53

研究ノート

The Lexical Conceptual Specification (LCS) andLexical Conceptual Elimination (LCE) Principles in Contronymy
FU Kenryo(Professional College of Arts and Tourism)

1. Introduction
1.1 Contradicting Senses in Contronymy
It is cross-linguistically true that one or the same lexical item may have two or
more different senses, with “the context only showing what is meant in each particularcase” (Jespersen, 1942, p. 93). This linguistic phenomenon is termed polysemy. As acommonplace example of polysemy in English, can in (1) below refers to the subject’s“mental ability to do something,” while can in (2) below indicates the subject’s“physical ability to do something” (Hopper & Traugott, 2003, p. 77). Despite theirsemantic difference, the two senses of can in (1) and (2) share a common conceptual
core, that is, a person’s “ability to do something.” Thus, just as Hopper and Traugottconclude, the multiple senses of a polysemous word “share conceptually related
meanings” (2003, p. 77), which is termed Lexical Conceptual Core (LCC) in thisresearch.
(1) I can read German.
(2) I can swim a mile.
(Hopper & Traugott, 2003, p. 77)
There are extreme examples of polysemy in which one sense of a lexeme is so
distinct from another sense of the lexeme that the two senses of the same lexeme areeven opposite or contradict each other. To avoid potential confusion, this study terms
such unique lexical items “contronyms,” as in Karaman (2008) and Fu (2020). Fu(2020) is a case study of contronymy in English, dust, analyzing its syntactic, semantic,
and pragmatic features in their respective contexts. In Fu, dust in (3) is of Remove
Type meaning “to take dust, dirt, or the like away from something,” whereas dust in (4)is of Cover Type describing an opposite action, “to put powder or the like onto
something.”(3) His desk was dusted clean, revealing reflections on the varnished wooden surface.
(4) Lightly dust bronzing powder on your forehead, cheeks and browbone, anywhere

FU Kenryo

54

the sun would hit.
(Fu, 2020, p. 95)
1.2 Distribution of Contradicting Senses in Contronymy
On the one hand, we tend to deem the Remove Type use of the contronym dust to
be the majority, i.e., the unmarked use, and the Cover Type use of dust the minority,i.e., the marked use, which is claimed and supported in Jespersen (1942), Fu (2021),
and multiple English-English and English-Japanese dictionaries. Without excluding
such uses as dust a cake with sugar, Jespersen (1942) states that “to dust generallymeans ‘to free from dust’” (p. 93), which “has the directly opposite sense” (ibid.) to dust

a cake with sugar. Corpus data in Fu (2021) show that roughly speaking, the Remove
Type examples of dust outnumbers the Cover Type examples of dust. Dictionaries also
begin the meaning list of the contronym dust with the Remove Type use followed by
the Cover Type (refer to LEXICO, OALD Online, Youth Progressive, and Genius fordetails).
On the other hand, Clark and Clark (1979) notice a contradicting linguistic
phenomenon with the above, pointing out that “[i]t is noteworthy that there are many
locatum verbs for the positive prepositions (especially for the elementary prepositions

in, on, and at), but only a few for the negatives not-on and not-in” (p. 771). Clark and
Clark’s locatum verbs semantically with the preposition on, viz., the unmarked use
such as blanket in (5) and (6), are similar to the Cover Type verbs in this research andFu (2020), whilst the locatum verbs semantically with the negatives not-on or not-in,viz., the marked use such as stone in (7), bone in (8), and milk in (9), correspond to theRemove Type verbs in this research.
(5) Jane blanketed the bed.
(6) Jane did something to cause it to come about that [the bed had one or more
blankets on it.](Clark & Clark, 1979, p. 769)
(7) stone the dates(8) bone the fish(9) milk the cow(Clark & Clark, 1979, p. 771)
This research assumes that the superficially contradicting senses of a contronym
share a common semantic core at the lexical level. Therefore, the first purpose of thisstudy is to elaborate upon how the contradicting senses of a contronym areconceptually related through a thorough examination of specific examples ofThe Lexical Conceptual Specification (LCS) andLexical Conceptual Elimination (LCE) Principles in Contronymy

