RELATIVE SEMANTIC COMPLEXITY IN LEXICAL UNITS 
Bo Ralph 
Department of Computational Linguistics 
University of G~teborg 
GSteborg, Sweden 
Summary 
The lexical component of a human 
language is typically heterogeneous and 
extremely complex. Before we can come 
to grips with the underlying lexical 
organization, we must reduce the be- 
wildering complexity. Methods must be 
elaborated by which the interrelations 
between the units of the lexicon can be 
elucidated. This paper describes how a 
Swedish lexical material stored in a 
computer has been semantically strati- 
fied as a stage in the semantic ana- 
lysis of the items included in the data 
base. In particular, a minor subset of 
the lexical items, consisting of 
current words in the language, has been 
selected as metalanguage in the defini- 
tions. It is argued that, in this way, 
a means of describing the relative 
semantic complexity in lexical units 
is provided. 
Introduction 
The semantic and syntactic inter- 
relations between the lexical units of 
a human language are notoriously com- 
plex and intricate, whether considered 
from the individual language-user's 
point of view or from the perspective 
of the collective competence of a 
language community. Indeed, they are 
so complex that, when it comes to 
thorough semantic analysis, scholars 
have only been able to handle small 
portions of the lexicon at a time. The 
typical lexico-semantic study has 
therefore concerned single lexical 
items or small groups of semantically 
interrelated items, in particular 
so-called word-fields or semantic 
domains. 
On the other hand, there seems to 
be a growing sentiment among linguists 
that the lexical component is very 
basic to the functioning of language. 
The crucial role of the lexicon cannot, 
however, be adequately understood un- 
less the scope is widened. Detailed 
knowledge is, admittedly, quite in- 
dispensable in constructing an overall 
model of the lexicon; but large-scale 
lexical investigations are just as 
necessary in order to reveal the under- 
lying principles of lexical organiza- 
tion. Consequently, computer-based 
lexicology should rank high as a branch 
of computational and theoretical lin- 
guistics. 
The Heterogeneity of Lexicons 
Lexical inventories that have de- 
veloped spontaneously do not usually 
constitute neat and clear-cut systems. 
They are typically skewed in the sense 
that many phenomena which may seem quite 
marginal have nonetheless given rise to 
a rich vocabulary, in contrast to the 
lexical sparsity characterizing several 
domains that are logically more funda- 
mental to man. To take just one example, 
there are, in Swedish, rather few ex- 
pressions for eating while there is a 
great variety of verbs for making all 
sorts of noises displaying only minor 
acoustical (and perceptual) differentia- 
tion. Our creative capacity simply seems 
to be more nourished by our imagination 
with regard to sounds than by our 
imagination with regard to food con- 
sumption. That the asymmetry is quite 
arbitrary is emphasized by the fact 
that other essential human activities 
may produce a rich vocabulary. For 
instance, very fine distinctions can, 
in Swedish, be expressed monomorphemic- 
ally in the field of walking. 
Such disproportions as those just 
mentioned are basically due to histo- 
rical accidents, i.e. pure chance, more 
or less. Consequently, they are 
language-specific rather than universal 
and cannot be ascribed to any general 
tendencies in the human mind. The same 
holds for all culture-dependent ex- 
pressions. Thus, if the lexicons of 
many languages tend to contain words 
for buildings and vehicles, it is 
primarily because human beings tend to 
develop such things and, secondarily, 
need to name them. It can be concluded 
that the reason for the recurrence of 
such terms in various languages all 
over the world is not essentially 
(psycho) linguistic but, rather, a 
corollary of comparable extra-linguistic 
circumstances. 
--115 - 
Cultural conditions may also give 
rise to other types of lexical hetero- 
geneity. The lexicon of a language may 
be viewed as comprising different 
strata, some of which contain common 
words used by everyone, others contain- 
ing words used exclusively by special- 
ists. Technical language - where "tech- 
nical" should be taken in a broad 
sense - in various fields, such as me- 
dicine, law, economy, technology, etc.; 
some forms of language used in certain 
professions or by certain socially de- 
fined groups, like traders, priests, or 
outlaws - these are examples of voca- 
bulary strata that are likely to be 
fully mastered only by relatively few 
individuals. It is to be deplored when 
the language of professional debaters, 
for instance in politics and esthetics, 
also develops in this direction, as is 
often the case. 
Other strata of language may be 
quite familiar to a majority of the 
language-users although they are less 
frequently employed, being tied up with 
different styles, registers, or con- 
textual settings. This may apply to the 
