this word
frequently co-occurs seems to be almost endless; the following is a tiny
sample of the vast array of nice collocations: nice body, nice day, nice food,
nice bouse, nice idea, nice job, nice manners, nice move, nice neighbourhood, nice person, nice time, nice weather. At the other end of the scale is the
word addled, which in its literal sense of 'rotten' collocates only with egg(s),
and which in its metaphorical sense of 'muddled' collocates only with words
such as brain(s) and mind. The term used to refer to these different patterns
of combinability is collocational range; thus, nice would be said to have a
very wide collocational range, whereas addled would be said to have a very
restricted collocational range.
One obvious issue that arises in the context of looking at collocational
range - indeed in the context of collocational research generally - is how far
away from each other two words can be in a piece of speech or writing and
still be regarded as 'keeping company'. For example, taking the word garden
as our starting point or node, which other words in the following sentences
are to be considered as occurring close enough to garden to qualify as candidates for having a collocational relationship with that word.
They invited me to a garden party.
County Wicklow is sometimes called the Garden of Ireland.
The children were playing in the garden.
None of these houses has a decent garden.
The garden was totally devoid of flowers.
These gardens are famous for their exotic trees.
I planted those tulip bulbs I bought in Amsterdam in the garden this
year.
Party in the first sentence obviously counts, since there are no intervening
words between it and garden, but just how many intervening words between
the node and a potential lexical partner are we prepared to accept? If one is
the answer, then Ireland in the second sentence comes into the frame, if up to
49
five, then so do playing (sentence 3), houses (sentence 4), flowers (sentence
5) and trees (sentence 6). What about tulip and bulbs in the final sentence?
Can we accept six or seven intervening words and still talk about 'keeping
company'? Different researchers will set the limits differently in this connection, but it is clear that there is no straightforward solution to this problem,
and that whatever decision is taken will be open to debate.
4.3
Fixed expressions and compounds
A particular grouping of words may recur so frequently in a language that it

comes to be seen as a fixed expression. Some examples of fixed expressions
in English are:
once in a blue moon
seeing is believing
the more the merrier
the other side of the coin
to throw in the towel
Obviously, some fixed expressions are more fixed than others. In some of
the above instances, for example, almost no change to either the order of the
words or the actual words used is possible without the general meaning or
the acceptability of the expression being affected. Thus, in seeing is
believing, it might just be possible to insert an adverb before is (e.g. seeing
really is believing), but otherwise the expression has to be used as it is.
Similarly with the more the merrier; here the only admissible change is the
placing of an intensifying word (usually a taboo word or a euphemism for a
taboo word) before merrier (e.g. the more the bleedin' merrier). In other
cases changes in the syntax and in the actual components of the expression
can be made without the force of expression being undermined. Thus, the
other side of the coin can be manipulated in various ways while still maintaining its essential identity:
Moving on to the cost of the project, here we see the negative side of
the coin.
Of the French economy it has been remarked that this is a coin that has
two very different sides.
As for the present political situation, well, which side of the coin shall
I begin with?
Fixed expressions vary also in relation to the extent to which their overall
meanings can be arrived at by simply adding together the meanings of the
words out of which they are composed. For example, seeing is believing is
50
interpretable simply on the basis of a knowledge of the normal meanings

of the individual words involved in this expression. However, in the case of
to throw in the towel, it would not be possible to interpret this as 'to give
up', 'to surrender' unless one actually knew that this meaning attached to
the whole expression - or unless one knew enough about boxing (where a
towel thrown into the ring has traditionally been a way of conceding
defeat) to be able to decode the metaphor. Expressions such as these which
are 'semantically opaque' in this kind of way are generally referred to as
idioms.
Lexical items which very frequently co-occur with each other often fuse
together into compound words (see above, Chapter 3). Examples of this are
blackboard (black + board), keyhole (key + hole) and paintbrush (paint +
brush). In such instances the relationship between the meaning of the compound word and the meanings of its individual constituent words is not
always a simple one. Thus, for example, blackboard does not denote any old
board which is black, but a very specific kind of black board, usually found
in classrooms, on which it is possible to write (and make excruciating
noises!) with chalk.
The rule of thumb commonly appealed to for distinguishing between
compound words and fixed expressions is based on an orthographic criterion. If two words are joined together in written form we tend to label them
as a compound word; if not, we tend to treat them as participating in a fixed
expression. However, this is a highly arbitrary distinction. Within a particular language a given expression may be transcribed in various ways. For
example:
air bag
air-bag
airbag
coffee shop coffee-shop coffeeshop

gold mine
gold-mine
goldmine
It is also worth saying that, as we saw in Chapter 1, some languages are

written down using systems which do not mark word boundaries, and some
languages are not written down at all; clearly, in these cases the orthographic
approach to distinguishing between fixed expressions and compounds
would be totally irrelevant.
A phonological approach to this conundrum does not get us very far
either. As, again, we saw in Chapter 1, whereas, for example, in most
English words we can identify one syllable carrying the main stress, in many
multi-word expressions that on the orthographic criterion, and according to
native speakers' own intuitions, would not be classed as compound words,
only one main stress occurs over the whole group. Thus:
barber shop group
feel good factor
skin care ointment
si
We might also note that phonological usage in this regard varies within language communities. The expression New Year (as in Happy New Year!), for
instance, is given just one main stress by some speakers of English (New
Year), while other speakers of English place a stress on both words (New
Year).
Nor does there seem to be a simple way of distinguishing between compound words and fixed expressions in semantic terms. We have seen some
examples of compounds whose meanings are not straightforwardly computable from the meanings of the words which compose them. However, as
we have also noted, it is equally easy to find examples of collocations with
similarly peculiar semantics: heavy smoker is not typically understood as
'overweight nicotine-user'; criminal lawyer is in most contexts taken to
mean something other than 'law-breaking attorney'; and artificial florist will
not usually be interpreted as 'flower-seller of unnatural origin'! On the other
hand, fixed expressions as well as compounds often mean exactly what they
look as if they might mean. Thus, heavy vehicle uncomplicatedly denotes a
vehicle which is heavy; criminal behaviour denotes behaviour which is criminal; and artificial additive denotes an additive beyond Mother Nature's
range. Similarly, coalminer denotes someone who mines coal, sunlight
denotes the sun's light, and workplace denotes the place where one works.
4.4
Collocations and the dictionary
Whether it is possible to differentiate rigorously between compound words

and collocations, and whether the meaning generated by the co-occurrence
of two or more particular lexical items is a straightforward sum of the individual meanings of the items concerned, it is clear that the combinations into
which a given word may enter and the meanings that attach to the various
combinations in question are important elements in that word's profile. This
is recognized at a practical level by dictionary-makers, as is demonstrated by
the fact that (leaving aside the very tiniest pocket dictionaries) dictionary
entries have traditionally not only treated the individual words concerned
but have also referred to items with which they frequently co-occur. The following entry from the 1940 edition of the Harrap's Shorter French and
English Dictionary is fairly representative.
fatigue [fatig], s.f. 1. (a) Fatigue, tiredness, weariness. Tomber de
fatigue, to be dropping with weariness. Brise de fatigue, dog-tired;
dead-beat, (b) Souliers de fatigue, strong walking shoes. Habits de
fatigue, working clothes. Cheval de fatigue, cart-horse. Mec. E:
Pieces de fatigue, parts subject to strains. 2. Wear and tear (of
machines, clothes etc.).
As was mentioned in Chapter 2, the suggestion was made many years ago by
the British linguist J. R. Firth that investigating the lexicon was essentially a
52
matter of exhaustively investigating collocations, and, in fact, he specifically

referred to lexicography (i.e. dictionary-making) in this context. The idea
that dictionary-making needs to be founded on collocational research is a
point of view which continues to have its champions today. Indeed, it is an
idea which has been gaining ground over the last 10-15 years. Moreover,
since Firth's time information technology has developed to the point where it
is now possible - through the use of computerized corpora (see above, 2.2) to undertake the kind of exhaustive investigation of collocations that Firth
called for, and such corpora are indeed drawn on in the preparation of dictionaries, as well as being exploited in many other ways.
4.5
Corpora and collocations
The present view of many linguists is that the investigation of collocations is

inextricably bound up with the exploitation of computerized corpora, for
the simple reason that only through the use of such corpora - with their vast
amounts of authentic data and their concordancing software - is it possible
to come to any reliable conclusions about which words 'keep company' with
which. Collocations were certainly studied before the advent of electronic
corpora; the work of J.R. Firth in the 1950s has already been mentioned in
this connection, and before him, in the 1930s, another British linguist, H.E.
Palmer, was already deep into collocational research; however, there is no
doubt that the creation of such corpora has enabled this area of research
really to come into its own.
The potentialities of electronic corpora in this regard have been dramatically demonstrated by the COBUILD project. COBUILD (Collins
Birmingham University International Language Database) involves a partnership between the Collins (now HarperCollins) publishing house and the
School of English of the University of Birmingham. It has assembled a vast
and still growing corpus of naturally occurring English data, now known as
the Bank of English. Recent reports indicate that the corpus currently runs
to more than 320 million words of spoken and written English text. There
were, admittedly, corpora in existence before COBUILD, and other corpora
were developed alongside and after COBUILD', however, the COBUILD
project went further than its predecessors in showing how useful a corpus
could be not only to researchers focused on language description but also in
very practical domains such as the production of dictionaries and languageteaching materials, and, in so doing, it blazed a trail for the many corpusbased projects that followed and imitated it. It should perhaps also be noted
in the present context that the director and leading light of the COB UILD
project, John Sinclair, was deeply involved in collocational research long
before the project was ever thought of, and that he always saw one of the
principal attractions of the project as being its capacity to shed light on collocational issues.
53
Materials and language descriptions arising out of the COBUILD project

base their definitions and illustrations on the combinatorial patterns discernible in the corpus. The following is a typical COBUILD dictionary
entry. The meaning it assigns reflects an exhaustive analysis of the environments in which the word in question has been found to occur in the corpus
some of which are cited in the entry.
veritable /veritabsl/ is used to emphasize a description of something
and used to suggest that, although the description might seem exaggerated, it is really accurate. EG The water descended like a veritable
Niagara ... I'm sure the audience has a veritable host of questions ...
... a veritable passion for the cinema.
We can see the same kind of approach in the Collins COBUILD English
Grammar, as the following excerpt demonstrates.
Many nouns can be used after 'make'.
. . . There is usually a related verb which can be used followed by a
reported clause.
She made a remark about the weather.
Allen remarked that at times he thought he was in America.
Now and then she makes a comment on something.
Henry Cecil commented that the ground was too firm.
Here is a list of nouns which are used after 'make' and have a related
reporting verb:
arrangement
confession
protest
claim
decision
remark
comment
promise
signal
suggestion
Other nouns used with 'make' express speech actions other than
reports or describe change, results, effort, and so on.
/'// make some enquiries for you.
They agreed to make a few minor changes.
McEnroe was desperate to make one last big effort to win 'Wimbledon
again.
54

Here is a list of other nouns which are used after 'make':
appeal
contribution
noise
sound
attempt
effort
point
speech
change
enquiry
progress
start
charge
impression
recovery
success
Theoretical/descriptive linguists drawing on the COBUILD Bank of English

use it as a basis for making statements about how words are combined that
go beyond syntactic generalizations. For example, faced with a sentence
such as The bushes and trees were blowing in the wind, but the rain had
stopped, a syntactician would wish to analyse it in terms of finite clauses,
noun phrases and verb phrases; the collocationally oriented corpus linguist,
on the other hand, would be inclined to look at the whole range of instances
in the databank in which combinations like blow-wind, rain-stop occurred
in order to be able to comment on the lexical frame 'SOMETHING blowing
in the wind' (which, as it turns out, is a great deal more likely to occur than
the lexical frame 'the wind blowing SOMETHING') or to be able to note
that rain followed by stop is much more typical that rain followed by end.
Some further electronic English-language corpora which are frequently
referred to in the lexicological literature, and which to a greater or lesser
extent have been used in collocational research, are mentioned below. We
shall be revisiting some of them, as well as the COBUILD corpus, in
Chapter 10 when we return to the topic of dictionary-making.
the Brown Corpus (Brown University Standard Corpus of Present-Day
American English), started in 1961, comprising one million words of
written American English;
the LOB Corpus (London, Oslo, Bergen Corpus), compiled between
1970 and 1978, involving the collaboration of the University of
Lancaster, the University of Oslo and the Norwegian Computing Centre
for the Humanities at Bergen, comprising one million words of written
British English;
the London-Lund Corpus, available since 1987, based mostly on the
University of Lund's Survey of Spoken English (1975), which in turn was
mostly based on the (non-computerized) Survey of English Usage compiled at University College London (1959), comprising approximately
half a million words of spoken English;
the Longman-Lancaster Corpus, dating from 1996, comprising 30
million words of spoken and written English from British and American
sources;
the JBNC (British National Corpus], compiled between 1991 and 1995,
involving collaboration between Oxford University Press, Longman
ss
Chambers Harrap, the University of Lancaster, the British Library and

Oxford University Computing Service, comprising 90 million words of
written British English and 10 million words of spoken British English;
the C/C (Cambridge International Corpus - formerly known as the
Cambridge Language Survey], available since 1996, an initiative of
Cambridge University Press, comprising 95 million words of written
English (the spoken language annexe of C/C, compiled in collaboration
with the University of Nottingham and comprising five million words, is
known as the CANCODE - Cambridge and Nottingham Corpus of
Discourse in English}.
4.6
Creativity and prefabrication in language use
Linguists have put a good deal of emphasis in the last three or four decades
on what Noam Chomsky calls the 'creative' dimension of language use - on
the fact that knowledge of a language enables one to 'understand an indefinite number of expressions that are new to one's experience . . . and ... to
produce such expressions'. While it is undoubtedly true that we can and do
use language innovatively and open-endedly in precisely the way Chomsky
suggests, it certainly is not the case that our use of language is exclusively
'creative' in this sense. Large numbers of the sequences of words that we
deploy and encounter in everyday speech and writing are clearly combinations that we have available to us as more or less prefabricated chunks such combinations ranging from fixed idiomatic expressions like cats and
dogs (= 'hard' as in It's raining cats and dogs) to 'semi-fixed' combinations
such as to know one's onions/stuff and to know/be up to all the tricks. An
analysis of authentic data in preparation for the Oxford Dictionary of
current idiomatic English, for example, yielded literally thousands of such
stable multi-word units. Similarly, it has been estimated that the Oxford
Dictionary of phrasal verbs and the Oxford Dictionary of English idioms
between them contain some 15,000 multi-word expressions. There is also
psycholinguistic evidence to suggest that fixed expressions and formulas
have an important economizing role in speech production; that is to say that
they enable us to produce speech which is very much more fluent than it
would be if we had to start from scratch and build up piece by piece every
expression and every structure we use.
This notion has been taken a stage further by Sinclair, on the basis of his
experience with the COBUILD data, and developed into the so-called
'idiom principle'. (The term idiom is used here with a much broader application than in 4.3, where mention was made of its more usual usage as a label
for fixed expressions with meanings that cannot be deduced from the meanings of their component parts). The idiom principle states that, when we are
putting together phrases in a language we know, although it may look as if
we operating on the basis of open choices at every stage (the only constraints
56
being that what we produce has to be broadly grammatical and make sense),
what we are doing most of the time is drawing on our knowledge of pre-constructed or semi-preconstructed phrases that constitute single choices,
varying lexical content within the chosen patterns to a fairly limited extent.
Why we do this, rather than going through the process of constructing new
phrases out of individual words every time, may, says Sinclair, have to do
with our capitalization on the fact that similar situations recur in life and
tend to be referred to in similar ways; it may have to do with the fact that we
in any case prefer to economize on effort whenever possible; and/or it may
have to do with the fact that the demands made on us by the extreme
rapidity of speech production are such that we have to exploit every opportunity to make savings on processing time.
Some examples of the kind of thing Sinclair has in mind are:
the phrase set eyes on, which usually has a pronoun subject and which is
usually associated with either never or an expression such as the moment,
the first time - as in I've never set eyes on him; The first time he set eyes
on her he knew he would always love her etc.;
the phrasal verb set about, which (in the sense of 'begin') tends to be associated with a following (usually transitive) verb in the -ing form - as in We set
about packing our bags; Bill finally set about earning some real money etc.;
the verb happen, which tends to occur in a particular kind of semantic
environment - one where unpleasant occurrences, such as accidents, are
being referred to - as in No one knew how the catastrophe has happened;
Such appalling events can never be allowed to happen again etc.
4.7
Collocations, the lexicon and lexical units
What are the implications of collocational patterning for our conception of

the lexicon and in particular for our understanding of what constitutes a
lexical unit? If the lexicon represents that part of our knowledge of language
that revolves around words, then, clearly, collocations have to be seen as
included in the lexicon. It is obvious from all that has been said that we need
to know about collocational patterns in order to function smoothly in
lexical terms in either our mother tongue or any other language we may
know. Anyone listening to news reports in English about recent military conflicts, for example, who did not know the terrible meanings that emerge
when ethnic 'keeps company' with cleansing, collateral with damage or
friendly with fire would be deeply mystified by what they heard. Similarly,
and on a lighter note, anyone trying to express great excitement and pleasure
in English who used a combination such as I'm on top of the moon (rather
than I'm on top of the world or I'm over the moon) would certainly run the
risk of incomprehension.
With regard to defining the lexical unit, one approach is to take the word
as the typical lexical unit and to say that a group of words can be considered
57
as a lexical unit only if its meaning is associated with the group as a whole
rather than a sum of the individual meanings of the constituent words.
According to this view black is a lexical unit; so is blackbird (as opposed to
black bird), since blackbird denotes a particular species of bird (turdus
merula) rather than just a bird of a particular colour; and so is in black and
white (as in He wants it in black and white], since the meaning of this whole
expression ('written', 'in writing') cannot be arrived at simply by combining
the normal meanings of the individual items out of which it is formed.
There are at least two possible objections to this approach. On the one
hand, the issue of semantic transparency or opacity in relation to multi-word
expressions (i.e. whether or not the meaning of a expression can or cannot
be seen as a straightforward composite of its component words) is somewhat problematic. It is not the case that multi-word expressions are either
self-evidently transparent or self-evidently opaque. There are degrees of
opacity. Thus, blackbird is less opaque than ladybird (which in many varieties of English is the word used for the insect that in American English is
called ladybug); and ladybird (given that ladybirds do at least fly like birds!)
is less opaque than strictly for the birds (= 'trivial', 'uninteresting'). Even
many apparently transparent examples like fish and chips turn out on closer
inspection to have opaque aspects; thus, in order to qualify to be described
as fish and chips a culinary product has to involve one of a particular range
of types of fish (sardine, trout or tuna will not do) and has to have been
cooked and presented in a particular way.
Another problem is that using a purely semantic criterion is a rather narrow
way of looking at the matter. It leaves out of account the question of whether
in the use of a particular expression - whatever its degree of semantic opacity
- the individual words are selected and are perceived to function singly or
together. For example, the following expressions are all relatively transparent,
but there is little doubt that they are selected and understood as wholes rather
than being processed in a word by word manner.
midnight
good-natured
diesel engine
bread and butter
say it with flowers
As we have seen, it has been suggested that most of our use of language relies
on the exploitation of collections of words that to a greater or lesser extent
function together as entire packages. Whether or not this is true, it does seem
clear that groups of words which are transparent in their meaning may nevertheless operate as units.
To sum up, even a conservative approach to the question of what counts
as a lexical unit based on a criterion of semantic unitariness has to concede
ss
that there are lexical units which consist of more than one word. An
approach which makes reference to the broader issue of the selection and
perception of multi-word expressions as wholes (whatever their degree of
semantic transparency/opacity) yields the conclusion that many multi-word
expressions which are semantically transparent are none the less to be seen
as lexical units.
4.8
Summary
This chapter looked at the commonly observed fact that certain words
habitually 'keep company' with certain other words. It showed that a particular word may have a wider or more restricted collocational range, that
is, enter into frequent partnership with a greater or lesser quantity and
variety of other words; it explored the relationship between compound
words and fixed expressions, concluding that there was no hard and fast
way of distinguishing between these two categories of collocation; it
touched on collocational description in traditional lexicography; it discussed the way in which collocational research has been enhanced by the
advent of electronic corpora; it reported on evidence from corpus-based
research that language users incorporate very large numbers of preconstructed and semi-preconstructed multi-word expressions into their
speech, and noted a suggestion that most language use relies on sequences
of words that are to a greater or lesser extent prefabricated; and, finally, it
examined the implications of the results of collocational research for our
understanding of the nature of lexical units.

See 4.2. The treatment of the notion of collocational range, which originates
in A. Mclntosh, 'Patterns and ranges' in A. Mclntosh and M. A. K. Halliday,
Patterns of language: papers in general, descriptive and applied linguistics
(London: Longman, 1966), owes much to Chapter 3 of R. Carter's book
Vocabulary: applied linguistic perspectives (second edition, London:
Routledge, 1998). Carter's chapter was in fact also a valuable source for
much of the rest of the discussion of collocations.
See 4.3. The heavy smoker, criminal lawyer and artificial florist examples
are borrowed from F. Palmer's Grammar (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1971,
45,54).
See 4.4. The illustrative dictionary entry in 4.4 are taken from the 1965
reprint of J. E. Mansion (ed.), Harrap's Shorter French and English
Dictionary (London: George G. Harrap & Company, 1940, 259). A concise
account of Firth's collocational approach to lexicographical issues - in his
59
own words - is to be found on pages 26-7 of his article 'A synopsis of linguistic theory' in Studies in linguistic analysis (Special Volume of the
Philological Society, Oxford: Blackwell, 1957).
See 4.5. On the question of the connection between electronic corpus-based
studies and collocation research, a typical pronouncement is that of Moon:
'collocation studies are now inevitably associated with corpus studies, since
it is difficult and arguably pointless to study such things except through
using large amounts of real data' (R. Moon, 'Vocabulary connections: multiword items in English', in N. Schmitt and M. McCarthy (eds), Vocabulary:
description, acquisition and pedagogy, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1997, 41). H. E. Palmer's work, and in particular his Second interim
report on English collocations (Tokyo: Institute for Research in English
Teaching, 1933) is cited by G. Kennedy in his Introduction to corpus linguistics (London: Longman, 1998, 108).
See 4.5. The two main sources for the description of the COBUILD project
in 4.5 are: J. Sinclair (ed.), Looking up: an account of the COBUILD project
in lexical computing and the development of the Collins COBUILD English
Language Dictionary (London: Collins, 1987) and J. Sinclair, Corpus, concordance, collocation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991). The figure
of 320 million words is quoted by R. Carter (Vocabulary, London:
Routledge, 1998, 167). The COBUILD dictionary entry is cited and discussed by R. Krishnamurthy in his article 'The process of compilation' (in J.
Sinclair (ed.), Looking up, London: Collins, 1987). The extract from the
Collins COBUILD English grammar (London: Collins, 1990, 150-1) is
taken from the section entitled 'Verbs with little meaning: delexical verbs'.
The brief discussion of the sentence The bushes and trees were blowing in
the wind, but the rain had stopped is based on R. Moon's comments on p. 41
of her article 'Vocabulary connections: multi-word items in English' (in N.
Schmitt and M. McCarthy (eds), Vocabulary: description, acquisition and
pedagogy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
See 4.6. The Chomsky quote is to be found on p. 100 of N. Chomsky,
Language and mind (enlarged edition, New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1972). The report on the research leading to the Oxford
Dictionary of current idiomatic English (eds A. Cowie, R. Mackin and I. A.
McCaig, two volumes, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975/1983) is that
of A. Cowie in his article 'Stable and creative aspects of vocabulary use' (in R.
Carter and M. McCarthy (eds), Vocabulary and language teaching, London:
Longman, 1988). The Oxford Dictionary of phrasal verbs and the Oxford
Dictionary of English idioms are both published in Oxford by Oxford
University Press (1993); the quantitative figure put on their content (15,000
multi-word expressions) is cited by R. Moon ('Vocabulary connections: multiword items in English', in N. Schmitt and M. McCarthy (eds), Vocabulary:
description, acquisition and pedagogy, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1997, 48). Psycholinguistic evidence regarding the facilitating role of
60
prefabricated patterns in speech production is referred to by, among others, A.

Peters in The units of language acquisition (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1983). The discussion of John Sinclair's idiom principle is based on the
section entitled 'The idiom principle' in his book Corpus, concordance collocation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991,110-15); the examples used in
this context are taken from pp. 111-12 of this book.
See 4.7. The importance of the contribution of collocational knowledge to
linguistic competence, referred to in 4.7, is discussed by, among others, M.
Benson ('Collocations and idioms', in R. Ilson (ed.), Dictionaries, lexicography and language learning, Oxford: Pergamon/The British Council), G.
Kjellmer ('A mint of phrases', in K. Aijmer and B. Altenberg (eds), English
corpus linguistics: studies in honour of Jan Svartvik, London: Longman,
1991), and T. Van Der Wouden (Negative contexts: collocation, polarity and
multiple negation, London: Routledge, 1997). The semantically based
approach to the definition of lexical units summarized in this section is
essentially that proposed by D. A. Cruse in his book Lexical semantics
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986, Chapter 2). The blackbird,
ladybird and fish and chips examples are all borrowed from Cruse, this
source.
Good introductions to the collocational aspect of the lexicon are to be found
in Chapter 3 of R. Carter's Vocabulary: applied linguistic perspectives
(second edition, London: Routledge, 1998), in Chapter 9 of E. Hatch and C.
Brown's Vocabulary, semantics and language education (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1995), in R. Moon's above-mentioned article in
N. Schmitt and M. McCarthy's edited volume Vocabulary: description,
acquisition and pedagogy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997),
and in the first section of T. Van Der Wouden's Negative contexts: collocation, polarity and multiple negation (Amsterdam: John Benjamin, 1997).
Numerous books on the use of corpora in collocational research (and linguistic research generally) are now available. Some of the relevant titles are:
K. Aijmer and B. Altenberg (eds), English corpus linguistics: studies in
honour of Jan Svartvik (London: Longman, 1991);
G. Kennedy, Introduction to corpus linguistics (London: Longman,
1998);
T. McEnery and A. Wilson, Corpus linguistics (Edinburgh: Edinburgh
J. Sinclair (ed.), Looking up: an account of the COBUILD project in
lexical computing and the development of the Collins COB UILD
English Language Dictionary (London: Collins, 1987);
J. Sinclair, Corpus, concordance, collocation (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1991);
J. Thomas and M. Short (eds), Using corpora for language research:
studies in the honour of Geoffrey Leech (London: Longman, 1996).
61

1. At the beginning of the chapter some cliches commonly used in journalism were mentioned (breaking news, law and order etc.). Try to think
of five more such cliches in English and also try to think of one or two in
any other language you know.
2. In 4.2 we looked at the notion of collocational range, comparing the very
wide collocational ranges of nice with the very restricted collocational
range of addled. Consider the following words and try to categorize them
likewise according to their collocational range - that is to say, into items
with very wide collocational ranges and items with much more restricted
ranges. In each case give examples of collocations in which they occur.
big
bright
centrifugal
improper
loud
premeditated
rancid
right
sad
short
trenchant
unwarranted
3. In our discussion of fixed expressions and compound words in 4.3 we

noted that some compounds and fixed expressions are semantically transparent (i.e. have meanings which are essentially combinations of the meanings of their component parts) and that others are semantically opaque (i.e.
have meanings which are not simply sums of the meanings of their component parts). Consider the following compounds and fixed expressions and
try to decide which are semantically transparent and which are semantically opaque. In the case of those which are semantically opaque demonstrate their opacity by providing definitions of their meanings.
air circulation
system
eye strain
to pop off
airhead
to see eye to eye
to pop the question
blue skies
foxglove
to look on the sunny side
blue language
to go fox-hunting
sun-dried
a weekend in the
country
good grief!
to sing out of tune
country music
grievous bodily
harm
he who pays the piper

calls the tune
4. In 4.4 we saw some examples of the way in which information about collocational patterns have been incorporated into traditional dictionary
entries. Imagine you are writing dictionary entries for the following
words and decide what kind of collocational information and examples
you would include in these cases.
day
all
fire
high
middle
rat
spirit
tell
twist
way
62
5. It seems that some kinds of writing are full of well-worn expressions and
phrases, while others are characterized by a relative absence of frequent
collocations. Horoscopes tend to fall into the former category and poetry
into the latter. Have a look at some horoscopes and some poems and try
to decide why the writers of these texts took the approach they did in relation to the use of collocations.
5
Lexis and meaning
5.1
Words making the difference
It is quite obvious to any user of any language that there is an intimate connection between the lexicon and meaning. A brief glance at the following
two brief passages - which are identical but for one word - will persuade
anyone who needs convincing just how much difference to the meaning of
an entire stretch of language a single word can make.
The interrogating officer moved closer to the prisoner.
'Let's see how you like this', he said.
He then hit the prisoner with a truly vicious question.
The interrogating officer moved closer to the prisoner.
'Let's see how you like this', he said.
He then hit the prisoner with a truly vicious truncheon.
Of course, the use of different sequences of words does not always yield
vastly different overall meanings. Indeed, the English expression in other
words normally introduces a phrase or a sentence which is differently formulated from but similar in meaning to what went before it, for example:
/ worship the ground you stand on, dearest Patricia. I bless the day
that you were born, and I rejoice in every breath you take. In other
words, sweet Patty, I love you.
Usually, in such cases, as in the above example, some kind of summary of the
preceding material is involved.
There is also the fact that individual words may resemble each other
semantically to the point where they are synonymous, i.e. can replace each
other in some contexts without any noticeable change in meaning being
involved, for example:
They stumbled into the sitting room and collapsed on to the couch.
They stumbled into the sitting room and collapsed on to the sofa.
64

The questions on this paper were too hard for us to answer.
The questions on this paper were too difficult for us to answer.
Josie and I are the best of pals now.
Josie and I are the best of friends now.
However, it is generally true to say that the meaning of what we say or write
is carried to a very large extent by the words that we choose, and that
changing words more often than not changes meanings, for example:
Sue lives up North, well in the Midlands really, not too far from
Leicester.
It says here in the paper that he lived off 'immortal earnings'. I suppose
they mean 'immoral'.
I used to jog around the park, but now I just walk!
In what follows we shall explore some of the ways in which linguists have
tried to come to grips with the relationship between words and meaning. We
shall start by looking at the notion that lexical meaning is essentially about
expressions being applied to objects, places, people, attributes, states,
actions, processes etc. in the 'real world'. We shall then consider that dimension of meaning which has to do with relations between words. Our next
port of call will be the suggestion that the meaning of any given word can be
analysed into a set of sense components. Finally, we shall examine some
'cognitive' approaches to word meaning - that is, approaches which are
based on the idea that the ways in which linguistic meanings are constructed
and organized come out of our experience of the world and our perception
and processing of that experience.
5.2
Meaning seen as reference or denotation
It is self-evident that language conveys meaning partly by as it were

pointing to various kinds of phenomena in the 'real world'. In fact, physically pointing to something can often perform the same function as naming
it. For example, if I am in the queue for lunch in the university canteen, and,
on reaching the servery, I am asked for my order, I may say 'The egg curry
please', or I may point to the steaming concoction in question, or I may do
both. When a linguistic expression 'points' in this way in a particular
context to a specific entity, attribute, state, process etc., linguists talk about
an act of reference, the phenomenon thus identified being labelled as the
referent.
There is another way in which linguistic expressions can be applied to
'real world' phenomena. Instead of picking out a specific phenomenon in a
particular context, an expression may identify a whole class of phenomena.
Lexis and meaning
65
For instance, in the following sentence the expression the wolf does not refer
to one particular wolf but to an entire category of mammals.
The wolf is a much misunderstood animal.
Similarly with baked beans and Sunday night in the sentences below.
Even though they taste nice, baked beans are actually quite good
for you.
Sunday night is as quiet as the grave around these parts.
Many linguists call this kind of meaning denotation, labelling the class of
entities to which an expression is applied as its denotatum (plural: denotata). (However, it should be noted that the terms refer, reference and referent are often used in a broad sense to cover both reference as defined
earlier and denotation.)
Traditionally, language has been seen as communicating meanings via concepts constructed out of our experience of the relevant denotata. On this view,
each linguistic form is associated with a concept, and each concept is the
mental representation of a phenomenon in the 'real world'. This notion is
sometimes represented diagrammatically as shown in Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.1 Linguistic forms associated with 'real world' phenomena
One difficulty with this kind of representation is that, in implying that each
particular form is uniquely associated with a single particular concept, it
fails to provide any account of cases where more than one expression is associated with a single meaning or of cases where a single expression is associated with a more than one meaning (see below) and there is also the problem
that this whole approach leads to an 'atomistic' view of semantics which
treats each form and its meaning as isolated and self-contained.
There are other reasons too for taking a wary approach to the notion that
meaning is only about expressions being applied to 'real world' phenomena,
whether referentially or denotationally. For one thing, there are words
66
whose meaning simply cannot be accounted for in this way - words like if,
and, should, nevertheless. All of these items have meaning, but certainly not
by virtue of identifying observable phenomena or classes of phenomena in
the 'real world'. There are also expressions that relate to phenomena which
do not exist - mermaid, tooth-fairy, unicorn etc. Can we say that such
expressions have no meaning just because they have no corresponding denotata in the 'real world'? Certainly not.
Also worth noting is that two (or more) expressions may be applied to
exactly the same phenomenon and yet have different meanings. The classic
example of this is the designation of the planet Venus as both the Morning
Star and the Evening Star (because - owing to its brightness - Venus is still
visible at dawn and already visible at dusk). The expressions Morning Star
and Evening Star clearly have different meanings, and yet they are applied to
precisely the same object. Some further illustrations of expressions with different meanings being applied to the same phenomenon follow.
the Lionheart
half-empty
to tell lies
King Richard I of England
half-full
to be economical with the truth
5.3
Structuralist perspectives on meaning
Much of the discussion in previous chapters has been concerned with structure of various kinds - sentence-structure, the internal structure of words,
sound-structure etc. This is very much the hallmark of the whole approach
to language taken by modern linguistics, which is usually taken to date from
the work of the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, the generally recognized 'founding father' of what became known as structuralism. According
to the structuralist conception, in the words of the British linguist John
Lyons, 'every language is cut to a unique pattern', and the units of a given
language 'can be identified only in terms of their relationships with other
units in the same language'. What this view implies in respect of lexical
meaning is that it has to be seen in the light of relations between expressions
in the same language system.
This is not to say that structuralism denies the relationship between linguistic forms and phenomena in the 'real world'. It does, however, insist that
this relationship is only part of the story. Saussure draws an analogy in this
connection with monetary systems. Just as the value of a given coin (e.g. five
francs) is based, he says, both on the kinds of goods it will buy and on its
relationship with other coins in the same system (e.g. one franc), so, says
Saussure, the 'value' of a linguistic unit derives both from the concepts for
which it may be 'exchanged' and from its set of relationships with other
words in the language.
The first manifestation of structuralist semantics was lexical field theory.
This is an approach based on the idea that it is possible to identify within the
Lexis and meaning
67
vocabulary of a language particular sets of expressions (lexical fields)

covering particular areas of meaning (semantic fields) where the lexical organization is such that the relevant lexical units precisely mark out each other's
territory, so to speak. One of the early exponents of lexical field theory, Jost
Trier, wrote in terms of 'a net of words' cast over meaning 'in order to capture
and organize it and have it in demarcated concepts'. A much-cited example of
a semantic field is that of colour. Colour is an undifferentiated continuum in
nature; it is organized into red, orange, yellow, green etc. by the words which
are used to identify particular areas of the spectrum. Moreover, different languages divide up colour differently. For example, Russian recognizes two
colours in the blue range where English recognizes only one; the words
Russian goluboj and sinij - which are customarily translated as 'light blue' and
'dark blue' respectively - are in fact understood as identifying quite distinct
colours, not different varieties of the same colour.
The fact that lexical field theory talked so much about concepts was,
however, off-putting for some structuralist linguists, especially North
American structuralists who took their inspiration from the work of the
American linguist Leonard Bloomfield. Bloomfield was determined to see
linguistics recognized as a fully-fledged science and so he and his followers
were interested only in those areas of language which were amenable to rigorous objective analysis. Meaning, defined in terms of unobservable concepts, did not come into that category as far as the Bloomfieldians were
concerned, and they saw the scientifically accurate definition of meaning in
terms of the 'real world' phenomena to which words were applied as being
possible for only a minority of expressions. Bloomfield claimed, for
example, that defining the names of minerals was relatively straightforward
thanks to the resources made available by chemistry and mineralogy; the
problems arose in the cases of words like love or hate, 'which concern situations that have not been accurately classified', these latter being 'in the great
majority'.
This is a very limited and naive view of meaning. On the other hand, the
dependence of lexical field theory on the notion of conceptually defined
semantic fields is undoubtedly a weakness. There are certainly some areas of
meaning - like colour, the human body etc. - which have a clearly identifiable objective reality which can be detached from other areas of meaning,
but what about a semantic field such as the 'intellectual domain of meaning',
on which Jost Trier did his pioneering work? For Trier the 'intellectual
domain' covers a whole range of types of knowledge - scholarly, social, mystical, technical, aesthetic - but his definition of the domain is essentially arbitrary; for some researchers the 'intellectual domain of meaning' might be
much more narrowly defined, and for others it might be more broadly
defined.
It was the above-mentioned British linguist, John Lyons, who found a
widely acceptable way forward for a structuralist approach to lexical
meaning. He acknowledges that aspect of meaning which derives from some
68
expressions' relationship with the world beyond language - their application

in terms of reference and denotation as defined earlier. However, in common
with Saussure and the lexical field theorists, Lyons also recognizes that the
meaning of an individual expression crucially depends on the network of
relations with other expressions into which it enters. This latter aspect of
meaning Lyons labels sense, and his approach to the analysis of sense is such
that it does not require the prior identification of a conceptual area or
semantic field; the lexical field or subsystem in this perspective is defined in
terms of the observable relations between lexical expressions within particular contexts.
This last point about context needs emphasizing because of the fact that a
given expression may have more than one meaning. For example, the word
mouth may refer to a facial feature in some contexts (e.g. He has rather a
small mouth) and to a geographical feature in other (e.g. The mouth of this
river is difficult to navigate). Where the meanings attached to a given form
are clearly connected in this kind of way, linguists are happy to regard them
as meanings of the same word and to talk about multiple meaning or polysemy. There are, however, other cases where a particular form is associated
with more than one meaning and the meanings in question are totally unrelated (e.g. bank denoting a financial institution and bank denoting the edge
of a river, canal etc.). In this sort of instance, linguists consider that two distinct words are involved which simply happen to coincide formally, the term
used to signify this situation being homonymy. Homonyms may be completely identical - as in bank-bank; they may be identical only at the phonological level - as in meetmeat (in which case they are called homophones);
or they may be identical only at the orthographic level - as in row /rau/ =
'propel a boat using oars' and row /rau/ = 'quarrel' - (in which case they are
called homographs). Unfortunately, it is not necessarily always crystal-clear
in specific instances whether polysemy or homonymy is involved.
With regard to the kinds of relations Lyons has in mind, he distinguishes
between those which are paradigmatic (or substitutional) in nature and
those which are syntagmatic (or combinatorial). Paradigmatic relations are
defined as those which hold 'between intersubstitutable members of the
same grammatical category', and syntagmatic relations are defined as those
which hold 'typically, though not necessarily, between expressions of different grammatical categories (e.g. between nouns and adjectives, between
verbs and adverbs etc.), which can be put together in grammatically wellformed combinations (or constructions)'. Syntagmatic sense-relations are
clearly one aspect of the colligational and collocational dimensions of the
lexicon, which have already been discussed (in chapters 2 and 3, respectively). For example, the fact that the adjective rancid combines with only a
limited range of nouns (butter, lard, oil etc.) can be seen as a set of semantic
relationships, since the meanings of the nouns in question are clearly the
determining factor. As far as paradigmatic relations are concerned, Lyons
focuses on synonymy, hyponymy and incompatibility, which he defines and
Lexis and meaning
69
demonstrates in terms of logical relations between sentences, or meaning

postulates. The two important logical notions that Lyons uses in his
approach are those of entailment and negation. One sentence entails another
sentence in a given context if the one necessarily implies the other (e.g. / am
a man entails I am a human being where the two Is refer to the same individual. One sentence negates another in a given context if the one necessarily
denies the truth of the other (e.g. / am a man negates / am a centipede where
the two Is refer to the same individual).
Synonymy
The relation of synonymy has already been briefly mentioned in 5.1. It is
defined by Lyons in terms of minimally different sentences entailing each
other. Where two or more sentences entail each other and differ by only one
expression, the distinguishing expressions are taken to be synonymous. For
example, the following sentences all entail each other.
Ethelred the Unready died in 1016.
Ethelred the Unready expired in 1016.
Ethelred the Unready passed away in 1016.
Ethelred the Unready popped off in 1016.
Ethelred the Unready kicked the bucket in 1016.
Ethelred the Unready snuffed it in 1016.
They differ by only the expressions underlined, and so, according to the terms
of the above definition, all of these expressions are synonymous. The above
examples illustrate two further points which are relevant to the rest of the discussion of lexical relations. The first is that such relations can hold between
individual words (e.g. die, expire], between individual words and multi-word
expressions (e.g. die, snuff it] and between multi-word expressions (pass
away, kick the bucket}. The second point is that it is not a condition for the
establishment of a particular semantic relation that it should hold in all contexts. For example, there are instances where the expression kick the bucket is
interpreted literally, as in: The window-cleaner tripped and kicked the bucket
which was standing at the bottom of his ladder, spilling water all over the
pavement. Obviously, this last sentence does not entail The window-cleaner
tripped and expired which was standing at the bottom of his ladder, spilling
water all over the pavement; accordingly, in this context kick the bucket is not
synonymous with expire, die, pass away etc. Issues of contextual appropriacy
also arise: the contexts in which we might use snuff it in the above sense would
tend not to be the same as those in which we would use expire. For these
reasons, statements about semantic relations between lexical expressions
always have to take context into consideration.
70
Two further examples of sets of synonyms are set out and illustrated
below.
Aid, assistance, help
The crisis cannot be solved without the aid of the international
community.
The crisis cannot be solved without the assistance of the international
community.
The crisis cannot be solved without the help of the international
community.
Fast, quickly, speedily, swiftly
He was travelling so fast that everything around him became a blur.
He was travelling so quickly that everything around him became a blur.
He was travelling so speedily that everything around him became a blur.
He was travelling so swiftly that everything around him became a blur.
Hy pony my
Hyponymy, the relation between more specific (hyponymous} terms (e.g.
spaniel] and less specific (superordinate) terms (e.g. dog) is defined in terms
of one-way rather than two-way entailment. Thus / own a spaniel entails I
own a dog, but I own a dog does not entail / own a spaniel. Hyponymous
relations can be represented as inverted tree diagrams in which the lower
intersections or nodes represent terms which are hyponymous to the ones
above them, and these latter in turn are hyponymous to the ones above
them. Thus in the (incomplete) Figure 5.2 below cocker spaniel is hyponymous to spaniel, which is in turn hyponymous to dog, which is in turn
hyponymous to mammal, which is in turn hyponymous to animal.
Another characteristic of hyponymy is that it is what semanticists call
transitive, in the sense that the relation can be seen as 'in transit' all the way
along the line, so that if X is hyponymous to Y and Y is hyponymous to Z
then X is hyponymous to Z. Thus, cocker spaniel is hyponymous not only to
spaniel but also to dog, mammal and animal.
Further examples of expressions in hyponymous-superordinate relationships are given below.
Claret, wine, drink
You'll find some claret on the table.
You'll find some wine on the table.
You'll find some drink on the table.
Lexis and meaning
71
Figure 5.2 Hyponymous relations.
Claret is hyponymous to wine; wine is hyponymous to drink; and claret is

also hyponymous to drink.
Hatchback, car, vehicle
The firm bought him a new hatchback.
The firm bought him a new car.
The firm bought him a new vehicle.
Hatchback is hyponymous to car; car is hyponymous to vehicle; and
hatchback is also hyponymous to vehicle.
Incompatibility
With regard to incompatibility, this can be defined in general terms, and also
more specifically for particular types of incompatibility, namely, complementarity', polar antonymy and converseness. Incompatibility in general is simply
defined in terms of negative entailment: Johnny's shirt is pink entails Johnny's
shirt is not green: Johnny's shirt is green entails Johnny's shirt is not pink: and
so pink and green can be taken to be incompatible. Similarly with:
Metal, wood
The chair is entirely made of metal.
The chair is entirely made of wood.
72
Plain, striped
The tie I was wearing was plain.
The tie I was wearing was striped.
Complementarity
Turning now to particular subcategories of incompatibility, let us begin with
the relation of complementarity (also known as simple antonymy or binary
antonymy), which is a sort of 'one or the other' relation. In the case of complementarity not only does the assertion of one lexical item in a complementary pair (such as alive and dead) imply the denial of the other but the denial
of the one implies the assertion of the other. Thus Nessie is alive entails
Nessie is not dead, and Nessie is not dead entails Nessie is alive. Some
further examples follow.
Pass, fail
Janet passed the exam.
Janet failed the exam.
Janet did not pass the exam.
Janet did not fail the exam.
Janet passed the exam entails Janet did not fail the exam; Janet failed
the exam entails Janet did not pass the exam; Janet did not pass the
exam entails Janet failed the exam; Janet did not fail the exam entails
Janet passed the exam.
True, false
What he says is true.
What he says is false.
What he says is not true.
What he says is not false.
What he says is true entails What he says is not false: What he says is
false entails What he says is not true; What he says is not true entails
What he says is false; What he says is not false entails What he says is
true.
Polar antonymy
Polar antonymy (also known as gradable antonymy) differs from complementarity by virtue of the fact that the items in question are not in a 'one or the
other' relationship but imply the possibility of gradations between them. The
assertion of one of a pair of polar antonyms (e.g. rich and poor) implies the
denial of the other, but the denial of the one does not necessarily imply the
assertion of the other. Liz is rich entails Liz is not poor, and Liz is poor entails
Liz is not rich. However, Liz is not poor does not entail Liz is rich, and Liz is
Lexis and meaning
73
not rich does not entail Liz is poor, since it is fairly easy to think of expressions
identifying states somewhere between being rich and being poor (e.g. comfortably off)-, rich and poor are therefore said to be polar antonyms with
respect to each other. Where polar antonyms are used there is always some
kind of implicit or explicit standard or norm involved against which judgments are made and in the light of which qualities are attributed. For instance,
the same person, let us say a teacher by the name of Rothschild, may be
described as rich when compared with other members of his/her profession
but poor when compared with other members of the Rothschild family.
Whenever we use the terms rich, poor, comfortably off etc. we always have
some kind of yardstick in mind on the basis of which we make the evaluations
signalled by the words used. Similarly with the following examples.
Big, small
Tom's house is big.
Tom's house is small.
Tom's house is not big.
Tom's house is not small.
Tom's house is big entails Tom's house is not small, but Tom's house is
not small does not entail Tom's house is big. Tom's house is small
entails Tom's house is not big, but Tom's house is not big does not
entail Tom's house is small. Intermediate terms between big and small
exist, e.g. middle-sized.
Hot, cold
The water is hot.
The water is cold.
The water is not hot.
The water is not cold.
The water is hot entails The water is not cold, but The water is not cold
does not entail The water is hot. The water is cold entails The water is
not hot, but The water is not hot does not entail The water is cold.
Intermediate terms between hot and cold exist, e.g. tepid.
Converseness
Finally under the heading of incompatibility, we come to converseness (otherwise known as relational oppositeness). This is the relation that holds
between expressions in sentences (differing only in respect of the converse
expressions in question) which imply the denial of each other but which,
after particular kinds of syntactic permutation have been effected, actually
entail each other: Fred lent the flat to Michael entails the denial of Fred borrowed the flat from Michael (and vice versa), but Fred lent the flat to
Michael entails and is entailed by Michael borrowed the flat from Fred, and
so lend and borrow are taken to be converses of each other. Converseness is
further exemplified below.
74

Buy, sell
Rick bought the car from Sarah.
Rick sold the car to Sarah.
Sarah bought the car from Rick.
Sarah sold the car to Rick.
Rick bought the car from Sarah entails the denial of Rick sold the car
to Sarah (and vice versa). Sarah bought the car from Rick entails the
denial of Sarah sold the car to Rick (and vice versa). Rick bought the
car from Sarah entails Sarah sold the car to Rick (and vice versa). Rick
sold the car to Sarah entails Sarah bought the car from Rick (and vice
versa).
Husband, wife
Hilary is Vivian's husband.
Hilary is Vivian's wife.
Vivian is Hilary's husband.
Vivian is Hilary's wife.
Hilary is Vivian's husband entails the denial of Hilary is Vivian's wife

(and vice versa). Vivian is Hilary's husband entails the denial of Vivian
is Hilary's wife (and vice versa). Hilary is Vivian's husband entails
Vivian is Hilary's wife (and vice versa). Hilary is Vivian's wife entails
Vivian is Hilary's husband (and vice versa).
Meronymy
A lexical relation not focused on particularly by Lyons but discussed at
length by other lexical semanticists is that of meronymy. This relation
covers part-whole connections. X is a meronym of Y if it can form the
subject of the sentence An X is a part ofaY.Y in such a case is labelled a
holonym of X. For example, finger is a meronym of hand, and hand is a
holonym of finger on the basis of the way in which the two words feature
in the sentence: A finger is a part of a hand.
As in the case of hyponymy, it is possible to represent meronymholonym relations in inverted tree diagrams, where meronymy is represented as the relationship between a lower node and a higher node. Thus,
in the diagram on page 75 (Figure 5.3), finger is a meronym of hand, which
in turn is a meronym of arm, which in turn is a meronym of body.
However, meronymy is not consistently transitive in the way that
hyponymy is. For example, despite the fact that finger is a meronym of hand
and hand is a meronym of arm, we might have some hesitation about the
sentence A finger is a part of an arm.
Lexis and meaning
75
Figure 5.3 Meronymy.
Two further examples of meronym-holonym pairs follow.