55

contronymy based on the LCC and LCS principles in Section Two. Furthermore, thispaper claims that Clark and Clark’s convention on the innovative interpretation ofdenominal verb senses, with some minor improvements proposed in this study, applies
to a contronym’s multiple senses. Thus, the second purpose of this research is to verify
what is unique about the contronym dust in its semantic distribution in Section Three,compared with Clark and Clark’s convention on locatum verbs.
2. Lexical Conceptual Core (LCC) and Lexical Conceptual Specification (LCS)
In this research, the semantic analysis of a word falls into Lexical Conceptual
Core (LCC), which is obligatory or exclusive of any modification, and Lexical
Conceptual Specification (LCS), which is optional or inclusive of further specific details
in context. LCCs are usually defined or partially defined in dictionaries and areresistant to any major changes over time. In contrast, LCSs involve various possible
events, actions, processes or states, varying from context and context. For example, thenoun price, with “the amount of money expected, required, or given in payment forsomething” (LEXICO) as its LCC, is open to further details, even contradicting details,
in various contexts. Thus, although high is opposite to low in semantics in (11), theexample (11) with both high and low is grammatical because price itself is neutral at
the LCC level and open to various LCSs, such as being high and low in (11) and being
reasonable in (10).
(10) In that case, Section 2305 (1) (c) provides that when the price is to be fixed interms of some agreed market or other standard and, for whatever reason, it is not
so set or recorded, the applicable price becomes a reasonable price to be
determined at the place and time of each monthly delivery.
(11) Of course, the monopolist would prefer to sell at a high price to those consumers
willing to pay it, and at a low price to those who are willing to pay only the low
price.
(Google Books, retrieved in July, 2021)
Similarly, the LCC and LCS principles apply to the conflicting Remove Type andCover Type uses of the contronym dust. Dust in (3) in Section One above is of theRemove Type reading, whereas dust in (4) in Section One above bears the Cover Typereading. Despite their oppositeness in the moving direction of dust or the like, a closer
observation demonstrates that the common conceptual core of these two uses is the
motion of dust or the like. Dust denotes the motion of dust or the like only at the LCC
level, without further requiring details such as the direction of the motion at the LCS
level. The LCS enables two possible contradicting senses in the moving direction of

FU Kenryo

56

dust or the like in their respective discourses. The semantic structure of the contronym

dust discussed above can be illustrated in the formula in (12) below, with brackets
indicating the LCC level and parentheses indicating the LCS level.
(12) dust NP = [move dust or the like] (from or onto) NP)
LCC

LCS

The LCC and LCS principles also apply to the contradicting meanings of anothercontronym sanction. For example, the noun sanction can both mean “prohibition,” as in(13a) and (14), and “permission,” as in (13b) and (15). Although (13a) and (13b) aresemantically opposite, closer scrutiny shows that both senses in (13) share a common
LCC, i.e., an official decision in (16) below; on the other hand, at the LCS level, thenature of the official decision or order, viz., whether the decision is to prohibit or
permit something or somebody, is optional and open to the contexts, as in (14) and (15),thereby resulting in two possible contradicting senses of the same noun. In short, thesemantic representation of the noun sanction can be summarized, as in (16) below.
(13) The primary senses of the noun sanction
a. an official order that limits trade, contact, etc.
b. official permission or approval for an action or a change(OALD Online)(14) Kuwait stated its strong desire to help Iraq complete the implementation of the
UNSC resolution and get rid of sanction based on Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
(15) In the places that are socially and culturally intact, this is almost inevitable, as
people take charge and start doing what's necessary without waiting for official
sanction.
(COCA)(16) sanction (n.) = [an official decision] (for / against)
LCC

LCS

The contronym sanction as a verb in (17) semantically consists of an LCC of“make an official decision” and two possible LCSs of “for or against” something or
somebody. The inclusive nature of the LCS enables even the conflicting designation ofsituations according to their respective contexts. Sanction in (18) below belongs to the
Cover Type reading in nature, indicating putting or imposing an official order, i.e.,“penalties,” on “members.” However, sanction in (19) below is the Remove Type readingin nature, meaning removing a decision against something or something, i.e.,permitting something or somebody.

The Lexical Conceptual Specification (LCS) andLexical Conceptual Elimination (LCE) Principles in Contronymy