vocabulary of honorific language, re- 
ligious language, etc. Such differentia- 
tion in vocabularies as has been exemp- 
lified here is manifested in a 
language-specific way, but the very 
existence of differentiation is a uni- 
versal trait. It has been suggested 
that lexical inventories can be sub- 
divided into various domains obeying 
different sets of rules that govern the 
relations between language and reality. 
In other words, there may well be 
various kinds of word meanings (cf. 
Fillmore 1978). 5 Information about a 
many-splendoured world is to be con- 
veyed by means of language. The phe- 
nomena referred to are quite different 
in nature, and so the semantic content 
of lexical items may vary accordingly. 
In most authentic vocabularies 
there is a gradient ranging from more 
or less purely grammatical operators 
and structure-dependent items (such as 
the copula, connectives, quantifiers, 
etc.), over items that are partly 
system-oriented, partly more semantic- 
ally weighted (e.g. pronouns, deictic 
expressions, prepositions), all the way 
to items simply indexing "encyclopedic" 
phenomena. There is much fluctuation 
from language to language in this re- 
gard, since the division of labour 
between vocabulary and grammar proper 
may vary. Thus the proportion of words 
with primarily grammatical functions 
may differ to a high degree between 
languages. However, the grammar-oriented 
part of the vocabulary tends to be 
shared by most speakers, more differen- 
tiation being found at the other 
extreme. 
Fillmore has mentioned a number of 
ways in which languages may differ with 
respect to word semantics. There are 
such features as relative analyticity, 
i.e. the degree of semantic trans- 
parency characterizing the total lexical 
system, taxonomic depth, by which is 
meant the dosage of particular as com- 
pared to generic terms, patterns of 
meaning extension, areas of synonymy 
elaboration, collocational patterns, 
etc. (Fillmore 1978, p. 155-157). 5 In 
fact, different domains within the voca- 
bulary of a single language may vary a 
great deal in these respects. For in- 
stance, terminology is often, although 
not always, harder to analyse than are 
common words. In particular, terminology 
tends to invite heavy borrowing of for- 
eign lexical material; in this way the 
portion of arbitrary lexical units 
increases. 
It cannot be doubted that somewhere 
behind the confusing complexity of the 
lexicon there is a clue as to what human 
beings find imperative to recognize as 
delimited concepts. The categorization 
reflected by lexical inventories is con- 
siderably disguised through the hetero- 
geneity which is a basic characteristic 
of the lexical component, as has been 
emphasized repeatedly. As a first step, 
then, methods must be elaborated by 
which the complexity can be duly 
handled. In particular, the semantic 
redundancy of the authentic lexicon 
must be reduced. 
Reducing Redundancy 
It is very natural in lexico- 
semantic analysis to take word defini- 
tions as a point of departure. It can 
be argued that a defined word is seman- 
tically more complex than each word used 
in the definition of that word. Also, 
it is a well-known fact that circularity 
very easily creeps into definitions. 
Although circularity in definitions has 
occasionally been the target of investi- 
gation and has served successfully as a 
basis for determining semantic related- 
ness (e.g. Calzonari 1977), 2 it should, 
ideally, be controlled. 
One way of achieving maximal reduc- 
tion of semantic redundancy in the lex~ 
con is, of course, to define all lexical 
entries by means of an effective meta- 
language, e.g. a minimal defining voca- 
bulary. Our interest can then be focused 
116 
on this minimal word-list on the assump- 
tion that it covers the same semantic 
range as the complete vocabulary defined 
by it. In practical lexicography, de- 
fining vocabularies have been utilized 
in, for instance, The General Basic 
English Dictionary (1942) ; 8 Michael 
West, An International Reader's Diction- 
ary (1965); Iu and, in a project having 
much wider scope and, therefore, holding 
greater theoretical interest, in 
Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary 
English (1978).J 
Defining vocabularies are intui- 
tively attractive. They seem to capture 
the notion of basic vocabulary, the 
general lexical subset included in 
everybody's vocabulary. In some excep- 
tional cases it is very easy to isolate 
this subset. In Dyirbal, for instance, 
a Queensland Australian language, there 
is a special vocabulary used in certain 
social contexts; hence it is referred to 
as "mother-in-law language" (Dixon 
1971). 4 In this subsystem, Dyangul, the 
same grammatical rules apply, but the 
vocabulary is very restricted so that, 
for instance, each Dyangul verb corres- 
ponds to several in the common language. 
Therefore, the Dyangul vocabulary can be 
taken as a model for a semantic classi- 
fication of words in Dyirbal. 
A slight disadvantage in using de- 
fining vocabularies is the levelling of 
