Languages & Linguistics
Hyponymy
Hyponymy is a linguistic relationship where the meaning of a more specific word (hyponym) is included in the meaning of a more general word (hypernym). For example, "rose" is a hyponym of "flower." This concept is important in understanding the hierarchical structure of language and how words relate to each other in terms of specificity and generality.
Written by Perlego with AI-assistance
10 Key excerpts on "Hyponymy"
- Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, Paul Portner(Authors)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
This move pushes a paradigmatic relation onto some prior syntagmatic basis: Fig. 6.1: Hyponyms of animal Hyponymy is a paradigmatic relation of sense which rests upon the encapsulation in the hyponym of some syntagmatic modification of the sense of the superordinate relation. Lyons (1977: 294) 6 Sense relations 177 Such a definition does not work completely. For example, it makes no sense at the level of natural kinds (is horse to be defined as equine animal ?) and there are other apparent syntagmatic definitions that are problematic in that precise definitions are not obvious ( saunter is exactly what kind of walk ?). Such con-siderations, of course, reflect the vagueness of the concepts that words express out of context and so we might expect any such absolute definition of hypon-ymy to fail. Hyponymy strictly speaking is definable only between words of the same (syntactic) category, but some groups of apparent co-hyponyms seem to be related to a word of some other category. This seems particularly true of predi-cate-denoting expressions like adjectives which often seem to relate to (abstract) nouns as superordinates rather than some other adjective. For example, round, square, tetrahedral , etc. all seem to be ‘quasi-hyponyms’ of the noun shape and hot, warm, cool, cold relate to temperature . Finally, the hierarchies induced by Hyponymy may be cross-cutting. So the animal field also relates to fields involving maturity ( adult , young ) or sex ( male, female ) and perhaps other domains. This entails that certain words may be hyponyms of more than one superordinate, depending on different dimen-sions of relatedness. As we shall see below, such multiple dependencies have given rise to a number of theoretical approaches to word meaning that try to account directly for sense relations in terms of primitive sense components or inheritance of properties in some hierarchical arrangement of conceptual or other properties.
eBook - PDF- Ingo Plag, Maria Braun, Sabine Lappe, Mareile Schramm(Authors)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
The meaning relation be-tween words like colour and red is termed Hyponymy . Hyponymy relations are meaning relations that can be described using the paraphrase ‘is a …’ (e.g. ‘Red is a colour’). The word red is a hyponym of the word colour ; con-versely, the word colour is a hyperonym of the word red . Like red , also white, blue, black, green , and yellow are colours. They are thus hyponyms of colour . If we want to describe the relation between our associated words white, blue, black, green , and yellow and the stimulus word ( red ), we need to say that they all have a common hyperonym (i.e. colour ). Using the correct terminology, we say that they are co-hyponyms of red . The schema in (17) summarises the Hyponymy relations found in our association test for red . 152 The meaning of words and sentences: semantics (17) Hyponymy relations among associations for red : Hyponymy relations are among the most frequent relations to be found in word association tests. However, this is not the only context in which we find Hyponymy to play an important role. Thus, hyperonyms are very frequently employed in definitions of word meaning. How, for example, would you ex-plain the meaning of the word lion to someone who does not know the word? Probably one of the first sentences in your definition would be something like: A lion is an animal. Only then would you go on to be more specific about what lions look like, where they live, what they eat, etc. What is interesting for us is that, by saying that a lion is an animal, you begin your definition by explain-ing what the hyperonym of lion is. Note that we found the very same kind of procedure in the dictionary definition of the word box that we discussed at the beginning of this chapter. Similarly to our definition of lion above, the defini-tion of box in the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English starts with an explanation of what the hyperonym of box is: A box is a container ….
