From Philology to Linguistics: the Influence of Saussure in the Development of Semantics

Contents Volume 2 / 2016 Vol. Articles 2 FRANCESCO BENOZZO Origins of Human Language: 2016 Deductive Evidence for Speaking Australopithecus LOUIS-JACQUES DORAIS Wendat Ethnophilology: How a Canadian Indigenous Nation is Reviving its Language Philology JOHANNES STOBBE Written Aesthetic Experience. Philology as Recognition An International Journal MAHMOUD SALEM ELSHEIKH on the Evolution of Languages, Cultures and Texts The Arabic Sources of Rāzī’s Al-Manṣūrī fī ’ṭ-ṭibb

MAURIZIO ASCARI Philology of Conceptualization: Geometry and the Secularization of the Early Modern Imagination

KALEIGH JOY BANGOR Philological Investigations: Hannah Arendt’s Berichte on Eichmann in Jerusalem

MIGUEL CASAS GÓMEZ From Philology to Linguistics: The Influence of Saussure in the Development of Semantics

CARMEN VARO VARO Beyond the Opposites: Philological and Cognitive Aspects of Linguistic Polarization

LORENZO MANTOVANI Philology and Toponymy. Commons, Place Names and Collective Memories in the Rural Landscape of Emilia

Discussions

ROMAIN JALABERT – FEDERICO TARRAGONI Philology Philologie et révolution Crossings SUMAN GUPTA Philology of the Contemporary World: On Storying the Financial Crisis Review Article EPHRAIM NISSAN Lexical Remarks Prompted by A Smyrneika Lexicon, a Trove for Contact Linguistics Reviews SUMAN GUPTA Philology and Global English Studies: Retracings (Maurizio Ascari) ALBERT DEROLEZ The Making and Meaning of the Liber Floridus: A Study of the Original Manuscript (Ephraim Nissan) MARC MICHAEL EPSTEIN (ED.) Skies of Parchment, Seas of Ink: Jewish Illuminated Manuscripts (Ephraim Nissan) Peter Lang Vol. 2/2016 CONSTANCE CLASSEN The Deepest Sense: A Cultural History of Touch (Ephraim Nissan) Contents Volume 2 / 2016 Vol. Articles 2 FRANCESCO BENOZZO Origins of Human Language: 2016 Deductive Evidence for Speaking Australopithecus LOUIS-JACQUES DORAIS Wendat Ethnophilology: How a Canadian Indigenous Nation is Reviving its Language Philology JOHANNES STOBBE Written Aesthetic Experience. Philology as Recognition An International Journal MAHMOUD SALEM ELSHEIKH on the Evolution of Languages, Cultures and Texts The Arabic Sources of Rāzī’s Al-Manṣūrī fī ’ṭ-ṭibb

MAURIZIO ASCARI Philology of Conceptualization: Geometry and the Secularization of the Early Modern Imagination

KALEIGH JOY BANGOR Philological Investigations: Hannah Arendt’s Berichte on Eichmann in Jerusalem

MIGUEL CASAS GÓMEZ From Philology to Linguistics: The Influence of Saussure in the Development of Semantics

CARMEN VARO VARO Beyond the Opposites: Philological and Cognitive Aspects of Linguistic Polarization

LORENZO MANTOVANI Philology and Toponymy. Commons, Place Names and Collective Memories in the Rural Landscape of Emilia

Discussions

Editorial Board: Rossend Arques (Lexicography, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain) Xaverio Ballester (Classical Philology, Universitat de Valéncia, Spain) Francesco Benozzo (Ethnophilology, Università di Bologna, Italy) Vladimir Biti (Slavic Philology, Universität Wien, Austria) Daniela Boccassini (French and Italian Philology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada) Salwa Castelo-Branco (Ethnomusicology, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal) Mattia Cavagna (Romance Philology, Université de Louvain, Belgium) Louis-Jacques Dorais (Arctic Philology, Emeritus, Université Laval, Québec) Markus Eberl (Pre-Columbian Philology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA) Matthias Egeler (Scandinavian Studies, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany) Keir Douglas Elam (English Literature, Università di Bologna, Italy) Andrea Fassò (Romance Philology, Emeritus, Università di Bologna, Italy) Inés Fernández-Ordóñez (Spanish Philology and Linguistics, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain) Fabio Foresti (Sociolinguistics, Università di Bologna, Italy) Roslyn Frank (Ethnolinguistics, Emeritus, University of Iowa, USA) Beatrice Gründler (Arabic Philology, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany) Mihály Hoppál (Ethnology, Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, Budapest, Hungary) Martin Kern (East Asian Philology, Princeton University, USA) John Koch (Celtic Philology, Canolfan Uwchefrydiau Cymreig a Cheltaidd, Aberystwyth, UK) Albert Lloret (Digital Philology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA) Anna Maranini (Classical Philology, Università di Bologna, Italy) Matteo Meschiari (Cultural Anthropology, Università di Palermo, Italy) Alberto Montaner Frutos (Spanish and Semitic Philology, Universidad de Zaragoza, Spain) Gonzalo Navaza (Toponimy, Universidade de Vigo, Spain) Ephraim Nissan (Historical and Computational Linguistics, Goldsmith College, London, UK) Stephen Oppenheimer (Genetics, Oxford University, UK) Marcel Otte (Prehistoric Studies, Université de Liège, Belgium) Michael Papio (Italian Philology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA) José Manuel Pedrosa Bartolomé (Oral Philology, Universidad de Alcalá, Spain) Andrea Piras (Iranian Philology, Università di Bologna, Italy) Stefano Rapisarda (Romance Philology, Università di Catania, Italy) Uta Reuster-Jahn (African Philology, Universität Hamburg, Germany) Dario Seglie (Archaeology, Politecnico di Torino, Italy) Bora Cem Sevencan (Archaeology, Oulun Yliopistoo, Finland) Wayne Storey (Textual Philology, Indiana University, Bloomington, USA) Marco Veglia (Italian Literature, Università di Bologna, Italy) Philology An International Journal on the Evolution of Languages, Cultures and Texts

General editor: Francesco Benozzo

Volume 2 / 2016

PETER LANG Bern · Berlin · Bruxelles · Frankfurt am Main · New York · Oxford · Wien Editorial Address: Francesco Benozzo Università di Bologna Dipartimento di Lingue, Letterature e Culture Moderne Via Cartoleria 5 I-40124 Bologna, Italy [email protected]

Subscriptions: Peter Lang AG, International Academic Publishers Wabernstrasse 40 CH-3007 Bern Switzerland Phone +41 31 306 17 17 Fax +41 31 306 17 27 E-Mail: [email protected] www.peterlang.com

1 volume per year

Subscription Rates: CHF 59.– / €* 52.– / €** 54.– / € 49.– / £ 39.– / US-$ 64.– * incl. VAT ( valid for Germany and EU customers without VAT Reg No) ** incl. VAT (valid for Austria)

Cover Photo by Dieter Mueller

ISSN 2297-2625 e-ISSN 2297-2633

All rights reserved. All parts of this publication are protected by copyright. Any utilisation outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to prosecution. This applies in particular to reproductions, translations, microfilming, and storage and processing in electronic retrieval systems.

Printed in Switzerland Contents Volume II / 2016

Articles

Francesco Benozzo Origins of Human Language: Deductive Evidence for Speaking Australopithecus ��7

Louis-Jacques Dorais Wendat Ethnophilology: How a Canadian Indigenous Nation is Reviving its Language ��25

Johannes Stobbe Written Aesthetic Experience. Philology as Recognition ��47

Mahmoud Salem Elsheikh The Arabic Sources of Rāzī’s Al-Man¡ūrī fī ’¥-¥ibb ��73

Maurizio Ascari Philology of Conceptualization: Geometry and the Secularization of the Early Modern Imagination ��121

Kaleigh Joy Bangor Philological Investigations: Hannah Arendt’s Berichte on Eichmann in Jerusalem ��141

Miguel Casas Gómez From Philology to Linguistics: The Influence of Saussure in the Development of Semantics ��165

Carmen Varo Varo Beyond the Opposites: Philological and Cognitive Aspects of Linguistic Polarization ��217

Lorenzo Mantovani Philology and Toponymy. Commons, Place Names and Collective Memories in the Rural Landscape of Emilia ��237

Discussions

Romain Jalabert – Federico Tarragoni Philologie et Revolution ��255

Crossings

Suman Gupta Philology of the Contemporary World: On Storying the Financial Crisis ��275

Review Article

Ephraim Nissan Lexical Remarks Prompted by A Smyrneika Lexicon, a Trove for Contact Linguistics ��297

Reviews

Suman Gupta Philology and Global English Studies: Retracings (Maurizio Ascari) ��335

Albert Derolez The Making and Meaning of the Liber Floridus: A Study of the Original Manuscript (Ephraim Nissan) ��339

Marc Michael Epstein (ed.) Skies of Parchment, Seas of Ink: Jewish Illuminated Manuscripts (Ephraim Nissan) ��358

Constance Classen The Deepest Sense: A Cultural History of Touch (Ephraim Nissan) ��395

From Philology to Linguistics: The Influence of Saussure in the Development of Semantics1

Miguel Casas Gómez Universidad de Cádiz

In honour of Ferdinand de Saussure, on the centenary of the publication of his Cours de Linguistique Générale.

Abstract It is true that Semantics as a linguistic discipline owes a great deal to Saussure and there are a considerable number of structuralist and functionalist methodologies deriving from the Saussurean legacy which have a fundamental application in the scientific development of semantics and the study of the lexicon, including structural semantics, lexematics, functional semantics, axiological semantics and mixed semantics. However, in spite of the transcendence for the development of modern semantics of many ideas, concepts and terms articulated in the works of Saussure, basically the distinction between signification and value and the notions of system and associative network, it is striking that in modern-day linguistics, little or nothing remains of the influence of the Genevan master as is clearly shown by the almost total lack of representativity of the issues dealt with in structuralist and functionalist linguistics. For this reason, one might ask what remains of Saussure in modern-day semantics and what new horizons are being sought by modern semantics. The fact is that modern semantics, especially lexical semantics, has been restructured in order to deal with aspects of a very different semantics from the classical, basically paradigmatic type, in order to compensate for these limitations and analyse the syntagmatic component of the meaning and the different aspects situated in the lexico-syntactic interface; in order to deal with variationism from a lexical standpoint using semantic approaches related to sociolinguistics; to develop the field of word-formation from the viewpoint of the meaning; as a theoretical base for disciplines such as terminology, neology, and at least the larger part of phraseology (such as the area of idioms), and, more recently, in order to carry out research on the neurocognitive dimension of the lexicon.

Keywords Saussure, General Linguistics, Historiography of Linguistics, Semantics, Lexi- cal Semantics, Terminology

1 This work is included in the Project for Excellence in Research “Comunicación especializada y terminografía: usos terminológicos relacionados con los contenidos y perspectivas actuales de la semántica léxica” [Specialized communication and terminography: terminological uses related to the contents and perspectives of modern- day lexical semantics] (FFI2014-54609-P), part of the State Programme for the

Introduction

A hundred years have now passed since the publication of the Cours de Linguistique Générale by Ferdinand de Saussure, an author as frequently cited as he is infrequently read, enormously influential in the development of modern linguistics and of such transcendence in the origin and evolution of current disciplines which have an extraordinary popularity and validity today (as is the case of Terminology), of which almost all linguists were unaware, and, in many cases, still are, and being an indisputable point of reference in our scientific field. These, however, are rarely studied in the current teaching of linguistics. For this reason, we wish to pay tribute to the Genevan master on the centenary of this key work in the history of linguistics, with a paper in which we will start from Saussure’s relevance in the historiography of Se- mantics, going on to describe his contributions to specific contents belonging to this discipline and the repercussions of some of his postulates in more recent linguistics, and concluding with some considerations on the situation of semantics a hundred years after this publication, with the aim of discovering what remains of his influence in modern-day linguistics in general, and, more specifically, in semantics, and what new horizons and perspectives are being sought by modern semantics and by lexical semantics in particular.

1. Saussure and the Historiography of Semantics

In the development of Semantics as a linguistic discipline, there are stages, with different types of content, in some cases arising from the influx of extralinguistic factors in the field of semantics, which developed in the 20th century from Saussurean ideas and concepts. These fall basically within

Advancement of Excellence in Scientific and Technical Research (State Sub-programme for the Propagation of Knowledge, convocation of 2014) of the Ministry of Economy and Competitivity.

© Peter Lang AG Philology, vol. 2/2016, pp. 165–216 From Philology to Linguistics 167 the framework of structuralism and functionalism: different types of structural semantics and functional semantics (structuralism and functionalism in the strict or orthodox sense, humanized or mitigated structuralism, lexematics, axiology) and even in the interrelationship between structuralism and cognitivism (mixed semantics). Thus, different stages and certain semantic models have arisen largely from Saussurean contributions. Indeed, the master from Geneva had a certain relevant influence on the fact that semantics had its own historiography with specific stages, different from that of other linguistic disciplines (cf. Casas Gómez, 2007a). Before the birth of modern semantics, this discipline was dedicated to the study of a series of contents, the distribution of which partly corre- sponds to its different perspectives: historic semantics (1), “traditional” semantics (2 and 3) and prestructural semantics (4 and 5): 1) The study of the meanings of words and the laws of their semantic evolution, that is, the different types of semantic changes and their “causes” or motivations, according to the formulation received by Reisig (1839) and Bréal (1883 and 1897), in the 19th century.2 2) The analysis of the components of the linguistic sign, especially regarding the essence of the meaning, a type of semantics known as analytical or referential semantics, since it considers the way in which extralinguistic elements invade the domain of linguistic signs. These are analytical models which start from Ogden and Richards’(1923) “semiotic triangle” or the “triangle of signification”, later adapted and revised by Malinowski (1923; 1964, 346), Stern (1931, p. 37–38), Ull mann3, Baldinger4 and Lyons (1968, p. 403–405; 1977, p. 95–99) in their respective semantic theories, adapted in Heger’s5 “trapezoidal” models, which have had repercussions, above all, with regard to relationships and distinctions between signified, sememe and concept and

2 For a development of historical semantics with the two models of the theory of signification, the German Semasiology by Reisig and the French Semantics by Bréal, cf. Casas Gómez (1999a). 3 Cf. Ullmann (1951, p. 31–34; 1952, p. 19–24; 1956, p. 13–17; 1957, p. 70–73; 1964a, p. 54–64; 1964b, p. 17–23, and 1973, p. 5–8). 4 Cf. Baldinger (1956, p. 153; 1957, p. 14–15; 1964, p. 18–19; 1977, p. 19–20 y 27–31). 5 Cf. Heger (1965, p. 7–32; 1969a, p. 47–111; 1969b, p. 44–66; 1971, p. 22–48; 1974, p. 1–32, 136–207; 1981, p. 61–72).

have continued in more recent semiotic proposals, of a pentagonal nature (Raible, 1983, p. 5), conjugating structuralist and cognitivist visions of semantics (Blank, 1997, p. 98–102) or of pyramidal form, using a dynamic model including the grammatical meaning and the discursive syntactic function which implies an interface of sign theory with disciplines such as morphology, syntax and pragmatics (Hum- mel, 2016, in press).6 3) Essays on the theoretical bases of the communication act: structure and function of onomasiology and semasiology, as an aspect deriving from the asymmetrical relationship between signifier and signified, but their differing methodological conceptions have served as a starting point for subsequent developments in semantics (cf. Casas Gómez, 2011a). Closely related to this research on the signified and its definition and the relationship of this plane with that of the signifier in the field of a global analysis of the linguistic sign, “traditional” semantics, like the classics before, has undertaken to determine the different semantic relations, above all, polysemy, homonymy and synonymy. 4) Saussurean contributions such as the distinction between “signification” (conceptual structure) / “value” (semantic structure), both of which are relevant contributions for the later development of structural semantics, since the former gives rise to the concept of “opposition”, closely linked to the differential “value” of signs, and the latter to the formulation of different alternatives to “configuring”, as opposed to structur- ing, the lexicon of a language, such as the various types of significative associations (associative field, notional field, morphosemantic field and semantico-etymological field). 5) The research carried out in the area of semantics by a group of scholars continuing in the Humboldtian concept of language (worldview, inner form of language, etc.), which is a kind of structural presemantics known, among others, by the denominations: content grammar, “linguistic content research” (Sprachinhaltsforschung), neo-Humbold- tian semantics, energetic linguistics, integral linguistic concept or the Bonn School, who, based on these premises and within the framework

6 For a revised exposition of these models of analysis of the meaning and essence of the components of the linguistic sign in the framework of the contents and trends of “traditional” semantics, see Casas Gómez (2009, p. 125–133), with the exception of Hummel’s semiotic pyramid, a more recent formulation that is still in press.

of linguistic theory, have carried out various, mainly diachronic, studies on partial lexical structures of the language.

