CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The previous chapter has given a short introduction to the background of this research. This

chapter reviews literature related to the concept of lexis and semantics. This examination will build

upon the foundational definitions and theories presented by Jackson and Amvela (2007), Abioye

and Ajiboye (2014), and other scholars, to provide a detailed analysis of how words function within

a language. The review will address key concepts such as polysemy, synonymy, and antonymy as

well as delve into the nuances of semantics, including irony, allusion, and symbolism. By

integrating insights from both lexical and semantic perspectives, this research aims to deepen the

understanding of how meaning is constructed and conveyed through language. The subsequent

sections will explore the intricate relationships between words and their meanings, and how these

relationships influence effective communication and interpretation within various linguistic

contexts.

2.1 Review of Lexis

According to Geeraerts (2010), “the first stage in the history of lexical semantics runs from

1830 to 1930. The lexical semantics as an academic discipline in its own right originated in the

early nineteenth century, but that does not mean that matters of word meaning had not been

discussed earlier” (p. 2). Essentially, an author draws upon and utilises the extensive resources of

language for their creative works. Lexical items enable the author to articulate their thoughts,

convey particular emotions, and craft imagery, all of which contribute to the distinct expressive

beauty of language. This distinctive trait of an author is aptly described by Edem (2023). The author

through the fecundity of his mental construct uses some lexical and semantic features to create

meaning and cohesive elements in the text. The author achieves this through his effective

deployment of words which create a heightened effect and originality in the text among his

readers…

The author's rich vocabulary and its correct application enable the sharing of meaning,

ensuring the cohesion and overall quality of the text. This skilful use of language allows the central
themes of the novel to be prominently highlighted in the minds of the readers Edem (2023, p. 45).

In this context, authors rely on lexical choices and their associated connotations to express their

intended messages. Consequently, it is imperative for the writer to select suitable words to

accurately communicate the intended meaning while also achieving an aesthetic appeal. It follows

that a writer must creatively employ linguistic tools to elicit the desired impact on the audience.

Generally, lexis is recognized as the set of words that are unique to a specific language,

forming the building blocks of sentences. Jackson and Amvela (2007) define lexis as the “stock of

words in a given language i.e., its vocabulary or lexicon” (p. 1). Hence, lexis can be seen as the

collection of words particular to a language. Abioye and Ajiboye (2014) contend that “though lexis

is generally perceived as the stock of words in a given language, it is not limited to this” (p. 6).

They further elaborate, stating, “lexis also comprise certain phrases and idiomatic expressions that

are larger linguistic stretches than the traditional lexical items in which writers employ the

undulating twists and turns encountered while putting together the message” Ajiboye (2014 p. 6).

This implies that lexis encompasses more than just individual words or linguistic items; it also

includes specific phrases and idioms that writers use to convey their messages effectively.

Fromklin et al. (2007) argue that “all language speakers possess a fundamental lexicon,

encompassing the phonetics and semantics of morphemes and words” (p. 186). This implies that

each language features a unique set of words and meanings specific to it, and every language user is

familiar with the sounds, meanings, and syntactic structures necessary for effective communication

within that language.

Babatunde (2001) defines lexicon as “the collection of lexemes within a language,

encompassing all essential linguistic details (for each lexeme) necessary for their production and

comprehension” (p. 13). This implies that the lexemes of a language are embedded in the minds of

its speakers, and this internal storage is crucial for both generating and understanding these

lexemes. Babatunde continues to emphasise that a comprehensive grasp of a language’s lexicon

necessitates an examination of the language's structural framework.

 Saeed (2009) avers that:

A word, then, is a free form which does not consist entirely of (two or
more) lesser free forms, in brief, a word is in actual speech, the word or the
minimum free form plays a very important part in our attitude towards
language. For the purpose of ordinary life, the word is the smallest unit of
speech (p. 51).

Saeed’s explanation of the term emphasises that words represent the fundamental building blocks of

language and hold significant importance within it. Jackson (1988) asserts that “a word is an

ambiguous term and we use it in many ways even in ordinary language” (p. 6). This perspective

highlights that a word can carry multiple meanings, which can complicate effective communication

when such ambiguity arises in spoken or written discourse. Consequently, words serve as crucial

instruments in the process of communication. A language cannot exist without words, and wherever

a language is present, words are also present. The academic study of words is referred to as

lexicology, Jackson & Amvela, (2000, p. 1).