eBook - PDFEnglish Language, The
From Sound to Sense
- Gerald P. Delahunty, James J. Garvey(Authors)
- 2010(Publication Date)
- Parlor Press, LLC(Publisher)
Because Hyponymy and partonymy differ in the semantics of the rela-tionships— kind of vs. part of —they differ in how lower order terms relate to superordinates of superordinates. In Hyponymy, the lower order term is a kind of its superordinate and of its superordinate’s superordinate; for in-stance, a standard poodle is a kind of poodle , and a poodle is a kind of dog . But a standard poodle is also a kind of dog . On the other hand, a lower order term in a partonymy may or may not be a part of the superordinate; for instance, a page is a part of a book and a book may be part of a library , but it would certainly be odd to claim that a page is part of a library . Other part/whole relations refer not to parts and wholes of unified ob- 251 Word Meaning jects but to entities associated with each other in a situation. Metonymy is the basis for many shifts of meaning. It involves the use of an expression denoting one person or thing to refer to someone or something associated with it. The use of a restaurant customer’s order to refer to the customer is a very productive source of metonymy. For instance, a waiter might say, The fishburger wants more French fries , to identify a particular customer and their request. The use of personal names to refer to events that the individual named is responsible for is also productive: Bush invaded Iraq . Metonymy is occasionally the basis for permanent shifts of meaning; look up bead in a comprehensive dictionary with etymological information such as AHD. Metaphor is yet another relationship among words. It is based on per-ceived similarities between entities, and word meanings are often extended to denote entities similar in some ways to the ones more typically denoted by the word.
eBook - PDF- David Crystal, Alan C. L. Yu, David Crystal, Alan C. L. Yu(Authors)
- 2023(Publication Date)
- Wiley-Blackwell(Publisher)
Hyponymy is distinguished from such other sense relations as synonymy, antonymy and meronymy. hypophonemic (adj.) One of the strata recognized in stratificational grammar, dealing with the phonetic properties of an utterance. hypophonotactics (n.) see taxis hypotactic (adj.) A term used in traditional grammatical analysis, and often found in descriptive linguistic studies, to refer to dependent constructions, especially those where constituents have been linked through the use of subordi- nating conjunctions. ‘Hypotactic constructions’ are opposed to paratactic ones, where the linkage is conveyed solely by juxtaposition and punctuation/intonation. Hypotaxis is illustrated by The keeper laughed when the dog barked (cf. the keeper laughed; the dog barked). Hz see cycle (3) A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, Seventh Edition. Edited by David Crystal and Alan C. L. Yu. © 2024 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2024 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. I iamb (n.) A traditional term in metrics for a unit of poetic rhythm comprising a single pair of unstressed + stressed syllables (as in believe); also called an iambic foot. In metrical phonology, the notion is used as an informal name for bounded right-dominant feet, which display this rhythmical structure. See also trochee. iambic reversal see reversal iconicity (n.) (1) A suggested defining property of some semiotic systems, but not language, to refer to signals whose physical form closely corresponds to charac- teristics of the situations to which they refer. This is the normal state of affairs in animal communication, for example, where a call expressing fear is used only in a fear-producing context. In language, only a small number of items could be argued to possess such directly symbolic (iconic) properties, e.g. onomatopoeic expressions such as cuckoo, growl. (2) In linguistics, iconicity identifies the extent to which a relationship between semantic notions is directly represented in a language’s formal expression.
eBook - PDFOntolinguistics
How Ontological Status Shapes the Linguistic Coding of Concepts
- Andrea C. Schalley, Dietmar Zaefferer, Andrea C. Schalley, Dietmar Zaefferer(Authors)
- 2008(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
For instance, a taxonymic organization of nouns would probably to some extent at least produce a corresponding morphological structure, where the label of the superordinate would be part of the labels of the hyponyms. We do observe morphological relations between some nouns of the more speci fi c levels, for instance between skirt and miniskirt , but hardly ever above the level 360 Wiltrud Mihatsch of skirt , for instance between nouns meaning GARMENT and SKIRT . Thus the formal level at least does not manifest a uniform hierarchical organization of concepts. Furthermore Hyponymy (at least above basic level) only plays a minor role in word-association tests, where antonymy, co-Hyponymy and other associa-tions prevail (cf. Aitchison 3 2003, Chapter 8.). This means vertical relations are probably not stored but rather computed (see Mihatsch 2006 for a detailed analysis) and are therefore not part of our stored lexical knowledge. Similar results come from aphasia, slips of the tongue and child language acquisition (Aitchison 3 2003, Chapter 8.; Klix 1984: 18–20, 42, 56). Thus Hyponymy and therefore taxonymies seem to play a minor role in the mental lexicon: ... it seems that scienti fi c taxonomies are neither mind-sized nor mind-oriented. The question is what a more subject-related alternative of organizing our knowledge of the word would look like ... Yet so powerful has been the impact of logical taxonomies on modern Western thinking that it is dif fi cult for anyone who has been educated in the Western tradition to imagine such an alternative. (Ungerer and Schmid 1996: 63) What would an alternative account look like? How are lexemes organized if not hierarchically? The key to the organization of the lexicon at least in the domain of concrete nouns, where taxonomies seem to be most developed, is imagery.
