English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

s from and cannot capture certain so-called pragmatic factors, which have been rediscovered in recent linguistics (cf. Lipka 1975a). For example a language-immanent approach cannot account for certain metaphorical and metonymic relationships in the lexicon (see 3.4.2.). We will return to these aspects in connection with the various models of the linguistic sign and also elsewhere. L e x i c o n is defined in the L D C E (4978) as a dictionary, esp. of an ancient language and in the COD (1976) as dictionary, esp. of Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, or Arabic; (fig.) vocabulary of a person, of a language, of a branch of knowledge, etc. Obviously, the first definition is rather narrow and does not cover the way I have used l e x i c o n so far. The second part of the definition in the COD comes close to it (but cf. L D C E 1987); the first part, containing the synonym d i c t i o n a r y , is not of much use. Two things should be pointed out here: both terms, l e x i c o n and d i c t i o n a r y , have been used as technical terms in the literature, and there is no single "correct" use of l e x i c o n or d i c t i o n a r y . To take up the last point first, I claim that such words are "notational terms". I here follow Enkvist (1973:17), who points out that s t y l e "is a notational term rather than a linguistic prime" and can be defined differently in different frameworks. Within the theory of transformational-generative grammar (or TG), Chomsky, Katz, and Weinreich have used d i c t i o n a r y in different ways (cf. Lipka 1972:37, 84 f.). Weinreich even postulates a distinction between a "simplex dictionary" and a "complex dictionary". In the following, I will use l e x i c o n in two senses that are not always sharply distinguished: a) for a metalinguistic level, or a subcomponent in a linguistic model (basically compatible with a variety of theories of language); and b) in the sense of vocabulary as seen from a systematic, synchronic point of view. I will deal with the two aspects in turn. Let me first illustrate sense a) with the analogy of the following position of l e x i c o l o g y in the classical structuralist model in Ullmann's P r i n c i p l e s of Semantics (1957:39) here reproduced as diagram (1). The justified criticism of the model voiced in Jackson (1988: 241 ff.) may be disregarded for our purposes. It is certainly true that lexicology must include both the study of individual words and their structure (see ch. Ill) and of the overall structure of the vocabulary as a whole (see ch. IV), and that it cannot describe either from a purely formal point of view, without considering semantic aspects and relations.

An Outline of English Lexicology: Lexical Structure, Word Semantics, and Word-Formation