In general, we communicate with words, and the presence of words in a language forms its

core. Words are essential to every language, with their usage helping us derive meanings in various

contexts. Lexical features such as polysemy, synonymy, antonymy, and homonymy further

illustrate the complexity and richness of vocabulary, highlighting the different ways words can

relate to one another and convey nuanced meanings.

2.1.1 Polysemy

Semantically, a word’s meaning can be classified as either a primary or secondary meaning.

In every language, some words possess both primary and secondary meanings, which vary

depending on the linguistic context in which they are used, Romadlani (2021). Polysemy occurs

when a single word possesses multiple meanings or referents, each stemming from a shared origin

or conceptual basis. For instance, the English word "bank" illustrates polysemy through its varied

uses: it can denote a financial institution, the land adjacent to a river, a row of keys (such as on an

organ or typewriter), or the tilting movement of an airplane during a turn. These diverse meanings

arise from different contexts or metaphorical extensions of the original concept, but they are all
interconnected by a common underlying sense. As such, a polysemic word exhibits a range of

related meanings rather than entirely unrelated ones, Udofot (2019).

Taylor (2006) discusses the nature of polysemy, emphasising that it should be understood

not merely as a linguistic phenomenon but as a cognitive one. According to Taylor, "polysemy is

not so much a linguistic phenomenon as a cognitive one, resulting from the way in which our

conceptual categories are structured" (p. 6). This perspective suggests that polysemy reflects the

underlying cognitive processes and conceptual structures that shape how we understand and

categorise meanings. Polysemy occurs because our mental categories and conceptual frameworks

are flexible and often overlap, allowing a single word to have multiple related meanings based on

different contexts and usages.

Taylor further elaborates that "variations in a word’s meaning complicate the picture

semanticists have been working with, at least if this variability is taken to be a property of the

meaning of the word itself" (p. 6). This statement highlights the challenges faced by semanticists

when attempting to define and analyse word meanings. The variability in meaning, according to

Taylor, complicates traditional semantic theories that treat word meanings as fixed and stable

entities. Instead, Taylor argues for an understanding of meaning that accounts for its fluidity and

contextual dependence. This view aligns with the cognitive linguistic approach, which recognizes

that meaning is not a static property but is shaped by cognitive processes and contextual factors.

2.1.2 Synonym

According to Synonyms and Antonyms. (2022), synonyms allow writers to refine their

language and maintain a suitable tone, such as substituting "gross" with "repulsive" in formal

writing (p. 1). By employing synonyms, one can improve the clarity and engagement of text, Harper

(2001).

According to Eyoh (2016):

synonyms are said to be words or phrases with the same meaning or

nearly the same as others in the same language. Implicit in this
definition is the fact that many words do not capture exactly the same
 meanings in specific contexts, though they are synonymous in general
classifications, (74).

What Eyoh means by this definition is that synonyms, although they can be used interchangeably in

a general sense, might have subtle differences in meaning depending on their usage in particular

situations. This suggests that context plays a crucial role in determining which synonym is most

appropriate.

In like manner, Udofot (2019) opines that:

Two lexical items may be synonymous even if they have no referents.

Four items which have referents, identical reference is necessary but
not sufficient condition of synonym. for instance, "palace" and
"bungalow" have the same referent but do not have the same sense.
two or more words are synonymous if sentence resulting from the
substitution of one for the other have the same meaning (39).

What Udofot means by this definition is that synonymy involves more than just sharing a referent; it

also requires that the words have the same sense or meaning. While two words can refer to the same

object or concept, such as "palace" and "bungalow" referring to buildings, they are not necessarily

synonymous if their senses differ. Synonymy is thus determined by whether substituting one word

for another in a sentence yields the same meaning, highlighting that identical reference alone is

insufficient for true synonymy. She continues that there is in reality no true synonyms.

Akmajian et al. (2001) state that in synonymy, the central relationship of meaning is the

equivalence or paraphrase of concepts. This means that synonymous words or expressions convey

the same or very similar meanings, allowing them to be used interchangeably in various contexts.

The essence of synonymy lies in the ability of different terms to represent the same idea or concept,

thereby offering alternative ways to express the same notion. This relationship underscores the

fluidity and flexibility of language, as different words can be employed to achieve similar

communicative effects while enriching the texture and nuance of expression.