Nonetheless, in general treatises on semantics, these three perspectives of the discipline are not clearly distinguished in the first half of the 20th century, to the extent that they are all included within the denomination of traditional semantics. In this regard, it is first necessary to clarify, from a terminological viewpoint, the ambiguity of the terms historical and traditional and, consequently, of the labels historical semantics and traditional semantics, which, in signification theory, each acquire two values, since they refer, respectively, both to a method of linguistic analysis and to a semantic perspective. Accordingly, in an effort to establish the associations that link the “traditional” with the “historical” in the origin of this discipline, as well as linking the “historical” with the “traditional” in its later development, we keep the term traditional semantics, alongside the denomination of historical semantics to refer to the period of continuation of the historicist semantic postulates of the 19th century, which reaches its peak and maximum development in the first half of that century with the different geometrical models of research on the meaning (so-called analytical or referential semantics) and the new approaches of the onomasiological and semasiological methods. At the same time, we replace the term traditional semantics with prestructural semantics (cf. Casas Gómez, 1998) for the latter two contents mentioned, referring to Saussurean contributions, especially with regard to what has been the origin of associative semantics, which can definitely not be classified, as has been done by some authors, as belonging to structural semantics, and above all, research on linguistic content, or neo-Humboldtian semantics within the framework of the theory of semantic fields, which has already been referred to as “pre-structural” by some authors (Martínez Hernández, 1990, p. 1010). These terminological digressions are further justified for the following reasons: 1) the concepts “historical” and “traditional” have been confused throughout the history of semantics; 2) the differentiation of the “traditional” perspective of semantics with regard to the tradition of analyses regarding meaning established in the Classical Period, for which we use the term classical semantics or simply the tradition of studies and theories of signification, and 3) the inclusion in this stage previous to modern semantics of a series of lines of research which can be grouped under the heading of pre-structural, among other reasons, because they are to serve

© Peter Lang AG Philology, vol. 2/2016, pp. 165–216 170 Miguel Casas Gómez as a link with later developments in semantics in the second half of the 20th century, above all with the structural semantics of the 60s and 70s. In this respect, modern semantics begins with the 8th International Congress of Linguists (Oslo, 1957), in which the bases of a true structural semantics were established in the plenary session that included the papers by Hjelmslev (1958 and 1959) and Wells (1958), on the subject “To what extent can meaning be said to be structured?”, and the participation in the discussion of the leading figures in semantics of the time, among others, Ullmann, Pottier, Coseriu, Prieto and Wüster. I would like to highlight the importance of the latter among the participants in the debate7, due to the fact that he was an engineer who, as we shall see below (3.1.), named Saussure as the intellectual father of terminology.

2. Saussure’s Contributions to semantic Prestructuralism

In spite of its historicist origins, the development of semantics as scientific description is inspired by Saussure’s linguistic conception (1916;1922, p. 170–175). With his concept of language as a system in which signs have syntagmatic and associative relationships, he opened a new horizon to that part of linguistics that had just been born. In fact, his Cours contains, among many important contributions to modern linguistics, two main aspects that have been enormously influential in the later evolution of semantics.

2.1. On the one hand, the distinction between signification and value (ibid., p. 158–162), that, naturally “ha facilitado la concepción estructural de la lengua” [“has facilitated the structural concept of language”], although, on the other hand, it tends to “reducirla a un formalismo alejado de toda semántica” [“reduce it to a formalism that is far from all semantics”] (Rodríguez Adrados, 1967, p. 195–196) with derivations both in

7 As well as Hjelmslev and Wells, other scientists such as Prieto, Potter, Wüster, Buyssens, Eringa, Ullmann, Glinz, Pottier, Perrot, Siertsema, Seiler, Bechert, Garvin, Coseriu, Cohen, Herdan, Hatcher and Hill took part in the plenary session debate (cf. Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Linguists, Oslo, 1958, p. 636–704, esp. 666–704).

European and American linguistics8, and whose terms should never be used as synonyms, since the master from Geneva, despite being generally inexact in his use of the terminology related to the levels of signifying: signified, concept, signification, sense (cf. 3.2.), as regards this dichotomy, he clearly separated the concept or representation of an “idea” from the inner significative structure; he opposed the idiomatic structure to the conceptual structure or signification and the latter was considered part of the “domain” of value or semantic structure (cf. Trujillo, 1988, p. 123). Quite different is the fact that his concept of “value” is not correctly characterized, as has been protested by various authors. Thus, for example, the Prague School criticized the Saussurean concept of linguistic value as being purely negative. In this regard, Karcevskij (1929, p. 89–90) considers that, in order to establish this in the system of the language, as well as certain differential notes, a base of comparison is essential. In the words of his introduction to the Système du verbe russe (1927), he tells us: “Il est devenu lieu commun d’affirmer que les valeurs linguistiques n’existent qu’en vertu de leur opposition entre elles. Sous cette forme, cette idée conduit à une absurdité: un arbre est un arbre parce qu’il n’est ni maison, ni cheval, ni rivière… L’opposition pure et simple conduit nécessairement à un chaos et ne peut servir de base à un système. La vraie différenciation suppose une ressemblance et une différence simultanées. Les faits pensées forment des séries fondées sur un élément commun et ne s’opposent qu’à l’intérieur de ces séries”. In Saussurean works, there is repeated emphasis on differences, since the signs are defined negatively, some in opposition to others. And this condition is not sufficient to be considered as linguistic opposition, since for this, there must be, as well as discrete notes, some common characteristics.9 This erroneous characterization is also demon- strated by the fact that for the signs of the system he actually coincides

8 This refers to the implication of this debate in American behaviourism and in the approach of Danish glossematics, which contain the methodological base of the description of the language, organized in the linguistic form, which establishes the limits to the “continuum” that is reality. Cf., in this regard, Hjelmslev’s later reformulation of these concepts (1959, p. 96–112). 9 Cf. also Trubetzkoy (1964, p. 69), Alarcos Llorach (1968, p. 47: “toda oposición pre- supone no sólo las propiedades mediante las cuales se distinguen sus miembros, sino también las propiedades que son comunes a los dos miembros y que constituyen la base de comparación”) and Gutiérrez Ordóñez (1981, p. 224, n. 22) who recalls how this great Saussurean emphasis on disjunction (differences) gave rise to a singular confrontation between Buyssens and Frei.

© Peter Lang AG Philology, vol. 2/2016, pp. 165–216 172 Miguel Casas Gómez with the so-called “(non)-contradiction principle”, which has been applied to technico-scientific terminology, according to which, in terminological classifications, each element is different from all the rest and it is incon- ceivable “qu’un terme soit le contraire d’un autre, et, en même temps, en- globe son contraire” (Coseriu, 1966, p. 182; 1987, p. 177–178), a premise which, in any case, does not work in the area of terms, as we have tried to explain in our examination of the lexematic principles that govern terminologies (cf. Casas Gómez, 1994, p. 100–104). On the other hand, and closely related to the concept of differential value, we have the Saussurean idea that words are linked in series or associative networks around a certain term. Saussure explains that signs are related in associations and that they acquire their own value, which depends on the other signs of the system, thanks to these associations. According to him, “un terme donné est comme le centre d’une constellation, le point où convergent d’autres termes coordonnés, dont la somme est indéfinie” (Saussure, 1916; 1922, p. 173–175, esp. 174). In this way, he establishes four different series in the associative constellation of enseignement.10 This circumstance has given rise to an associative type of semantics which has formulated a series of models in order to organize, group, systemize or configure – hence the term associative “configurations” in Coserian lexematics – but never to structure the lexical system of a language semanti- cally through oppositions.11

2.1.1. This concept of “associative relationships” is later taken up and further expanded by his disciple, Bally, who, basing his thinking on psychological facts reduces it to purely “semantic” associations (Ullmann, 1964a, p. 239). In this way, he states that “les signes qui déterminent plus particu- lièrement la valeur de celui qu’ils entourent dans la mémoire forment son

10 Years later, when semantic studies are flourishing, Bustos Tovar (1967, p. 149–170) revises the associative field of the word. Taking Ogden and Richards’ diagram as a starting point, he widens the perimeter of the axes of Saussurean integration. Thus, he distinguishes six nuclei of relationships in his analysis of the word calor. 11 As Coseriu affirms (1968, p. 7), these associative fields do not constitute “structures au sens propre du terme mais des “configurations””. See Trujillo’s explanation of the different Saussurean groupings in order to prove that these relationships do not, in fact, form any structural system. Therefore, he concludes that the notion of “associative field” is not related to the concept of structure: “Se trata de un concepto que escapa a la Semántica estructural, pero útil y hasta necesario a veces a otros niveles del estudio del contenido” (p. 75).

“champ associatif ””, and this constitutes “un halo qui entoure le signe et dont les franges extérieures se confondent avec leur ambiance” (Bally, 1940, p. 195; 1965, p. 133–134). It is a relative and unstable notion, since, in language, everything is, at least indirectly, associated with everything else. Furthermore, the associative field differs from one person to another and from one social group to another. In order to put this concept into practice, he uses the example of the famous associative field related to the word boeuf (p. 196), in whose series we can observe the confluence of extralinguistic associations based on his own particular concept of reality, together with what would constitute the possible establishment of paradigmatic and syntactic relationships.12

2.1.2. In the same line of research, it is obviously necessary to cite the notional fields of Matoré (1953, p. 63–65), whose theory does not pre- tend to be a linguistic one, since he conceives lexicology as a “discipline sociologique utilisant le matériel linguistique que sont les mots” (ibid., p. 50). For the instigator of one of these models of associative “configurations”, words have a social existence, they are related syntagmatically

12 This is what occurs with the semantic series of boeuf, taureau, veau in this well- known field, whose elements present a clear semantic opposition, or with the lexical solidarity of syntagmatic selection, as opposed to implication (as Coseriu, 1966, p. 180 affirms), formed by the associations of “boeuf ” –“beugler”. On the other hand, Saussure himself, when he formulates the different series of associative relationships, indicates in one of these that the signs of a system can be associated merely by the analogy of their signifieds. Thus, the proposed example (“enseignement”) has an ono masiological link, motivated by a similar meaning with instruction, apprentissage, education, etc. These semantic associations on the axis of similarity are an exception in this type of configurations, as they are the only ones that, from this analytical approach, do not establish extralinguistic designative relationships between the terms of an associative field. In fact, as we have seen, these significative connections, together with others that go beyond the true lexical limits from a linguistic point of view, are the only associations that his disciple Bally takes into consideration when formulat- ing his associative field. This can also be seen in Bustos Tovar’s revision (cf. note 10) of the associative field of the word distinguishing up to six nuclei of associative relationships. Although it is true that some of the series proposed by the Spanish linguist are not of a distinctly linguistic nature, in others, on the contrary certain paradigmatic relationships can be observed, as in the cases of nuclei III and IV of his analysis of the word calor, constituted by the “synonyms” (bochorno, fiebre, fervor, ardor, etc.) and antonyms (frío, fresco, sombre, calosfrío) of the term taken as the central axis of the field.

© Peter Lang AG Philology, vol. 2/2016, pp. 165–216 174 Miguel Casas Gómez in the context and, outside it, they are related in the mind to other words which are similar either in form or meaning (ibid., p. 21 and 63). From this point of view, different elements of vocabulary can be determined by a certain number of significative lexical units or “key-words” (mots-clé) that characterize the moral, intellectual, economic, technical etc. condition of society. On them depends a functional network of “witness words” (mots témoin), often neologisms corresponding to new concepts arising from a particular moment of the social history of a collective, which co- ordinate and organize in a hierarchy the lexicological “structure” of the respective notional fields (ibid., p. 65–70) and from which “on pourrait constituer un tableau englobant l’ensemble du vocabulaire à un moment donné et établir des comparaisons entre le vocabulaire de deux époques ou de deux groupements sociaux différents” (Matoré and Greimas, 1948, p. 417). From this standpoint, let us consider the influence, rarely mentioned in semantic studies (only implied by Guiraud (1955: 86) at the end of his schematic explanation of Matoré’s lexicology), of Sperber’s “spheres of thought” (1923, p. 45–49 and 56–69), which act on language by means of “centres of attraction and expansion”, whose predominance naturally depends on each individual or on a certain period and, in turn, involves a specific sociological vocabulary, on this associative model, and, more specifically, on the analysis of the “key words” which are observed in the society of a certain era, which is the object of the sociolog- ically-based or social lexicology extolled by Matoré.13

13 For the “lexicologie sociale” defended by this author, cf. Matoré (1948, p. 411‑419 and 1950, p. 208‑221, in collaboration with Greimas); (1959, p. 301‑306); (1961, p. 91‑106), and, especially his 1953 work, La méthode en Lexicologie, in which he explains the principles that govern his lexicological method; he establishes a plan for the study of the lexicon in 1960–1970 and for the generation of 1765 with the analysis of the notional field of “art” and “technique” for the same period (p. 75–79 and 102), and analyses as an appendix of this field the notional field of “art” and “artist” from 1827 to 1834 (p. 99–117). See also other practical studies, like his own thesis on Le vocabulaire et la société sous Louis‑Philippe (1967) or his analysis of the notional fields of “monstre” (1980, p. 359–367) and “espace” (1986, p. 3–11) in the 16th century. His thought and method were continued by some authors, being mate- rialized in works such as Greimas’ thesis on “fashion” or that of Quemada (1949) on “the business of love” in worldly novels (1640–1670).

2.1.3. Finally, there is another model that we wish to highlight: Guiraud’s morphosemantic field14, by means of which a certain term is compared with a group of words and idioms that may be related to it in form or meaning. This is a type of analysis that has had various linguistic applications, such as its use, from a historical perspective, in etymological reconstruction, its adaptation to dialectal lexicology – as in the case of Molina Redondo’s semantic-etymological field15 – and the perfect systemization that it pro- vides for phenomena such as slang, euphemism and dysphemism.16 It is necessary to point out that the structural possibilities of this theory, but not its linguistic performance, have been denied by its creator, who, in the article in which he explains the theory of the concept, makes clear that this is not structural and, is in no way comparable to the structuration of phonology or morphology, in spite of the fact that he has been unable to avoid the use of terms like system, structure, to structure or structuration, which, in this case, should not be understood with the value that they acquire from a structuralist perspective.17 Among the criticisms that this type of field has received, the one expressed by Geckeler, in spite of what has just been said, would seem to be especially

14 The theoretical formulation of this model appears in his article (1956, p. 265–288). Later, he carried out several practical works (cf. 1966a, p. 280–308; 1966b, p. 128– 145; 1968, p. 96–109, and those included in his monographic work on the etymological structures of the French lexicon [1967, p. 125–154]). 15 He explicitly acknowledges Guiraud’s morphosemantic field as one of his models and immediate forerunners but “mientras Guiraud atiende a las relaciones “tanto” morfológicas “como” semánticas, nosotros partimos de la base de que las relaciones tienen que ser al mismo tiempo morfológicas y semánticas: esto tiene como conse- cuencia que en el método preconizado por Guiraud se pueda partir o bien de palabras que poseen un mismo elemento formal o bien de palabras que tienen una misma base sémica, en tanto que con el nuestro sólo es posible un punto de partida: las palabras que tengan a la vez un mismo elemento formal y una misma base sémica; de aquí que hayamos preferido la denominación de campo “semántico-etimológico”” (Molina Redondo, 1971, p. 29; 1972, p. 279–280). 16 A detailed explanation of the theoretical arguments of the application of the morphosemantic field to the euphemistic/dysphemistic process can be found in our article on the subject (1986b, p. 35–51) and in the introduction of chapter 4 of our monographic work on linguistic interdiction (1986a, p. 97–109). 17 “Je n’ai pu éviter l’emploi des mots système, structure, structurer, structuration, ne serait-ce que dans l’impossibilité de dire “champêtre”; mais on évitera de prendre ces mots dans le sens que leur donne la phonologie ou la morphologie structurales” (Guiraud, 1956, p. 286–287).