57(17) sanction (v.) = [make an official decision] (for or against)
LCC

LCS

(18) As a result, more and more medical societies have begun to sanction memberswith penalties like suspension or revocation of their society membership.
(Fu, 2020; Retrieved on March 8th, 2020, from https://www.lexico.com/)(19) Training will commence just as soon as the GAA Club has sanctioned permission,as the Ladies Club will need to use this pitch.
(LEXICO)3. Contronyms and Denominal Verbs
From an evolutionary perspective, languages are constantly changing over time,and such changes are motivated by reanalysis and generalized by analogy (Hopper &Traugott, 2003, p. 39). Among those changes, innovative denominal verbs, i.e.,understandable “expressions we never heard before” (Clark & Clark, 1979, p. 767), area specific example of semantic changes from nouns to verbs without affixation
motivated by reanalysis, one of the methods of grammaticalization. The sense of an
innovative denominal verb has strong semantic relation with its parent noun (Clark &Clark, 1979; Buck, 1997), yet “[i]t is difficult to give a general definition of thesense-relation between substantives and de-substantival verbs” (Jespersen, 1942, p.
93). The reason for the difficulty is that “[t]he verb may designate any action or statethat bears a relation to the substantive in question” (ibid.).
There are certain restraints on the interpretation of innovative denominal verbs,
as summarized in Clark and Clark’s “the innovative denominal verb convention” in(20) below. As for the conditions (20a-e) in coping with the semantic conflict incontronymy, Buck (1997) asserts similar required conditions, but employs a different
and more general term, “the world knowledge” (p. 5), concluding that “[i]t is clear thatthe semantics of these verbs is relational rather than inherent” (p. 5).
(20) In using an innovative verb sincerely, the speaker means to denotea. the kind of situationb. that he has good reason to believec.

that on this situation the listener can readily computed. uniquelye.

on the basis of their mutual knowledgef.

in such a way that the parent noun denotes one rule in the situation, and theremaining arguments of the denominal verb denote other roles in thesituation.
(Clark & Clark, 1979, p. 787)

FU Kenryo

58

3.1 Operation in Lexical Conceptual Specification (LCS)
To simplify the conventions, as mentioned above, and efficiently specify asituation, such as a state, process, or action, denoted by a contronymy verb, we propose
a holistic method, the LCC and LCS principles mentioned earlier. These principles and(12) above can detail the two contradicting senses of dust, as in (21) and (22). (22) is of
the Cover Type use; virtually, at the LCS level, there is almost no constraint on the NP
since everyone can sprinkle dust-like substance on nearly everything in the world welive in. However, (21) is of the Remove Type use; at the LCS level, the NP must becovered with dust or dust-like substance simply because one cannot remove dust or the
like from an NP free from dust or the like.
(21) dust NP = [move dust or the like] from NP (covered with dust)(22) dust NP = [move dust or the like] onto NP
In (23) below, which is a briefly rewritten situation in (3) for the sake of
convenience, the NP, his desk, without any particular context, is not enough thedesignate the situation since his desk could be either covered with or free from dust or
the like. However, the immediate context in (3), “revealing reflections on the varnishedwooden surface,” clears this ambiguity, thereby excluding the Cover Type reading andspecifying the situation as the Remove Type reading.
(23) dust his desk
The situation in (7) above, a denominal verb example, can be illustrated in (24)according to the LCC and LCS principles. (24) is grammatical even with the tiniest
information, the dates, in the context. The “mutual knowledge” between the speaker
and the listener in Clark and Clark (1979) and “the world knowledge” in Buck (1997)
can be briefly categorized in the LCS principle in this research. The LCS justifies theRemove Type reading in (24) and invalidates the Cover Type reading in (25). Similarly,
in another example of a denominal verb, bone in (8), the LCS plays a crucial role indesignating the situation in (26), which is grammatical, and excluding the situation in(27), which is not acceptable. The denominal verb, milk in (9), can mean both (28) and(29) theoretically; (29) is unacceptable simply because it is against the LCS principle.
Specifically, it is difficult for the reader of (29) to define a situation of moving milk to
the cow, in other words, feeding the cow with milk at LCS level.
(24) stone the dates = [move a stone, stones, or the like] from the dates (with a stone
or stones)

The Lexical Conceptual Specification (LCS) andLexical Conceptual Elimination (LCE) Principles in Contronymy

59(25) * stone the dates = [move a stone, stones, or the like] into the dates(26) bone the fish = [move a bone, bones, or the like] from the fish (with a bone orbones)(27) * bone the fish = [move a bone, bones, or the like] into the fish(28) milk the cow = [move milk] from the cow(29) ?milk the cow = [move milk] to the cow
3.2 Operation in Lexical Conceptual Elimination (LCE)
Diachronically, the change in the parts of speech of a particular lexical item canmotivate various changes in the syntactic and semantic features of the lexeme underthe mechanism of reanalysis. Jespersen (1942) points out that denominal verbs “maydesignate any action or state that bears a relation to the substantive in question” (p.
93); theoretically, most denominal verbs can have contradicting senses. However,contronymy is an extreme example of denominal verbs and remains a limited number
due to the LCE principle in this research. Contrary to the LCS principle in Section Two
and Section Three, which defines a specific situation denoted by a lexeme, the LCE
principle functions to eliminate or exclude some confusing or unacceptable readings ofdenominal verbs. The LCE principle in this study is holistic, i.e., an improved principleof Clark and Clark’s “the principle of pre-emption by synonymy,” as in (30) below.
(30) If a potential innovative denominal verb would be precisely synonymous with awell-established verb, the innovative verb is normally pre-empted by thewell-established verb, and is therefore considered unacceptable.
(Clark & Clark, 1979, p. 798)
The LCE principle differs from Clark and Clark’s pre-emption in the limitation on“being precisely synonymous” in (30) above. Clark and Clark (1979, p. 799) verify the
point in (30) using examples of the nouns, such as hospital in (31) and prison in (32)
below, whose denominal verbs, (31b) and (32b), are ungrammatical because of thepresence of other related verbs hospitalize in (31c) and imprison in (32c) created fromtheir respective parent nouns.
(31) a. hospital (n.)
b. *hospital (v.)
c. hospitalize (v.)(32) a. prison (n.)
b. *prison (v.)
c. imprison (v.)

