The document discusses different types of lexical and semantic relations between words, including: - Paradigmatic relations, which involve words that could replace each other in the same syntactic position based on semantic categories like countable/uncountable nouns. - Syntagmatic relations, which occur between words that co-occur in the same sentence based on syntactic and semantic dependencies, like a verb requiring certain types of objects. - The Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) approach analyzes word meanings using a small set of semantic primes and reductive paraphrase into simpler concepts.

1. PARADIGMATIC & SYNTAGMATIC RELATIONS PARADIGMATIC are the relations between words and other words that, even if they are not present in the actual sentence the word is part of, they still affect its meaning. Saussure was the first to notice that there is a connection between a word and related words belonging to a common framework. Paradigmatic relations can be seen as reflecting the semantic choices available at a particular structural point in a sentence. These relation involve words belonging to the same syntactic category, although sometime there are minor differences (e.g. countable nouns/mass nouns): we bought some knives forks cutlery

2. CRUSE EXPLAINS THAT SR ARE AN EXAMPLE OF COHERENCE CONSTRAINS. THIS CONCEPT IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT LANGUAGE IS LINEAR, THAT IS, THE FACT THAT WORDS ARE UTTERED OR WRITTEN ONE AFTER ANOTHER. SR OCCUR BETWEEN WORDS WHICH OCCUR IN THE SAME SENTENCE. LESSON 7 SINTAGMATIC RELATIONS: Van Valin 2001, the relation that a morph syntactic element has to the elements it co-occurs with, is termed syntagmatic relations . The syntax and morphology of a language affect the meaning of the words. Example: John killed Peter is different from Peter killed John. One consequence of syntagmatic relations is that there exists a kind of dependency among the elements that co-occur in a syntactic arrangement. A verb like fry requires that its object is something cooked in oil. These requirements that a verb imposes in its arguments are called selection restrictions .

3. MEANING TEXT THEORY MTT: THE LINGUIST OF THE MOSCOW SCHOOL AS THE MOST IMPORTANT REPRESENTATIVE MEL’ CUK’, HAVE HAD A LONG STANDING INTEREEST IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NON-ARBITRARY SEMANTIC METALANGUAGE, THEY PROPOSE AN INVENTORY OF 23 SEMANTIC PRIMITIVES WHICH DO NO T NECESSARILY CORRESPOND TO MEANINGS OF ORDINARY WORDS. MEL’ CUK DESCRIBES The Meaning-Text theory has always considered relations (rather than classes) to be the main organizing factor in language and has made an extensive use of the concept of linguistic dependency, in particular of syntactic dependency (vs. constituency). Thus, it has in many ways anticipated current developments in linguistics. Due to a formal character of the Meaning-Text theory and the corresponding models, the latter have been successfully applied in Natural Language Processing, in particular automatic text generation and machine translation

4. NATURAL SEMANTIC METALANGUAGE NSM Natural semantic metalanguage From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation , search The Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) is an approach to semantic analysis based on reductive paraphrase (that is, breaking concepts/words down into combinations of simpler concepts/words, see Oligosynthetic language ) using a small collection of semantic primes. The semantic primes (below) are believed to be atomic, primitive meanings present in all human languages. The concept has roots in the 17th century projects for ideal languages and the 18th century alphabet of human thought of René Descartes and Gottfried Leibniz. Words from ordinary language are analyzed in NSM by means of script-like explications as the following examples illustrate: plants : living things / these things can't feel something / these things can't do something sky : something very big / people can see it / people can think like this about this something: "it is a place / it is above all other places / it is far from people" sad : X feels sad = X feels something / sometimes a person thinks something like this: "something bad happened / if I didn't know that it happened I would say: 'I don't want it to happen' / I don't say this now because I know: 'I can't do anything'" / because of this, this person feels something bad / X feels something like this anger : I think this person did something bad / I don't want this person to do things like this / I want to do something because of this Anna Wierzbicka originated the NSM theory in the early 1970s (Wierzbicka 1972). Starting with an inventory of only 14 primitives, the theory slowly grew. As of 2002 , the list consists of 61 semantic primitives and is not yet regarded as complete. Other eminent linguists who have participated in NSM research include Cliff Goddard , Felix Ameka, Hilary Chappell, David Wilkins and Nick Enfield. NSM is commonly used in cross-cultural semantics. To write a grammar of the NSM is a work in progress. Such a grammar would describe how these primes collocate in any language, regardless of their morphological and syntactic grammar in particular languages. A partial, though detailed, description is found in Goddard and Wierzbicka 2002.

5. LEXICAL MEANING DISTINCTION BETWEEN WORD FORMS AND LEXEMES: A WORD CAN BE MOVED ABOUT IN A SENTENCE BUT IT CANNOT BE INTERRUPTED OR ITS PARTS REORDERED. THIS MEAN THAT A WORD HAS IDENTIFIABLE LIMITS THAT ARE REPRESENTED IN WRITTEN BY BLANK SPACES. CRUSE, 2000. WORDS FORMS ARE INDIVIDUATED BY THEIR FORM, WHETHER PHONOLOGICAL OR GRAPHIC. LEXEMES CAN BE REGARDED AS GROUPINGS OF ONE OR MORE WORD FORMS, WHICH ARE INDIVIDUATED BY THEIR ROOTS AND/OR DERIVATIONAL AFFIXES. RUN, RUNS, RUNNING ARE WORD FORMS BELONGING TO THE SAME LEXEME RUN. THE WORD AS LEXEME IS THE SIGNIGFICANT UNIT FOR LEXICAL SEMANTICS. WORD FORMS LIKE SAY, SAYING, SAID ARE GRAMMATICAL WODS THAT SHARE THE MEANING OF THE LEXEME SAY. BLOOMFIELD 1984 DEFINED WORD AS A MEANING FREE FORM OR THE SMALLEST UNIT OF SPEECH. WE USUALLY DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN WORD SENSES AND LEXICAL ENTRIES. A WORD (FOOT) COULD HAVE THREE MEANINGS. THESE THREE MEANINGS WOULD ALL BE PART OF THE SAME LEXICAL ENTRY. THUS A LEXICAL ENTRY MAY CONTAIN SEVERAL SENSES OR LEXEMES.

6. LEXICAL RELATIONS

7. LEXICAL RELATIONS 2

8. LEXICAL RELATIONS 3