eBook - PDFSemantics and Lexicography
Selected Studies (1976-1996)
- Herbert Ernst Wiegand, Antje Immken, Werner Wolski, Antje Immken(Authors)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter(Publisher)
Some of these concepts are also important when trying to discuss a concept of synonymy for monolingual lexicography within the framework of the questions raised here. 26 Synonymy understood as a theoretical concept leads to at least the following two conclu-sions : (1) Claiming synonymy in the form of X is synonymous to (here and subsequently and are variables for expressions of only one language L) can only be discussed adequately if taken relative to a specific theoreti-cal concept of synonymy that is more than a mere linguistic label for a random list of expressions of a lan-guage L which are a priori regarded as being synonymous. (2) Synonyms and their synonymy or synonymity 27 , in the sense of any theory, are not simply given to us as language phenomena; they do not simply reveal their characteristic of being synonymous in everyday com-munication. However, speakers who know or are competent in a language L experience in and through communication that numerous expressions of L are frequently used in a similar or identical way. Examples are: fast/beinahe (almost/nearly), obschonlobgleich (even thought although), Schimmel/weißes Pferd (white horse/white horse), Resultat/Ergebnis (result/outcome), ledig/unverheiratet/alleinstehend (unmarriedlun-marnedlsingle), AufzuglFahrstuhllLift (liftlelevatorllift), Dusche/Brause (shower/shower), Hast/Eile (hurry/ rush), Schluß/Ende (conclusion/end), da/don (there/there), Apfelsine/Orange (orange/orange), Adresse/An-schrift (address/address), beginnen/anfangen (to begin/to start), FußballlLeder (football'football), Morgen-landlOrient (Orient/East) etc.
eBook - PDFAn Advanced Introduction to Semantics
A Meaning-Text Approach
- Igor Mel'čuk, Jasmina Milićević(Authors)
- 2020(Publication Date)
- Cambridge University Press(Publisher)
Some further derivational relations will be presented in the next chapter when speaking about lexical functions. 1.3 Polysemy vs. Homonymy Below we discuss polysemy and homonymy as lexical-level manifestations of equinomy (Ch. 1, 2.1) in natural language; for equinomy at the sentential level, see Ch. 9, 2.4. 1.3.1 Polysemy In order to define polysemy, we need to characterize the underlying notion of semantic bridge (informally introduced in Ch. 5, 4). Definition 6.6: Semantic Bridge A semantic component ‘σ’ shared by LUs L 1 and L 2 is called the semantic bridge between L 1 and L 2 iff the following two conditions are simultaneously satisfied: 1. ‘σ’ contains enough semantic material. 2. Either ‘σ’ is part of the lexicographic definitions of both L 1 and L 2 , or it is part of the lexicographic definition of one and of a lexico- graphic connotation of the other. Condition 1 The lexemes LEG 1 I.1a ‘body part …’ (John’s leg) and LEG 1 I.2 ‘part of pants that covers person’s leg 1 I.1a’ (the legs of John’s pants) share enough semantic material: the meaning of the former is completely included in that of the latter; this is an obvious semantic bridge. The same holds for the lexemes CHILD1 ‘young human …’ (a 5-year-old child) and CHILDISH1 ‘related to or typical of a child1’ (a childish laugh). The lexemes of the first pair stand in the relation of polysemy and those of the second are related by derivation. In contrast, LEG 1 I.1a and LEG 2 1 ‘a part of a long journey or a race’ (the last leg of our trip) cannot be said to share a seman- tic bridge because the component ‘part’, in spite of belonging to the central component in both lexemes’ definitions, is not specific (= rich) enough, due to its very general (= poor) meaning; these two lexemes stand in the relation of homonymy.
