Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Slavic Linguistics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Slavic Linguistics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part 1 Prosody and Phonology
- Part 2 Inflectional and Derivational Morphology
- Part 3 Syntax
- Part 4 Lexicon
- 23 The Structure of the Lexicon
- 24 Lexical Semantics
- 25 Lexical Borrowing
- Part 5 Sociolinguistic and Geographical Approaches
- Part 6 Experimental and Quantitative Approaches
- Name Index
- Subject Index
- References
24 - Lexical Semantics
Insights from Lexicology
from Part 4 - Lexicon
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 May 2024
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Slavic Linguistics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Slavic Linguistics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part 1 Prosody and Phonology
- Part 2 Inflectional and Derivational Morphology
- Part 3 Syntax
- Part 4 Lexicon
- 23 The Structure of the Lexicon
- 24 Lexical Semantics
- 25 Lexical Borrowing
- Part 5 Sociolinguistic and Geographical Approaches
- Part 6 Experimental and Quantitative Approaches
- Name Index
- Subject Index
- References
Summary
The chapter opens with an overview of basic categories within the field of study of lexical semantics. It next presents fundamental concepts related to the lexicon, especially the lexeme as the basic unit of lexicology. It also analyzes the concept of lexical meaning and provides a brief overview of some of the approaches adopted in the study of denotation and connotation. The central part of the chapter describes polysemy and its basic mechanisms – metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche. The examples feature Serbian and other Slavic lexemes exhibiting the richest polysemy. The next section tackles syntagmatic lexical relations, the notion of collocation and the role of context in the study of lexical meaning. Paradigmatic lexical relations are also observed, especially synonymy and antonymy, both true and contextual or quasi-.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Slavic Linguistics , pp. 529 - 544Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Apresjan, J. D., ed. (2014). Aktivnyj slovar’ russkogo jazyka, 2 vols., Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
Apresyan, Y. D., Mel‘čuk, I. A., & Žolkovsky, A. K. (1969). Semantics and lexicography: Towards a new type of unilingual dictionary. In Kiefer, F., ed., Studies in Syntax and Semantics, Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 1–33.Google Scholar
Boguslavskij, I. M. & Iomdin, L. L. (2009). Moscow Semantic School. In Kempgen, S. et al., eds., The Slavic Languages: An International Handbook of their Structure, Their History and Their Investigation, Vol. I, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 813–828.Google Scholar
Bogusławski, A. (2003). A note on Apresjan’s concept of ‘Polish school of semantics’ (with an Appendix). Lingua Posnaniensis, 45, 7–18.Google Scholar
Bulygina, E. J. & Tripol’skaja, T. A. (2014). Leksikologija russkogo jazyka: Praktičeskie zadanija i slovarnye materialy, 4th ed., Moscow: Flinta.Google Scholar
Dragićević, R. (2010). Leksikologija srpskog jezika, 2nd ed., Belgrade: Zavod za udžbenike.Google Scholar
Dragićević, R. (2020). O mogućim interpretacijama semantičkog odnosa grd i gord. In Gramatika u ogledalu semantike, Belgrade: Čigoja, pp. 175–181.Google Scholar
Ganenkov, D. S. (2007). Glagoly peremeščenija v vode – južnoslavjanskie jazyki. In Majsak, T. A. & Raxilina, E. V., eds., Glagoly dviženija v vode: Leksičeskaja tipologija, Moscow: Indrik, pp. 286–304.Google Scholar
Gortan-Premk, D. (2004). Polisemija i organizacija leksičkog sistema u srpskome jeziku, 2nd ed., Belgrade: Zavod za udžbenike.Google Scholar
Iordanskaja, L. & Mel‘čuk, I. (2009). Connotation (in linguistic semantics). In Kempgen, S. et al., eds., The Slavic Languages: An International Handbook of their Structure, Their History and Their Investigation, Vol. I, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 875–882.Google Scholar
Koch, P. (2016). Meaning change and semantic shifts. In Juvonen, P. & Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M., eds., The Lexical Typology of Semantic Shifts, Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, pp. 21–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LASiS: Bartmiński, J., ed. (2015–). Leksykon aksjologiczny Słowian i ich sąsiadów, 5 vols., Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej.Google Scholar
Manučarjan, I. K. (2015). Leksičeskaja tipologija slavjanskix jazykov. Vestnik RUDN: Teorija jazyka – Semiotika – Semantika, 1, 93–104.Google Scholar
