Cognitive Linguistics Croft

1
Cognitive LinguisticsCroft Cruse 6

• A dynamic construal approach to sense relations
  I
• hyponymy and meronymy

2
6.1.1 Hyponymy

• Hyponymy is a relationship of inclusion within a
  larger set
• More often encountered with nouns (koala
  marsupial) than with verbs (punch hit) and
  adjectives (maroon red)
• This means that the superordinate term is a
  proper part of the meaning of the hyponym, so
  marsupial is a proper part of the meaning of koala

3
6.1.2 Hyponymy and context

• But sometimes not all examples of the hyponym
  category are examples of the superordinate
  category, cf. para-hyponymy of dog pet, where
  not all dogs are pets and construal plays a role

4
6.1.2 Hyponymy and context

• Hyponymy is a transitive relation because
  containment is also transitive, but sometimes
  transitivity seems to fail due to construal (car
  seat seat, and seat furniture, but not car
  seat furniture)

5
6.1.3 Relations between lexical items

• Is hyponymy a relation between words or between
  construals of word meanings? Are there any
  context-independent relations? Probably not. We
  are always construing meaning relative to context.

6
6.1.4 Taxonymy

• This is the relationship in which X is a kind of
  Y (note that a kind of is one of Wierzbickas
  semantic primitives)
• Not all hyponyms are good taxonyms
• Hyponyms large spoon, deep spoon are not a kind
  of spoon
• Taxonyms teaspoon, soup spoon are a kind of
  spoon

7
6.1.4 Taxonymy, contd.

• Focal orientation this is a perspective that the
  hyponym/taxonym and superordinate term must share
  so that the relationship works
• A blonde is not a kind of woman because blonde
  has a hair color focal orientation that woman
  lacks

8
6.2 Lexical aspects of the part-whole relation

• Meronymy (aka partonymy) is a relation between
  meanings, not strictly a part-whole relation,
  which is a relation between individual entities
• Part-whole is motivated by the image-schema of
  containment
• Notice that some words are more autonomous than
  others, as in airplane parts vs. airplane pieces

9
6.2.1.3 Factors affecting the GOE (Goodness of
Example) of parts

• These factors include
• Inclusion in boundaries
• Sharing of substance
• Clear discontinuity between part and whole
• Internal cohesion of the part
• Part has a definable function
• Part is autonomous and can have replicas
• The part is consistent with the type of the whole
• Some parts are segmentable (body parts) and some
  are systemic (nervous system) and thus less
  salient

10
6.2.1.5 Ultimate parts and ultimate wholes

• A part-whole chain prototypically has two
  endpoints.
• There may be a point beyond which it does not
  make sense to identify smaller parts (fingertip)
• Ultimate wholes may be variously construable
  (does pan include lid?)

11
6.2.1.6 Core parts

• Sometimes the core part is profiled, for example
  stainless steel knife, where stainless steel
  refers only to the blade, not the whole object

12
6.2.1.7 Variable construal and the transitivity
of the part-whole relation

• Some parts are more integrated into the whole
  than others (handle is more integrated into spoon
  than hand is to arm)
• Transitivity often fails because there are
  construals where the whole does not necessarily
  include the part (arm has hand, but arm does not
  have fingers)
• I think that a lot of this is better resolved by
  referring to Langackers profile vs. base

13
6.2.2 Meronymy

• If A is a meronym of B in a particular context,
  then any member a of the extension of A either
  maps onto a specific member b of the extension of
  B of which it is construed as a part, or it
  potentially stands in an intrinsically construed
  relation of a part to some actual or potential
  member of B. (Cruses third try)

14
6.2.2 Meronymy, contd.

• Notice that meronymy differs across languages,
  for example the different ranges of words
  corresponding to arm, hand, finger