© Peter Lang AG Philology, vol. 2/2016, pp. 165–216 176 Miguel Casas Gómez important, in that he says that this model does not respond to the demands of a theory applied only to content (due to its associative nature, to the inclusion of relationships belonging only to the level of expression and because it does not distinguish between “architecture” and “structure” of a language, above all as regards the diatopic and diastratic differentiation of the lexemes belonging to the field). Although this author ignores Guiraud’s aforementioned explanation regarding the “structural” nature of his theory, such exceptions are absolutely justified bearing in mind the concept that this linguist maintains in other works, for example, his manual of semantics (1955, p. 81), in which he goes as far as judging Matoré’s lexicological method as “un des développements les plus récents de la sémantique structurale […], qui substitue la notion de structure à une étude “atomique” des mots considérés isolément”, when in fact it is a type of analysis (the notional field) which is analogous, from an associative standpoint, to the morphosemantic field proposed by him, this latter theory being the most linguistic – compared to the psychological or sociological base of the previous models –, since it is the model offering the greatest guarantees for systemization, as opposed to structuration, of the different lexical elements and their respective linguistic mechanisms.18

2.2. However, along with these two linguistic aspects, the Saussurean notions of “value” and “system” have contributed, although less deci- sively than in the contributions dealt with in the previous section, to the other specific content integrated into prestructural semantics, represented by an integral linguistic concept that develops a complete grammar of content. Although it was founded in the 1950s by Weisgerber19, this

18 See, for example, as an application of this associative theory to the sphere of interdiction, our proposal (1986c, p. 599–622) for an outline of the formal and semantic resources underlying different euphemistic and dysphemistic creations, together with their theoretical treatment and descriptions with examples of each one of them in chapter 4 of our monographic work (1986a, p. 111–251). 19 The contributions of this author to a type of linguistics focusing on research on content can be found in numerous works. Essentially, see his works (1951–52, p. 138–142, 1954, p. 34–49, 1962a, 1962b: esp. 47–57 and 79–297, 1963 and 1964, p. 23–46), as well as his critical revision of the concepts of “Bedeutung”, “Bedeu- tungswandel” and “Bedeutungslehre”, in which he suggests precision and restric- tion in the use of the term meaning. A panoramic view of his linguistic thought and, especially, of his grammar of content can be found in his work Dos enfoques del lenguaje (1979: esp. 80–87 and 167–182).

© Peter Lang AG Philology, vol. 2/2016, pp. 165–216 From Philology to Linguistics 177 school of research20, which has a semantic bibliography as its medium of expression (Bibliographisches Handbuch zur Sprachinhaltsforschung) directed by Gipper and Schwarz since 1962, includes the previous proposals regarding the theory of linguistic field21, represented by authors such as Meyer (1910, p. 352–368), Ipsen (1924, p. 200–237, esp. 225 and 1932, p. 1–18, esp. 13–15), Jolles (1934, p. 97–109) and, above all, Trier22 and Porzig (1934, p. 70–97, 1957, p. 117–135 and 1959, p. 158–167, esp. 158–164). At the outset of this school, virtually unknown in linguistic studies, because, among other reasons, all its texts are in German, except Weisger- ber’s Dos enfoques del lenguaje (the only work translated into Spanish, for example), and also forgotten due to the political whims of its repre- sentatives, can be found what are, without doubt, the most representative sources of the greater part of semantic development which took place in the second half of the 20th century in the framework of linguistic structuralism and functionalism. In fact, Coseriu drew on the source of the Bonn School, the first German university where he was and whose legacy and influence he has always acknowledged. With assumptions that were not quite linguistic, but, rather, philosophical, and the use of a largely philological methodology, these authors, and,

20 Regarding the doctrine of Weisgerber and his school, see the significant information provided by Dittmann (1980, p. 40–74 and 157–176), who carries out a specific evaluation of certain conceptual and terminological distinctions of Weisgerberian linguistics, as well as a critical review of the most representative researchers of his group. There is a similar global vision in Szemerényi (1986, p. 262–291), which offers an overview of general linguistics in 1950s Germany from the standpoint of the essential guidelines of Weisgerber and the “Bonn School”, in particular Gipper and Glinz, up to Coseriu, who is to have a crucial role in German linguistics at the beginning of the following decade. 21 As collective works on the history of this theory, cf. the work of Hoberg (1970) and Schmidt’s collection of articles on research into lexical fields (1973). An adequate discussion of the theory of lexical fields can be found in Geckeler (1971, p. 84–176). For a critical balance regarding the contributions of these German theorists, consult Drettas (1981, p. 3–22). 22 As well as his important monographic work (1931) on the vocabulary of understanding in old German, including a first chapter “Über Wort- und Begriffsfelder” (p. 1–26) which is a theoretical introduction, see also his later works (1932, p. 417– 427, 1934, p. 428–449, also included in Antal’s book 1972, p. 77–103, and 1968). A compilation of Trier’s studies on the theory of the lexical field has been edited by Lee y Reichmann (1973).

© Peter Lang AG Philology, vol. 2/2016, pp. 165–216 178 Miguel Casas Gómez in particular, Trier (1931, p. 3), considered to be the father and founder of this theory23, starting from the idea that our concepts encompass all that is real like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, defended the notion that the lexicon of a language is configured by juxtaposed fields that limit one another and in which the words that they comprise form a kind of linguistic mosaic

23 Apart from other antecedents that date back to the 19th century, among others, Hey- se, mentioned by Coseriu as the earliest forerunner in the theory of the lexical field, although he does not mention this idea in his analysis of the content of the German Schall, it is a fact that, even before Trier, some explicit formulations had been made on this concept of field (cf. Drettas, 1981, p. 9–10 and Geckeler, 1971, p. 86–100). Thus, Ipsen (1924, p. 225) had defined exactly what a “semantic field” consisted of (Bedeutungsfeld) using to this end the image of a mosaic, an influence which Trier himself admits (1931, p. 11, no. 1): “Ob ich die Theorie der Feldbetrachtung allein mit SAUSSURES Hilfe entwickelt habe oder ob die kurzen 12 Zeilen bei IPSEN miteingewirkt haben, kann ich nicht mehr sagen”. However, it is necessary to under- line that the concept of “semantic system” (Bedeutungssysteme) had been defined as “die Zusammenordnung einer begrenzten Anzahl von Ausdrücken unter einem indivi duellen Gesichtspunkt” and classified by Meyer in three types: natural, artificial (for instance, military ranks) and semi-artificial (such as professional terminologies) in an article that was truly innovative, as can be seen in what the author says regarding the practical prerequisite of semasiology, that it must determine whether the words belong to their respective semantic systems: “Die Semasiologie hat für jedes Wort ers- tens festzustellen, welchem Bedeutungssystem (oder: welchen Bedeutungssystemen) es angehört; zweitens, welches der systembildende, differenzierende Faktor dieses Systems ist”. Thus, as opposed to the progressive structuration by means of the juxtaposition of fields defended by later German linguists, this author advances to a sys- temic view of vocabulary in line with what was expressed much later by structural semantics, insisting, as is highlighted by Rodríguez Adrados (1967, p. 196), “en que una palabra puede pertenecer simultáneamente a varios de estos “Bedeutungssysteme” depending on the differentiation factors (…), in that within a single system there is no unitary system of differentiation (…), and in that there are cases of Reihenverschie- bung of significations, as occurs in Phonology in the case of the so-called “empty boxes””. Likewise, Vassilvev (1974, p. 79–80, esp. 80) has mentioned this author’s advanced ideas, especially relative to the intersection of semantic systems: “Since in one word there may often be several ‘differentiating factors’ (components of meaning), and since as a result such words belong to different systems (semantic classes) at the same time, these systems may intersect one another”. His surprising modernity has also been commented on by Geckeler (1971, p. 87, no. 12), who points out that, in his work, there are formulations that could well come from the Prague School, and, previously, by Kronasser, who goes as far as affirming that Meyer was ahead of later researchers in field theory so far as its fundamental aspects are concerned.

© Peter Lang AG Philology, vol. 2/2016, pp. 165–216 From Philology to Linguistics 179 that fully covers, without “gaps” or “lagoons”, the respective continuous zones of signification.24 Criticisms of this system of research25 were not

24 Regarding this concept of the “linguistic mosaic” present, at least, in the theories of Ipsen, Jolles and Trier, and the absence of “gaps” and “superimpositions” inside the respective conceptual sectors, see the criticisms of, among others, Wartburg (1951, p. 276); Ducháček (1960, p. 28–30 and 1962, p. 33); Ducháček y Spitzová (1965, p. 70–71); Mounin (1965a, p. 42–43 and 1965b, p. 20); Rodríguez Adrados (1967, p. 196–197), who protests especially that “la asunción de que un “campo semántico” es un todo continuo que se reparte íntegramente entre unas cuantas palabras: con ello se vuelve, en realidad, a una definición interna y absoluta, cerrada, de cada palabra, en vez de a una relativa y “abierta”” (p. 197); Geckeler (1971, p. 115–167); Meya (1976, p. 146), and Vassilyev (1974, p. 80–84, an author whose main criticism of the neo-Humboldtians is the absolute parallelism that they propose between semantic system and conceptual domain, between meanings and concepts: “The acceptance of an absolute parallelism between the semantic system of language, whose structure is expressed by the internal segmentation of word fields, and the system of concepts (between meanings and concepts, respectively) gave rise to the principal mistake not only of Trier, but of all the neo-Humboldtians” (p. 82)). But relative to this, I would especially like to draw attention to Trujillo’s change of posture. Although in the publication of his thesis on the semantic field of intellectual evaluation (1970, p. 75–84), like Mounin, he criticised Trier’s postulates and maintained that “los pequeños “sis- temas léxicos” que forman la totalidad del vocabulario se interpenetran mutuamente constituyendo conjuntos jerarquizados” (p. 78), supporting (to do otherwise would be unforgiveable) “el hecho, por nosotros comprobado frecuentemente, de las múltiples intersecciones conceptuales, y de la pertenencia de unidades a diversos conjuntos diferentes” (p. 83), in subsequent works (along the lines of what we will later show to be the common factor between the neo-Humboldtian School and the postulates of certain present-day functionalist authors), due to a change of concept regarding semantics, and, fundamentally, a new view of the sign as a structural unit (especially with regard to his theory on the extension of the signifier) and of semantic relations (of polysemy, in particular, which he considers not to be a genuine significative relationship and which he therefore refuses to accept as part of the language system), he extolls exactly the opposite, that is, the non-existence of intersecting fields and the false belief that “un mismo elemento semántico pueda pertenecer simultáneamente a estructuras léxicas diferentes” (1976, p. 209), a fact that has been criticised by Sal- vador (1985, p. 44–45). Although his master’s objection includes Trujillo’s vision of terminologies, a subject not to be touched on here, we would like to make clear that the current position of the teacher from La Laguna does not represent a flat denial of the existence of poly-paradigmatic lexical units giving no explanations, as Salvador insists, but, rather, as we have explained, that this change of viewpoint forms part of a general modification of his theoretical approach and his concept of semantics. 25 Among these, it is worth highlighting those made by Martínez Hernández (1990, p. 1014) based on the negative aspects pointed out by Vassilyev (1974, p. 82–84) and Helbig (1971, p. 119–161):

© Peter Lang AG Philology, vol. 2/2016, pp. 165–216 180 Miguel Casas Gómez slow in coming, generally focusing on two theoretical aspects: the fact that lexical elements cover totally without overlapping (there is a juxtaposition of fields) and the problem of lexical gaps, since they give rise to another reservation, which is the treatment (albeit fully justifiable) of semantic relations from this school’s “prestructural” conception and from these authors’ aforementioned assumptions. In this regard, it is logical that on the one hand, they do not establish specific relationships of signification between words, since they do not really structure lexical meanings by means of op- positions26, and, on the other, that they pay greater attention to relationships based on the signified (synonymy and antonymy), given that their standpoint is onomasiological, at the expense of those based on the signifier (polysemy), which they practically ignore due to their belief in juxtaposed fields. These postulates in particular were criticised by structural semantics, which believes the contrary: that fields are superimposed, refusing the idea and the image of a lexical “mosaic” or “network” that would cover the extralinguistic area and in which “los lexemas estarían situados unos al lado de otros con límites muy precisos a la manera de las teselas”.27 Thus,

“- Concepción idealista de las relaciones entre lengua, pensamiento y realidad, que a veces roza el misticismo. - El carácter meramente intuitivo y especulativo, no lingüístico, de los campos léxi- cos estudiados por esta escuela. - El empleo desafortunado de conceptos metafóricos como el de mosaico, red, etc. en la caracterización de estos campos. - La poca atención a la polisemia y a las relaciones concretas entre las palabras, en favor de una mayor preocupación por la sinonimia y la antonimia. - Cier to desprecio por los estados de lenguas vivas, al basar sus investigaciones casi exclusivamente en estados de lengua más antiguos. - Estudio casi exclusivo de una sola clase de palabras, casi siempre los sustantivos, en la composición de los campos, dejando fuera de consideración los verbos y las combinaciones sintagmáticas”. 26 Likewise, one of Rodríguez Adrados’ criticisms (1967, p. 197): “De otra parte, falta en TRIER y en su escuela una clara estructuración, con valor general, de las relaciones entre palabras, es decir, de los diversos tipos de relación, hechos de neutra lización, etc.”. 27 Martínez Hernández (1990, p. 1010), who, in a previous work, had already proposed as a basic principle of research on content the need to replace “de una vez para siempre la imagen del campo como un mosaico, en el que las palabras estarían situadas estáticamente (…), que si bien Trier la citó en la introducción de su obra de 1931, posiblemente bajo la influencia de Ipsen, no volvió a mencionarla luego en

© Peter Lang AG Philology, vol. 2/2016, pp. 165–216 From Philology to Linguistics 181 the structured lexicon of a language does not constitute a flat reality, but rather, any signifier need not be exclusive to only one lexical field, since it can increase its semantic links or connections with other fields, and, as a result, occupy different positions in each one, that is, it can belong simul- taneously to several fields through its different signifieds.28 These multiple interferences would therefore form the base of the semantic functioning of the language. However, it is necessary to highlight the fact that the idea that the juxtaposition of fields coincides with recent results in a certain type of structural-functional semantics, which starts from the signified and not the signifier in order to approach the semantic study of a language, since this problem depends on the symmetry or asymmetry of the sign in question and underlying this is the concept of polysemy that is used.