depth in the linguistic analysis. The 
lexicon is considered on two fixed 
levels alone: that of the lexical en- 
tries and that of the basic defining 
words. As is well known, however, lexi- 
cal units play very different rQleS in 
the language they are part of. Not in- 
frequently, the semantic interrelations 
within given sets can only be represent- 
ed in a multi-layered fashion. I do not 
wish to claim that the human lexicon is, 
in any strict sense, hierarchically or- 
ganized, but various subdivisions of it 
may well be. 
For instance, to catch something 
means roughly 'to get hold of something', 
to fish means 'to try to catch fish', 
~d W angle means 'to fish with a hook 
and line'. Consistent use of a minimal 
defining vocabulary would yield defini- 
tions like 'to try to get hold of fish 
with a hook and line' for to angle. This 
is by no means a totally inadequate de- 
finition. To angle is clearly related to 
verbal expressions like to get hold of; 
the semantic relatedness becomes appar- 
ent in a comparison with other verbs, 
such as to interrupt, to sneeze, or to 
twinkle. The verbal acts designated by 
to catch, to fish, and to angle are, 
however, not absolutely on a par with 
each other. Both to fish and to angle 
"contain" an element of catching. It can 
be argued that they differ from each 
other, and from to catch, in the way the 
catching is specified. To fish explica- 
tes the object caught, viz. 'fish'. That 
fish is caught is presupposed by to 
angle as well, but with the additional 
specification of the fishing method em- 
ployed. However, the two types of speci- 
fication are not equal with respect to 
the verbal act 'to catch'. While 'to 
catch' is presupposed as an element in 
to fish, the whole meaning 'to try to 
catch fish' is incorporated in to angle. 
The relations can be expressed by 
bracketing in the following manner: 
to catch - '(to try to get hold of)' 
to fish - '(to catch \[= to try to 
get hold of\] (fish))' 
to angle - '(to fish \[= to catch 
(= to try to get hold 
of) (fish)\] (with a 
hook and line))' 
The closer relationship between to fish 
and to angle may be indicated by making 
use of to fish in the definition of to 
angle. Parallel treatment of pairs or 
groups of verbs to the effect that one 
verb may contain not only the general 
semantic properties of another verb but 
actually the other verb itself has been 
suggested by, among others, Binnick 
(1971) I and Fillmore (1978). 5 
In fact, this relative semantic 
stratification of the lexicon is rather 
similar to Weinreich's strategy for in- 
vestigating the semantic content of the 
lexical inventory. Weinreich gives the 
following presentation: 
Stratum 0: terms definable only 
circularly and by os- 
tensive definition 
Stratum I: terms whose definitions 
contain only stratum-0 
terms, but without 
circularity 
Stratum 2: terms whose definitions 
contain only stratum-0 
and stratum-1 terms, 
without circularity 
Stratum n: terms whose definitions 
contain only terms of 
strata 0, I, 2, ... n - 
I. 
He concludes that the metalanguage will 
be made up of the complete ordinary 
language except for stratum n (Weinreich 
1962). ~ 
A similar line of reasoning is at 
the bottom of the organization of the 
Swedish lexical material analysed in the 
117 - 
project Lexical Data Base, carried out 
at the Department of Computational Lin- 
guistics, University of GSteborg. A mi- 
nimal defining vocabulary is, in prin- 
ciple, utilized in definitions. In addi- 
tion, however, words not included in the 
defining vocabulary proper are occasion- 
ally allowed in definitions, with the 
requirement that they should be ulti- 
mately reducible to strict defining 
vocabulary units. The minimal defining 
vocabulary comprises words denoting very 
fundamental concepts pertaining to 
physical elements and forces, geometric- 
al notions, topographical properties, 
state and movement, location, time, 
causation, basic organisms, physical 
and mental functions of organisms, etc., 
as well as more culture-sensitive and 
conventionalized concepts, such as 
colours, artefacts, social conditions, 
and the like. 
A larger subset than the defining 
vocabulary is the so-called fully de- 
fined vocabulary. This part of the voca- 
bulary is provided with elaborated de- 
finitions. Together with the defining 
vocabulary it makes up the semantic hard 
core of the lexicon taken as a whole. We 
are not likely to find more candidates 
for this part of the vocabulary no 
matter how much material is included in 
the data base. Instead, new material 
tends to be of a more specific kind, 
e.g. terminology known by only a few 
people, almost obsolete words, non- 
permanent compounds that have barely 
passed the threshold of lexicalization, 
but which are easily analysable in terms 
of the well-defined part of the voca- 
bulary; in short, words which do not add 
anything further to the basic semantic 
system of the lexicon. These latter 
items are not assigned any proper defi- 
nitions but are semantically specified 
more summarily. 