FU Kenryo

60(Clark and Clark, 1979, p. 799)
In this research, the LCE principle applies to a denominal verb which isapproximately synonymous with another verb and is not obligatorily created from thesame parent noun. Therefore, we posit that synchronically, as shown in Table 1 below,
denominal verbs powder and flour, sharing approximately similar meaning with dust,
only have the Cover Type reading since their Remove Type readings are not required or
could be confusing due to the presence of another denominal verb dust, which denotes
the Remove Type reading. Consequently, more Remove Type uses of dust contribute toconverting Remove Type use of dust into the unmarked use.
Table 1. Competition Among dust, flour, and powder
Noun

Denominal Verb
Remove TypeCover Type

dust

dust

dust

flour

*flourflour

powder*powder

powderSecondly, the LCE principle also applies to a case in which the similar senses ofdifferent denominal verbs tend to compete with each other, resulting in an increase or
decrease in the number of uses of related denominal verbs. As shown in Table 1 above,
we posit that after losing its competition against power and flour, the denominal verb

dust exhibits fewer uses of the Cover Type, which partially accounts for thecontradiction between the marked and unmarked uses of dust mentioned in SectionOne.
4. Conclusion
As discussed so far in Sections Two and Three above, the two conflicting senses ofa contronym, especially of a locatum verb, are conceptually related, which has been
proved by the LCC and LCS principles proposed in this research. Thus, the two
opposite meanings of a contronym share a common core at the LCC level, which is
obligatory or exclusive of any modification, and differs at the LCS level, which is open
to further specific details in context.
The LCS principle specifies and decides a particular situation from two potential
situations inherently denoted by a contronym; however, the LCS principle alone is notenough to designate a situation and avoid other possible misunderstandings. On thecontrary, the LCE principle functions to exclude and abandon an unacceptable

The Lexical Conceptual Specification (LCS) andLexical Conceptual Elimination (LCE) Principles in Contronymy

61

situation from two or more potential situations inherently denoted by a contronym.
Thus, this combining operation of the LCS and LCE principles functions
systematically in contronymy. The LCE principle also partially accounts for why theunmarked use, the Cover Type, of locatum verbs has become the marked use, the Cover
Type, of the contronym dust.

References
Buck, R. A. (1997). Words that are their opposite: Noun to verb conversion in English.

Word, 48(1), 1-14. (DOI: 10.1080/00437956.1997.11432459)
Clark, E. V. & Clark, H. H. (1979). When nouns surface as verbs, Language, 55(4),767-811.
Dixon, R. M. W (2005). A semantic approach to English grammar (2nd edition). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Fu, J. L. (2020) Dust: A case study on contronymy, The JASEC Bulletin, 29 (1), 93-101.
Fu, J. L. (2021) A Study on the Semantic Change of the Contronym Dust (Oral
Presentation at JASEC Kansai Research Forum, on January 24th, 2021)
Hopper, P. J. & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization (2nd edition). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Jespersen, O. (1942). A modern English grammar on historical principles (Part VI):

Morphology. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
Karaman, B. I. (2008). On contronymy, International Journal of Lexicography, 21(2),173–192.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics: Typology and process in concept

structuring. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Zhang, S. (2013) A study of the treatment of contronymy in English learner’s
dictionaries. (Master’s thesis to Sichuan International Studies University)

Data and Resources
COCA (Corpus of Contemporary American English)(https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/)
Genius English-Japanese Dictionary (2001)
Google Books (https://books.google.co.jp/)
LEXICO (https://www.lexico.com/)
Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edition, 1989)
Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries online (https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/)
Youth Progressive English-Japanese Dictionary (2004)