2.3. Summing up, the description of the research related to what we call prestructural semantics basically encompasses associative semantics and neo-Humboldtian semantics. As far as the former is concerned, which starts from Saussure’s general conceptions, it obeys a relational or configurative analysis of mere formal associations or of associations of sense between one sign and other, established for reasons of similarity or proximity, whereas the paradigmatic structures maintained by lexical fields present oppositions of common and differential features between their elements.29 As we have said, not even the theory of the morphosemantic field constitutes a structural system, but is simply one of the many attempts, albeit the most linguistic of them, at associative models. It is important to make this point abundantly

sus escritos posteriores. Si hubiera que emplear alguna imagen puede acudirse a la de los núcleos estrellados [cf. Hoberg 1970, p. 110], en los que los puntos de unos pueden engarzar con los de otros, con lo que se representarían las fuertes interfe rencias existentes entre los distintos campos”. 28 As Eco (1972, p. 121) explains and schematizes graphically, “un significante s no solamente denota una posición α1 en un determinado campo semántico Cα, sino que puede connotar la posición ß1 en el campo semántico Cß, la posición γ1 en Cγ, etc. Esto quiere decir que s profundiza una serie de ramificaciones en posiciones de campos semánticos diversos”. 29 On this point, we agree with Coseriu (1968, p. 7) who establishes a clear distinction between associative configurations and lexematic structures, since the former do not concern the “structuration du signifié au moyen de traits distinctifs (les oppositions sémantiques), mais les associations d’un signe avec d’autres signes, associations établies par similarité ou par contiguïté, aussi bien des signifiants que des signifiés”.

© Peter Lang AG Philology, vol. 2/2016, pp. 165–216 182 Miguel Casas Gómez clear, since some authors, such as Martínez Hernández (1990, p. 1011), in his table of different types of semantics30, include associative semantics in the area of structural semantics, which is patently unacceptable, since these linguists did not intend any lexical structuration, whereas others talk of structure, structuration, structural analysis or structural functioning of the lexicon or of certain linguistic phenomena, such as the euphemism31, which are, at most, systemizable, but not structurable32 by the application of any of these models, especially the one proposed by Guiraud. With regard to “research on linguistic content”, it is worth noting the repercussions that this German theory has had on the conformation of Coseriu’s lexematics33, a debt that has often been acknowledged by the Romanian linguist, especially relative to his concept of “lexical solidari- ties”, which means a deeper understanding of Porzig’s (1934, p. 70–97 and 1957, p. 117–135), “essential semantic relations”, “elementary semantic fields” or “syntactic fields”, and his typology of lexical fields, based on the

30 This is an extended adaptation presented in very schematic form, of Welte’s diagram of the multiple uses of the term semantics and in which the Spanish classical philolo- gist includes, as belonging to “semántica estructural asociativa”, the French and Brno Schools. 31 Thus, for example, authors such as Widłak (1968, p. 1031–1052, esp. 1037; 1970, p. 158–169, esp. 160, and 1972: esp. 4–5) and Montero Cartelle (1979, p. 55–60, esp. 56 and 59 and 1981, p. 37–44, esp. 39 and 42), basing themselves on Guiraud’s model of the morphosemantic field, speak of structure, structuration, or the structural functioning of a phenomenon, especially relevant at the level of the speech act, such as euphemism. Likewise, Brademann (1982, p. 52–56, esp. 55–56) sets out to carry out a structural analysis of the changes of category of the signified of euphemistic and dysphemistic signs, by establishing their different types of relationship of content. 32 Contrary to the opinion expressed by the authors mentioned in the previous note, our posture is based on the principle that the euphemism is, in general, systemizable but not structurable. And we state this less categorically than on other occasions (cf. 1986a, p. 108–109; 1986b, p. 41, and 1989, p. 223–224 no. 11) in order to make it understood that at no time have we denied the structural possibility of some substitutes that function fully as “synonymical” or “antonymical” forms in the lexical system (cf. Casas Gómez 1995a, p. 34–37). In this regard, we agree with Widłak (1992, p. 25, no. 22) who, however, cites our point of view as contrary to his own, when he states that “le forme lessicalizzate o grammaticalizzate, qualificate nei dizionari come eufemismi, non sono allora “eufemismi stilistici”, ma sono eufemistiche anzitutto dal punto di vista diacronico della lingua; essi diventano così elementi costitutivi della struttura concreta della lingua, quindi elementi “strutturabili””. 33 This influence has been pointed out yb authors such as Wagner (1982, p. 25, no. 22) and Martínez Hernández (1990, p. 1014–1015), among others.

© Peter Lang AG Philology, vol. 2/2016, pp. 165–216 From Philology to Linguistics 183 classification established by Weisgerber, to the extent that some authors have proposed an attempt at fusion of the methodology of this school with Coserian lexematics, to which he adds some concepts from Ducháček’s Czech semantics or the Brno School and the assistance, for problems of translation arising from research in a field outside the mother tongue, of Wandruszka’s contrastive semantics. This combination of semantic contributions from the Bonn and Tübingen Schools, as a continuation of the semantic postulates made in Germany, constitutes the line followed by Martínez Hernández34 in his doctoral thesis on the semantic sphere of pain in Sophocles. This author has established a series of basic principles35 for the study of fields with the aim of solving the greater part of the problems of modern-day semantics. Finally, I would like to highlight that the main objections raised to this German school, such as the problems of juxtaposition/superimpo- sition of structures or of lexical gaps depend, on the one hand, on the conception of semantics on which they are based and, on the other, on the symmetrical/asymmetrical character of the sign and, obviously, the concept held of polysemy, since it may be said that from more modern structuralist approaches coinciding with an axiological conception, which offers a solution to the problem of polysemy or homonymy and, with this, the possibility of constructing a functional semantics (cf. Gutiér- rez Ordóñez, 1981, 1989 and 1992, p. 101–107), the different signifieds of a signifier as a phonematic expression, occupying different positions in diverse fields, would constitute different signs. This actually means a return to the initial idea of the juxtaposition of semantic paradigms36

34 See above all his works (1977, p. 32–112 and 1978, p. 121–169) and, especially, his collective work (1981). 35 For the explanation of what this author considers to be ten essential points which should be followed by all research on field, cf. his work (1990, p. 1015–1016) and, in particular, his article on the problem of the method in this theory (1983, p. 6–8), in which he adds the bibliographical information of the proposed concepts. 36 It should be mentioned that Kandler (1959, p. 256–270), in his contribution to the tribute to Weisgerber, establishes a series of objections to certain characteristics of research on the linguistic field, based on six principles which, in his opinion, systemize the essential features of the concept of field. Of these, I only wish to mention the so-called principle of differentiation, due to its relevance to more modern functional semantics and, despite the fact that it is not accepted by Geckeler (1971, p. 124–131, esp. 124) in a traditional defence of the problem of polysemy. This principle supposes that each word belongs to one single field; the elimination of the ambiguity of words,

© Peter Lang AG Philology, vol. 2/2016, pp. 165–216 184 Miguel Casas Gómez and of the non-existence of lexical boxes or spaces from the point of view of content, although they would exist from the material form, as the presence of a gap as regards the formal signifier does not imply an absence of a content form, although such presuppositions are reached when polysemy is rejected as a phenomenon of the plane of language and as a genuine semantic relationship (cf. Trujillo, 1976, p. 236–249, Casas Gómez and Muñoz Núñez, 1992, p. 142–152, Muñoz Núñez, 1999a and Casas Gómez, 1999b), since this idea starts from the consideration of an isolated signifier, and the restitution of the symmetry or consubstantial relationship of the sign, at least from the point of view of the signifier, following a completely different path from the premises formulated by the neo-Humboldtian School.

3. Saussurean Dichotomies and Postulates with Repercussions in subsequent Linguistics

Saussurean work contains a set of dichotomies and postulates, some of which are not adequately defined by the Genevan master, which have had an important repercussion in later linguistics and in semantics in particular. These include the following: the language system is not a nomenclature, the distinguishing dichotomy between signification and value, in language there are only differences and language is form and not substance.

and accordingly, the consideration of homonyms interpreted by different signs belonging to different lexical fields, such as Bank (‘seat’) and Bank (‘credit institution’): “Das Prinzip der Wohlgeschiedenheit. Zu den Konsequenzen des Feldbegriffes gehört es, daß jedes Wort zu einem und nur einem Felde gehöre. Die vielgescholtene Mehr- deutigkeit der Wörter soll beseitigt werden – denn sie wäre ja mit der Vorstellung von der Sprache als einem wohlgeordneten Sinngefüge nicht verträglich – indem man diese Mehrdeutigkeit für scheinbar erklärt und homonyme Wörter wie Bank (zum Sitzen) und Bank (Geldinstitut) als zwei verschiedene, zu verschiedenen Feldern ge- hörige Wörter ansieht” (Kandler, 1959, p. 263).

3.1 Language is not a motivated nomenclature

Saussure begins the central chapter of the general principles of the first part of his work, titled “Nature of the linguistic sign” with this initial fragment:

“Pour certaines personnes la langue, ramenée à son principe essentiel, est une nomenclature, c’est-à-dire une liste de termes correspondent à autant de choses (…). Cette conception est critiquable á bien des égards. Elle suppose des idées toutes faites préexistant aux mots” (CLG, p. 97).

In addition to this essential paragraph, many more texts that can be traced back to the Cours contain certain aspects that characterize the terms of no- menclatures as opposed to the values of the words of the language system and which are therefore linked to the principles of the study of terminology from a linguistic standpoint:

“La valeur, prise dans son aspect conceptuel, est sans doute un élément de la signification, et il est très difficile de savoir comment celle-ci s’en distingue tout en étant sous sa dépendance. Pourtant il est nécessaire de tirer au clair cette question, sous peine de réduire la langue à une simple nomenclatura” (CLG, p. 158). “Si les mots étaient charges de représenter des concepts donnés d’avance, ils auraient chacun, d’une langue à l’autre, des correspondants exacts pour le sens; or il n’en est pas ainsi. Le français dit indifféremment louer (une maison) pour “prendre à bail” et “donner à bail”, là où l’allemand emploie deux termes: mieten et vermieten; il n’y a donc pas correspondance exacte des valeurs” (CLG, p. 161). “Dans tous ces cas nous surprenons donc, au lieu d’idées donnée d’avance, des valeurs émanant du système. Quand on dit qu’elles correspondent à des concepts, on sous-entend que ceux-ci sont purement différentiels, définis non pas positivement par leur contenu, mais négativement par leurs rapports avec les autres termes du système. Leur plus exacte caractéristique est d’être ce que les autres ne sont pas” (CLG, p. 162).

Thus, without realising it, the Genevan master becomes a sort of intellectual father of terminology and the driving force behind its advancement as a linguistic discipline, given that his most significant postulates were of great transcendence and were later developed in the pages that Coseriu (1966, p. 181–185) dedicated to terminology in his introduction to the structural study of the lexicon (later included in his book Principios de semántica estructural, 1977, p. 96–100), in which can be appreciated the abovemen- tioned link between the Saussurean concept of value with the Coserian principle of [non] contradiction applied to terminology and in the theoretical

© Peter Lang AG Philology, vol. 2/2016, pp. 165–216 186 Miguel Casas Gómez considerations and discussions that, starting from the ideas of Saussure and the Romanian linguist, are incorporated by Trujillo in his work on technical language. All this justifies the recognition of the Genevan master by Wüster himself, an electrotechnical engineer, the father of modern technology, founder of the Vienna School and creator of the general theory of technology (TGT). With this he makes clear his wide knowledge of linguistics (in fact his doctoral thesis was on linguistics37) and interdisciplinary areas, when, in the opening lecture of the Symposium of INFOTERM38 in 1975, he attributes the intellectual fatherhood of terminology, as well as to the German Schlo- mann (the first to consider the systematic nature of terms and the author of several technical vocabularies in six languages between 1906 and 1928), to the Russian Dressen (the first to highlight the importance of normalization and the driving force behind the ISA – International Standardization Asso- ciation –, created in 1926 as the first body of normalization and forerunner of the ISO – International Organization for Standardization –, the current organization for international normalization) to the Englishman, Holmstron (who, from UNESCO, promoted the international propagation of terminologies and was the first to demand an international body to deal with this discipline) to Saussure, whom he mentions as the predecessor of the systematic study of languages (the systematicity of languages) and who, as we have seen in the first text mentioned, rejected the idea that language, reduced to its essential principle, was a motivated nomenclature, that is, a list of terms corresponding to so many things.

3.2 The signification/value dichotomy

The separation between these two notions had, as we have seen, important consequences in the birth of semantic structuralism, but, curiously, the

37 As can be understood from the title Internationale Sprachnormung in der Technik, besonders in der Elektrotechnik, read in the University of Vienna in 1931 and in which he sets out the reasons that justify the working methods in terminology, establishing the principles that should govern studies on terms and giving a general outline of a methodology for the treatment of terminological data, that is, this research focuses, above all, on methodological aspects of terminological analysis and the normalization of the terms of the metalanguage of electrotechnology. 38 “The International Information Centre for Terminology”, created in 1971 by UNESCO.

© Peter Lang AG Philology, vol. 2/2016, pp. 165–216 From Philology to Linguistics 187 lack of Saussurean terminological-conceptual precision in the differenti- ations between signified, concept, signification and sense (normally used interchangeably as synonyms by Saussure) led to the development of a type of semantics, known as analytical or referential semantics, that had, as its object of study, the analysis of the linguistic sign and the essence of the meaning by means of a series of geometrical figures (triangles, tra- pezia, pentagons and other semiotic models) and which, with linguistic and, above all, philosophical or logico-philosophical (including anthropo- logical) based approaches, managed to differentiate, especially between signified and concept. It is a pity that so many years’ work, by the so-called “traditional semantics” and, of course, by the different structural and functionalist schools have been in vain, above all due to the current rise of cognitivism, and that present-day studies of linguistics and semantics, in particular, have so quickly forgotten that the levels of signifying (cf. Casas Gómez, 2002a) are of use and that it is not possible to continually confuse everything, that signified is one thing, concept another, reference another and sense yet another. We know that all linguists completely agree that semantics is the science that studies meaning, but, when we ask ourselves exactly what meaning is, there is a great difference of opinion and there appear to be as many types of semantics as there are approaches to it as an object of study.39 As I already explained in my modest tribute to professor Eugenio Coseriu:

“Tan sólo voy a detenerme brevemente en un aspecto para mí central de su lingüística y, por supuesto, de su semántica, ya que configura su objeto (…). En este sentido, quisie ra insistir en el esfuerzo del lingüista rumano por formular una descripción interna del significado, como tipo de contenido separado del concepto y diferenciado claramente de otros niveles del significar como la designación, el sentido y la referencia, en cuanto

39 As Lyons (1971, p. 1) said, “Semantics is generally defined as the study of meaning; and this is the definition that we will provisionally adopt: what is to be understood by ‘meaning’ in this context is one of our principal concerns in later chapters. Ever since Ogden and Richards (1923) published their classic treatise on this topic, and indeed since long before that, it has been customary for semanticists to emphasize the fact (and let us grant that it is a fact) that the noun ‘meaning’ and the verb ‘to mean’ themselves have many distinguishable meanings”. In this regard, he cites Leech (1974, p. 1), for whom semanticists have spent a great deal of time puzzling over the meanings of the term meaning, which is due, in his opinion, to an attempt to explain semantics from other disciplines. However, in this regard, Lyons (1977, p. 1, n. 1) points out: “I think that there is more to it than that. It is at least arguable that linguistic meaning cannot be understood or explicated except in terms of other kinds of non-linguistic meaning”.

contenido formalizado intralingüísticamente por las lenguas y en las lenguas. Y, en esta línea, quisiera reivindicar que ha tardado mucho tiempo, ha costado mucho esfuerzo y ha sido un trabajo ingente de muchos años desligar históricamente el significado de la sustancia extralingüística y delimitar demasiadas confusiones e identificaciones entre los distintos tipos de contenido, para que nuevamente las tendencias más modernas de la lingüística y de la semántica pasen absolutamente de tales diferencias básicas, olvidando un hecho fundamental en la configuración de toda ciencia: quien no distingue confunde. De ahí que me muestre completamente de acuerdo con la necesidad de una lingüística lingüística, tal como consigna el profesor Kabatek en el título de su confe rencia en torno al legado del lingüista y maestro rumano” (Casas Gómez, 2013, p. 17).