- Paul R. Kroeger(Author)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- Language Science Press(Publisher)
Once again, it is important to remember that when we study pa terns of mero-nymy, we are studying the structure of the lexicon, i.e., relations between words and not between the things named by the words. One linguistic test for identify-ing meronymy is the naturalness of sentences like the following: Te parts of an X include the Y, the Z, … (Cruse 1986: 161). A meronym is a name for a part, and not merely a piece, of a larger whole. Human languages have many words that name parts of things, but few words that name pieces. Cruse (1986: 158–159) lists three diferences between parts and pieces. First, a part has autonomous identity: many shops sell automobile parts which have never been structurally integrated into an actual car. A piece of a car, on the other hand, must have come from a complete car. (Few shops sell pieces of automobile.) Second, the boundaries of a part are motivated by some kind of natural boundary or discontinuity — potential for separation or motion relative to neighboring parts, joints (e.g. in the body), diference in material, narrowing of connection to the whole, etc. Te boundaries of a piece are arbitrary. Tird, a part typically has a defnite function relative to the whole, whereas this is not true for pieces. 6.3 Defning words in terms o f sense relations Traditional ways of de fning words depend heavily on the use o f sense relations; Hyponymy has played an especially important role. Te classical form of a de fni-tion, going back at least to Aristotle (384–322 BC), is a kind of phrasal synonym; that is, a phrase which is mutually substitutable with the word being defned (same syntactic distribution) and equivalent or nearly equivalent in meaning.
eBook - PDFMeaning in English
An Introduction
- Javier Valenzuela(Author)
- 2017(Publication Date)
- Cambridge University Press(Publisher)
The lexical database WordNet, a very popular tool in computational linguistics and natural language processing, uses syno- nymy as the main type of organizational relation. WordNet groups nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs into sets of synonyms (called synsets in their system; currently they have more than 100,000 of them). WordNet also uses other types of relations, such as antonymy, Hyponymy and meronymy, which we are about to review in the following sections. LARGE SISTER BIG SISTER Figure 5.4 Different Meanings of Large and Big Chapter 5, section [5.3] 122 5.3.2 Antonymy Antonymy is much more complicated than synonymy. Antonymy is part of a wider family of relations, that of opposites. Opposites are words that are similar in most respects, but differ in just one respect, which makes them contrast with each other. This is a tricky issue, because, as we mentioned before, words can have an infinite number of features; so choosing which of the feature(s) of two items stand in opposition to each other can be compli- cated. Antonyms are a more specific version of this opposition, and establish a ‘binary’ relation between two words, which in this way become associated by a clear contrast in their meaning. Probably that is the reason why antonymy does not apply equally to all types of words; it functions especially well with adjectives, which are somehow simpler than other words, since they tend to describe one specific attribute or aspect of an item. Paradis and Willners (2007) found antonymic relations in 59% of adjectives, 19% in nouns, 13% in verbs and 9% in the rest. Thus, it is adjective meaning that is mainly organized by means of antonymic oppositions; adjectives are the antonyms par excellence. Nouns, on the other hand, are typically more complex, and thus it is not so easy to find the antonymic pair of all nouns. We do find cases, of course (e.g., victory–defeat, advantage–disadvantage, pessimism–optimism), but in many cases, it is not so easy.
eBook - PDF- Einar Haugen, Werner Winter, Einar Haugen, Werner Winter(Authors)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
LEXICOLOGY AND LEXICOGRAPHY 411 semic correlation. These are the fields which lexical descriptions traditionally insist upon: SYNONYMIC (and PARA-SYNONYMIC); ANTONYMIC and ANALOGICAL 34 series. This implies that each polysemic word possesses for each meaning its own semantic field, thus reinforcing the para-homophonic status referred to above. 'Small closed series' of vocabulary items have been clearly defined (Hjelmslev) and the structural analysis of these is less conjectural than it is for the rest of the vocabulary. In this way many recent studies inspired by very different methodological procedures have taken it as a starting point (for typical applications see Wandruszka 1950, Porzig 1954, Monteil 1964). 3.441 It was no doubt for these reasons that synonymy interested linguists and semanticians rather than lexicographers who were nevertheless accustomed to making use of this type of relationship in their definition procedures. Nevertheless, it is true that they did it only in an empirical manner (Dornseiff 1921). The important place occupied by these phenomena in lexical interrelationships has caused modern descrip-tive linguists to dedicate much time to this problem. The position that synonymy (in its wider meaning) occupies among the methods of meaning analysis has been referred to above. It even represents, according to certain opinions, one of the essential means of IDENTIFYING a language item. 36 The main objective to be reached is naturally the recognition of the different types of synonyms and the description of their nature. Ch. Bally (1909) defined an 'ideal method' for the synchronic study of synonyms, which is still ahead of many present-day procedures: after regrouping in the same series the lexical items linked according to common meaning (a heading of a good ideological dictionary), the series is then submitted to a three-point critical analysis founded on: 1.
Index pages curate the most relevant extracts from our library of academic textbooks. They’ve been created using an in-house natural language model (NLM), each adding context and meaning to key research topics.