Petal, flower
A petal is a part of a flower.
Petal is a meronym of flower. Flower is a holonym of petal.
Roof, house
A roof is a part of a house.
Roof is a meronym of house. House is a holonym of roof.
5.4
Componential analysis
Some linguists have tried to take structuralist semantics a stage further by

trying to analyse lexical meaning into components, otherwise labelled semantic
markers or semantic features, which might underlie sense-relations. For
example, in a componential analysis the relations between human being, man,
woman, boy, girl and lad might be accounted for in terms of plus or minus
values attaching to the components HUMAN, MALE and ADULT. Thus:
human being man
+ HUMAN
+ HUMAN
woman
+ HUMAN
boy
+ HUMAN
girl
+ HUMAN
lad
+ HUMAN
+ MALE
-MALE
+ MALE
-MALE
+ MALE
+ ADULT
+ ADULT
- ADULT
- ADULT
- ADULT
76
In this perspective the synonymy between boy and lad would, for example,
be seen as explicable in terms of the fact that their features and their featurevalues totally match (+ HUMAN, + MALE, - ADULT); the hyponymy
between man and human being would be seen as explicable in terms of the
fact that man shares a feature and feature value (+ HUMAN) with human
being and, despite being endowed with other features besides, exhibits no
feature-values which are at odds with the componential profile of human
being; and the incompatibility between man and woman would be seen as
explicable in terms of the fact that the two words differ in terms of the
respective values attached to the feature MALE.
This approach to lexical meaning obviously has strong similarities to the
traditional dictionary definition. For example, a typical dictionary definition
of girl would be 'female child' (i.e. - MALE, - ADULT, in the above terms).
Componential analysis has long been used in anthropological linguistics in, for example, studies of kinship terms, and it has also been associated with
broadly Chomskyan perspectives, but it has also been favoured by semanticists without any specific research task preoccupations or theoretical predispositions.
Despite its apparently wide appeal, componential analysis has been
subject to a fair amount of criticism. Perhaps most controversial has been
the claim made by some linguists that the semantic components on which
componential analysis is based are universal - in other words that they
underlie the expression of meaning in all languages and cultures. This claim
is undermined by the fact that even concepts which in common sense terms
look as if they might be independent of particular cultures turn out on closer
inspection not to be. For example, the feature MALE, which, in view of its
association with a clear biological category, looks as if it might well be a
candidate for universality, appears distinctly less universal when one considers the fact that - at least as far as human maleness is concerned - the
concept of maleness is also a product of socio-cultural traditions and perceptions which diverge widely from society to society. For example, males
are involved to vastly differing degrees in nurturing and rearing children
from culture to culture; the extent to which and manner in which they 'beautify' themselves is also highly culture-dependent, as is their role in courtship
and in the sexual arena generally.
Componential analysts insist that the labels are language-neutral and
indeed that they could be replaced by arbitrary symbols (+*>,- !, + V etc.).
However, in practice, real words from natural languages are used (human,
male, adult etc.) which inevitably carry the particular cultural baggage of the
language communities with which they are associated. Moreover, because in
the binary system of values (+ or -) often adopted by componentialists just
one term is chosen to carry either value, componential analysis constantly
runs the risk of seeming to be sexist, ageist and indeed many other 'ists'.
How many women, for instance, are content to see the meaning of the word
woman being characterized as including the feature - MALE?
Lexis and meaning
77
A further frequent charge levelled at componential analysis is that it treats

meaning in too 'cut and dried' a manner, and that it cannot therefore deal
with contextual and metaphorical effects. For example, we know that there
are circumstances where the words boy and lad are frequently used for adult
males, in other words as synonyms of man. Thus, in the context of social
interaction in the dressing-room in the aftermath of a rugby match between
two teams of males of mature years the following sentences are entirely
equivalent:
Are we going for a pint, men?
Are we going for a pint, boys?
Are we going for a pint, lads?
How does an analysis of boy and la d as [+ HUMAN, + MALE, - ADULT] sit
with this? Similarly, the word girlfriend is applied by males and females alike
to female companions of any age from nine to ninety, which casts more than
a modicum of doubt on the analysis of girl as simply [+ HUMAN, - MALE,
-ADULT].
These and other points have not gone without response from those who
advocate a componentialist approach, although at least some componentialists are prepared to admit that componential analysis is not the whole story.
On the other hand, non-componentialists like Lyons are perfectly happy to
recognize that, because it is based on structural notions of sense, componential analysis is, 'at least in principle, fully compatible with [other approaches
to structural semantics]'.
5.5
Cognitive approaches to meaning
One version of the componential approach which appears to meet some of

the above criticisms is that which starts from the notion of prototypical
sense (otherwise labelled stereotypical, focal or nuclear). The notion of prototype arises from the work of psycholinguists and cognitive linguists - in
other words from research which is interested in how language relates to the
mind. According to advocates of prototype theory, on the basis of our experience of the world we construct in our minds 'ideal exemplars' of particular
categories of 'real world' phenomena with ideal sets of characteristics. These
'ideal exemplars' are the prototypes postulated by prototype theorists, who
suggest that when we come across further candidates for inclusion in the
same category, we judge them against the prototypes we have established.
However, the matching process is envisaged as flexible. There does not have
to be a complete match. Thus, for example, our prototype of a bird would
undoubtedly include features such as 'HAS WINGS', 'FLIES', but this would
not prevent us from recognizing a penguin as a bird, even though penguins
have flippers rather than wings and swim rather than fly.
78
Similarly, our prototype of chair would probably include the feature

'HAS FOUR LEGS', but that would not lead us to reject as chairs the kinds
of seats that have appeared in offices and around tables in modern times items with single tubular steel stems attached to wide, heavy bases. On the
other hand, in some instances it is unclear where a particular item fits in
terms of prototypical categories. For example, there are drinking vessels on
the market these days which are large and have no saucers - and to that
extent resemble the mug prototype, but which on the other hand have an elegantly curved cup-like shape - and to that extent resemble the cup prototype. In other words, prototypes have 'fuzzy' boundaries.
The prototypical view of lexical meaning obviously takes us away from
what Lyons calls a 'checklist theory of definition' which allows for
absolutely no indeterminacy of meaning. Clearly, prototype theory can cope
far better than classic 'checklist' componential analysis with the fact that - in
particular contexts - terms like boy and girl may be applied to adults and
that terms like beast, rat, shark, snake may be applied to human beings. On
the other hand, prototype theory is not without its drawbacks either. It
appears to relate more to a traditional denotational view of meaning than to
recent structuralist perspectives. In consequence, the prototypical approach
may be not be able to cope equally well with all types of words; words which
do not identify concrete 'real world' phenomena with observable characteristics - alas, albeit, become etc. - would seem to pose some problems in this
connection. In any case, prototype theory has very little to say about sense,
that important dimension of meaning - explored in 5.3 and also (in its collocational aspects) in Chapter 4 - which derives from relations holding
between lexical expressions.
Another approach to meaning which can be characterized as cognitive in
nature is that proposed by linguists working within the 'conceptual semantics' framework. Conceptual semantics, whose best-known proponent is
Ray Jackendoff, essentially says that semantic structure exactly coincides
with conceptual structure and that, therefore, any semantic analysis is also
an analysis of mental representations. Jackendoff claims that we human
beings come into the world equipped with (a) some very basic concepts
('primitives' - such as spatial concepts, concepts of time, even some social
concepts like possession and dominance) which are applicable to the interpretation and categorization of a whole variety of experiences, and (b) some
principles of concept-combination. Lexical meanings, on this view, are constructed on the basis of interaction among: our inborn conceptual primitives, our inborn concept-combining principles, our experience of the world
and our experience of language.
There are, therefore, according to conceptual semantics, limits on the
kinds of lexical meanings that we can generate - limits having to do with
'conceptual well-formedness' in terms of what kinds of combinations of
concepts our innate primitives and principles will permit. A further aspect of
the conceptual semantics perspective is that, because the process of meaning
Lexis and meaning
79
formation is combinatorial, lexical meanings so formed can necessarily be

analysed into the concepts out of which they were composed. However, the
kind of conceptual structure envisaged by Jackendoff goes far beyond the
listing of features with plus or minus signs attached; for example, he suggests
that lexical entries for physical object words include three-dimensional
model representations - basically the prototypical images posited by prototype theorists but with more structure.
Conceptual semantics has been criticized on the ground that there is not
sufficient hard evidence to support the view that linguistic meaning exactly
parallels conceptual structure. It is also claimed that linguistic meanings do
not actually reflect the fuzziness of concept structure. For instance, the
above-discussed semantic relation of complementarity (as in true:false)
operates as if truth and falsehood ruled each other out (as we saw in 5.3, X
is true entails and is entailed by X is not false:, and X is false entails and is
entailed by X is not true. The fact is, though, that 'in real life', as it were, we
can quite easily conceive of Xs that partake of both truth and falsehood.
Jackendoff's remark that 'People have things to talk about only by virtue of
having represented them' is difficult to argue with, but it is as yet unclear
precisely how close the relationship is between mental representation and
linguistic meaning.
Finally in the context of cognitive approaches to lexical meaning, it is
worth noting that a further development in the prototype concept in semantics is the idea that not only individual entities but also entire events may
have prototypical features. This is a notion born of script theory, according
to which we interpret experience via scripts - general prototypes of or templates for particular types of activity. For example, the prototypical scenario
for going on a train journey will include going to the railway station, buying
a ticket, standing on the station platform, boarding the train, finding a seat
and presenting one's ticket to the ticket inspector when he passes through
the train. According to script theory, event templates such as this allow us to
fill in any information gaps from what we know about the typical way in
which things happen. Related to and overlapping with the notion of script is
the notion of frame:, frames are conceived of as mental frameworks or plans
relating to specific domains of knowledge which assist us in dealing with relevant situations. A railway station frame, for instance, would include a
ticket office, a waiting room, a cafeteria, an arrivals and departures information board, a station master etc. Also connected with script theory and
the frame concept are schema-theoretic models of comprehension which are
based on the idea that comprehension always taps into one's knowledge of
the world as well as one's linguistic knowledge.
The relevance of scripts, frames and schemata for lexical semantics has at
least two aspects. On the one hand, scripts and frames provide a plausible
underpinning for at least some aspects of syntagmatic lexical relations. That
is to say, the fact that the same lexical expressions repeatedly recur in each
other's company is partly explicable in terms of the fact that the same kinds
so
of scenarios involving the same kinds of entities recur in the life of a particular culture and in the lives (including the mental lives) of those who participate in that culture. On the other hand, scripts, frames and schemata also
relate to paradigmatic aspects of meaning, and, in particular to the contextual dimension of such relations. For example, the noun stump in some contexts denotes the remnant of a cut or fallen tree and in other contexts
denotes one of the three uprights of the wicket defended by the batsman in
the game of cricket. Now, it so happens that in the contexts where stump has
the first of the above meanings the relevant prototypical frame ('in the
forest') centrally involves trees and does not involve at all the accoutrements
of cricket, while in contexts where stump has its 'wicket' sense the relevant
prototypical frame ('a game of cricket') involves a large open pitch where
trees have no place (except perhaps as peripheral background).
5.6 Summary
This chapter has been devoted to exploring some of the different ways in
which lexical meaning has been approached by linguists. The exploration in
question has covered the traditional, referential/denotational account of
word-meaning, has talked about Saussure's perspective and the lexical field
theory to which it gave rise, has defined and exemplified lexico-semantic
relations as they have been understood in recent decades by Lyons and
others, and has sketched out the componential analysis approach to explicating such relations. Mention has also been made of a number of 'cognitive'
perspectives on lexical meaning. It is clear from discussion in the chapter
that lexical meaning is no different from other aspects of language in being
in part a function of the network of interrelations between linguistic units. It
is also clear that such relations hold not only between words, but also
between words and multi-word lexical expressions and within pairs and
groups of multi-word expressions. This underlines the fact - already clear
from the discussion in earlier chapters - that the lexicon is not just an inventory of individual words but also covers a large variety of combinations of
words. Finally, it is noteworthy that a consideration of context is necessary
to the very definition of lexical sense-relations and that contextual influence
on meaning is a major issue in lexical semantics - which leads to the conclusion that orientation to context is fundamental to the way in which the
lexicon operates.

See 5.2. The diagram in 5.2 is based on the model proposed by C. Ogden
and I. Richards in their book The meaning of meaning (fourth edition,
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1936, 11). The objection that the
Lexis and meaning
si
Ogden and Richards model is 'atomistic' is voiced by, among others, S.

Ullmann in his Semantics: an introduction to the science of meaning
(Oxford: Blackwell, 1962, 63). The problems surrounding a view of
meaning which is purely based on reference or denotation have been discussed by philosophers for more than a century. The name usually mentioned in this connection is that of Gottlob Frege, and in particular his article
'Uber Sinn und Bedeutung' (Zeitschift fur Philosophic und philosophische
Kritik 100, 1892, 25-50). Frege's work is available in English translation in
P. Geach and M. Black's Translations from the philosophical writings of
Gottlob Frege (Oxford: Blackwell, 1952). The Morning Star/Evening Star
example is Frege's. The discussion of referential/denotational meaning in 4.2
was informed mostly by the work of J. Lyons - especially his Structural
semantics (Oxford: Blackwell, 1963, Chapter 4) and his Introduction to theoretical linguistics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968, Chapter
9). Other sources drawn on were R. Carter, Vocabulary (second edition,
London: Routledge, 1998, Chapter 1) and Stephen Ullmann, Semantics
(Oxford: Blackwell, 1962, Chapter 3).
See 5.3. The Lyons quotations at the beginning of 5.3 are taken from his
article 'Structuralism and linguistics' (in D. Robey (ed.), Structuralism: an
introduction, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973, 6). Ferdinand de Saussure's
Cours de linguistique generale (first published 1916) is available in a
modern critical edition prepared by Tullio de Mauro (Paris: Payot, 1973). It
is also available in English translation: Course in general linguistics, translated by W. Baskin with an introduction by J. Culler (Glasgow:
Fontana/Collins, 1974). The monetary analogy is to be found in Chapter IV
of the Second Part of the Cours. The words cited (and translated) from J.
Trier are from his book Der deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des
Verstandes. (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1931, 2). The colour example is borrowed from J. Lyons's Introduction to theoretical linguistics (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1968, 56-7). Leonard Bloomfield's comments
on meaning are taken from his book Language (New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, 1933, 139). The discussion of synonymy, hyponymy and the
various types of incompatibility is based very largely on the ideas of Lyons as
set out in his books: Structural semantics: an analysis of part of the vocabulary of Plato (Oxford: Blackwell, 1963), Introduction to theoretical linguistics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), Semantics (two
volumes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), Language,
meaning and context (London: Fontana, 1981), Linguistic semantics: an
introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). The principal
source for the treatment of meronymy is Chapter 7 of Cruse's Lexical
semantics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).
See 5.4. An example of componential analysis being put at the service of
anthropological linguistics is F. Wallace and J. Atkins's (1960) article 'The
meaning of kinship terms' (American Anthropologist 62, 58-80).
82
Examples of componential analysis partaking of a Chomskyan perspective

are J. Katz and J. Fodor's (1963) much cited article 'The structure of a
semantic theory' (Language 39, 170-210) and R. Jackendoff's Semantic
structures (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990). An example of a componentialist without a particular methodological or theoretical axe to grind is
G. Leech (see, for example his book Semantics: the study of meaning,
second edition, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1981). The critique of componential analysis in 5.4 draws on comments by D. Bolinger (1965) ('The
atomization of meaning', Language 41, 555-73); J. Lyons (Introduction
to theoretical linguistics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968,
470 ff.; Linguistic semantics: an introduction, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1995, 114 ff.) and J. Saeed (Semantics, Oxford:
Blackwell, 1997, 259 ff.). The Lyons quote which ends 5.4 is taken from p.
117 of his Linguistic semantics: an introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1995).
See 5.5. The sources for the discussion of prototype theory in 5.5 include: L.
Coleman and P. Kay (1981), 'Prototype semantics: the English word "lie"'
(Language 57,26-44); W. Labov, 'The boundaries of words and their meanings' (in J. Fishman (ed.), New ways of analyzing variation in English,
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1973). G. Lakoff, Women,
fire and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1987); S. Pulman, Word, meaning and belief
(London: Croom Helm, 1983); E. Rosch, 'Principles of categorization' (in
E. Rosch and B. Lloyd (eds), Cognition and categorization, Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum, 1978). The definition of prototype as 'ideal exemplar' is
borrowed from J. Aitchison's book Words in the mind: an introduction to
the mental lexicon (second edition, Oxford: Blackwell, 1994, 55). Lyons's
description of componential analysis as a 'checklist theory of definition' is
to be found on p. 99 of his book Linguistic semantics: an introduction
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). The criticisms of prototype theory sketched here draw on the discussion by A. Lehrer in his article
'Prototype theory and its implications for lexical analysis' (in S.
L.Tsohatzidis (ed.), Meanings and prototypes: studies in linguistics categorization, London: Routledge, 1990). The account of conceptual semantics is
largely based on the first four chapters of R. Jackendoff's book Languages
of the mind (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992) and on W. Fawley's discussion of the topic in his Linguistic semantics (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum, 1992, Chapter 2). The discussion of scripts, frames and schemas
draws on: R. Anderson, R. Reynolds, D. Schallert and E. Goetz (1977),
'Frameworks for comprehending discourse' (American Educational
Research Journal 14, 367-81); M. Minsky, 'A framework for representing
knowledge' (in P. Winston (ed.), The psychology of computer vision, New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1975); R. Schank and R. Abelson, Scripts, plans, goals
and understanding (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1977); R. Schank
and A. Kass, 'Knowledge representation in people and machines' (in U. Eco,
Lexis and meaning
83
M. Santambrogio and P. Violi (eds), Meaning and mental representations,

Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1988).
Accessible introductions to lexical semantics are provided by: Chapter 1 of
R. Carter's Vocabulary: applied linguistic perspectives (second edition,
London: Routledge, 1998), chapters 1-4 of J. Lyons's Language, meaning
and context (London: Fontana, 1981) and chapters 2-4 of the same author's
Linguistic semantics: an introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1995), chapters 1-7 of G. Leech's Semantics: the study of meaning
(second edition, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1981), and chapters 1-7 of E.
Hatch and C. Brown's Vocabulary, semantics and language education
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). With regard specifically to
'cognitive' approaches to lexical semantics the interested reader may also
care to consult J. Aitchison, Words in the mind: an introduction to the
mental lexicon (second edition, Oxford: Blackwell, 1994, especially chapters 4-8), and F. Ungerer and H. J. Schmid, An introduction to cognitive linguistics (London: Longman, 1996).

1. In the introductory section of the chapter it was claimed that changing
even a single word can make a radical difference to the meaning of a sentence or indeed a longer stretch of speech or writing. Try to think of five
pairs of sentences differing by a single word where the effect of the wordchanges in question is to transform the meanings of the sentences in a fundamental way.
2. We noted in 5.2 that two or more expressions with different senses can
identify the same object, person, place, attribute, action etc. in the real
world, one example being the way in which the expressions Morning Star
and Evening Star both refer to the planet Venus. Try to think of five
further examples of words or phrases with different senses being applied
to the same 'real world' phenomenon.
3. Section 5.3 defined and illustrated a number of sense-relations. Re-read
this section and then - avoiding the examples already given in the
section - try to supply the following: two pairs of synonyms, two pairs
of expressions linked to each other by the relation of hyponymysuperordinateness, two pairs of complementaries, two pairs of polar
antonyms, two pairs of converses, and two pairs of expressions linked
to each other by the relation of meronymy-holonymy. In each case illustrate the relations in question, taking the illustrative sentences in the
section as your model.
4. In 4.4 we saw some examples of the way in which componential analysts treat lexical meaning. Using these examples as your guide, suggest
84a
a possible componential analysis of the meanings of the following sets

of words:
bitch: dog: puppy
duck: drake: duckling
ewe: ram: lamb
goose: gander: gosling
mare: stallion: foal
Indicate any problems you perceive in relation to the analysis you
arrive at.
5. In 5.5 we saw some examples of items which were less close to the 'ideal
exemplar' of their category than certain other items (e.g. penguin in relation to bird). For each of the following categories specify one member of
the category in question which is close to the 'ideal exemplar' and one
member which is less close. Give reasons for your proposals.
country
(France, Germany, Spain etc.)
fruit
(apple, pear, orange etc.)
garment
(blouse, jacket, sweater etc.)
mammal
(bear, cow, panda etc.)
tree
(ash, elm, oak etc.)
6
Lexis, phonology and
orthography
6.1
Lexis and 'levels of articulation'
In our discussion so far we have been concentrating mostly on what the

French linguist Martinet calls the primary level of articulation, the level of
language at which meaningful units (morphemes, words etc.) combine into
larger meaningful units (phrases, sentences etc.). It is clear that what
happens at this level is very largely determined by lexical choice. It would be
fairly natural to speculate that things might be rather different at the secondary level of articulation - the level at which meaning/ess units (in speech,
minimal phonemes; in alphabetic writing, individual letters) combine to
form meaningful units (inflections, affixes, words etc.).
However, as we shall see, there is enough evidence of interaction between
lexis and phonology on the one hand and lexis and orthography on the other
to rule out any idea that sound-systems and writing systems are partitioned
off from the lexical domain. One self-evident sense in which lexis and the
secondary level of articulation interact relates to the fact that the choice of
any given lexical unit determines the particular combination of phonological
or orthographical units that is deployed. A less obvious - and for that reason
more interesting - dimension to the issue is the question of whether the
phonological or orthographic realization of specific words draws on
semantic and grammatical information about the word concerned which the
lexicon has to supply and whether individual lexical items or categories of
items have specific sounds or symbols associated with them.
6.2
Phonemes, stresses and tones
Let us begin with that aspect of the interaction between the lexicon and
phonology which is labelled above as 'self-evident'. Given that knowledge of
a lexical expression typically includes knowledge of how that expression is
86
pronounced, we have to assume that an entry in the lexicon contains information about the sounds out of which the item in question is composed just as entries in dictionaries may contain 'phonetic' transcriptions. The
sound components of a lexical unit include: (i) the relevant sequence of individual sound segments, (ii) (in languages such as English) the pattern of
stress-distribution in the unit in question, and (iii) (in languages such as
Chinese and Thai) the specific pitch or tone characteristic of the expression
concerned when used in a particular sense.
With regard to individual sound segments, we saw in Chapter 1 that some
differences between sounds were critical in differentiating between words and
that some were not. We noted that distinctions that are critical in this way are
labelled phonemic, and that the sound units which are, as it were, kept apart
by such distinctions are called phonemes. Phonemes can thus be looked upon
as collections of distinctive features. Examples of such features are:
plosiveness: whether or not air is completely blocked before being
released in the production of a sound - as in /p/- or not - as in /f/;
labiality: whether the lips are involved in the production of a sound - as
in /p/ - or not - as in /k/;
nasality: whether air passes through the nose in the production of a sound
- as in /n/ - or not - as in /d/;
voice: whether the vocal cords are in vibration in the production of a
sound - as in /z/ - or not - as in /s/;
frontnesslbackness/centrality: whether the tongue is positioned towards
the front of the mouth in the production of a vowel - as in /i/ (the vowel
sound in lid), towards the back - as in /u: / (the vowel sound in boot), or
centrally - as in /A/ (the vowel sound in but);
highnessllowness/midness (whether the tongue is high in the mouth in the
production of a vowel - as in /i/, low in the mouth - as in /a:/ (the vowel
sound in the standard British English pronunciation of bath), or in a mid
position - as in /e/ (the vowel sound in bet).
Correspondingly, the phonological dimension of each lexical entry can be
conceived of as an array or matrix of distinctive features as well as a
sequence of phonemes. Thus, a simplified version of the matrix for pin might
be represented as follows:
/p/
/I/
/n/
Plosive
Labial
Nasal
Voiced
Front/back/central
Front
High/low/mid
High
Lexis, phonology and orthography
87
Turning now to the question of stress patterns, in many languages,

including English, the ways in which stresses are distributed are important in
differentiating between words. For example there are a number of pairs of
nouns and verbs in English where grammatical category is signalled partly
by stress distribution. Thus:
Student numbers are continuing to decrease [VERB].
There has been a continuing decrease [NOUN] in student numbers.
He's going to record [VERB] a new single.
He's going to make a new record [NOUN].
In Europe we no longer implant [VERB] growth-promoting substances
in cattle.
The growth-promoting implant [NOUN] is no longer used in Europe.
In some instances, stress distribution is a factor in distinguishing between
distinct meanings of similar sequences of sounds. For example, the word
process, when used as a verb, means something like 'to treat', 'to work on' as in:
The new information had to be processed very rapidly by the research
team.
When the stress in process is shifted to the second syllable, however, the verb
means 'to walk in procession' - as in:
The bishop, the priests, the acolytes and the choir processed solemnly
up the aisle.
Not dissimilar is the case of the adjective contrary. When stressed on its first
syllable, this form means 'opposed', 'opposite' - as in:
This idea is contrary to good sense.
When stressed on its second syllable, on the other hand, it means 'selfwilled', 'perverse', 'cantankerous' - as in the nursery rhyme:
Mary, Mary, quite contrary.
How does your garden grow?
With silver bells and cockle shells
And pretty maids all in a row.
With regard to tone, in a number of languages of Asia - such as Chinese,
Thai and Burmese, as well as in many African and Native American languages, the pitch at which a particular sequence of sounds is uttered and/or
the direction of the pitch (rising or falling) will determine what is understood
by the sound-sequence in question. For instance in Thai, the sequence /kao/
means 'he' or 'she' if spoken with a high or rising tone, 'rice' if spoken with
88
a falling tone, 'white' if spoken with a low tone, and 'news' if spoken with a
mid-tone. Similarly with the sequence /naa/, which means 'young maternal
uncle or aunt' if spoken with a high tone, 'thick' if spoken with a rising tone,
'face' if spoken with a falling tone, 'nickname' if spoken with a low tone,
and 'rice paddy' if spoken with a mid-tone.
6.3
Lexical phonology as a reflection of lexical

grammar and lexical meaning
We have already seen that there is a connection between the way in which a
particular form is pronounced and its grammatical category. In other words,
there is in some cases a relationship between the grammatical category
assigned to a given entry in the lexicon and the manner in which it is stressed.
On the other hand, this kind of variation in stress placement, according to
whether a noun or a verb is involved, is not systematic. In other cases the
main stress remains in the same place irrespective of grammatical category,
for example: delay [VERB]; delay [NOUN]; offer [VERB]; offer [NOUN]; repeat
[VERB]; repeat [NOUN]. What this means is that the lexicon has to specify
which nouns and verbs follow the record: record pattern and which do not,
and that the pronunciation of a particular word will need to be based on this
information as well as information about grammatical category.
As for the question of the relationship between lexical phonology and
meaning, one obvious set of circumstances in which this relationship can be
seen to exist is any situation where onomatopoeia is involved. In such
instances part of the meaning conveyed by the word is the sound made by
the entity or activity to which the word is applied - buzz, crackle, cuckoo,
plop, tinkle etc. In other words, in cases such as these the particular phonological shapes involved are determined in large measure by the meanings
they are intended to convey. It is worth emphasizing, perhaps, that the
phrase 'in large measure' is very deliberately chosen here. There is no question of the forms of onomatopoeic words being completely determined by
the sounds they imitate; the conventions of the particular language in which
an onomatopoeic form occurs also play a role. This is even true of words
that are used to represent animal noises. For instance, in English, the sound
made by a crowing cock is represented as cock-a-doodle-doo. Not so in
other languages, as the following examples indicate.
German
kikeriki
Japanese
kokekokou
Persian
gogoligogo
Spanish
quiquiriqui
Thai
ek-i-ek-ek
89
Nevertheless, the relationship between the phonological forms of onomatopoeic words and their meanings is clear and indisputable.
Somewhat more subtle demonstrations of a relationship between
meaning and specific sounds are instances where particular combinations of
sounds are avoided because they are associated with taboo words. For
example, in Luganda, the /nj/ combination (which corresponds roughly to
the combination of sounds in the middle of the English word onion / I Anjan/) occurs in taboo items like /kunja/ 'defecate' and /kinjo/ 'anus'.
Because of its association with such words, it tends to be replaced in other
items by /rj/ (which corresponds to the ng sound in English sing). Thus
/kanja:la/ ('immature banana') and /munjorngo/ ('miserable') tend to be pronounced as /karjarla/ and /murjo:ngo/ respectively.
To return briefly to the question of interaction among grammar, the lexicon
and phonology, it is interesting to note that there is a whole theoretical
approach to phonology - known as Lexical Phonology - which is based on a
recognition of this interaction. In this conception of phonology, phonological
processes are seen as operating together with word-formation rules in a cyclic
fashion in such a way as to specify the lexical items in a language. Affixes are
seen as being divided into different subsets (called levels or strata], to which
different word-formation rules apply, these word-formation rules correlating
with different phonological rules.
6.4 Association between particular sounds

and particular (categories of) lexical items
Let us now consider the notion that particular sounds in a language may be
closely, even exclusively, associated with particular words or categories of
words. A revealing case to examine in this connection is that of the /rj/ sound
in Modern Standard French (the sound corresponding to ng in English sing).
This sound, which features in the pronunciation of words like vin and pain
in many non-standard varieties of French spoken in Southern France, is an
innovation in the more prestigious varieties of the language - the French of
educated speakers in Paris, Brussels, Geneva etc. It was brought into these
latter varieties via loanwords from English - especially words ending in the
morpheme -ing. When such words first came into Standard French their -ing
ending was pronounced by most people using phonemes from the Standard
French repertoire. Thus -ing was pronounced as the nasal vowel /e/ (which
normally corresponds to the spelling in in Standard French), as /in/ (which
normally corresponds to the spelling ine in Standard French) or as /iji/
(which normally corresponds to the spelling igne in Standard French). In
more recent times, however, -ing words like parking, casting, lifting etc. have
increasingly been pronounced using an /rj/ sound.
The interesting point about /rj/ in the present context is that, although the
distinction between this sound and other sounds is phonemic (differenti-
90
ating, for example, shopping ('shopping') from chopine ('bottle [of wine]'),
it occurs in a very limited set of words. Moreover, the words in question are
rather difficult to place under a common heading. It certainly is not the case
that /rj/ is systematically associated with the spelling ing. In many words ing
simply indicates the presence of a nasal vowel (coing = /kwe/ - 'quince';
poing - /pwe/ - 'fist' etc.). Nor can one even say that the /rj/ phoneme is systematically associated with English loanwords ending in -ing-, for instance,
the -ing in the loan-word shampooing is pronounced not as /rj/ but rather as
the same nasal vowel as in coing, i.e. It I. In any case, many of the -ing words
in French pronounced with final /rj/ are not so much loans as new coinages,
for example footing meaning 'jogging', lifting in the sense of 'face lift'. To
sum up, there is a phoneme in Modern Standard French which is exclusively
associated with a small and rather ill-defined assortment of lexical items and
whose occurrence is, therefore, entirely dependent on the selection of one of
these words.
In the above case the particular sound discussed can be seen as the result
of language contact. However, lexically determined aspects of phonology
are not necessarily connected to the borrowing of sounds. The process
known as lexical diffusion may or may not involve cross-linguistic influence,
but what it always does involve is an association between specific sets of
lexical items and the sounds that are likely to occur. Lexical diffusion is a
phenomenon that has been observed by linguists tracking phonological
changes over time in particular languages and dialects. It refers to the fact
that such changes develop gradually - affecting different portions of the
vocabulary as they progress.
It used to be thought that changes in sound-systems operated simultaneously across the board according to laws that admitted no exceptions, the
same sound in the same environment always developing in precisely the
same way. It now appears that this view of sound change was fundamentally
mistaken. The current indications are that when a sound change gets under
way it spreads on a word-by-word basis through the lexicon, so that
whether or not the new sound is likely to occur is dependent not on the
general phonetic/phonological environment but on specific lexical selection.
A good illustration of such lexical diffusion comes from data on Belfast
English collected in the 1970s. From these data it emerges that there is a
sound shift in process in Belfast English from [] (which is fairly close to the
French u sound or the German u sound) to [A] (which is the u sound in
Standard British English pronunciations of words like but and cut}.
However, the [A] innovation is affecting different lexical items to varying
degrees. Thus, the word pull, for instance, was pronounced [PA!] in the data
in question in about three-quarters of its occurrences, whereas the word
look attracted the pronunciation [Uk] in only about a quarter of its occurrences. In other words, whether or not [A] occurs is closely related to the
selection and deployment of specific lexical items.
6.5
91
Lexis and orthography
Much the same kind of situation applies in relation to the lexis/orthography interface as has been described in respect of lexis and phonology.
That is to say, it is obvious that lexical selection determines the particular
sequence of letters (in an alphabetic system), the character (in a logographic system) etc., that is deployed; it is also true to say that orthographic representations draw on lexicosemantic and lexicogrammatical
information; and it is in addition the case that certain aspects of a writing
system may be particularly, or even exclusively, associated with a specific
set of lexical items.
Writing systems vary enormously around the world, and have varied
enormously through history. This book is written using an alphabetic
system, where there is a clear relationship between written signs and the
sounds of the words represented by those signs. For example, in the following written versions of English words, each letter represents a different
phoneme occurring in the words in question:
den
/den/
men
/men/
ten
/ten/
English, in common with all western European (and numerous other) languages, uses Roman script, which, as its name implies, was developed by the
Romans, and was the form in which Latin was written. The Roman alphabet
was based on the Greek alphabet, which exhibits the same basic principle of
clear correspondence between written signs and individual sounds - as the
following examples from Modern Greek demonstrate:
vcc
/na/
'that', 'in order to'
oa
/sa/
'when', 'as soon as' (= oocv)
TOC
/ta/
definite article (neuter nominative/accusative plural)
Also based on the Greek alphabet, and on the same principle of correspondence between letters and phonemes, is the Cyrillic alphabet, in which many
Slavic languages, such as Russian, Bulgarian and Serbian, are written.
As is well-known, there is a fair amount of variation in alphabetic systems
in relation to the precise degree of consistency of correspondence between
letters and sounds. In a language like Spanish or Finnish, the level of consistency is very high indeed. That is to say, in these systems it is more often than
not the case that for any given sequence of phonemes there is only one possible spelling and that for any given sequence of letters there is only one possible pronunciation. Compare this with the situation in English, Modern
Greek or French, where the relationship between sounds and letters is a
good deal more fluid. In English, for example, the vowel sound /i:/ can be
92
written as e (as in be), ee (as in bee), ea (as in bean), ie (as in brief), ei (as in
receive), ey (as in key), i (as in ravine), even ae (as in encyclopaedia).
An earlier version of the alphabetic approach was the system used to
transcribe Semitic languages, starting with Phoenician. Semitic languages,
represented in the modern world by Arabic and Modern Hebrew, have the
characteristic of showing morphological contrasts (for verb tense etc.)
through the alternation of vowels within the word rather than by the addition of endings. We have this to some extent in English too, for example
run-ran, sing-sang, write-wrote; however, in the Semitic languages this
type of grammatical patterning operates throughout. What this means is
that the basic form of any given word is its 'consonantal shell' - the counterpart of English s-ng in the sing-sang case - and that the vowels are, as it
were, supplied by the grammatical context. Probably for this reason, the
Phoenician alphabet represented consonants only, the vowel sounds being
left for readers to work out for themselves. Hebrew and Arabic were also
originally written in the same way, with only consonants being represented, and, indeed, writing Hebrew and Arabic in this way remains an
option even today. However, in the case of both languages, the writing
systems have with the passage of time developed ways of indicating vowel
sounds.
The original Phoenician alphabet was the source of the Greek alphabet;
what the Greeks did was to 're-cycle' consonantal signs that they did not
require as vowel signs. Thus, for example, the Phoenician sign for a glottal
stop (which involves holding air by totally closing the vocal cords and then
releasing it) was <. Since this particular consonant was not a phoneme of
Ancient Greek, it could be borrowed to represent the vowel /a/, and so it
was that, with some minor adjustments, it became the Greek letter alpha A a- and subsequently found its way - in much the same form and with
much the same value - into both the Roman alphabet and the Cyrillic
alphabet.
An alternative to the alphabetic approach to representing the sounds of
words in written form is to take the syllable rather than the individual
phoneme as the basis of the system. Systems which take this approach known as syllabaries - include the Japanese kana script, the script used by
the Cherokees, and the script invented by the Minoan Greeks - called Linear
B by archaeologists - long before the development of the Greek alphabet. As
far as Japanese is concerned, the kana script is used in two forms, hiragana
and katakana, to represent, respectively, on the one hand, particles, verbinflections etc. and, on the other, words borrowed from Western languages
such as English. However, this is only part of the story; non-Western content
words (nouns, verbs etc.) are represented in Japanese using a totally different
system - a system based on Chinese characters (kanji), which takes meanings
rather than sounds as its starting point.
The most extreme version of this last-mentioned kind of system is that in
which the objects, animals etc. referred to in writing are represented pictorially.
93
This takes us right back to the origins of writing in human history. Thus, the
earliest-known form of writing was associated with the Sumerian culture of
Mesopotamia, the area between the rivers Tigris and Euphrates stretching from
the Persian Gulf towards modern-day Baghdad. The Sumerians wrote on clay
tablets, and the first written signs they used were in effect simplified drawings.
For example, the sign for 'cow' was a simplified representation of a bovine
head, the sign for 'bird' was a simplified representation of the neck and body of
a bird, and the sign for 'woman' was a simplified representation of a vulva
(Figure 6.1):
Figure 6.1 The earliest-known form of writing associated with the Sumerian culture
of Mesopotamia.
As Sumerian writing developed, such pictorial representations, or pictograms, became progressively stylized - literally, because the changes can
largely be ascribed to the particularities of the stylus used to make them. The
scribes of the time wrote on wet clay using a reed which had had one of its
ends cut into a triangular shape. Accordingly, the impressions made in the
soft clay tended to be wedge-shaped or cuneiform (< Latin cuneus =
'wedge'), and these triangular shapes were increasingly used to form the
signs based on the earlier drawings. So it was that the sign for 'cow' was first
turned on its side and eventually took on a form which was very far indeed
from the original representational pictogram (Figure 6.2):
Figure 6.2 Stylization of pictograms.
Through the combination of pictograms it became possible to express concepts other than those covered by the original basic repertoire of simplified
drawings. Thus by combining the pictogram for 'woman' with that representing 'mountains' it became possible to express in writing the notion of
'woman from beyond the mountains' = 'foreign woman' = 'female slave'
(Figure 6.3):
94
Figure 6.3 Expression of concepts through combination of pictograms.
Since in such cases the signs no longer simply or directly reflect the visual
appearance of the entity represented, but can be thought of rather as representing ideas, they are often referred to as ideograms. To the extent that this
kind of sign represents an idea encapsulated in a single word, it can also be
seen as a logogram (< Greek Adyo- logos - 'word').
Other pictographic systems underwent similar evolutions. For instance,
in the Chinese writing system the notion of 'sheep' was initially represented
in writing by a simplified drawing of ram's horns. Later developments of this
character rendered it increasingly less representational (Figure 6.4):
Figure 6.4 Evolution of the Chinese character for 'sheep'.
On the other hand, some Chinese characters retain some of the representational nature of their original forms, as the historical development of the
character for 'tree' illustrates (Figure 6.5):
Figure 6.5 Retention of the representational nature of the original form: Chinese
character for 'tree'.
As well as undergoing changes in form, some pictographic systems also

underwent developments in terms of what the signs stood for. Thus, the
Sumerian cuneiform system sometimes used signs for a particular meaning
to represent the syllable corresponding to the word in question, and indeed
95
sometimes used the sign for a particular meaning to represent a word

sounding the same as the word associated with the original meaning. For
example, the pictogram for 'arrow' - for which the Sumerian word was ti was also used to represent 'life' - for which the word was also ti.
To return to the case of Sumerian, it is clear from the above that the way
in which the Sumerian writing system came to be used contained the seeds of
a sound-based system. These seeds germinated when the Sumerian system
was used to transcribe other languages in the region. For instance, the
Akkadians (ancestors of the Arabs and Hebrews) used Sumerian signs to
represent both the syllables for which they stood in Sumerian and the meanings associated with the original Sumerian words. Thus, in the Akkadian
system the Sumerian sign for 'sky'/'heaven' - in Sumerian an - was used both
to represent the syllable /an/ and the Akkadian word for 'sky'/'heaven' shamu. (The use of pictures or symbols representing words with particular
sound shapes to stand for words with similar sound shapes - sometimes
labelled the rebus principle is familiar to us in the modern world from
wordgames, riddles, jokes and advertising.) In further developments, the
Sumerian writing system actually became the basis for an alphabet. Thus,
cuneiform script was used to transcribe a Semitic language spoken in ancient
Syria - almost certainly proto-Phoenician - and in this case signs which in
Akkadian had represented syllables were used to represent single consonants. For example, the sign which in Akkadian had stood for the syllable
/pa/ was used to represent /p/.
The Egyptian writing system underwent a similar kind of development. In
this case the hieroglyphs (< Greek 'lepoq- hieros - 'holy', ykvtyeiv-gluphein
- 'to engrave') familiar to us from pictures of Egyptian tombs were originally
pictograms. In hieroglyphic writing - and in the simpler writing systems based
on it which were used for writing on papyrus - a sign representing an entity
associated with a particular word often also came to be used to represent a
word with a similar sound-shape - as in the Sumerian system. For example the
sign for 'scarab', for which the Ancient Egyptian word was kheper (the initial
kh being pronounced as /x/ - the ch sound in the Scottish-English word loch,
German Dach etc), was in addition used to represent 'become', the word for
which was also kheper. Moreover, particular signs were also deployed to represent the sounds of the 'consonantal shell' of the words with the meanings of
which they were originally associated. Thus the hieroglyph for 'scarab' also
more generally represented the 'consonantal shell' /xpr/. Where only one consonant was involved in a word for which the corresponding sign was used in
this way, the signs in question effectively functioned in this particular role as
'letters' standing for individual consonants. For example, the hieroglyph for
'seat' - D - was also used to represent the sound /p/.
Whether a writing system is sound-based or meaning-based - or indeed a
mixture of the two - the written signs which constitute the system obviously
need to be distinct from each other. Thus in the Roman alphabet, for
instance, the letter t is distinguished from the letter / by the horizontal stroke
96
through its upper part, and d is distinguished from / by the c shape attached
to its bottom-left side. Similarly, the Egyptian hieroglyph D ('seat', /p/) is distinguished from CH> ('mouth', /r/) by shape, and from ('grill', /x/) by
shape and by the absence/presence of shading. Because written signs are contrastive units in written language in much the same way as phonemes are in
speech, they are sometimes referred to as graphemes (< Greek jpa^c\ graphs - 'writing'). Moreover, just as phonemes have allophones, so
graphemes can be thought of as having allographs; that is to say, each
written sign may be realized in a variety of ways. Thus, for example, A, a
and a are all variant forms of the same letter.
We have seen that in alphabetic systems the correspondences between
graphemes and phonemes can sometimes be quite variable, even within the
same language. Examples have already been given from English, Modern
Greek and French. A further - indeed the classic example - from English of
variation in grapheme-phoneme correspondence is the case of the combination of the letters o, u, g and h. This may correspond to /Af/ (as in rough), /of/
(as in cough), hu/ (as in though), /o:/ (as in thought) or /ox/ (as in Irish-English
lough). Likewise, grapheme-meaning correspondences can vary. For example
the Sumerian sign > ^corresponds not only to 'sky'/'heaven' (an), but also to
'god' (dingir). We have also seen that signs may stand both for sounds and for
meanings. With regard to alphabetic systems, it has sometimes been claimed
that variation in grapheme-phoneme correspondences can be of assistance in
distinguishing between homophones. It is noted that, thanks to a certain
looseness of fit between graphemes and phonemes in French, for example, it is
possible to distinguish orthographically between identically pronounced pairs
such as the adjectives sur ('sure') and sur ('sour'), the plural nouns maux
('evils') and mots ('words') and the verbs pecker ('to sin') and pecher ('to fish').
Unfortunately for this particular line of argument, French, in common with
English, goes only a rather limited distance along this road. For instance, it
does not distinguish between the identically pronounced pairs sur ('sour') and
sur ('on') or pecher ('to fish') and pecher ('peach-tree'). Moreover, there are
cases in French of homographs, i.e. identically spelt items - which are in fact
differently pronounced. Thus fils meaning 'threads' is pronounced /fil/, while
fils meaning 'son' or 'sons' is pronounced /fis/.
As well as signs standing for phonemes and syllables and signs standing
for meanings, writing systems may also contain signs indicating how words
are stressed. For example, in Modern Greek, every word containing more
than one syllable has a diacritic symbol (') over the syllable bearing the main
word stress. Thus:
0opa
/fo'ra/
'time'
onin
Aspiti/
'house'
rp&Tteâ
Atrapeza/
'bank'
It is, then, perfectly possible for written forms of languages to incorporate

information about word stress in what appears on the page. As it happens,
97
the written conventions of different languages vary in the extent to which

they make use of this possibility. The written form of English, for instance,
provides absolutely no information about stress distribution. Similarly with
the transcription of tone. The writing systems of some tone languages - such
as the Thai system - indicate the tone associated with a particular lexical
item, whereas others do not.
6.6
Orthography as a reflection of lexical grammar

and lexical meaning
Just as the pronunciation of particular words may draw on information

about their grammatical characteristics and about their meaning, so too may
the way in which they are written. With regard to grammar, one very clear
demonstration of the influence of a word's grammatical profile on its
spelling is the way in which all nouns are written with initial capital letters in
German. Thus, in the following sentence, apart from the first word (wir =
'we') - capitalized simply because it begins the sentence - all capitalized
items are nouns:
Wir finden das Essen und das Bier besonders gut in dieser Kneipe.
('We find the food and the beer especially good in this pub.')
It is worth noting that capitalization is not triggered simply by the form of
the word. Thus, for example, the form e-s-s-e-n, which here means 'food',
can also be used as a verb, meaning 'to eat' (as in Sollen wir essen? - 'Shall
we eat?'). In the latter circumstances, the word is not capitalized.
In English (and in many other languages) capitalization in the spelling of
nouns is restricted to the subcategory of proper nouns, that is to nouns
which identify very specific persons, places, ideas etc. in any particular
context. For example, Beethoven, Paris and Islam are all proper nouns.
However, once again, capitalization is not triggered simply by the form of
the word. For instance, the word Ulster may be used as a proper noun to
refer to the nine northernmost counties of Ireland or, more loosely, to refer
to Northern Ireland, which extends over six of the counties in question.
However ulster may also be used as a common noun to refer to an entire
class of entities, i.e. long loose overcoats of coarse cloth. Thus:
The ancient province of Ulster is the setting for many of Ireland's bestknown legends.
The stranger was wearing a dark ulster, which flapped in the wind as
he walked.
As far as the relationship between the lexicon and meaning is concerned,
this has already been dealt with in the discussion of different types of writing
system in the last section. We saw there that some writing systems (for
98
example the Sumerian and the Ancient Egyptian systems) actually began as
attempts to represent the entities referred to in pictorial form. However,
from the way in which these systems subsequently developed - with, for
example, particular signs sometimes being used to represent words with
sound-shapes similar to those of the words associated with the original
meanings represented - it is clear that the meanings on which such pictographic systems were based were essentially word-meanings. It is for this
reason that such systems are often described as logographic.
An example of a modern logographic system is that used in association
with Chinese. As we saw earlier, the Chinese system also began life as a
straightforwardly pictographic system, but the characters gradually lost
contact with their original pictorial role. It should be noted that the situation
in Chinese is actually a little more complicated than one in which an
individual word is always represented by an individual character. For instance,
the characterûsed alone stands for mu ('tree'); doubled (^ ^) it stands for lin
('wood', 'small forest'); and tripled (^^) for sen ('large forest', 'numerous',
'dark'). Also, as in Sumerian and Ancient Egyptian, certain characters may be
combined with others in order to indicate phonetic characteristics of the word
represented. These and other considerations have led some linguists to question
whether the Chinese system is truly logographic - some scholars continuing to
assert that it is essentially pictographic, others that it is a system which primarily
represents syllables or morphemes rather than word-meanings. However,
whichever line one wants to take on the terminology which most succinctly captures the most salient characteristics of the Chinese system, it is clear that at
least part of what determines the forms of the characters deployed is the wordmeanings to which they relate. Thus, for example, the sequence /nan/ can mean
'difficult', 'south' or 'male', and each of these meanings is differently represented in the shape of the character used for /nan/.
In alphabetic writing systems, too, there is often a relationship between what
a word means and how it is spelt. In the previous section we looked at some
examples of French homophones whose spelling varied in accordance with their
meaning. Some further examples - from English - of identically pronounced
items with different spellings depending on their different meanings are:
beat:beet
grate:great
sole:soul
As we also saw, this kind of differentiation of homophones by spelling is not
universal. For instance, the following pairs of English words are identical in
both pronunciation and spelling, even though their meanings are completely
unrelated:
cope (applied to priest's vestment):
cope (= manage]
pen (applied to enclosure for, e.g. sheep):
pen (applied to writing

implement)
99
However, there are enough orthographically differentiated homophones

around in languages such as English and French to demonstrate that in at
least some alphabetic systems word meaning can play an important role in
the determination of orthographic form.
6.7 Association between particular written signs

and particular (categories of) lexical items
As is the case of the relationship between sounds and lexis, one can often
point to particular written signs which are linked with particular lexical
items or categories of lexical items. An obvious demonstration of this phenomenon is provided by logographic systems, such as those discussed earlier,
where specific written characters are associated with specific words - or sets
of words. However, there are also instances of particular signs being associated with particular words or types of words in syllabaries and alphabetic
systems.
With regard to syllabaries, a rather dramatic example of specific signs
being associated with specific sets or types of words comes from Japanese.
It was mentioned earlier - in 6.5 - that the Japanese kana syllabary script,
has two forms. On the one hand, there is the 'normal' form - hiragana used for Japanese particles, verb-inflections etc., but, on the other hand,
there is a version of kana katakana - which is specifically and exclusively
used to represent words borrowed from Western languages such as
English. That is to say, in the Japanese system a particular category of
words - loanwords from Western languages - has an entire script all of its
own dedicated to it.
As far as alphabetic systems are concerned, a case of a particular letter
being associated with a particular type of word is that of the letter c in
German when it is used outside the clusters ck and ch and outside proper
names such as Celle and Claus. When it is used alone in common nouns,
verbs, adjectives and adverbs, c is exclusively associated with foreign borrowings. Some examples of borrowed expressions in which c is used are:
Comeback, Comics, Cornflakes. As foreign words become increasingly integrated into German, both their written form and their pronunciation are
Germanized, c being written as k or z depending on whether it is to be pronounced as /k/ or as /ts/. Thus what was originally written as Copie is now
written as Kopie, and what was originally written as Penicillin is now
written as Penizillin. Other examples are: Spectrum > Spektrum, Centrum
> Zentrum, Accusativ > Akkusativ. Where c is retained or reverted to in
the spelling of such words, this is often a deliberate act on the part of advertisers who thus seek to give a product or an event foreign chic or exotic connotations. One notes, for example, that cigarette advertisements sometimes
contain the spelling Cigaretten rather than Zigaretten, and circus posters
frequently prefer Circus to Zirkus. Clearly, such an advertising ploy would
ioo
not be possible were it not the case that c is associated with a particular type
of lexical item - namely foreign words.
A further point worth noting is the way in which grapheme-phoneme
correspondences are, at least in some languages, highly dependent on the
particular lexical item in which particular letter-combinations occur. For
example, mention was made earlier of the combination ough in English.
Now, it so happens that there is just one word in English in which this
sequence of letters is pronounced as /DX/, namely lough. Lough is a word
used for 'lake', with particular reference to lakes in Ireland. (It is derived
from the Gaelic word loch, which exists in both Irish Gaelic and Scots
Gaelic.)
6.8
Summary
This chapter has concerned itself with evidence of interaction between the
lexicon and phonological and orthographic systems. With regard to
phonology, it pointed to the rather obvious fact that the choice of a lexical
item determines the particular sound-shape, the particular combination of
phonological units - phonemes, allophone, stressed and unstressed syllables,
and (in languages like Thai) tones - that is deployed. It also looked at evidence in favour of the notions that phonological realizations of lexical items
are informed by grammatical and semantic considerations and that individual lexical items or groups of items may have particular sounds associated with them. In relation to orthography, the chapter noted that lexical
choice determines orthographic shape no less than it determines phonological shape. The chapter also set out evidence showing that, again as in the
case of phonology, on the one hand, orthographic realizations draw on
grammatical and semantic information, and, on the other, certain features of
a writing system, and/or particular grapheme-phoneme correspondences,
are often associated with a specific set or category of lexical items.

See 6.1. The notion of double articulation referred to is discussed in A.
Martinet's articles 'La double articulation linguistique' (Travaux du Cercle
Linguistique de Copenhague 5, 1949, 30-7) and 'Arbitraire linguistique et
double articulation' (Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 15, 1957, 105-16).
See 6.2. The discussion in 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 owes some of its inspiration to F.
Katamba's treatment of the topics in question in his book An introduction to
phonology (London: Longman, 1989). The first of the Thai examples in 6.2
was provided by Jennifer Pariseau; the second was taken from V. Fromkin
and R.Rodman, An introduction to language (sixth edition, New York:
Harcourt Brace, 1998, 241).
101
See 6.3. The examples in 6.3 of the different ways in which the cockcrow is
designated in different languages are borrowed from V. Cook's Inside language (London: Arnold, 1997, 53). The examples from Luganda are to be
found on p. 256 of F. Katamba's An introduction to phonology. Lexical
Phonology is the brainchild of P. Kiparsky - see, e.g. his articles 'Lexical
phonology and morphology' (in I. S. Yang (ed.), Linguistics in the morning
calm, Seoul: Hanshin, 1982) and 'Some consequences of lexical phonology'
(Phonology Yearbook 2, 83-138). Other treatments of the topic include K.
P. Monahan's book The theory of lexical phonology (Dordrecht: D. Reidel
Publishing, 1986) and M. Kenstowicz's chapter 'Lexical Phonology' in his
volume Phonology in generative grammar (Oxford: Blackwell).
See 6.4. The discussion of the /rj/ phoneme in French broadly follows what I
had to say on the matter in my little volume French: some historical background (Dublin: Authentik, 1992, 49f.). The notion of lexical diffusion
derives from the work of W. Wang - e.g. W. Wang, 'Competing changes as a
cause of residue' (Language 45,1969, 9-25); M. Chen and W. Wang, 'Sound
change: actuation and implementation' (Language 51, 1975, 255-81); it is
discussed by, among others, J. Aitchison, in her book Language change:
progress or decay? (London: Fontana, 1981, 95), R. Hudson, in his book
Sociolinguistics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980, 168ff.) and
S. Romaine, in her book Socio-historical linguistics: its status and methodology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982, 254ff.). The Belfast
data are discussed in articles by R. Maclaran ('The variable (A): a relic form
with social correlates, Belfast Working Papers in Language and Linguistics
1,1976, 45-68) and J. Milroy ('Lexical alternation and diffusion in vernacular speech', Belfast Working Papers in Language and Linguistics 3, 1978,
101-14).
See 6.5. Section 6.5 draws liberally on the following three sources: chapters
2-6 of L-J. Calvet's Histoire de I'ecriture (Paris: Plon, 1996); Chapter 6 of V.
Cook's Inside language (London: Arnold, 1997); and chapters 1-3 of
Georges Jean's Writing: the story of alphabets and scripts (London: Thames
&C Hudson, 1992). The Sumerian, Chinese and Ancient Egyptian examples
cited in the section are all borrowed from these authors. The English,
French, Modern Greek and Spanish examples are my own.
See 6.6. The brief mention of the controversy about the nature of the
Chinese writing system was inspired by articles contributed by W. C. Brice,
M. A. French and E. Pulgram to the collection of papers edited by W. Haas
under the title Writing without letters (Manchester: Manchester University
Press, 1976) and by J. DeFrancis's article 'How efficient is the Chinese
writing system?' (Visible Language 30, 1996, 6-44).
See 6.7. The examples of German words spelt with c are taken from D.
Berger, G. Drosdowski and O. Kage's Richtiges und gutes Deutsch
(Mannheim: Dudenverlag, 1985, 160). The examples of words exchanging
102
their c for a k or a 2 are taken from G. Drosdowski, W. Miiller, W. ScholzeStubenrecht and M. Wermke's Rechtschreibung der deutscben Sprache
(Mannheim: Dudenverlag, 1991, 29).
Good introductions to phonology - all of which refer in varying degrees to
lexical matters - are:
V. Cook, Inside language (London: Arnold, 1997, Chapter 4);
H. Giegerich, English phonology: an introduction (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1992);
F. Katamba, An introduction to phonology (London: Longman, 1989).
More theoretical treatments of phonology are to be found in:
P. Carr, Phonology (London: Macmillan, 1993);
J. Goldsmith, The handbook of phonological theory (Oxford: Blackwell,
1995);
M. Kenstowicz, Phonology in generative grammar (Oxford: Blackwell,
1994);
A. Spencer, Phonology: theory and description (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996).
Accessible introductory publications on writing systems and orthography
include:
L.-J. Calvet, Histoire de I'ecriture (Paris: Plon, 1996);
V. Cook, Inside language (London: Arnold, 1997, Chapter 6);
F. Coulmas, The Blackwell encyclopedia of writing systems (Oxford:
Blackwell, 1996);
Georges Jean, Writing: the story of alphabets and scripts (London:
Thames & Hudson, 1992);
J. L. Swerdlow, 'The power of writing' (National Geographic 1962,
1999,110-32).
The reader looking for more in-depth discussion of orthographic and related
issues may wish to consult one or more of the following:
E. Carney, A survey of English spelling (London: Routledge, 1994);
P. T. Daniels and W. Bright (eds), The world's writing systems (Oxford:
Blackwell, 1996);
G. Sampson, Writing systems: a linguistic introduction (London:
Hutchinson, 1985);
M. Stubbs, Language and literacy (London: Routledge &c Kegan Paul,
1980).