3.3 In language there are only differences without positive terms

Regarding the concept of “value” in the negative sense and its critical objections that have previously been set out in section 2.1., this idea was the starting point of the development of the principles of similarity and contrast (cf. Varo Varo, 2010, p. 150–152), which are so important for semantics, and of the concepts of “opposition” and “paradigm”, basic to the inception of the structuralism of the Prague School. It is in this that Karcevskij criticises Saussure about the chaotic and absurd idea that a tree is a tree because it is not house, or horse or river, which cannot serve as a base for the concept of systematic opposition from the moment in which the differential features of paradigmatic series must be founded on a similar or common base. But, in addition, this author from Prague, although his work on the asymmetric duality of the linguistic sign is as oft-quoted as it is little read, develops a concept of “arbitrarity” which has been misinterpreted, since it did not refer to whether or not the character of the sign was symmetrical from a general point of view but to an intralinguistic arbitrarity of the sign linked to the relationships of homonymy and synonymy: “tout signe est virtuellement homonyme et synonyme à la fois. Autrement dit, il appartient simultanément à une série de valeurs transposées du même signe et à une série de valeurs analogues mais exprimées par des signes différents” (Karcevskij 1929, p. 90).

3.4 Language is a form, not a substance

This Saussurean axiom is partly derived from the “value” taken in its material or conceptual aspects. However, although it has meant, on one hand, the development of certain currents of linguistic thought, such as glossematics or Hjelmslev’s Copenhagen School, it has also been tremendous- ly counterproductive for a discipline like semantics, which was relegated to a secondary position because of the erroneous understanding that it dealt with extralinguistic substance40, on the periphery of the central study of language: the form (focusing on phonology, morphology and syntax). But this dichotomy has gone hand in hand with the erroneous contraposition, that still exists today, of form and meaning, frequently found in linguistic texts from different periods and, of course, still common in linguistics today. Among many authors’ testimonies that can be mentioned, see the following representative cases:

“El principio fundamental de la lingüística moderna ha sido el formalismo, el comen- zar el estudio con los elementos formales. Pero determinadas corrientes de la misma, sobre todo la escuela de Copenhague y los descriptivistas americanos, han pretendido reducir el contenido de la lingüística a un estudio meramente formal, olvidando que, por difícil que sea el estudio semántico, no es buena medicina para el enfermo al que le duele la cabeza el cortársela. La investigación de la forma debe ir por delante: esto resulta hoy evidente. Pero no menos evidente es que la investigación de la forma debe culminar en la investigación del significado” (Rodríguez Adrados, 1972, p. 502).

In spite of his defence of the study of content, we must warn of the establishment of an erroneous contraposition in the final paragraph of the citation from this author, between form and meaning, a criticism already voiced by Trujillo (1976, p. 18–19), who, regarding the idea that the nature of semantics cannot be known if its object is not forms of content, postulates the following (our italics):

40 In this respect, let us not forget that in Pottier’s (1976, p. 99–133, esp. 100) so-called modern semantics, this discipline was conceived as the science of the substance of the content of lexical and grammatical forms, a definition of semantics as substance that has, without doubt constituted the basis of the innumerable criticisms that were received of its formulations and the incorrect approach to certain semantic concepts. And even in recent years, in a study on lexical theory, Lara (2005, p. 1–12) not only distinguishes two disciplines on a lexical level: lexicology and lexical semantics, but he also reserves the latter for “the study of the substance of content” (op. cit., p. 1; our italics).

“nosotros no contraponemos forma a significado: se trata de conceptos de orden diferente. Lo que sí afirmamos desde ahora es que sin un estudio exhaustivo de los mecanismos significantes será siempre imposible hacer una semántica de formas. Esto y no una contraposición entre “forma” y “significado” es lo que creemos que debe entenderse cuando Adrados afirma que “la investigación de la forma debe ir por delante (…)”. Nosotros, sin embargo, para no confundirnos con las terminologías, hablaremos de forma independiente de los conceptos de significante y significado, con los que no se confunde”.

This false linguistic contraposition has been widely used in the lexicographical field, in which continual reference is made, in all manner of sources, to formal and semantic characteristics, the formal aspect is distinguished from the semantic one (formal lexicographical information versus semantic information), as if semantics were not formal, and quite frequently, a distinction is established between semantic and lexical criteria, as if what is lexical were not semantic. An illustrative example of this fact can be found in Mounin’s definition of lexicography (1979, p. 114: our italics):

“lexicografía. Disciplina lingüística en sentido amplio, cuyo objeto consiste en la elaboración de los diccionarios de lengua. El trabajo del lexicógrafo comporta un censo de las formas (que son las entradas del diccionario (…)) y la presentación de informaciones lingüísticas acerca de tales formas: informaciones formales (cate gorías, posibilidades combinatorias), semánticas (definiciones), eventualmente históricas (etimología), acompañadas por fragmentos (ejemplos) que ilustran las informaciones mediante un contexto”.

The first thing we notice about this definition is the appearance of some of the values taken on by the term form in linguistics, such as the signifier or material expression, on one hand, and the object of our comment on the other, that is, the establishment of a distinction between linguistic aspects that constitute a formal consideration of the language and elements that, on the contrary, are part of a significative standpoint and which can be observed in the separation made by this author between categories and combinatorial possibilities such as formal information and the definition as semantic information, as if the categorial meaning did not exist, a semantics of linguistic categories and, above all, as if the syntagmatism of the language (syntagmatic combinatorics) did not belong to the linguistic meaning. The fact is that, although the syntagmatic meaning is as relevant as the paradigmatic one in the semantic configuration of linguistic units, we must make it patently clear that at the outset of modern semantics,

© Peter Lang AG Philology, vol. 2/2016, pp. 165–216 From Philology to Linguistics 191 or rather of the syntagmatic dimension, resulting from the interaction of the lexicon with syntax, it was considered a formal non-significative aspect – as can be seen in the previously cited text – or else the systematic aspect of the linguistic meaning was limited exclusively to the paradigmatic plane on interpreting that syntagmatic facts belonged to the plane of speech, something which was quite common in semantic studies un- til relatively recently. Arising from this incorrect reductionism, in recent years there has been great discussion about the relevance of studies aiming to establish the interface between lexicon and syntax, by which means the syntagmatism of the language has become completely integrated into paradigmatism proper (cf. Casas Gómez, 2001) and the vision deriving from the first semantic analyses of lexical meaning is rejected once and for all. This vision, on incorrectly identifying the syntagmatic aspect with speech, did not contemplate the syntagmatic dimension of the language (the combinatorial features or semantic valencies), only considered the paradigmatic dimension in the configuration of content of lexemes, when these combinatorial marks constitute basic rules of linguistic behaviour for the determination of different meanings, for the functional identifica- tion of different signs and the criterion of basic analysis in the study of semantic relations. These are the reasons for which continual and incorrect allusion is made to formal and semantic criteria, to formal and semantic characteristics, to formal and semantic information and to formal and semantic neologisms, etc., as if the object of semantics were not forms and the meaning were not a form of the content. Arising from this fact, reference is made to lexical semantics, lexicology and semantics, lexico-semantic level, lexico-semantic changes, lexico-semantic relations, lexico-semantic features, etc., as if there were a lexicology different from semantics at a lexical level. In conclusion, since it is impossible to know what semantics is if its object is not forms of content, the aforementioned contraposition between form and meaning has no sense in current semantics, since it is necessary to start from the fact that the meaning, the object of semantics, can only be analysed by a science that studies forms of content (lexical and grammatical), which means “una ciencia del contenido que pretenda ser coherente consigo misma ha de adoptar necesariamente el punto de vista del contenido y servirse, al contrario que la ciencia de la expresión, de la expresión como mero contraste para establecer el carácter formal de sus unidades, pero sin interesarse, naturalmente, por la expresión en cuanto tal, que aquí

4. Conclusions. Semantics a Hundred Years after the Cours de Linguistique Générale

In the specific case of semantics as a linguistic discipline, much is owed to Saussure and there are numerous structuralist and functionalist methodologies derived from Saussure’s work which are applied essentially to the scientific development of semantics and the study of the lexicon (structural semantics, functional semantics, axiological semantics and mixed semantics).41 However, in spite of the transcendence of many ideas, concepts and terms embodied in the work of Sauusure (system, signification, value, associative network, opposition, nomenclature, term, arbitrariness, moti- vation, associative and syntagmatic relationships, language and speech, etc.) in the development of modern semantics, essentially the distinction between signification and value and the notions of system and associative network, it is very striking that little or nothing of the relevant influence of the Genevan master remains in modern linguistics, as can be seen clearly in the scant or non-existent representativity nowadays of the topics that were dealt with in structuralist and functionalist linguistics. Who speaks nowadays of semantic functions, semantic schemes and, still less, of semantic fields? I have never hidden the basic reason: it is very hard and complicated to make a serious study of semantics, a discipline that involves a profound knowledge not only of linguistics, but also of other tangential disciplines. This was observed by Hjelmslev, a great semanticist who, nonetheless, has gone down in the history of semantic thought, along

41 A revised overview of the concept of “function” and the most representative structuralist and functionalist perspectives, such as the Prague School, Martinet’s approach, Coseriu’s functionalism, Alarcos’ structural functionalism and other more recent trends, such as functional semantics, axiology and mixed semantics can be found in Muñoz Núñez (1999b, p. 14–65).

© Peter Lang AG Philology, vol. 2/2016, pp. 165–216 From Philology to Linguistics 193 with Bloomfield42, as part of the controversial group of formalists. He expressed his scepticism, not without arguments, about the structural study of the lexicon (and how right he was, since we still have no real semantics of any language43), but he was nothing less than the inaugural speaker of the renowned 8th International Congress of Linguists in Oslo, 1957, whose main theme was Semantics and which was the origin of the development of structural semantics.

4.1 New horizons in modern semantics

It is, therefore, necessary to ask what remains of Saussure in modern semantics and towards which new horizons semantics is advancing. In recent years many linguists have asked about the whereabouts today of the semanticists who have become syntaxists, pragmatists and cognitivists. A year ago, with Martin Hummel (cf. Casas Gómez and Hummel, 2016, in press) we asked this question at the 20th Congress of Hispanists (Heidelberg, 2015), expect- ing little response; however, to our surprise, semanticists from all areas and fields, both national and international emerged, and it became one of the sections with most proposals for papers. But, of course, the intention was to deal with a very different type of semantics, since current semantic theory is characterized by the development of the following fields: 1) semantic studies on levels of linguistic content (higher or lower than the strictly lexical level): morphological semantics, suborational semantics, orational semantics and textual and discursive semantics; 2) the situation of pragmatics as semantic theory of linguistic contextualization; 3) the increase in papers on word formation from the plane of content, whose orientation has led to a clear interrelation between word formation and lexical semantics44;

42 Suffice to ysa that this American linguist did his thesis on semasiology and published interesting works on semantics such as “Language or Ideas?” (1936) and, above all, “Meaning” (1943). 43 “Pero el objeto científico de la semántica tampoco puede limitarse a la crítica metodológica de toda la “lingüística del contenido”, con ser esto ya mucho: ha de aspirar a describir la semántica particular de cada lengua concreta (…). No se ha hecho aún la semántica del español, ni la del italiano, ni la de ninguna lengua particular” (Trujillo, 1997, p. 32, n. 3). 44 As is reflected at scientific congresses and in publications on this subject, especially in the sphere of German linguistics. In similar vein, see also the works by Lipka (1971, p. 211–238), Lüdtke (1978), Laca (1986) and, above all, Kastovsky (1977,

4) the relevance of studies aimed at promoting the syntagmatic aspect of the lexicon and establishing the interface between lexicon and syntax, with the object of systematically integrating the syntagmatism of the language into the paradigmatism itself and rejecting that limited, exclusively paradigmatic, perspective surrounding the lexical meaning; 5) analysis on variation in the language and its repercussions in the semantic domain45; 6) advances in terminology, a discipline that has entered in the group of subjects currently covered by lexical semantics46; 7) the study and characterization of neological lexical creations47; 8) the lexicographical and semantic characterisation of idioms48; 9) the description and analysis of semantic relations49, and 10)

p. 1–33, 1981, p. 429–446 and 1982) as well as debates on the relationship between word formation and lexical semantics, edited by Brekle and Kastovsky (1977) and Kastovsky (1980), respectively. In the Hispanic area, see studies by Díaz Hormigo (2000, 2010a and 2010b) and Buenafuentes (2010). 45 See Escoriza Morera (2002, 2003, 2004, 2009, 2012 and 2015) on the diverse perspectives of analysis in the sphere of linguistic variation, the delimitation, by means of sociolinguistic techniques and procedures, of the variation of the lexical plane and the connection of the phenomena of synonymy and polysemy in the domain of variationis linguistics. 46 In this regard, see the studies by Cabré (1993, 1999 and 2008), Guerrero Ramos (1997, 2003 and 2016), Guerrero Ramos and Pérez Lagos (2002 and 2003), Guerrero Ramos and Anguita Acero (2004), Hummel (2009), García Antuña (2011 and 2016) or Roldán Vendrell (2014), and also the works by Casas Gómez (1994, 1995b and 2006). 47 On the status of neology and the interdisciplinary description of neological mechanisms see, especially, the works by Cabré (1990), Cabré et alii (2000 and 2002), Guerrero Ramos (2007, 2008 and 2016), Guerrero Ramos and Pérez Lagos (2012), Díaz Hormigo (2007, 2008 and 2010c) and Díaz Hormigo and Varo Varo (2012). In the same vein, Sánchez Manzanares (2011) has expressed the need to situate research into neology within the framework of a type of lexical semantics that could sustain the development of general principles of this social and linguistic phenomenon and facilitate advances in neological theory. 48 The monographic works by Zuluaga (1980), Ruiz Gurillo (1997), Corpas Pastor (1996, 2000 and 2003), Wotjak (1998), Penadés Martínez (1999, 2000, 2012 and 2015) and Olímpio de Oliveira Silva (2007) are outstanding in this field of research. 49 The research carried out by the “Semaínein” group, within the project on lexical relations, falls into this category. In addition to Casas Gomez’s general monography (1999b) and the specific works by Muñoz Núñez (1999a, on polysemy), Varo Varo (2003 and 2007, on antonymy), Rodríguez-Piñero Alcalá (2003 and 2007, on para- synonymy) or Penadés Martínez (2000 and 2004, on hyponymy and antonymy on the phraseological sphere), see also the works by Casas Gómez (2002b, 2004, 2005, 2008, 2011b and 2014), Casas Gómez and Muñoz Núñez (1992), Muñoz Núñez (1996 and 2016) and Varo Varo (2005, 2010, 2012a and 2012b).

