We would like to thank Anna Nilsson-Drake for retrieving all the antonyms manually from the dictionary and Jean Hudson, Steven Jones and Lynne Murphy and an anonymous reviewer for most helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. We are also grateful to the editors of the Proceedings of Euralex 2006 for letting us use part of what was published there (Paradis & Willners 2006b).
Antonyms in dictionary entries: Methodological aspects*
Version of Record online: 14 NOV 2007
Volume 61, Issue 3, pages 261–277, December 2007
How to Cite
Paradis, C. and Willners, C. (2007), Antonyms in dictionary entries: Methodological aspects. Studia Linguistica, 61: 261–277. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9582.2007.00136.x
- Issue online: 14 NOV 2007
- Version of Record online: 14 NOV 2007
- Received December 5, 2006 Accepted April 17, 2007
Abstract. This paper takes the treatment of antonymy in Collins COBUILD Advanced Learner’s English Dictionary (2003) as the point of departure for a discussion about the principles of antonym inclusion in dictionaries and corpus methodologies in lexicology. Ccaled includes canonical antonyms such as good/bad and dead/alive, as well as more contextually restricted pairings such as hot/mild and flat/fizzy. The vast majority of the antonymic pairings in the dictionary are adjectives. Most of the antonyms are morphologically different from the headwords they define and typically do not involve antonymic affixes such as non–, un– or –less. Only just over one-third of the total number of pairs is given in both directions. The principles for when antonyms are included in ccaled are not transparent. We propose an initial top-down corpus-driven method to support decisions about antonym selection and inclusion.