1. In 6.2 and 6.3 we saw some examples of different stress distributions in
relation to similar sound-sequences being associated with different
103
grammatical categories - e.g. reject [VERB] vs. reject [NOUN]. Try to find
further pairs of English words which are differentiated in this way.
2. In 6.4 we looked at the association between particular sounds and particular (categories of) lexical items. Consider the nasalized vowel sound /a/
as it occurs, for example, in the final syllable of many English-speakers'
pronunciation of the word restaurant. In what other English words does
this sound occur? What kinds of words are these?
3. In 6.5 the notion of allograph was briefly discussed. It was noted that a
particular grapheme - the first letter of the Roman alphabet - has the
allographs A, a and a. Taking any writing system(s) with which you are
familiar, try to find some further examples of 'families' of allographs.
4. In 6.5 and 6.6 it was shown that orthography is sometimes used to differentiate between homophones (e.g. meat:meet). Illustrate this phenomenon further from any language(s) you know.
5. In 6.7 we observed that some written signs are associated with particular
words or categories of words. Try to think of some further instances of
this in any language(s) with which you are familiar. Note that sometimes
the specific association has to do with where the particular sign occurs as
well as with the nature of the sign itself. For example, the letter x rarely
occurs at the beginning of words in English, and almost all the words
which feature x in this position are of Greek origin.
7
Lexis and language variation
7.1
Variety is the spice of language
So far we have been looking at the lexical aspects of language largely as if the
same range of forms and functions of any given language were deployed in
all circumstances of language use. A moment's reflection, however, will
bring us to the conclusion that this is a simplification and that, in fact, languages are characterized by high degrees of variation. Regional accents
immediately spring to mind in this connection, as do the different words that
people from different regions use for the same object.
Similar kinds of variation occur across the social and ethnic spectrum, as
well as between the genders. With regard to gender, for instance, there are
languages in which males and females pronounce the same words differently; thus, in Gros Ventre, a Native American language of the north-eastern
United States, words which male speakers pronounce with a /dj/ sound (the
sound in the middle of Indian) are pronounced by women with a /kj/ sound
(the sound in the middle of Slovakian) - so that the word for 'bread' in this
language is either djatsa or kjatsa, depending on whether the speaker is male
or female. In other languages certain pronouns and particles are genderspecific; thus, in Japanese, female speakers indicate their gender by using the
particles ne or wa at the end of sentences they produce.
Also, it is clear that we vary our use of language from situation to situation - so that, for example, the way we talk or write to a prospective
employer is likely to differ significantly from the way in which we talk or
write to close personal friends. For example, over a cup of coffee with a
friend we might explain that we are too busy to go somewhere or do something using a form of words such as: Can't. I'm up to my eyes. In a formal
interaction with an employer or a prospective employer we might be more
likely to express the same thought rather differently: I am unfortunately
unable to make myself available at that particular time because of pressure
of work.
The study of language variation falls within the ambit of that branch of
linguistics known as sociolinguistics. In this chapter we shall begin with
some discussion around a few of the basic concepts and terms developed by
106
sociolinguists in connection with their study of language variation. We shall

then home in on the extremely important lexical dimension of language variation in its different manifestations. Finally, we shall take a brief look at the
question of the relationship between lexical variation and cultural variation
and the impact, if any, of lexical variation on perceptions and thought patterns.
7.2 Language variation: sociolinguistic perspectives

With all this variation in evidence, a legitimate question to ask is: when are
the differences so great as to indicate that we are dealing with distinct languages rather than two or more versions of the same language? Compare,
for example, the expressions in the first two columns below:
auf dem Fahrrad
op de Fiets
'on the bicycle'
es zieht
et drekkt
'there's a draught'
wir trinken Schnaps
we drenken Sopis
'we're drinking schnaps'
Can these two sets of expressions possibly be from the same language? In
fact the expressions from the first column are from Standard High German
(Hochdeutsch), whereas the expressions in the second column are from
what is generally regarded as a 'dialect' of German spoken in a part of
Germany which lies very close to the Dutch border. The 'dialect' in question
is in fact a variety of Plattdeutsch or Low German.
Now consider three more sets of expressions:
et bord til to
et bord til to
ett bord for tva
hva hosier det
hvad koster det? vad kostar det? 'what does it cost?'
jeg er t0rst
jeg er t0rstig
jag dr torstig
'a table for two'
'I'm thirsty'
Are these perhaps also from different dialects of the same language? In fact,
the first column contains expressions from Norwegian, the second column
contains expressions from Danish, and the third column contains expressions from Swedish. In other words, in this case we are talking about sets of
expressions from what are regarded as three separate languages.
What is interesting is that, whereas a Norwegian, Dane and a Swede, can,
each using his/her own language, to a very large extent converse with each
other intelligibly, a speaker of Standard German with no knowledge of
Plattdeutsch would have great difficulty understanding the German 'dialect'
from which the earlier examples are taken, including the examples themselves. Actually, a speaker of Dutch would fare better in this regard. This
demonstrates clearly that whether we call something a dialect or a language
is really more a matter of politics than of linguistics. If the part of Germany
where the above-exemplified type of Plattdeutsch is spoken had happened to
107
be situated in the Netherlands, the linguistic variety in question would have

been designated as a 'dialect' of Dutch. As it turns out, much the same
variety is spoken on the Dutch side of the border, where it is indeed regarded
as a 'dialect' of Dutch.
The way in which sociolinguists deal with this problem terminologically
is to apply the neutral term variety to any set of linguistic items and patterns
which coheres into a means for communication - not only in the context of
geographic variation but also in the context of social, ethnic, gender-related
or context-related variation. For example, one ethnic variety which has been
much studied by sociolinguists is Black English, otherwise known as Black
Vernacular English or Afro-American Vernacular English. This variety used, as its various labels indicate, by many Black people in the United States
- diverges very noticeably from varieties used by Whites. It has a fairly welldefined set of characteristics, one of which is a tendency for word-final
plosive consonants to be voiceless; thus, the Black English consonants corresponding to Standard English /g/ in big, /b/ in cub and /d/ in kid may occur as
/k/, /p/ and /t/.
A feature such as a word-final plosive whose differing realization can, as
in the case of Black English, contribute towards the identification of a particular variety is labelled a variable in sociolinguistics. Another example of a
variable is that of /h/ in British English. Most British English-speakers would
consider the dropping of /?'s at the beginnings of words to be a 'workingclass' phenomenon. As it turns out, /7-dropping is not the exclusive preserve
of any particular social stratum in Great Britain, although the degree to
which it occurs is correlated with class, as is evident from the following
figures from a study conducted in the 1970s showing the percentages of
word-initial /h/s dropped by samples from different social groupings in
Bradford and Norwich:
BRADFORD
NORWICH
Middle middle-class
12%
6%
Lower middle-class
28%
14%
Upper working-class
67%
40%
Middle working-class
89%
60%
Lower working-class
93%
60%
What this set of figures illustrates is that linguistic varieties are not necessarily characterized by the absolute presence or the absolute absence of a
specific realization of a variable - in this case the suppliance or the dropping
of the word-initial h sound. Thus, while it seems to be the case that, in both
Bradford and Norwich, middle-class speakers pronounce word-initial h
more often than they fail to pronounce it, there are nevertheless occasions
when they drop it. Varieties, in other words, are often characterized by tendencies or probabilities in terms of the presence or absence of particular
108
variants of variables rather than by categorical attributes. Another dimension of the way in which variables relate to varieties which is illustrated by
the above figures is the fact that different varieties are not necessarily discrete, self-contained systems neatly divided off from each other, but may
form a continuum and blur into each other.
A continuum of variation is precisely what one usually finds in social
context-related variation, which is sometimes referred to as style-shifting. In
all languages people adjust their language style according to the situation in
which communication is taking place and according to the relationship that
exists between the participants in the interaction. For example, consider the
expression going to in English, as in: I'm going to leave tomorrow. This
expression can undergo a range of reductions - indicated below - and its
most reduced forms are more frequently used in informal styles of speech
and less frequently used in formal styles:
/g9Uirj tu: /
('going to')
/g9Uirj t9/
('going tub''}
/gaum t9/
('goin' tub')
/g9n t9/
('guhn tub''}
7g9n9/
('guhnuh' - the form usually written as 'gonna')
That is not to say that 'one or the other' situations are unknown in language variation. Where two or more varieties have attained the status of standard regional, national or international languages and their patterns have
been fixed and prescribed for by grammar books, dictionaries, and language
academies, the differences between them are more categorical. For example,
in Standard Swedish the form tvd will always be used for 'two', whereas in
Standard Danish the form used will be to. Similarly with the pairs of forms
below representing Castilian (Standard Spanish) and Catalan respectively:
CASTILIAN
CATALAN
ciudad
ciutat
'city'
descuento
descompte
'discount'
direccion
direccio
'direction'
mas
mes
'more'
podemos
podem
'we can'
tambien
tambe
'also'
tiempo
temps
'time'
Two important points remain to be made before we move on to examine

the lexical dimension of language variation in more detail. The first is that
109
the various factors in language variation do not operate in isolation from

each other but on the contrary constantly interact. For example, there is an
interplay between geographical variation and social variation, with nonstandard regional accents and expressions being more frequently found in
working-class language use than in the language use of the middle classes.
There is also interaction, to take another example, between geographical
variation and social context-related variation; thus, an individual with a
knowledge of both a national standard variety (such as Standard German)
and a non-standard regional variety (such as a variety of Plattdeutscb] will
tend to use the non-standard variety in situations of intimacy and informality - in the home and with friends and acquaintances from his/her
locality - and will use the standard variety in more formal circumstances with strangers and in the world of officialdom.
The second point is that the particular variety or varieties that we use are
not deterministically imposed on us but rather reflect the models we ourselves adopt and the attachments and affiliations we enter into; I was born
and raised in a working-class home in Dorset, but - because at some stage in
my childhood I began to identify with the norms, including the linguistic
norms, of my Standard English-speaking educators - I no longer (alas!)
speak with a Dorset accent. Sometimes a particular affiliation can take
speakers in a less rather than a more standard direction. For instance, a
much-cited study conducted in Martha's Vineyard (an island off the coast of
Massachusetts) some years ago revealed that the use of a particular nonstandard vowel sound was increasing among the islanders - apparently
reflecting a heightened sense of local solidarity and a negative reaction to the
values and behaviour of the large numbers of mainlanders who holidayed on
the island in the summer.
7.3
Lexical aspects of geographical variation
A very frequently cited illustration of lexical variation related to geography

is the case of lexical divergence between American and British English, for
example:
AMERICAN ENGLISH
BRITISH ENGLISH
apartment
flat
billfold
wallet
diaper
nappy
gas(oline)
petrol
trunk (of a car)
boot
Also well-known are pronunciation and spelling differences between British

English and American English such as:
no

AMERICAN ENGLISH
BRITISH ENGLISH
PRONUNCIATION DIFFERENCES
harass, /ha'ras/
harass /'haeras/
laboratory /'labraton/
laboratory /b' boratri/
leisure /'li:39r/
leisure /'less/
magazine /'magazin/
magazine /msega'zhn/
missile /'misal
missile /'misail/
SPELLING DIFFERENCES
center
centre
defense
defence
favorite
favourite
plow
plough
traveler
traveller
In a number of cases where British and American English have what look
like identical words, there are differences in morphological behaviour. For
example, the verb to dive, which in British English has dived as its preterite
(simple past) form, in at least some varieties of American English has dove as
its preterite. Other cases where - at least to judge by the usage of many
current American popular writers - British and American preterites diverge
include: to fit - British fitted, American fit; to sneak - British sneaked,
American snuk; to strive - British strove, American strived. There is also the
case of the past participle of the verb to get, which in British English is got
and in American English gotten.
Probably more problematic in communicative terms are instances of
'false friends' - words which seem to be identical but which have different
meanings. The case of bum is probably too well known to cause misunderstandings; in American English it means 'tramp', whereas in colloquial
British English it denotes 'buttocks' (= colloquial American English buns}.
The metaphorical use of the expression pissed, on the other hand, might
just be a source of difficulty. In colloquial British English I'm really pissed
means 'I'm really drunk'; in American English, however, it means 'I'm
really annoyed', which British English speakers express by adding off: I'm
really pissed off. A British English speaker buying a small item - such as a
book or a card - in downtown Indianapolis may also be taken aback (as I
was!) to be asked 'Do you want a sack for that?'; the word sack, which in
American English can be applied to bags of any description, is in British
English applied only to very large bags - such as those used for coal or
fertilizer.
111
Much the same kind of situation as one finds in relation to lexical differences between the English of Great Britain and the English of North America
applies to the Castilian Spanish of Spain and the Spanish of Latin America.
Thus, for example, in America the Spanish for 'bean' is /n/'o/, whereas the
Castilian word is alubia or judia; in America the Spanish for 'bus' is bus,
whereas the Castilian version is autobus; in America the words used when
answering the telephone are alo, hola or bueno, whereas in Castilian the
expressions used are digame or diga. There are a number of 'false friends' in
this connection too. For instance, the word carro, which in Castilian means
'cart' or 'wagon', also means 'car' in America (= Castilian coche); the word
estampilla, which in Castilian means 'rubber stamp', is also used in Latin
America for 'postage stamp' (= Castilian sello); and the word coger, which in
Castilian has the innocent enough meaning 'to take hold of, in Latin
America is a slang word for 'to have sex with' (= Castilian joder).
Not that the interposition of a large ocean is a necessary prerequisite for
lexical divergences. Such divergences are also found from country to country
within Europe. For example, the number system in French operates differently
in Francophone parts of Belgium and Switzerland from the way it operates in
France. In France the words used for 'seventy', 'eighty' and 'ninety' are,
respectively, soixante-dix (literally 'sixty-ten'), quatre-vingts (literally 'fourtwenties') and quatre-vingt-dix (literally 'four-twenty-ten'). In Belgium and
Switzerland, on the other hand, the words used for 'seventy' and 'ninety' are,
respectively, septante and nonante; also, in Switzerland the word huitante is
frequently used for 'eighty'. There are also differences between the English of
Ireland (sometimes called Hiberno-English) and British English. For instance,
most British English speakers would have difficulties with the Irish English
expressions: boreen ('narrow track'), garsoon ('boy'), gurrier ('ruffian'),
locked (in the sense of 'drunk'), and yoke (in the sense of 'thing').
Even national frontiers are of only limited value as guides to lexical divergence. That is to say, particular lexical forms or usages do not necessarily stop
at frontiers - as we saw in the earlier discussion of the Plattdeutsch examples
- and lexical differences are to be observed within as well as between varieties
spoken in any given country. Thus, for example, although the statement in the
last paragraph about the use of soixante-dix for 'seventy' in France - as
opposed to septante in Belgium and Switzerland - is generally true, in fact,
septante is also used by some speakers in eastern France. A further case of
lexical variation within a country is that of the German words for 'Saturday';
in northern Germany the word used is typically Sonnabend, whereas in
southern Germany the word Samstag tends to be used.
7.4 Lexical aspects of social variation

Whereas relating the way in which people speak and write to the country or
region they come from is relatively uncontroversial, making the same kinds
112
of connections between language varieties and social background is a somewhat more sensitive matter, since the description of particular variants of linguistic variables as being associated with a particular social class is liable to
be interpreted as feeding into snobbery, elitism and/or anti-democratic political philosophies. Indeed, one early attempt to analyse lexical usage in social
terms was immediately put at the service of elitist attitudes. This was the
work of the English linguist, A.S.C. Ross, which set out - in a rather impressionistic manner - to isolate markers of upper-class ('U') and non-upperclass ('non-U') language use in respect of pronunciation, grammar and most
especially vocabulary. Ross's dictates were seized upon and added to by linguistic snobs all over the English-speaking world and led to the establishment of a veritable glossary of 'U' and 'non-U' terms. For example, in the
U/non-U scheme of things, the words on the left below are supposedly 'U',
and the words on the right their 'non-U' equivalents:
'U'
'NON-U'
bicycle/bike
cycle
looking glass
mirror
lavatory
toilet
lunch (eon)
dinner
(table-)napkin
serviette
scent
perfume
pudding
sweet
wireless
radio
One rather amusing point in this connection is that the so-called 'upperclass' variants in many cases precisely coincide with the variants used in
working-class circles. For example, in my own working-class home in the
1950s we listened to the wireless rather than the radio, looked forward to
pudding not sweet, rode bikes not cycles, and occasionally presented my
mother with bottles of scent not perfume. Ogden Nash's suitably sceptical
comment on the whole U/non-U discussion was that the Wicked Queen in
the Snow-White story, by uttering the words 'Mirror mirror on the wall',
'exposed herself as not only wicked but definitely non-U'.
Other early attempts to examine the relationship between language including lexis - and social class were rather more scientific. As far back as
the late 1930s the American linguist Charles Fries compared a number of
aspects of the language used in letters on similar topics sent to the same destination (an administrative department of the armed forces) by lower
working-class and professional correspondents. Among the lexical differences that emerged from Fries's work were the following:
the professional subjects in the study tended to intensify the force of
adjectives using forms ending in -ly (as in awfully difficult), whereas
in
the more common intensifiers used by the working-class subjects were

items like awful, mighty, pretty, real, right.
the professional subjects used a single form you, whether the reference
was singular or plural, whereas the working-class subjects often used
forms such as youse, you all, you people to indicate plurality;
the working-class subjects often used double prepositions such as off
from, whereas the professional subjects tended not to use such forms.
Another early study, this time dating from the 1950s, found that, on being
interviewed about a tornado in Arkansas, working-class speakers, unlike
middle-class speakers, used we, they and persons' names without further
explanation for the benefit of the interviewer, and that they used expressions
like and stuff like that instead of going into detail.
A more recent account of language and class is that of the British sociologist Basil Bernstein. Bernstein talks about two 'codes' to which, he claims,
lower working-class and middle-class speakers have differential access. The
two 'codes' in question are, on the one hand, restricted code (originally
labelled public language] and, on the other, elaborated code (originally
labelled formal language}. Restricted code, according to Bernstein, is the
code of intimacy, the code we all use when with people and in circumstances
where we can communicate a great deal without saying very much because
there is so much shared information and there are so many shared expectations in the situations in question. Elaborated code, for its part, says
Bernstein, is the code we use when we need to be explicit in our speech and
writing because the person(s) to whom we are addressing ourselves is/are not
familiar with the people, places, ideas etc. we are referring to, which means
that we need to contextualize everything we are producing in order to be
understood. Bernstein contends that, whereas all users of a language have
access to restricted code, lower working class speakers have little experience
of elaborated code and so are likely to be disadvantaged in situations, such
as school, where the use of elaborated code is required.
The linguistic characteristics of restricted and elaborated code, as
described by Bernstein, include the following:
RESTRICTED
ELABORATED
short, often unfinished or

fragmentary sentences
well-ordered complete sentences

with syntactic norms observed
simple and repetitive use of

conjunctions (e.g. because, so)
and very limited use of
subordinate clauses
use of a wide range of

conjunctions and subordinate
clauses
rigid and limited use of

adjectives and adverbs
appropriate use of a wide range

of adjectives and adverbs
114
With regard to the lexicon, what all of the above amounts to is a claim that
lower working-class language users produce fewer conjunctions, adjectives
and adverbs than middle-class language users, and in fact, a number of
studies appear to show that this is indeed the case. On the other hand,
Bernstein's claims and his interpretation of the relevant evidence have been
called into question by some linguists on the basis that the quantitative findings he cites do not necessarily indicate two qualitatively different orientations, and that, in any case, a narrower vocabulary in some grammatical
categories may perhaps be compensated for by a wider vocabulary in other
categories hitherto uninvestigated.
A final point on the question of lexis and social class concerns 'bad' language or 'vulgar' language. It seems to be quite widely assumed that such
language is mostly to be found on the lips of people at the lower end of the
social scale. Indeed, the very word vulgar comes from a Latin word, vulgus,
which means 'the common people', and there has been a longstanding tendency to associate the use of choice language with stigmatized social categories. However, oaths, curses profanities and obscenities have also been a
royal and an aristocratic prerogative. Queen Elizabeth I, for instance, was
famous for her foul mouth, and the traditionally choice language of the
nobility is reflected in the expression to swear like a lord.
In the modern age, at least in the West, there seems to have been an
increase in the use and acceptability of words which would once have been
regarded as offensive (see Chapter 8) and this phenomenon has apparently
affected the entire social range. Serious research into the social distribution
of 'swear-words' remains to be done, but it is likely that the extent of the use
of such items will depend on factors rather more complex than simply
adherence to a particular social class. For example, among the working-class
population of Great Britain there are sizeable numbers of practising
Christians, Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs for whom the use of explicitly sexual
words or irreverent references to sacred matters would be unthinkable.
7.5
Lexical aspects of ethnic variation
We turn now to the issue of the relationship between language variation and
ethnicity. Ethnicity is that aspect of culture which signifies 'belongingness' to
a community in terms other than socio-economic terms; it is been recently
defined as 'the identificational dimension of culture'. Racial factors may or
may not be present among the criteria by which an ethnic group defines itself
and/or is defined by other groups. For example, the small Vietnamese community in Dublin has characteristics of both a cultural and a racial kind
which distinguish it from the majority of the population, whereas most Scots
residing in the same city would not be identifiable in racial terms but would
nevertheless see themselves as culturally distinct from the Irish people
among whom they live.
11 s
Obviously, one component of a culture which very often plays an important role in identifying an ethnic group is language. For many members of
particular communities there is an absolutely vital connection between their
language and their ethnicity; thus, for instance, one of the slogans frequently
heard in the context of the revival of the Irish language is 'Gan teanga, gan
tir ' - 'Without a language, without a country' - and among Jews it has been
claimed that Hebrew 'emerges from the same fiery furnace from which the
soul of the people emerges'.
In some countries and regions there is a high degree of separation of
ethnic groupings defined largely in linguistic terms. For example, in Belgium
the longstanding linguistico-cultural conflict between the Dutch-speaking
Flemings and the French-speaking Walloons has resolved itself into a division of the country - with the exception of the bilingual territory of Brussels
- into two large unilingual regions, Dutch-speaking Flanders to the north,
and French-speaking Wallonia to the south. There is in addition an officially
recognized small German-speaking area in eastern Belgium (Eupen, St Vith).
In other situations, members of different ethnic groupings are living and
working side by side, communicating with each other via the standard language of the country and largely reserving their use of ethnic varieties distinct from that standard language for use with family and friends of the same
ethnic background. This would be true, for example, of the community of
Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands. In still other situations the varieties
spoken by particular ethnic groups may have strong resemblances to and
connections with the varieties of other ethnic groups, including the standard
variety of the country or region in question. Examples of this kind of scenario would include the cases of speakers of American English, Australian
English, Hiberno-English, West Indian English etc. living in Great Britain.
Further to this last point, a particularly interesting study of patterns of
language use among West Indians in Great Britain was conducted in the
1980s by the British linguist Viv Edwards. According to her account, the
variety - or patois - used (especially in informal and intimate contexts) by
the Jamaican community is very closely related to Standard English but has
a large number of specific features, including lexical features, which set it
apart from the latter. Some of the lexical differences between Jamaican
Patois and Standard English reported by Edwards are detailed below.
JAMAICAN PATOIS
STANDARD ENGLISH
PLURAL MARKING OF NOUNS

mostly zero marking, e.g.
mostly -s
He give me two book.
He gave me two books.
-dem, where the context does not

suffice to indicate plurality, e.g.
Clovis gone up a Elaine ft you
record-dem.
Clovis went up Elaine's for your

records.
116

JAMAICAN PATOIS
STANDARD ENGLISH
PERSONAL PRONOUNS
me
I, me, my
yu
you,your
im
he, him, his, she, her
it, its
we
we, us, our
unu
you,your
dem
they, them, their

INFINITIVES OF VERBS
fi + base form of verb, e.g.
to + base form of verb
Dem want me fi go up dere

go tell dem.
They want me to go up there and

tell them
EXPRESSION OF LOCATION
deh + expression of place, e.g.
to be + expression of place
When me deh at school, di

whole a dem hate me
When I was at school, they all

hated me.
Finally in this connection, it may be worth mentioning that some ethnic

groups mark their identity by conversational code-switching - switching to
and fro - apparently quite arbitrarily - between the languages at their disposal. For example, some groups within the Hispanic (or Latino] communities in the United States - whether from parts of the country which once
belonged to Mexico or immigrants from Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala,
Mexico or Puerto Rico - signal their ethnicity in all its biculturality by
inserting English expressions into their discourse when speaking Spanish
and insert Spanish expressions into their discourse when speaking English.
In some instances there actually seems to be a convention to the effect that
roughly equal amounts of both languages should be used in any given conversation. One oft-cited study of code-switching among Puerto Ricans in
New York demonstrates this kind of balanced approach in its very title quoted from one of the members of the community in question: 'Sometimes
I'll start a sentence in English y termino en espanol' (Sometimes I'll start a
sentence in English and finish it in Spanish.').
7.6
Lexical aspects of gender-related variation
Gender-related variation, as we saw from the Gros Ventre and Japanese

examples mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, may in some cases be
117
very clear and noticeable by all. In other cases the differences between male
and female speech are more subtle and users of a given language may or may
not be conscious of them. With regard to English and many other European
languages, for instance, the differences are often said to reside in the tendency of female language use to be closer to the 'prestige variety' than male
language use. Thus, for example, as far as accent is concerned, it has been
observed that female British English speakers are more likely than their male
counterparts to produce pronunciations which resemble those of radio and
television announcers. An explanation commonly offered for this kind of
difference is that women have traditionally been expected to be more
'correct' and conforming in their behaviour than men and that this expectation and its consequences carry over into the linguistic sphere.
With regard to lexis, a test case for 'good behaviour' among women as far as
language is concerned is that of 'swear-words'. It is certainly true to say that
there is - or at least until recently was - a certain reluctance on the part of many
men to utter such words in the presence of women. The expression not in mixed
company, which really means 'not in front of the women', was frequently used
as an interdiction in respect of jokes and anecdotes which contained sexually
explicit references and/or 'four-letter words'. One presumes from this kind of
approach on the part of some men that women have traditionally heard less
'bad language' than men, but what about their production of such language?
Queen Elizabeth I was mentioned in the last section as a user of choice
language. One interesting comment about her in the present context depicts
her as having 'sworn like a man'. This implies that in Renaissance England at least in well-to-do circles - swearing was associated more with men than
with women, but it also implies, of course, that individual women (including
the Supreme Governor of the Church of England) refused to be bound by
this particular convention. In seventeenth century England the association
between maleness and swearing was still, apparently, very much in place if
the following quotation is anything to go by.
The Grace of Swearing has not obtain'd to be a Mode yet among the
Women; God damn ye, does not sit well upon a Female Tongue; it seems
to be a Masculine Vice, which the Women are not arrived to yet. . .
Defoe, An essay on projects, 1697
To bring the discussion a little closer to our own times, in an influential
study published in 1975 under the title of Language and women's place, the
American linguist, Robin Lakoff claims that 'If a little girl "talks rough" like
a boy, she will be ostracized, scolded or made fun of (p. 5). Lakoff provides
the following example (p. 10):
(a)
Oh dear, you've put the peanut butter in the refrigerator again.
(b)
Shit, you've put the peanut butter in the refrigerator again.
It is safe to predict that people would classify the first sentence as

'women's language' the second as 'men's language'.
118
Actually, 25 years on, the above prediction would not be at all safe. In Great
Britain and Ireland at any rate many women now say shit no less readily
than they drink pints. Whether this means that women have entirely caught
up with men in the 'four-letter word' stakes is not clear, but there is little
doubt that - to say the very least of the matter - the gap is closing.
Lakoff also claims that some other words are more frequently used by
women than by men. Thus, for example, she maintains that certain colour
words such as aquamarine, chartreuse, lavender and magenta are more likely to
be produced by women than by men, and that much the same applies to adjectives such as adorable, divine and precious. Among the many aspects of British
upper middle-class behaviour parodied in the television series Absolutely
Fabulous! is the vocabulary used by women of that background - darling, gorgeous, sweetie etc. Vivian Cook found in an informal survey conducted in association with his book Inside language that 90% of his 48 respondents identified
Absolutely gorgeous and It's nice, isn't it? as coming from female speakers.
Just how far lexical divergences genuinely differentiate between speakers
of different genders in a language like English is, as can be seen from the
above discussion, a matter of some debate - whatever may be the situation
in languages like Gros Ventre and Japanese. It is worth saying, however,
that in the major European languages, including English, and presumably
in all languages there are certain words which, when used literally and selfreferentially, will very clearly designate the speaker or writer as male or
female. The particular items will vary from language to language but their
denotation will typically have to do with biological attributes and/or with
roles or positions assigned to one gender or the other in a given society.
Here are some examples from English:
MALE-IDENTIFYING
FEMALE-IDENTIFYING
I'm extremely virile.
I'm extremely pregnant.
I'm a monk.
I'm a nun.
I'm a widower.
I'm a widow.
Moreover, in languages with grammatical gender the particular morphological shape of certain words will have much the same effect, as the following
examples from French demonstrate:
MALE-IDENTIFYING
FEMALE-IDENTIFYING
Je suis etudiant.
Je suis etudiante.
'I'm a student'
Tm a student'
Je suis heureux.
Je suis heureuse.
'I'm happy'
'I'm happy'
Cela m 'a surpris.
Cela m 'a surprise.
'That surprised me'
'That surprised me'
7.7
119
Lexical aspects of context-related variation
As has already been indicated, and as a moment's reflection on our own use
of language will confirm, language varies not only in accordance with
speakers'/writers' geographical, social, ethnic and gender profiles but also in
accordance with the context in which the speaking or writing takes place.
The examples given earlier were of people using a very different speech style
with their friends from that used with employers or prospective employers,
and of people who speak Plattdeutsch at home and with friends switching to
Standard German when in the presence of strangers or bureaucrats.
This second example illustrates a phenomenon which the American linguist Charles Ferguson called diglossia - in an article bearing that name published in 1959. In the cases described by Ferguson diglossia refers to
situations where two related but very different varieties are in use within a
given community, one of which - labelled High (H) - is used for formal,
high-status functions, and the other - labelled Low (L) - is used in more intimate, informal circumstances. The cases in question are Classical Arabic
and Egyptian Arabic in Egypt, Standard German and Swiss German in
Switzerland, French and Haitian Creole in Haiti, and Katharevousa and
Demotic Greek in Greece. A word or two of explanation about each of these
cases follows.
Classical Arabic is the language of the Koran; in its modern form it is
nowadays more usually called Modern Standard Arabic (MSA). MSA is
used as a means of communication throughout the Arab world, but each
Arabic-speaking country and region has its own local variety of Demotic
Arabic, these different varieties being unintelligible to speakers of other
local varieties.
The case of Standard German (Hochdeutsch) and Swiss German
(Schweizerdeutsch, Schwyzertuiisch) in Switzerland is comparable to the
case of Hochdeutsch and Plattdeutsch in northern Germany. That is to
say, Swiss German is very different from Standard German - to the point
of being largely unintelligible to Standard German speakers who have not
learnt Swiss German.
The official language of Haiti is French, the language of the colonists who
populated it with African slaves and ruled it until 1804. However, the
native variety of most of its population is Haitian Creole. A Creole
develops when a simplified system of communication between two
groups speaking mutually unintelligible languages (pidgin), is adopted as
a mother tongue (by, for example, children born of sexual relationships
between members of the two groups). Haitian Creole, like most Creoles,
took most of its vocabulary from the language of the economically dominant group, i.e. French in this instance, but has some grammatical elements derived from the languages - in this case African languages - of the
economically subordinate group.
120
Katharevousa is a supposedly 'pure' (= Greek KaOapog- katharos) form

of Modern Greek which is much closer to Ancient Greek than is Demotic
Greek (= <5T7/mjof- dhimotiki). Katharevousa was invented in the nineteenth century by certain scholars concerned to re-connect Greeks with
their ancient culture and to rid Modern Greek of elements borrowed from
Turkish. It was for a considerable period after Greek independence from
Turkey the official language of the country and the language of education. Modern Demotic Greek, on the other hand, is the vernacular language which naturally evolved from Ancient Greek, borrowing fairly
extensively from Turkish and other languages. It was adopted as the language of administration and education in Greece in 1976 (so that the linguistic situation in Greece is now very different from that described by
Ferguson in the 1950s).
Ferguson's representation of the functional distribution of H and L varieties
in these instances is given below.
H
Sermon in church or mosque
Instructions to servants, waiters, workmen, clerks
Personal letter
Speech in parliament, political speech
University lecture
Conversation with family, friends, colleagues

News broadcast
x
x
Radio 'soap opera'
Newspaper editorial, news story, caption on picture
Caption on political cartoon
Poetry
Folk literature
With regard to the lexical differences between the H and L varieties he discusses, Ferguson gives the following examples (among others) of lexical
doublets.
H
'al'ana
dilwa'ti
'now'
'anfun
manaxlr
'nose'
md
'eh
'what'
Arabic in Egypt
121
jemand
opper
'someone'
klein
chly
'small'
nachdem
no
'after'
ane
bourik
'donkey'
beaucoup
apil
'much', 'a lot'
donner
bay
'give'
eteke
eyenise
'gave birth'
idhor
nero
'water'
ikos
spiti
'house'
German in Switzerland
French and Creole in Haiti
Greek
What Ferguson describes under the heading of diglossia can be seen as a

special case of code-switching. We have already (at the end of 7.5) looked at
conversational code-switching, where the practice of alternating between
two distinct varieties seems to be just an unspoken convention of a particular group. However, there is another type of code-switching - situational
code-switching - where the switch between varieties is triggered by the situation in which communication is proceeding. The switch from Swiss
German to Standard German as a speaker moves from a conversation with
family to giving a lecture or filling in a form in a tax office is precisely such a
case. In classic diglossic cases, as we have seen, the two varieties are widely
perceived as High and Low versions of the 'same language'. In other
instances of situational code-switching this need not apply. To take a very
obvious example, if I take a train from London to Paris, I shall begin my
journey (buy my ticket etc.) in one language - English - and end it (ask
directions to my hotel etc.) in another - French.
A third type of code-switching which needs to mentioned - for the sake of
completeness - is that known as metaphorical code-switching. This term is
applied where the switch between varieties is triggered by a change of topic.
When the topic changes the effect on language use is as if the situation were
changed; hence 'metaphorical'. A much-quoted example of metaphorical
code-switching refers to the linguistic goings on in a community administration office in Norway, where the clerks used standard or local dialect phrases
with each other according to whether or not they were talking about official
matters, and where members of the public interacted with the clerks in the
standard variety or local dialect depending on whether they were transacting
business or engaging in small talk at the beginning or end of the transaction.
122
Most of us who have acquired and made use of more than one language
during the course of our lives will have been involved in code-switching of
some kind or other at some point. All of us will have been involved in what
is usually called style-shifting - that is to say, in making relatively subtle
changes in the language we use in response to differences in context adjusting what we say or write to make it appropriate to more formal or less
formal situations, for instance. With regard to the lexical aspects of styleshifting, some expressions are relatively neutral in respect of the kinds of
contexts in which they are likely to occur, some are identifiable as unlikely to
be used in formal circumstances, whilst others are unlikely to be associated
with informal communication. The following examples illustrate this for
British English.
FORMAL
NEUTRAL
INFORMAL
diminutive
small
teeny-weeny
garments
clothes
threads
offspring
child
sprog
voluminous
large
whopping
weep
cry
blub
The association of given words with particular kinds of contexts has a

major influence on what impact they will have in other contexts. Thus, for
example, between close friends or colleagues at the end of a hard day an
expression like I'm shagged (in the sense of 'I'm really tired') will cause not a
ripple. Offered as a contribution to polite small talk with a visiting dignitary
at a glittering civic reception, on the other hand, its effect will be somewhat
different. There is another sense too in which context determines how words
are received. One of the most interesting books on language of the twentieth
century was a small volume called How to do things with words published
by a philosopher by the name of John Langshaw Austin. Austin was particularly interested in what he called performative utterances, the saying of
which both perform specific acts and explicitly refer to the acts in question,
for example:
ENTERING INTO MARRIAGE
With this ring I thee wed...
PUTTING ONESELF UNDER OATH
/ swear by Almighty God that the evidence which I shall give will be
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
NAMING A SHIP
I name this ship Titanic II.. .
123
Austin also noted that in order for acts such as those referred to above to take
effect, certain felicity conditions had to be fulfilled. In order for With this ring
I thee wed to 'work', for instance, the marriage has to have been consented to
by both the parties to it and by the religious and/or civic authorities validating
it, vows have to have been taken, a ring has to be put on the finger of the
addressee, and the entire ceremony has to take place in front of witnesses,
including at least one witness (priest, mayor, registrar, captain of ship etc.)
empowered by Church and/or State to be the official overseer of proceedings.
The same words uttered by a deeply smitten ten-year-old romeo to his giggling
girlfriend behind the school bicycle-sheds (even if accompanied by the offering
of a ring) will simply not do the job - at least not the job of admitting the
happy couple to the holy estate of matrimony!
Actually, as Austin himself noted, and as other writers on the topic have
since emphasized, we perform an act of some kind not only when we make a
highly conventionalized utterance in a formal public ceremony such as a
wedding, but every single time we use language. There may be some kind of
ritual involved - as in the above cases; we may explicitly name the act we are
performing - as in the above cases and also in cases like J hereby approve
this claim (APPROVAL), I congratulate you on your success (CONGRATULATION), I promise I'll be there (PROMISE); or the act may be signalled by an
interaction between the words we use and the context in which we use them;
for example, Could you please pass the salt? and Is there any salt? will both
be interpreted as requests (for the salt cellar to be passed) if uttered at table
by a diner too far from the salt to reach it him/herself. The acts in question
usually go under the label of speech acts in the relevant literature, but they
would more appropriately be called language acts, since they are the substance and the results of any kind of linguistic communication - whether in
speech, writing or sign.
To return to the question of the role of context, the act performed by any set
of words will vary according to the situation in which they are produced. For
example, Is there any salt? uttered by an irritated teenager to his/her poor
harassed parents in the presence of an open cupboard from which salt is very
obviously missing performs the act of complaining rather than (or as well as)
requesting; in other contexts, such as the collective inspection of the partially
stocked kitchen of a flat being borrowed for the weekend by a group of friends,
the same utterance will constitute a simple enquiry. Similarly, the word cheers
uttered to the accompaniment of the raising of a glass constitutes a toast;
uttered in the context of the departure of the utterer it constitutes a leavetaking; uttered in response to a kindness it constitutes an act of thanking.
7.8
Lexical variation, culture and thought
Finally in this chapter we shall very briefly explore lexical variation in a

somewhat different sense. If we look at the language varieties used in
124
different countries and communities around the world we shall quickly

come recognize that, while in many instances they have different words for
the same concepts, for example American English gasoline, British English
petrol, French essence, German Benzin etc., there are many other instances
in which they lexicalize reality differently. That is to say, the range of concepts covered by vocabulary and the ways in which the concepts in question
are bundled together in words will tend to diverge from variety to variety.
We saw this in our discussion of structuralist perspectives on meaning in
Chapter 5, when we noted that different languages deal differently with the
colour spectrum. Similarly, different languages deal differently with how
they package concepts of kinship. Even two languages as relatively close as
English and Swedish differ in this regard; thus, whereas English has just one
word, grandmother, to signify female grandparents on both the mother's
and the father's side, and one word, grandfather, to signify male grandparents on both the mother's and the father's side, Swedish has separate words
for 'mother's mother' (mormor) and 'father's mother' (farmor), and, similarly, separate words for 'mother's father' (morfar) and 'father's father'
(farfar). Another example - this time from two varieties of English - concerns the dividing up of the day. In British English each day has a morning
period, an afternoon period, an evening period and a night period; in some
varieties of Hiberno-English, on the other hand, afternoon is missing, and
evening covers the entire period from noon until the onset of the night
period. Two questions arise from such divergences: (i) do they reflect meaningful cultural distinctions relative to the groups using the varieties in question (culture and cultural in this context being applied to whole pattern of
life in a society rather than just to its 'high cultural' activities such as poetry
and music), and (ii) do they result in differences in the ways in which different groups perceive the world.
With regard to the first of the above questions, it is widely assumed that
the greater the lexical differentiation in a linguistic variety in respect of any
given semantic field, the greater the cultural significance of that field for the
community using the variety in question. The old cliche in this connection
about Eskimos having dozens of words for 'snow' turns out to be something
of an exaggeration. However, the general notion which it is meant to illustrate is not seriously disputed, and it is quite easily demonstrable without
resorting to examples from the frozen north. An example that occurs to me
every time I read a nineteenth-century novel relates to horse-drawn vehicles.
In the nineteenth century the horse-drawn carriage was highly important
both as a means of transport and as a marker of social status; correspondingly there were large numbers of words in use which denoted various
aspects of horse-drawn transport - including words denoting different types
of vehicle: barouche, brougham, chaise, landau, phaeton etc. How many
English-speakers at the beginning of the twenty-first century would have
even the vaguest idea what a barouche or a brougham might be? To take an
instance even closer to home, in this case referring to vocabulary associated
us
with a particular academic subculture, the present book contains dozens of

terms - from allophone to syllabary - which refer to absolutely basic distinctions within linguistics, but which simply do not figure (because they do
not need to figure) in the lexical equipment available to most non-linguists.
Such anecdotal observations have been verified more scientifically; for
example, an intercultural study conducted in the 1970s revealed that languages do not have vocabulary for cooking practices that are not used in the
cultures with which the languages are associated.
It is, let it be said, always possible to talk about the entities that words
denote even if the particular lexical labels do not exist. If we did not have the
word landau, we could always say something like 'four-wheeled enclosed
carriage with a removable front cover and a back cover that can be raised
and lowered' (the Concise Oxford Dictionary definition), and if we did not
have the word syllabary we could always evoke the relevant concept with an
expression such as 'writing-system whose characters represent syllables'.
However, obviously, having the applicable words at our disposal makes life
much easier, especially if we are in a society or a profession where landaus or
syllabaries have some importance and where we need to speak or write
about them relatively frequently. Indeed, if a concept attains significance in
the life of a particular group and a term does not exist for the concept in
question, then it is very likely that a word will be created to cover the case.
Some chilling illustrations of such lexical innovation are provided by the
British linguist Michael Stubbs, who currently works in Germany. Stubbs summarizes an article from a German student newspaper which critically examines
the racist lexicon of the political right - items such as: Fremdenhass ('hatred of
foreigners'), Scheinasylanten ('apparent/sham political asylum seekers') and
Uberfremdung ('infiltration by foreigners'); Stubbs cites with approval the
article's argument that 'such lexical creations crystallize thoughts, make them
easy to refer to, presuppose the existence of such things'. In the realm of love
rather than hate, some decidedly more pleasing examples are to be found in the
lexical coinages of certain American groups experimenting with new
approaches to relationships and who have invented terms such as polyamory
(to refer to the notion of having responsible, loving, sexual relationships with
more than one partner at a time) and poly fidelity (to refer to the idea of being
sexually faithful to a group of people rather than to just one partner).
Moving on to the question of lexis and thought, whereas, as we have
seen, it is possible to represent new thinking by coining new expressions, we
do not start from square one in the matter of linguistic representation. When
we acquire our first language, that language provides us with one particular
set of possibilities of expressing experience and fails to make available other
possibilities. For example, English makes available a multitude of words for
different colours and thus facilitates the expression of quite subtle distinctions in relation to visual experience; on the other hand, English is much less
well-endowed than some other languages with ways of signifying finely
graded degrees of distance and intimacy between individuals.
126
According to some linguists such differences between languages and language varieties determine the way in which we perceive the world and think
about it - our Weltbild or 'picture of the world'. This idea goes back to
ancient times: the early Latin poet Quintus Ennius apparently used to say
that because he had three languages, he had 'tria cordia' ('three hearts'); it
also surfaced in the work of the nineteenth-century German linguist
Wilhelm von Humboldt, who believed that the Sprachform ('language
shape') and thought of a people were inseparable. In its more modern manifestation, however, this view is commonly referred to as the Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis - after two American linguists, Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee
Whorf, who devoted a great deal of attention to it in the first half of the
twentieth century. A quotation from each of these two scholars in turn,
starting with Sapir, will give an immediate idea of their standpoint:
Human beings ... are at the mercy of the particular language which has
become the medium of expression for their society . . . No two languages are ever sufficiently alike to be considered as representing the
same social reality. The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not the same world with different labels attached.
The linguistic system of each language is not merely a reproducing
system for voicing ideas, but rather is itself the shaper of ideas, the
program and guide for the individual's mental activity, for his analysis
of impressions, for his synthesis of his mental stock-in-trade . . . We
dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages.
The kinds of arguments that have been put against a strongly deterministic
interpretation of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis - the notion that we absolutely
cannot escape from the categories imposed by our native language - include
the fact that:
we can learn languages other than our first language and can thus enter
into other representations of reality;
we can talk about and understand categorizations of reality other than
those made available by our native language (as Sapir and Whorf both
demonstrate!);
in broad terms at least, the same needs (e.g. for food and drink), problems
(e.g. sickness) and existential boundaries (i.e. birth and death) are present
in all human societies, so that, again in broad terms at least, we all have
common points of reference.
These arguments are persuasive and are supported by the findings of experimental studies which fail to support the notion that language determines
perception.
However, it is possible to conceive of a more moderate reading of the
hypothesis - the idea that the categories of our native language have a pre-disposing influence on the way in which we deal with the world even if they do not
127
rule out other options. This weaker version of the hypothesis has some evidence on its side. For example, some years ago a study was carried out which
investigated whether Navajo-speaking children and English-speaking children
differed in the way in which they sorted objects of various shapes and colours.
In the Navajo language, unlike in English, the shape of an object involved in the
action referred to by a verb has important effects on the form of the verb, and
so the hypothesis was that the Navajo-speakers would be more inclined than
the English-speakers to sort by shape rather than colour - which indeed proved
to be the case. The message of this and other studies with similar results seems
to be that, although Sapir and Whorf may have somewhat overplayed their
hand, their contention that specific features of languages we know can have an
effect on aspects of how we process experience appears to hold water.
7.9
Summary
Chapter 7 began with a brief introduction to the notion of language variation followed by the definition and exemplification of some basic sociolinguistic concepts relative to this phenomenon - notably those of variety and
variable. The chapter then proceeded to consider language variation in relation to geography, social class, ethnicity, gender and context, showing that in
each case there was a clear lexical dimension to the variation in question.
Finally, reference was made to the possible implications of lexical variation
from group to group and community to community - in terms of types and
degrees of lexical differentiation in different conceptual spheres - in respect
of intercultural distinctions and differences in the perception of reality; the
conclusions from this part of the discussion were that differences in vocabulary structure reflect cultural differences, and that, while the specific features
of particular languages (including lexical features) do not determine perception, they do seem to have some influence on the processing of experience.

See 7.1. The examples of gender-based variation are taken from Chapter 13
of R. Wardhaugh's book An introduction to sociolinguistics (third edition,
Oxford: Blackwell, 1998).
See 7.2. The case of the varieties spoken along the Dutch-German border is
something of a cliche in sociolinguistics. However, I was fortunate enough to
experience it as a fascinating daily reality when, during my undergraduate
years, I spent time in the Vorrink household in the German village of
Neuenhaus (near Nordhorn). The Norwegian, Danish and Swedish examples in 7.2 were gleaned from the Collins Scandinavian phrase book edited
by L. Myking (London: Collins, 1959). The reference to Black English is
based on p. 333 of R. Wardhaugh's An introduction to sociolinguistics (third
128
edition, Oxford: Blackwell, 1998). The figures on h-dropping in British

English are taken from J. Milroy and L. Milroy's article 'Varieties and variation' in F. Coulmas (ed.), The handbook of sociolinguistics (Oxford:
Blackwell, 49); the Milroys cite these figures from J. K. Chambers and P.
TrudgilPs book Dialectology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1980, 69). The Martha's Vineyard study referred to is W. Labov's 'The social
motivation of a sound change' (Word 19, 1963, 273-309).
See 7.4. A. S. C. Ross's article on 'U' and 'non-U' lexis is: 'Linguistic classindicators in present-day English' (Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 55,1954,
20-56; reprinted in revised form under the title 'U and Non-U: an essay in
sociological linguistics' in N. Mitford (ed.), Noblesse oblige, London:
Hamish Hamilton, 1956). F. Ogden Nash's comment on the Wicked Queen's
non-U status is to be found in You can't get there from here (1957). The Fries
study of working-class and professional correspondents' use of English is
referred to in C. C. Fries, American English grammar (New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1940). The study of the language used in interviews is reported in L. Schatzman and A. Strauss's article 'Social class and
modes of communication' (American Journal of Sociology 60, 1955,
329-38). The account of this study and the Fries study given here is based on
the second section of Chapter 8 in W. P. Robinson's book Language and
social behaviour (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972). The characteristics of
restricted and elaborated codes presented here are derived from B.
Bernstein's account in his article 'Social structure, language and learning'
(Educational Research 3, 1961, 163-76). Studies which appear to validate
Bernstein's lexical claims include those reported in: B. Bernstein, 'Social
class, linguistic codes and grammatical elements' (Language and Speech 5,
1962, 221-40); D. Lawton, Social class, language and education (London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1968); W. P. Robinson, 'The elaborated code in
working class' (Language and Speech 8, 243-52). Critical reactions to
Bernstein's work are to be found in: M. C. Coulthard, 'A discussion of
restricted and elaborated codes' (Educational Review 22, 1969, 38-51); W.
Labov, Sociolinguistic patterns, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 1972); H. Rosen, Language and class: a critical look at the theories of
Basil Bernstein (Bristol: Falling Wall Press, 1972).
See 7.5. The definition of ethnicity in the first paragraph of 7.5 is that
offered by J. A. Fishman on p. 329 of his article 'Language and ethnicity: the
view from within' (in F. Coulmas (ed.j, The handbook of sociolinguistics,
Oxford: Blackwell, 1997). The quotation about Hebrew in the next paragraph is cited by Fishman in the same article (p. 331) from an essay published in 1908 by Yaakov Nakht. The account of the Belgian situation is
based on pp. 295-6 of P. H. Nelde's article 'Language conflict' (in F.
Coulmas (ed.,), The handbook of sociolinguistics, Oxford: Blackwell, 1997).
The reference to the Turkish community in the Netherlands is informed by
A. Backus's book Two in one: bilingual speech of Turkish immigrants in the
129
Netherlands (Tilburg: Tilburg University Press). Viv Edwards's study of

Jamaican Patois is reported in her book Language in a black community
(Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd, 1986). The article on Puerto-Rican
code-switching referred to is S. Poplack's 'Sometimes I'll start a sentence in
English y termino en espanol: toward a typology of code-switching',
(Linguistics 18,1980, 581-616)'.
See 7.6. The reference to Queen Elizabeth I at the beginning of 7.6 is cited
from F. A. Shirley, Swearing and perjury in Shakespeare's plays (London:
Allen & Unwin, 1979,10) by G. Hughes in Swearing: a social history of foul
language, oaths and profanity in English (second edition, London: Penguin,
1998, 103). The Defoe quotations is also borrowed from Hughes's book
(p. 209), and the quotation from Lakoff's study (Language and woman's
place, New York: Harper &c Row, 1975) is borrowed from p. 211 of the
same source. V. Cook, from whom I have borrowed the reference to
Absolutely Fabulous! reports the gender-related findings of his informal
survey on p. 160 of Inside language (London: Arnold, 1997).
See 7.7. C. Ferguson's article 'Diglossia' - referred to at length in 7.7 first
appeared in Word 15, 1959 (325-40); it is reprinted as Chapter 11 of P. P.
Giglioli (ed.), Language and social context (Harmondsworth: Penguin,
1972). The example of metaphorical code-switching is taken from p. 425 of
J-R Blom and J. J. Gumperz's article 'Social meaning in linguistic structure:
code-switching in Norway' (in J. J. Gumperz and D. H. Hymes (eds),
Directions in sociolinguistics: the ethnography of communication, New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1972). J. L. Austin's book How to do
things with words was first published in 1962 (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
See 7.8. The German examples of lexical innovation cited in 7.8 and M.
Stubbs's discussion of these examples are to be found on p. 366 of Stubbs's
article 'Language and the mediation of experience: linguistic representation
and cognitive orientation' (in F. Coulmas (ed.), The handbook of sociolinguistics, Oxford: Blackwell, 1997). The American lexical coinages regarding multiple relationships feature in the publications of, among many others, D.
Anapol (see, e.g. her book Polyamory: the new love without limits, Initinet
Resources Center, 1997). The quotation from E. Sapir is from p. 209 of his
article 'The status of linguistics as a science' (Language 5,1929,207-14), and
the quotation from B. L. Whorf is from pp. 212-13 of Language, thought and
reality: selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (edited by J. B. Carroll,
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1956). References to the experimental evidence
regarding the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis are informed by pp. 81-125 of R. E.
Cromer's book Language and thought in normal and handicapped children
(Oxford: Blackwell, 1991); the experiment involving Navajo-speakers, summarized on pp. 97-8 of Cromer's book, is reported in J. B. Carroll and J. B.
Casagrande, 'The function of language classifications in behaviour' (in E. E.
Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb and E. L. Hartley (eds), Readings in social psychology, third edition, New York: Holt, Rinehart 8c Winston, 1958).
130
The area of sociolinguistics - more than any other area of linguistics in my

view - is extremely well served as far as the range of well-written accessible
introductions is concerned. The following four titles all fall into this category, and all deal, to a greater or lesser extent, with lexical dimensions of
language variation:
J. Holmes, Sociolinguistics: an introduction to language and society
(Harlow: Longman, 1992);
R.A. Hudson, Sociolinguistics (second edition, Cambridge: Cambridge
P. Trudgill, Sociolinguistics: an introduction (second edition, London:
Penguin, 1995);
R. Wardhaugh, An introduction to sociolinguistics (third edition,
Oxford: Blackwell, 1997).
Very readable but rather shorter introductions to this topic are to be found
in Chapter 8 of V. Cook's Inside language (London: Arnold, 1997) and
Chapter 10 of V. Fromkin and R. Rodman's An introduction to language
(sixth edition, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1996).
Readers looking wishing to explore further may wish to consult:
F. Coulmas (ed.), The handbook of sociolinguistics (Oxford: Blackwell,
1997);
N. Coupland and A. Jaworski (eds), Sociolinguistics: a reader and coursebook (London: Macmillan, 1997);
R. W. Fasold, Sociolinguistics of society (Oxford: Blackwell, 1984);
R. W. Fasold, Sociolinguistics of language (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990).
With regard to particular aspects of language variation, the following titles
are recommended.
Geographical variation:
J. Cheshire (ed.), English around the world (Cambridge: Cambridge
P. Trudgill, Dialects (London: Routledge, 1994).
Social variation:
L. Milroy, Language and social networks (second edition, Oxford:
Blackwell, 1987);
P. Trudgill, The social differentiation of English in Norwich (Cambridge:
Ethnic variation:
V. Edwards, Language in a black community (Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters, 1986);
W. Labov, Language in the inner city: studies in the Black English vernacular (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press).
131
Gender-related variation:
J. Coates, Men, women and language: a sociolinguistic account of gender
differences in language (London: Longman, 1993);
S. Mills, Language and gender: interdisciplinary perspectives (London:
Longman, 1995).
Context-related variation:
B. Myers-Scotton, Social motivation for code-switching (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1993).
Lexis, culture and thought:
J. A. Lucy, Language diversity and thought: a reformulation of the linguistic relativity hypothesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1992);
A.Wierzbicka, Understanding cultures through their key words (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1997).

