Presentation on theme: "Lexical semantics By D.A. Cruse"— Presentation transcript:
1Lexical semantics By D.A. Cruse Chapter 4Introducing lexical relations
2Sense 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 interpretationParadigmatic relationsReflect 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.
4Propositional Synonymy Definition: Synonyms are different lexemes which have the same or similar meanings - Identity. E.g. friend, pal, mateX is a propositional synonym of Y if:X and Y are syntactical identicalS1 (X) = S2 (Y)Example: He was drunk ↨ He was intoxicated
5HyponymyDefinition: 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 XE.g. pop is a hyponym of musicHypernym (superordinate)(Co-) hyponyms
6HyponymyEntailment: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 musicReversed 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 popExceptions
7Compatibility Defining characteristics: Kinds of Compatibility Definition: The relationship that can be established between words with partly overlapping meaningE.g. dark and nightDefining characteristics:No systematic entailmentMust have superordinate in commonKinds of CompatibilityStrict compatibilityContigent compatibility
8IncompatibilityThe 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
9Congruence Variants Finger = congruent meronym of hand Doctor = hypo-converse of patientPatient= superconverse of doctor
10Partial relationsFinish : 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
11Quasi-relations Lack of super-ordinate for knife, fork and spoon Quasi-superordinate would then be cutleryLack of super-ordinate for red, orange and yellowQuasi-superordinate would then be colour
12Pseudo-relations angle & side logical equivalence but state different things
13Para-relationsLexical relations defined in terms of expectation rather than necessityPara-hyponymydog & pet: expected relationshipbut-test:“It’s a dog, but it’s a pet” (expressive paradox) “It’s a dog, but it’s not a pet” (normal)Para-incompatibilityinvolves negative expectationbut-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)
14The Semantic HeadAn element which interacts directly with an element or elements outside the construction.e.g.: Extremely fast cars crash violentlyFast is the semantic head of extremely fast and cars is the head of extremely fast cars.
15Head-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
16Head-compliment constructions A head-compliment construction is typically not reducible syntactically to the head alone. e.g.: Arthur stroked the cat Arthur stroked (what?)
17Selector and SelecteeIt 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 XX, the head of the construction, bears the semantic trait “female”.Selectees , in general, do not presuppose traits of their selectors.
18EncapsulationThe 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
19Philonyms, 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 normaltautonyms: if the combination is pleonastic we talk of the head of the tautonymxenonyms: if the combination results in dissonance
20Dissonance 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 substitutionBut there exits a superordinate of either xenonym which is philonym of the other.IncongruityCharacteristic of incongruity is that there is no superordinate of either xenonym which can restore normality