Phonologically, Saeed (2009) defines synonyms as different phonological words that

possess the same or very similar meanings. This definition emphasises that while synonyms may

differ in their phonological forms, they convey closely related concepts or ideas, underscoring the
nuanced relationship between sound and meaning in language. By focusing on the phonological

aspect, Saeed highlights how synonyms, despite their variation in pronunciation and spelling, are

fundamentally connected through their semantic equivalence.

2.1.3 Antonym

Lexicographer Egan (1968) makes a rather satisfying definition of “antonymy” based on her

understanding of the nature of the antonymy: “An antonym is a word so opposed in meaning to

another word; it’s equal in breadth or range of application, that is, negates or nullifies every single

one of its implications”. Egan's (1968) definition of "antonymy" describes antonyms as pairs of

words with meanings that are directly opposed to each other and that cover the same range of

contexts. According to this definition, antonyms are not only opposites in meaning but also negate

or nullify all the implications of each other's meanings. For instance, "hot" and "cold" are antonyms

because they represent opposite ends of a temperature spectrum and negate each other's

implications, fitting the same contextual applications.

Antonyms are words that have contrasting or opposite meanings, such as "boy" and "girl,"

which refer to a young human male and a young human female, respectively. This distinction in

reference or attributes characterizes their antonymous relationship, as highlighted by Udofot (2019).

Although both antonymy and synonymy link words together within the lexicon, Gross et al.

(1988) argue that antonymy and synonymy differ significantly. They assert that while synonymy

pertains to a relationship between lexical concepts, antonymy refers to a relationship between

words, rather than between concepts. This means that synonyms are words that have similar

meanings or concepts. For example, "happy" and "joyful" are synonyms because they both relate to

the concept of positive emotional states. In this sense, synonymy is about the conceptual overlap

between different words. Antonymy, on the other hand, is described as a relationship between

words rather than concepts. This means that antonyms are words that have opposite meanings but

are not necessarily connected through the same conceptual framework. For example, "happy" and
"sad" are antonyms because they represent opposing emotional states. The relationship here is

between the words themselves rather than a direct conceptual overlap.

Justeson and Katz (1991) also describe antonymy as a lexical relation, specific to words

rather than concepts. Indeed, the definition of antonymy should encompass both lexical and

semantic aspects. Antonyms must exhibit a clear opposition in meaning, but they also need to

maintain a strong, well-established lexical connection with each other (Jackson, 1988).

2.2 Review of Semantic Features

Semantics is broadly recognized as the study of meaning in language. According to

Babatunde (2001), “semantics is derived from a Greek verb meaning to signify; it involves the

analysis of meaning, aiming to convey and categorize experiences through language” (p.1). It can

be succinctly described as “the linguistic field concerned with the meaning of words and sentences

within a language”, Ogbulogo (2005, p. 4). Semantics explores how meanings are assigned to words

and phrases, and it examines the interplay between language, cognition, and behaviour, Pei (1966,

p. 313). Understanding the connection between language and meaning is crucial for uncovering the

nuanced implications embedded in various expressions.

McGregor (2009) argues that the notion of meaning in linguistics revolves around what is

conveyed through sentences, utterances, and their elements within a language. He suggests that the

idea or thought in the speaker's mind is encoded in such a manner that it transmits a signal to the

listener, allowing the message to be comprehended. McGregor elaborates that "the context which is

being communicated in a language is meaning which makes a language effective" (p. 129). His

perspective underscores that both the speaker and listener play roles in assigning appropriate

meaning to words, with the context of the conversation shaping the interpretation of specific

expressions.

David and Elder (2004) submit that:

Semantics is that part of linguistics description which deals with

meaning. It is often divided into lexical semantics dealing with the
meaning of word and grammatical semantics, how morpheme
meanings are combined by grammar to form the meanings of
 utterances. (p. 48)

The statement above demonstrates that the utterance of any word within a language inevitably leads

to the extraction of meaning. The meanings of words arise from their combinations. Semantics,

concerned with words, allows the receiver to interpret the underlying significance.

McMahon (1994) observes that “a word has a whole range of shades of meaning: words not

only gain and lose meanings with relative ease. They also accumulate them” (as cited in Singh,

2005, p. 66). This implies that meanings evolve over time and can shift based on the context in

which they are used. Odebunmi (2006) emphasises that “the engine of language is meaning; without

meaning, there is no language” (p.156). This highlights that meaning is a fundamental and

indispensable component of language.