1. In 7.3 we looked at some differences between American English words
and their British English equivalents. Try to find some more examples of
lexical differences between American English and British English and/or
between any other two subvarieties of a language with which you are
familiar.
2. We saw in 7.4 that a number of attempts have been made to identify
words or types of words which are particularly associated with particular
social classes. Try to come up with some suggestions of your own in this
connection - with reference either to English or to any other language you
know.
3. In 7.5 Belgium was mentioned as an example of a country where different
ethnic groups - defined partly by language - live relatively separate from
each other. Can you think of other countries where similar kinds of situations obtain?
4. In 7.6 we noted - with respect to English and French - some words and
word-forms which identify the speaker/writer as male or female (e.g. I'm
a monk (MALE),/e suis etudiante (FEMALE)). Try to add further items to the
list for either or both of the languages mentioned, or begin a new list of
such items for any other language you know.
5. As we saw in 7.7, one of the dimensions of context-related variation is the
association of particular words with formal, informal or neutral styles of
speech and writing. How would you classify each of the following words
in terms of formality, informality or neutrality?
132

alacrity
greedy
mind
snot
buy
hyped
naughty
trouble
chuck
inexplicable
opulent
undergarments
daft
jumbo
pee
vamp
enervating
kinky
quick
watch
fart
limpid
remuneration
yuppy
6. In 7.8 we considered the different degrees and kinds of lexical differentiation that exist from language variety to language variety. What groups or
communities - professional, political, national or international - would
you expect to be using linguistic varieties with a high level of lexical differentiation in each of the following spheres (and why)?
beer
fire
calligraphy
horses
cheese
pollution
clouds
sausages
cricket (the game)
tea
8
Lexical change
8.1
Language in motion
Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde (1385) contains five lines that often find
their way into books about language as well as into general dictionaries of
quotations. In these lines Chaucer notes that over the centuries the forms of
language are marked by change, to the extent that words of long ago seem
strange to us, but that life - in particular, love - goes on whatever the shape
of the words in which it is conducted:
Ye knowe ek that in forme of speche is chaunge
Withinne a thousand yeer, and wordes tho
That hadden pris, now wonder nyce and straunge
Us thinketh hem, and yet thei spake hem so
And spedde as wel in love as men now do.
Chaucer's philosophical, accepting attitude to language change is mirrored
in the comments of Ferdinand de Saussure in his Cours de linguistique
generate (Course in general linguistics, first published in 1916) from which,
as was mentioned in an earlier chapter, modern linguistics takes much of its
inspiration:
Time changes all things; there is no reason why language should escape
this universal law.
Every part of language is subjected to change ... The stream of language flows without interruption; whether its course is calm or torrential is of secondary importance.
In fact, linguistics had been looking at language change long before
Saussure arrived on the scene. Indeed, for the hundred years or so before
the publication of Saussure's major work, linguistics was almost totally
preoccupied with comparing different languages and examining particular
languages at different historical stages in order to trace the evolution of
languages and language families. Saussure's contribution to linguistics,
actually, was to broaden its horizons by demonstrating that the synchronic
134
study of languages (the study of languages at any given point in their development) was every bit as fascinating as the diachronic study of languages
(the study of languages in their development through time). This is not to
say that diachronic or historical linguistics is a thing of the past. On the
contrary, at the present time it is attracting some extremely dynamic
researchers, who in their exploration of historical issues are drawing on
insights from across the entire spectrum of contemporary linguistics.
However, the core methodologies of historical linguistics - the comparative method and internal reconstruction - have remained substantially
unchanged since the nineteenth century. We shall take a brief general
look at these methodologies before homing in on language change in the
specifically lexical domain.
8.2
The comparative method and internal

reconstruction
The comparative method has its origins in the event which launched historical linguistics, namely the beginning of the serious study of ancient Indian
language of Sanskrit by Western scholars at the end of the eighteenth
century - in the wake of French and British colonization of India. A number
of European visitors to India had in earlier times noticed similarities
between Sanskrit words and words in European languages, but in 1786 Sir
William Jones of the East India Company read a paper to the Royal Asiatic
Society in Calcutta in which he provided persuasive evidence and arguments in favour of the notion that Sanskrit was related to Latin and Greek
and also suggested that it might be linked to the Germanic languages and
the Celtic languages.
Essentially, what Jones did intuitively - noticing resemblances between
languages and positing a common source on the basis of such resemblances
- the comparative method does systematically. The method can be illustrated by reference to some data from three Romance languages, Spanish,
Italian and French:
SPANISH
ITALIAN
FRENCH
cuerpo (/'kuerpo/)
corpo /'korpo/)
corps(/koR/)
'body'
color (/ko'br/)
colore (/ko'bre/)
'colour'
caro (/'karo/)
caro (/'karo/)
couleur (/kuloeR/)
chercher
(/deR/) (/deR/)
'dear'
Even the casual observer will notice that these are similar forms with
similar meanings and will be led by these similarities to speculate that the
words in question may be cognates, that is, derived from shared origins
The historical linguist will go on to look at hundreds of words in each language; will hypothesize, on the basis of finding a constant recurrence of
Lexical change
135
such resemblances, that Spanish, Italian and French are descendants of the
same parent language; and will seek to establish what the forms of the
parent language might be by examining the correspondences between the
forms of the three languages. For example, from the fact that two of the
three languages have a p-sound in the word for 'body', the inference will
be drawn that this p-sound probably existed in the original form; and the
fact that two of the three languages begin the words for 'dear' with /ka/
rather than /JE/ will be seen as suggesting that /ka/ rather than /fe/ was
original.
In the above cases it is possible to check the results of this approach,
because we know that the Romance languages are all descended from Latin
(daughter languages of Latin, as the terminology goes), and we know that
the Latin words for 'body', 'colour' and 'dear' were, respectively, corpus,
color and earns. However, where we have samples of historically related languages but no traces of the parent language, the comparative method is our
'best bet', as far as trying to discover the original forms is concerned. For
instance, let us compare the relevant forms of the word for 'father' in
Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Gothic and Old Irish:
Sanskrit:
pita
Greek:
pater
Latin:
pater
Gothic:
fadar
Old Irish:
athir
On the basis of these data, and using the same approach as with Spanish,
Italian and French, we can say that in all likelihood the original form from
which the above forms are descended had /p/ as its initial consonant (shifted
to /f/ in Gothic, lost in Old Irish), that its middle consonant was /t/ (shifted to
/d/ in Gothic and to a th sound - /0/ - in Old Irish), and that its final consonant was /r/ (lost in Sanskrit). In fact, historical linguists, having looked at
the above examples - and having taken account of data from many other
sources - have come to the conclusion that the word from which all of them
descended was something like *pster (where 9 stands for a neutral vowel like
the e sound in as in mower_ - and * signifies that the form is 'reconstructed'
rather than attested).
Using the comparative method, historical linguists came to the conclusion that not only the languages mentioned by Jones but also a number of
other languages across Europe and Asia belonged to the same family usually referred to as Indo-European - all being descendants of a language
to which the label Proto-Indo-European was attached. Proto- comes from a
Greek word protos (npcoTOc;), which simply means 'first'. It is also applied
to the ancestor languages of groups of languages within the Indo-European
family; thus, the term Proto-Germanic is applied to the (unattested)
136
ancestor of Dutch, German, Swedish etc. The schema below presents a

(highly simplified) historical overview of the Indo-European 'family':
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN
PROTOCELTIC
PROTOLATIN
GERMANIC
Old Irish
Britannic
Gothic
Early
Classical
Early West
Southern
Greek
Germanic
Romance
Early North Early
Germanic
Eastern
Romance
Early
Western
Romance
German
Sardinian
Modern
Dutch
Sicilian
Greek
Romanian
Afrikaans
English
Italian
Icelandic
Spanish
Norwegian Portuguese
Danish
Catalan
Swedish
French
Irish Gaelic
Scots Gaelic
Manx Gaelic
Cornish
Welsh
Breton
GREEK
PROTOBALTOSLAVIC
PROTOINDOIRANIAN
Early Baltic
Early South
Slavic
Early West
Slavic
Early East
Slavic
Old
Iranian
Sanskrit
Lithuanian
Lettish
Croatian
Serbian
Slovenian
Bulgarian
Czech
Slovak
Polish
Ukrainian
Russian
Persian
Kurdish
Bengali
Hindi
Marathi
Gujerati
Through the application of the comparative method on a wider scale,

similar kinds of 'family-trees' have been arrived at for many other language
families.
In the case of language families, such as the Indo-European family, with
large numbers of modern representatives and with written records going
back thousands of years, the comparative method works well. The more
languages that are available, the richer the data to which the method can be
applied; and the longer the written record, the easier it is to trace such languages - via their earlier forms - back to a common origin. For example, if
the Indo-European family were represented by just two modern languages,
French and Modern Irish, linking Modern Irish athair to French pere would
be a good deal less obvious than is in fact the case thanks to the availability
of other modern forms like Spanish padre and English father, and thanks
also to the availability of older forms such as Latin pater. There are,
however, cases where the ideal conditions for the comparative method are
not in place - cases, for example, where only a few representatives (sometimes just one) of a language family have been discovered and/or a language
family is represented by data from just one historical period. In cases like
this historical linguists resort to internal reconstruction - that is, they try to
Lexical change
137
infer conclusions about the historical development of the language from

internal evidence.
For purposes of illustration, let us consider how internal reconstruction
might operate with regard to an aspect of German (about whose history, in
fact, we know a great deal). In German, word-final plosive consonants are
always voiceless. Thus, the consonant written b in lieb ('dear') is pronounced /p/ (just like the consonant written p in Typ - 'type'); the consonant
written d in Bund ('bond', 'federation') is pronounced /t/ (just like the consonant written t in bunt - 'colourful'); and the consonant written g in Tag
('day') is pronounced /k/ (just like the consonant written ck in Sack - 'sack').
When, however, words ending in b, d and g are involved in morphological
processes which add vowels to the consonants in question, their final consonants are then voiced. Thus, for instance, lieber in mein lieber Freund ('my
dear friend') is pronounced /Uiibar/ (compare Typen - 'types' - pronounced
/'typan/); similarly, Bundes in the expression die Bundesrepublik ('the
Federal Republic') is pronounced /bundas/ (compare bunte in bunte Blumen
- 'colourful flowers' - , pronounced /bunta/); and Tage in friih am Tage
('early in the day) is pronounced /targa/ (compare Sackes in des Sackes - 'of
the sack' -, pronounced /zakas/). This alternation between voiced and voiceless realizations of consonants in certain words is likely to suggest to the historical linguist that at an earlier stage there may have been a single form and
that the divergent pronunciations depending on the presence or absence of
an additional vowel may have been a later development. In other words, the
historical linguist reconstructing the history of the language from which
modern German developed on the basis of internal evidence may posit that
at an earlier point in the evolution of that language the lexical ancestor of
lieb would always have been pronounced with a final /b/, the lexical ancestor
of Bun d would always have been pronounced with a final /d/ and the lexical
ancestor of Tag would always have been pronounced with a final /g/.
In this particular instance supplementary evidence for the proposal in
question is present in the spellings of the words concerned, which point to
an earlier single form in each case. Thanks to the existence of written forms
of Germanic languages over hundreds of years we can also check the plausibility of the internally constructed solution arrived at by looking back to
earlier versions of words like lieb, Bund and Tag; with regard to the final
consonant of Tag, for example, we can note that in Old English the word
for 'day' was dceg. Given that we know of numerous other modern languages which are closely related to German, we can also check the internally reconstructed solution by examining cognate forms in these
languages; for instance we can note that the word for 'day' in Danish,
Icelandic, Norwegian and Swedish is dag. Such confirmation of the internally arrived at solution by other means in this kind of case encourages historical linguists to have some confidence in internal reconstruction in
instances where longstanding orthographic evidence and/or comparative
evidence is not available.
138
As a final comment on the above, it may be worth underscoring the fact

that the entire comparative-historical enterprise starts from and is carried
forward by a focus on lexis. Linguists hypothesize historical links between
languages on the basis of noting large numbers of lexical resemblances; they
come to conclusions about the developments within language families and
individual languages by comparing, where possible, the details of similar
lexical forms across languages thought to be related at different stages of the
evolution of those languages; and, where there are limitations on the possibility of cross-language and/or cross-period comparison, they attempt to
reconstruct the earlier shape of a language by examining the alternating
forms of words which exist in the particular state of the language to which
they have access. Whatever a historical linguist's chosen destination - in
terms of phonology, syntax, semantics etc. - his/her point of departure and
means of transport will inevitably be lexical.
8.3 Changes in lexical form

As we saw in Chapter 6, the view of historical linguists used to be that a
given phonological change affected the entire language system at more or
less the same time, the same sound in the same environment always shifting
in precisely the same way. We also saw that this notion is mistaken. What
actually happens is that when a sound change gets under way it spreads on a
word by word basis through the lexicon in a process known as lexical diffusion. A further example of lexical diffusion comes from Modern Welsh,
where words beginning with cbw- in their written form are increasingly pronounced as if the ch (pronounced as in Scots Gaelic - and English - loch]
were not there. That is, these words, which used to be pronounced with an
initial /xw/ sound are now often pronounced with a simple /w/. Interestingly,
this shift affected some words before others; thus the word chtvarae ('to
play') was observed to be likely to be pronounced without initial /x/ at an
earlier stage than the word chwannen ('flea'), and this latter word was
observed to be likely to be pronounced without initial /x/ at an earlier stage
than the word chivaer ('sister').
Another traditional assumption of historical linguistics is that sound
changes are regular. If this assumption were not made then the use of correspondences between words in different languages to establish historical relationships would lack any kind of foundation. How, for example, could we
be justified in attributing any significance to the correspondences Latin
pater.Gothic fadar ('father'), Latin pes:Gothic fotu ('foot'), Latin pellis:
Gothic fill ('skin') etc., if we were to assume that a sound like initial /p/ in a
given language - Proto-Indo-European, for example - might sometimes
change to /f/ in a given daughter language, and sometimes, quite randomly,
to entirely different sounds - /g/, /n/, kl etc. Clearly, unlike the claim that
Lexical change
139
sound changes affect all relevant contexts in a language simultaneously, the

idea that sound changes are regular has to be accepted as a general principle.
On the other hand, individual words do sometimes go their own way in
phonological terms.
A good example of such individual development is provided by the word
esprit ('spirit') in French. Esprit derives from Latin spiritus, a word which,
in the days when Latin was the language of the Roman Catholic Church,
would have been very widely used and heard in religious contexts - for
example, in the invocation of the Trinity ('In nomine Patris et Filii et
Spiritus Sancti' - 'In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit') which begins all Catholic services and formal prayers, and in the
greeting and response 'Dominus vobiscum - Et cum spiritu tuo' ('The Lord
be with you - And with thy spirit') which figure repeatedly in the mass and
other Catholic ceremonies. This - and the fact that in those days people
tended to do a great deal of church-attending and praying - probably
explains why esprit has retained the s sound of its Latin forebear in its
modern pronunciation (/espri/) instead of losing it in the thirteenth century,
as in the case of other French words deriving from Latin words beginning
with sp: Latin sparsus ('scattered') > French epars ('sparse'); Latin spina
('thorn'). French epine ('thorn'); Latin sponsus ('bridegroom') > French
epoux ('husband') etc.
Often, the individualized direction of sound changes in particular lexical
items seems to be prompted by the need to avoid what is known as
homonymic or homophonic clash - that is a situation where two or more
words with totally different meanings end up sounding identical. For
example, there is a regular sound change whereby Old English /i/ and /y/
normally converged in Middle English /i/ which in turn developed into
Modern English /i/: thus, Old English brycg > Modern English bridge; Old
English scip > Modern English ship. However, in some cases Old English /y/
developed via Middle English /u/ into Modern English /A/. One such case is
that of Old English scyttan, from which Modern English shut derives. Had
scyttan undergone the regular sound change it would have resulted in a
form identical to Modern English shit, which for its part is descended from
Old English *scitan (attested in besciten). It has been argued that the way in
which scyttan evolved represents an instance of development away from
unwanted homophony, although not all linguists are convinced by this
argument.
The argument is probably strengthened in the particular instance of
scyttan by the fact that the posited avoidance relates to a word connected
with defecation. There seems to be good evidence of phonological (and
other) adjustments being triggered by uncomfortable associations with particular body-parts, intimate physical functions, sacred matters, death etc.
We saw an example of this in Chapter 6 drawn from Luganda. In English,
taboo-induced changes have tended to focus on expletive uses of the taboo
words themselves and have tended to lead to the creation of what are
HO
widely thought of as different words, which then co-exist with the original
expletives rather than replacing them, as the following doublets illustrate:
hell!
heck!
God!
gosh!
Jesus!
gee(z)!
As for the more generalized, regular sound changes, these have been
explained in a variety of ways. Some linguists have seen them as originating
in people 'missing the bull's-eye' when attempting to articulate particular
sounds, the idea being that, when a critical mass of mis-hits have been heard,
the position of the 'bull's-eye', as it were, shifts. This kind of explanation
does not, however, take account of the fact that sound changes tend to be
similar in kind in quite unconnected languages and that they do not result in
systemic confusion and chaos, both of which facts seem to be at odds with
the notion that sound change is entirely random. Also somewhat dubious is
the claim that regular sound changes arise from the imperfect acquisition of
sound systems by young children, the idea being that children's 'imperfections' survive into adulthood and are then adopted as norms; unfortunately
for this position, there is little evidence that phonological 'imperfections' of
young children's speech survive into adulthood and exercise this kind of
influence.
Another view is that sound change results from the influence of other
languages or language varieties. This certainly does explain some changes.
For example, in India languages of Indo-European origin (including Indian
English) and historically unrelated languages from the Dravidian family
share a retroflexion feature in certain consonants. That is to say, for
instance, in the Indian pronunciation of a word like day, the d sound is
pronounced with the tip of the tongue pointing backwards as it makes
contact with the dental ridge. This feature is unusual, and is unlikely to
have arisen spontaneously and separately in each of the languages concerned. Much more plausible is the notion that the feature in question
spread through contact between the different language communities. A
very common phenomenon in this connection is phonological change in
the direction of a variety with high status in a particular community. The
recent and ongoing shift away from the pronunciation of post-vocalic r in
words like car in the West Country of England towards a London-like,
r-less pronunciation of such words exemplifies this phenomenon. On the
other hand, there are also cases of shifts towards a more local, homely
variety, as we saw in the example of Martha's Vineyard - also referred to in
the last chapter.
A further claim which appears to ring true is that sound changes often
come to pass because of inherent features of the environments in which they
occur. For example, when voiceless plosive consonants such as [p], [t] and
[k] are inter-vocalic - situated between two vowels - the quality of the
Lexical change
141
vowels (voiced, not involving the obstruction of air flow) will tend to influence the consonants, which may become voiced, may cease to involve a complete block of air flow, and in the end may disappear altogether. Let us take,
for instance, the case of inter-vocalic Latin /t/ and its development in Spanish
and French. In Spanish it first developed into /d/ and then into /o/ (the voiced
th sound in English then), and so what started out, for example, as Latin vita
('life') ended up as Modern Spanish vida - pronounced /'|3ida/. As far as
French is concerned, Latin inter-vocalic /t/ travelled the same route in this
case, but went further; thus, the word vita has an eleventh century French
descendant written vithe, and its Modern French descendant is vie, devoid of
all traces of the original /t/. Interestingly, English inter-vocalic /t/ has begun
to develop in a similar direction in American English, in many varieties of
which the medial consonant sounds of matter and madder are identical.
With regard to changes in spelling, in sound-based writing systems these
often reflect changes in pronunciation. For example, it was mentioned
earlier that in French /s/ before /p/ disappeared in the thirteenth century from
the spoken form of most words. In fact this was a more general trend than
was indicated earlier; /s/ disappeared at this time from all pre-consonantal
positions in the pronunciation of most French words. Nevertheless, until the
mid-eighteenth century the s continued to be written. However, the third
edition of the Dictionary of the French Academy finally removed it from
words where it was no longer pronounced, replacing it with a circumflex or
acute accent; thus beste ('beast') began to be written as bete, chasteau
('castle') as chateau, escole ('school') as ecole etc.
On the other hand, there have sometimes been movements in a contrary
direction in spelling - that is to say, attempts to make words look more like
the forms from which they were assumed to derive - irrespective of the way
in which they were pronounced. For example, French scribes of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries were very concerned to make French look as
much as possible like Latin, and so they began spelling dette ('debt') as debte
(cf. Latin debitum), doute ('doubt') as double (cf. Latin dubitum), e ('and')
as et (cf. Latin et), fevre ('smith') as febvre (cf. Latin faber), and set ('seven')
as sept (cf. Latin septem). Occasionally their etymology was faulty. For
instance, thinking that savoir ('to know') was descended from Latin scire
('to know'), they introduced a silent c and wrote it as scauoir; in fact, savoir
comes from the verb sapere, which in formal written Latin meant 'to
discern', 'to be wise', 'to think', but which was used colloquially to mean 'to
know' (cf. colloquial Modern English 'to be wise to').
Large numbers of these etymological spellings have since been re-simplified: Modern French writes dette, doute and savoir. However, some have
'taken': et and sept are still in place and, although the word febvre has fallen
out of use, the surname corresponding roughly to the English surname Smith
is still often written Lefebvre. Interestingly, where etymological spellings
have disappeared from French they have sometimes been retained in English
- as the above cases of debt and doubt demonstrate. For English had its own
142
Latinizers, and Anglo-Saxonizers too. Middle English Hand ('island'), for

example, had an s inserted into it because it was wrongly associated with its
Romance synonym isle, from Latin insula; and the word delit, which came
from Old French delitier, delit - deriving from Latin delectare ('to delight') had gh 'restored' to it by analogy with the genuinely Germanic light (Old
English liht), night (Old English niht), right (Old English riht) etc.
Another dimension of orthographic change is the development of different spellings for different meanings. For instance, many speakers of
British English have adopted the American spellings program and disk for
use in the context of computer programs and disks while retaining the
British spellings programme and disc in all other contexts. To take another
example, most present-day speakers of English would probably regard the
words flour and flower as totally different words - homophones with
entirely unrelated meanings. As a matter of fact they both derive from Old
French flour ('flower'), flour being seen as the flower - or finest part - of
the ground corn and, interestingly, Dr Johnson's Dictionary of the English
Language (1755) does not distinguish between them in spelling, giving
'the finest part of meal' as one of the meanings of flower. However, both
before and since Dr Johnson, other writers in English have felt the need to
signal the distinction between these meanings orthographically, and so the
spellings diverged. It is worth noting also that a concern to differentiate
between words with different meanings may sometimes have militated
against spelling change. Thus, for instance, the words meet and meat used
to be pronounced differently, meat rhyming with great. In most varieties
of Modern English the phonological distinction between them no longer
exists. However, there has been no adjustment in the spelling of meat, a
non-development which possibly has to do with the avoidance of homographic clash in the same way that the phonological development of
scyttan (see above) may have had to do with the avoidance of homophonic
clash.
Turning, finally in this section, to changes in the written forms of
words in non-sound-based writing systems, these have typically been
related to developments in the materials and implements used, the circumstances under which writing proceeded and considerations of learnability. As we saw, for example, in Chapter 6, Sumerian pictograms gave
way to stylized cuneiform symbols under the influence of the way in
which the writing act came to be performed - involving soft clay and
reeds with wedge-shaped 'nibs'. In modern times the Chinese writing
system has been simplified: in 1955 the government of the People's
Republic of China sanctioned the simplification of 515 characters and 54
particles. The effect of this reform was to reduce the average number of
strokes per character from 16 to eight. Its motivation was a concern to
give the Chinese population at large easier access to literacy skills,
although some of the reductions actually decreased the representational
transparency of the characters.
Lexical change
143
8.4 Changes in lexical meaning

Whereas it is possible - with qualifications (see above) - to talk about
general, regular changes in the sounds of a language, notions of generality
and regularity have little or no application to changes in meaning. There is
absolutely no chance, for instance, that the technological meaning recently
acquired by the word mouse - 'hand-operated device which controls the
cursor on a computer screen' - will be extended to all or most other words
referring to rodents - porcupine, rat, squirrel etc. On the other hand, the
word-specific nature of semantic change does not mean that shifts in
meaning are totally arbitrary; there are particular sets of circumstances
which are known to favour semantic change, and there are particular
processes which are known to recur in semantic development.
One set of conditions for semantic change is the case where knowledge of
the world moves on from one point in time to another. Let us take for
example the word world itself. English-speakers' perception of what the Old
English ancestor of world (worold) signified would have been markedly different from what world signifies for present-day English-speakers; in the
Old English period worold referred to an entity perceived as flat and immobile, whereas (in its literal sense) world for us today refers to a spherical
object rotating on its axis and travelling at great speed through space. Such
changes in conceptualization may, of course, take place within the experience of an individual; thus, when I was a child, the word whale denoted for
me something like 'huge fish', whereas now I understand it as denoting
'large sea-dwelling mammal'. Linguists and philosophers debate about
whether the above kinds of change are really changes in meaning, which
some wish to define as both socially determined and determined by the
actual nature of things rather than simply a matter of the concepts 'in the
individual's head'. However, such changes certainly do have consequences in
terms of the lexical semantic relations exhibited in an individual's or a
group's use of a language. For example, if I think of the whale as a fish, then,
clearly, the word whale will have a hyponymous relationship with the word
fish which it will not have if I see the whale as a mammal.
Another situation in which word meanings change is where the realities
to which the words are applied change. For instance in any large American
city at the end of the nineteenth century it was possible to take a cab from,
say, the train station to one's hotel; at the beginning of the twenty-first
century that is still true, but the nature of the cab has changed, and so,
accordingly, has the meaning of the word cab. In the nineteenth century cab
was applied to a two-wheeled horse-drawn vehicle whereas today it is
applied to a four-wheeled motor vehicle. This kind of semantic change can
be occasioned by social and political restructuring as well as by technological developments. For example, throughout the Western Roman Empire in
the fourth century AD the Latin expressions princeps ('foremost (person)')
and dominus noster ('our master') were applied in legal and administrative
144
texts to the emperor (imperator), who also took the title Augustus, and to
his adjutant and successor designate (the person referred to in the Late
Empire as Caesar). Despite the kingly trappings of the emperor, the Latin
expression for 'king' - rex - was never used of the emperor. This latter term
had remained something of a 'dirty word' for Roman citizens ever since the
proclamation of the Roman Republic in 509 BC and the overthrow of
Tarquinius Superbus, the last of the Etruscan (Tarquin) kings of Rome. In
the Late Empire rex was applied only to these Tarquin kings and to kings of
territories outside the Empire. Two hundred years later, the Western Roman
Empire having collapsed and Germanic peoples having taken control of erstwhile Western Roman provinces, most of the above words were still in use in
legal and administrative texts, but in ways which reflect a totally different
social and political reality. Thus in the legal Latin of Merovingian France the
expressions dominus noster and princeps were used synonymously with rex
(Francorum) ('king (of the Franks)'); the terms imperator and Augustus, on
the other hand, were incompatible with dominus noster and princeps, and
were applied (as courtesy titles) exclusively to the emperor of the Eastern
Roman Empire, ruled from Constantinople, which was still alive and well
but which no longer had any power in the West.
In all of the above cases there is a clear functional continuity between the
earlier and the later applications of the terms. Whether horse-drawn or
motor-powered, a cab still gets us from the station to our hotel. Whether a
Roman emperor or a Prankish chieftain, the man in charge is still our master
(dominus noster). What happens, then, when a totally new kind of object,
animal, social phenomenon etc. appears on the scene of a particular community? One possibility in such a case is to create a descriptive combination
of already existing words as in traffic-warden ('a person who takes care of
traffic' - cf. churchwarden, game-warden etc.) or group-marriage ('a longterm committed relationship involving a group of people rather than just a
couple'). A variation of this approach is to give the descriptive expression a
Greek or Latin form; thus the French word telegraphe, from which we get
English telegraph, was concocted on the basis of Greek vr\ki(tele - 'far off)
and ypafyia (graphia - 'writing'). Another possibility, as the telegraphetelegraph example shows, and as we shall see later, is to borrow a relevant
term from the language of a community already familiar with the concept in
question. Yet a further possibility is to press into service a word already
present in the language of the community in which the phenomenon concerned makes its appearance by means of some kind of metaphorical extension. The above-cited example of mouse is a case in point. Whoever first
applied the word mouse to the cursor-controller of a computer presumably
did so because of some kind of perceived similarity between the technological device and the small rodent - in terms, notably, of shape, size, rapidity of
movement, and possession of a 'tail' (the connecting flex in the case of the
computer mouse). Other recent computer-related metaphorical extensions
include those affecting the words hardware, net and window.
Lexical change
145
Metaphor is in fact a major factor in semantic change, and not just in

relation to new concepts. For example, the word seethe comes from an Old
English word meaning 'to boil', and this remained the primary meaning of to
seethe well into the Modern English period. However, these days for most
English speakers to seethe means 'to be very angry'; few have any idea that
this meaning arose from the metaphorical extension of a cooking term. To
take another example, this time from French, the word chef, which means
'boss' or 'chief in Modern French, comes from the Latin word caput, which
meant 'head (of a person, animal etc.)'. This meaning was extended in much
the same way that the English word head has been (head of department,
head of a company, head of a school etc.) and in the end the metaphorical
meaning eclipsed the erstwhile literal meaning.
A further factor in semantic change is that of context. One dimension of
this factor is confusion between meanings of words arising from their frequently occurring in the same kinds of context. For instance, the verbs to
imply and to infer are both associated with contexts where the subject
matter is the inexplicit communication of messages. To imply refers to the
imparting of inexplicit messages - as in: Susan's absence seemed to imply
disapproval - while to infer refers to the extraction of inexplicit messages as in: Mike inferred from Susan's absence that she disapproved. However,
this difference of meaning has become blurred in many English-speakers'
minds, to the extent that to infer is very often used as a synonym of to imply
- as in: What are you inferring by saying that'? Similarly with to deny and to
refute, both associated with the negation of claims made by other people,
but the meaning of to refute carrying the additional element of the demonstration of falsity - as in: He refuted the accusation by showing that he had
been in Stockholm at the time. Many English-speakers (including many
politicians and journalists) no longer observe this distinction and use to
refute as a synonym of to deny - as in: I refute that! Sometimes such confusions arising from appearance in similar contexts are reinforced by formal
resemblances; thus, to mitigate is often used in the sense of to militate and to
appraise is often used in the sense of to apprise.
Another contextual element in semantic change is the impact of recurring
shared contexts. For example, guests at wine receptions hearing the words
Red or white? have no difficulty interpreting the question as if it had contained the word wine. Such context-induced abbreviations often 'stick'. For
instance, in military contexts the word private rather than private soldier is
now the normal way of signifying the lowest military rank, and in the terminology of the professions undertaker is now the usual expression for what
used to be called a funeral undertaker. In the sexual domain too such foreshortenings occur. Thus, intercourse is now typically used to mean what
previously was denoted by sexual intercourse.
The cases of the development of undertaker and intercourse may well be
further influenced by an additional factor - the avoidance of taboo language. It may be significant in these cases that the words that are dropped
146
explicitly evoke topics which are often skirted around - death and sex. The
expression sexual intercourse actually started out as a euphemism, but, as
we have seen, its subsequent evolution has ironically resulted in the word
intercourse - which used to mean simply 'communication' or 'interaction' acquiring 'sexual act' as its normal first meaning. Other expressions which
now have one foot in the semantic field of sexuality, because of having been
deployed as sexual euphemisms, include jump, the other and tumble.
Likewise with words associated with other intimate bodily functions. In
earlier times there were even taboos in respect of certain animals, which
were accordingly given euphemistic nicknames, which in turn eventually
became the normal terms for the animals in question. So it is with the word
bear in English, which is related to brown, and which originally meant
simply 'the brown one', and with the word renard ('fox') in French, which
derives from the personal forename Reginhard.
8.5 Changes in lexical distribution

In Chapter 7 we saw that some communities are characterized by the
alternation between 'High' and 'Low' linguistic varieties, depending on
setting, subject-matter, relations with the addressee etc. We also saw that
language use in all communities involves some degree of style-shifting adjusting one's accent, one's grammar and one's lexis in accordance with
the degree of formality of a situation. What needs to be added to this
general picture is that items which at one point may figure in the High
variety may move into the Low variety - and vice versa - and that items
associated with one kind of style may subsequently become associated
with a different style.
One of the diglossic situations discussed in the last chapter was that
which obtains in Haiti, where Haitian Creole constitutes the Low variety
and French the High variety. In fact, this is a simplification. There is a continuum extending from the 'pure' or least French-like Creole at one end,
through varieties where French influence is stronger, to the 'pure' prestige
variety, Haitian French, at the other. Such situations are to be found wherever a Creole whose vocabulary mostly comes from a major European language is used in a community where that same European language serves as
the High variety. Linguists label the 'pure' Creole in such cases the basiled
(cf. Greek pdaiq- basis - 'base'), the 'pure' prestige variety the acrolect (cf.
Greek ccKpov - dkron - 'summit') and the intermediate varieties the
mesolects (cf. Greek fieaog- mesos - 'middle'). There is a tendency in such
instances for speakers of basilectal varieties to try to enhance their social
standing by including in their speech elements from varieties higher up the
continuum, with the result that there is a gradual trend towards decreolization. Thus, to return to Haitian Creole, very close approximations to French
expressions - especially high-status technology-related expressions like
Lexical change
147
radio ('radio') and changement de vitesse ('gear-shift') - have in fact been

widely adopted by even 'pure' Creole speakers.
The above case represents an example of a situation where words are
adopted from a more prestigious into a less prestigious variety. There are
also instances of movement in the opposite direction. For example, the word
for 'horse' used in Latin in all formal contexts - literary, administrative etc right down to the end of the Western Roman Empire was equus (from which
our words equestrian and equine derive). However, there was another Latin
word for horse which was used in less formal contexts. This was caballus from which French cbeval, Italian cavallo, Spanish caballo etc. descend.
Caballus was occasionally used in a jokey, insulting sense in written Latin to mean something like 'old nag', but in the informal, colloquial Latin of the
streets, farms and taverns it became the usual word for 'horse', and in due
course it was accepted with this sense into more formal Latin. Thus, in
clauses dealing with horses in the sixth-century Salic Law we find the word
caballus, not equus.
Coming back to our own times, we can observe both downward and
upward adjustments of lexical distribution in Modern English. For instance,
the word excellent was, up to less than 20 years ago, rather a formal item much more likely to be used by schoolteachers at the ends of essays or by
wine critics in Sunday newspaper columns than by ordinary mortals having
a chat. This same word is now on the lips of every teenager and is applied in
every context from sport to sexual attraction. The word fabulous underwent
a similar fate in the 1960s. As far as upward movement is concerned, we can
cite the case of 'bad language'. The extent of the change can be gauged from
the fact that, whereas in 1966 the theatre critic Kenneth Tynan was instantly
sacked from the BBC for saying on a late-night arts discussion programme
that people were no longer shocked by the word fuck, these days in Britain
one can hear multiple renditions of the word fuck in films screened after
9 pm on any channel on any evening of the week. That is not to say that fuck
is now 'respectable', but it has progressed a considerable distance towards
acceptability in public settings. What used to be its French equivalent foutre - has gone much further along this road; for many French-speakers it
is simply a slangy synonym offaire ('to do') - as in Qu'est-ce qu'on va foutre
cet apres-midi? ('What are we going to do this afternoon?') or 17 y a rien a
foutre ('There's nothing to be done').
Some historical linguists would apply the term melioration to the way in
which foutre has developed in French, by which they would mean that the
sense of the word has 'improved' (cf. Latin melior - 'better') from being
obscene or insulting to being relatively neutral. Likewise for the case of Latin
caballus, whose meaning in formal contexts 'improved' from 'old nag' to
simply 'horse'. The opposite term to melioration is pejoration (cf. Latin
peior - 'worse'). This might be applied to the development of the word
excellent, the force of which ('pre-eminent') has been somewhat diluted in
recent years. The terms melioration and pejoration are applied to meanings
148
rather than distributions of words. The example typically cited of melioration is the evolution of queen, whose Old English forebear, cwen, simply
meant 'woman' (cf. Modern Swedish kvinna - 'woman'), but which now
means 'female sovereign'; as for pejoration, the example often cited in this
case is that of knave, whose Old English forerunner, cnafa, meant 'boy' (cf.
Modern German Knabe - 'boy'), but which now means 'rogue'. Melioration
and pej oration do not always result from changes of distribution in terms of
High/Low variety or formal/informal style, but there is clearly often a connection between such changes of distribution and the direction of semantic
change, as some of the earlier examples demonstrate.
8.6
Lexical changes associated with language

contact
What were described as changes in lexical distribution in the last section can,
from another perspective, be seen as a kind of borrowing - the High variety
borrowing from the Low variety, the informal style borrowing from the
formal style etc. Such borrowing is not possible, of course unless the varieties in question are in contact in some way. In the above cases the contact
was extremely close. However, borrowing between language varieties is certainly not confined to situations where there is this degree of closeness of
contact.
For example, Thai has borrowed lexis from both French and English
without there ever having been a presence of French-speakers or Englishspeakers in Thailand remotely comparable to, for example, the French presence in Haiti. An example of a Thai borrowing from French is (in Roman
transcription) pang ('bread' - cf. French pain), and an example of a Thai
borrowing from English is computer. There is, on the other hand, a common
factor between French influence on the development of Haitian Creole and
French and English influence on Thai - namely the role of prestige: French
and English are both high-status international languages associated with
well-respected literature, art etc. and with economically and militarily powerful nations.
In the Middle Ages and the Renaissance period in western Europe, the
language which served as the most important lexical 'quarry' was Latin, a
language which was no longer spoken as a mother tongue in any country,
but which, being associated with the past glories of Roman civilization, and
as the administrative and liturgical language of the Roman Catholic Church,
nevertheless had no shortage of prestige. Such was its power of attraction in
lexical terms that even Romance languages, such as French, which had
evolved from Latin, began to borrow more pristine or ''learned' versions of
words they already had in less Latin-looking form. The result: a series of
lexical doublets, many of which are echoed in English. Some examples
follow:
Lexical change
149
NATURALLY
EVOLVED
FRENCH FORM
LATER, 'LEARNED'
BORROWING
LATIN
chance
cadence
cadentia
(cf. English chance)
(cf. English cadence]
frele
fragile
(cf. English frail)
(cf. English fragile)
poison
potion
(cf. English poison)
(cf. English potion)
surete
securite
(cf. English surety]
(cf. English security]
fragilis
potio
securitas
A point worth making in this connection is that prestige of a kind that

prompts lexical borrowing is not necessarily dependent on political power.
For example, the Romans, who for centuries dominated Greece militarily
and who eventually incorporated Greece into the Roman Empire, were nevertheless in constant awe of Greek literature, music and art, and borrowed
large numbers of terms from Greek in these domains: metaphor a (< Greek
HetaQopd - metaphord - 'metaphor') musicus (< Greek novGiKoq mousikos - 'musical'), poeta (< Greek noinns- poietSs- 'poet') etc. Even
more dramatic is the case of those Vikings who by force of arms won for
themselves (in 911) the territory we now know as Normandy (Norman =
'Northman'). So bedazzled, apparently, were these intrepid warriors by the
attractions and comforts of their new home that they borrowed not just a
few items of vocabulary from their new subjects but an entire language - so
that when the Norman invading forces hit the shores of England 155 years
later, it was with battle songs in Old French, not Old Norse, on their lips.
Apart from borrowing born of the esteem in which a given language and
culture (or aspects thereof) are held, borrowing may also occur as a convenient way of covering lexical gaps in a language. The word telegraph has
already been briefly discussed. It provides a good illustration of the notion of
convenience borrowing. The first electrical telegraph was built in Geneva in
1774 by a French-speaking scientist, Georges Lesage, and so, naturally
enough, the first word for this new invention was a French term (though
constructed on Greek roots - see above), namely telegraphe. When British
and American scientists developed the technology further in the nineteenth
century, they simply took over the French term and gave it an English form.
The Thai borrowing of the English word computer - also mentioned earlier
- is a further case in point. Actually, not only Thai but other languages as
well have borrowed this word - German, for example. Although early calculating machines were invented by the French philosopher Pascal and by
the German philosopher Leibniz, the work leading to the development of
ISO
what we now know as computers was mostly carried out in Great Britain
and the United States, and so it is hardly surprising that the English word
(coined on a Latin base) came to international prominence and was
imported into other languages.
Often though, let it be said, the crucial factor in what word is borrowed
in these kinds of instances is not the language of the inventors or the developers of the concept in question, but the language of the group responsible
for bringing the concept concerned to a community previously unfamiliar
with it. For example, the Christian Church and its theology and practices
were not originally invented by Latin-speakers but rather by Aramaic-,
Hebrew- and Greek-speakers. However, in western Europe these concepts
and activities were mediated and disseminated through Latin, which is why
in the languages of western Europe, including the non-Romance languages,
so many words relating to churches and what goes on in churches derive
from Latin; thus, for instance, in Irish, the words for 'altar', 'blessing',
'chalice', 'consecration', 'introit', 'sacrament' and 'incense' are, respectively:
altoir (< Latin altare], beannacht (< Latin benedictio], cailis (< Latin calix),
coisreacan (< Latin consecratio), introid (< Latin introitus), sacraimint
(< Latin sacramentuni) and tuis (< Latin tus).
8.7
The case of proper names
In the context of a discussion of lexical change it is worth considering the

particular case of the development of proper names. Typically, proper names
have their origins in expressions which mean something in a general kind of
way and which then become attached to specific places, people or things. In
a fair number of instances these origins are perfectly obvious even to the
casual observer. In relation to towns called Newcastle, for example, we can
fairly safely assume that at some stage in their history a new castle was
erected; indeed, in many cases we can check our assumption by actually
inspecting the castle in question. Similarly, a place called Whitecliffs is likely
to boast or at some stage to have boasted white cliffs, a place called Foxholes
is likely to be or to have been the abode of foxes, and a place called
Greystones is likely to feature or to have featured grey stones.
With regard to family names, these originate in nicknames - the original
sense of surname (cf. French surnom) was precisely this. Individuals were
identified by, for example, some aspect of their personal characteristics
(Armstrong, Greenhorn, Grey, Long, Short, Sharp, Sweet etc.), by their profession (Brewer, Miller, Tanner etc.) by their family origins (Johnson,
Peterson, Richardson etc.), or by where they came from. In this last case the
name in question might relate to a particular topographical feature (Field,
Mount, Woods - cf. French Deschamps, Dumont, Dubois) or to a particular
place-name with its own history (e.g. Hardcastle, Newhall, Redwood}.
Forenames, or 'given names', are for their part assigned to children often on
Lexical change
151
the basis of the impression made by a particular infant or on the basis of

aspirations for the child's character (thus, Bonny, Grace, Prudence etc.).
Alternatively, a name may be given in honour of some other person (an
ancestor, a saint, a current hero etc.) who may - in the parents' fond dreams
perhaps serve as a model for the child. Names given to institutions and
products may be similarly aspirational and/or flattering, for example
Golden Wonder (potato crisps), Mother's Pride (bread), Swiftpost (express
mail system), The Open University (university specializing in distance
learning), The Independent (newspaper).
In all of the above cases, the ordinary meanings of the names in question
are transparent to speakers of Modern English. However, in many other
cases the original meanings are obscured by historical change and/or by the
fact that the items in question have been borrowed from other languages.
With regard to the obscuring of the original meaning through historical
change, Modern English-speakers will probably recognize sheep-herd in the
surnames Shepherd, Sheppard etc. (because shepherd still exists as a
common noun in English), but will probably not recognize calf-herd in
Calvert, hog-herd in Hoggart or sow-herd in Seward. Similarly, on the personal characteristics front, most Modern English speakers no longer connect
the surname Blount with blond, Gosse with goose, nor Pennyfeather with
penny-father (= 'miser'). As far as borrowing is concerned, this is well illustrated by English forenames, most of which are borrowed from other languages - Hebrew, Latin, Greek, French, Gaelic (both Scots and Irish), Welsh
etc. To take a few Latin examples, how many of us know that Amanda,
Benedict, Cara, Dominic, Felix, Leo, Margarita, Miranda, Paul and
Septimus come from words meaning, respectively, 'to be loved', 'blessed',
'dear', 'of the Lord', 'happy', 'lion', 'pearl', 'to be wondered at', 'small', and
'seventh'? Often the origin of a proper name is obscured both by its foreign
roots and by the fact that it has undergone change since being borrowed. For
instance, I puzzled for many years over my mother's maiden name, Ayley; I
eventually discovered that this unusual surname is a much-altered version of
a Middle French term - aillier ('garlic-seller').
In the case of place-names, these may contain elements from languages
spoken in the area in question at any time over several millennia. For
example, in Great Britain place-names may have Celtic, Latin, Old English,
Old Norse or French origins - or may contain elements of two or more of the
languages in question. Thus:
Celtic: all rivers called Avon (and the county of that name) derive from a
Celtic word which simply meant 'river' (cf. Modern Welsh afon - 'river').
Latin: Chester and all -chester -cester and -caster elements in English
place-names have their origin in Latin castra which meant '(military)
camp'.
Old English: Hampton derives from Old English ham, meaning 'homestead' and tun, meaning 'enclosure'. Similarly with other English placenames containing the elements ham(p) and/or to(w)n.
152
Old Norse: Normanby descends from Old Norse Nor manna byr 'enclosure/settlement of the Northmen' ; most English place-names
ending in -by are Norse in origin (cf. Modern Swedish by - 'village',
'hamlet'; Modern Danish and Norwegian landsby - 'village').
French: Beaulieu (pronounced /bju:li/ - i.e. as if written Bewley) is derived
from the French expression beau lieu - 'beautiful place'. Other British
place-names in which beau figures (Beauchamp, Beaufort, Beaumont) are
also of French origin.
Examples of blends: Dorchester (Celtic element * dor- or *dur- (also in
Dorset) - from the name of the Celtic tribe who inhabited the region
(known in Latin as Durotriges) - plus chester from Latin castra - '(military) camp'; King's Lynn (English king plus Celtic *linn - 'pool' ); Forde
Abbey (English ford plus Old French abbeie - 'abbey').
A final point about proper names: while such names, as has been indicated,
typically develop from expressions with general denotations into labels
attached to particular persons, places etc. in given contexts, sometimes the
process operates in the opposite direction. One area where this frequently
occurs is the area of taboo language. 'Pet-names' are often created in particular families or groups to refer to entities or actions around which linguistic
delicacy is felt to be required. Thus, for example, the penis has been christened, among other things, Dick, Horatio, Jimbo, Jim Johnson, John Thomas,
Micky, Percy, Roger and Willy. Some of these expressions (dick and willy in
the English-speaking world at large, micky in Ireland) have evolved into
common nouns, and another has given rise to the verb to roger ('to have sex
with'). A further category of proper names which frequently spawns words of
more general application is that of brand-names. Some obvious examples here
are band-aid, biro and walkman, which began as names for particular brands
of, respectively, sticking plaster, ballpoint pen and personal stereo, but which
later came in each case fairly widely to be used of the whole class of products
in question. There is, in addition, a dimension of the question of proper names
acquiring more general meanings as a result of the deliberate attachment of
general denotations to such names. We shall examine this third dimension a
little more closely in the next section.
8.8
Lexical engineering
This last section of the chapter deals with language change that is brought
about deliberately. We have already touched on this kind of change in our
discussion of changes in spelling and in our discussion of the coinage of new
terms. We shall return to the conscious creation of new terms in the present
section and we shall then home in on the ideological dimension of 'lexical
engineering'. This latter aspect involves not only the coining of new expressions but also the modification or in some cases the suppression - or
attempted suppression - of existing expressions.
Lexical change
153
The conscious creation of new terms has already been touched on. We
have seen that when a new invention, discovery or idea arrives on the scene,
it often occasions the invention in turn of a linguistic label by which the
newly developed or observed phenomenon may be identified. We have seen
also that the new coinages are often simply descriptive expressions - either
in the language of the inventor(s) (e.g. traffic-warden) or based on a language, such as Greek or Latin, with ancient pedigree (e.g. telegraphe, computer). Another possibility we have noted in such instances is the
metaphorical extension of an existing expression - as in the case of mouse
applied to a cursor-controller in a computing context. It is also clear from
earlier discussion that not every new development leads to the creation of
new terminology. The example of cab - evolving from horse-drawn to
motorized but retaining its name - was given earlier.
A dimension of deliberately concocting new expressions which has so far
been only briefly mentioned (at the end of the last section) is the incorporation into the new terms of the personal names of individuals closely associated with the inventions, discoveries or ideas in question. Many examples of
this phenomenon are to be found in the medical sciences, where there is a
tradition of naming diseases after the researchers who identified and/or
described them; thus we have Down's syndrome - named after the British
physician J. L. H. Down (1828-96,*, Hodgkin's disease - named after the
British pathologist Thomas Hodgkin (1798-1866) - and Parkinson's disease
- named after the British physician James Parkinson, (1755-1824).
Similarly, engineers have pieces of technology named after them (e.g.
Archimedes' screw), horticulturists have roses named after them (e.g.
Gibson's Scarlet), and political philosophers have political movements
named after them (e.g. Marxism). In some cases an individual's name is used
as it stands to supply a very basic term within the discipline in which he/she
was prominent; thus in physics the basic unit of measurement of electrical
resistance is the ohm, which is named after the German physicist Georg
Simon Ohm (1787-1854), and the basic unit of measurement of radioactivity is the becquerel, which is named after the French physicist Henri
Antoine Becquerel (1852-1908).
Overlapping with the deployment of personal names in deliberate lexical
innovation is the invention of brand-names. Sometimes, after all, a brandname is based simply on the name of the founder of the relevant company.
So it was with the Hoover range of vacuum-cleaners, which took their
name from the manufacturer W.H. Hoover - a brand-name so successful
that - as in the case of band-aid, biro etc. - hoover passed into common
parlance as a way of referring to all vacuum-cleaners. Brand-names which
are not based on a personal name tend to be fashioned so as to evoke associations relevant to the product - technological (e.g. Technet - computer
network consultants - cf. technical, technological etc), washing whiter then
white (e.g. Daz - washing detergent - cf. dazzle), environmentally friendly
(e.g. Ecover - biodegradable washing-up liquid - cf. ecology, eco-system
154
etc.), meaty (e.g. Oxo - beef stock cube - cf. ox), clean (e.g. Kleenex tissues - cf. clean), and so on. Inventors of brand-names, like inventors of
other kinds of words, also sometimes borrow elements from other languages; thus, Bovril (beef drink - cf. Latin bos (genitive bovis] - 'ox'), Lux
(soap - cf. Latin lux - 'light'), Blue Stratos (aftershave - cf. Greek OTparog
- stratos - 'army') etc.
Finally let us not forget the contributions of the literary world to the
deliberate coinage of new words,. Below are cited two stanzas from Lewis
Carroll's 'Jabberwocky' (from Alice through the looking-glass, 1872).
One two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.
"And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
He chortled in his joy.
These two stanzas alone were responsible for the institution of three new
words in English - galumph, frabjous and chortle - defined by the Concise
Oxford Dictionary as follows:
galumph
move noisily or clumsily
frabjous
delightful, joyous
chortle
chuckle gleefully
2 go prancing in triumph
As with Carroll, so with many other writers, and as with English, so, no
doubt, with all other languages possessed of literatures.
The lexicon has also been shaped by deliberate attempts to impose
notions of bettering society. These have tended to focus on what have been
perceived as sexist, racist, classist and ageist usages and on the lexicalization
of sexual orientation and mental and physical handicap. We shall look here
at just the first of the above, but this should suffice to exemplify the kinds of
approach that are being taken more generally.
Concerning sexism in language, a large number of expressions have
been singled out by feminists as demeaning to women. These include terms
such as bird, bitch, cow, chapess, chippy, girl (applied to an adult female),
popsy, tabby, tootsy, totty and wren. Terms such as these are said to insult
women by dehumanizing them (comparing them to other species, e.g. bird,
bitch], by diminishing them (implying they are immature, e.g. girl, comparing them to small creatures, e.g. bird, wren, or representing them
via diminutives, e.g. chippy, popsy) and by classifying them in male
terms (representing them as non-males, e.g. chapess). On this view, such
Lexical change
155
expressions, as ways of referring to women, should be simply expunged

from the language.
In addition, feminists have objected to the fact that certain functions in
society have traditionally been signified by words which imply that the
person fulfilling that function has to be male: chairman, fireman, postman,
salesman etc. In this case two options present themselves: one can try to
balance things up by creating 'female' versions of the words in question chairwoman, saleswoman etc. - or one can attempt to render the items concerned gender-neutral - chairperson, chair, firefighter, postal operative etc.
In English, both of these options have been implemented to some extent, but
the latter is the one that is clearly favoured by feminists.
In other languages - such as French - the response to the problem of sexism
in language has been to feminize rather than to neutralize. For instance, there
are in French many words, such as professeur ('teacher') and auteur ('author'),
which are masculine in form and take the masculine articles le ('the') and un
('a'), but which are applicable to both males and females. Other similarlooking words, such as chanteur ('singer') and acteur ('actor'), have feminine
forms - chanteuse, actrice - which are used when the individuals referred to
are female. In recent years such feminine forms have deliberately been multiplied. The forms professeure and autrice, for example, have been coined.
There remains the problem that traditionally in French the masculine form
constitutes the default form; that is to say, for example, a member of the acting
profession whose sex is unknown is referred to via the masculine acteur, and a
mixed group of male and female members of the acting profession is referred
to via the masculine plural form, acteurs. Obviously, the creation of forms like
autrice does not of itself solve this problem.
To return to the basic foundations of attempts to render language less
sexist, racist etc., these seem to stand in need of some further exploration
and comment. To begin with, who is to decide which terms are insulting
and therefore inappropriate? There often seems to be a gap between the
perceptions of those abolishing 'offensive' terms and those to whom the
terms refer. For example, the 'politically correct' expression hearingimpaired is totally rejected by large numbers of deaf people, who dislike the
implicit medical perspective on their situation and way of life, and who
prefer to identify themselves as the Deaf (with a capital D to make the point
that they constitute a culture). Even the status of a term like nigger is not
necessarily as straightforward as it might appear. As Vivian Cook points
out, 'the solidarity principle asserts itself and these discriminatory terms
become signs of group membership' to the point where a group 'may wear
the detested term with pride as a badge of identity'. He cites in this connection the Black rap group Niggas with Attitude and the Mikey Smith poem
'Nigger Talk'. Another issue worth considering in relation to conscious
endeavours to address socio-politically undesirable features and deficiencies in the lexicon is how far this can of itself really change perceptions and
attitudes.
156
8.9
Summary
This chapter began with some general comments on language change and on
the fact that during the nineteenth century linguistics was almost exclusively
concerned with tracing such change and theorizing about it. A brief account
was then given of the two principal research methods developed by historical linguists - the comparative method and the internal reconstruction
method, attention being drawn to the importance of the lexical dimension of
each of these methods. The chapter went on to describe and exemplify different types of lexical change - changes in lexical form, changes in lexical
meaning, changes in lexical distribution and changes associated with language contact. A number of factors were suggested as contributing to the
causation of such changes, including concern with social prestige, crosslinguistic influence, avoidance of homonymic clash; avoidance of taboo
words (and words resembling taboo words) and the need to provide labels
for new technology, institutions etc. In the final two sections of the chapter
some discussion was devoted to the origins and development of proper
names (typically from expressions with more general application) and to the
issue of deliberate intervention in lexical change - on the one hand the conscious invention of new terms and, on the other, attempts to shape the
lexicon in a socio-politically more acceptable direction.