Markova, E. M. (2014). Semantičeskaja èvoljucija praslavjanskoj leksiki (na materiale imёn suščestvitel’nyx), Moscow: Izdatel’stvo MGOU.Google Scholar
Maslova, V. A. (2018). Osnovy sovremennoj lingvistiki, Vitebsk: Vitebskij gosudarstvennyj universitet.Google Scholar
Mečkovskaja, N. B. (2004). Semiotika: Jazyk. Priroda. Kulʹtura: Kurs lekcij, Moscow: Akademija.Google Scholar
Mečkovskaja, N. B. (2019). Nominativnyj i kommunikativnyj urovni jazykovoj struktury: V kakoj mere im prisušči svojstva vosproizvodimosti i idiomatičnosti edinic. Trudy Instituta russkogo jazyka RAN, 20, 147–158.Google Scholar
Mečkovskaja, N. B. (2020). Obščee jazykoznanie: Strukturnaja i social’naja tipologija jazykov, 10th ed., Moscow: Flinta.Google Scholar
Mel‘čuk, I. A. & Žolkovskij, A. K. (2016). Tolkovo-kombinatornyj slovar’ russkogo jazyka, 2nd ed., Moscow: Izdatel’skij Dom JaSK.Google Scholar
Mel‘čuk, I. (2018). Anna Wierzbicka, semantic decomposition, and the meaning–text approach. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 22(3), 521–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mel‘čuk, I. & Milićević, J. (2020). An Advanced Introduction to Semantics: A Meaning–Text Approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikołajczuk, A. (1998). The metonymic and metaphorical conceptualisation of anger in Polish. In Athanasiadou, A. & Tabakowska, E., eds., Speaking of Emotions, Conceptualisation and Expression, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 153–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miodunka, W. (1989). Podstawy leksykologii i leksykografii, Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar
Nerlich, B. (2010). Synecdoche: A trope, a whole trope, and nothing but a trope? In Burkhardt, A. & Nerlich, B., eds., Tropical Truth(s): The Epistemology of Metaphor and other Tropes, Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 297–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radić-Dugonjić, M. (1991). Međujezički homonimi i paronimi u ruskom i srpskohrvatskom jeziku, Gornji Milanovac: Dečje novine.Google Scholar
RSANU: Belić, A. et al., eds. (1959–). Rečnik srpskohrvatskog književnog i narodnog jezika, 21 vols., Belgrade: Institut za srpsk(ohrvatsk)i jezik SANU.Google Scholar
Šipka, D., ed. (1999). Słownik serbsko-polskich homonimów i paronimów, Poznań: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza.Google Scholar
Šipka, D. (2019). Lexical Layers of Identity: Words, Meaning, and Culture in the Slavic Languages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Šipka, D. (2022). Slovenski jezici: Genealogija i ideologija, Belgrade: Savez slavističkih društava Srbije.Google Scholar
Vǎtov, V. (1998). Leksikologija na bǎlgarskija ezik: Leksemika – Onomastika – Frazeologija – Leksikografija, Veliko Tǎrnovo: Abagar.Google Scholar
Weiss, D. (2006). Zur linguistischen Analyse polnischer, russischer und deutscher »key words« bei Anna Wierzbicka: Kulturvergleich als Sprachvergleich? In Marszałek, M. & Nagórko, A., eds., Berührungslinien: Polnische Literatur und Sprache aus der Perspektive des deutsch-polnischen kulturellen Austauschs, Hildesheim: Olms, pp. 233–257.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Lexicography and Conceptual Analysis, Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma Publishers.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics: Primes and Universals, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1997). Understanding Cultures through Their Key Words, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (2001). A culturally salient Polish emotion: Przykro. In Harkins, J. & Wierzbicka, A., eds., Emotions in Crosslinguistic Perspective, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 337–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (2013). Polish zwierzęta ‘animals’ and jabłka ‘apples’: An ethnosemantic inquiry. In Głaz, A. at al., eds., The Linguistic Worldview: Ethnolinguistics, Cognition, and Culture, London: Versita, pp. 137–159.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (2021). “Semantic Primitives”, fifty years later. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 25(2), 317–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaliznjak, A. A. & Šmelёv, A. D. (2021). Issledovanija po russkoj i komparativnoj semantike, Moscow: Izdatel’skij Dom JaSK.Google Scholar
Zgusta, L. et al. (1971). Manual of Lexicography, Prague & The Hague: Academia & Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Žolkovskij, А. K. (1964). Predislovie. Mašinnyj perevod i prikladnaja lingvistika, 8, 3–16.Google Scholar
Žolkovskij, А. K. & Mel‘čuk, I. A. (1965). O vozmožnom metode i instrumentax semantičeskogo sinteza. Naučno-texničeskaja informacija, 5, 23–28.Google Scholar