8 10. Lexical Relations
The traditional method used in dictionaries is to
define a word in terms of other words. Ultimately, this strategy is circular, since we must then define
the words we use in the definition, and in their definitions, until finally we must either run out of
words or re-use one of the words we are trying to define.
10.1 Pragmatic and syntagmatic relations
Linguistic units can be studied from the point of two
axes: syntagmatic and paradigmatic axes. Syntagmatic axis gives you
syntagmatic relations between the units. Paradigmatic axis gives you paradigmatic relations
between the units. Similarly meaning of linguistic units can be studied by means of these two axes
oriented relations. Syngamatic relation is the relation between words that appear in a sentence. It can be
visualized as relation in the horizontal axis. Paradigmatic relation is the relation between words
that can replace a word that appear in a sentence.
10.2 Congruence relations
The four basic relations between classes furnish a model
not only for establishing fundamental group of sense relations, but also for defining a set
of systematic variants applicable to virtually all other
paradigmatic sense relations.
10.3 Pragmatic sense relations of identity and
inclusion
The paradigmatic sense relations of identity leads to
synonymy and the paradigmatic relations of inclusion leads to hyponymy-hypernymy and
meronymy-holonymy relations.
10.4 Synonymy
Synonymy does not necessarily mean
that the items concerned
should be identical in meaning, i.e. interchangeable in all contexts. Synonymy
can be said to occur if
lexical items are close enough in their meaning to allow a choice to be made
between them in some contexts,
without there being any difference in the meaning of the sentence as a
whole.
Absolute synonymy refers to complete identify of
meaning. Propositional synonymy can be defined in terms entailment.
10.5 Hyonymy and hypernymy
Hyponymy is the relationship which exists between
specific and general lexical items, such that the former is included in the latter. The set of terms
which are hyponyms of same super ordinate term are co-hyponyms. Take for example the lexical items cow and animal.
'this is a cow‘ and 'this is a buffalo unilaterally entail 'this is an animal'. The
relationship existing between cow and buffalo with animal is
hyponymy and cow and buffalo
are co-hyponyms. One sense is a hyponym of another if the first sense is
more specific, denoting a
subclass of the other.
Hyponymy is definable in terms of unilateral
implications. For example, 'She is wearing a rose' implies 'She is wearing a flower' , but 'She is wearing a
flower' does not implies 'She is wearing a rose'. If hyponyms are unilateral and non-symmetrical, synonyms
are bilateral or symmetrical.
Hyperonymy is more formally extensional.
The class denoted by the super ordinate extensionally includes the class
denoted by the hyponym. Hyponymy is frequently discussed by logicians in terms
of class inclusion. For example, if X is the class
of flowers and Y is roses, then it is in fact the case that X
properly includes Y (X⊂Y Y ⊅X) i.e. flowers ⊂ roses and roses ⊅flowers.
10.6 Meronymy and holonymy
The distinction between meronymy-Holonymy relation and
homonymy-hyperonymy relation is clearly distinct in most cases. We cannot say 'arm is a kind
of body' or 'wheel is a kind of bicycle'. We have to say 'arm is a part of a body' and 'wheel is a part of
a bicycle.
The difference between hyponymy and part-whole
relations is clear enough in cases like 'arm': 'body', 'wheel': 'bicycle'; i.e. when the lexemes in question
are nouns denoting discrete physical objects. Most of the discussion of part-whole lexical relations by
linguists has been restricted to such cases.
10. 7 Compatibility
The lexical items which
overlap in terms of meaning and do not show systematic include-included
relation and have some
semantic traits in common, but differ in respect of traits that do not clash
are said to be compatible. Take for example the words dog and pet.
A dog could be a pet, but neither all pets are dogs nor all dogs are pets. The relationship existing
between dog and pet is compatible.
No comments:
Post a Comment