Lexical semantics By D.A. Cruse

1
Lexical semanticsBy D.A. Cruse

• Chapter 4
• Introducing lexical relations

2
Sense relations

• Syntagmatic 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.

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. Its not music entails Its not
  pop
• Exceptions

7
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) Its a cat entails Its
  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 gt not always full
  equivalence e.g. p. 97 12a

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-testIts a dog, but its a pet (expressive
  paradox)Its a dog, but its 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