Lexical Semantics Ch 4_GrB4

8/2/2019 Lexical Semantics Ch 4_GrB4

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lexical-semantics-ch-4grb4 1/20

Lexical semanticsBy D.A. Cruse

Chapter 4

Introducing lexical relations



Sense relations

Syntagmatic relations ± Serve discourse cohesion, adding necessary informational

redundancy to the message, at the same time controlling thesemantic contribution of individual utterance elements throughdisambiguation, for instance, or by signalling alternative ± e.g.figurative ± strategies of interpretation

Paradigmatic relations

± Reflect the way infinitely and continously varied experiencedreality is apprehended and controlled trhougt being categorised,subcategorised and graded along specific dimensions of variation.They represent systems of choices a speaker faces when encodinghis message.



Paradigmatic Lexical Relations Identity

Inclusion

Overlap

Disjunction

A B

A B

A

B

A B



PropositionalS

ynonymyDefinition: Synonyms are different lexemes which have the

same or similar meanings - Identity. E.g. friend, pal, mate

X is a propositional synonym of Y if: ± X and Y are syntactical identical

± S1 (X) = S2 (Y)

Example: He was drunk He was intoxicated



HyponymyDefinition: The meaning of a word which must be said to be

includedd in that of another ± Inclusion.

X is a kind of Y : i.e. x is the hyponym of y, and y isthe superordinate of X ± E.g. pop is a hyponym of music

Music

Hip-hop pop punk

Hypernym (superordinate)

(Co-) hyponyms



Hyponymy Entailment:

± A sentence containing a hyponym unilaterally entails a

parallel sentence which is identical in all respectsexcept that it contains a superordinate in place of thehyponym. E.g. John listens to pop entails John listens to music

± Reversed direction (i.e. from superordinate tohyponym)

A negative, universial quantifier, form part of a conditionalclause or other expression of contingency. E.g. It¶s not musicentails It¶s not pop

± Exceptions



CompatibilityDefinition: The relationship that can be established between

words with partly overlapping meaning ± E.g. dark and night

Defining characteristics: ± No systematic entailment

± Must have superordinate in common

Human Being

Husband Policeman

Kinds of Compatibility ± Strict compatibility

± Contigent compatibility



Incompatibility The relation between classes with no members in

common.

X and Y are incompatibles if A is f(X) can befound which entails a parallel sentence of the form A is not f(Y): ³It¶s a cat´ entails ³It¶s not a dog´

Contrary relationship: ± ³I cycled to work´ = true, ³I walked to work´ true

± ³I cycled to work´ = false, ³I walked to work´ = true or

false



Congruence Variants Finger = congruent meronym of hand

Doctor = hypo-converse of patient Patient= superconverse of doctor



Partial relations Finish : can occur without overt DO, can

take gerund complement (I have finished

running) Complete: require an overt DO, cannot take

gerund complement( ? I have completedrunning)

Almost & practically => not always fullequivalence e.g. p. 97 12a



Quasi-relations Lack of super-ordinate for knife, fork and

spoon

± Quasi-superordinate would then be cutlery

Lack of super-ordinate for red, orange andyellow

± Quasi-superordinate would then be colour



Pseudo-relations angle & side

± logical equivalence but state different things



Para-relationsLexical relations defined in terms of expectation rather than necessity

Para-hyponymy

± dog & pet: expected relationship but-test:³It¶s a dog, but it¶s a pet´ (expressive paradox)

³It¶s a dog, but it¶s not a pet´ (normal)

Para-incompatibility ± involves negative expectation

but-test:³He is a student, but he is also a bank manager´ (normal)³He is a student, but he is not a bank manager´ (redundant ± morethan is necessary)



TheS

emantic Head An element which interacts directly with an

element or elements outside theconstruction. ± e.g.: Extremely fast cars crash violently

± Fast is the semantic head of extremely fast and

cars is the head of extremely fast cars.



Head-modifier constructions A head-modifier construction is typically

endocentric, that is to say, the head alonecan play a grammatical role in the sentenceidentical to that of the whole construction.This construction is consequently reducible.

± e.g.: We drank red winepWe drank wine



Head-compliment constructions A head-compliment construction is

typically not reducible syntactically to thehead alone. ± e.g.: Arthur stroked the catp Arthur stroked

(what?)



Selector and

Selectee

It is generally possible to specify a selector in a construction in whichco-occurrence restrictions are operating. In a head-modifier construction, the modifier is the selector, but in a head-complement

construction it is the head which the selector. Selectors, generally, presuppose one or more

semantic traits. ± e.g.: Pregnant in pregnant X

± X, the head of the construction, bears the semantic trait³female´.

Selectees , in general, do not presuppose traits of their selectors.



Encapsulation

The second directional property involves the headof a construction and any dependent item or items.

A dependent item is expected to bring to aconstruction semantic traits not already prefiguredin the head; if not the combination is pleonastic.Under such circumstances the head encapsulates

the meaning of the dependent item. ± e.g.: the male uncle



Philonyms, tautonyms and

xenonyms A set of syntagmatic relations can be based

on the results of putting grammatically

appropriate lexical units together in aconstruction: ± philonyms: if the combination is normal

± tautonyms: if the combination is pleonastic wetalk of the head of the tautonym

± xenonyms: if the combination results indissonance



Dissonance There are three degrees of dissonance:

± Inappropriateness:

Is diagnosed by the fact that it is cured by substituting a prepositional synonym for one of the items involved in theclash.

± Paradox occurs when: There is no possibility of resolving dissonance by synonymous

substitution

But there exits a superordinate of either xenonym which is philonym of the other.

± Incongruity Characteristic of incongruity is that there is no superordinate of

either xenonym which can restore normality

Documents

Lexical Semantics Ch 4_GrB4