Thus the data base is, in prin- 
ciple, divided into three strata: 
(I) the ~£i~_~!~X, whose 
units are axiomatic in a logic- 
al sense and highly restricted 
in number; 
(2) the ~!!x defined vocabulary, 
whose units have carefully 
formulated definitions based on 
the defining vocabulary; 
(3) the ~K~h~_~2~!~Z, 
whose units are semantically 
described by approximation. 
In line with the above reasoning as 
regards relative semantic complexity, 
we allow entities from the fully defined 
vocabulary to enter into definitions. 
They are ultimately reducible to 
defining-vocabulary units. The defini- 
tions are more elegantly formulated in 
this manner, but, in particular, the 
interrelations between lexical items are 
more revealingly stated. Such an ap- 
proach, building on extensive lexical 
cross-referencing, implies several theo- 
retical commitments. Therefore, it 
should be emphasized that the data base 
described here is aimed at contributing 
to \[~X~!l~ the semantic interrelations 
between lexical items, in the first 
place. This, however, should not be 
taken to mean that our goal has been an 
ideal ultimate representation of the 
semantic structure in the lexicon. 
Investigating Relative Semantic 
Complexity 
Careful selection of defining units 
and adequate definitional formats are a 
prerequisite for an acceptable result of 
the empirical work under way. It is true 
that lexicographers involved in practic- 
al undertakings naturally seek to attain 
consistent and adequate formulations in 
definitions. The requirement is even 
stronger if semantic structure is the 
main object of analysis. 
Monolingual dictionaries usually 
take the reader's knowledge of the 
language in question for granted. As a 
consequence, the definitions may not be 
explicit enough. For instance, the 
Swedish causative verbs fylla, glSdga, 
runda, sl~ta, sv~rta all agree in focus- 
ing on the result of the respective 
activities. In a standard dictionary, 
ISO, 6 they are defined by verbal phrases 
very similar to each other in structure: 
Verb Definition 
fylla 
'to fill' 
gl~dga 
'to make 
glowing' 
runda 
'to round' 
sl~ta 
'to smooth' 
sv~rta 
'to blacken' 
g~rafull 
'to make full' 
g~ra gl~dande 
'to make glowing' 
g~ra rund(are) 
'to make round(er) ' 
g~ra sl~t 
'to make smooth' 
g~ra svart 
'to make black' 
However, the verb of the paraphrases, 
g~ra 'to make', implies quite different 
activities in the respective cases, per- 
haps something like 'to regulate', 'to 
treat', 'to shape', 'to grind', and 'to 
colour'. By aiming at this higher de- 
gree of exactitude, we both acquire a 
better knowledge of the basic semantic 
properties of the lexical entries para- 
phrased and obtain good candidates for 
118 
the eventual defining vocabulary. 
Although the material is stored in 
and manipulated by the computer, intui- 
tion and Sprachgef~hl play dominant 
roles in this work. Therefore, it is 
urgent to employ methods which may guide 
our intuitions in a favourable direc- 
tion. Since, in Swedish, there is no 
"mother-in-law language", the units of 
the defining vocabulary have to be de- 
termined by a number of methods with the 
joint goal of finding the minimal work- 
able set of defining words. One impor- 
tant method implies large-scale para- 
phrasing of verbs. In a first round, we 
concentrate on such verbs as have equi- 
valent paraphrases involving the base 
morpheme of the original verb, retained 
in the verb complement in the para- 
phrase. Such verbs are, for instance, 
the following: 
Verb Verb paraphrase 
bind-a 
'to bind' 
~xkl-a 
'to cycle' 
fisk-a 
'to fish' 
~l-na 
'to turn 
yellow' 
hamr-a 
'to hammer' 
kant-a 
'to edge' 
~-a 
'to make 
convex' ~-~ 
'to saw i 
tor-ka 
'to dry' 
tvivl-a 
'to doubt' 
festa med band 
'to fix with a band' 
~ka (med/p~) ~! 
'to go by bicycle' 
f~nga risk 
'to catch fish' 
bli 9ul(are) 
'to become (more) 
yellow' 
sl~ med hammare 
'to hit with a hammer' 
f~rse med kan~(er) 
'to provide with an 
edge (or: edges)' 
forma ku~-i~ 
'to shape convex' 
kapa med s~H 
'to cut with a saw' 
g~ra Loll(are) 
'to make dry (or: 
drier)' 
k~nna tvivel 
'to feel doubt' 
The Swedish paraphrases are just 
as natural as the simple verbs in the 
examples given. There are hundreds of 
analogous cases. In a host of other 
examples, there are quite conceivable 
paraphrases of basically the same kind, 
although less conventionalized as col- 
locations. The following verbs are of 
this type: 
Verb Verb paraphrase 
blSd-a 
'to bleed' ~\[~-! 
'to whiff' 
fuml-a 
'to fumble' h~-! 
'to buy' 
pensl-a 
'to paint' 
~!~-~ 
'to pain' 
skrik-a 
'to cry' ~!-~ 
'to pile' ~\[~-~ 
'to grieve' 
tr~l-a 
'to toil' 
uts6ndra blod 
'to give off blood' 
fiska med d~rj 
'to fish with a 
whiffing-line' 
bete sig fuml-igt 
'to act fumblingly' 
f~rv~rva genom k~ 
'to acquire through 
purchase' 
bestryka med ~! 
'to paint with a 
brush' 
~samka R!~H-a (or: ~a~-or) 
'to cause pain' 
utstSta skrik 
'to ejaculate a cry' 
uppl~gga i ~! 
'to arrange in a pile' 
k~nna sq\[~ 
'to feel grief' 
arbeta som en tr~l 
