lexical and semantie relations

More documents

Recommendations

Info

not be equally hey denote the ~yare variants umber of nonmd affect. The let but no bath) iear- ynonyms, word to mean abhor absolute near- ynonyms ecau e English gical processes fect ynonyms ung generally tel'drops out of :heOld English . In other ca es, when Norman Engli h in the r these animal e ox or sheep or ngli h speakers as beef, mutton, led for denoting rrowings, either e case of lamb) :a e of turkey). :d for technical ile, the Latinate ; more likely to ans. First, it is ~- it takes more nt, When we go the as umption Lexical and semantie relations l 13 of a principie of contrast - that different lingui tic form are associated with different meanings. This means that if we come across a word that seem to mean the same thing a another word we already know, we expect it to have orne difference - in denotarion, connotation, or social meaning - from the other word. Clark and Clark (1979) give examples of when the common proce of making nouns into verbs result in a new lexerne that contra ts with the extant verb, a for to cook and to chef in (l l): (Il) a. Phil cooked up a feast. b. Phil cheťd up a feast. Tocook is an e tabli hed verb, but if we read a new ve rb to ch~fthat ostensibly denotes the same activity as to cook, then we presurne it mu t mean something a little different than cook. For instance, one might interpret (l lb) as connoting more professionalism or panache on Phil's part than (lIa) does. In summary, while language resist synonyrny, they can nevertheless tolerate words that are very close in meaning. Having words that overi ap in meaning can be seen as enriching, rather than duplicating, our vocabulary. While English is aid to be particularly synonyrn-rich, this should not be taken to say it is more expressive than languages with fewer synonyms, since subtie differences in mean ing can be conveyed a well through other yntactic, rnorphological, and paralinguistic (e.g. intonational, gestural) means. 6.2.3 Hyponymy and hyperonymy: inclusion relations Another type of paradigmatic relation involves meanings that contain, or are contained in, other meanings - or, to put it a different way, when the extension (§2.3. l) of one word is a subset of the extension of another. For example, the extension of cheddar i a ubset of the extension of chee e; everything that ischeddar is also cheese, but everything that is chee e is not necessarily cheddar (since it could be gouda or rnozzarella or feta instead). We could say then that cheddar is a type of cheese, and that the meaning 'cheese' is included in the meaning of cheddar. Properties of inclusion relations The inclusion relation i asymmetrical; cheddar i a type of cheese, but cheese i not a type of cheddar, o we need different names for the two directions in the relation: cheddar i a hyponym of cheese, and cheese is a hyperonym of cheddar. These terms come from the Greek-derived prefixes hypo- 'under' and hyper- 'over,' and this under/over imagery is useful in picturing hyponyrn paradigms a "family trees" as illustrated in figure 6.1 which shows the y ternatic classification, or taxonomy, of foods (with particular attention to chee e). Strictly speaking we u e the terms hyponytn and hyperonym. when speaking about the relations between word like cheese and cheddar. lf we talk about cheese or cheddar itself, or the notion of CHE E S E or CHE O o AR (rather than the words for
114 LEXICAL MEA l G food I =--= meat dairy product fruit vegetable ~ chee e bul/el' yogurt Cheddar feta Edam Gouda Figure 6.1 A partial taxonomy of food, particularlv chee e grain them), we refer to superordinate and subordinate categorie . So, we can ay that the word cheese i a hyperonym of the word cheddar and that the category CHEESE i uperordinatetothecategorYCHEDDAR. Wecanabbreviatethi with < and >: cheddar < cheese and cheese> cheddar. The ymbol alway points toward the smaller category. Figure 6.1 show that while one word may have several hyponym , each hyponym has only one immediate (i.e. on the next level up) hyperonym. A well as being asymmetrical the inclusion relation i. often aid to be transitive, which is to say that if X < Y and Y < Z, then X < Z. For example, cheddar is a type of cheese and chee e i a type of food, therefore cheddar i a type of food too. But this is where defining hyponymy get tricky, ince not all 'type-of' relations are tran itive, as (12) shows: (12) a. b. c. a peci men cup (as used for urine samples) is a type of cup a cup i a type of drinking ves el #!! a peci men cup i a type of drinking ves el The intransitivity of specimen cup < cup < drinking vessei tem from the fact that the 'type-of' relations in (12a) and (l2b) are not the ame. The relation in (l2a) involves proper inclusion; that is, the meaning cup is included in the meaning specimen cup - a cup i a container with a wide, round opening and a low profile that can hold liquid , and a peci men cup i a particular kind of low container with a wide/round opening. On the other hand, (12b) i not proper inclusion - the meaning of cup doe not include the meaning of drinking vesse/instead a cup is an example of omething that can be u ed as a drinking ve sel. Cru e (1986) calls the proper-inclusion type of hyponymy taxonymy ( ince these are the relations found in cla ic taxonomies), while the ca e in (12b) can be called functionaJ hyponymy, ince we can say 'is used a ' rather than 'i a type of' in de cribing the relation. Beside functional hyponymy, there are other types of hyponymy that many would not con ider to be 'true' hyponymy. A Cruse (2000b) note , all queen are women, but iť a bit funny to aya queen is a type of woman (but le funny to say a queen is a type of monarch). In other words, we'd probably not li t queen in the same taxonomy in which we have the term woman, so queen < woman i not a taxonymic relation, while queen < monarch i . We can think of taxonyms as prototypical hyponyms, ince they are reliably tran i is a type of Y' The inclusion/taxonym relation ynonymy in light of the e tem Tran itive or intransitive? l yo near- ynonyms? Folk vs. scientift An important thing to notice valuable to u on an everyda hyperonym for cheese. In eve i a type of food bul in lhe ' i a much-needed lexeme th. chee e belongs to and the Ol taxonorny that goe traight while in more specialist con with more fine-grained level ation , we are happy to say need to specify dog < cani tel' how many level a taxo: apply. Even among the smaller rn alient - i.e. more readily u I cheese example, notice that if to caJl it a cheese sandwich r; of cheddar, you would proba' have more specific informati caJl it cheese rather than CI/( general names in the e ituai a dairy-product sandwich. T that we generally attend to c Rosch (1978) and other h gui tie and cognitive term . li we notice and can easily dií tie level, the names for basi one morpheme rather than of the recognized propertie table 6.1.
Page 1 and 2: 6 lexical and semantie relations Ke
Page 3 and 4: 110 LEXICAL MEA ING or antonym for
Page 5: 112 LEXICAL MEA ING are not strictl
Page 9 and 10: 116 LEXICAL MEANING Table 6.1 Prope
Page 11 and 12: 118 person adult ~ child mÔoman bo
Page 13 and 14: 120 LEXICAL MEA I G not tall ------
Page 15 and 16: 122 LEXICAL MEA ING for instance mo
Page 17 and 18: 124 LEXICAL MEANI G The mo t extrem
Page 19 and 20: 126 l' z o vi :J ..J U ~ 11 (l) X -
Page 21 and 22: 128 LEXICAL MEANING finger (l have
Page 23 and 24: 130 d. I want lo be a somebody/(#so

lexical and semantie relations

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?