See 8.1. The Chaucer quotation is from Troilus and Criseyde, Book 2 (lines
22-6). The two quotations from Ferdinand de Saussure's Course in general
linguistics are cited from Wade Baskin's translation (revised edition,
Glasgow: Fontana/Collins, 1974); the first quotation is to be found on p. 77
of this volume and the second on p. 140.
See 8.2. The discussion of the origins of comparative-historical linguistics
owes much to chapters 6 and 7 of R. H. Robins's book A short history of linguistics (second edition, Harlow: Longman, 1979), and the content of both
8.2 and 8.3 is informed by (and borrows some examples from) J. A.
Anderson's book Structural aspects of language change (London: Longman,
1973).
See 8.3. The Modern Welsh examples relative to lexical diffusion are cited
by J. Aitchison in her book Language change: progress or decay (London:
Fontana, 1981, 95-6) from M. Chen's article, 'The time dimension: contribution toward a theory of sound change' (Foundations of Language 8,
457-98). Aitchison's book (especially chapters 7, 8 and 11) is one of the
sources for the discussion of the causes of language change; other sources for
this discussion include Chapter 9 of R. Antilla's book An introduction to historical and comparative linguistics (second edition, New York: Macmillan,
Lexical change
157
1988) and Chapter 10 of W. P. Lehmann's Historical linguistics: an introduction (London: Routledge, 1992). The exceptional status of esprit is
referred to by A. Ewert in his book The French language London: Faber &
Faber, 1933, 286-7) and by P. Rickard in his book A history of the French
language (second edition, London: Unwin Hyman, 1989, 65). This latter
work (especially Chapter 4) in addition supplies many of the examples relative to changes in French orthography. The scyttan/shut example is taken
from A. M. S. McMahon's Understanding language change (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1994, 332-3). The iland/island example is
borrowed from S. Potter's book Our language (revised edition, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1966, 45), on p. 72 of which is also to be found Dr
Johnson's definition of flower in the sense of flour. The delitldelight example
is borrowed from E. Weekley's The romance of words (new edition, London:
John Murray, 1961, 103, fn. 6). The information about the simplification of
Chinese characters is taken from L-J. Calvet's Histoire de I'ecriture (Paris:
Plon, 1996, 101).
See 8.4. The case against seeing changes in conceptualization as changes in
meaning is put by (for example) H. Putnam in his article 'Meaning and reference' (in A.W. Moore (ed.), Meaning and reference, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1993). The Late Latin examples are based on research I
undertook many years ago in connection with my doctoral thesis (A structural survey of the vocabulary denoting social status in Late Imperial and
Early Merovingian Latin, University of Cambridge, 1976). The bear and
renard examples are borrowed from p. 41 of R. L. Trask's Historical linguistics (London: Arnold, 1996).
See 8.5. The source of the idea of the Creole continuum and the attendant
terminology is D. Bickerton's book The dynamics of a Creole system
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975). The Haitian Creole examples are borrowed from p. 53 of Helene Seligman's unpublished undergraduate dissertation Haitian Creole: a sociolinguistic and sociocultural
exploration (Dublin: Trinity College, Department of French, 1988).
See 8.6. The Thai examples were provided by Jennifer Pariseau. The remarks
about later Latin borrowings in French follow Chapter 8 ('The Latinizing
tendency') of my little book French: some historical background (Dublin:
Authentik Language Learning Resources, 1992).
See 8.7. The discussion of family-names draws on the examples given in
Chapter 12 of E. Weekley's The romance of words (new edition, London:
John Murray, 1961). The treatment of place-names was in general informed
by a visit to the UK English Place Name Database, which may be consulted at
the following website: http: //www.connections.ndirect.co.uk/pnamesdb.html
The Normanby example was borrowed from p. 28 of S. Potter's Our language
(revised edition, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1966). The treatment of the
evolution of proper names into common nouns etc. was generally informed by
158
A. Shell's interesting and amusing book Bloomers, biros and Wellington

boots: how the names became the words (Oxford: Past Times, 1999).
See 8.8. The discussion of deliberate lexical innovation owes some of its
inspiration to Chapter 7, Section 3, of A. M. S. McMahon's Understanding
language change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994). Cook's
astute comments on the use of discriminatory terms as badges of identity are
to be found on pp 244-6 of his book Inside language (London: Arnold,
1997).
Accessible introductions to language change and historical linguistics
include:
J. Aitchison, Language change: progress or decay (London: Fontana,
1981);
R. Antilla, An introduction to historical and comparative linguistics
(second edition, New York: Macmillan, 1988);
T. Crowley, An introduction to historical linguistics (Oxford: Oxford
W. P. Lehmann, Historical linguistics: an introduction (third edition,
London: Routledge, 1992))
R. L. Trask, Historical linguistics (London: Arnold, 1996).
Readers wishing to deepen their understanding of language change would
do well to go on to consult:
W. Labov, Principles of linguistic change, I: internal factors (Oxford:
Blackwell, 1994);
W. Labov, Principles of linguistic change, II: external factors (Oxford:
Blackwell, forthcoming);
A. M. S. McMahon, Understanding language change (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1994);
S. Romaine, Bilingualism (Oxford: Blackwell, 1989).
Readers with a reading knowledge of French who would like to know more
about the development of the different language-groups and languages in
Europe would have much to gain by consulting:
H. Walter, L'aventure des langues en Occident: leur origine, leur
histoire, leur geographic (Paris: Robert Laffont, 1994).

1. In 8.2 we briefly looked at various branches of the Indo-European family
of languages (Celtic, Germanic, Romance, Slavic etc.). Can you say to
which branch each of the following languages belongs (and where it
is/was in use)? If in doubt, consult an encyclopedia or other reference
materials.
Lexical change
Avestan
Occitan
Faroese
Old Church Slavonic
Frisian
Punjabi
Galician
Pictish
Macedonian
Yiddish
159
2. Consider the following set of cognates from Dutch, English, Swedish and
Standard German. Can you - on the basis of these data - say something
about the changes in the pronunciation of consonants which separated
German off from the rest of the Germanic family? (NB in German ch following a, o or u is pronounced /x/, and z is always pronounced /ts/).
DUTCH
ENGLISH
SWEDISH
GERMAN
boek
book
bok
Buch
eten
to eat
dta
essen
haat
hate
hat
Hass
hopen
to hope
hoppas
hoffen
koken
to cook
koka
kochen
peper
pepper
peppar
Pfeffer
pijp
pipe
pipa
Pfeife
tien
ten
tio
zehn
land
tooth
tand
Zahn
3. Try to come up with explanations as to how the following underlined

expressions acquired their meanings:
The specialist he went to has diagnosed the big C.
A pint of bitter please.
We've saved all the data on floppy.
He'll need some help at first because he's a bit green.
Does this watch have a second hand?
Shall we go and fly your new kite, Chris?
You can open up the throttle a bit on this stretch of the road.
Dad's father passed away when I was nine.
He always wears shorts in July and August.
There is an emergency exit adjacent to each wing of this aircraft.
160
4. The following expressions are all included in The Oxford Dictionary of

Slang (compiled by J. Ayto, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998) in the
section dealing with the area of fear. Are all of these expressions in fact
equally 'slangy'? If not, which of them have begun to move out of the slang
category, and which of them are definitely still tied to highly informal contexts?
blue funk
shake in one's shoes
cold feet
shitless
get the wind up
spooked
hairy
sweat blood
put the fear of God into
the creeps
run a mile (from)
the shits
scaredy-cat
white-knuckle
scary
yikes
5. On the basis of what was said about place-names in 8.7, what would you
deduce about the history of the following places in Great Britain and
about features that may be or may have been associated with them:
Avonmouth
Gatenby
Beauly
Greenham
Cirencester
Kirkby
Clifton
Littleton
Fordham
Sevenoaks
6. Try to create your own brand-name for each of the following; in each case
explain why you decided on the name you are proposing (and why you
rejected any other names you may have thought of).
a chocolate bar containing pistachio nuts;
an ice-cream flavoured with exotic fruit;
a dandruff shampoo;
a highly perfumed luxury soap;
a garage specializing in fast repairs;
a hypermarket with very low prices;
a record label specializing in light classical music;
a record label specializing in heavy rock music;
a men's magazine;
a women's magazine.
9
Acquiring and processing lexis
9.1
The 'mental lexicon'
Up to this point in the book we have been treating the lexicon as an important dimension of language that needs to be addressed in any description of
the phenomenon of language or indeed in the description of any particular
language. In the present chapter we shall be looking at the lexicon which
each speaker carries around 'inside his/her head', that is to say the lexical
knowledge, or mental lexicon^ upon which all use of any given language
heavily depends. We shall look at the process by which lexical knowledge is
internalized in the course of the acquisition of the mother tongue, we shall
explore some ideas about how the mental lexicon is organized and how it
functions, and we shall also examine some of the questions that arise in situations where more than one language is known by an individual.
A question that immediately arises when we start to talk about lexical
knowledge is: what does it mean to know a word? We can make a fairly reasonable attempt at answering this question just by observing ordinary language use and noting what aspects of a word's profile we need to be familiar
with in order to be able cope with it in such ordinary language use. On this
basis we can straightaway say that knowing a word involves:
knowing what it sounds like - so that we can recognize it and produce it
in speech;
(at least in literate societies) knowing its written form - so that we can
recognize it and produce it in writing;
knowing what it means - so that we can understand it and deploy it
appropriately;
knowing how it behaves morphologically - so that we can recognize and
use its different forms (singular, plural etc.);
knowing how it behaves syntactically - so that we can identify its function in phrases and sentences and so that we can use it in different roles in
phrases and sentences.
All of the above are fairly obvious. However, conclusions emerging from discussion in earlier chapters would lead us to go further. Thus, what was said
162
in Chapter 4 about the various effects which accrue when a given word participates in specific compounds, collocations, fixed expressions and idioms
strongly suggests that we cannot really be said to know a word unless we
know about 'the company it keeps' and the different impacts on its meaning
and usage which result from participation in particular combinations.
Context and meaning were dealt with in a more general way in Chapter 5,
and this discussion reinforces the notion that knowing a word must include
knowing how its interpretation shifts in accordance with the different contexts in which it may occur. Finally in this connection, the discussion of the
association of particular words with particular social groupings and contexts in chapters 7 and 8 implies that knowing a word must involve knowing
its social associations and knowing the kinds of social contexts in which it
would and would not be likely to occur.
9.2
Meeting the lexical challenge
Some linguists claim that language is such a vast and complex phenomenon
and the language input supplied to the infant by his/her caregivers so limited
in nature that no child could ever acquire language if it were not for the fact
that every human being is born with an inbuilt language faculty - a subsystem of the mind/brain which has evolved to deal specifically with the processing and acquisition of language. This contention is known as the poverty
of the stimulus argument. According to this view, the inborn or innate language faculty enables the young child to distinguish linguistic from nonlinguistic data and provides a guiding framework for the organization of linguistic information so that language development may proceed swiftly and
systematically. Customarily this line of argument is applied in respect of the
acquisition of syntax. However, a similar argument can be, and has been,
applied to lexical acquisition.
Whatever may be the truth of the matter regarding an innate language
faculty, it is possible to point to other facilitating factors which have to do
with the nature of the input encountered by the child. It has been observed
that in many cultures adults behave differently towards children in linguistic
terms from the way in which they behave towards each other. They talk to
children more slowly, using shorter utterances, in a higher pitch, and with
repetition of key elements. It is thought by many language acquisition
researchers (though not all) that such features of what is variously called
motherese, parentese, caretaker-talk and child-directed speech make it easier
for children to identify the units out of which utterances are composed. One
aspect of child-directed speech that seems to be particularly relevant in this
connection is ostensive definition - the definition of single words by
pointing at what they refer to and naming them; in this case individual
word-units are ready-isolated for the child by the caregiver, as well as being
explicitly connected to particular meanings.
163
This latter semantic aspect of the lexical challenge is obviously vitally

important. Extracting word-units from the speech stream would be of little
benefit to the child in communicative terms without the attachment to the
units in question of appropriate meanings. A further feature of speech
directed at very young children which is relevant in this connection is that
such speech is largely focused on the 'here and now'. Obviously, with or
without explicit ostensive definition, it must be easier for the child to make
links between words and meanings where these meanings relate to his/her
present and immediate environment than would be the case if the reference
were to objects, people, events etc. not accessible to the child's senses at the
time of the interaction.
With regard to later stages in children's lexical development, further
major lexical challenges await them during their school years. With the
acquisition of literacy skills, they are required to add an orthographic
dimension to the entries already present in their mental lexicons and to all
entries acquired subsequently. While mastering the orthographic aspects of
lexis is no easy matter, it does yield a certain pay-off in lexical-developmental terms. Once literacy skills have begun to be acquired, this significantly increases the range of opportunities for word-learning - both via
ostensive routes and through the use of context. With regard to ostension,
this is provided by a whole gamut of combinations of pictures and written
words and by all the written definitions of words in terms of other words
that teachers and textbooks provide from the earliest stages of schooling. As
for use of context, the precise extent of its role in reading has been a matter
of some controversy. However, research certainly does show that pre-readers
and beginning readers rely heavily on context, and the general assumption is
that the process of decoding unfamiliar words in context - in reading as in
the handling of spoken language - leads to lexical acquisition.
9.3
Before the first words
Children begin to produce recognizable words around the age of 12 months.

However, before that point a number of phenomena can be observed which
appear to be relevant to lexical development. These include: the capacity of
even new-born babies to discriminate between particular speech sounds, the
development of concepts well before the onset of word production, and the
gradual drift of the child's pre-lexical 'babbles' towards incorporating features of the language of the environment.
With regard to speech sound discrimination, the results of a number of
experiments suggest that that new-born infants are sensitive to critical voice
onset time (VOT) differences. VOT refers to the point at which the vocal
cords begin to vibrate relative to the release of the closing off of the flow of
air in voiceless plosives such as [p] and in voiced plosives such as [b]. In the
case of a voiceless plosive there is a clear delay before the vocal cords begin
164
to vibrate, whereas in the case of a fully voiced plosive the vocal cords
vibrate throughout. Even if vocal cord vibration does not begin immediately,
however, a sound will still be perceived as voiced if the time-lapse between
the release of the stop and the beginning of vocal cord vibration falls within
certain limits.
It is possible to investigate infants' sensitivity to speech sound differences
via a technique based on the fact that the longer human beings (and indeed
other species) are exposed to a particular sensory input the less it stimulates
them. This is known as the habituation effect. In the experiments in question
the child is given a 'blind nipple' to suck on and is exposed to certain sounds.
As long as what the child perceives as the same sound continues to be
played, his/her rate of sucking gradually decreases. If then an adjustment to
the sound triggers an increase in the rate of sucking, this is interpreted as
indicating that the child has noticed the change, and that the habituation
effect has thus been disrupted. According to evidence yielded by this kind of
technique, infants of just one month can discriminate between synthetically
produced sounds which in terms of their VOT values would be categorized
as voiced and voiceless plosives respectively, while failing to distinguish
between sounds whose differences failed to cross the voiced-voiceless
boundary.
Such results have been interpreted by some researchers as indicating the
presence of a biological endowment specifically related to the particularities
of the phonology of human language and part of an innate language faculty
unique to humankind. Unfortunately for this point of view, it has been
shown that other species, such as chinchillas and rhesus monkeys, are also
able to discriminate between voiced and voiceless speech sounds, and so it is
unlikely that this ability represents a specifically linguistic mechanism.
Nevertheless, it seems fair to assume that the general capacity of very young
children to distinguish between different types of sound does constitute an
aid to language development - including, of course, lexical development.
With regard to concept development, there is no doubt about the existence of concepts in the child's mind before the first words begin to appear,
but it is not so easy to answer the question of where such concepts come
from and that of how early conceptualization relates to later lexical development. Research in this area - as in the case of research into sound discrimination in young children - often uses techniques which rely on the
habituation phenomenon. For example, it is well known that infants who
have been familiarized with a particular visual stimulus and who are then
offered a choice between the familiar stimulus and a new stimulus will
usually opt for the novel experience on offer and will look longer at the new
stimulus.
Further evidence of conceptualization prior to word production is provided by the observation of interaction between babies and their caregivers.
For example, it appears that by around 8-9 months infants fairly consistently look in the same direction as their caregivers, a phenomenon which
165
researchers interpret as shared reference, involving a deliberate endeavour

on the part of the child to locate the referent of the caregiver's gaze. Such
behaviour is taken to indicate not only some understanding on the infant's
part of the fact that attention typically refers to something but also a general
conception of the range of likely objects of the attention in question.
With regard to the origins of concepts, as we saw in the last section, some
researchers have suggested that concepts are innate. If this were the case,
what might be the level of specificity and detail of such concepts? Would
they be rich and well-developed or elementary and highly general? The first
proposition runs up against the problem of finding a plausible explanation
as to how such a fulsome concept-structure might have evolved, and the
second runs up against the problem of appearing to fly in the face of evidence that children's first concepts are of a moderate level of generality
rather than being elementary and universal in nature. Although neither of
these points necessarily rules out the notion of innate concepts, both demonstrate that the innateness solution to the question of where concepts come
from is by no means a straightforward one.
It is, on the other hand, possible to envisage a contribution of innate
mechanisms to concept development without actually taking the view that
the concepts themselves are innate. Thus, for example, the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget claimed that concepts were the result of, on the one hand,
the nature of the biological 'hardware' with which the infant comes
equipped into the world (e.g. the particular characteristics of the human
senses) and, on the other, the interaction between the child's innate mode of
general intellectual functioning and the environment. According to this view,
the development of concepts about objects are, as John Harris puts it,
'closely linked to the child's growing understanding of space, spatial relations and the notion of objects and people being located in a common space',
this understanding being arrived at through the child's exploration of the
world in terms of actions and their effects. Another proposal regarding the
role of innate factors in concept development is that of the American psychologist Jerome Bruner, who suggests that there may be 'some special features of human action and human attention' which are inborn and which
help the child to decode various kinds of communicative behaviour and thus
facilitate the establishment of concepts such as agent, effect, location etc.
Turning now to the question of the relationship between the child's late
'babbles' and first words, our first step in this context must be to situate babbling in the general scheme of things. Babbling is the second of the four early
developmental milestones which are most consistently referred to in
accounts of child language. These four milestones are:
cooing (onset 1-4 months, characterized by vocalizations with a vowellike quality);
babbling (onset 4-8 months, characterized by combinations of vowel-like
and consonant-like sounds, including reduplications such as baba,
mama);
166
one-word utterances (onset around the end of the first year);

two-word utterances (onset 18-24 months).
Babbling thus immediately precedes what is sometimes called 'true speech',
that is, meaningful one-word utterances. A question that fairly obviously
arises, therefore, is whether the babbling stage and the one-word utterance
stage blur into each other or are entirely separate developments.
One perspective on this question is that there is a babbling drift (otherwise known as babbling shift) under the effects of which the children's
babbles gradually take on more and more of the characteristics of the language to which they are being exposed. Evidence in favour of the idea of
babbling drift includes that which shows that adults are able to distinguish
French, Arab and Chinese children of eight months on the basis of their
babbles. Linguists who take a strongly nativist approach to language acquisition, on the other hand, tend to dismiss the notion of continuity between
babbling and early utterances. Their dislike of this suggestion has to do with
their distrust of any attribution of an important role to environmental
factors, which they see as running counter to their theoretical stance
assigning an overwhelmingly predominant role to innate mechanisms. It is
noteworthy in this connection that one of the earliest publications of the
arch-nativist Noam Chomsky was a virulent attack on the view of language
acquisition propounded by behaviourist psychology, according to which
language acquisition is a process whereby early vocalizations are gradually
shaped into communicative 'verbal behaviour' through the 'selective reinforcement' of responses appropriate to particular stimuli.
It must be admitted that not all of the evidence in this area supports the
babbling drift idea. It is also interesting to note that that the more persuasive
evidence of babbling drift in the period prior to the onset of word production - including the evidence mentioned above - comes from studies of intonation. For evidence of drift at the level of sound segments we have to go to
studies of children in their second year and who have thus already begun to
produce meaningful one-word utterances. It may well be that babbling drift
affects only intonation during the period prior to word production, and that
segmental patterns begin to shift in the direction of the language of the environment only after the onset of word production.
The babbling drift/shift debate addresses the question of continuity of
babbling and 'true speech' with reference to phonetic/phonological form.
However, there is also a dimension to the continuity issue which has to do
with meaning. For example, it is clear that from an early stage, particular
types of babbling may be associated with particular activities, emotions and
needs. Examples to be found in the literature include an indicator of pleasure
at seeing something come into view ([i i i]) and a vehement protest sequence
([na ns na na ns]). Babbling - 'true speech' continuity is supported in the
meaning domain by the fact that when adult-like forms begin to be used they
also seem to have - in the main - situational, general pragmatic rather than
labelling functions. Such forms seem often to start as imitations in specific
167
contexts. For example, one child being studied by researchers was observed
to imitate her mother saying 'Uh oh, where'd it go?' as the mother dropped
rings into a jar; later the child spontaneously produced a version of uh-oh
when she dropped a comb and to perform a version of where'd it go when
her mother dropped a brush and said 'Uh-oh'. It appears, then, that the early
adult-like forms used by the child often become attached in a quasi-ritual
manner to specific actions or action-sequences (in this case the dropping of
objects) in much the same way that particular types of babbling do at a
slightly earlier stage.
9.4
First words and beyond
An oft-cited instance of the early use of an expression which is associated

with a very particular set of circumstances, is the use by a 12-month-old
child of the utterance dut ('duck'), which he produced excitedly as he
knocked a toy duck off the edge of the bath at bathtime but which he never
uttered when the duck was actually floating in the water. Not all early uses
of lexis are context-bound, however. A minority of the expressions deployed
by children at the beginning of the one-word utterance stage are used to refer
context-flexibly to particular objects or classes of objects. An example of
such context-flexible use of an expression would be where the word shoes
might be used by a child as a comment on a picture of shoes, on a real pair of
shoes or on the shoes of a doll. It is also worth noting, perhaps, that not all
of the items deployed in a clearly meaningful way by children at the oneword utterance stage are derived from adult input; sometimes they are the
child's own creations.
With regard to the way in which lexical development proceeds once the
first words have appeared this seems to be a process in three phases: (1) a
phase during which the child is working out what words are, how they can
be used to refer to things, people etc. and which words go with which entities, actions etc.; (2) a 'vocabulary explosion' phase, during which very large
numbers of words are acquired very rapidly; and (3) a phase during which
lexical knowledge is consolidated, revised and reorganized.
In Phase (1) - up to the point where about 30 words have been acquired progress tends to be quite slow. There is, however, significant variation
among children as far as the rate of early vocabulary acquisition is concerned. A factor that has been identified as relevant to later vocabulary
development is variation from child to child in the degree of efficiency with
which they are able to create short-term memory codes for lexical forms they
hear. For example, the degree of accuracy with which children show themselves to be able to repeat unfamiliar phonological word-shapes correlates
significantly with the quantity of vocabulary they subsequently acquire, and
phonological short-term memory has been discovered to be a greater factor
than either non-verbal intelligence or age in certain language disorders in
168
children. It seems reasonable to assume that phonological memory variation

is also a contributory factor in relation to individual differences in respect of
the very early stages of lexical acquisition.
Four (not incompatible) kinds of statement are to be found in the literature about word meanings at this early stage:
that such meanings are vague and fluid-,
that they are over-extended relative to the meanings of the words in question as used by adults;
that they are under-extended relative to the meanings of the words in
question as used by adults;
that they reflect a 'basic' level of categorization.
An example of the vagueness and fluidity of early word meaning comes from
a study conducted by the French researcher P. Guillaume of his own son's
language development in the 1920s. The form under scrutiny here is blablab.
'blablab' refers to the act of making the lips vibrate with the finger,
then the mouth, especially that of a child's in a picture, then any
picture of a person, any drawing, illustrated cards . . . any piece of
paper with writing or printing on it, a newspaper, a book, but also
expresses the act of "reading" or the desire to read.
In relation to over-extension, common instances are: the use of the term
apple to refer to oranges, peaches, pears etc. as well as apples; the use of the
term dog or doggy to refer to cats, rabbits and even cows and horses as well
as dogs; and the use of the term sweet or sweety to refer to absolutely
anything with a sugary taste - cake, ice-cream, syrup etc. There is clearly a
connection between the notion of over-extension and vagueness and fluidity of meaning. It is precisely because the meaning of an item is still vague
as far as the child is concerned that he/she uses it across a wider range of
situations than an adult would - on the basis, it seems, of perceptual cues
such as shape, colour, feel, taste, sound etc., functional characteristics
(e.g. pears, like apples, are things one eats) and situational factors (e.g. icecream and sweets may be associated with similar kinds of situation reward, relaxation etc.).
Under-extension has already been alluded to with reference to cases
where expressions are used by the child in very specific sets of circumstances.
Under-extension is not, however, confined to this sort of instance. There is a
second sort of under-extension which is not situation-bound, and which has
rather to do with narrowness of reference. Thus, for example, Margaret
Harris reports 'early uses of "clock" to refer only to wall clocks, "music" to
refer only to a hi-fi system in the child's home, and "light" to refer only to
ceiling lights with a conventional shade.' Some researchers have suggested
that, typically, a child will begin by under-extending the meaning of a word
and then apply it to an increasingly wide range of phenomena - in some
instances over-extending its application. This kind of scenario is, once again,
169
entirely compatible with the notion that the child's early understanding of
word meanings is uncertain and changeable.
Concerning the notion of a 'basic' level of categorization, the claim is that
in coming to grips with the world around him/her, the child begins by classifying objects in such a way that: (i) the attributes of each category are predictable; (ii) items belonging to the category in question behave or are used
in the same way; (iii) items belonging to the category can be readily identified; (iv) each category is easy to image; and (v) the categories concerned
have a high utility value. Such categories are designated as 'basic'. For
example, the category flower is seen as basic, whereas the category plant is
not. Flowers by and large share a large number of characteristics in terms of
what they look and smell like and what people do with them; it is easy to
identify and to form a mental image of a flower; and knowing what a flower
is will be extremely useful across a range of situations and interactions. The
plant category, on the other hand, is highly heterogeneous in nature
(including as it does seaweed, climbing creepers, grasses etc. as well as
flowers), and for this reason poses more problems in respect of identification
and imaging than the flower category; and the higher level, more inclusive
plant tends to be less frequently referred to in most situations than the more
concrete flower. Empirical evidence supports the suggestion that basic categories come first in the child's lexicon.
Moving on to Phase 2, the particular characteristic of the stage beginning
from the point where the child has acquired upwards of 30 words is what is
sometimes called a 'vocabulary explosion' - that is to say, a very marked
increase in the rate at which new words are acquired. The 'explosion' in
question is attributed by some researchers to the arrival by the child at a particular developmental landmark, a 'naming insight', that is to say, a sudden
realization on the part of the child that the world is composed of things that
have names. This is a controversial claim, but it is noticeable that this phase
is characterized by a rapid acquisition of one particular type of word nouns which name objects. A further dimension of this last point has to do
with imageability. Some research suggests that nouns are generally easier to
'picture' than other grammatical categories and that this may be why they
are more easily learned. There is certainly evidence from other sources in
favour of the notion that words around which images are created are more
readily retained.
Two features which accompany the acceleration in lexical development
during Phase 2 are, on the one hand, a sort of naming obsession and, on the
other, 'fast mapping', a capacity to learn new words after minimal exposure.
This is the time when children go around asking for the names of virtually
everything and everyone they encounter - the 'what's that'/'who's that'
phase, as it is sometimes known. Remarkably, there is evidence to suggest
that at least as far as objects and colours are concerned new items may be
acquired by the child at this stage after just one occasion of exposure. The
child's hunger for naming data during this period appears, in other words, to
370
be correlated with an extraordinary capacity to digest and retain such data

both rapidly and efficiently.
A few words, finally, on Phase 3. This period of consolidation and revision seems to have its onset in the pre-school period, but some of the reorganizing processes that begin at this point clearly continue through the
years of primary schooling and, indeed, into adulthood. One aspect of the
re-organization process is the clustering together of related words, which
allows the child to represent information about links between lexical items.
What eventually emerges from the clustering of related words in the mental
lexicon is a set of classificatory hierarchies. The child starts by associating
words from the same semantic area ever more closely (e.g, dog, cat, rabbit
etc.) and then starts putting such groups of words under the headings of
superordinate terms (e.g. pet, animal etc.). These hierarchies gradually build
upwards to the point where the superordinate expressions become quite
abstract (e.g. something that's alive, living thing). Evidence for such development comes from word-association tests, which show a shift from a predominance of syntagmatic (i.e. combinatory) associations (of the kind
Daddy - working, dog-barks, red-apples) in the early stages to a later predominance of paradigmatic (i.e. substitutional) responses (of the kind:
Daddy - Mummy, dog - cat, red - green).
Finally in this section it is perhaps worth emphasizing that lexical development does not come to a halt at the end of childhood, or indeed, it seems,
at any stage prior to our last exit. Two American researchers, John Carroll
and Karl Diller concluded some years ago - on the basis of having examined
a range of lexical studies - that lexical acquisition continues through adulthood. Carroll drew from his reading of the relevant research the message
that vocabulary tends to increase significantly up to at least the age of 40 or
50 while Diller reported research suggesting that there is no point before
death at which lexical acquisition can be predicted to cease.
9.5
Models of lexical processing
Having considered various aspects of lexical development, we come now to

the vexed question of how lexical knowledge is organized and retrieved once
it has been acquired. A distinction is sometimes made between direct and
indirect models of the processing of lexical information. The indirect type of
model assumes that the processing of lexical knowledge follows the same
kind of pattern as looking up a word in a dictionary - or extending the
metaphor slightly - finding a book in a library. This kind of model sees
lexical access as involving more than one component or step. Direct models,
on the other hand, portray accessing lexical knowledge as a one-stage
process; a metaphor which has been used in this connection is that of a computer software package which allows items stored by name to be accessed
simply by the typing in of as many letters as are sufficient to distinguish the
171
relevant name from all other stored names. Two much-discussed representatives of the direct kind of model are the logogen model and the cohort
model, whereas an oft-cited representative of the indirect type of model is
the so-called search model of lexical access. We shall look at each of these in
turn, go on to examine W. Levelt's highly influential 'blueprint for the
speaker', which has much to say about lexical processing, and finally focus
briefly on two general (but lexically relevant) perspectives on language processing - the modularity hypothesis and connectionism.
The logogen model

The logogen model - the brainchild of the British psychologist John Morton
- began as an attempt to account for the fact that words are recognized more
quickly in contexts where they are very likely to occur than in contexts
where they are less likely to occur. For example, the word station will be
more quickly recognized in a context such as He waved a railway ticket at
me and asked the way to the station than in a context like The three-star
seafood restaurant was a splendidly converted station. Morton postulates
that when an item is accessed in the mental lexicon there is an 'event' in a
part of the nervous system which, in his early writings, he labels simply as
neural unit and to which he later applies the term logogen.
The essential components of Morton's model are: the logogen system, the
cognitive system and the response buffer. The term logogen is concocted
from Greek logos (Aoyog- 'word') and the Greek and Latin root gen (as in
Greek genesis - yeveaiq - 'birth'; Latin generare - 'to bring to life'). The
logogen system is conceived of as a set of mechanisms - one for each word in
a given individual's lexicon - specialized for collecting perceptual information and semantic evidence concerning the presence of words to which the
logogens correspond. When the information, including contextual information, pointing in the direction of a particular word reaches a critical
threshold, the relevant logogen 'fires', and the word concerned is 'born' or
'brought to life', i.e. either recognized in the incoming signal or identified as
the appropriate item to be used for productive purposes. The cognitive
system is envisaged as a collection of semantic information of various kinds,
including information relating to context and contextual probabilities. As
for the response buffer, this is the component in the model to which responsibility for generating spoken or written word production is attributed.
A basic principle of operation of the model is that a given piece of input
will in most cases supply evidence to more than one logogen. For example,
in the case of the processing of the printed word rat, the output from the
visual analysis will include such attributes as <three letter word>, <tall letter
at the end> etc. Such information is relevant not only to rat but to other
words too. Accordingly, the attributes <three letter word> and <tall letter at
the end>, for example, will be expected to excite not only the logogen for rat
172
but the logogens for all three-letter words ending in tall letters (cat, cut, eat,
eel, red, rod etc.). Hence the need for the model to incorporate thresholds: it
is necessary that, of all the logogens stimulated by a particular piece of input,
one logogen should - on the basis of all the available data - reach such a
level of excitation that it 'fires', in order that the appropriate word should be
selected.
The cohort model

One criticism which has been levelled at the logogen model is that some of
the concepts on which it is based - such as 'threshold' and 'activation level'
are difficult to be precise about. The cohort model, developed by the British
psycholinguist William Marslen Wilson, offers a possible answer to this
problem, since it aspires to specify for each word exactly where the critical
activation level occurs.
The cohort model postulates a set of word-detectors which are activated
by input from a spoken word and which start operating as soon as someone
within earshot begins to produce a word. As soon as the first sounds of the
incoming item are processed, all the detectors for words beginning with that
particular sequence of sounds - otherwise known as the relevant wordinitial cohort - are fully activated. Each of the detectors in this cohort then
continues to monitor subsequent input. Mismatches are in this way progressively removed from the running, until a single word-candidate finally corresponds precisely to the input. In contradistinction to the varying levels of
activation posited by the logogen model, the early version of the cohort
model allows for just two states of activation for a particular item: on (for as
long as it forms part of a cohort of word-candidates) or off (when it fails to
be selected for the word-initial cohort or is eliminated from the cohort).
However, later versions of the model envisage that, instead of immediately
eliminating themselves, non-matching members of a cohort will go into an
activation decline in the absence of further support from incoming data.
In principle, the cohort model identifies the uniqueness point for word
recognition, that is, the precise point at which a word is recognized. To illustrate this, let us take the word elephant (/'elifgnt/). On the basis of the
incoming data from the uttering of the first two syllables of this word - /'eli/
- the cohort of word-candidates would include words such as elevate and
element. However, at the point where the /f/ sound occurs the cohort will
have only elephant and its inflectional variants (elephants, elephant's, elephants'] left, since no other word in English begins with the sequence /'elif/.
This then is the uniqueness point for elephant. Such a system would appear
to be maximally efficient. A system which plumped for elephant before the
occurrence of /f/ would run the risk of generating erroneous identifications,
whereas a system which delayed identification beyond that point would
increase processing time without increasing accuracy levels. The cohort
173
model also defines the point at which non-words are recognized. This is the
point at which the sequence of phonemes uttered fails to correspond to any
word in the language in question. For instance, in English, the non-word
recognition point in tnot will be the occurrence of /n/, since no English word
begins with /tn/, while in the case of daffodip the critical point will coincide
with the very last sound /p/, since until this is uttered the possibility of a
match still exists.
There is a fair amount of experimental evidence in favour of notion that
word recognition proceeds as the cohort model suggests - at least in broad
terms. To take one example of a relevant finding from among many, it has
been shown that the time taken to recognize non-words is shorter where
recognition points come early in words and longer where recognition points
come late. On the other hand, it is most unlikely that things happen quite as
neatly as is suggested by the cohort model. We know, for example, that
sound segments do not reach the ear as separate entities, but are to an extent
interwoven with each other, so that any given point in the speech signal will
show evidence of preceding and succeeding elements. Accordingly, the idea
that the perception of the speech signal revolves around precise judgments
about points at which particular elements occur is not particularly plausible.
However, this does not undermine the model in any crucial way.
Context was mentioned as important preoccupation of Morton's in relation to his development of the logogen model. Marslen-Wilson's interest in
context effects is no less strong. The cohort model, like the logogen model
assumes that available contextual information assists lexical processing.
However, whereas the logogen model suggests that context effects are the
result of information passing through the cognitive system, which is separate
from, though connected to, the logogen systems, the cohort model posits
that each and every entry in the mental lexicon is equipped with a set of procedures for determining which, if any, of the meanings of a word are applicable in any given context. However, the model does not represent
contextual information as pre-selecting words, Marslen-Wilson's view being
that context-driven pre-selection would be highly inefficient in the openended, unpredictable circumstances of everyday language use.
The search model of lexical access

The most widely discussed search model of lexical access is that which was
elaborated by the American psychologist Kenneth Forster. In this model the
process of accessing an item in the mental lexicon is represented as a series of
steps, involving first a search for a matching from a phonological, orthographic, grammatical/semantic starting point and then a guided retrieval of
the full word. As has already been noted, such a two-stage process is comparable to what happens when we look up a word in a dictionary or look for a
book in a library.
174
Obviously, we come to the task of lexical access from different points of

departure on different occasions - depending on whether we have heard the
word, read it, or have a meaning and category that we wish to express - just
as we approach the task of, for example, finding books in a library on the
basis of different kinds of information available to us at different times
(author, title, subject area etc.). In Forster's model the initial search is represented as proceeding with the help of a number of peripheral access files, one
organized along phonological lines, one organized according to orthographic properties, one organized on a syntactico-semantic basis etc. These
correspond to the different library catalogues. The peripheral files are envisaged as containing listings of entries in the respective modes and also
pointers (corresponding to shelf-marks) to the precise location of each entry
in its complete form in a master file (corresponding to the library shelves).
According to the model, if one is listening to speech, one processes each
spoken word by going first to the phonological access file; if one is reading
written language one goes first to the orthographic access file; and if one is
producing language on the basis of particular meaning intentions, one goes
first to the syntactic/semantic access file. The access file in question then
facilitates access to the master file, and once this has been accessed, it supplies whatever is necessary for any kind of further operations on the word in
question - whether this be in the realm of speaking, writing or understanding.
With regard to the master file, this is seen as a collection of individual
(fully specified) lexical items and is envisaged as having to contain some provision for meaning connections between the items in question. Any lexical
model needs to account for the fact that, for example, when we hear the
word doctor we process any subsequent occurrence of the word nurse more
rapidly than if we had not heard the word doctor. The logogen model deals
with this phenomenon of semantic priming via the cognitive system; the
cohort model deals with it via word-specific context-sensitive procedures;
Forster's model, for its part, posits cross-references in the master file
between words that are related in meaning. Thus, in relation to the above
example, the idea is that calling up doctor in the master file will cause nurse
to be processed via a direct link within the master file without the necessity
for a return to the relevant peripheral access file. However, experimental
studies have failed to produce any really convincing evidence that this is how
things work. Such lack of experimental support has led to doubt being cast
on the whole idea of a distinction between access files and master file and
thus the very notion of two-stage lexical processing.
Levelt's 'blueprint for the speaker'

Up to this point we have been looking at models which are wholly focused
on the mental lexicon. The model which we now come to is different, insofar
175
as it seeks to address language processing in a more general way. However,

its lexical dimension is particularly highlighted by its creator, the Dutch psycholinguist, Willem Levelt, who has a particular interest in lexical processing. The work in which the model is elaborated is entitled Speaking:
from intention to articulation, and, true to this title, the primary perspective
of Levelt's 'blueprint' is a productive one, although receptive aspects of processing are not entirely left out of the account.
The model comprises two categories of component, declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge. The former is conceived of as 'knowledge
that', knowledge as facts, whereas the latter is conceived of as 'knowledge
how'. Declarative knowledge required for language processing, according
to Levelt, includes general information about the world (encyclopedia),
information about particular situations (situational knowledge), and information about stylistic appropriacy relative to specific circumstances (discourse model). Also included under the heading of declarative knowledge is
lexical knowledge, both semantico-grammatical (lemmas) and morphophonological (forms). As far as the procedural components are concerned,
these include: the conceptualizer (responsible for message generation and
monitoring), the formulator (responsible for giving the pre-verbal message
a syntactic and phonological shape), the articulator (responsible for executing as overt speech the phonetic plan emerging from the formulator), the
audition component (responsible for analysing the incoming speech
sounds) and the speech comprehension system, responsible for making
sense of the phonetic strings received).
As far as the lexical component is concerned, this, as has been mentioned,
is represented as containing, on the one hand, lemmas and, on the other,
forms. According to the model, a word's lemma specifies its basic meaning,
its syntactic category, its conceptual argument structure, its grammatical
profile (e.g. in the case of a verb, whether or not it takes a direct object), and
its 'diacritic parameters' of variation (tense, aspect, mood etc.). The lemma
also includes a 'lexical pointer' to the precise place in the lexicon where
morphological and phonological information about the word in question is
located. The implication here is that lexical search happens in two stages,
which means that Levelt's model is in this respect comparable with Forster's
model. With regard to lexical forms, these are seen as specifying the precise
morphological information that is necessary in order for phonological
encoding to be able to take place.
The role of the lexicon in speech production is seen by Levelt as central;
for him the entire set of formulation processes is lexically driven, the particular syntactic, morphological and phonological properties of an activated
lexical item triggering the grammatical, morphological and phonological
encoding procedures underlying utterance generation. This designation of
the lexicon as the mediator between conceptualization and grammatical and
phonological formulation - referred to as the lexical hypothesis - sits well
with the evidence discussed in chapters 1 and 2 of the interpenetration
176
between lexis and grammar. On the other hand, the separation posited by
the model between lexical meaning and encyclopedic knowledge is problematic; many linguists are highly dubious about the possibility of making a distinction of this kind. A further issue arises in relation to the representation of
lexical knowledge as purely declarative. This appears to fly in the face of evidence relating to such phenomena as word formation, lexical change and
context effects which suggest that the lexicon is a highly dynamic rather than
a static entity.
The modularity hypothesis