© Peter Lang AG Philology, vol. 2/2016, pp. 165–216 From Philology to Linguistics 195 studies on lexical availability in relation with language teaching, psycholinguistics and linguistic contact and interculturality.50

4.2 Current perspectives in lexical semantics

The extended development of these fields in current studies of semantics has facilitated the complete integration of most of these contents, more specifically, works on word formation, semantic analyses focusing on variation, terminology and specialised languages, applied neology, the study of idioms from a semantic perspective and the establishment of relationships between lexicon and syntax, into modern lexical semantics (cf. Casas Gómez, 2006), which nowadays has as the central aim of its research aspects that have not been considered previously in traditional lexicology, from the moment in which lexical research became a crossroads of theoretical and applied levels and the interrelation of different linguistic methodologies and disciplines (cf. Wotjak, 1995 and Casas Gómez, 2007b). Thus, modern-day lexical semantics is distinguished from classical lexicology by the addition of new contents to those which were tradi- tionally studied (semantic changes, relationships of signification, explan- atory models on the essence of meaning, conceptions of the sign and its components, semantic features and oppositions, units of content, levels of signifying, onomasiology and semasiology, lexical fields, etc.), such as the wide field of word formation, neology and the analysis of neologisms, semantic study and the phraseographical practice of idioms as equivalents to words51, the conceptual bases of terminology and the methodological

50 In this research framework on speech communities in situations of linguistic contact, see works carried out on Gibraltar, Ceuta and Melilla (cf. Ayora Esteban 2006, Escoriza Morera 2007, Fernández Smith et alii 2008 and Fernández Smith, Sánchez- Saus Laserna and Escoriza Morera 2012). For a study of the historical basis and the semantic substantiation of the concept of “centre of interest” in this type of lexical research, see Sanchez-Saus Laserna (2012). 51 In this vein, Penadés Martínez (2012, p. 285 and, above all, 2005, p. 21–25) has analysed the status of phraseology as a linguistic discipline and has discussed its sup- posed subordinate position in relation to lexical semantics (cf. Casas Gómez 2006), since “sólo si la fraseología se entendiera en un sentido restringido, es decir, como disciplina que estudia las locuciones, podría aceptarse que forma parte de la semánti- ca léxica, por cuanto las locuciones son unidades que equivalen a palabras, y en ellas es fundamental el análisis del carácter idiomático de su significado”.

© Peter Lang AG Philology, vol. 2/2016, pp. 165–216 196 Miguel Casas Gómez techniques of terminography, the variety of aspects pertaining to linguistic variation from a semantic standpoint and the different theoretical approaches and positions from the lexicon (cf. Casas Gómez 2016), the well-deserved attention that has been given to the syntagmatic dimension of the lexicon, especially in the field of collocations, and recent research on the neurocognitive dimension of the lexicon. Therefore, as far as lexical semantics is concerned, let us say that it has been restructured, starting from new perspectives, with the aim of dealing with, above all, aspects of a type of semantics that is different from classical semantics of a basically paradigmatic nature: a) in order to correct the limitations arising from an exclusive analysis of that linguistic plane and, consequently, to analyse the syntagmatic component of meaning and the different aspects situated in the lexico- syntactic interface; b) in order not to limit variationism to the phonetic level but to address it from the lexical level and to formulate semantic approaches related to sociolinguistics52, in which the importance of sociocontextual factors (sociolinguistic marks) is emphasised in order to determine the use of lexical units in the their characterization since semantics lacks practical research based on the corpus of usage and sociolinguistics complements the treatment of the lexicon from this approach; c) to develop the field of word formation from the viewpoint of meaning, since this will be done starting from Coseriu’s (1978, p. 239–264 and 1981, p. 3–16) paradigmatic secondary lexematic structures, and, above all, in the 1980s, when word formation begin to follow tangential paths to lexical semantics (cf. note 44); d) in order to substantiate theoretical and epistemological disciplines such as terminology, neology and, at least, the greater part of phraseology (such as the sphere of idioms), and, e) to carry out more up-to-date research on the neurocognitive dimension of the lexicon, a recent field of interface in which certain authors con- tinue to try to disentangle the essence of the meaning and what distinguishes it from the concept – which Saussure never did – in an interesting comparison and contrast between functionalism and cognitivism.

52 For the interrelation between lexical semantics and sociolinguistics, cf. Escoriza Morera (2016, in press).

In this regard, relations are established between meaning and the brain, lexico-cognition, lexico-processing of the language in the sphere of a group of psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic theories that constitute what is known today as neurosemantics.53 From this perspective, analysis is made of, for example, semantic neologisms (so rarely studied by this discipline, which centres, above all, on formal ones) and language illnesses such as anomie and semantic dementia.

On balance, to the traditional lexical aspects dealt with in the aforementioned studies of classical lexicology, current lexical semantics has added new contents coming from these recent perspectives applied to the discipline, as can be seen, by way of an illustrative conclusion, in the following diagram which represents all the these trends:

LEXICAL SEMANTICS

Traditional contents in the study of the lexicon New contents and current perspectives

Semantic changes, Neurocognitive Semantic Terminological dimension of relationships of Word Relationships Neologisms variation units Idioms the lexicon signification, formation between the of the analysis of the lexicon and lexicon essence of meaning, syntax semantic features and oppositions, units of content, lexical fields, onomasiological and semasiological perspectives, levels of signifying, conceptions of the sign and its components, etc.

53 For this recent research field, which links lexical semantics with psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics, see, especially, Varo Varo (2013, 2014, 2015, 2016a, 2016b and 2016c). This is essentially applied to semantic deficits, anomie and lexical neologisms.

References

Alarcos Llorach, E. (19684). Fonología española. Madrid: Gredos. Antal, Laszlo (ed.) (1972). Aspekte der Semantik. Zu ihrer Theorie und Geschichte 1662–1970. Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum. Ayora Esteban, Mª del Carmen (2006). Disponibilidad léxica en Ceuta: aspectos sociolingüísticos. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz. Baldinger, K. (1956). Die Semasiologie. Versuch eines Überblicks. Forschun- gen und Fortschritte 30,5, 148–155, and 30,6, 173–179. Baldinger, K. (1957). Die Semasiologie. Versuch eines Überblicks. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Baldinger, K. (1964). La semasiología. Ensayo de un cuadro de conjunto. Rosario: Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Baldinger, K. (19772). Teoría semántica. Hacia una semántica moderna. Madrid: Alcalá. Bally, Ch. (1940). L’arbitraire du signe. Valeur et signification. Le français moderne 8,3, 193–206. Bally, Ch. (19654). Linguistique générale et linguistique française. Berne: A. Francke. Blank, A. (1997). Prinzipien des lexikalischen Bedeutungswandels am Beispiel der romanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Bloomfield, L. (1936). Language or Ideas?, Language 12/2, 89–95. Bloomfield, L. (1943). Meaning. Monatshefte für Deutschen Unterricht 35, 101–106. Brademann, K. (1982). Prostituée und vestale. Strukturen im Bereich von Euphemismus und Dysphemismus. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 33, 52–66. Bréal, M. (1883). Les lois intellectuelles du langage. Fragment de séman- tique. Annuaire de l’Association pour l’encouragement des études grecques en France (pp. 132–142). Paris: Maisonneuve et Cie. Bréal, M. (1897/19247). Essai de sémantique. Science des significations. Paris: Librairie Hachette. Brekle, H. E. – Kastovsky, D. (Eds.) (1977). Perspektiven der Wortbil- dungsforschung. Bonn: Bouvier Verlag Herbert Grundmann. Buenafuentes de la Mata, C. (2010). La composición sintagmática en es- pañol. San Millán de la Cogolla: Cilengua.

Bustos Tovar, E. de (1967). Anotaciones sobre el campo asociativo de la palabra. Problemas y principios del estructuralismo lingüístico (pp. 149–170). Madrid: C.S.I.C. Cabré, Mª T. (1990). La neologia, avui: el naixement d’una disciplina. Límits 9, 47–64. Cabré, Mª T. (1993). La terminología. Teoría, metodología, aplicaciones. Barcelona: Antártida-Empúries. Cabré, Mª T. (1999). La terminología: representación y comunicación. Elementos para una teoría de base comunicativa y otros artículos. Barcelona: Institut Universitari de Lingüística Aplicada, Universitat Pompeu Fabra. Cabré, Mª T. (2008). De la rigidez a la flexibilidad en la concepción de la terminología: el papel de la lingüística. In M. Casas Gómez & A. I. Rodríguez-Piñeiro Alcalá (Eds.), X Jornadas de Lingüística (pp. 89– 107). Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz. Cabré, Mª T. et al. (Eds.) (2000). La neologia en el tombant de segle. I Simposi sobre Neologia (18 de desembre de 1998). I Seminari de Ne- ologia (17 de febrer de 2000). Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra, IULA, Observatori de Neologia. Cabré, Mª T. et al. (2002). Evaluación de la vitalidad de una lengua a través de la neología: a propósito de la neología espontánea y de la ne- ología planificada. In Mª T. Cabré – J. Freixa – E. Solé (Eds.), Lèxic i neología (pp. 59–201). Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra, IULA, Observatori de Neologia. Casas Gómez, M. (1986a). La interdicción lingüística. Mecanismos del eufemismo y disfemismo. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz. Casas Gómez, M. (1986b). L’euphémisme et la théorie du champ morpho‑sémantique. Cahiers de Lexicologie 49,2, 35–51. Casas Gómez, M. (1986c). Notas sobre la clasificación lingüística del eufemismo y disfemismo. In F. Fernández (Ed.). Pasado, presente y futuro de la lingüística aplicada en España. Actas del III Congreso Nacional de Lingüística Aplicada (Valencia, 16–20 de abril de 1985) (pp. 599–622). Valencia: A.E.S.L.A.: Universidad de Valencia. Casas Gómez, M. (1989). Algunos problemas del eufemismo/disfemismo en la praxis lexicográfica española. Actes du XVIIIe Congrès Inter- national de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes (Trier, 1986), 4, Tübingen: Niemeyer, 220–241.

Casas Gómez, Miguel (1994). Relaciones y principios lexemáticos en el ámbito de las terminologías. Pragmalingüística 2, 79–122. Casas Gómez, M. (1995a). Sinonimia y eufemismo. Quaderni di Seman- tica 16,1, 17–46. Casas Gómez, M. (1995b). En torno a algunos problemas semánticos de la terminología. Acta Universitatis Carolinae – Philologica 2. Trans- latologica Pragensia 6, 85–95. Casas Gómez, M. (1998). Del historicismo al preestructuralismo semánticos. In F. Delgado León – Mª L. Calero Vaquera – F. Osuna García (Eds.). Estudios de lingüística general. Actas del II Simposio de Historiografía Lingüística (Córdoba, 18–20 de marzo de 1997) (pp. 159–184). Córdo- ba: Universidad de Córdoba. Casas Gómez, M. (1999a). De la Semasiología a la Semántica: breve panorama historiográfico. In M. Fernández Rodríguez – F. García Gonda – N. Vázquez Veiga (Eds.). Actas del I Congreso Internacional de la Sociedad Española de Historiografía Lingüística (A Coruña, 18–21 de febrero de 1997) (pp. 195–206). Madrid: Arco/Libros. Casas Gómez, M. (1999b). Las relaciones léxicas. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Casas Gómez, M. (2001). Origen y desarrollo del concepto de ‘clasema’. In M. Maquieira Rodríguez – Mª D. Martínez Gavilán – M. Villayan- dre Llamazares (Eds.), Actas del II Congreso Internacional de la So- ciedad Española de Historiografía Lingüística. León, 2–5 de marzo de 1999 (pp. 277–291). Madrid: Arco/Libros. Casas Gómez, M. (2002a). Los niveles del significar. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz. Casas Gómez, M. (2002b). A functional description of semantic relationships. Language Design. Journal of Theoretical and Experimental Linguistics 4, 21–47. Casas Gómez, M. (2004). Problemas lingüísticos implicados en la equi- valencia semántica. In M. Villayandre Llamazares (Ed.), Actas del V Congreso de Lingüística General (León, 5–8 de marzo de 2002), vol. I (pp. 41–69). Madrid: Arco/Libros. Casas Gómez, M. (2005). Relaciones “significativas”, relaciones semán- ticas y relaciones léxicas. Lingüística Española Actual 27,1, 5–31. Casas Gómez, M. (2006). Contenidos actuales de la semántica léx- ica: la terminología. In W. Dietrich – U. Hoinkes – B. Roviró – M. Warnecke (Eds.). Lexikalische Semantik und Korpuslinguistik.

Akten der Geckelergedenktagung (pp. 13–40). Tübingen: Narr, Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik. Casas Gómez, M. (2007a). Etapas historiográficas específicas de la semán- tica. In J. Dorta – C. Corrales – D. Corbella (Eds.). Historiografía de la lingüística en el ámbito hispánico. Fundamentos epistemológicos y metodológicos (pp. 201–230). Madrid: Arco/Libros. Casas Gómez, M. (2007b). El estatus lingüístico de las disciplinas apli- cadas de la semántica. In P. Cano López – I. Fernández López – M. González Pereira – G. Prego Vázquez – M. Souto Gómez (Eds.), Ac- tas del VI Congreso de Lingüística General (Santiago de Compos- tela, 3–7 de mayo de 2004), vol. II.A: Las lenguas y su estructura (pp. 935–942). Madrid: Arco/Libros. Casas Gómez, M. (2008). El concepto de significante en el funcionalismo semántico. Romanische Forschungen 120/3, 283–306. Casas Gómez, M. (2009). Contenidos y tendencias de la semántica “tra- dicional” como etapa historiográfica. In J. Mª García Martín (dir.) – T. Bastardín Candón – M. Rivas Zancarrón (Eds.). Estudios de historio- grafía lingüística. Actas del VI Congreso Internacional de la Sociedad Española de Historiografía Lingüística en la senda de 1812: Las ideas y realidades lingüísticas en los siglos XVIII y XIX (Cádiz, del 6 al 9 de noviembre de 2007) (pp. 113–150). Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz. Casas Gómez, M. (2011a). Linguistische Dimensionen der Semasiologie und Onomasiologie. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen. Bulletin de la Société Néophilologique. Bulletin of the Modern Language Society, 112/4, 453–483. Casas Gómez, M. (2011b). Problemas y criterios lingüísticos subyacentes a una tipología de relaciones en semántica, Lorenzo Hervás. Docu- mentos de trabajo de Lingüística teórica y general 20 (número ex- traordinario homenaje al Profesor Valerio Báez San José), 63–108. Casas Gómez, M. (2013). Eugenio Coseriu, lingüista y maestro. In M. Casas Gómez (dir.) & R. Vela Sánchez (Ed.). Eugenio Coseriu, in memoriam. XIV Jornadas de Lingüística (pp. 15–18). Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz. Casas Gómez, M. (2014). A typology of relationships in semantics. Qua derni di Semantica 35/2, 45–73. Casas Gómez, M. (2016). Acercamientos teóricos a la variación lingüísti- ca desde la semántica léxica funcional. Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana XIV, 28/2, 115–138.

Casas Gómez, M – M. Hummel (2016). Limitaciones y nuevos retos de la semántica léxica. In Id. (Eds.). Semántica léxica, volumen monográ fico de RILCE. Revista de Filología Hispánica, in press. Casas Gómez, M – Mª D. Muñoz Núñez (1992). La polisemia y la homoni mia en el marco de las relaciones léxicas. In G. Wotjak (Ed.). Estudios de lexicología y metalexicografía del español actual (pp. 134–158). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Corpas Pastor, G. (1996). Manual de fraseología española. Madrid: Gredos. Corpas Pastor, G. (Ed.) (2000). Las lenguas de Europa: estudios de frase- ología, fraseografía y traducción. Granada: Comares. Corpas Pastor, G. (2003). Diez años de investigación en fraseología: análisis sintáctico-semánticos, contrastivos y traductológicos. Madrid-Frank- furt am Main: Iberoamericana – Vervuert. Coseriu, E. (1966). Structure lexicale et enseignement du vocabulaire. Actes du premier Colloque International de Linguistique Appliquée (Nancy, 1964) (pp. 175–217). Nancy. Coseriu, E. (1967). Zur Vorgeschichte der strukturellen Semantik: Heyses Analyse des Wortfeldes ‘Schall’. To honor Roman Jakobson. Essays on the occasion of his seventieth birthday (11 October 1966), vol. 1 (pp. 489–498). The Hague-Paris: Mouton. Coseriu, E. (1968). Les structures lexématiques. In W. T. Elwert (Ed.), Probleme der Semantik (pp. 3–16). Wiesbaden: Steiner. Coseriu, E. (1977). Principios de semántica structural. Madrid: Gredos. Coseriu, E. (1978). Gramática, semántica, universales. Estudios de lingüística funcional. Madrid: Gredos. Coseriu, E. (1981). Les procédés sémantiques dans la formation des mots. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 35, 3–16. Coseriu, E. (1987). Palabras, cosas y términos. In memoriam Inmaculada Corrales, I. Estudios lingüísticos, vol. 1 (pp. 175–185). La Laguna: Universidad de La Laguna. Díaz Hormigo, Mª T. (2000). Disciplinas lingüísticas y formación de palabras. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz. Díaz Hormigo, Mª T. (2007). Aproximación lingüística a la neología léxi- ca. In J. Martín Camacho & Mª I. Rodríguez Ponce (Eds.), Morfolo- gía: Investigación, docencia, aplicaciones. Actas del II Encuentro de Morfología: Investigación y docencia. Cáceres, 5 de mayo de 2006 (pp. 33–54). Cáceres: Universidad de Extremadura.