'to work like a slave' 
The verbs of the paraphrases are 
usually deprived of much of the specific 
content characterizing the original, 
simple verbs. They emphasize the purely 
verbal element in the respective events. 
Most of the specific meaning lies, in- 
stead, in the verb complement in the 
paraphrases. It is easily seen that the 
paraphrase verbs represent different 
degrees of abstractness, i.e. they are 
semantically complex to a varying ex- 
tent. They are always, however, less 
complex than the corresponding simple 
verbs they derive from in the analysis. 
Considering the resemblance of these 
verbs to pronouns and other pro-forms, 
"pro-verb" would be a fitting term. 
Once the set of verbs to be used in 
paraphrases is established, it may also 
be employed for verbs with morphologic- 
ally dissimilar paraphrases. For in- 
stance, ~iska 'to love' : hysa k~rlek 
I to feel love , may be classified to- 
gether with other verbs of emotion. A 
similar mode of analysis may also be 
applied to such verbs as cannot be as- 
sociated with paraphrases in any appar- 
ent way: drabba 'to afflict', h~mta 'to 
fetch', m~rka 'to notice', etc. 
As to the formats of the defini- 
tions, it is obvious that the para- 
phrases signal some fundamental proper- 
ties of the paraphrased verbs, besides 
119 " 
the nature of the respective reduced 
verb. Some verbs incorporate an instru- 
ment, even morphologically recognizable 
(cykla, d~r~a, s~ga, etc.), others an 
object implied in the event (bl~da, 
kanta); still others focus on the result 
of the event (gulna, skrika, stapla, 
torka), or on the phenomenon or state 
perceived by an experiencer (pl~ga, 
sofia). A class which is potentially 
very large integrates an adverbial spe- 
cification of the event itself rather 
than the actants involved (e.g. linka 
'to limp', porla 'to purl', tindra 'to 
twinkle'). 
Relations similar to those obtain- 
ing between verbs and verbal phrases 
within a language may be found if cor- 
responding verbal expressions are com- 
pared across languages. This is a wide- 
spread and natural method for reinforc- 
ing observations on patterns of language 
structure. In certain lexical domains 
one language may have developed single 
(i.e. relatively arbitrary) verbs, while 
another language may express the same 
content by phrases. For instance, there 
is a large family of motion verbs in 
both English and Swedish. In Japanese, 
the same meanings are usually rendered 
by various forms of the basic verb for 
'to walk' (aruku) augmented by one of a 
number of mimetic adverbial elements. 
Interestingly, some adverbs of the 
phrasal collocations thus arising in 
Japanese are, themselves, limited to a 
very restricted context. This amounts 
to saying that the phrases are just as 
lexicalized as the single verbs in Eng- 
lish and Swedish (cf. Fillmore 1978). 3 
Transferring this interlingual com- 
parison to one language only, we may 
note that verbal paraphrases lend them- 
selves to classificatory work in an ana- 
logous way. Verbs may be more or less 
productive as pro-verbs in paraphrases, 
they may establish more or less natural 
paraphrases, they may occur in phrases 
which have corresponding single verbs 
or not, they may be more or less syno- 
nymous or antonymous to verbs establish- 
ed as pro-verbs, etc. By comparing dif- 
ferent pro-verbs and their respective 
paraphrases with each other we may also 
find that a pro-verb may occur in the 
paraphrase of another pro-verb, thus 
producing semantic links of the type 
discussed above. In such cases, the re- 
lative semantic complexity is clearly 
recognizable. 
Verbs, in particular, are highly 
rewarding in such work as has been des- 
cribed here. Other word classes are, 
however, accessible to basically the 
same type of analysis. Of course, we are 
aware of many problems connected with 
this approach, e.g. the question of syn- 
tactic compatibility between original 
items and their paraphrases, the rela- 
tive arbitrariness in selecting defining 
units, etc. Furthermore, there are many 
features in the approach resembling ge- 
nerative semantic theory of the early 
1970's (and, incidentally, the work out- 
lined in Mel'~uk and Zolkovskij 19697 
and elsewhere); consequently, the same 
type of criticism as has been raised 
against that theory applies to the pre- 
sent work. 
We do not find this too embarrass- 
ing. Our work is chiefly empirical, 
starting with observable facts, i.e. the 
words themselves, gradually eating our 
way down into deeper semantic structure. 
Thus, in a way, we are working in the 
opposite direction compared with the 
generative semanticists. We have no wish 
to reduce all lexical items to a single 
underlying category of units, and we are 
not prepared to press all lexical items 
into one basic semantic schema. Rather, 
we hope to be able to shed some light on 
the richness of the semantic system of 
Swedish, by elaborating a semantically 
based convertibility system. The method 
we have used seems to us to provide a 
versatile means to such an end. 