We turn now to a view of language processing - the modularity hypothesis which claims that the entire language faculty is a fully autonomous module.
The hypothesis can be summarized as follows:
The mind is not a seamless, unitary whole whose functions merge continuously into one another; rather, it comprises - perhaps in addition
to some relatively seamless, general-purpose structures - a number of
distinct, specialized, structurally idiosyncratic modules that communicate with other cognitive structures in only very limited ways.
The kinds of systems that are seen as modular within this perspective include
input systems, such as certain components of the perceptual and the language-reception systems, and output systems, such as aspects of motor
control and language production.
The modular view of the mind has two very influential advocates in the
persons of the theoretical linguist Noam Chomsky and the psycholinguist
Jerry Fodor. Between these two, however, some differences exist: whereas
Chomsky discusses modularity essentially in relation to language acquisition
(in connection with his notion of an innate language faculty - see above),
Fodor's concerns are largely processing-oriented. Since in the present section
we are concerned with language processing, we shall focus on Fodor's
account.
The cornerstone and the most controversial aspect of Fodor's conception of modularity is the notion that modules are 'informationally encapsulated' - the notion that, with regard to language processing, for
example, general knowledge, contextual information etc. play no part in
the operations of the module while those operations are in progress. The
claim in this regard is that any connections between modular processing
and other knowledge take place beyond the operating domain of the
module. In the case of language reception, for example, the idea is that
general and contextual information interact with linguistic information
only at the point where the linguistic forms in question have been fully
processed and analysed by the mechanisms of the language module. One of
Fodor's arguments for the informational encapsulation of modules takes
177
the line that such encapsulation is necessary to the efficient operation of

the modules. One example he uses in this connection is drawn from the
realm of visual perception; this is the case of someone catching sight of a
'yellow stripey thing' in New York and having to decide very rapidly
whether what they are seeing is a tiger. Fodor argues that in such circumstances a perceptual system that took account of contextual expectations
while perceptual processing was actually going on would not process
information quickly enough to avoid disaster, and that therefore modular
processing needs to be immune to online penetration by anything which is
extraneous to the specific focus of the module in question.
Against this line of reasoning it is easy enough to find instances of people
not believing and therefore not reacting appropriately to the evidence of
their senses. Thus, in relation to language, the following example, related by
a native speaker of Finnish, is not untypical:
My sister, while studying in France, was once addressed on the street in
Finnish. Only after several attempts by the speaker did she understand
her own native language, the point being that she was expecting
French. I have had a very similar experience trying to make Finnish out
of something that was easy enough to understand when I realized it
was English.
Fodor's position is further undermined by what we know about the effects of
deep hypnosis. At the hypnotist's suggestion, a hypnotized subject may fail
to perceive objects or persons which are present and/or perceive and interact
with objects and persons which are not present. Even reflexive responses
may, apparently, be affected by hypnosis. For instance, hypnosis can suffice
to anaesthetize patients undergoing surgical operations, and even to arrest
salivation and bleeding. If something as fast and as automatic as a physiological reflex can be influenced by information or pseudo-information
implanted by an external source, there has to be a question-mark over the
notion of informational encapsulation in language processing.
In any case, as Fodor himself acknowledges, the idea of informational
encapsulation does not appear to sit very happily with the findings of psycholinguists - notably from experiments involving reduced-redundancy procedures like cloze (where subjects have to fill in the blanks in a gapped text).
It is universally recognized that in cloze tasks the more predictable the target
items in relation to the blanks in the given context, the more successful will
be the attempts of those performing the task. For example, of the two sentences below, the first is a great deal easier to complete than the second.
I was so thirsty that I absolutely had to have something to
I was so happy that I absolutely had to
.
.
This looks like strong evidence of the mechanisms involved in such tasks
having access to subjects' expectations based on general knowledge and
context. To attempt to deal with evidence of this kind Fodor deploys two
178
lines of argument. His first is to question whether the mechanisms involved

in the 'highly attentional' process of reconstructing degraded linguistic
stimuli are the same as those involved in the 'automatic and fluent' processes
of everyday language use; and his second is to suggest that what looks like
interference by general and contextual knowledge with the processes of the
language module could in fact be explained in terms of lexical forms activating other forms to which they are linked without any involvement of considerations of contextual meaning. Thus, in the case of the first sentence
above, he would say that the forms thirsty and drink are connected in the
lexical network and that, accordingly, when thirsty is activated, drink is too,
irrespective of meaning and context.
The advantage for Fodor of limiting his conception of the language
module to that of a formal processor with no semantic role is that it does not
confront him with the problem, discussed above, of where to draw the line
between linguistic and non-linguistic meaning. However, his attempts to
explain away context effects are less than persuasive. Regarding his nonstandard processing argument, there is in fact nothing especially abnormal
about having to process language which is incomplete in some way. Who has
not from time to time, for example, had to work hard at understanding
someone with an unfamiliar accent, strained to catch what was being said
over a crackly telephone line, pored endlessly over a letter penned in the
handwriting from hell, or struggled to read a blotchy or faint photocopy?
With regard to what Fodor says about the excitation of complexes of lexical
forms, this seems plausible enough as a non-semantic account of what looks
like a meaning-related phenomenon until we stop to consider the nature of
the links it presupposes. There is certainly plenty of evidence that such interlexical links exist (as we have already seen), but what is interesting to note is
that they are (in the proficient language user) primarily based on semantic
relatedness. Indeed, if the excitation posited by Fodor were not assumed to
proceed along pathways linking semantically related items then the 'mimicking' of contextual-semantic effects of which he writes would remain
unaccounted for. This must cast doubt on his suggestion that it is possible to
explain away apparent context effects in terms of purely formal processes. A
much more straightforward, and therefore more plausible, position is that
what look like online context effects are actually online context effects.
Connectionism
Finally in this discussion of models of lexical processing, we turn to an
approach which, like the modularity hypothesis, encompasses mental operations in general, but which, unlike the modularity hypothesis, draws no
essential distinction between language processing and the processing of
other kinds of information. This is the perspective known as connectionism
or parallel distributed processing. The term connectionism relates to the fact
179
that this approach takes its inspiration from neurophysiological activity in

the brain - with its network of interconnected neurons sending signals to
each other. The connectionist model takes the analogy of brain-style neuronal interactions as its metaphor for the workings of the mind, although in
this case the suggestion is that the analogy in question may be more than just
a metaphor. The alternative label, parallel distributed processing, refers to
the claim made by connectionists that different portions of information are
simultaneously processed independently of one another ('in parallel') on different levels ('distributed').
The connectionist view of mind is usually taken to be incompatible with
the modular position discussed above. However, some linguists posit different networks of connections for the parallel but totally autonomous processing of different types of information, which they see as a merely a
connectionist translation of the modularity idea. It is worth noting that connectionism belongs to a much broader parallel processing perspective which
stands in opposition to the serial processing perspective. The issue here is not
strictly about simultaneity versus sequentiality. Sequences of operations are
found within parallel models, where successively presented aspects of the
language to be dealt with obviously have to be dealt with as they arise; and
simultaneity of operations is found in serial models, where different levels of
operation may be simultaneously active though working on different
domains - for example, the processing of item x may be beginning at one
level while the processing of item y is nearing completion at another. The
real distinction between the parallel perspective and the serial perspective is
that the former posits the independence of the different processing operations which are triggered by particular events and stimuli, whereas the latter
sees processing as organized in stages, with each stage dependent on the
output of the previous stage. The notion of independence of different processing operations in parallel models such as the connectionist model is not,
however, in any real sense comparable to the idea of informational encapsulation. Independence of processing in parallel models refers to micro-operations, and is not to be identified with a barrier between, for example, 'higher
level' semantic processes and 'lower level' formal processes. On the contrary,
parallel processing models are usually interpreted as envisaging a high
degree of interactivity between semantic and formal processing.
A further respect in which connectionism has been seen to pose a challenge to the Chomskyan/Fodorian view of language and mind (and to most
others) lies in its rejection of what is sometimes called the symbolic paradigm, the idea that mental operations involve the manipulation of symbols.
So far in this chapter the entire discussion has been based on this notion,
assuming, with regard to language that there are entities stored in the mind
referring to external phenomena which can be retrieved from memory and
combined according to rules or patterns which are also stored. The connectionist paradigm calls all of this into question, representing knowledge in
terms of connection strength rather than in terms of rules or patterns.
180
According to connectionists it is not the patterns that are stored - not even
the patterns of features that make up what we know as words, morphemes
and phonemes - but rather the connection strengths between elements at a
much lower level that allow these patterns to be recreated. Computer simulations have provided some evidence in favour of such a view by showing
that quite simple networks can be trained to supply appropriate morphological and phonological structure on the basis of frequency of occurrence of
the relevant configurations, without any kind of rules being involved in the
training process. There are sharply differing views about significance of such
findings, and the debate which has developed around them has been quite
fierce.
However, there have also been attempts to reconcile the symbolist and the
anti-symbolist positions. In any case, it is clear that there is significant
overlap between some features of connectionism and other models of language processing. For example, the cohort model also relies on the notion of
parallel processing. Moreover, the influence of connectionism is now so
wide and powerful that other models are increasingly evolving in a connectionist direction. It has to be said also that connectionism is itself evolving;
whereas in its early versions it was focused purely on formal aspects of language, there are now signs of a connectionist concern to take account of
semantic issues.
9.6
L2 dimensions
We end this chapter with a brief exploration of the issue of how the mental
lexicon is constructed and organized when more than one language is in
question. Such a situation arises not only in cases of early bilingualism/multilingualism, where a child acquires more than one language from infancy
onwards but also in cases where an individual acquires languages in addition to his/her first language at a later stage - whether at a subsequent stage
of development during childhood or in adolescence or adulthood.
As far as early bilingualism/multilingualism is concerned, the phases
passed through are, broadly speaking, the same for each language as
described in 9.3 and 9.4 in respect of a single language. On the other hand,
where languages are acquired later in childhood or beyond the childhood
years there is no question of the individuals in question having to revisit the
various 'milestones' that are associated with speech development in infancy.
Such learners do not coo or babble, and when they begin producing utterances in their target languages such utterances are from the outset mostly
comprised of combinations of meaningful elements. Accordingly, most of
the discussion in 9.3 and 9.4 vis-a-vis the relationship between pre-verbal
development and 'true speech' and much of what was said about lexical
development after the onset of word production is irrelevant to the acquisition of additional languages beyond infancy. However, there are some points
181
of contact, since the lexical challenge faced by the later learner of additional
languages in crucial respects resembles that which confronts the infant,
involving as it does the isolation of lexical units in the speech stream and the
making of connections between such units and the meanings they are
intended to communicate
With regard to the phonetic/phonological domain, just as the infant has
to struggle to come to grips with the sound-shapes of the language of his/her
environment from a starting-point - babbling - which is not necessarily very
helpful phonetically, so the later acquirer of additional languages has to deal
with sounds of these languages that may differ markedly from those of
his/her first language. Also, while later learners have internalized the principle of phonemic distinctions and its role in differentiating between lexical
items, they, like the infant, still have to work out which phonetic differences
are phonemic and which are not. Moreover, the fact of having one phonological system already in place can be a source of hindrance as well as of help
in this matter. It is also interesting to note that the relative efficiency of
phonological working memory is as important in determining the rate of
second language lexical development as it is in determining the rate of first
language lexical development, and that therefore processing of phonological
form is particularly crucial in the early stages of acquiring a new word.
In relation to the conceptual/semantic domain, learners of additional languages are obviously at a more advanced stage of concept development than
infants acquiring their mother tongue. Indeed, many of the meanings and
meaning hierarchies that have already been internalized in the course of the
acquisition of first language will be re-applicable with only minimal adjustment in other languages. However, whatever the extent of the conceptual
overlap between two language communities, there will always be areas of
meaning in which the languages in question differ. In some instances the difference is such that totally new concepts need to be mastered; more often
(and perhaps more problematically) the meanings of the two languages reflecting the cultural particularities of the respective language communities
- are differently structured and distributed. It is hardly surprising, in such
circumstances, that lexical fluidity, over-extension and under-extension,
familiar from what is observed in first language development, also occur in
lexical development when additional languages are learned. Another
meaning-related feature shared by first and second language lexical development is that easily imageable words tend to be more readily acquired than
words with meanings that are less easy to 'picture'. Finally in the context of
meaning-related aspects of lexical development observable in both first and
second language development, we can note that, in the latter case as in the
former, as the acquisition of a word proceeds, the manner in which its
meaning is integrated changes. Initially it is primarily associated with the
meanings of words with which it collocates (this being reflected in syntagmatic word associations - see above - such as blue - sky). Subsequently this
kind of association tends to give way to a more hierarchical organization,
182
with words covering the same broad area of meaning becoming linked in
networks based on paradigmatic relations as synonymy (e.g. little - small),
oppositeness of various kinds (e.g. fat - thin) hyponymy (e.g. carrot - vegetable).
Despite such similarities between first language lexical development and
lexical development in additional languages, there is a quite widely held
view that the second language mental lexicon is qualitatively different in
structure from the first language mental lexicon. This view claims that,
whereas in the first language mental lexicon the connections between the
lexical units are predominantly semantic, in the second language mental
lexicon they are predominantly phonological. Evidence in favour of this
claim has been cited from word-association test data, which, so it is claimed,
indicate the predominance of phonological links in the second language
mental lexicon, the source of the response being in each case a word which is
phonologically connected to the stimulus.
The opposite point of view - namely, that the first language mental lexicon
and the second language mental lexicon function in essentially the same
manner - is also advocated and supported. According to this perspective,
whether on a given occasion the processing of a lexical item relies predominantly on meaning-based links and associations or on phonological relationships will depend not on the status of the language in which the item occurs
(whether or not it is a first language or an additional language), but rather on
the degree of familiarity of that particular word to that particular speaker at
that particular time. This latter position assumes that newly encountered
items tend to trigger form-focused processing because they have not yet because of lack of relevant evidence - become connected up to the speaker's
internal semantic schemata, whereas very familiar items are predominantly
handled in terms of their meaning. Evidence in favour of this point of view
comes from studies which show that as second language proficiency increases
so does the proportion of semantically motivated responses produced in
word-association tests, and that advanced second language learners confronted with second language vocabulary which is more or less within their
grasp, will, in word-association tests and tests involving gapped texts, produce
very small numbers of responses that are not semantically motivated.
A further issue is whether the second language mental lexicon is separated
from or integrated with the first language mental lexicon. One indication of
separateness comes from cases of language loss due to brain damage where
one language is recovered before another. One very interesting instance of
this phenomenon reported in the literature is that of a native speaker of
Swiss German who first recovered French, a language he had learned imperfectly as an adult, who then recovered Standard High German, which had
been the language of his formal education, but who failed to recover his LI,
Swiss German. A not dissimilar case is that of the British Classics scholar
who recovered Ancient Greek, Latin, French and English (his native language) in that order. Obviously, if languages - including the lexicons of these
183
languages - can be recovered one by one in this kind of way then it is difficult not to infer that they are separately stored and organized.
Integrationist arguments are not difficult to find either. The British linguist Vivian Cook who has for some years been putting the case for 'multicompetence' - i.e. the notion that language competence is unitary, no matter
how many languages are involved - cites lexical evidence such as the following:
reaction time to a word in one language is related to the frequency of its
cognate in another known language;
morphemic similarities between two known languages influence translation performance;
bilinguals consult the lexical stores associated with both their languages
when taking vocabulary tests in one of their languages.
Such evidence certainly supports the notion that the first language mental
lexicon and the second language mental lexicon are connected, but it does
not necessarily argue for total integration of the first language and second
language lexical operations. A position which takes account of this evidence
but also the evidence noted earlier of sequential language recovery is one
which sees the first language and the second language mental lexicon as
neither completely disconnected from each other nor totally integrated with
each other.
Some interesting suggestions in this connection are to be found in the relevant research literature. One such suggestion is that pairs of translationequivalents with concrete meanings in the two languages known to an
individual and pairs of words perceived as cognates across the two languages are stored in a 'compound' manner (i.e. as two forms with a shared
meaning), whereas pairs of abstract non-cognate translation-equivalents in
the respective languages are stored in a 'co-ordinate' manner (i.e. as distinct
items in both their formal and their semantic aspects). Another suggestion is
that second language forms which are perceived as related to first language
words (e.g. French table - English table) are stored as variants of the first
language vocabulary. The kind of evidence that is used in support of these
ideas includes, for example, the fact that translating between cognates is
much faster than translating between non-cognates (e.g. English table will
tend to be translated as French table more rapidly than armchair will be
translated as fauteuil). There is also some evidence of a learning environment factor and a proficiency factor in the degree to which the first language
and second language lexicons are integrated; that is to say, it seems to be the
case that the more the first language is involved in the environment in which
the second language is learned, the greater will be the degree of integratedness between the two mental lexicons, and that, as second language proficiency increases, the second language mental lexicon becomes less and less
dependent on and more and more separate from the first language mental
lexicon. In sum, the precise relationship between a given entry in the second
184
language mental lexicon and a given entry in the first language mental
lexicon probably appears to depend on how the words have been acquired,
how well they are known, and to what extent formal and/or semantic similarity is perceived between them
9.7 Summary
Chapter 9 has been concerned with the internal or mental lexicon. It has
examined some aspects of the acquisition of the mental lexicon in the course
of first language acquisition; it has addressed some proposals regarding
ways in which the mental lexicon might be organized and accessed; and it
has explored some of the lexical issues that arise when more than one language is acquired and used by a given individual. Under the heading of
lexical acquisition, topics dealt with included: the challenge posed for the
language acquirer by the problem of isolating lexical units in the speech
signal and connecting them with relevant content, the relationship between
the first meaningful words produced by the child and everything that precedes this milestone, and the different phases of lexical development which
follow the onset of word production. With regard to lexical processing, the
chapter has summarized and assessed various psycholinguistic models concerning the organization and functioning of the mental lexicon - Morton's
logogen model, Marslen-Wilson's cohort model, Forster's lexical search
model, and Levelt's 'blueprint for the speaker' - and has also given consideration to modular and connectionist perspectives on lexical processing.
Concerning the second language dimension, the chapter has noted a number
of similarities between first language and second language lexical development, as well as some differences, and it has also looked at the issues of similarity/difference and integration/separation in respect of first language and
second language lexical organization and processing.

See 9.2. The poverty of the stimulus argument is rehearsed widely in publications by Chomsky and Chomskyans. It is accessibly discussed by N.
Chomsky in his book Language and problems of knowledge: the Managua
lectures (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1988, Chapter 1) and by V. Cook and
M. Newson in their volume Chomsky's Universal Grammar: an introduction (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996, 81ff.). The sources for the treatment of childdirected speech include: O. Garnica's article 'Some prosodic and
paralinguistic features of speech to young children' (in C. Snow and C.
Ferguson (eds), Talking to children, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1977); M. Harris, D. Jones and J. Grant's article 'The non-verbal
context of mothers' speech to children' (First Language 4, 1983, 21-30),
185
J. McShane's book Cognitive development: an information processing

account (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991, 140ff.); E. Markman's article
'Constraints children place on word meanings' (in P. Bloom (ed.), Language
acquisition: core readings, Hemel Hempstead: HarvesterWheatsheaf, 1993);
and C. Snow's article 'Conversations with children' (in P. Fletcher and M.
Carman (eds), Language acquisition: studies in first language development
(second edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986). The comments on the different kinds of challenge posed by different kinds of writing
system draw on relevant discussion in M. Clark's book Young fluent readers
(London: Heinemann, 1976) and O. Tzeng and W. S.-Y. Wang's article 'The
first two R's' (American Scientist 71, 1983, 238-43). The source for the
remarks about early readers' use of context is A. Biemiller's article 'The
development of the use of graphic and contextual information as children
learn to read' (Reading Research Quarterly 6, 1970, 75-96).
See 9.3. An overview of experimental evidence regarding sound discrimination in infants is to be found in P. Eimas's article 'The perception of speech in
early infancy' (Scientific American 252, 1985, 46-52). The studies dealing
with sound discrimination in chinchillas and rhesus monkeys are reported in
P. Kuhl and J. Miller, 'Speech perception by the chinchilla: voice-voiceless
distinction in alveolar plosive consonants' (Science 190, 1975, 69-72); P.
Kuhl and J. Miller, 'Speech perception by the chinchilla: identification functions for synthetic VOT stimuli' (Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America 63, 1978, 905-17); and P. Morse and C. Snowdon, 'An investigation of categorical speech discrimination by rhesus monkeys' (Perception
and Psychophysics 17, 1975, 9-16). A much-cited experiment relating to
pre-linguistic concepts is that reported by P. Bomba and E. Siqueland in their
article, 'The nature and structure of infant form categories' (Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology 35, 1983, 295-328). Evidence of prelinguistic concepts from infant-caregiver interaction is discussed by M.
Scaife and J. Bruner in their article, 'The capacity for joint visual attention in
the infant' (Nature 253, 1975, 265-6). The discussion of the level of generality of innate concepts is based on R. Campbell's article 'Language acquisition and cognition' (in P. Fletcher and M. Carman (eds), Language
acquisition: studies in first language development, second edition,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986). The quotation from J.
Harris is from his book Early language development: implications for clinical and educational practice. (London: Routledge, 1990, 82). The quotation from J. Bruner is to be found on p. 2 of his article 'The ontogenesis of
speech acts' (Journal of Child Language 2, 1975, 1-19). Some of the evidence in favour of babbling drift is summarized by M. L. Moreau and
M. Richelle on p. 50 of their volume L'acquisition du langage (Brussels:
Pierre Mardaga, 1981). Typical of the representatives of the nativist antibabbling drift position is H. Goodluck - as indicated by remarks on p. 21 of
her book Language acquisition: a linguistic introduction (Oxford:
Blackwell, 1991). N. Chomsky's much-cited early attack on behaviourism is
186
his review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal behavior (New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts, 1957), which was published in the journal Language
(1959, 35, 26-58). The [i i i]example is borrowed from p. 54 of M. L.
Moreau and M. Richelle's book L'acquisition du langage (Brussels: Pierre
Mardaga, 1981) and the [ns ns ns ns ns] example from p. 90 of L. Bloom's
book One word at a time: the use of single word utterances before syntax
(The Hague: Mouton, 1973). The 'Uh oh, where'd it go?' example is taken
from p. 158 of M. Vihmann and R. Miller's article 'Words and babble at the
threshold of language acquisition' (in M. D. Smith and J. Locke (eds), The
emergent lexicon: the child's development of a linguistic vocabulary,
London: Academic Press).
See 9.4. The dut example comes from M. Barrett's article 'Early semantic representations and early semantic development' (in S. Kuczaj and M. Barrett
(eds), The development of word meaning. New York: Springer, 1986). The
co-existence of context-bound and context-flexible usages in the very early
stages of word production is reported and discussed by M. Harris in her book
Language experience and early language development: from input to uptake
(Hove & Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1992, 77ff.). Harris also discusses and advocates - in the same book (pp. 69ff.) - the three-stage view of
early lexical development. The importance of phonological working memory
in vocabulary development emerges from studies reported in S. Gathercole
and A. Baddeley's articles 'Evaluation of the role of phonological STM in the
development of vocabulary in children: a longitudinal study' (Journal of
Memory and Language 28, 1989, 200-13) and 'Phonological memory
deficits in language-disordered children: is there a causal connection?'
(Journal of Memory and Language 29, 1990, 336-60). The P. Guillaume
quotation is cited (in my translation) from p. 8 of his article 'Les debuts de la
phrase dans le langage de l'enfant' (Journal de Psychologic Normale et
Pathologique 24,1927,1-25). Over-extension is very much a leitmotiv of the
work of E. Clark and is much discussed in her book The lexicon in acquisition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). The M. Harris quotation about under-extension is to be found on p. 71 of her 1992 volume (see
above). An advocate of the 'under-extensions first' position is P. Griffiths see, for example his article 'Early vocabulary' (in P. Fletcher, and M. Garman
(eds), Language acquisition: studies in first language development, second
edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986). 'Basic' categories
are primarily associated with the work of E. Rosch and her colleagues - see,
for example, E. Rosch, C. Mervis, W. Gray, D. Johnson and P. Boyes-Braem,
'Basic objects in natural categories (Cognitive Psychology 8, 1976, 382-439).
Evidence in support of the notion that basic categories come first in lexical
development summarized by S. Waxman in her article 'The development of
an appreciation of specific linkages between linguistic and conceptual organization' (in L. Gleitman and B. Landau (eds), The acquisition of the lexicon,
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994). The naming insight in relation to the
'vocabulary explosion' is discussed by J. McShane in his book, Cognitive
187
development: an information processing approach (Oxford: Blackwell,

1991, 143ff.). The notion that imageability is a factor in word retention is
treated by N. Ellis and A. Beaton in their articles 'Factors affecting the
learning of foreign language vocabulary: imagery keyword mediators and
phonological short-term memory' (Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology 46A, 1993, 533-58) and
Tsycholinguistic determinants of foreign language vocabulary learning' (in
B. Harley (ed.), Lexical issues in language learning, Ann Arbor/Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: Language Learning/John Benjamins Publishing Company,
1995). Evidence in favour of 'fast mapping' is cited by S. Carey and
E. Bartlett in their article 'Acquiring a new word' (Papers and Reports on Child
Language Development 15, 1978, 17-29) and by K. Nelson and J. Bonvillian
in their article, 'Early language development: conceptual growth and related
processes between 2 and 41/2years' (in K. Nelson (ed.), Children's language.
Volume 1, New York: Gardner, 1978). The principal sources for the discussion of the development of hierarchical relations are J. Anglin's books, The
growth of word meaning (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1970) and Word,
object and conceptual development (New York: Norton, 1977). J.B. Carroll's
conclusion is to be found on p. 124 of his article 'Development of native
language skills beyond the early years' (in C. Reed (ed.), The learning of language, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1971); K. Diller's comment is
on p. 29 of his book, Generative grammar, structural linguistics and language
teaching (Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1971).
See 9.5. The distinction between direct and indirect access models of the
lexicon is made by, for example M. Garman in his book, Psycho linguistics
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990, 260ff.). The term 'neural
unit' is used as a forerunner of the term logogen in, for example J. Morton's
article, 'A preliminary functional model for language behaviour' (in R.
Oldfield and J. Marshall (eds), Language: selected readings,
Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968; originally published in International
Audiology 3, 1964, 216-25). The classic cohort model is outlined in W.
Marslen-Wilson and A. Welsh's article, 'Processing interactions and lexical
access during word-recognition in continuous speech' (Cognitive
Psychology 10, 1978, 29-63); a modified version of the model is presented
in W. Marslen-Wilson's article 'Functional parallelism in spoken word
recognition' (Cognition 25, 1987, 71-102). The evidence concerning the
recognition of non-words was presented in W. Marslen-Wilson's paper
'Sequential decision processes during spoken word-recognition' at the
Psychonomic Society meeting, San Antonio, Texas, 1978. The argument
about the interwoven nature of speech sounds is put by M. Garman on
p. 288 of Psycholinguistics (cited above). The cohort model's account of
context effects is dealt with in W. Marslen-Wilson and L. Tyler's articles 'The
temporal structure of spoken language understanding' (Cognition 8, 1980,
1-71) and 'Against modularity' (in J. Garfield (ed.), Modularity in knowledge representation and natural-language understanding, Cambridge, MA:
188
MIT Press, 1987). The account of K. Forster's search model is based on his
article 'Accessing the mental lexicon' (in R. Wales and E. Walker (eds), New
approaches to language mechanisms, Amsterdam, North-Holland, 1976).
The account of W. Levelt's model is a simplified summary of what he has to
say in his book, Speaking: from intention to articulation (Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, 1989). The quotation summarizing the modularity hypothesis is
to be found on p. 1 of J. Garfield's editorial introduction to the above-cited
collection of essays entitled Modularity in knowledge representation and
natural-language understanding. The account of J. Fodor's perspective on
modularity is mostly based on his book, The modularity of mind: an essay
on faculty psychology (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1983). The 'yellow
stripey thing' example is discussed in his article 'Why should the mind be
modular?' (in A. George (ed.), Reflections on Chomsky, Oxford: Blackwell).
The example relating to Finnish in France figured in a personal communication to me some years ago from the Finnish psychologist Elisabet Service.
The material on hypnosis was culled from M. Orne and A. Hammer's article
'Hypnosis' (in Macropaedia, Volume 9, Encyclopedia Britannica, 1974) and
L. Chertok's book, Hypnose et Suggestion (Paris: Presses Universitaires de
France, 1989). The account of connectionism given here is derived principally from D. Rumelhart, J. McClelland and the PDP Research Group (eds),
Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition. Volume 1: Foundations (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1986) and J.
McClelland, D. Rumelhart and the PDP Research Group (eds), Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition. Volume
2. Psychological and biological models (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1986)).
Further insights were gleaned from J. Elman's articles, 'Finding structure in
time' (Cognitive Science 4, 1990, 179-211) and 'Representation and structure in connectionist models' (in G. Altman (ed.), Cognitive models of
speech processing (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990)). An example of an
attempt to reconcile connectionism with modularity is to be found in
M. Tanenhaus, G. Dell and G. Carlson's article, 'Context effects in lexical
processing: a connectionist approach to modularity' (in the above-cited
1987 volume edited by Garfield). A version of connectionism with a
semantic dimension is sketched in for example, B. MacWhinney and
J. Leinbach's article 'Implementations are not conceptualizations: revising
the verb learning model' (Cognition 48, 1991, 21-69).
See 9.6. The role of cross-linguistic influence is very widely discussed in the
literature of second language acquisition - see, for example T. Odlin's
Language transfer: crosslinguistic influence in language learning
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Specifically lexical dimensions of
cross-linguistic influence are dealt with by B. Laufer in articles such as
'Words you know: how they affect the words you learn' (in J. Fisiak (ed.),
Further insights into contrastive linguistics, Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
1990) and 'Appropriation du vocabulaire: mots faciles, mots difficiles, mots
impossibles' (Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Etrangere 3, 97-113).
189
Evidence of the importance of the role of phonological working memory in

second language acquisition is presented in, for example, A. Baddeley, C.
Papagno and G. Vallar, 'When long-term learning depends on short-term
storage' (Journal of Memory and Language 27, 1988, 586-95); C. Papagno,
T. Valentine and A. Baddeley, 'Phonological short-term memory and
foreign-language vocabulary learning' (Journal of Memory and Language
30, 1991, 331-47); E. Service, 'Phonology, working memory and foreignlanguage learning' (Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 45A,
1992, 21-50). The syntagmatic-paradigmatic shift in second language
lexical development is documented by T. Soderman in her article, 'Word
associations of foreign language learners and native speakers: the phenomenon of a shift in response type and its relevance for lexical development' (in
H. Ringbom (ed.), Near-native proficiency in English, Abo: Abo Akademi,
English Department Publications, 1993). The point of view that the second
language mental lexicon is qualitatively different from the first language
mental lexicon is advanced by P. Meara in 'The study of lexis in interlanguage' (in A. Davies, C. Criper and A. P. R. Howatt (eds), Interlanguage,
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press). Meara's position is challenged in,
for example, D. Singleton and D. Little, 'The second language lexicon: some
evidence from university-level learners of French and German (Second
Language Research 7, 1991, 61-82). The Swiss case of language recovery is
reported by F. Grosjean in Life with two languages: an introduction to bilingualism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982, 260); the British
case of language recovery is reported by H. Whitaker in 'Bilingualism: a neurolinguistics perspective' (in W. Ritchie (ed.), Second language acquisition
research: issues and implications, New York: Academic Press, 1978, 27). V.
Cook pleads the case for multicompetence in 'Evidence for multicompetence' (Language Learning 42, 1992, 557-91). The suggestions regarding
different factors in the precise ways in which entries in the first language and
the second language mental lexicon are to be found in A. De Groot
'Determinants of bilingual lexicosemantic organisation' (Computer Assisted
Language Learning 8, 1995, 151-80); K. Kirsner, E. Lalor and K. Hird, 'The
bilingual lexicon: exercise, meaning and morphology' (in R. Schreuder and
B. Weltens, The Bilingual Lexicon, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1993); U.
Weinreich, Languages in contact, New York: Linguistic Circle of New York,
1953).
An excellent first introduction to child language acquisition in general is:
S. Foster-Cohen, Language development in children (London: Longman,
1998).
Another title which, though not strictly introductory, is accessibly written
and well worth consulting in this connection is:
M. Harris, Language experience and early language development: from
intake to uptake (Hove/Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1992).
190
Good introductory works on language processing include:

A. Ellis and G. Beattie, The psychology of language and communication
(London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1986);
M. Forrester, Psychology of language: a critical introduction (London:
Sage, 1996);
M. Harris and M. Coltheart, Language processing in children and adults
(London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986).
The best introduction to all aspects of the mental lexicon is:
J. Aitchison, Words in the mind (second edition, Oxford: Blackwell, 1994).
In a somewhat less introductory mode, the mental lexicon is also fairly comprehensively dealt with in:
M. Garman, Psycholinguistics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1990).
On the topic of second language mental lexicon readers may wish to consult:
D. Singleton, Exploring the second language mental lexicon (Cambridge:

1. Imagine that in the room with you is a two-year-old child and imagine
yourself talking to this child about the various features of the room and
the objects in it. Write down the dialogue you imagine and then compare
what you have written with the description in 9.2 of typical features of
child-directed speech. If there is a young child in your family or home
environment observe the way in which adults (including yourself) actually do talk to this child and assess how far what you observe corresponds
to what is suggested in 9.2.
2. In many cultures words like baba and mama are used by adults when
talking to young children. Why do you think this might be, and how do
you think it might complicate the task of sorting out the relationship
between babbling and later language development?
3. Suggest some likely responses to the following word association stimuli
from (i) a pre-school child acquiring English as his/her first language and
(ii) an adult native speaker of English:
ask
go
cake
hot
mummy
sweet
doll
two
eat
water
191
4. Give a brief account of how the cohort model would deal with the receptive processing of the words bottle, egregious, endeavour, policy and
sterility. What is the 'uniqueness point' in each case?
5. Write down the translations of the following English words into any
other language you know:
apple
quality
kiosk
totality
beautiful
red
lamp
unbelievable
charity
real
meaning
vary
desk
seat
note
vapour
kindness
terrible
piety
wash
In the light of the discussion in 9.6, which of the pairs of translationequivalents you now have before you (if any) would you expect to have a
particularly close relationship in terms of the organization of the mental
lexicon - and why?
10
Charting and imparting the
lexicon
10.1
Dictionaries and didactics
Having explored the lexicon in its various linguistic dimensions - syntactic, morphological, phonological etc., having looked at its social and
historical dimensions, and having examined some aspects of lexical development and lexical processing in the individual, we turn now to two timehonoured ways in which the individual's lexical proficiency is supported
and advanced - namely, through the elaboration of dictionaries and
through the promotion of vocabulary learning in the context of formal
education.
Dictionaries have a long history, and dictionary-making, or lexicography
has been through a succession of changes in its orientation and its methodology. What has remained stable amidst all this flux is the status of the dictionary, which remains high. Indeed, the fact that dictionaries are
increasingly based on vast computerized corpora of language data derived
from real instances of language in a variety of uses has, if anything,
enhanced their authority. In the first part of this chapter we shall trace the
evolution of lexicography from ancient glossaries down to dictionaries on
the web - with particular (though not exclusive) reference to dictionaries of
English, and we shall note the ways in which the impossibility of seeing
lexical phenomena in isolation from other aspects of language has challenged lexicographers.
With regard to lexis in the classroom, it is also true to say that language
teaching is a practice and a profession with a past. Like lexicography, it has
been through many different forms. In the second part of the chapter we
shall explore some different approaches to the lexical learning and teaching
in the context of formal language education, and we shall consider, in the
light of all that has been said in previous chapters, to what extent it is possible to conceive of lexical instruction as separable from the teaching of
other dimensions of language.
194
10.2
Lexicography: a potted history
As we saw in Chapter 8, the forms and meanings of words evolve over time
- sometimes, as we saw, over a relatively short period of time. This presents
a problem when it comes to understanding and interpreting texts which may
be decades or centuries old and which reflect a no longer current state of
affairs as far as lexical forms and meanings are concerned. This problem is
especially acute when the texts in question are of great significance to a given
community. One option in such cases is to update the texts - to 'translate'
them into the contemporary idiom. However, factors such as the fear of
destroying the aesthetic integrity of a text or taboos around the altering of
'the word of God' often militate against revisions of this kind. The alternative route is to provide commentaries on and explanations or glosses of the
forms and senses which are no longer current. In the modern world this is
what we see in, for example, school editions of the works of Shakespeare. In
earlier times the same principle was applied, for example, in first century AD
Greece to older Greek literary texts, and in northern France of the eighthcentury AD to the Latin version of the Bible (the Vulgate).
With regard to the Greek case, by the first century AD much of Homer's
language, and that of writers such as Plato, was opaque to users of the Greek
of that time. Accordingly, glossaries of the difficult elements in such texts
were compiled from this time onwards by commentators such as Pamphilus
of Alexandria, Diogenanius and Zopyrion. As far as the eighth-century
Latin glosses are concerned, these are to be found in a document now known
as the Glosses of Reichenau, and what they do is to explain a number of
Latin words, chiefly from the Vulgate, in terms that an educated user of the
'Latin' or Romance used in that region at that time would understand. Some
examples of such glosses are:
Ager: campus
('field')
Cecenit: cantavit
('he/she/it sang')
In foro: in mercato
('in the marketplace')
In ore: in bucca
('in the mouth')
Semel: una vica
('once')
Explanations of the above kind are essentially translations between words

used at one stage in the development of a language and words used at a subsequent stage. However, in other cases translations between two distinct languages were involved. For example, in Ancient Mesopotamia, when the
Sumerian language began to die out as a mother tongue (around 2000 BC),
giving way to the group of Semitic varieties known as Akkadian, it nevertheless remained an important vehicle of important elements of Mesopotamian
culture - rather like Latin in western Europe in the middle ages. Accordingly,
it was formally taught in the schools so that important texts could continue
Charting and imparting the lexicon
195
to be understood, and one element used as an aid in this context was a large
corpus of Sumerian-Akkadian vocabulary-lists and treatments of Sumerian
morphology. A little closer to our own era, in early Anglo-Saxon times it was
common practice in the monasteries to insert Old English equivalents of difficult Latin words between the lines of Latin manuscripts. As a time-saver,
the custom subsequently arose of providing the relevant glosses either in lists
in the margins of pages or in pages appended to the manuscripts. These
kinds of collections of Latin-Old English translation-equivalents go back as
far as the eighth century AD.
None of the above would constitute what we nowadays call a dictionary,
but we can see in all of them the beginnings of the dictionary idea. As glossaries grew in size and scope the question of how to organize the material
started to loom large - a question which continues to challenge lexicographers even today. One solution was to group words according to topic; so,
one list of words might comprise Latin names of plants with English (French,
German etc.) equivalents, another might be focused on names of animals,
another on parts of the body etc. Such specialized classifications - forerunners of today's technical dictionaries - were known as nomendatores - the
Latin word nomenclator having originally been applied to a slave who told
his master the names of the persons he met. Some nomendatores were not
just bilingual but multilingual - notably the sixteenth-century work by
Hadrianus Junius, Nomenclator omnium rerum ("Namer of all things')
(1567) which gave equivalents in Latin, Greek, French and English. Thematic
dictionaries are still with us. For example, the thesaurus type of dictionary,
such as Roget's Thesaurus or the Oxford Thesaurus, provide collections of
words under entries such as border (edge, margin, hem . . . ) nimble (agile,
lively, active ...), scatter (spread, diffuse, shower . . .) etc. and some dictionaries are organized on rather broader thematic lines; for example, the Oxford
Dictionary of Slang is arranged in sections with headings like 'People and
Society', 'Money Commerce and Employment', 'Behaviour, Attitudes and
Emotions', each of which is divided up on the basis of subtopics.
The other approach to arranging the content of glossaries in cultures
using an alphabetic writing system was to sequence items according to their
written form and following the conventional sequence of letters in the relevant alphabet. Embryonic Latin-English dictionaries of this kind appear as
early as the fifteenth century. After the invention of printing rather larger
alphabetized Latin-English dictionaries became available, and in due course
a printed dictionary appeared with the Latin words placed after the English
words. This was the Abdecedarium Anglico Latinum compiled by Richard
Huloet (1552). It has to be said that alphabetization was somewhat approximate in these early glossaries and dictionaries. Thus, for instance, in the fifteenth-century Catholicon Anglicum' to Nee as a horse ('neigh') and
Negligent come before a Nede ('need').
The first monolingual dictionaries devoted to modern vernaculars began
to appear in Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. This was, of
196
course, at a time of when interest in the languages of Ancient Greece and

Rome was extremely high. Paradoxically, this led scholars and writers in
various European countries to wish to bring their own languages and cultures to the point where they could begin to emulate Classical Greek and
Latin in terms of richness, orderliness, stability etc. Hence the efforts to
codify, regularize and enhance the vernacular languages of Europe through
the production of not only dictionaries but also treatises on various aspects
of the languages in question. With regard to dictionaries, the fact that the
dictionaries which had been around prior to vernacular dictionaries had
focused on Latin, and the fact that there was a tradition - going back to the
medieval glossaries - for such dictionaries to concentrate on difficult words
had a strong influence on what was included in and excluded from the
content of early vernacular dictionaries. Thus, the first monolingual English
dictionary, The Table Alphabeticall (1604), compiled by Robert Cawdrey,
set itself the task of defining 2560 'hard vsual English wordes gathered for
the benefit & helpe of Ladies, Gentlewomen, or any other vnskilfull
persons'. Examples of such 'hard usual words' can be seen in the first eight
entries under O in Cawdrey's work - obdurate, obeisance, object, oblation,
oblectation, obliged, oblique, oblivious - all of which are derived from Latin
and French, and most of which would have been 'usual' only in learned discourse. Of less hard words such as oaf, oak, oar, oath, oats or obey, The
Table Alphabeticall has nothing to say whatever.
Other English dictionaries based on the 'hard word' policy swiftly followed; these included John Bullokar's English Expositor (1616) and
Thomas Blount's Glossographia (1656). Indeed, the 'hard word' tradition in
dictionary making continued through many centuries, and its influence persists even into modern times. However, some lexicographers, even in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, had a wider perspective. Thus, for
example, Henry Cockeram's English Dictionarie (1623) listed 'vulgar' terms
and glossed them with more refined equivalents and also included everyday
items such as hair, tavern and yellow. A dictionary published anonymously
some decades later, the Gazophylacium Anglicanum (1689) was even
broader in scope. At the beginning of the eighteenth century a fairly explicit
break with the 'hard word' approach came with John Kersey's New English
Dictionary (1702), which included a larger number of 'ordinary words' than
any previous dictionary.
Nathaniel Bailey's Universal Etymological Dictionary (1721), which
became the standard dictionary of its time, continued with the policy of
including everyday words, and also included illustrative quotations. This
latter practice was familiar from ancient times. It was to be found in limited
form in bilingual and multilingual dictionaries such as Cotgrave's Dictionarie
of the French and English Tongues (1632), and in very fulsome form in continental dictionaries such as that of the Academie Francaise (1694).
Illustrative quotations had also figured in Blount's Glossographia (see above)
and were very much a feature of the best-known English dictionary of the
197
eighteenth century, Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language

(1755).
Johnson's dictionary set out to encapsulate the 'best' usage of the period,
while rendering certain older usages accessible to the eighteenth-century
reader. To this end it incorporated earlier senses of words as well as the then
current senses, supporting its definitions with more than 100,000 quotations. Johnson's manner of proceeding was in fact a forerunner of the 'historical approach' later adopted by the compilers of the Oxford English
Dictionary. However, Johnson's insistence on focusing exclusively on what
he considered the best usage and his exclusion of authors which did not meet
his approval meant that the histories of many of the items he dealt with were
somewhat incomplete. Incidentally, some of the authors excluded by
Johnson were ruled out not on linguistic or stylistic grounds but because
Johnson disagreed with them. Thus, for example, Johnson did not cite the
philosopher Thomas Hobbes because he did not like his ideas.
Other English dictionaries produced in the eighteenth century tended to
take a rather different line, principally focusing on spellings, correct usage
and, increasingly, pronunciation. On the other hand, lexicographers interested in the historical method continued to make their presence felt. John
Jamieson, for instance, in his Etymological Dictionary of the Scottish
Language (1808), gave the earliest authority for every sense specified for
each headword. Jamieson was, indeed, more adventurous than Johnson in
his wide-ranging use of sources, and was in fact criticized by his reviewers
for the lowliness of some of his authorities.
Across the Atlantic Johnson's method was only partially taken on board
by the father of American lexicography, Noah Webster. He thought that
Johnson had expended too much space on the 'useless' illustration of wellknown words by quotations. He was also highly prescriptive in his outlook,
which was out of keeping with an approach that was prepared to take
account of variation and development in meaning. Webster's own American
Dictionary of the English Language (1860) focused on etymologies and definitions, with quotations being assigned a relatively minor role.
The last great landmark in lexicography in respect of English up to the
advent of information technology was a dictionary which explicitly declared
itself in its title to be based on an historical approach. This was A New
English Dictionary on Historical Principles (1884-1928), more popularly
known as the Oxford English Dictionary or the OED. The chief originator
of the dictionary, Richard Cheveix Trench, believed that it was possible to
make judgments about given lexical usages, but, on the other hand, he did
not believe in excluding what he considered less acceptable usages from the
dictionary. As we have seen, 'historical principles' figured in earlier English
dictionaries, including Johnson's, and so it is possible to see the OED as the
culmination of an already established tradition in English lexicography.
However, there was a further very important - perhaps crucial - influence on
the shaping of the method used in the preparation of this dictionary -
198
namely the work of the German lexicographer Franz Passow, who in 1812
published an essay in which he strongly advocated the provision of chronologically arranged citations in the service of showing forth the history of
each word. Passow's approach had a major impact on the work of H.G.
Liddell and R. Scott, compilers of The Greek-English Lexicon Based on the
Work of Franz Passow (1843). When the first editor of the OED, Herbert
Coleridge, wished to explain the approach he and his team had adopted, he
simply quoted from the Preface of Liddell and Scott's lexicon the proposition
that every word 'should be made to tell its own story'. A second edition of
the dictionary began to be prepared in 1983 under the administrative direction of Timothy Benbow and under the editorship of John A. Simpson and
Edmund S.C. Weiner, and was published in 1989.
The great leap forward in dictionary making in very recent times has been
the use of information technology in both lexicographical research and the
production and presentation of lexicographical material. On the research
front, as was mentioned in Chapter 4, there has been a massive investment
since the 1980s in the construction and exploitation of computerized
corpora of naturally occurring language, both spoken and written. As was
indicated earlier, the leader in the field in this connection was the COBUILD
(Collins Birmingham University International Language Database) project,
involving a partnership between the Collins (now HarperCollins) publishing
house and the School of English of the University of Birmingham, which has
assembled a corpus of naturally occurring English data, now known as the
Bank of English, running to more than 300 million words. A number of reference works - aimed primarily at advanced non-native learners and users of
English - have been based on this corpus, including the Collins COB UILD
English Language Dictionary (Glasgow: Collins, 1987), the Collins
COBUILD English Dictionary (Glasgow and London: HarperCollins,
1995), the Collins COBUILD Dictionary of Idioms (Glasgow and London:
HarperCollins, 1995) and the Collins COBUILD English Words in Use
(Glasgow and London: HarperCollins, 1997).
Other previously mentioned corpora which have informed recent dictionary production - again especially, though not exclusively, in the area of
dictionaries intended primarily for advanced non-native learners of English
- are the British National Corpus (90 million words of written British
English and 10 million words of spoken British English), the LongmanLancaster Corpus (30 million words of spoken and written British and
American English), and the Cambridge International Corpus (95 million
words of written English plus a spoken language annexe, comprising five
million words, known as the Cambridge and Nottingham Corpus of
Discourse in English). The British National Corpus was used in the preparation of such dictionaries as the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary
English (third edition, London: Longman, 1995) and the Oxford Advanced
Learner's Dictionary (fifth edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995),
and recent dictionaries published by Longman, including the Longman
199
Dictionary of American English (second edition, London: Longman, 1997)

have also been informed by the Longman-Lancaster Corpus. The
Cambridge International Corpus, for its part, was drawn on in the preparation of the Cambridge International Dictionary of English (Cambridge:
Advantages of using corpora in dictionary making include the following.
First, the existence of such vast amounts of attested English means that
examples are readily available for citation in respect of every usage of the
word to which the lexicographer wishes to refer. Corpus-based dictionaries
tend to follow 'historical principles' to the extent that they rely exclusively
on 'real' rather than made-up examples in support of their definitions; they
differ from dictionaries such as the OED in this connection only insofar as
they focus on just one historical phase of development (current usage) rather
than tracing development over several centuries and insofar as the examples
they deploy draw on sources which extend beyond 'serious' writing. Second,
the fact that the databanks in question are computerized means that it is
extremely easy to extract information from them about the frequency of
occurrence of any given item in any given variety (spoken, written, British
English, American English etc.) and generally. Even more interestingly, using
concordancing techniques, it is a straightforward matter to obtain information about the combinations in which any given word appears, and with
what frequency, in different varieties and generally. Accordingly, lexicographers using corpora no longer have to rely on their own intuitions and
impressions when making decisions about which items and usages are
'mainstream' and which are more peripheral. Data emerging from frequency
counts and concordancing procedures can also be used in decision-making
about the ordering of information provided in association with any given
entry - whether, for example to present and illustrate more typical usages
earlier than less typical usages. Finally, the kind of information made available by computerized corpora enables the lexicographer to provide accurate
and useful profiles of the discourse marking functions of words like well and
right which were largely ignored in traditional dictionaries for example, the
use of right to signal drawing a line under one point or topic and moving on
to another, as in:
That's how Descartes saw the matter. Right. Now let's have a look at
what the Empiricists had to say about this issue.
Turning now to the use of information technology in the production and
presentation of lexicographical material, the reference here is, essentially, to
dictionaries on CD-ROM and dictionaries on the Internet. In principle, electronic dictionaries of this kind could solve large numbers of the problems
faced by lexicographers over the centuries - specifically those having to do
with the question of the amount of material to be included and that of the
ordering of material. With regard to the former, a traditional book-type dictionary obviously presents severe constraints on how much information can
200
be included under any given entry. Electronic dictionaries are not subject to
such constraints, and, with their capacity to offer links to other entries and to
other sources of information, may indeed be virtually limitless in respect of the
quantity of information they can make available. As far as the ordering of
material is concerned, since in an electronic dictionary it is possible to provide
search facilities which operate instantly on more or less whatever information
the user has at his/her disposal to key in (word-form, definition, common collocates etc.), the quest for a self-consistent and user-friendly way in which to
sequence lexical material - whether on a formal basis (e.g. alphabetically) or
within a thematic framework - is no longer such a major issue in this context.
An example of a dictionary which has recently appeared in a CD-ROM
version is the above-mentioned Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. The
CD-ROM version can be used in a book-like fashion - to the extent that it can
be scrolled though as continuous text. However, it can also be instantly
searched by inputting various kinds of information. Moreover, the searching
facilities provide instant access to usage notes, to maps, illustrations and photographs, and to tens of thousands of corpus-based examples. A further dictionary from the Oxford stable with a CD-ROM version is the Oxford
American Wordpower Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).
This is a dictionary aimed at intermediate students of American English as a
second language which sets out to bridge the gap between basic survival
vocabulary and a broader lexical range. In this connection, as well as containing the usual kind of information that one might expect to find in a dictionary (plus special sections on American culture and appendices dealing
with areas such as irregular verbs, numbers and place-names), it includes
'study pages' presenting information on, for example, collocations, phrasal
verbs and study skills in a schematic, uncluttered way. It thus begins to blur the
distinction between dictionary and learning materials. The CD-ROM version
goes much further in this direction; as well as providing a search facility giving
instant access to any part of the text, it makes available hundreds of pictures,
video clips illustrating the use of difficult words, audio elements modelling
pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary exercises, and educational games.
With regard to dictionaries available on the Internet, many of these are
quite disappointing in terms of their failure to use the extraordinary possibilities offered by the technology, some being little more than rather crude
glossaries with very limited search facilities. Other online dictionaries
present large amounts of flexibly searchable information but without really
going beyond the book form of the texts in question in terms of types of
information available. There are, however, a number of dictionaries on the
Internet which take fuller advantage of the technology and which adventure
beyond traditional formats. One such is the Newbury House Online
Dictionary, available at http://nhd.heinle.com/. This is an electronic version
of the Newbury House Dictionary of American English (third edition,
Boston: Heinle & Heinle, 2000). The major addition to the online version is
a database of 50,000 photographs, which can be accessed by clicking on a
201
'Related Photograph' button in respect of any given entry. More impressive

still is the Larousse Multimedia Encyclopedique sur CompuServe, a subscription encyclopedic dictionary to be found at http://larousse.compuserve.com, which offers, alongside definitions and other information
which one might expect to find in a normal dictionary, the possibility of
accessing not only relevant visual displays but also articles on related topics.
10.3
The lexicon - lexicographer's bane!
The clear message of earlier chapters of this book has been that the lexicon
is a great deal more complex, a great deal broader in scope and a great deal
more bound up with other areas of language than has traditionally been
acknowledged. What this means from the lexicographer's point of view is
that the material he/she has to try to organize presents many more problems
than are ever imagined by the 'dictionary-user in the street'.
We can begin to explore some of these problems by looking at those
aspects of the dictionary which are often thought of as its basic functions the provision of the accepted spelling of a given entry and the definition of
its meaning. With regard to spelling, despite the fact that there is a popular
demand for prescriptiveness in this area - one 'correct' spelling for any given
item - dictionary makers often find it difficult to meet this demand. For
example, with regard to English, as we saw in Chapter 7, within the Englishspeaking community, different spellings are accepted in different countries.
Accordingly, lexicographers aiming their work at the entire population of
English speakers have no choice but to note spelling variants associated with
different parts of the English-speaking world.
Even within a given country more than one spelling may be accepted in
respect of particular words. Thus, for example, in the current standard
English of Britain and Ireland each of the following pairs represents an
acceptable spelling of the word in question:
connection: connexion
jail: gaol
publicize: publicise
wagon: waggon
yogurt: yoghurt
Similarly with the following (identically pronounced) pairs in current 'metropolitan' French:
bistrot: bistro ('bistrot')
essaie: essaye (first and third-person singular present of the verb
essayer - 'to try')
202

paiement: payement ('payment')
remerciement: remerciment ('thanks')
serre-freins: serre-frein ('brakesman', 'brake adjuster').
Again, the dictionary maker has to take account of such variation in the
forms he/she includes.
With regard to non-alphabetic writing systems, these are also subject to
variation. To take an example already referred to (in Chapter 8), in the
1950s the government of the People's Republic of China decreed the simplification of the forms of several hundred Chinese characters. However, the
simplifications in question were not implemented in Singapore or Taiwan
and were not accepted in the Chinese diaspora. Accordingly, any account of
the written forms targeted in the above-mentioned reform which aspired to
completeness would have to include the 'classic' as well as the reformed versions of the characters involved.
Moving on now to the definitions of meaning supplied by dictionaries,
two major problems which arise for the lexicographer in this area are the
question of how much information to provide and the question of how
many meanings to specify. It is not at all clear that there is a straightforward
theoretical way of setting up a strict demarcation between the 'basic' sense
of a term and a fuller account of its meaning. Looking at the issue in a more
practical perspective, presumably what the lexicographer has to aim for is a
definition which (at least within the constraints of a book-type dictionary) is
maximally economical while supplying enough information for dictionaryusers to be able to understand the item in question and indeed to use it
appropriately themselves. The problem is that, as far as traditional formats
are concerned, there is a price to be paid for a more 'encyclopedic' approach
to definitions, either in terms of a significant increase in the length of the dictionary or in terms of a reduction in the number of entries. In principle,
however, there is no reason why dictionaries and encyclopedias should not
blur into each other. The long-standing existence of 'encyclopedic dictionaries' demonstrates this point quite clearly. An example of such a dictionary
is the Dictionnaire Encyclopedique General (published by Hachette), which
includes proper names as well as common nouns (and other parts of speech),
which runs to 1587 pages of text, incorporating some 3500 graphic illustrations, and contains in addition a number of appendices (neologisms,
Anglicisms, an atlas etc.). As we saw in the last section, the new technologies
have the potential to develop the encyclopedic dictionary idea much further
than could have been envisaged in traditional book mode.
The encyclopedic approach has been notably absent from bilingual dictionaries. The definition of meaning in such dictionaries tends to be in the form
merely of the provision of translation-equivalents in the other language. On
the other hand, as we have seen, some of the monolingual dictionaries produced with advanced non-native learners in mind have begun to move in a
more encyclopedic direction. The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary (see
203
above) is a case in point. Again, information technology may in the end transcend the above categories, having the potential to provide access via a single
set of search facilities to translations into other languages, traditional monolingual dictionary-type definitions, more accessible advanced learner
dictionary-type definitions and/or more encyclopedic information - according
to the demands of particular users at particular times.
Concerning the question of multiple meaning, one part of the traditional
solution to this has been, following the distinction made by semanticists
between homonymy and polysemy, to distinguish between cases where the
meanings attaching to a particular form are connectable in some way and
cases where they are wholly unrelated. In the latter cases, the different meanings are seen as betokening different words, which are handled as quite separate dictionary entries, whereas in the former cases the different but related
meanings are seen as belonging to the same word and are handled within the
framework of a single entry. A good illustration of the above is the treatment
of the meanings associated with the form kip in The Concise Oxford
Dictionary. This form is treated in four separate entries, where the respective
definitions given are as follows:
kip1
the hide of a young or small animal as used for leather.
the basic monetary unit of Laos.
a small piece of wood from which coins are spun in the game
of two-up.
kip
kip
1 a sleep or nap. 2 a bed or cheap lodging house. 3 a brothel.
kip
Whereas the three meanings listed under kip1 can all be seen as interrelated
insofar as they all denote things that happen in or customarily require the
presence of beds, the meanings of kip2, kip3 and kip4 appear to have no
obvious connection with sleeping, lodging or fornicating - or with each
other.
One problem that arises in making the above kind of distinction is that
meanings of a word arrived at by metaphorical extension - and therefore
linked to other, earlier or more 'central', meanings of the word in question may nevertheless be as far removed from these other meanings as 'nap' is
from 'small piece of wood'. For example, the English word cool means
something like 'fairly cold'. By extension, in the emotional realm it means
'calm' or 'unexcited'. By further extension, it has come to refer to a relaxed
style of playing music (especially jazz) and by further extension still it is used
as a term of praise - roughly equivalent to 'excellent'. The question for lexicographers is whether cool meaning 'fairly cold' should be treated together
with cool meaning 'excellent' or whether these meanings are now so divergent as to warrant separate entries under cool1 and cool2. There is no easy
answer to questions such as this.
Even where it is clear that a set of meanings is linked, a further question
that needs to be attended to is to what extent the meanings involved need to
204
be specified and to what extent they can be taken to be supplied by context.