Díaz Hormigo, Mª T. (2008). La investigación lingüística de la neología léxica en España. Estado de la cuestión. LynX. Panorámica de estudios lingüísticos 7, 5–60. Díaz Hormigo, Mª T. (2010a). Puntos de contacto entre morfología, lexi- cología, semántica. Propuesta de delimitación. Revista de Filología 28, 165–179. Díaz Hormigo, Mª T. (2010b). Morfología y ciencias lingüísticas: a propósito de las relaciones entre morfología, lexicología, semántica. In D. García Padrón & Mª del C. Fumero Pérez (Eds.). Tendencias en lingüística general y aplicada (pp. 81–95). Frankfurt am Main – Berlin – Bern – Bruxelles – New York – Oxford – Wien: Peter Lang. Díaz Hormigo, Mª T. (2010c). Word Formation Processes and Proposals for the Classification of Formal Neologisms. In J. L. Cifuentes & S. Rodríguez (Eds.). Spanish Word Formation and Lexical Creation (pp. 411–433). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Díaz Hormigo, Mª T. (2016). Los niveles de indagación semántica: la sin- tagmática suboracional del léxico derivado. In M. Casas Gómez & M. Hummel (Eds.). Semántica léxica, volumen monográfico de RILCE. Revista de Filología Hispánica, in press. Díaz Hormigo, Mª T. Varo Varo, C. (2012). Neology and Cognition. In B. Eizaga Rebollar (Ed.). Studies in Linguistics and Cognition, (pp. 15–34). Frankfurt am Main – Berlin – Bern – Bruxelles – New York – Oxford – Wien: Peter Lang. Dittmann, J. (1980). Sprachtheorie der inhaltbezogenen Sprachwissen- schaft. Deutsche Sprache 1–2, 40–74 and 157–176. Drettas, G. (1981). Les théoriciens allemands du champ. Éléments pour une évaluation critique de leur apport. La Linguistique 17/2, 3–22. Ducháček, O. (1960). Les champs linguistiques. Philologica Pragensia 3, 22–35. Ducháček, O. (1962). Les relations sémantiques des mots (étudiées d’après le vocabulaire français). Kwartalnik Neofilologiczny 9/1, 27–34. Ducháček, O. & Spitzová, E. (1965). Diferentes tipos de relaciones semán- ticas y problemas de los campos lingüísticos. Archivum 15, 59–72. Eco, U. (1972). La estructura ausente. Introducción a la semiología. Barcelona: Lumen. Escoriza Morera, L. (2002). La variación lingüística. Propuesta de delimi- tación de variantes en el nivel léxico. Tesis doctoral, Cádiz: Universi- dad de Cádiz.

Escoriza Morera, L. (2003). Perspectivas de análisis en el ámbito de la variación lingüística. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz. Escoriza Morera, L. (2004). Posibilidades de aplicación del concepto de variación lingüística al nivel léxico en el ámbito de la sociolingüística. In M. Villayandre Llamazares (Ed.). Actas del V Congreso de Lingüísti- ca General, León, 5–8 de marzo de 2002, vol. I (pp. 829–835). Madrid: Arco Libros. Escoriza Morera, L. (2007). Disponibilidad léxica y multilingüismo. El contacto entre inglés y español en Gibraltar. In P. Cano López – I. Fernández López – M. González Pereira – G. Prego Vázquez – M. Souto Gómez (Eds.). Actas del VI Congreso de Lingüística General (Santiago de Compostela, 3–7 de mayo de 2004) (pp. 756–762). Ma- drid: Arco Libros. Escoriza Morera, L. (2009). Consideraciones sobre la variación léxica. In M. Veyrat Rigat & E. Serra Alegre (Eds.). La lingüística como reto epistemológico y como acción social. Estudios dedicados al profesor Ángel López García con ocasión de su sexagésimo aniversario, vol. II (pp. 789–793). Madrid: Arco/Libros. Escoriza Morera, L. (2012). La variación de expresión en el plano léxico. Dificultades y perspectivas. Lingüística 28, 247–273. Escoriza Morera, L. (2015). The influence of the degree of formality on lexical variation in Spanish. Spanish in Context 12/2, 199–220. Escoriza Morera, L. (2016). Semántica léxica y sociolingüística varia- cionista: las marcas sociolingüísticas en la descripción semántica del léxico. In M. Casas Gómez & M. Hummel (Eds.). Semántica léxica, volumen monográfico de RILCE. Revista de Filología Hispánica, in press. Fernández Smith, G – Rico Martín, A. Mª – Molina García, Mª J. – Jiménez Jiménez, Mª de los Á. (2008). Léxico disponible de Melilla: estudio sociolingüístico y repertorios léxicos. Madrid: Arco/Libros. Fernández Smith, G. – Sánchez-Saus Laserna, M. – Escoriza Morera, L. (2012). Studies on Lexical Availability. The Current Situation and some Future Prospects. In B. Eizaga Rebollar (Ed.). Studies in Linguistics and Cognition (pp. 35–56). Bern – Berlin – Bruxelles – Frankfurt am Main – New York – Oxford – Wien: Peter Lang. García Antuña, M. (2011). La variación especializada: caracterización terminológica del léxico específico de la piel, Tesis doctoral con mención europea. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz.

García Antuña, M. (2016). Las relaciones conceptuales en terminología. In M. Casas Gómez & M. Hummel (Eds.). Semántica léxica, volumen monográfico de RILCE. Revista de Filología Hispánica, in press. Geckeler, H. (1971). Strukturelle Semantik und Wortfeldtheorie. München: Fink. Gipper, H. & Schwarz, H. (1962 --). Bibliographisches Handbuch zur Sprachinhaltsforschung. Köln: Opladen. Guerrero Ramos, G. (1997). ¿Qué es y para qué sirve la terminología? In J. A. de Molina Redondo – J. de D. Luque Durán (Eds.). Estudios de Lingüística General (III). Trabajos presentados en el II Congreso Na- cional de Lingüística General (Granada 25 al 27 de marzo de 1996) (pp. 171–178). Granada: Granada Lingvistica y Método Ediciones. Guerrero Ramos, G. (2003). La terminología y los lenguajes de especialidad en el marco de la comunicación. In M. Casas Gómez (Dir.) & C. Varo Varo (Ed.). VII Jornadas de Lingüística (pp. 109–135). Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz. Guerrero Ramos, G. (2007). Neología general, neología común y neología especializada. In P. Cano López – I. Fernández López – M. González Pereira – G. Prego Vázquez – M. Souto Gómez, (Eds.). Actas del VI Congreso de Lingüística General (Santiago de Compostela, 3–7 de mayo de 2004), vol. II.B: Las lenguas y su estructura (pp. 2545– 2557). Madrid: Arco/Libros. Guerrero Ramos, G. (2008). Neología y campos de especialidad en pren- sa. In Mª T. Cabré i Castellví – C. Bach Martorell – C. Tebé Soriano (Eds.). Literalidad y dinamicidad en el discurso económico (pp. 289– 322). Barcelona: IULA, Universitat Pompeu Fabra. Guerrero Ramos, G. (2016). Nuevas orientaciones de la terminología y de la neología en el ámbito de la semántica léxica. In M. Casas Gómez & M. Hummel (Eds.). Semántica léxica, volumen monográfico de RILCE. Revista de Filología Hispánica, in press. Guerrero Ramos, G. & Anguita Acero, J. Mª (2004). La terminología hoy: problemas y necesidades. In M. Villayandre Llamazares (Ed.). Actas del V Congreso de Lingüística General (León, 5–8 de marzo de 2002) (pp. 1479–1492). Madrid: Arco/Libros. Guerrero Ramos, G. & Pérez Lagos, M. F. (Coords.) (2002). Panorama actual de la terminología. Granada: Comares. Guerrero Ramos, G. & Pérez Lagos, M. F. (2003). Léxico, terminología y diccionarios. In E. Ortega Arjonilla (Dir.). Panorama actual de la

investigación en traducción e interpretación, vol. I (pp. 541–563). Granada: Atrio. Guerrero Ramos, G. & Pérez Lagos, M. F. (2012). ¿Es la composición cul- ta, en la actualidad, el procedimiento más productivo para la creación de neologismos? Terminàlia 6, 26–36. Greimas, A. J. (1948). La Mode en 1830. Essai de description du vocabulaire vestimentaire d’après les journaux de mode de l’époque. Thèse de doctorat de l’Université de Paris. Guiraud, P. (1955). La sémantique. Paris: P.U.F. Guiraud, P. (1956). Les champs morpho-sémantiques. (Critères externes et critères internes en étymologie). Bulletin de la Société de Linguis- tique de Paris 52, 265–288. Guiraud, P. (1966a). De la grive au maquereau. Le champ morpho-séman- tique des noms de l’animal tacheté. Le français moderne 34, 280–308. Guiraud, P. (1966b). Le champ morpho-sémantique des noms du chat. Première partie: Le matou. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 61, 128–145. Guiraud, P. (1967). Structures étymologiques du lexique français. Paris: Larousse. Guiraud, P. (1968). Le champ morpho-sémantique du mot “tromper”. Bul- letin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 68, 96–109. Gutiérrez Ordóñez, S. (1981). Lingüística y Semántica. (Aproximación funcional). Oviedo: Universidad de Oviedo. Gutiérrez Ordóñez, S. (1989). Introducción a la semántica funcional. Ma- drid: Síntesis. Gutiérrez Ordóñez, S. (1992). Sémantique et axiologie. Actes XVIIe Col- loque International de Linguistique Fonctionnelle (León, 5–10 juillet 1990) (pp. 101–107). León: Universidad de León. Heger, K. (1965). Les bases méthodologiques de l’onomasiologie et du classement par concepts. Travaux de Linguistique et de Littérature 3/1, 7–32. Heger, K. (1969a). La sémantique et la dichotomie de langue et parole. Travaux de Linguistique et de Littérature 7/1, 47–111. Heger, K. (1969b). L’analyse sémantique du signe linguistique. Langue française 4, 44–66. Heger, K. (1971). Monem, Wort und Satz. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Heger, K. (1974). Teoría semántica. Hacia una semántica moderna II. Madrid: Alcalá.

Heger, K. (1981). La semántica lingüística. Lexis 5/2, 59–93. Helbig, G. (1971). Geschichte der neueren Sprachwissenschaft unter dem besonderen Aspekt der Grammatik. München: Hueber. Hjelmslev, L. (1958).“Dans quelle mesure les significations des mots peuvent-elles être considérées comme formant une structure? Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Linguists (pp. 636–654). Oslo. Hjelmslev, L. (1959). Pour une sémantique structurale. Essais linguistiques, I. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague, XII (pp. 96–112). Copenhague. Hoberg, R. (1970). Die Lehre vom sprachlichen Feld. Ein Beitrag zu ihrer Geschichte, Methodik und Anwendung. Düsseldorf: Schwann. Hummel, M. (2009). Semantics, terminology, and the impact of history and culture on socioeconomic terms. Fachsprache 31/3–4, 109–125. Hummel, M. (2016). The semiotic basis of conceptual and procedural meaning. Towards a cognitive model of the linguistic sign. In B. García-Hernández & A. Penas Ibáñez (Eds.), Semántica latina y románica. Unidades de significado conceptual y procedimental. Bern-Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, in press. Ipsen, G. (1924). Der Alte Orient und die Indogermanen. Stand und Auf- gaben der Sprachwissenschaft. Festschrift für Wilhelm Streitberg (pp. 200–237). Heidelberg Carl Winter. Ipsen, G. (1932). Der neue Sprachbegriff. Zeitschrift für Deutschkunde 46, 1–18. Jolles, A. (1934). Antike Bedeutungsfelder. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 58, 97–109. Kandler, G. (1959). Die “Lücke” im sprachlichen Weltbild. Zur Synthese von “Psychologismus” und “Soziologismus”. Sprache – Schlüssel zur Welt. Festschrift für Leo Weisgerber (pp. 256–270). Düsseldorf: Pä dagogischer Verlag Schwann. Karcevskij, S. (1927). Système du verbe russe: Essai de linguistique syn- chronique. Prague: Plamja. Karcevskij, S. (1929). Du dualisme asymétrique du signe linguistique. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 1, 88–93. Kastovsky, D. (1977). Word-formation, or: at the crossroads of morphology, syntax, semantics, and the lexicon. Folia Linguistica 10/1–2, 1–33.

Kastovsky, D. (Ed.) (1980). Perspektiven der lexikalische Semantik. Bei- träge zum Wuppertaler Semantikkolloquium vom 2.–3 Dezember 1977. Bonn: Bouvier Verlag Herbert Grundmann. Kastovsky, D. (1981). Lexical fields and word-formation. In W. Dietrich & H. Geckeler (Eds.). Logos semantikos. Studia linguistica in honorem Eugenio Coseriu 1921–1981, vol. 3 (pp. 429–446). Berlin – New York – Madrid: De Gruyter – Gredos. Kastovsky, D. (1982). Wortbildung und Semantik. Düsseldorf: Pädagogi- scher Verlag Schwann-Bagel. Kronasser, H. (1952). Handbuch der Semasiologie. Kurze Einführung in die Geschichte, Problematik und Terminologie der Bedeutungslehre. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. Laca, B. (1986). Die Wortbildung als Grammatik des Wortschatzes. Unter- suchungen zur spanischen Subjektnominalisierung. Tübingen: Narr. Lara, L.F. (2005). ¿Es posible una teoría del léxico?. In G. Wotjak & J. Cuartero Otal (Eds.). Entre semántica léxica, teoría del léxico y sintaxis (pp. 1–12). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Lee, A. van der & Reichmann, O. (Eds.) (1973). Jost Trier. Aufsätze und Vorträge zur Wortfeldtheorie. The Hague-Paris: Mouton. Leech, G.N. (1974). Semantics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Lipka, L. (1971). Grammatical categories, lexical items, and word-formation. Foundations of Language 7, 211–238. Lüdtke, J. (1978). Prädikative Nominalisierung mit Suffixen in Französi- schen, Katalanischen und Spanischen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge – New York – New Rochelle – Melbourne – Sidney: Cambridge University Press. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics, vol. I, Cambridge – London – New York – Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Malinowski, B. (1923/19642). El problema del significado en las lenguas primitivas. In Ch. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards (Eds.). El significado del significado. Una investigación sobre la influencia del lenguaje en el pensamiento y sobre ciencia simbólica (pp. 312–360). Buenos Aires: Paidós. Martínez Hernández, M. (1977). El campo léxico de los sustantivos de dolor en Sófocles. Ensayo de semántica estructural-funcional (I). Cua- dernos de Filología Clásica 13, 33–112.

