Cognitive Linguistics Croft & Cruse 7 A dynamic construal approach to sense relations II: Antonymy and complementarity

7.1.1 Aspects of the construal of oppositeness Oppositeness assumes that there are two contrary values, but construals are usually involved and there are also non-opposite contrasts (tea vs. coffee)

7.1.2 Main varieties of opposite Complementaries Antonyms Reversives

7.1.2 Main varieties of opposite Complementaries – bisect a domain into two subdomains (dead:alive, open:shut) Antonyms – gradable divergences from a reference value (long:short) Reversives – changes in opposite directions between two states (rise:fall) This chapter will focus on the first two.

7.1.3 Goodness-of-exemplar in opposites Male:female is better than convent:monastery (“purity” of comparison) Large:small is better than large:tiny (symmetry of comparison) Clean:dirty is better than clean:mucky (keeping terms in same register) Discussion – what do these effects tell us about the structure of linguistic categories?

7.2.1 Gradable vs. non-gradable construal of properties Some properties are gradable (antonyms): long:short Some properties are not gradable (complementaries): married:single (though construal can coerce gradability) Some properties are easily construed as both: clean:dirty What is essential is what DOMAINS the terms are profiled against.

7.3.1 A survey of antonym types Monoscalar: short:long are on the one scale of LENGTH Biscalar: hot:cold are on the scales of HOTNESS vs. COLDNESS And there are other, more complicated relationships Discussion: Would the scales be the same in all languages?

Subs, supras, and the relative scale The terms of antonyms are not always equally privileged. –What’s its length (not *shortness)? Discussion – again, what does this tell us about category structure?

7.3.3 Bi-scalar systems Antonyms can be –Equipollent, like hot:cold (but there are relatively few equipollent pairs in English) –Overlapping, like good:bad, where the status of the two terms differs