References 

I. Binnick, R.I. 1971. Bring and Come. 
Linguistics Inquiry 2. 260-265. 

2. Calzolari, N. 1977. An Empirical 
Approach to Circularity in Dictionary 
Definitions. Cahiers de lexicologie 
31. 118-128. 

3. Dictionary of Contempor@ry English. 
1978. Harlow & London: Longman. 

4. Dixon, R.M.W. 1971. A Method of Se- 
mantic Description. Semantics, ed. 
by D.D. Steinberg and L.A. Jakobcvi~. 
Cambridge: University Press. 

5. Fillmore, C.J. 1978. On the Organiza- 
tion of Semantic Information in the 
Lexicon. Papers from the Parasession 
on the Lexicon, ed. by D. Farkas et 
al. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic 
Society. 148-173. 

6. ISO = Illustrerad svensk ordbok. 1977. 
3rd ed., 3rd pr. Stockholm: Natur och 
Kultur. 

7. Mel'~uk, I.A. and A.K. ~olkovskij. 
1969. Towards a Functioning 'Meaning- 
Text' Model of Language. Essays on 
Lexical Semantics, Vol. II, ed. by 
V.Ju. Rozencvejg. 1974. Stockholm: 
Skriptor. 1-52. 

8. The General Basic English Diction- 
ary, ed. by C.K. Ogden. 1942. New 
York: W.W. Norton & Co. 

9. Weinreich, U. 1962. Lexicographic 
Definition in Descriptive Semantics. 
Problems in Lexico@raphy, 2nd ed. by 
F.W. Householder and S. Saporta 
1967. Bloomington: Indiana Uni- 
versity. 25-44. 

10. West, M. 1965. An International 
Reader's Dictionary. London: 
Longman. 