Martínez Hernández, M. (1978). El campo léxico de los sustantivos de dolor en Sófocles. Ensayo de semántica estructural-funcional (II). Cuadernos de Filología Clásica 14, 121–169. Martínez Hernández, M. (1981). La esfera semántico-conceptual del dolor en Sófocles. (Contribución al estudio del vocabulario de los sentimientos en griego clásico), 2 vols. Madrid: Universidad Com- plutense de Madrid. Martínez Hernández, M. (1983). El problema del método en la teoría de los campos léxicos. Revista del Colegio Universitario de Ciudad Real. Cuaderno de Filología 1, 3–15. Martínez Hernández, M. (1990). Investigación del contenido lingüístico y semántica funcional (lexemática). Intento de fusión. In Mª Á. Álva- rez Martínez (Ed.). Actas del Congreso de la Sociedad Española de Lingüística. XX Aniversario (Tenerife, 2–6 de abril de 1990), vol. II (pp. 1009–1018). Madrid: Gredos. Matoré, G. (1953). La méthode en Lexicologie. Domaine français. Paris: Marcel Didier. Matoré, G. (1959). Vocabulaire et literature. Cahiers de l’Association In- ternationale des Études Françaises 11, 301–306. Matoré, G. (1961). Les méthodes modernes de la sémantique descriptive. Lexicologie et Lexicographie Françaises et Romanes. Orientations et exigences actuelles (Strasbourg, 1957) (pp. 91–106). Paris. Matoré, G. (1967). Le vocabulaire et la société sous Louis-Philippe. Genève. Matoré, G. (1980). “Monstre” au XVIe siècle. Étude lexicologique. Travaux de Linguistique et de Littérature 18/1, 359–367. Matoré, G. (1986). L’espace du XVIe siècle. Cahiers de Lexicologie 49/2, 3–11. Matoré, G. & Greimas, A. J. (1948). La Méthode en Lexicologie. À propos de quelques thèses récentes. Romanische Forschungen 60/3, 411–419. Matoré, G. & Greimas, A. J. (1950). La Méthode en Lexicologie (II). Ro- manische Forschungen 62, 208–221. Meya, M. (1976). Modelación del campo semántico de los verbos de mo- vimiento. Revista Española de Lingüística 6/1, 145–165. Meyer, R. M. (1910). Bedeutungssysteme. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 43, 352–368. Molina Redondo, J. A. de (1971). Introducción al estudio del léxico andaluz. (La casa. Las faenas domésticas). Granada: Universidad de Granada.

Molina Redondo, J. A. de (1972). “Cabeza” (+ sufijos) en andaluz (estudio de un campo semántico etimológico). Revista de Filología Española 55/3–4, 279–301. Montero Cartelle, E. (1979). El eufemismo: sus repercusiones sobre el léxico. Senara 1, 45–60. Montero Cartelle, E. (1981). El eufemismo en Galicia. (Su comparación con otras áreas romances). Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela. Mounin, G. (1965a). Un champ sémantique: la dénomination des animaux domestiques. La Linguistique 1/1, 31–54. Mounin, G. (1965b). Essai sur la structuration du lexique de l’habitation. Cahiers de Lexicologie 6/1, 9–24. Mounin, G. (Dir.) (1979). Diccionario de lingüística. Barcelona: Labor. Muñoz Núñez, Mª D. (1996). Problemática actual del fenómeno de la polisemia léxica. Lingüística 8, 89–127. Muñoz Núñez, Mª D. (1999a). La polisemia léxica. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz. Muñoz Núñez, Mª D. (1999b). El análisis funcional del significado. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz. Muñoz Núñez, Mª D. (2016). La polisemia léxica y sus conexiones con algunas líneas de la interrelación entre léxico y sintaxis. In M. Casas Gómez & M. Hummel (Eds.). Semántica léxica, volumen monográfi- co de RILCE. Revista de Filología Hispánica, in press. Ogden, Ch.K. & Richards, I. A. (1923). The meaning of meaning. A study of the influence of language upon thought and of the science of sym- bolism. New York – London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Olímpio de Oliveira Silva, Mª E. (2007). Fraseografía teórica y práctica. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Penadés Martínez, I. (1999). La enseñanza de las unidades fraseológicas. Madrid: Arco/Libros. Penadés Martínez, I. (2000). La hiponimia en las unidades fraseológicas. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz. Penadés Martínez, I. (2004). Les relations d’opposition dans les locutions espagnoles. Cahiers de Lexicologie 85/2, 75–99. Penadés Martínez, I. (2005). Resultados y perspectivas de estudio en frase- ología española. Lynx. Panorámica de Estudios Lingüísticos 4, 5–58. Penadés Martínez, I. (2012). Gramática y semántica de las locuciones. Alcalá de Henares: Universidad de Alcalá.

Penadés Martínez, I. (2015). Para un diccionario de locuciones. De la lingüística teórica a la fraseografía práctica. Alcalá de Henares: Uni- versidad de Alcalá. Porzig, W. (1934). Wesenhafte Bedeutungsbeziehungen. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 58, 70–97. Porzig, W. (19572). Das Wunder der Sprache. Probleme, Methoden und Ergebnisse der modernen Sprachwissenschaft. Bern: Francke. Porzig, W. (1959). Die Einheit des Wortes. Ein Beitrag zur Diskussion. In H. Gipper (Ed.), Sprache – Schlüssel zur Welt. Festschrift für Leo Weisgerber (pp. 158–167). Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann. Pottier, B. (1976). Hacia una semántica moderna. Lingüística moderna y filología hispánica (pp. 99–133). Madrid: Gredos. Quemada, B. (1949). Le Commerce amoureux dans les romans mondains (1640–1670), Thèse de doctorat de l’Université de Paris. Raible, W. (1983). Zur Einleitung. In H. Stimm & W. Raible (Eds.). Zur Semantik des Französischen (pp. 1–24). Wiesbaden: Steiner. Reisig, K. Ch. (1839). Semasiologie oder Bedeutungslehre. In F. Haase (Ed.). Professor K. Reisig’s Vorlesungen über lateinische Sprach- wissenschaft (pp. 286–307). Leipzig: Verlag der Zehnhold’schen Buchhandlung. Rodríguez Adrados, F. (1967). Estructura del vocabulario y estructura de la lengua. In Problemas y principios del estructuralismo lingüístico (pp. 193–229). Madrid: C.S.I.C. Rodríguez Adrados, F. (1972). La investigación del significado, tarea de la nueva lingüística. Studia hispanica in honorem R. Lapesa, vol. I (pp. 501–521). Madrid: Gredos. Rodríguez-Piñero Alcalá, A. I. (2003). Caracterización lingüística de la parasinonimia: sus analogías y diferencias con otras relaciones léxi- cas. Tesis doctoral. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz. Rodríguez-Piñero Alcalá, A. I. (2007). La relación léxica de la parasinonimia. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz. Roldán Vendrell, M. (Ed.) (2014). Terminología y comunicación científica y social. Granada: Comares. Ruiz Gurillo, L. (1997). Aspectos de fraseología teórica española. Valen- cia: Universitat de València. Salvador, G. (1985). Lexemas puente y lexemas sincréticos. Semántica y lexicología del español (pp. 42–50). Madrid: Paraninfo.

Sánchez Manzanares, Mª del C. (2011). La Neología en el marco de la Semántica léxica. In P. Cano López – S. Cortinas Ansoar – B. Dieste Quiroga – I. Fernández López – L Zas Varela (Eds.). Actas del XXXIX Simposio Internacional de la Sociedad Española de Lingüística (Santiago de Compostela, 1 al 5 de febrero de 2010). Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 1–10 (publicación en CD-ROM). Sánchez-Saus Laserna, M. (2012). Bases semánticas para el estudio de los centros de interés del léxico disponible. Disponibilidad léxica de informantes extranjeros en las universidades andaluzas. Cádiz: Uni- versidad de Cádiz. Saussure, F. de (1916/19222). Cours de Linguistique Générale. Publié par Ch. Bally & A. Sechehaye avec la collaboration de A. Riedlinger, Paris: Payot. Schmidt, L. (ed.) (1973). Wortfeldforschung. Zur Geschichte und Theorie des sprachlichen Feldes. Darmstadt: Buchgesellschaft Wissenschaft- liche. Sperber, H. (1923). Einführung in die Bedeutungslehre. Bonn, Leipzig: Kurt Schroeder. Stern, G. (1931). Meaning and Change of Meaning. With Special Ref- erence to the English Language. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Szemerényi, O. (1986). Direcciones de la lingüística moderna II. Los años cincuenta (1950–1960). Madrid: Gredos. Trier, J. (1931). Der deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des Verstandes. Die Geschichte eines sprachlichen Feldes, I: Von den Anfängen bis zum Beginn des 13. Jahrhunderts. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Trier, J. (1932). Sprachliche Felder. Zeitschrift für Deutsche Bildung 8, 417–427. Trier, J. (1934). Das sprachliche Feld. Eine Auseinandersetzung. Neue Jahrbücher für Wissenschaft und Jugendbildung 10, 428–449. Trier, J. (1968). Altes und Neues vom sprachlichen Feld. Mannheim-Zürich: Im Dudenverlag des Bibliographischen Instituts. Trubetzkoy, N. S. (1964). Principes de phonologie. Paris: Klincksieck. Trujillo, R. (1970). El campo semántico de la valoración intelectual en español. La Laguna: Universidad de La Laguna. Trujillo, R. (1972). Gramática, Lexicología y Semántica. Revista Españo- la de Lingüística 2/1, 103–109.

Trujillo, R. (1974). El lenguaje de la técnica. In Id Doce ensayos sobre el lenguaje (pp. 197–211). Madrid: Rioduero, Fundación Juan March. Trujillo, R. (1976). Elementos de semántica lingüística. Madrid: Cátedra. Trujillo, R. (1988). Introducción a la semántica española. Madrid: Arco/ Libros. Trujillo, R. (1997). El papel de la realidad J. la semántica. In M. Casas Gó- mez (Dir.) & J Espinosa García (Ed.), II Jornadas de Lingüística (Cá- diz, 22 y 23 de octubre de 1996) (pp. 31–52). Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz. Ullmann, S. (1951). Words and their Use. London: Frederick Muller Ltd. Ullmann, S. (1952). Précis de sémantique française. Berne: Francke. Ullmann, S. (1956). The concept of meaning in linguistics. Archivum Lin- guisticum 8/1, 12–20. Ullmann, S. (19572). The Principles of Semantics, Oxford – Glasgow: Basil Blackwell – Jackson – Son & Co. Ullmann, S. (1964a). Semantics. An Introduction to the Science of Mean- ing. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Ullmann, S. (1964b). Language and Style. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Ullmann, S. (1973). Meaning and Style. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Varo Varo, C. (2003). La polaridad en el lenguaje. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz. Varo Varo, C. (2005). Bases para la descripción y clasificación de los antónimos léxicos. Estudios de Lingüística del Español (ELiEs) 23 (). Varo Varo, C. (2007). La antonimia léxica. Madrid: Arco/Libros. Varo Varo, C. (2010). El procesamiento de las relaciones léxicas. Revista Española de Lingüística 40/1, 149–171. Varo Varo, C. (2012a). Las relaciones léxicas en la Lexicografía hispáni- ca. In P. Botta & S. Pastor (Eds.). Rumbos del hispanismo en el um- bral del Cincuentenario de la AIH, vol. VIII. Lengua (pp. 312–320), Roma: Bagatto Libri. Varo Varo, C. (2012b). La delimitación de las relaciones léxicas en el marco del diccionario. Revista de Lexicografía 18, 221–232. Varo Varo, C. (2013). Aproximación teórico-práctica al procesamiento lingüístico de neologismos léxicos. Revista Signos 46(81), 132–152. Varo Varo, C. (2014). La configuración mental del significado: eviden- cias a partir de la anomia. In I. Moreno-Torres Sánchez – E. Moruno

López – S. Madrid Cánovas (Eds.). Avances en Lingüística Clínica (pp. 73–80). Málaga: Publicaciones y Divulgación Científica Univer- sidad de Málaga. Varo Varo, C. (2015). El estudio de los déficits semánticos al servicio de la teoría del significado. Quaderni di Semantica 1, Nuova Serie, 77–97. Varo Varo, C. (2016a). Hacia una nueva interpretación del significado lé- xico a la luz de algunos datos sobre el procesamiento lingüístico. In I. Olza Moreno – C. Pérez-Salazar – N. Celayeta (Eds.). Semántica, léxico y fraseología. Fankfurt: Peter Lang, in press. Varo Varo, C. (2016b). Aproximación neurosemántica a la neología. In La neología en las lenguas románicas: recursos, estrategias y nuevas orientaciones. Bern: Peter Lang, in press. Varo Varo, C. (2016c). Nuevos retos en la investigación del contenido lé- xico: elementos para una neurosemántica. In M. Casas Gómez & M. Hummel (Eds.). Semántica léxica, volumen monográfico de RILCE. Revista de Filología Hispánica, in press. Vassilyev, L. M. (1974). The theory of semantic fields: a survey. Linguis- tics 137, 79–93. Wagner, C. (1982). À propos de l’analyse sémique. Cahiers de Lexicolo- gie 40/1, 11–26. Wartburg, W. von (1951). Problemas y métodos de la lingüística. Traducción de D. Alonso & E. Lorenzo, Anotación por D. Alonso. Madrid: C.S.I.C. Weisgerber, L. (1927). Die Bedeutungslehre – ein Irrweg der Sprachwis- senschaft? Germanisch-Romanische Monatschrift 15/5–6, 161–183. Weisgerber, Leo (1951–52). Zur innersprachlichen Umgrenzung der Wort- felder (’veranstalten’ und ’stattfinden’). Wirkendes Wort 2, 138–143. Weisgerber, L. (1954). “Die Sprachfelder in der geistigen Erschliessung der Welt”, Festschrift für Jost Trier zu seinem 60. Geburtstag am 15. Dezember 1954, Meisenheim/Glan, 34–49. Weisgerber, L. (1962a3). Grundzüge der inhaltbezogenen Grammatik. Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann. Weisgerber, L. (1962b3). Die sprachliche Gestaltung der Welt. Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann. Weisgerber, L. (1963). Die vier Stufen in der Erforschung der Sprachen. Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann. Weisgerber, L. (1964). “Zum Sinnbezirk des “Geschehens” im heutigen Deutsch”, Foerste, W. & Borck, K. H. (Eds.), Festschrift für Jost Trier zum 70. Geburtstag (pp. 23–46). Köln, Graz.

Weisgerber, L. (1979). Dos enfoques del lenguaje. “Lingüística” y ciencia energética del lenguaje. Madrid: Gredos. Wells, R. (1958). Is a structural treatment of meaning possible? Proceed- ings of the Eighth International Congress of Linguists (pp. 654–666). Oslo. Welte, W. (1985). Lingüística moderna. Terminología y bibliografía. Versión española de F. Meno Blanco, Madrid: Gredos. Widłak, S. (1968). Le fonctionnement de l’euphémisme et la théorie du champ linguistique: domaine roman. Actas del XI Congreso Interna- cional de Lingüística y Filología Románicas (Madrid, 1965), vol. 2, 1031–1052. Widłak, S. (1970). Moyens euphémistiques en italien contemporain. Kraków: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Widłak, S. (1972). Alcuni aspetti strutturali del funzionamento dell’eufemismo. Antonimia, sinonimia, omonimia e polisemia. Wrocław – Warszawa – Kraków – Gdańsk: Accademia Polacca delle Scienze. Widłak, S. (1992). Fra lessicologia e stilistica. Problemi di lessicologia e di stilistica dell’italiano e di altre lingue romanze. Cracovia: “Uni- versitas”. Wotjak, G. (1995). El léxico: Encrucijada de la Lingüística teórica y aplicada, de metodologías y disciplinas distintas. In J. Fernández Barrientos & C. Wallhead (Eds.). Temas de Lingüística aplicada (pp. 104–135). Granada: Universidad de Granada. Wotjak, G. (ed.) (1998). Estudios de fraseología y fraseografía del español actual. Madrid – Frankfurt am Main: Iberoamericana – Vervuert. Zuluaga, A. (1980). Introducción al estudio de las expresiones fijas. Frank- furt am Main: Peter Lang.