In some instances, almost all the meaning of a particular expression seems to
derive from the context in which it is used. A good example of this is the way
in which the word nice is used in current English (cf. Chapter 4) as an indicator of approval. The precise sense associated with the approval in question
is a function of the particular combination in which it occurs, the particular
type of entity being referred to and the nature of the utterance - as the following sentences demonstrate:
She has nice hair.
('attractive')
He's a very nice man.
('kindly')
Nice shot, my son!
('well-executed')
Nice girls don't kiss on first dates.
('morally sound')
He said some very nice things about you.
('complimentary')
In this sort of case it would be not only impractical and superfluous but also
misleading to include every possible contextual interpretation of nice.
However, it would also misleading to give too limited an account of the possible contextual interpretations. What is in fact required in this kind of
instance is a general indication that nice in this sense 'adds a plus sign', as it
were, to anything to which it is attached, and some representation through
examples - clearly labelled as selective illustrations - of the great variety of
contexts in which it may fulfil such a role.
Having discussed the difficulties presented to lexicographers by even the
types of information which have traditionally been thought of as basic to the
content of the dictionary, let us now range a little more widely over other elements of information that are found in dictionary entries. One such element,
which we explored in some depth in chapters 1, 2 and 3 is grammar - both
syntax and morphology. We saw in these earlier chapters that syntax is very
largely determined by word-choice and that morphology, in both its derivational and its inflectional dimensions, is quintessentially a lexical issue.
Accordingly, any description of lexis - including the practically oriented
kinds of description to be found in dictionaries - cannot avoid grammar, the
proof of this particular pudding being that dictionaries always do include
grammatical information - to a greater or lesser extent. One of the problems
faced by lexicographers in this connection is precisely whether the extent of
their treatment of grammar is to be greater or lesser. If they decide to opt for
a fairly fulsome treatment of grammar, a further problem arises: how to
present grammatical information in such a way that it is as complete as possible while remaining reasonably economical (in book-type dictionaries) and
accessible.
An example of a minimalist approach to grammar in the dictionary is
provided by the Oxford Learner's Pocket Dictionary: English-Greek,
Greek-English, edited by D.N. Stavropoulos (Oxford: Oxford University
205
Press, 1990). In the English-Greek section of this dictionary the basic

grammatical categories of the entries are given - noun (n), adjective (adj),
adverb (adv), preposition (prep) etc. and in addition in the case of verbs
information is supplied as to whether a verb is transitive (vt) or intransitive
(vi) or both (vti), and as to whether a verb is irregular (irreg). The
Greek-English section follows exactly the same pattern except that Greek
nouns are specified for gender - masculine (nm), feminine (nf) or neuter
(nn). The advantage of such a system is that it is highly transparent, with
no very specialized knowledge being required to make sense of the labels in
question. The disadvantage is that it leaves a large gap between the information on offer and what the learner actually needs in order to interpret or
deploy a given word in context. For example, labelling the verb give as vt
irreg does not prepare the user for the fact that this item is actually ditransitive, typically requiring an object and an indirect object; nor for the fact
that its objects may be configured in different ways - thus: I gave the cat to
my sister - I gave my sister the cat; nor for the specificities of its irregularity: give, gave, given.
An example of more ambitious approach to grammar can be seen in the
third edition of the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary (1974). Here a
complex coding system was adopted for the representation of syntactic patterns. Thus, for example, the first two meanings given for the verb determine
are defined and illustrated as follows in this dictionary:
decide; fix precisely; to
a meeting
the meaning of a word; to
calculate; find out precisely; to

mountain by trigonometry
a date for
the speed of light/the height of a
In the first case the codes VP6A and VP10 are specified, and in the second
case, VP6A. These codes are explained elsewhere in the dictionary in the following terms:
VP6A
Subject + vt
noun/pronoun
VP10
Subject + vt
dependent clause/question
Obviously, the information provided by codes in question, indicating as they

do the kinds of objects that come into the frame in relation to particular
usages of this verb, is extremely useful - especially to non-native users of
English. The problem is that, in order to profit from the encoded information, the dictionary user has to invest time and effort either in learning the
(not very transparent) codes or in constantly consulting the key to the codes.
It is not by any means evident that most dictionary users are prepared to
make this kind of investment.
The latest (fifth) edition of the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
(1995) tacitly recognizes this last point by incorporating a coding system
which is rather easier to master. Thus, the coding for verbs is based on the
206
letters, words or parts of words which can be related to their syntactic

profile in a fairly straightforward manner. For example:
[V], [Vpr], [Vadv], [Vp]
Intransitive verbs do not take an object. When used alone after a
subject they are coded [V]:
A large dog appeared.
Some intransitive verbs are often used with a prepositional phrase, an

adverb or an ADVERBIAL PARTICLE (an adverb like down, out or
over). The codes and examples show which type of word or phrase can
be used with a particular verb:
[Vpr] (verb + prepositional phrase)

He doesn't care about other people's feelings.
[Vadv] (verb + adverb)

Well done, you guessed right!
[Vp] (verb + particle)

Sit down and tell me all about it.
Similarly, transitive verbs are coded as [Vn] (verb + noun phrase), ditransitive verbs are coded as [Vnn] (verb + noun phrase + noun phrase), and
copulas (linking verbs) are coded as [V-adj] (verb + adjective complement
- as in Her voice sounds hoarse) or [V-n] (verb + noun phrase complement - as in Elena became a doctor).
This dictionary succeeds fairly well at providing a large amount of
grammatical information in an economical fashion in its entries, using
abbreviations and codes which are readily associable with what they refer
to and which therefore do not over-tax the dictionary user's memory or
patience. As in other dimensions, the new technologies, with the possibilities they make available for multi-media cross-links, have the potential to
improve the grammatical aspects of dictionaries still further; in an
electronic dictionary instant access from within a given entry can be provided to full grammatical explanations, to large numbers of examples including audio and video illustrations, and indeed to relevant grammatical
exercises.
Since, as we saw in chapters 1 and 6, words are sound shapes as well as
being semantic, grammatical and orthographic entities, it is natural enough
that dictionaries should attempt to give some account of how they are pronounced. Two major difficulties that stand in the way of this enterprise are
that (i) within any language community there is likely to be variation across geographical areas etc. - in the ways in which particular lexical items
sound, and (ii) most users of dictionaries are not familiar with systems of
207
phonological transcription, and so the lexicographer working in print is

faced with a real challenge when it comes to representing pronunciation.
With regard to (i) even if there is a recognized standard variety of the language being dealt with, this is almost bound to be characterized by acceptable alternative pronunciations. For example, as far as English is concerned,
in standard North American, Irish and Scottish varieties, the words bar,
fear, hire etc. are pronounced with a final r-sound, whereas in the standard
English, Australian, New Zealand and South African varieties words such as
these are pronounced without an r-sound (except where they appear immediately before a word beginning with a vowel - as in Let's hire another van).
The Concise Oxford Dictionary tries to cope with this by giving a transcription of hire - /hai9(r)/ - which simply allows for possibility of the occurrence
of the 'post-vocalic r'. This is a neat solution from one point of view, since it
also encompasses the case of occurrence of the 'post-vocalic r' before following vowels in English, Australian, New Zealand and South African varieties. On the other hand, it fails to inform the dictionary user which
pronunciation is typical of which parts of the English-speaking world.
As in the case of orthography, even within a given geographical area,
more than one pronunciation may be acceptable as standard. For example,
within the standard English of south-east England the word controversy
may be acceptably pronounced with its main stress either on its first syllable
(controversy) or on its second (controversy). Similarly, the word either may
be pronounced as either /'ai53/ or /'i:99/, the word garage may be pronounced /'gasra:d3 / or d /'gserids /, and scone may be pronounced as either
/skon/ or /skaun/. In these sorts of instances lexicographers have to give an
account of all the relevant possibilities.
Turning to the question of representation of pronunciation, a fairly
common device which has been used by lexicographers over the years has
been to take the most common pronunciations of particular letters or sets of
letters in the dictionary users' orthographic system and to use these as the
basis for a pronunciation guide. For example, the 1969 edition of the Hugo
Pocket Dictionary: Dutch-English, English-Dutch represents Dutch pronunciations to English-speaking users of the dictionary in precisely this way
- thus:
blad, blat
('leaf')
huis, howss
('house')
This kind of system looks as if it might be readily accessible. However, in

fact, explanation of the conventions it adopts is still necessary, for example:
a
indicates a sound similar to the English a in 'was'
ow
to be pronounced as ow in 'now'
Moreover, a pronunciation guide based on this kind of approach will necessarily provide only approximations - sometimes rather inadequate
208
approximations at that. For example, the pronunciation of English ow

resembles the pronunciation of Dutch ui (/oey/) only if the English being
spoken is that of certain parts of Ulster; the standard pronunciation of ow
(/9u/) elsewhere in the English-speaking world is fairly distant from that of
the Dutch diphthong. For these kinds of reasons, most dictionaries now
represent pronunciation by means of the symbols of the International
Phonetic Alphabet, the reasoning being, presumably, that if one has to
provide a key to symbols anyway, why not use symbols which are capable
of providing a really accurate account of the relevant sounds and which
have international currency?
Once again the new technologies are in principle able to resolve more or
less all of the above difficulties relative to the phonological dimension of lexicography. An electronic dictionary has the potential to provide instant
access from within a given entry to a key to the symbols used in the relevant
phonological transcription and also, at the click of a button, to model the
pronunciation of any given word in audio mode. Indeed, an electronic dictionary could supply a whole range of audio models of the pronunciation of
any specific item, signalling whether the pronunciations are in free variation
or labelling the provenance of each pronunciation (American, Australian
etc.) as appropriate.
Another important dimension of the lexicon treated earlier in the book
(especially in Chapter 4) is the whole area of collocation. This aspect of things
poses a number of challenges to the lexicographer, of which we shall look here
at just two: (i) the arbitrariness of identifying combinations of words which
warrant their own entries and (ii) the difficulty of communicating how fixed or
flexible a given combination may be. Concerning (i), we saw in Chapter 4 that
there was no principled way of distinguishing between fixed expressions and
compound words, and that the rule of thumb applied in this connection was a
highly arbitrary orthographic one - so that, for example, greenfinch, schoolteacher, teapot are treated as compound words, while blue whale, bus driver
and tea caddy are treated as fixed expressions. In lexicographical terms what
this tends to mean is that - for no very good reason - the former are accorded
their own separate dictionary entries, whereas the latter are not. There is no
real sign in recent printed dictionaries of any attempt to move beyond the limitations of orthographic conventions in this connection. Electronic dictionaries, in allowing for non-linear search and, in providing the possibility of
using collocates as a trigger for search mechanisms, offer the best chance of
transcending such limitations, but they will not entirely solve the problem,
since some kind of judgment will always have to be made as to whether or not
a particular combination occurs frequently enough to constitute a partnership
to be included in the category of collocations/fixed expressions.
As far as specifying the degree of openness or fixedness of fixed expressions in dictionaries is concerned, again the discussion in Chapter 4 is relevant. There we saw that some fixed expressions are more fixed than others.
Thus, whereas in expressions such as seeing is believing and the more the
209
merrier only minimal changes are admissible, in other cases, such as the
other side of the coin, changes in the syntax and in the actual components of
the expression can be made without any resultant undermining of the force
of expression. Dictionaries can easily enough indicate when expressions are
absolutely invariable, but, in the case of expressions which allow for some
degree of flexibility, indicating what kinds of variations are possible and
where precisely the limits of flexibility are is highly problematic. Some interesting developments in this context came out of the compilation of The
Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English (1975/1983), in which, for
example, the kinds of subject and object that a verb is likely to take are specified, and in which severe collocational restriction is marked with a warning
exclamation mark. For example, the expression blow up, in the sense of
'make bigger', is shown as taking objects (O) applying only to images:
O: ! negative, photograph, picture, snap
However, this kind of device, useful as it is, has to be seen as merely a modest
beginning in the light of the bewildering array of collocational probabilities
and improbabilities associated with expressions of different degrees of fixity
- often without any discernible rhyme or reason. Technology can help to a
certain extent both in terms of establishing what are and are not the usual
combinatorial patterns and in terms of providing ready access in electronic
dictionaries to relevant commentary and sets of examples, but even with
such technological support, the task is a daunting one.
Reference has been made in the foregoing to variation of spelling and pronunciation. As we saw in Chapter 7, however, variation affects other areas of
language too. For example, the very occurrence of a particular lexical unit
may be more likely in some regional, social, ethnic etc. varieties of a given language than in others; and/or it may be more likely occur at one or other end of
the formal-informal continuum in terms of style. The obverse of such sets of
probabilities is that a given expression may be characterized by a set of associations or connotations in respect of the categories of speakers/writers who are
likely to use it and the typical circumstances of its use. Lexicographers have
traditionally made some kind of effort to communicate such associations to
dictionary users. Unfortunately, the classification that has traditionally been
used in this context has been rather crude: the geographical labels ('British',
'American' etc. ) take no account of variation within the areas in question;
little attention is given to variation associated with social class, gender or ethnicity; and the usual stylistic indicators ('colloquial', 'poetic', 'obscene' etc.)
suggest categories with hard and fast boundaries rather than points along a
scale. On the other hand, very recent dictionaries are tending to provide more
finely differentiated information in these areas, and the possibilities of electronic dictionaries in this connection regarding contextualized exemplification
are beginning to be usefully exploited.
Meanings and grammatical patterns associated with particular expressions are also subject to variation. For example, as we saw in Chapter 5,
210
meanings may vary from context to context. Thus, the word note, which in
the context of correspondence means 'short letter' in the context of music
means 'sign representing pitch and duration of a musical sound'.
Dictionaries have traditionally indicated this kind of context-related
semantic variation by labelling meanings - e.g. with Mus. for 'musical'.
Other kinds of context-related variation in meaning - those having to do
with the developing context of the discourse - e.g. whether kick the bucket is
interpreted literally as 'strike the pail with one's foot' or as 'die' (see Chapter
5) - have been addressed in dictionaries only insofar as different meanings
have been illustrated by examples. Semantic differences are also associated
with variation related to geography, social class, ethnicity and gender as well
as with stylistic variation. Again, dictionaries have taken account of such
variation to some extent, using lables such as slang, colloquial, poetic etc.
With regard to grammar, an obvious example of variability is the different
morphological patterning of a verb like get in the English of the United
States (get - got - gotten) as compared with its patterning in most other
parts of the English-speaking world (get - got - got). Here too, dictionaries
have traditionally coped with such variation by the application of labels like
Brit., US. etc. In all these cases, much the same kinds of comments could be
applied as in the previous paragraph in respect of the deficiencies of most
lexicographical practice, and also in respect of the opportunities offered by
technological advances.
Finally in this section, let us look very briefly at the question of how
lexical change (see Chapter 8) is reflected in dictionaries. Many widely used
dictionaries (such as the Concise Oxford Dictionary) include brief treatments of the etymological origins of the items they contain - giving the
forms from which the words in question derive in Old English, Old French,
Latin, Ancient Greek etc. with the meanings of these ancestor forms. As we
saw in the last section, a number of other dictionaries - such as the OED adopt a more general 'historical approach' to the words with which they
deal, tracking and illustrating the evolution of their usage over the decades
and indeed centuries. This latter aspect of the lexical change dimension of
dictionary entries is a good deal more problematic than the former, requiring
as it does, a decision on the part of lexicographers as to how far back to go
in their attempts to take account of and illustrate changes in the lexicon that
relate to the needs of the current user of the language concerned. It also
involves decision-making about how quickly to incorporate new lexical
developments.
With regard to how far the lexicographer should reach back into the
history of the language being treated, a complicating factor is that forms and
meanings which may not have been current for hundreds of years may still
be of relevance to dictionary users who may be reading Cervantes, Dante,
Luther, Rabelais, Shakespeare etc. Moreover, an expression or usage which
may no longer be current amongst one group of speakers may still be
extremely common amongst other groups. For instance, the word press was
211
once widely used in English to mean 'large cupboard'. It is no longer used

with this meaning in the everyday English of England, but in Ireland is still
very frequently used in this sense. Dictionaries typically deal with forms and
meanings which may be encountered in reading but which are no longer in
current use by labelling them as 'archaic' or 'dated', but determining which
to include and which to exclude is no straightforward matter. Nor does such
labelling address the kind of variability that was noted above in relation to
press.
As for the question of how quickly to recognize new coinages or new
meanings in dictionary entries, this is, if anything, an even thornier issue. An
example of a new meaning becoming fairly rapidly associated with an
existing form is provided by the instance of the English word hopefully,
which in the late 1960s was beginning to be widely used in the sense of 'it is
hoped' in addition to continuing to be used to mean 'in a hopeful manner'.
How were lexicographers to know whether the new usage of hopefully was
a mere passing fad or whether (as has turned out to be the case) it was going
to be a development of a more lasting kind? In fact, lexicographers tend to
bide their time, to 'wait and see', before including such innovations. Such
conservatism no doubt yields benefits vis-a-vis the authority of dictionaries,
insofar as it reduces the chances of incorporating forms and meanings that
are truly ephemeral. On the other hand, it does no service to the dictionary
user, whose need for information about unfamiliar words and usages he/she
encounters is not dependent on their pedigree or longevity, and whose
lexical gaps may well principally relate to precisely those very recent lexical
innovations which the lexicographer spurns.
10.4
Approaches to lexis in the language classroom
We turn now to the topic of lexical dimensions of language instruction in

the first language. As was mentioned in Chapter 9, a major focus of
teaching as far as the first language lexicon is concerned is on enabling children to read and write words which they are already able to understand and
use in speech. However, as Chapter 9 also makes clear, the introduction of
new vocabulary in various ways is also a concern of first language lexical
instruction. With regard to classrooms where languages other than the first
language are being taught, the typical scenario in this case is that when
learners begin to be exposed to a second language in a formal educational
setting, all aspects of the words they encounter are new to them, which
clearly presents those responsible for designing and teaching the lexical
component of second language programmes with a challenge of some
magnitude.
In both the first language and the second language classroom the
approach to lexis - across virtually the entire gamut of methodologies - has
typically involved a combination of, on the one hand, instruction and/or
212
activities focused on particular expressions and, on the other, reliance on the

assumption that a certain amount of new vocabulary will be picked up 'incidentally' through simple exposure to dialogues, reading passages etc. containing the new items in question, whether or not teaching is specifically
focused on them. Interestingly, there seem to be arguments in favour of this
general perspective from what we know about naturalistic lexical acquisition by young children, which as we saw in Chapter 9, appears to proceed
on the basis of both a certain amount of special teaching - notably via
'ostension' - and acquisition from context.
A visit to almost any early primary school class during a reading lesson
will provide copious illustration of the above-sketched combination of
approaches. Around the walls of the room there are likely to be brightly
coloured posters and charts with pictures of animals, plants and other
natural phenomena, with individual items lexically labelled. Also likely to be
hung up in prominent positions are ordered lists of words referring to
sequences such as the days of the week, the months of the year and the four
seasons. All of these constitute instances of pedagogic focus on particular
words. There may in addition be wallcharts with pieces of texts on them poems, short sayings etc. These can be seen as relevant to the more contextbased, incidental dimension of lexical instruction. With regard to the actual
reading activities, whether the teacher is working 'frontally', involving the
whole class collectively in such activities, or whether the activities are happening on a groupwork, pairwork or individual basis, they will include both
the challenge of decoding the meaning of the text being read - that is to say,
attention to the overall developing context of the passage - and also a frequent homing in on specific expressions. Guiding and reflecting this twopronged strategy, reading textbooks will typically contain not only
commentaries on and questions about the message being communicated by
the passage but also explanations, definitions, illustrations and perhaps
exercises relating to individual words and phrases. Furthermore, the nature
of the teacher's input will usually assist contextual learning by being 'tuned
down' to the lexical level of the pupils, which allows new items to be interpreted with the help of more familiar expressions in its environment. The
teacher's input will more often than not address specific lexical units too offering definitions either explicitly (e.g. 'This means X') or implicitly by
intonation (e.g. 'a triangle?' 'It's got three sides').
At later stages in the educational process some elements of the above
change: as the pupils' mother-tongue lexical proficiency comes closer to
adult levels, the brightly coloured wallcharts disappear, the number of
explanations of specific expressions declines, and the teacher's input
becomes less obviously 'tuned down'. Nevertheless, the dual approach is still
discernible. As time goes on there may be much more emphasis on the individual pupil's interaction with texts, but unfamiliar words and phrases still
need occasionally to be focused on - in particular, when their context is an
insufficient guide to their meaning, their syntactic profile etc. As previously,
213
such focusing may happen in teacher talk, in classroom activities and/or in

the commentaries of textbooks.
With regard to second language lexical instruction, basically the same
pattern emerges. Again, a visit to more or less any second language classroom would confirm this. Second language teachers also make use of
labelled wallcharts and posters. Another device sometimes used in second
language teaching areas - especially where beginners are being taught - is
the labelling of features of the room and items of furniture (the window, the
door, the cupboard, the teacher's desk, the blackboard etc.) with the relevant
words in the target language. On the other hand, connected texts in the
target language, such as poems and song-lyrics, are also frequently on
display in such areas. As far as class activities are concerned, the input for
these typically comprise audio-recorded dialogues, printed texts, video-clips,
songs and other similar 'chunks' of language in use from which an overall
meaning is derivable and which require different parts of a context to be
related to each other in order to be interpreted. However, as in the case of
mother-tongue teaching, individual expressions are often drawn from such
'chunks' for particular attention - whether explanation or exercises - and
indeed, especially in the early stages of a second language course, single
words may be focused on for definition and practice in complete isolation
from any context. The content of second language textbooks is also typically
characterized by a mixture of context-based and atomistic approaches in
terms of their exposition of linguistic material. In addition, instructed
second language learners, like pupils undergoing mother-tongue teaching
also seem to be in receipt of input-tuning on the part of teachers. Second language speech addressed by teachers to pupils tends to be more standard-like
in terms of pronunciation, to contain more lexical items with general meanings, to include fewer idiomatic expressions and to be syntactically simpler
than discourse addressed to adult native speakers - all of which features
clearly add up to an attempt (whether conscious or unconscious) to enhance
the comprehensibility of what is said and the possibility of incidental acquisition. Finally, second language teachers, no less than first language teachers,
frequently home in on specific words or phrases for 'ostensive definition'
whether by reference to visual, aural or tactile data (a picture, an object in
the room, a sound, a texture etc.), to other words in the target language, or
to a translation-equivalent in the learners' first language.
It may be worth pausing at this point to observe that both incidental
learning and learning based on ostension have their place in naturalistic
lexical acquisition, and that, as we shall see in what follows, both contextbased and individual word-focused approaches are efficacious in formal
instructional settings also. Concerning the role of context in lexical acquisition, research suggests (i) that words are acquired incidentally from context
in the normal course of reading and oral interaction, although the number of
words acquired from any given context on any given occasion is likely to be
rather limited; (ii) that the relevance of an unknown word to the informa-
214
tional needs of the learner is a determining factor in relation to the amount

of attention the learner gives to that word; and (iii) that making an effort to
derive the meaning of unknown words from contextual and formal clues
improves such words' chances of being retained. A further sidelight on this
question is cast by research looking at the differential effects on vocabulary
acquisition of (a) reading plus comprehension exercises plus further reading
and (b) reading plus comprehension exercises plus further related exercises
involving selective attention to words: word (form and meaning) recognition, morphosyntactic manipulation of words and word-parts, interpretation of words in context, production of words in context (the same amount
of time being taken up by either set of activities). The results of such research
indicate that, while both treatments resulted in considerable gains in vocabulary, the gains of the groups who did the further exercises were significantly
greater than those of the groups who did not. It appears from these results
that, in terms of lexical gains, contextualized activities focused on individual
expressions can improve on processing for meaning unaccompanied by such
activities.
With regard to atomistic approaches, the time-honoured way of dealing
with individual expressions in the classroom has been to require pupils to
learn lists of words together with their definitions (or, in the second language
context, together with their first language translation-equivalents). Another
atomistic technique much discussed in the literature is the encouragement of
learners to make semantic-associative links between new words they
encounter and other words they know already and/or images. Again, there is
evidence that such processes happen naturally in lexical acquisition. Thus,
while language acquisition is certainly not reducible to mere imitation, imitation and rehearsal (whether aloud or subvocally) have nevertheless been
demontrated to be important aspects of the process of constructing memory
codes for the phonological form of new items encountered by children
acquiring language - but also by older learners of both first and second languages. Interestingly, from some of the very studies that show the importance of rehearsal in the creation of faithful replications in short-term
memory of the phonological form of the target items, it also emerges that
success in learning new words also depends on the exploitation, where possible, of semantic associations between the target words and words already
internalized.
There is also a long and venerable tradition in verbal memory research
which indicates, on the one hand, that recall of memorized items is improved
by a 'longer opportunity for rehearsal' and that 'more extensive processing
... may increase the durability of a memory code', and, on the other, that
verbal input is made more memorable by ' "deep processing" in which a
variety of relations are established between the newly learned and the preexisting knowledge'. Some verbal memory research suggests - rather like the
above-cited research relating to incidental lexical acquisition - that a combination of strategies yields the best results; thus, for example, it seems that the
215
rote-learning of lexical forms pure and simple is less effective than attending
to meaning as well as to form. Especially interesting in this connection in the
light of what was noted earlier regarding the relevance of individual needs in
incidental vocabulary acquisition is the finding that in verbal memory experiments accurate recall of verbal material is more likely in relation to 'statements with personal significance for the participants'.
A particular mnemonic technique which has been found to work well in
both first language and second language lexical learning is the so-called
keyword technique. This involves the learner in constructing a mental image
which links the newly encountered word with a word which is already
known, whether in the same language or some other language. The vocabulary acquisition and testing researcher Paul Nation exemplifies this technique as follows for the case of an Indonesian learner of English trying to
learn the English word parrot.
First, the learner thinks of an Indonesian word that sounds like parrot
or like a part of parrot - for example, the Indonesian word parit,
which means 'a ditch'. This is the keyword. Second, the learner imagines a parrot lying in a ditch! The more striking and unusual the image,
the more effective it is.
In fact, while the keyword technique is certainly to be classed as an atomistic
strategy, the use of image as a general approach is applicable to longer
stretches of language too - with very beneficial effects in terms of what is
retained. Thus, research has shown that visualization in the course of
reading - whether in a first or a second language - greatly enhances the
impact of the text in question not only in terms of comprehension but also in
terms of the retention of specific content (including lexical content).
Visualization appears to be less frequent among second language readers
than among first language readers, but the second language readers who do
visualize are those who do best in recalling the text. Such research indicates
that encouraging readers to visualize while reading for comprehension and
pleasure is likely to boost incidental lexical acquisition, which in turn means
that the construction of mental images is a strategy whose effectiveness transcends the atomistic-incidental divide.
A particular feature of second language learning and teaching in formal
educational settings is that it has been through some fairly radical changes
even in the past five or six decades. Three methodologies have successively
dominated the second language education scene during that period: the
grammar-translation method, the audio-lingual method and the communicative approach. These are not the only methods which have been on offer,
but they do constitute the landmarks by reference to which other approaches
can generally be situated.
The grammar-translation method essentially attempted to apply to living
languages the same approach that had for centuries been used in the
teaching of classical languages (notably Latin and Ancient Greek). That is to
216
say, much emphasis was laid on the conscious memorization of grammatical

paradigms (noun declensions, verb conjugations etc.) and rules (word order
in various types of phrase and clause etc.), and these memorized forms and
rules were then practised largely by translating sentences and longer passages into and out of the target language (usually in writing). The goal of this
approach was primarily to give learners access to the literary treasures of the
language in question.
The audio-lingual method had its origins in objectives which were fairly
remote from the accessing of literary treasures. It started life as the 'army
method', that is to say, an approach developed in the United States during
the latter years of the Second World War which was designed to prepare
American military personnel for duties in mainland Europe. Consequently
its goals belonged to the realm of the concrete and practical rather than that
of the aesthetic, and its orientation was in the first instance towards the
oral-aural aspects of the languages in question. It was created in large
measure by structuralist linguists rather than members of departments of
modern languages and literature, and it was heavily influenced by the prevailing psycholinguistic model of the time - namely, the application of
behaviourist psychology to language acquisition and use. We have seen that
American structuralist linguistics was particularly interested in observable
forms (phonology, morphology and syntax) and tended to disregard
meaning because of its perceived resistance to scientific analysis (cf. Chapter
5). We have also noted that behaviourist psychology viewed language acquisition as habit formation via selective reinforcement and imitation (cf.
Chapter 9). In view of these givens, it is hardly surprising that the methodology arrived at by the linguists involved focused especially on the manipulation of form and involved large amounts of repetition and structural
'drilling'. After the war this methodology became known as audiolingualism, and, as more visual aids (such as slides and filmstrips) began to
be used in classrooms, it formed the basis of the approach of many of the socalled 'audio-visual' courses that were used in second language classrooms
around the world in the 1960s and 1970s and indeed into the 1980s.
The original motivation for the development of the third of the abovementioned approaches, the communicative approach, was also very practical in nature - namely the need to equip the more mobile members of the
European workforce with linguistic skills which would enable them to meet
their professional and personal requirements in countries and languages
other than their own. Out of this situation arose a whole set of ideas relating
to the analysis of learners' communicative needs, the definition of course
objectives in terms of the meanings that would need to be understood and/or
expressed in order to meet such needs, the early exposure of learners to
authentic samples of the target language, and the development of pedagogical activities which were clearly related to activities associated with real-life
needs. In other words, the concern of the early theorists of the communicative movement was to connect language teaching and learning in the class-
217
room as transparently and as closely as possible to the likely uses of the

target language that learners would be called upon to make. When such
ideas began to be applied to second language learning in primary and secondary schools, a broader view had to be taken of needs, since - in contradistinction to the case of migrant workers attempting to survive far from
home - it was not at all clear to most pupils beginning to learn a second language at school (nor indeed to their teachers) what such pupils' real-life
needs in the target language might be. Accordingly, the notion of needs was
given a broader interpretation in respect of the school context, so that interests and expectations could be included in the picture. Also, attention began
to be paid to the needs of learners relative to their life within the language
classroom as well as their life beyond its walls. Despite such adjustments, the
essential features of the communicative approach have not changed; it
remains committed to founding the entire language teaching enterprise on
an analysis of what the learner needs, wants or expects to be able to do with
the target language, and it takes as given not only the proposition that the
mediation of meaning is the core function of language but also the proposition that it is principally through the experience of the meaning-mediating
dimension of language that language acquisition progresses.
Let us consider now how each of these three methodologies relates to the
different dimensions of lexical acquisition that were discussed earlier. With
regard to the grammar translation method, the typical composition of a
lesson taught within this framework is: an introductory passage in the target
language for reading and translation, glosses for new words introduced in
the passage, explanations of grammatical points exemplified in the passage,
grammatical exercises, exercises involving translation into the target language, and supplementary activities such as the learning of poems, songs etc.
in the target language. By way of illustration, let us explore a chapter of
textbook conceived within a grammar-translation perspective. One such
textbook is a volume entitled Heute Abend ('This Evening'), intended for
English-speaking learners of German as a foreign language, which was first
published in 1938 but which continued to be used into the 1950s and
beyond. The content of Chapter 15 of this book (picked more or less at
random) includes the following.
a four-page text to read and translate entitled 'Am Bahnhof ('At the
station');
a list of vocabulary which appears in the text plus English translationequivalents and some information about the grammatical profiles of the
words in question (e.g. gender specification through the provision of the
appropriate form of the definite article and plural markers in the case of
nouns, irregular third person singular forms in the case of verbs, irregular
comparative forms in the case of adjectives etc.);
a vocabulary revision section in the form of a list of numbered German
items and a separate list of English equivalents tagged with numbers corresponding to those of their German counterparts;
218
grammar exercises focusing on the morphology of verbs, pronouns, articles, adjectives and nouns;
comprehension questions in German relating to the text (which learners
are required to ask each other);
a passage to translate from English into German (about a holiday in the
Bavarian Alps);
a short song to learn.
If we examine this material in the light of opportunities it presents for
incidental vocabulary learning, we can see that the text which opens the
lesson provides just such an opportunity. The lexis is embedded in a context
with an overall meaning which, presumably, learners endeavoured to work
towards in their exploration of the text. Other possibilities for incidental
learning include the instructions and examples associated with the exercises,
most of which are in German and indeed the meaningful contexts within
which the relevant morphological adjustments are supposed to be made (e.g.
'Es tut mir leid, aber ich (konnen) morgen nicht zu meinem Freundgehern''I'm sorry but I (to be able) go to my friend's tomorrow'). Translating into
the target language also comprises an element of incidental lexical acquisition, in the sense that in striving to render the English text accurately into
German, learners would have been very likely to retain some of the expressions they deployed, even in the absence of any attempt at conscious memorization. One final opportunity for incidental vocabulary learning is
furnished by the text of the song at the end of the chapter.
With regard to atomistic lexical learning, the most obvious way in which
the chapter addresses this dimension of learners' coming to grips with
German vocabulary is through the provision of a glossary referring to the
text, the contents of which are intended to be learned by heart, for example
der Bodensee (kein PL [no pl.]), Lake Constance
:
die Eisenbahn (en), railway

:
abfahren, fahrt ab, leave

:
hoch, hoher, high, higher etc.

Notable in this connection is, on the one hand, the presence of semantic
information, which, as we have seen, appears to assist in the creation of
durable memory codes for lexical items, and, on the other, a focus on morphological characteristics, which, again as we have seen, seems to be relevant to the kind of processing that results in lexical gains. The fact that the
German words are placed alongside their English equivalents can also be
seen as an encouragement to construct semantic-associative connections of
219
the kind: hoch and high mean the same thing and both begin and end with h.
Much the same can be said of the lexical revision section.
Grammatical exercises would also have led the learner to focus on specific lexical units in their various realizations. Moreover, since in many cases
the focus on form was situated within a meaningful context, there would
have been a semantic as well as a formal dimension to the attention which
the learner was called upon to give to each item, which, as we saw in our discussion of verbal memory research, would have 'deepened' the processing
and increased the chances of items being retained. Similarly with the text
completion exercises which appear in the chapter.
All in all, the grammar-translation approach appears to have supplied
plenty of opportunities for the operation of both incidental and specific
item-focused lexical acquisition. The great drawback of this method was
that it tended to be taught largely through the medium of the learners'
mother tongue. This meant that exposure to the target language in the classroom was largely limited to the passages and exercises presented in the textbook. Another aspect of this limitation was that the target language input
received by learners was principally in the written medium, which obviously
restricted their chances of becoming fully familiar with the phonological
shapes of words. Furthermore, although, as has been indicated, there was
certainly a semantic dimension to such passages and to at least some of the
exercises, the relevance of the meanings in question to the interests of
learners would not always have been obvious. For example, the text of the
song in Chapter 15 speaks of a man who can no longer march ('ich kann
nicht mehr marschieren') because he has lost his little pipe from his knapsack ('Ich hab' verlor'n - mein Pfeiflein aus meinem Mantelsack').
Moving on to the audio-lingual method and the way in which it deals
with vocabulary, this approach can be exemplified by an audio-visual course
in French as a foreign language which was published by the Centre de
Recherche et d'Etude pour la Diffusion du Francais in 1972 under the title of
De Vive Voix ('Live', 'In person'). Lesson 4 of this course opens with two
filmstrips accompanied by audio-recorded dialogues, entitled in the Livre du
maitre ('Teacher's book') respectively 'Chez Mireille' ('At Mireille's place')
and 'Deux vieilles dames curiemes' ('Two curious old ladies'). Each of these
is then followed by a series of exercises in which the teacher is instructed to
have the learners practise forms and constructions that crop up in the relevant dialogues. The lesson is also associated with a battery of exercices de
reemploi ('exercises in re-use', i.e. structural drills) recorded on separately
available audio-tapes and intended for use in a language laboratory.
Incidental lexical learning opportunities are obviously presented by the
two dialogues and the accompanying visual aids. The dialogues in question
tell a story, which is linked to a larger narrative theme which runs through
the entire course (essentially the developing relationship, way of life and
activities of the two principal characters, Pierre and Mireille). While the
stories in question hardly constitute high drama, they contain enough of
220
interest - especially when listened to in the context of the attractively produced filmstrips - to motivate attention to their meaning. On the other
hand, they are short, taking up in total just two fairly generously spaced
pages of the Livre du maitre.
As in the case of the grammar-translation method, further potential
learning opportunities are provided by the exercises associated with the
lesson - both those orchestrated by the teacher immediately after the dialogues and the further exercices de reemploi performed later by learners in
the language laboratory. An example of an exercise suggested by the Livre
du maitre for the phase immediately following the presentation of the dialogue 'Chez Mireille' is one involving personal pronouns and various ways
of expressing possession (a + X - literally, 'to + X', de + X - 'of + X' and
son/sa + X - 'his (or her) + X'). The suggestion is that these should be
elicited from learners by carefully devised questions referring to the
dialogue - thus:
Question:
A qui est ?
('Whose is ?')
Expected response:
Elle (il) est a X
('It's XV)
The exercises referring to the dialogues are thereby contextualized and

therefore have a clear semantic dimension; in contrast, the exercices de
reemploi, although involving sentences which in themselves have meaning,
do not connect with or into a larger meaningful context, and would appear
to be, for that reason, less facilitative of incidental lexical acquisition.
Finally with regard to incidental lexical learning opportunities in the
audio-lingual framework, it should be noted that all teaching conducted
under the auspices of this method had to proceed entirely in the target language, which means that, quite apart from the material in the dialogues and
exercises, learners were receiving additional second language input from the
teacher in the form of commentaries on the dialogue, explanations relating
to activities, instructions having to do with classroom management etc.
Obviously, learners would have had to attended closely to the meaning of
such input in order to keep abreast of what was happening and what they
were supposed to be doing, and in the process they would have been likely,
whether they wanted to or not (!), to acquire at least some of the terms that
recurred in classroom discourse.
As far as atomistic dimensions of lexical learning in the audio-lingual
lesson we have been examining are concerned, a first point, there are particular sections in the part of the Livre du maitre devoted to Lesson 4 which are
headed 'Vocabulaire' ('Vocabulary'). The vocabulary teaching recommended in association with the dialogue 'Chez Mireille' is centred on politeness formulas such as Excusez-moi ('Excuse me') and on words relating to
furniture and objects featuring in the film images - etagere ('set of shelves'),
livre ('book') etc. The vocabulary section relating to 'Deux vieilles dames
curieuses', for its part, encourages the teacher to supply the expression that
is used to pluralize un jeune homme ('a young man') and to refer to un jeune
221
homme + une jeune femme ('a young man + a young woman') - namely, des
jeunes gens (literally, 'young people').
In fact, however, many of the other activities recommended under the
heading of 'Pratique' ('Practice') are also lexical in nature. For example,
among the elements recommended for practice in connection with 'Chez
Mireille' are the masculine and feminine forms of adjectives such as petit
('small'), gentil ('kind') and bon ('good') and different forms of the verb
avoir ('to have'), and among the elements recommended for practice in
connection with 'Deux vieilles dames curieuses' are the pronoun complementation pattern of verbs such as parler ('to speak') and dire ('to say', 'to
tell') - i.e. the use of lui ('to him/her') with these verbs - and the noun clause
complementation pattern of the verb dire, e.g. Il lui dit que. . . ('He tells her
that. . .'). Since, as was mentioned earlier, these activities relate to a meaningful context, they have a clear semantic as well as a formal dimension. On
the other hand, the structural exercises intended for language laboratory
use, which cover similar points, are not linked in to the dialogues and are,
therefore less well supported in terms of meaning.
Thus, the audio-lingual approach seems to offer a set of conditions in
which both incidental and particular item-focused lexical acquisition can
readily occur. A point that has not been made so far but which perhaps needs
to be, is that the lavish visual support supplied by the filmstrip might well
have encouraged the construction of internal images in association with particular words on the part of learners, who might subsequently have reaped
the earlier-discussed benefits of visualization in learning terms.
One drawback of the approach in this connection is that the range of
vocabulary it makes available tends to be somewhat limited. Thus, for
example, De Vive Voix draws the vocabulary it deploys from Le Francais
Fondamental ('Basic French'), a corpus of the most frequently occurring and
most generally available expressions in French - as established by a research
project conducted in the 1960s. The restrictedness of the vocabulary and the
fact that the words in question have a high frequency and/or availability
value gives the De Vive Voix materials a certain blandness. This is compounded by the fact that the primary purpose of the texts of the dialogues
from the course-writers' point of view was to illustrate aspects of French
grammar and the usage of basic vocabulary rather than to amuse or entertain. Although the texts were semantically coherent and, as has already been
indicated, probably had enough of a story-line to hold learners' interest in
some measure, they certainly did not have much of the savour of real-life
conversations, and are unlikely to have engaged learners' interest to the
point where they felt that the content of the dialogues actually mattered to
them or had any connection with their own lives. All of this, as we have seen,
would have had implications for depth of processing and durability of
memory traces. It should be said that in the grammar-translation approach
the texts used in textbooks were also often concocted by the textbook
writers with the exemplification of grammar points in mind. However, in the
222
grammar-translation case these artificial texts were typically supplemented

with and progressively replaced by song-lyrics and literary texts which were
'authentic' in the sense of having originally been created with the entertainment or illumination of native speakers of the target language in mind. The
problem in this latter case was that, as we have also seen, the choice of texts
was not always inspired or inspiring from the learners' point of view.
A further point worth noting in relation to lexical acquisition in the
audio-lingual framework is that the audio-lingual approach did not explicitly promote the making of connections between target language items and
familiar mother-tongue expressions. Indeed, audio-lingual methodology set
its face against any use of the learners' first language in the second language
classroom whatsoever - even to gloss newly introduced words. While the use
of the target language as a medium of instruction undoubtedly brought
many benefits in terms of incidental learning, the complete interdiction on
any use of the learners' mother tongue in class may have impoverished their
more atomistic aspects of the vocabulary-learning process by failing to
support the making of semantic-associative links between second and first
language expressions. More seriously, it led to many misunderstandings
regarding the meanings of the words encountered. According to numerous
reports, explanations in the target language were often not fully understood
and images were often misinterpreted.
A third disadvantage associated with the audio-lingual approach in
respect of lexical acquisition was its emphasis on oral-aural aspects of the
target language to the point where written language was totally excluded
often until relatively late in the teaching programme. The idea behind this
was to try to ensure that learners had a firm grasp of the spoken language
before they had to cope with the complexities and inconsistencies of its
orthographic system. The problem was that learners were already typically
using written notes in other subject areas to help fix in their minds the material they were being taught. Naturally enough, they adopted the same
strategy in second language classes, and since they were not being given
access to the orthography of the second language, they invented their own
(usually highly idiosyncratic) system of transcription, which meant that the
orthographic entries they had for target language words in their mental lexicons often bore little resemblance to the actual orthographic forms of these
words. Denying learners access to literacy skills in the target language over a
substantial length of time also deprived them during that period of the
opportunity to acquire target language lexis incidentally through reading.
Turning, finally, to the communicative approach, this is a rather difficult to define and describe because it is an extremely 'broad church' in
methodological terms. All versions of the approach try to address the
learner's needs, interests and expectations, and all deal with such needs,
interests and expectations in terms of meaning in a social as well as a conceptual sense - in terms, for example, of giving and receiving various kinds
of information, of expressing and understanding views, preferences etc., of
223
participating in the organization of social interaction - inviting and being

invited, requesting and being the recipient of requests etc. etc. However,
there is variation among different versions of communicative language
teaching when it comes to issues like the use of the learners' mother
tongue, the explicit teaching of grammar and the ways in which the course
objectives are presented (as general communicative functions, e.g.
greeting, warning, expressing dislike, or in terms of communicative tasks,
e.g. ordering food in a restaurant, shopping for clothes and food, speaking
on the telephone).
The particular coursebook we shall consider as a source of illustration of
the communicative approach - the third part of a course intended for Irish
learners of French entitled Salut! ('Hi!'), first published in 1985 and still in
use - takes a fairly relaxed attitude towards the classroom use of the mother
tongue; is not averse to explicit grammatical instruction; and expresses
learning objectives in terms of tasks. Unit 6 of this book, for instance, is
referred to in the contents as follows:
In this unit you can learn how to speak to friends on the telephone and
to give and take phone messages.
It comprises:
a summary of what learners might encounter or want to express in the
context of telephone communication (e.g. answering the phone: Allo!
J'ecoute - literally 'Hello. I'm listening').
four brief dialogues in French involving telephone conversations which
are presented on audio-tape and incomplete versions of which are also
presented in the book; learners are asked to fill in the gaps in the printed
versions of the dialogues;
four further dialogues in French involving telephone conversations presented on audio-tape and in print;
an introduction in French describing the different ways one can telephone
in France (from public telephone kiosks, from cafes etc.);
a large number of short texts taken from French telephone directories and
other French sources providing instructions about different aspects of
telephone use (using a public telephone box, consulting the talking clock,
reserving a wake-up call, telephoning different French regions, abroad
etc.; visual support for these texts includes photographs, drawings,
symbols, diagrams and maps (for example the instruction mettez les
pieces - 'put in the coins' - is accompanied by a drawing of coins).
some examples (in French) specifically relating to calling Ireland from
France;
some short audio-taped French dialogues involving telephone calls, each
followed by a comprehension question or two in French;
some examples of notes in French based on telephone messages;
some exercises involving learners in simulating making telephone calls in
or from France;
224
a grammar section dealing with the present and imperfect tenses of the
verbs pouvoir ('to be able to'), vouloir ('to want') and devoir ('to have to');
some exercises asking learners to express particular meanings in French
(e.g. 'You can't go to the cinema tonight, you have to do your homework');
A page-long text (also available on the audio-tape) about the French
rock-group Telephone accompanied by a photograph of the group and
followed by a comprehension question in French;
a page-long text in French about a solar-powered house accompanied by
a photograph and an annotated diagram of the house and followed by
questions/exercises in French.
As can be seen from the above outline, the unit in question is extremely
rich in both listening and reading material. The material is mostly related to
the telephone theme and therefore connects broadly to an overarching
context, and each dialogue or text also constitutes a meaningful whole at an
individual level. Moreover, much of the material is in one way or other supported by appropriate visual aids. In keeping with the communicative philosophy of basing language courses on learners' needs, interests and
expectations, the content of material relates to an activity (using the telephone in France) that learners probably think of as something that they
might well have to cope with in the not very remote future (on holiday, on a
school trip etc.) and to topics (rock music, the environment) in which many
of them are likely to be interested. In addition, much of the textual material
is authentic, in the sense noted earlier, and so brings the flavour of life
beyond the school walls right into the classroom. All of these attributes are
calculated to encourage learners to listen and read for meaning and to use
the relevant contexts and visual supports to this end. The fact that possible
future personal needs and personal interests are addressed by the material
offers further encouragement towards treating what it says and how it says
it with some attention. In short, the input supplied by the unit constitute a
fairly favourable set of conditions for incidental lexical learning.
Other opportunities for incidental learning are furnished by the questions
and exercises in French which relate to the various dialogues and texts, for
example:
Quelle heure veulent-ils se lever?
('What time do they

want to get up?)
Ou se donnent-ils rendez-vous?
('Where do they agree to

meet?')
Cherche les mots qui font penser au soleil.
('Look for the words

that make you think of
the sun.')
In addition, although the version of communicative language teaching

adopted here allows for some use of the learners' mother tongue in class, the
225
normal understanding would be that, as far as is practicable, the teacher will

use French as the medium of instruction. Clearly, as in the case of the audiolingual approach, this implies many further opportunities for incidental
lexical learning.
With regard to opportunities for more atomistic types of lexical learning
in the unit, one such is the text completion task associated with the first four
dialogues, which bring particular expressions into focus (ca va? - 'how are
things?', desole - 'sorry' - etc.) within a meaningful context; another is the
detailed treatment of various forms of the verbs pouvoir, vouloir and devoir,
accompanied by commentary on their meanings and usage; and a third is the
word-search exercise following the text about the solar-powered house.
Also, the juxtaposition of English expressions with French expressions in the
opening summary (e.g. Asking if you can take a message: Voulez-vous laisser
un message?) may encourage the making of mnemonic connections between
the expressions in question (e.g. the French word for 'message' is spelt
exactly the same as the English word). Finally, as in the case of audio-lingual
methodology, the provision of a visual material, often in close association
with particular expressions, may not only assist comprehension but may
well promote the creation of mental images in respect of such expressions.
There is obviously quite a lot to be said in favour of the communicative
approach in terms of lexical learning. At least in the version exemplified
above, it seems to combine the advantages of the grammar-translation method
(rich textual input, association between target language and mother tongue
forms, explicit focus on the grammatical profile of words, availability of
written forms) with the advantages of the audio-lingual method (classroom
discourse in the target language, visual support, provision of substantial
oral-aural input). Furthermore, it addresses learners' needs, interests and
expectations in a way that the other two methods do not, and thus in principle
ought to deliver teaching and learning materials which have more personal
significance for learners than what is delivered by the other methods. That is
not to say, however, that everything in the garden is rosy as far as lexical
learning in the communicative approach is concerned. Communicative materials have not always been as attentive as they might have been to the more
atomistic aspects of vocabulary learning, with, for example, little or no
encouragement being offered for the rehearsal of new target items, and with
often all too few exercises being on offer which have a specifically and explicitly lexical focus. Another problem faced by communicative courses is that the
authentic material by which they set such store dates extremely rapidly. Thus,
for example, the long-distance and international dialling instructions set out in
Unit 6 of the 1985 version of Salut! (3) have been out of date for years.
Obviously, such built-in obsolescence is likely to undermine somewhat the
claim of communicative language teaching to be in touch with learners' needs
in respect of their use of the target language in the 'real world'.
One possible solution to the problem of obsolescence is to liberate communicative language teaching from the constraints of rarely updated text-
226
books and instead to equip teachers and indeed learners with strategies for
'didacticizing' - i.e. turning into usable teaching/learning material - any
authentic sample of the target language - conversational, humorous, journalistic, literary, technical etc. - which is relevant to the language use objectives of the learners and therefore to the teaching/learning objectives of the
course. There is nothing arcane about such didacticizing strategies; they
include the provision of aids to comprehension of one kind or another (e.g.
visual supports, explanations of particular expressions) and the devising of a
range of exercises and tasks to exploit the target language sample in question
to the maximum. In relation to vocabulary learning, the tasks and exercises
might include not only diverse types of reading comprehension exercises but
also tasks involving the extraction and grouping of words from the same
lexical subsystem, the analysis of contextual meanings of words into denotational and/or connotational components, the gathering from texts of evidence about the collocational possibilities of particular words, and so on.
Samples of the target language can be didacticized in this way not only by
teachers for learners, but also, as has been mentioned, by learners for each
other and for themselves. This last point brings us to the notion of learner
autonomy.
In a way, a concern to 'autonomize' the learner is the logical conclusion of
the learner-centredness of the communicative approach. If communicative
language teaching is focused on the learner, then, logically, it has to be concerned with empowering learners to play as wide a role as possible in their
own learning. The Dublin-based researcher David Little, who has spent the
last 20 years exploring the idea of learner autonomy, defines it as 'a
capacity. . . for detachment, critical reflection, decision-making and independent action'. The relevance of learner autonomy for vocabulary acquisition has to do with the earlier-made point about the effect on depth of
processing of learners' seeing an activity as having personal significance for
them. Where learners are allowed to make their own decisions about choice
of target language reading matter, topics for discussion, project themes,
exercises etc. and have been brought to the point where they can make such
decisions both confidently and wisely, the interest and commitment that they
then bring to the activities in question is bound to bear fruit in higher levels
of retention of lexical (and other) material than where they are simply following a path pre-ordained for them from on high.
10.5
Lexical learning and other aspects of language

learning
Since the message of this entire book has been that the lexicon is inextricably
intertwined with language at large, the message of this last section of the
present chapter - namely, that lexical acquisition is not sealed off from
coping as a learner with other areas of language - need not be laboured. Let
227
us simply look at some specific instances of procedures leading to lexical

learning - in both incidental and atomistic mode - in the above perspective,
and see what we find.
The following passage represents a typical case of an ideal opportunity to
pick up a new word from reading for meaning. The word in question, pygostile, is embedded in a context which actually defines it:
'One of the fossils we heard about was a dinosaur in Mongolia that had
a pygostile - the fused vertebrae that support a bird's tail feathers ...'
Even in a straightforward case like this the interpenetration of lexis and other
linguistic areas in the reader's dealings with the word is evident. The reader
interprets pygostile as a noun, because it functions as the object of a verb
(had), because it is preceded by an article (a), and because the phrase it is
equated with is also a noun phrase (involving another article: the). Whether or
not the reader has access to terminology such as noun, verb, article etc., he/she
will know from this much evidence that pygostile may also be preceded by
adjectives (e.g. a small pygostile) and prepositions (e.g. beneath the pygostile)
and may function as the subject of a verb (e.g. the pygostile was the final
proof). From the context it is also clear that pygostile keeps company with
words referring to anatomical features (e.g. vertebrae) and to birds (e.g.
feathers). From the wider context - an article in the National Geographic
Magazine - and from the general look of the word it may also be inferred that
pygostile is a learned item more likely to occur in scientific discourse than in
casual conversation. The reader will also probably try out some possible pronunciations of pygostile. (Does py sound like pie or like the pi in pig? Is stile
like style, steel or still?). If, after all this, the word is retained, it will undoubtedly be retained with its grammatical, collocational, stylistic and (intelligently
guessed) phonological profile as well as its spelling and its meaning.
A number of examples of components of classroom activities leading to
atomistic word-learning have already been cited. Let us return to the most
traditional strategy - namely, rote-learning word-lists - as exemplified by
the earlier discussed extracts from the German coursebook Heute Abend!
(re-cited below).
der Bodensee (kein Pl. [no pl.]), Lake Constance
:
die Eisenbahn (en), railway

:
abfahren, fahrt ab, leave

:
hoch, hoher, high, higher etc.