The primary function of language is to produce or transmit meaning. Meaning holds critical

importance across all languages. Analysing meaning is fundamental to both verbal and non-verbal

human interactions; without meaning, the study of concepts becomes impossible, and effective

communication cannot occur. Semantics provides insight into the meaning of words and assists us

in articulating our thoughts with precise language.

The primary function of language is to produce or transmit meaning. Meaning holds critical

importance across all languages. Analysing meaning is fundamental to both verbal and non-verbal

human interactions; without meaning, the study of concepts becomes impossible, and effective

communication cannot occur. Semantics provides insight into the meaning of words and assists us

in articulating our thoughts with precise language. Furthermore, semantics encompasses various

features such as satire, allusion, satire, irony, humour, and symbolism, which enrich our

understanding and expression of complex ideas. These semantic devices allow us to convey

nuanced and layered meanings, enhancing the depth and effectiveness of our communication.

2.2.1 Irony

There are different definitions for “irony” and different scholars have worked on the concept of

irony from different points of view over the years. Therefore, giving an exact and comprehensive
definition of irony is not a straightforward activity. Muecke (1969, p.7) believes that the concept of

irony is vague’ unstable and multiform. Cutler (1974, p.117) considers that an ironic utterance

expresses a conveyed meaning which is the opposite, converse, or reverse of its literal meaning.

Based on the classical definition of irony, Cutler (1974, p.117), in her article On Saying What You

Mean without Meaning What You Say, considers that:

an ironic utterance expresses a conveyed meaning which is the

“opposite,” “converse” or “reverse” of its literal meaning. She also
states that the speaker produces this kind of utterance “by
superimposing a certain intonation contour which signals to his hearers
that the utterance is intended to be ironic.

Corbett and Connors (1999, p. 379) classify irony as a trope, indicating that irony is a type

of figurative language characterized by “a deviation from the ordinary and principal signification”

of a statement. In the view of Mark Wenger (2014), irony is:

…any element of a narrative or communication of human experience

that is unexpected or incongruous (containing some form of disconnect
between what is and what would seem to be appropriate). This simple
definition assumes an author/speaker and audience/listener, at least one
of whom has the capacity to intend and perceiving meaning, (1).

What Wenger means is that irony involves a surprising or mismatched element in a story or

communication, showing a gap between what actually happens and what is expected. For irony to

be effective, there must be someone to create it and someone else to notice and understand it,

ensuring the intended meaning is perceived.

Gornostayeva (2016) demonstrates that speakers may convey attitudes through an implicit

evaluation of either themselves or others. According to Gornostayeva (2016), there is a distinct

relationship between what is expressed and what is implied, such that neither can wholly replace the

other. This observation supports the view of irony as a speech genre that conveys a meaning

different from the literal one, depending on the communicative intention. Conversely, the reverse is

merely a component of the contradictory proposition, which is enriched with a complex set of

attitudes that contribute to deriving the intended meaning. Bertuccelli (2018) explains this point as

follows:
 if we say p (You are a big help) and communicate –p (You are not a big
help), and if p may be explicated like att(p), where att is the set of
(positive) mental states and feelings which cluster to conventionally
produce the illocutionary force “praise” then by communicating –p we
detach the positive attitude from the content, and we transitively turn
the illocution into its negative counterpart (“blame.”) (p. 68)

The passage explains verbal irony by showing how a speaker can use positive language to convey a

negative sentiment. Specifically, when someone says something like "You are a big help" but

intends to communicate the opposite (i.e., "You are not a big help"), they are using verbal irony.

This involves detaching the positive attitude usually associated with praise from the literal content

of the statement, thereby transforming the intended illocutionary force from praise to blame.

Essentially, the speaker's actual intention shifts from expressing a positive sentiment to conveying

criticism.

2.2.2 Allusion

An allusion is a rhetorical device that makes reference to a well-known story, event, person,

or object to draw a comparison in the readers' minds. For example, a writer might want to convey

her main character's battle against a much stronger opponent. To illustrate that her character is

virtuous and has a slim but real chance of winning, she might describe the confrontation as 'a David

and Goliath situation.' This alludes to the famous biblical tale, evoking the image of a seemingly

one-sided battle where the underdog has a chance at victory, Adaya (2003).

