Introduction. Criteria of semantic derivation II. Main body

III. Conclusion
Classification of vocabulary into thematic groups is based on common contextual associations. Contextual associations are formed as a result of regular co-occurrence of words in similar, repeatedly used contexts within the framework of sentences.
The main criterion underlying semantic classification of vocabulary items on⁷ the paradigmatic axis is the type of meaning relationship between words.
The criterion of common concept serves to classify words into semantic fields and lexico-semantic groups. Semantic relationship of inclusion is the main feature of hyponymic hierarchical structure Semantic similarity and semantic contrast is the type of relationship which underlies the classification of lexical items into synonymic and antonymic series.
Synonymy and antonymy are correlative and sometimes overlapping notions. Synonymous relationship of the denotational meaning is in many cases combined with the difference in the connotational (mainly stylistic) component.
It is suggested that the term synonyms should be used to describe words different in soundform but similar in their denotational meaning (or meanings) and interchangeable at least in some contexts.
The term antоnуms is to be applied to words different in sound-form characterised by different types of semantic contrast of the denotational meaning and interchangeable at least in some contexts.

References

1. 
   Abedi, J. (2002). Standardized achievement tests and English language learners: Psychometric issues. Educational Assessment, 8(3), 231–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
   
2. 
   Atkinson, D. (Ed.). (2011). Alternative approaches to second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
   
3. 
   Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2012). Framework for English language proficiency development standards corresponding to the Common Core State Standards and the Next Generation Science Standards. http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2012/ELPD%20Framework%20Booklet-Final%20for%20web.pdf. Last accessed 16 June 2015.
   
4. 
   Cumming, A. (2008). Assessing oral and literate abilities. In Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 3–17). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
   
5. 
   U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). The condition of education 2015: English language learners (NCES 2015–144). https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgf.asp. Last accessed 27 June 2015.
   
6. 
   Durán, R. (2008). Assessing English-language learners’ achievement. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 292–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
   
7. 
   Every Student Succeeds Act. Pub. L. No. 114–95. 114th Congress. (2015–2016)Google Scholar