As was noted when these lists were referred to in the previous section, they
contain information not just about the orthography and meaning of the
228
items in question, but also about different forms of the word associated with
other grammatical environments (plural forms of nouns, third-person singular present forms of verbs etc.). The lists also indicate certain facts about
the impact of particular words on other words with which they combine in
sentences. For example, by supplying the appropriate nominative (subject
case) form of the definite article alongside each noun included, they specify
that the noun in question requires a particular set of forms of the elements
which surround it such as definite and indefinite articles, quantifiers (viel 'much', 'many', mehrere - 'several' etc.), demonstratives (dieser - 'this',
jener - 'that'), adjectives etc.
Often, word-lists of the above type go so far as to indicate the kind of syntactic patterning that is associated with a particular word in a particular
sense. For example, Actualites Francaises ('French Current Affairs'), an
advanced French course for English-speakers, systematically includes, after
each text it presents, a list of verbs which appear in the text together with
their complementation patterns, for example:
resister a qch. [quelque chose]: to resist sth.
se rendre compte de qch.: to realise sth.
apprendre a faire qch,: to learn to do sth.
permettre a qqn. [quelqu'un] de faire qch.: to allow s.o. to do sth.
insister pour faire qch.: to insist on doing sth.
At the very least, then, word-lists of the traditional kind, i.e. designed to be
learned off by heart, tend to contain morphological information as well as
orthographic and semantic information, and they may well also contain syntactic information. Some lexically oriented pedagogical activities take such
multidimensionality much further, as the following example - borrowed
from a fairly well-known book on learning foreign languages from authentic
texts - illustrates. The activity in question can be thought of as having both
an incidental learning aspect and a more atomistic aspect.
Preparatory task relating to the reading of a German text on an accident involving a car originally believed stolen: sort a jumble of nouns
and verbs (e.g. Polizei - 'police' - Wagen - 'car' - stehlen - 'to steal' melden - 'to report') into categories according to meaning; create a
story from combinations of nouns and verbs; re-order a set of sentences containing the above words into a coherent accident report; use
this report to edit the story created; read the authentic text (which contains all the words in the original jumbles).
This task demands attention to form and meaning, to morphology and
syntax, and to collocation patterns and context. As far as context is concerned, for example, the task requires a coming to grips with the fact that the
word Wagen, which in other contexts may mean 'cart' or '(railway) carriage', means 'car' when used of a motor vehicle.
229
In the light of the discussion in the previous section, and indeed in the light
of discussion in the rest of the book, the more dimensions lexical learning
tasks can incorporate, the more effective they are likely to be, not only in terms
of addressing the fact that lexical knowledge has to be multidimensional in
order to be of any use, but also in terms of promoting the deeper kinds of processing that are likely to result in lexical knowledge actually being added to in
a durable manner. There is a lesson here too for lexical testing. Too often
lexical tests have focused solely on words in isolation. Not only has this kind
of testing failed to tap into aspects of lexical knowledge which are absolutely
vital to its functioning in language use, but the 'washback effect' of such tests
on classroom practice - that is the consequence of teachers' teaching towards
such tests - has frequently been a severe impoverishment of the lexical components of language instruction. If lexical tests are to be valid measures of the
kind of lexical knowledge that can be deployed to some purpose, and if they
are to encourage teaching and learning activities that lead to the construction
of such knowledge, they must - whether individually or collectively - demand
a great more of the testee than simply the decontextualized recognition or
regurgitation of isolated items.
10.6
Summary
This chapter has looked at two ways in which support has been offered to
lexical knowledge and its advancement: the making of dictionaries and the
promotion of lexical learning in the classroom. It has provided a brief history
of lexicography - with particular reference to the evolution of English dictionaries - and has demonstrated some of the challenges for the lexicographer that
arise from the multifaceted nature of the lexicon. In this latter connection it
has suggested that a full and imaginative use of the new technologies may
solve some (though not all) of the problems that dictionary-makers have traditionally had to face. The chapter has gone on to provide an overview of different approaches to the lexicon in the classroom, including an exploration of
how lexical learning has been approached in three important methodologies
used in the teaching of second languages. The message of this section of the
chapter has been that, whatever the teaching approach used, lexical learning
in the classroom has had both an incidental and an atomistic dimension, and
that both dimensions can be shown to have a valuable contribution to make to
the process. Finally, the chapter has looked at some specific lexical learning
opportunities and procedures and has demonstrated that in all cases they are
characterized by a certain multidimensionality - reflecting the fact that the
knowledge aimed at is itself multidimensional.

See 10.2. General sources for this section were Chapter 1 of K. Whittaker's
book Dictionaries (London: Clive Bingley, 1966), N. E. Osselton's article,
230
'On the history of dictionaries' (in R. R. K. Hartmann (ed.), Lexicography:

principles and practice, London: Academic Press, 1983) and A. WalkerRead's article, 'The history of lexicography' (in R. Ilson (ed.), Lexicography:
an emerging international profession, Manchester: Manchester University
Press, 1986). The examples from the Glosses ofReichenau are selected from
those cited by P. Studer and E. G. R. Waters in their edited volume Historical
French reader: medieval period (Oxford: Clarendon, 1924, 14-19).
Treatments of Sumerian-Akkadian glossaries and grammars are to be
found in J. A. Black's article, 'The Babylonian grammatical tradition: the first
grammars of Sumerian' (Transactions of the Philological Society 87, 1989,
75-89) and T. Jacobsen's article, 'Very ancient linguistics: Babylonian grammatical texts' (in D. Hymes (ed.), Studies in the history of linguistics: traditions and paradigms, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1974). The
thesaurus examples are from The Oxford Thesaurus: an A-Z dictionary of
synonyms (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), compiled by L. Urdang.
The Oxford Dictionary of Slang was compiled by J. Ayto (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1998). The comments on alphabetization in early dictionaries are based on Chapter 12 of N. E. Osselton's Chosen words: past and
present problems for dictionary makers (Exeter: University of Exeter Press,
1995). The relationship between the first European vernacular dictionaries
and the Renaissance is discussed by, e.g. R. Harris and T. J. Taylor in
Landmarks in linguistic thought I: the western tradition from Socrates to
Saussure (second edition, London: Routledge, 1997, 94). The O examples
from Cawdrey's dictionary are borrowed from p. 16 of N. E. Osselton's
article 'On the history of dictionaries' (cited above). The brief discussion of
the moves towards the inclusion of everyday words in English dictionaries
has its source in Chapter 3 of N. E. Osselton's Chosen words: past and
present problems for dictionary makers (see above); the quotation from John
Kersey's Preface is to be found on p. 26 of this chapter. The discussion of The
Oxford English Dictionary is largely based on H. Aarsleff's article 'The original plan for the OED and its background' (Transactions of the Philological
Society 88, 1990, 151-61). The quotation from H. G. Liddell and R. Scott's
Preface is cited on p. 160 of Aarsleff's above-mentioned article. The discussion of the use of electronic corpora in dictionary making is informed by J.
Sinclair's edited volume Looking up: an account of the COBUILD Project in
lexical computing (London and Glasgow: Collins, 1987), the same author's
book Corpus, concordance, collocation (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1991), and by Chapter 6 of R. Carter's book Vocabulary: applied linguistic
perspectives (second edition, London: Routledge).
Information about and links to online dictionaries are available from
Internet sites such as:
http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/rbeard/diction.html
http://clicnet.swarthmore.edu/dictionnaires.html
http://www.encyberpedia.com/glossary.htm
http://cctc.commnet.edu/libroot/dictionaries.htm
231
See 10.3. The source of information about Chinese spelling reform and its
non-acceptance outside the People's Republic of China is L-J. Calvet's
Histoire de I'ecriture (Paris: Plon, 1996, 101). The Dictionnaire
Encyclopedique General was compiled by J-P. Mevel, V. Chape and A.
Mercier (second edition, Paris: Hachette, 1996). The definitions of kip are
taken from p. 651 of the Concise Oxford Dictionary (eighth edition, see
above). The discussion of the grammatical coding system used in the third
edition of the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary and the associated
examples are based on pp 155-7 of R. Carter's book Vocabulary: applied
linguistic perspectives (second edition, London: Routledge, 1998). The
account of the grammatical coding system of the fifth edition of the Oxford
Advanced Learner's Dictionary', edited by J. Crowther (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1995), is drawn from pp B1-B8 of the dictionary (especially p. B4) and also refers to the dictionary's entries for give (pp 499f.) and
drop (pp 357f.). The entries from the Hugo Pocket Dictionary:
Dutch-English, English-Dutch (London: Hugo's Language Books Ltd,
1969) are cited, respectfully, from pp 37 and 107; the 'Explanation of the
Imitated Pronunciation' (guide to symbols used in representations of Dutch
pronunciation) is to be found on p. xi of this dictionary. The brief account of
the Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English (Oxford: Oxford
University Press) is based on pp. 160ff. of R. Carter's book Vocabulary:
applied linguistic perspectives (see above). The dictionary appears in two
volumes, the first of which was edited by A. P. Cowie and R. Mackin and
published in 1975, and the second of which was edited by A. P. Cowie, R.
Mackin and I. R. McCaig and published in 1983.
See 10.4. The source of the point about explicit and implicit definitions in
teacher input (and the related illustrations) is E. Hatch and C. Brown's book,
Vocabulary, semantics and language education (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1995, 401). The discussion of incidental vocabulary acquisition is largely based on W. Nagy's article 'On the role of context in firstand second-language vocabulary learning' (in N. Schmitt and M. McCarthy
(eds), Vocabulary description, acquisition and pedagogy, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1997), and on the relevant section of Chapter 4
of my own book, Exploring the second language mental lexicon
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). The research on combining
context-based with word-focused activities is reported in T. Paribakht and
M. Wesche's article 'Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for
meaning in second language vocabulary acquisition' (in J. Coady and T
Huckin (eds), Second language vocabulary acquisition: a rationale for pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). Studies dealing with
the role of rehearsal in the construction of memory codes for newly encountered words include: A. Baddeley, C. Papagno and G. Vallar, 'When longterm learning depends on short-term storage' (Journal of Memory and
Language 27, 1988, 586-95); S. Gathercole and A. Baddeley, 'Evaluation of
the role of phonological STM in the development of vocabulary in children:
232
a longitudinal study' (Journal of Memory and Language 28, 1989, 200-13);

C. Papagno, T. Valentine and A. Baddeley, 'Phonological short-term
memory and foreign-language vocabulary learning' (Journal of Memory and
Language 30, 1991, 331-47); E. Service, 'Phonology, working memory and
foreign-language learning' (Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
45 A, 1992,21-50; E. Service 'Phonological and semantic aspects of memory
for foreign language' (in J. Chapelle and M-T. Claes (eds), Actes: ler
Congres International: Memoire et Memorisation dans l'Acquisition et
l'Apprentissage des Langues/Proceedings: 1st International Congress:
Memory and Memorization in Acquiring and Learning Languages.
Louvain-la-Neuve: CLL, 1993). A widely cited study on associative strategies in second language vocabulary learning is: A. Cohen and E. Aphek,
'Retention of second-language vocabulary over time: investigating the role
of mnemonic associations' (System 8, 1980, 221-35). The quotations concerning the findings of verbal memory research regarding rehearsal and
extensive processing are taken from A. Wingfield and D. Byrnes's book, The
psychology of human memory (New York: Academic Press, 1981, 290), and
the quotation concerning deep processing is taken from R.M. Gagne's book,
The conditions of learning (third edition, New York: Holt Rinehart &
Winston, 1977, 197). The quotation about the recallability of statements
with personal significance is from p. 251 of A. Ellis and G. Beattie's book,
The psychology of language and communication (London: Weidenfeld &
Nicolson, 1986). The keyword technique example is borrowed from p. 166
of I. S. P. Nation's book, Teaching and learning vocabulary (Boston, MA:
Heinle & Heinle, 1990); the effectiveness of the technique is noted by,
among others, N. Ellis and A. Beaton in their article, 'Psycholinguistic determinants of foreign language vocabulary learning' (in B. Harley (ed.), Lexical
issues in language learning, Ann Arbor/Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Language
Learning/John Benjamins, 1995). The more general research on visualization is reported by B. Tomlinson in his article, 'Helping L2 readers to see' (in
T. Hickey and J. Williams (eds) Language, education and society in a
changing world, Clevedon: IRAAL/Multilingual Matters Ltd., 1996). Heute
Abend was written by M. Kelber and was published in London by Ginn and
Company in 1938. De vive voix was written by M.-T Moget with the assistance of J. Boudot and was published in Paris by Didier in 1972. Salut! (3)
was prepared by participants in the Institiuid Teangeolaiochta Eireann
(Linguistics Institute of Ireland) Modern Languages Project under the leadership of J. Sheils and S. McDermott; it was published in Dublin by the
Educational Company in 1985. A variety of ideas relative to didacticizing
authentic materials are to be found in D. Little, S. Devitt and D. Singleton's
book, Learning foreign languages from authentic texts: theory and practice
(Dublin: Authentik Language Learning Resources, 1989). The D. Little quotation on autonomy is taken from p. 4 of his book, Learner autonomy 1:
definitions., issues and problems (Dublin: Authentik Language Learning
Resources, 1991).
233
See 10.5. The quotations from the National Geographic Magazine are both
from Vol. 196, No. 5 (1999); the first appears in a piece entitled 'Feathered
dinosaurs' on a unnumbered page in the preambulatory section headed 'On
assignment', and the second appears on p. 44 (in an article written by Johan
Reinhard entitled 'Frozen in time'). The French verb-list is quoted from p. 32
of the second volume of Actualites Francaises (written by D. O. Nott and J.
E. Trickey, London: The English Universities Press, 1971). The final example
of a lexical task cited in 10.5 is from pp 51-3 of D. Little, S. Devitt and D.
Singleton's book, Learning foreign languages from authentic texts: theory
and practice (Dublin: Authentik Language Learning Resources, 1989).
Good treatments of the evolution of lexicography (in addition to those in
publications already mentioned) are to be found in:
J. Green, Chasing the sun: dictionary-makers and the dictionaries they
made (London: J. Cape, 1996);
T. McArthur, Worlds of reference: lexicography, learning and language
from the clay tablet to the computer (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1986).
Shorter introductions to this topic (with particular reference to English) are
provided by a number of the articles in the Oxford companion to the
English language (ed. T. McArthur, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992).
Other recommended publications on lexicography are:
H. Bejoint, Tradition and innovation in modern English dictionaries
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994);
M. Benson, E. Benson and R. F. Ilson, Lexicographic description of
English (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1986);
R. R. K. Hartmann and G. James, Dictionary of lexicography (London:
Routledge, 1998);
F. J. Hausman, O. Reichmann, H. E Wiegand and L. Zgusta (eds),
Worterbucher/dictionaries/dictionnaires. An international encyclopedia of lexicography (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1989-91);
D. A. Walker, A. Zampolli and N. Calzolari (eds), Automating the
lexicon; research and practice in a multilingual environment (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1995);
L. Zgusta, 'Problems of the bilingual dictionary' (Lexicographica
International Annual 2, 1-161).
With regard to lexical learning in the classroom, the kinds of issues discussed
in 10.4 and 10.5 are explored at greater length and from various points of
view in:
R. Carter and M. McCarthy (eds), Vocabulary and language teaching
(London: Longman, 1988);
J. Coady and T. Huckin, Second language vocabulary acquisition: a
rationale for pedagogy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997);
234

E. Hatch and C. Brown, Vocabulary, semantics and language education
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995);
N. Schmitt and M. McCarthy (eds), Vocabulary: description, acquisition
and pedagogy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
Books dealing with concrete strategies for dealing with lexis in a formal
instructional setting (apart from the Nation volume and the Little, Devitt
and Singleton volume mentioned above) include:
R. Gairns and S. Redman, Working with words: a guide to teaching and
learning vocabulary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986);
M. Lewis, The lexical approach: the state of ELT and a way forward
(Hove: Language Teaching Publications, 1993);
M. Lewis, Implementing the lexical approach: putting theory into practice (Hove: Language Teaching Publications, 1997);
M. Wallace, Teaching vocabulary (London: Heinemann, 1982);
M-C. Treville and L. Duquette, Enseigner le vocabulaire en classe de
langue (Vanves: Hachette, 1996).

1. Try to think of some different sets of circumstances in which the authority
of a dictionary is used to settle disputes about language.
2. List the major advantages an electronic dictionary has over a traditional
printed dictionary, and try to think of some advantages a traditional
printed dictionary may have over an electronic dictionary.
3. Examine the way in which any dictionary with which you are familiar
deals with multiple meaning. Try to come to some conclusions about the
principles underlying the approach in question, and suggest some possible improvements to the approach, giving reasons for your proposals.
4. Devise a connected sequence of classroom activities (for use in the context
of a mother tongue or a second language teaching programme) which
contains opportunities for both incidental and atomistic learning of lexis.
5. Try to create a lexical learning activity (for use in the context of a mother
tongue or a second language teaching programme) which includes a stylistic dimension alongside other dimensions.
Conclusion
Given the range of topics covered in this volume, and given the fact that a
concluding summary is provided at the end of each chapter, it does not seem
sensible to refer to all the elements of the book's content in these concluding
remarks. Instead, the focus here is on the general theme that has run through
every chapter - namely, the very considerable extent to which the lexicon
interacts with dimensions of language which have traditionally been
regarded as relatively separate from it. Indeed, in the light of all that has
been said the question that poses itself at this point is whether we are justified as treating the lexicon as, on the one hand, having any kind of existence
which is distinct from the rest of language and, on the other, forms a component which can be seen as cohesive and unitary.
In relation to the issue of whether it is possible to separate out the lexicon
from language at large, it is not that linguists have changed their fundamental view that the lexicon is that part of language which deals with 'idiosyncratic information', but rather that their research and reflections on such
research have led them to the conclusion that very much more of the functioning of language than they had previously imagined is idiosyncratic. The
response to such findings has been, essentially, to 'slim down' the generalizing elements in linguistic models and to assign more and more responsibility to the lexicon. It appears at times as if this process is at some stage
soon going to reach the point where the notions of lexicon and of language
will become interchangeable.
The usual line of argument offered in favour of continuing to see the
lexicon as distinguishable from other dimensions of language is that,
however many aspects of language can be addressed in lexical terms, it is
nevertheless still possible to identify linguistic phenomena which can be
described without reference to lexical particularities. For example, all
human languages are characterized by what is sometimes known as double
articulation. That is to say, as we saw in Chapter 6, they are organized into
two levels. At one level, meaning/ess units (phonemes, letters) combine to
form meaning/M/ units (inflections, affixes, words etc.), and at a higher level
small meaningful units (morphemes, words etc.) combine into larger meaningful units (phrases, sentences etc.). General design features of language
236
such as this, although certainly rich in implications for the lexicon, clearly
do not depend on the lexical specificities of any particular language.
There are other features of linguistic organization which are more specific
in nature - insofar as they relate to particular domains of language (syntax,
phonology etc.) - but which operate universally, irrespective of the lexical
attributes of the units involved. Structure-dependency is one such feature.
This is the principle, common to the syntax of all languages, according to
which the ways in which sentences relate to each other have structural
dimensions. For example, in English, in order to produce an 'interrogative
version' of a statement, we have to take account not just of how the words
are sequenced but also of how they cluster into constituents and how those
constituents are organized and hierarchized in respect of each other. Let us
consider in this connection the following two sets of sentences, the third
member of each is ill-formed.
The tall chap is one of the men she has been seeing.
Is the tall chap one of the men she has been seeing?
*Has the tall chap is one of the men she been seeing
The tall chap who kissed her is one of the men she has been seeing.
Is the tall chap who kissed her one of the men she has been seeing?
* Kissed the tall chap who her is one of the men she has been seeing
Whereas the first set of sentences might lead us to believe that making a
question out of a statement might be simply a matter of putting the first verb
in the sentence to the front, the second set shows that this 'linear' rule does
not work, and that in moving elements around in such cases we have to take
account of - among other things - which words in the sentence constitute
the main clause (The tall chap is one of the men) and which constitute subordinate clauses (she has been seeing, who kissed her).
It is true that, as we have noted, many linguistic phenomena which were
previously viewed as independent of lexical considerations are now widely
acknowledged to be essentially lexical in nature, and that, on this basis,
there is always the possibility of further shifts of perspective in a lexical
direction in the future. However, it still seems plausible to suppose that,
whether or not one accepts the Chomskyan notion of Universal Grammar,
there will always remain aspects of language that have to be seen as standing
outside the lexical specificities of individual languages.
With regard to the question of whether the various facets of the multifaceted lexicon can be genuinely be seen as cohering into a unitary level of linguistic reality, numerous voices have been raised against this notion in recent
years. Interestingly, the voices in question come largely from the realm of psychology and psycholinguistics, and, even more interestingly, they come from
two schools of thought which in most other respects are in sharp disagreement
Conclusion
237
with each other - namely, on the one hand, advocates of the Fodorian version
of the modularity hypothesis and, on the other, advocates of connectionism.
As we saw in Chapter 9, two defining features of Fodor's conception of
the language module are informational encapsulation (the notion that language processing mechanisms are, as it were, blinkered with regard to data
other than the specifically linguistic data on which they are designed to
operate) and shallowness of intramodular processing (the idea that language
processing within the language module is an essentially formal matter, with
no semantic analysis taking place 'inside' the items being processed). We
noted in Chapter 9 that the advantage for modularists of limiting their conception of the language module to that of a formal processor with no
semantic role is that it does not confront them with the problem of where to
draw the line between linguistic and non-linguistic meaning. The implication of this point of view is that, since the formal lexicon falls within the
informationally encapsulated lexicon and that the semantic lexicon falls
outside of it, lexical knowledge of a semantic kind has no role in the processing of lexical form.
This position would seem to gain some support from the fact that the
lexicon appears to be organized both along formal lines and along semantic
lines - as evidenced, for example, by the fact that slips of the tongue sometimes involve the substitution of a word which is phonologically close to the
target item, for example antiquities for iniquities, and sometimes the substitution of a semantically related word, for example, finger for hand
(meronymholonym), asleep for awake (complementaries) etc. On the other
hand it departs from the classic view of modern linguistics - strongly enunciated by its founder, Ferdinand de Saussure - that the formal and semantic
aspects of a linguistic sign are as intimately connected as the two sides of a
piece of paper. It also falls foul, as the discussion in Chapter 9 indicates, of
evidence of 'online' context effects in the processing of words.
Regarding the connectionist perspective, as again we saw in Chapter 9,
this represents knowledge in terms of connection strength rather than in
terms of patterns. According to this approach it is not the patterns that are
stored - not even the patterns of features that make up what we know as
words, morphemes and phonemes - but rather the connection strengths
between elements at a much lower level that allow these patterns to be recreated. What this obviously implies is that there is no level at which even
words have a stable psycholinguistic existence as symbols, still less a level at
which collections of words have such an existence.
It may be worth mentioning in this context the way in which natural scientists are constantly on their guard against reductionism, recognizing that
the fact that a particular phenomenon can be reduced to component parts
does not necessarily mean that such a reduction constitutes a complete or
useful account of the phenomenon in question. The illustrative example that
is sometimes deployed in this context is that of a sign made up of coloured
light bulbs - AMUSEMENTS, BAR, CIRCUS, DANCING, SOUTH PIER
238
etc. Analysing such signs as simply a number of individual light bulbs would
provide an account of such phenomena at only one level. A complete account
would require the recognition of both higher levels of analysis, for example,
the shape of the configuration at letter-level, the shape of the configuration at
word-level, the meaning of the configuration etc., and lower levels, such as
the component parts of each light bulb, the chemical elements of each of these
components etc. To return to connectionism and the lexicon, the fact that it is
possible to analyse lexical knowledge in terms of connection-strengths at a
micro level does not exclude the notion that there may be other possible levels
of analysis.
Both the modularist and the connectionist approach to the lexicon would
appear to be called into question by the fact that, as we noted in Chapter 1,
the word - in all its complexity - is so widely perceived as the basic ingredient of language. It is difficult not to see this perception as strongly suggesting that a high degree of psychological reality attaches to the idea of a
multidimensional but coherent lexical level of analysis. This should surely
give some pause to those inclined to consign the lexicon concept to fragmentation and the four winds.
Nevertheless, despite arguments such those put in the foregoing few pages
in favour of continuing to demarcate an area of language under the heading
of lexicon and of treating that area as some kind of coherent reality, we have
to acknowledge that it may eventually prove that the lexical construct is
neither theoretically nor empirically dissociable from other linguistic or psycholinguistic domains. Given the exciting advances in technologies that now
allow the direct observation of brain functioning, the clinching arguments
may in the end come not from linguistic theory or psycholinguistic experiments but from neuroscience.
In the meantime it seems very likely that research and publications on and
around the lexicon will remain a 'growth industry' within all the many mansions of linguistics. After decades upon decades of being treated by most
language specialists as the least interesting aspect of language, words have
returned to the very centre of linguists' field of vision. And not before time.
In support of this last remark I offer as my parting shot a quotation not from
a linguist but from a writer of science fiction. Here is what one of the characters in the Dan Simmons's novel Hyperion (London: Hodder, 1989) has to
say on the topic of words:
It might be argued that the Siamese-twin infants of word/idea are the
only contribution the species can, will or should make to the reveling
cosmos. (Yes, our DNA is unique but so is a salamander's. Yes, we construct artefacts but so have species ranging from beavers to ... ants ...
Yes, we weave real-fabric things from the dream-stuff of mathematics,
but the universe is hardwired with arithmetic. Scratch a circle and n
peeps out. .. But where has the universe hidden a word under its outer
layer of biology, geometry or insensate rock?)
Index
Aarsleff, 230
Abelson, 82
affix, 34, 85, 89, 235
agent, 19, 23, 32, 165
Aijmer, 60
Aitchison, 82, 83, 101, 156,
158, 190
Akmajian, 43
Allen, 13
Allerton, 29
allograph, 96, 103
allomorph, 34-5, 40-41, 42
allophone, 3, 5, 96
Altenberg, 60
Altman, 188
Anapol, 129
Andersen, 13
Anderson, J. A., 56
Anderson, R., 82
Anglin, 187
Antilla, 156, 158
Aphek, 232
Aronoff, 43
Ashen, 43
Asher, 29
Atkins, 81
audio-lingual method, 215,
216, 219-22, 225
audio-visual courses, 216
Austin, 122-3, 129
authentic materials, 222, 224,
225, 226, 228, 232
awareness of words, 2-3, 12,
13
Ayto, 160, 230
babbling, 163, 165-7, 180,
181, 185, 190
babbling drift/shift, 166, 185
backness, 86
Backus, 128-9
'bad' language, 114, 117-18,
129, 147
Baddeley, 186, 189, 231, 232
Bailey, 196
Baker, 30
Bank of English, 51-4, 198

Barrett, 186
Bartlett, 187
basic level of categorization,
168, 169, 186
Baskin, 81, 156
Beaton, 187, 232
Beattie, 190, 232
behaviourism, 166, 185-6, 216
Bejoint, 233
Benbow, 198
Benson, E., 233
Benson, M., 60, 233
Berger, 101
Bernstein, 113, 128
Bickerton, 157
Biemiller, 185
bilingualism, 183, 189
binary antonymy see
complementarity
bivalent verb, 21-2, 31
Black, J. A., 230
Black, M., 81
Blom, 129
Bloom, L., 186
Bloom, P., 185
Bloomfield, 43, 67, 81
Blount, 196
'blueprint for the speaker',
171, 174-6, 184
BNC, 54-5, 198
Bollinger, 82
Bomba, 185
Bonvillian, 187
borrowing, 148-50, 156, 157
Borsley, 29
Boudot, 232
Boyes-Braem, 186
brand-name, 152, 153-4
Bredart, 13
Bresnan, 29
Brice, 101
Bright, 102
British National Corpus see
BNC
Brown, C., 60, 83, 231, 234
Brown Corpus, 54
Brown, K., 29, 30
Bruner, 165, 185
Bullokar, 196
Byrne, 232
Calvet, 101, 102, 157, 231
Calzolari, 233
Cambridge and Nottingham
Corpus of Discourse, 198
Cambridge International
Corpus see CIC
Campbell, 185
caretaker talk see childdirected speech
Carey, 187
Carlson, 188
Carney, 102
Carr, 102
Carroll, 129, 170, 187
Carstairs-McCarthy, 43
Carter, 13, 58, 59, 60, 81, 83,
230, 231, 233
Casagrande, 129
Cawdrey, 196, 230
centrality, 86
Cervantes, 210
Chambers, 128
Chape, 231
Chapelle, 232
Chaucer, 133, 156
Chen, 101, 156
Chertok, 188
Cheshire, 130
Cheveix Trench, 197
child-directed speech, 162,
184, 190, 212, 213
Chomsky/Chomskyan, 17, 22,
23-8, 30, 32, 43, 44, 55,
59, 76, 82, 166, 176, 179,
184, 185-6, 236
CIC, 55, 198, 199
circumfix, 34
citation form, 5
Claes, 232
Clark, E., 13, 186
240
Clark, M., 185

classificatory hierarchy, 170
cloze, 177-8
Coady, 231,233
Coates, 131
COBUILD, 19, 20, 52-4,
55-6, 59, 60,198,230
Cockeram, 196
code-switching, 116,119-22,
129
conversational, 116,121
metaphorical, 121,129
situational, 119-22
cognate, 134-6,159,183
cognitive linguistics, 64,
77-80, 83
Cohen, 232
cohort model, 171,172-3,
184,187,190
Coleman, 82
colligation, 17, 68
collocation, 11,12, 20,47-62,
68,162,200,208-9,226,
227, 228
collocational range, 47,48-9,
58,61
Coltheart, 190
combinatorial relations see
syntagmatic relations
communicative approach, 215,
216-17,222-6
comparative method, 134-6,
137,138,156
complementary/
complementarity, 71, 72,
83, 237
component, 75-7
componential analysis, 75-7,
80, 81-2, 83-t
composition see compounding
compound/compounding,
35-6,44,47,49-51,58,
61,162,208
compound organization, 183
computational linguistics, 17,
18-20,28
concept/conceptualization,
65-6, 67, 68, 77-80,
123-7,129,143,144,
145,157,163,164-5,
175,181,185,186,187
conceptual semantics, 77-9, 82
connectionism, 171,178-80,
184,188,237,238
content word, 6,10,14
context, 6,10,11,20,25-6,
31,32,33,38,40,51-4,
56, 68, 69, 77, 80, 92,105,
107,108,113,119-23,
127,130,131,145,146,
147,162,163,166-7,171,
173,174,175,176-8,185,
186,187,188,204-6,210,
227,229
Index
context-related variation see
language variation:
situational
continuum of variation, 107-8
converse/converseness, 73-4, 83
cooing, 165,180
Cook, 30,101,102,118,129,
130,155,158,183,184,
189
co-ordinate organization, 183
corpus/corpora, 18,19,47,
52-5, 58, 59, 60,193,
198-9,221,230
Cotgrave, 196
Coulmas, 102,128,129,130
Coulthard, 128
count noun, 20, 21,31
Coupland, 130
Cowie, 59, 231
creativity, 55-6
Creole, 119,146-7,148,157
Creole continuum, 146-7,157
Griper, 189
Cromer, 129
Crowley, 158
Crowther, 231
Cruse, 13,60, 81
c-structure, 23
Culler, 81
culture, 106,114,115,116,
123-7,129,131,155,200
cuneiform, 93-5,142
Eco,82
Edwards, 115,129, 130
effect, 165
Eimas, 185
elaborated code, 113-14
electronic dictionary, 199,
202-3, 206, 208, 209,
230,234
Ellis, A., 190,232
Ellis, N., 187,232
Elman, 188
empty word, 6
encyclopedic dictionary, 202-3
encyclopedic
knowledge/meaning,
175-6, 202, 237
entailment, 69-74, 79
environment see context
ethnicity, 114-16,127,128,
130,131
euphemism, 49
Ewert, 157
Daniels, 102
Dante, 210
daughter language, 135,138
Davies, 189
declarative knowledge, 171,
176
Defoe, 117,129
DeFrancis, 101
DeGroot, 189
Dell, 188
Demers, 43
denotation, 64-6, 68, 78, 80,
81,118,226
Dependency Grammar, 22, 23,
29
depth of processing, 214-15,
219,221,226,229,232
derivational morphology,
35-6,38,39,41,42,44
Devitt, 232,233, 234
diachronic linguistics, 133-8,
156,158
dialect, 106-7,130
dictionary/dictionary-making,
1,5,10-11,12,51-2,56,
59, 60, 61, 76, 86,133,
170,173,193-201,
202-3, 206, 208, 209,
229, 230, 233, 234
diglossia, 119-21,129,146
Diller, 170,187
Farmer, 43
Fasold, 130
fast mapping, 169,187
Fawley, 82
felicity conditions, 123
Ferguson, 119-21,129,184
Finch, 13
Firth, 20, 51, 52, 58-9
Fishman, 82,128
Fisiak, 188
fixed expression, 47,49-51,
55,58,61,162,208
Fletcher, 185,186
fluid meaning, 168,181
focal sense see prototype
Fodor/Fodorian, 82,176-8,
179,188,237
form word, 6,10,14
Forrester, 190
Forster, 173^, 184,188
Foster-Cohen, 189
frame, 79-80, 82-3
Frege, 81
French, M. A., 101
frequency, 199
Fries, 112,128
Fromkin, 42, 43,100,130
frontness, 86
f-structure, 23
full word, 6, 9
function word, 6
Diogenanius, 194
direct model of access, 170-73,
187
distinctive feature, 86
ditransitive verb, 22, 31
double articulation, 85,100,
235
Drosdowski, 101,102
Duquette, 234
Index
Gairns, 234
Garfield, 187-8
Carman, 185,186,187, 190
Garnica, 184
Gathercole, 186,231-2
GB, 25, 30
Geach, 81
gender, 76, 105,107, 116-18,
119,127,131,154-5
George, 188
Giegerich, 102
Giglioli, 129
Gleitman, 186
Goetz, 82
Goldsmith, 102
Goodluck, 185
Government and Binding see
GB
gradable antonymy see polar
antonymy
grammar, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9,10, 11,
12,14,17-32, 33-15, 47,
49, 53-4, 55-6, 68, 85,
88-9, 91, 92, 97-9,100,
105,110,112-14,
115-16,146,161,162,
173-4,175,176,193,
200,204-6, 209-10, 213,
214,215-16,217-19,
220,221-2, 223,224,
227, 228, 230,231
grammar-translation method,
215-16,217-19,220,
221-2,225
grammatical word, 6, 9
Grant, 184
grapheme, 96,100,103
Gray, 186
Green, 233
Griffiths, 186
Grosjean, 189
Guillaume, 168,186
Gumperz, 129
Haas, 101
Hall, 44
Halliday, 20, 29, 58
Hammer, 188
Harley, 187, 232
Harnish, 43
Harris, J., 43,165,185
Harris, M., 168, 184,186,
189,190
Harris, R., 230
Hartley, 129
Hartmann, 230, 233
Hatch, 60, 83, 231,234
Hausman, 233
Head-driven Phrase Structure
Grammar see HPSG
Hickey, 232
hierarchical classification,
181-2,187
hieroglyph, 95-6
Hird, 189
historical linguistics, 133-8,
156,158
Hobbes, 197
Holmes, 130
holonym/holonymy, 74-5, 83,
237
Homer, 194
homograph, 68, 96, 98-9,142
homographic clash, 142
homonym/homonymy, 68,
139-40,142,156,203-4,
234
homonymic clash, 139-40,
156
homophone, 68, 96, 98-9,
103,139-40, 142
homophonic clash, 139-40,
142
Howatt, 189
HPSG, 19,23,25,29, 31
Huckin,231,233
Hudson, 101,130
Hughes, 129
Huloet, 195
Humboldt, 126
Humphreys, 29, 30
Hymes, 129,230
hyponym/hyponymy, 68,
70-71,74-5,76,81,83,
143,182
ideogram, 94
idiom, 50, 55, 56-8, 60, 61,
162,213
Ilson, 60, 230, 233
imageability, 169,181,187,
215
incidental vocabulary learning,
212,215,218-26,228,
229,231,234
incompatible/incompatibility,
68,71-4,76,81,144
indirect model of access, 170,
187
Indo-European, 135-6, 140,
158
infix, 34
inflectional morphology,
35-42,43, 44
informational encapsulation,
176-8,179,237
Ingemann, 43
innateness, 26, 78-9,162, 164,
165,166,184, 185
internal reconstruction, 134,
136-7,138,156
internal stability, 9
intransitive verb, 21, 26, 31
Jackendoff, 78-9, 82
Jackson, 13
Jacobsen, 230
James, 233
241
Jamieson, 197
Jaworski, 130
Jean, 101,102
Jensen, 43
Johnson, D., 186
Johnson, Dr Samuel, 142,157,
197
Jones, D., 184
Jones, Sir William, 134,135
Kage, 101
Kaplan, 29
Kass, 82
Katamba, 42,43,100,101,102
Katz, 82
Kay, 82
Kelber, 232
Kennedy, 59, 60
Kenstowicz, 101,102
kernel structures, 24
Kersey, 196, 230
keyword technique, 215,232
Kiparsky, 43, 101
Kirsner, 189
Kjellmer, 60
Koerner, 29
Krishnamurthy, 59
Kuczaj, 186
Kuhl, 185
labiality, 86
Labov, 82,128, 130,158
LADL, 18,29
Lakoff, 82,117-18, 129
Lalor, 189
Lamiroy, 29
Landau, 186
language acquisition, 2-3,12,
13,18,26,26,161,
162-70,180-87, 188-9,
193,211-12,213,214
child language development,
2-3,12,13, 26,161,
162-70,180-87,189,
211-12,214
second language
development 161,
180-84,188-9,211-12,
214
language act, 122-3
language change, 7,11,12,13,
133-60,194,210-11
language faculty/module, 26,
162,171,176-8, 179
language processing, 18,
170-80,187,193,237
language teaching, 193,
211-29,234
LI teaching, 211-12, 234
L2 teaching, 211, 213,
215-26,228-9, 234
language variation, 12,105-32,
199,201-2, 206-7, 208,
209-11,227,234
242
ethnic, 105,107,114-16,
119,127,130,131,
146,162,209-10
gender-related, 105,107,
116-18,119,127,131
geographical/regional, 12,
105,107,108,109-11,
119,127,130,131,
199, 201, 202, 206-7,
208,209-11
situational, 12,105,107,
108,109,119-23,127,
131,146,209-10,227,
234
social, 12,105,107,109,
111-14,119,127,128,
130,131,209-10
Laufer, 188
Lawton, 128
learner autonomy, 226,232
learner needs, 216-17,222,
225
Leech, 82, 83
Lehmann, 157,158
Lehrer, 82
Leinbach, 188
lemma, 175
Levelt, 171,174-6,184,188
Lewis, 14, 234
lexeme, 5, 9
lexical diffusion, 90,101,138
lexical distribution, 146-8
lexical doublets, 148-9
lexical engineering, 152-5,
156,158,160
lexical field, 66-7, 68, 80
Lexical-Functional Grammar
see LFG
lexical hypothesis, 175-6
'lexical' morphology, 35-42,
43
lexical parameterization
hypothesis, 27-8, 30
Lexical Phonology, 89,101
lexical processing, 170,184
lexical subsystem, 68
lexical testing, 229
lexical unit, 48, 56-8, 60, 67,
181,184,209,219
lexical word, 6
lexicogrammar, 20,29
lexicography see dictionary
lexicology, 1
LFG, 17,19, 22-3,25, 29, 31
Liddell, 198, 230
literacy/literacy skills, 2, 7,12,
163,185,211,222
Little, 189, 226, 232, 233, 234
Lloyd, 82
loanword, 89-90, 92, 99,
148-50,156,157
LOB Corpus, 54
location, 165
Locke, 186
Index
logogen model, 171-2,173,
174,184,187,
logogram, 94
London-Lund Corpus, 54
London School, 17, 20-21, 28
Longman-Lancaster Corpus,
54,198, 199
Lucy, 131
Luther, 210
Lyons, 13,14,42, 66, 67-75,
77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83
machine translation, 18,19
McArthur, 233
McCaig, 59, 231
McCarthy, 59, 60,231, 233,
234
McClelland, 188
Maccoby, 129
Maclaran, 101
McDermott, 232
McEnery, 60
Mclntosh, 58
Mackin,59, 231
McMahon, 157,158
McShane, 185,186-7
MacWhinney, 188
Mansion, 58
Manzini, 30
Markman, 185
Marshall, 187
Marslen-Wilson, 172-3,184,
187
Martinet, 85,100
mass noun, 20,21
matrix, 86
Matthews, 42
Mauro, 81
meaning see semantics
meaning postulate, 69
Meara, 189
melioration, 147-8
mental lexicon, 12,161-91
Mercier, 131
meronym/meronymy, 745,
81,83,237
Mervis, 186
metaphor, 50,144-5,153
Mevel,231
Miller,]., 29, 30,
Miller,]. L., 185
Miller, R., 186
Mills, 131
Milroy,]., 101,128
Milroy, L., 128,130
Minimalist Programme, 28, 30
Minsky, 82
Mitford, 128
modularity, 171,176-8,179,
184,188,237,238
Moget, 232
Monohan, 101
monovalent verb, 21,31
Moon, 59, 60
Moore, 157
Moreau, 185,186
morpheme, 4, 9,14, 33,
34^2, 44, 85, 89, 98,
180,183,235
bound morpheme, 34, 35,
36, 38, 39, 42, 44
derivational morpheme,
35-8, 39, 41, 42, 44
free morpheme, 34, 35, 36,
40, 41,42, 44
inflectional morpheme,
35^2, 44
morphemic alternation see
allomorph
morphology, 4,12, 33-45, 83,
92,110,115-16,161,
175,180,193,195,
204-6,210,214,216,
218,228,235
Morse, 185
Morton, 171-2,184,187
motherese see child-directed
speech
Miiller, 102
multicompetence, 183,189
multilingualism, 183,189
multiple meaning see polysemy
Myers-Scotton, 131
Myking, 127
Nagy, 231
Nakht, 128
naming insight, 169
nasal/nasality, 86,103
Nation, 215,232, 234
negation, 69
Nelde, 128
Nelson, 187
Newcomb, 129
Newson, 30,184
non-word recognition, 173,
187
Nott, 233
nuclear sense see prototype
Odlin, 188
Ogden, 80, 81
OgdenNash, 112,128
Oldfield, 187
one-word utterance, 163,
166-7
onomatopoeia, 88,101
Orne, 188
orthographic change, 141-2,
156,157,231
orthography, 6-7, 9,10,11,
12,22,33,50,68,
85-103,109-10,137,
156,141-2,157,161,
163,173-4, 201-2, 206,
207, 208, 222, 227, 228,
231,235
Osselton, 229-30
Index
ostension/ostensive definition,
162-3,212,213
over-extension, 168,181,186
Palmer, E, 14, 58
Palmer, H. E., 52, 59
Pamphilus, 194
Papagno, 189,231,232
paradigmatic relations, 68-75,
80
paradigmatic response, 170,
182,189
parallel distributed processing
see connectionism
parameter, 26-8, 30, 32
Head Parameter, 26-8, 32
Pro-Drop Parameter, 32
parentese see child-directed
speech
Paribakht,231
Pariseau, 100, 157
Passow, 198
patient, 19, 31
patois, 115-16, 129
pause, 7, 10
pejoration, 147-8
performative, 122-3
Peters, 60
phoneme, 3, 5, 8,14, 85-90,
91-2,96,100,101,180,
181,235
phonetics, 4, 7,10, 90, 98,
163-*, 166,175,181,185
phonological working memory,
167-8,181,186,187,
189,214,231-2
phonology, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7-8,10,
11,12,13,14,22,33,
40-42,50-51,68,
85-103,105, 107-10,
117, 138-41,146,156,
157,159,161-4,166,
167-8, 173-4, 175,180,
181,185,187,189,193,
200,206-8,214,216,
219,227,231,235
phrase structure rules, 246,
28
Piaget, 165
pictogram, 93-6,142
pidgin, 119
Pinker, 14
Plato, 194
plosive/plosiveness, 86,107,
137, 140-41,163-4
polar antonym/polar
antonymy, 71, 72-3, 83
Pollard, 29
polysemy, 68, 203-4, 234
Poplack, 129
positional mobility, 9, 14
Potter, 157
poverty of the stimulus, 162,
184
prefabrication, 47, 55-6, 58,

60
prefix, 34
primary level of articulation,
85
principles, 25, 26, 27
Projection Principle, 25, 26
procedural knowledge, 175
pronunciation see phonology
proper name, 150-52,156,
157
prototype/prototypical sense,
77-80, 82-3, 84
Pulgram, 101
Pulman, 82
Putnam, 157
Quintus Ennius, 126
Rabelais, 210
race, 114,154
Radford, 30
rebus principle, 95
Redman, 234
Reed, 187
reference, 64-6, 68, 80, 81, 83,
157
referent, 64
rehearsal, 214-15, 225, 231,
232
Reichmann, 233
Reinhard, 233
relational oppositeness, 734
restricted code, 113-14
Reynolds, 82
Richards, 80, 81
Richelle, 185,186
Rickard, 157
Ringbom, 189
Ritchie, 189
Robey, 81
Robins, 43,156
Robinson, 128
Rodman, 42,43,100,130
Roeper, 30
Romaine, 101,158
Rondal, 13
Rosch, 82,186
Rosen, 128
Ross, 112, 128
Rummelhart, 188
Saeed, 82
Sag, 29
Sampson, 29, 102
Santambrogio, 83
Sapir, 2, 7,126-7, 129
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis,
126-7,129
Saussure, 66, 80, 81,133-4,
156,237
Scaife, 185
Schallert, 82
Schank, 82
243
Schatzmann, 128
schema, 79-80, 82-3
Schmid, 83
Schmitt, 59, 60,231,234
Scholze-Stubenrecht, 102
Schreuder, 189
Scott, 198,230
Script, 79-80, 82-3
search model, 171, 173-4,
184,188
secondary level of articulation,
83
Seligman, 157
semantic association, 214,
218-19,222,225,232
semantic change, 143-6,156,
157,159,160,211
semantic feature see
component
semantic field, 67, 68
semantic marker see
component
semantic priming, 174
semantics, 4, 6, 8-9, 10,11,
12,13,22,31,33,35,
49-50, 51, 56-8, 60, 61,
63-84, 85, 88-9, 91,
92-6, 97-9,100, 142,
143-6, 150-55, 156,157,
159,160,161, 162,163,
161, 166, 168-9, 170,
173-4,175,178,179,
180,181-2,201,202,
209-10,211,212,213,
214,215,216,217,218,
219,220,221,222,223,
225, 227, 228, 232,234,
237
sense, 68-77, 78, 80, 81, 83,
143-4,170,181-2,183,
184,186,234,237
sentence construction/structure
see syntax
Service, 188,189,232
Shakespeare, 194, 210
Shapiro, 30
shared reference, 164-5,185
Shiels, 232
Shirley, 129
Sholl, 158
Short, 60
simple antonymy see
complementarity
Simpson, 198
Sinclair, 20, 29, 52, 55-6, 59,
60,230
Singleton, 101,157,189,190,
231,232,233,234
Siqueland, 185
Skinner, 185-6
slip of the tongue, 237
Smith, M.D., 186
Smith, Mikey, 155
Snow, 184, 185
244
Snowdon, 185
social class, 107, 109,111-14,
127,128,130,131
sociolinguistics, 105-32
Soderman, 189
sound change, 138-41,156,
157, 159
sound structure see phonology
speech, 1,2,4,18,47,48,56,
85-103,123,131,147,
162,166,174,175,180,
185,188,199,222,225
speech act, 122-3
speech synthesis, 18
spelling see orthography
Spencer, 43,44,102
stereotypical sense see
prototype
Stowell, 30
Strauss, 128
stress, 7, 8,10,50-51, 85-8,
96-7,100,102-3
Strong-Jensen, 43
structuralism, 66-77, 81, 216
structuralist semantics, 66-77,
78, 81-2
structure-dependency, 236
Stubbs, 102,125,129
Studer, 230
style-shifting, 108,122,146,
209-10
substitutional relations see
paradigmatic relations
suffix, 11,34
superordinate, 70-71, 83,170
'swear-words' see 'bad'
language
Swerdlow, 102
synchronic linguistics, 133-4
synonym/synonymy, 6, 634,
68,69-70,76,77,81,83,
144,145,182
syntagmatic relations, 68,
79-80
syntagmatic response, 170,
181,189
syntax, 2, 3,4,12,17-32, 38,
49, 53-4, 55-6, 66, 83,
113,162,175,193,
204-6,213,214,216,
228,235,236
taboo, 49, 89,139-40,145,
152,194
Tanenhaus, 188
Taylor, 230
teacher input, 213, 231
theme, 23
thesaurus, 195, 230
Thomas, J., 60
Index
Thomas, L., 30
thought patterns, 106,123-7,
129,131
token, 5, 7, 9
Tomlinson, 232
tone, 85-8, 97, 100
transformation, 24-5
transitive semantic relation,
70,74
transitive verb, 21-2, 25, 31
Trask, 157,158
Treville, 234
Trickey, 233
Trier, 67, 81
trivalent verb, 22, 31
Trudgill, 128,130
Tsohatzidis, 82
two-word utterance, 166
Tyler, 187
Tzeng, 185
Ullmann, 13, 81
under-extension, 168-9,186
Ungerer, 83
uniqueness point, 172,190,
Universal Grammar, 26, 30,
236
U/non-U, 112,128
Urdang, 230
vague meaning, 168, 181,186
Valency Grammar, 17,19,
21-2,23,25,28,29,31
Valentine, 189, 232
Vallar, 169,231
Van Der Wouden, 60
variable, 107-9,127
variety, 107-9,127,199
Vihmann, 186
Violi, 83
visualization, 215, 221, 232
vocabulary explosion, 167,
169-70
vocabulary teaching, 212, 215,
218-26,227,229,231-3
atomistic, 212, 215, 218-26,
227,228,229,231,234
context based, 212, 215,
218-26,228,229,231,
234
voice onset time see VOT
voiced/voiceless, 86,107,137,
140^1,163-4
VOT, 163^, 185
vowel-harmony, 8,10
'vulgar' language see 'bad'
language
Wales, 188
Walker, D.A., 233
Walker, E., 188

Walker-Read, 230
Wallace,?., 81
Wallace, M., 234
Walsh, 187
Walter, 158
Wang, W, 101
Wang,W. S.-Y., 185
Wardhaugh, 127,130
Wasow, 29
Waters, 230
Waxman, 186
Webster, 197
Weekley, 157
Wehrli, 30
Weiner, 198
Weinreich, 189
Weltens, 189
Wermke, 102
Wesche,231
Wexler, 30
Whitaker,H., 189
Whitaker, K., 229
Whorf, 126-7,129
Widdowson, 14
Wiegand, 233
Wierzbicka, 131
Williams, E., 30
Williams,]., 232
Wilson, 60
Wingfield, 232
Winston, 82
word association, 170,181-2,
190
word-form, 5, 7, 9,175, 200
word-structure see
morphology
writing systems, 6-7, 50,
91-100,101,102, 142,
185
alphabetic, 6-7, 91-2, 95-6,
97, 98, 99-100
ideographic, 94
logographic, 7, 92-6, 98, 99,
142
pictographic, 92-6, 98,142
syllabic, 92, 96, 98, 99
written language, 6-7, 9, 10,
11,12,22,33,47,48,50,
68,85-103,109-10,123,
131,141-2,147,161,
163,174,199,211,216,
217,219,222,225
Yang, 101
Zampolli, 233
Zgusta, 233
Zopyrion, 194
Zwicky, 43

Language and Lexicon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Language and Lexicon

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Language and Lexicon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Language and the Lexicon

This page intentionally left blank

LANGUAGE AND THE

A member of the Hodder Headline Group

First published in Great Britain in 2000 by

Too irreverent for the clergy,

Andrew Corrigan, 'Disbelief Between', October 1973

1 Introduction: the lexicon - words and more

2 Lexis and syntax

3 Lexis and morphology

Fixed expressions and compounds

5 Lexis and meaning

6 Lexis, phonology and orthography

7 Lexis and language variation

9 Acquiring and processing lexis

10 Charting and imparting the lexicon

Thits page intentionally left blank

A number of people have made valuable contributions to the process of

many faults and failings, for which I am entirely unabashed to recognize my

Some preliminary definitions

Words and language

'In the beginning was the Word ...'

Language and the lexicon

applicable to speech as well as to individual words. Thus, for example, one

Introduction: the lexicon - words and more

Language and the lexicon

connection with lexical issues. For example, it is perfectly possible, without

Introduction: the lexicon words and more

Language and the lexicon

The orthographic approach

Introduction: the lexicon - words and more

The phonetic approach

The phonological approach

Language and the lexicon

word-related phonological feature is that of vowel-harmony in languages

The semantic approach

Introduction: the lexicon - words and more

The grammatical approach

Defining the word: a summary

Language and the lexicon

phonological units, grammatical units or semantic units. We can also make a

The domain of the lexicon

Introduction: the lexicon - words and more

Language and the lexicon

Introduction: the lexicon - words and more 13

Sources and suggestions for further reading

Language and the lexicon

Focusing questions/topics for discussion

Introduction: the lexicon - words and more

Thits page intentionally left blank

Language and the lexicon

2.2 The computational perspective

(Works also in the passive - in

Cette question regarde Pierre.

(Does not work in the passive in either French or English:

Lexis and syntax

Language and the lexicon

Joanna [bakes bread],

2.3 The 'London School' perspective

Lexis and syntax