Some allusions, like the one mentioned, are straightforward, while others can be more

subtle. Since the referenced story, event, person, or object can have numerous associated meanings,

allusions often carry a wealth of implications and attitudes. In the case of the David versus Goliath

allusion, it not only points to a scenario where one party has a clear upper hand but also suggests

that the one who deserves to win, and likely will win, is the one with less power, Adaya (2023). In

the words of Zgurovska (2023), allusion is a stylistic device which works best if the author or

speaker alludes to something which the readership or audience can be familiar with, but without

giving any profound commentaries.

 In the view of Salah (2024), an allusion is a subtle reference to a place, event, person, object,

or literary work that is likely familiar to the reader. In essence, it is an indirect mention of

something, where the meaning is implied rather than explicitly stated, with the expectation that the

reader will grasp the intended significance. Salah continues that an allusion refers to a subtle or

indirect reference made within a literary work to something widely recognized outside of it, such as

a famous person, place, event, story, or piece of art, literature, music, or popular culture. This

reference carries significant historical, cultural, literary, or political meaning. Essentially, allusion

occurs when a poet or author subtly hints at or implies a connection to a specific person, figure,

event, or object, or even to a portion of another text. The effectiveness of an allusion relies on the

reader's ability to recognize and understand the reference being made. For instance, T.S. Eliot's

poem The Hollow Men incorporates an allusion in its title, which merges the titles of Rudyard

Kipling's poem The Broken Men and William Morris's book The Hollow Land. Additionally, it is

important to state that the title also draws inspiration from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Murphy

(2007).

There are no tricks in plain and simple faith, But

hollow men, like horses hot at hand, Make gallant
show and promise of their mettle, But when they
should endure the bloody spur, They fall their crests,
and like deceitful jades, Sink in the trial. (Act V, Sc. 3, line 55)

The phrase "hollow man" describes an individual who is devoid of spiritual, moral, and ethical

substance, leading to a life devoid of meaning. The term "lost violent souls" refers to souls that are

not necessarily evil, but are instead empty and lost, lacking depth or purpose.

Authors use allusions with the expectation that readers will recognize the references, as the

intended impact is diminished if the reader is unfamiliar with them. When understood, allusions can

significantly enrich the meaning and connotations of a text, adding layers of depth to its

interpretation, Saleem (2015). In Elnathan John's Be(com)ing Nigerian: A Guide, allusions are

employed to draw connections between contemporary Nigerian experiences and historical or

cultural references. These allusions serve to amplify the satire and critique embedded in the text,
offering readers a more nuanced understanding of Nigerian identity and socio-political issues.

Examples of such allusions in the text will illustrate how John uses these references to deepen his

commentary on the complexities of Nigerian society.

2.2.3 Symbolism

Symbolism has long been a prominent feature in literature, allowing authors to convey

complex ideas and emotions through the use of symbols. Barthes (1967) suggests that symbols

within a text are not confined to the meaning intended by the author. Rather, they are subject to

various interpretations influenced by the reader's personal experiences and cultural background.

Barthes states, "The birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the author" Barthes (1967,

p. 76). this means that for a text to have its full range of meanings and interpretations, the author's

original intent must be set aside. This allows readers to engage with the text independently, drawing

their own interpretations based on their experiences and perspectives, rather than being confined to

what the author intended. Essentially, the focus shifts from the author's perspective to the reader's

experience and interpretation.

When considering the symbol as a trope, Mihaela Mancaş defines it as a term used to

represent an entire category of objects, an abstract concept, or a key characteristic with which it is

associated. The symbol has two main attributes: it is always derived from the semantic realm of

concrete objects, and the substitution of one term for another is based on a specific, intentional

rationale. This means that symbols are not arbitrary but are grounded in a meaningful relationship

between the term and what it signifies, Mancaş (2005).

Gabriela Duda defines a symbol as representing a connection between a component of an

ideal world and an element of the tangible, visual world. According to Duda, this relationship is

established through mediation, where the literary symbol relies on a pre-existing system of

designation. This connection allows the symbol to convey both explicit and implied meanings,

Duda (2000). The relationship formed between the symbolised aspect and the symbolising element
is fundamentally one of mediation. A literary symbol is constructed upon an existing system of

reference, which allows it to emphasise both its literal meaning and its implied significance.

