1. Lexical semantics By D.A. Cruse
Chapter 4
Introducing lexical relations

2. Sense relations Syntagmatic relations Paradigmatic relations
Serve discourse cohesion, adding necessary informational redundancy to the message, at the same time controlling the semantic contribution of individual utterance elements through disambiguation, for instance, or by signalling alternative – e.g. figurative – strategies of interpretation
Paradigmatic relations
Reflect the way infinitely and continously varied experienced reality is apprehended and controlled trhougt being categorised, subcategorised and graded along specific dimensions of variation. They represent systems of choices a speaker faces when encoding his message.
We will deal mostly with paradigmatic relations, but it must be emphasized that though not explicitly talking about syntagmatic relations, you cannot have one without the other. The influnce eachother.

3. Paradigmatic Lexical Relations
Identity
Inclusion
Overlap
Disjunction
A B A B A B A B

4. Propositional Synonymy
Definition: 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

5. Hyponymy
Definition: 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 is the superordinate of X
E.g. pop is a hyponym of music
Hypernym (superordinate)
(Co-) hyponyms

6. Hyponymy
Entailment:
A sentence containing a hyponym unilaterally entails a parallel sentence which is identical in all respects except that it contains a super- ordinate in place of the hyponym. E.g. John listens to pop entails John listens to music
Reversed direction (i.e. from superordinate to hyponym)
A negative, universial quantifier, form part of a conditional clause or other expression of contingency. E.g. It’s not music entails It’s not pop
Exceptions

7. Compatibility Defining characteristics: Kinds of Compatibility
Definition: 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
Kinds of Compatibility
Strict compatibility
Contigent compatibility

8. Incompatibility
The relation between classes with no members in common.
X and Y are incompatibles if A is f(X) can be found which entails a parallel sentence of the form A is not f(Y): “It’s a cat” entails “It’s not a dog”
Contrary relationship:
“I cycled to work” = true, “I walked to work” ≠ true
“I cycled to work” = false, “I walked to work” = true or false

9. Congruence Variants Finger = congruent meronym of hand
Doctor = hypo-converse of patient
Patient= superconverse of doctor

10. 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 completed running)
Almost & practically => not always full equivalence e.g. p a

11. Quasi-relations Lack of super-ordinate for knife, fork and spoon
Quasi-superordinate would then be cutlery
Lack of super-ordinate for red, orange and yellow
Quasi-superordinate would then be colour

12. Pseudo-relations angle & side
logical equivalence but state different things

13. Para-relations
Lexical relations defined in terms of expectation rather than necessity
Para-hyponymy
dog & pet: expected relationship
but-test:“It’s a dog, but it’s a pet” (expressive paradox) “It’s a dog, but it’s not a pet” (normal)
Para-incompatibility
involves negative expectation
but-test: “He is a student, but he is also a bank manager” (normal) “He is a student, but he is not a bank manager” (redundant – more than is necessary)

14. The Semantic Head
An element which interacts directly with an element or elements outside the construction.
e.g.: Extremely fast cars crash violently
Fast is the semantic head of extremely fast and cars is the head of extremely fast cars.

15. Head-modifier constructions
A head-modifier construction is typically endocentric, that is to say, the head alone can play a grammatical role in the sentence identical to that of the whole construction. This construction is consequently reducible.
e.g.: We drank red wine  We drank wine

16. Head-compliment constructions
A head-compliment construction is typically not reducible syntactically to the head alone. 
e.g.: Arthur stroked the cat  Arthur stroked (what?)

17. Selector and Selectee
It is generally possible to specify a selector in a construction in which co-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 trait “female”.
Selectees , in general, do not presuppose traits of their selectors.

18. Encapsulation
The second directional property involves the head of a construction and any dependent item or items. A dependent item is expected to bring to a construction semantic traits not already prefigured in 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

19. Philonyms, tautonyms and xenonyms
A set of syntagmatic relations can be based on the results of putting grammatically appropriate lexical units together in a construction:
philonyms: if the combination is normal
tautonyms: if the combination is pleonastic we talk of the head of the tautonym
xenonyms: if the combination results in dissonance

20. 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 the clash.
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