According to Bălu and Iancu (2006, p. 15), a symbol is regarded as a tangible sign that,

through its explicit representations or suggested resemblances, conventionally signifies something

other than itself. In symbolic aesthetics, the symbol encapsulates and radiates the fundamental

analogies of the universe, transforming from a mere substitute for an abstract idea into a

concentrated embodiment of these essential connections. According to a broad definition provided

by Rodica Zafiu, a symbol is essentially a tangible image with its own inherent meaning. However,

due to a particular type of relationship, it also represents a more abstract concept, Zafiu (1996).

2.3 Lexico-semantics
Lexico-semantics, sometimes referred to as 'lexical-semantics,' is a branch of linguistics

concerned with the relationship between words and their meanings. Lexico-semantic features in

stylistic analysis involve examining two formally distinct levels of style markers: lexical and

semantic features. As noted by Khan and Jabeen (2015, p. 128), this level of stylistic analysis

explores how individual words and idioms pattern in different linguistic contexts with respect to

their meaning. The focus here is on the style of speaking or writing determined by the choice of

words used by a speaker or writer, and on any instances where words require imaginative

interpretation to derive their meaning, rather than being understood literally.

According to Lyons (1977, p. 24), "lexical semanticists are usually concerned with the

meaning of words, how they are depicted in the mind of the speaker and the way in which they are

employed in texts and discourse." This approach emphasizes the importance of understanding both

the explicit and implicit meanings of words. A writer's or author's diction can be denotative,

meaning the words have a direct, literal meaning without additional interpretative layers.

Conversely, it can be connotative, where words evoke various associated meanings, feelings, and

ideas that extend beyond the literal form of the word itself.

"Lexical-semantics is the study of words and meanings and the relatedness of the lexical

items in a context", Ugwu & Ekundayo (2013, p. 2). This field explores how a language’s lexicon
interacts with the multiple meanings that arise in different contexts. According to Ugwu and

Ekundayo (2013), lexico-semantics is also described as a “sub-branch of semantics that deals with

the study of words and meaning and the relatedness of lexical item in syntagmatic structures” (p. 2).

This indicates that the relationship between words and meanings must adhere to syntactic rules.

Mowarin (2010) asserts that “lexico-semantics deals with the study of lexis; it focuses on

denotation, lexical relations, derivational relations and lexical universals” (p.2). This implies that

the meaning of a word is partly determined by its relationship with other words within the language.

In lexical semantics, it is evident that the denotative meaning of a word is not examined

independently. Conversely, McGregor (2009) argues that “words often have connotation, unstable

meaning associations such as emotional overtones” (p. 153). This indicates that words tend to

possess multiple meanings, which can differ depending on the context in which they are used. The

contributions of these scholars suggest that lexico-semantics involves understanding words and the

meanings that can be derived from them, both literally and contextually. McGregor's view supports

the notion that words carry connotations and are often polysemous, having multiple meanings. This

complements Saeed’s (2009) perspective that words should not be analysed in isolation but rather in

relation to their surrounding words to fully grasp their meaning (p.53).

Lexico-semantics examines how words' meanings are interconnected and how these

meanings are expressed in texts through suitable lexical selections, Trask (1997, p.9). This concept

of lexico-semantic relations pertains to the way in which meanings are actualized in language via

the precise choice of words. Darbyshire (1967) encapsulates this notion by stating that “lexis is the

branch of linguistics which deals with the major units of language and carries the burden of

referential meaning” (p. 139). In essence, each word must denote an entity and align with

surrounding words to convey the intended meaning effectively Jackson & Amvela, (2007, p.49).

Thus, every word in a language has a purpose. The interplay between words shapes the message

that the sender intends to communicate to the receiver. The meaning of a word must be self-

consistent. Consequently, a proficient speaker of any language must be adept at selecting

appropriate words for various contexts. Lexico-semantics focuses on illustrating the meaning of

each word within a language and demonstrating how these meanings are interlinked (Saeed, 2009,

p.50).

In essence, lexico-semantic analysis elucidates the meaning of individual words and

explores their interrelationships. It further examines how the meaning of lexical units aligns with

the linguistic structure. Elendu (2017) asserts that “lexis and semantics are so intricately linked that

they cannot be separated from each other in the description of texts” (p. 39). Ultimately, lexical-

semantics provides insights into word meanings and their connections, which is essential for clear

and effective communication.