7/28/2019 00036924

1/69

English Grammar: LEXICOLOGY

Introduction. Reference, sense, and referring expressions.

Lexicology is basically understood as the study of lexis (vocabulary or stock of words of a language). Stock

evokes the idea of a set of words which brings the idea of the lexicon. The vocabulary is understood as

meaningful units. ()

Lexicology is closely linked to morphology. In lexicology what matters is the meaningful side of the words.

And in morphology what matters is the form of these units. The form and the meaning of a word may be

related so they are closely linked. Meaning takes us to semantics. Part of the semantic studies is based in

meaning: lexical semantics. So lexicology has links to many other areas, but our vision of lexicology is

restricted. Etymology is a branch of linguistics on its own. It's regarded with words and its history.

We should never mix lexicography with lexicology because it's not a branch of linguistics but a technique

and has a very narrow aim. Lexicography deals with the making of dictionaries. So it's not a level of

languages. We have a narrow concept of lexicology: it's a branch of linguistics concerned with the meaning

and use of words. There is a diversity of approaches which goes from narrow conceptions to very wideconceptions.

In sentence semantics we can predict the meaning of the whole sentence because we have rules that show it

to us. The limit is in lexical semantics, because here we don't have any possible combination that allows us to

guess the meaning of a word. So in linguistics is simply axiomatic that words have meanings (Harris).

SENSE AND REFERENCE

() When we deal with the sense we deal with relationships within language. When we talk about reference we

deal with the relationship between language and the world. By means ofreference a speaker is pointing at

something in the world by using language / a linguistic expression. Therefore with reference there is always

an external reality that is being talked about.

It would wrong to think that every linguistic sign corresponds to some external reality. One single linguistic

expression may point to different entities of the outside world.

Ex: Your left hand

There are different entities in the outside world that refer to this same expression.

A

B

C

This is called variable reference. The perception of variable reference depends on a number of factors, which

are there because of the relationship between language and the world. There are factors like time and place

that play and important role in this.

Ex: The British Prime Minister

1

7/28/2019 00036924

2/69

Does this expression have a referent? Yes. You could say Tony Blair but you could also say Margaret

Thatcher. In this expression the time factor isn't expressed so both possibilities are possible. The question of

place is specified so you can't say Aznar because it has to be British. If you say the current British Prime

Minister, there is no variable reference.

In this relationship between languages and the world we also have expressions which only refer to one entity

in the outside world:

AB

C

Ex: The moon, the sun

They are not so frequent and they don't raise any semantic problems at all and they are not interesting for the

purposes of lexical semantics. We can also find a number of linguistic expressions referring to one referent in

the outside world:

1

A

2

Ex: The Morning Star

Venus

The Evening Star

In English, there are two expressions that refer to the same entity. This example is always like that, but there

are cases in which this association between single entities in the world and different linguistic expressions can

be also be made for specific cases.

The British Prime Minister

Tony Blair

The Leader of the Labour Party

This relationship isn't permanent. It has been made for a specific purpose.

That these expressions may be true depends on time and time factors.

Ex: John

The man at the corner

In a specific case these two expressions may have the same referent in the world.

Whenever you talk about reference there is always something in the outside world pointed out by an

expression. When we talk about sense what we find is that the sense of a word is its place in a net of semantic

2

7/28/2019 00036924

3/69

relationships within a language. Sense is a purely inherently linguistic phenomenon. Sense is very difficult to

define, but very easily perceived by native speakers. The clearest for a native speaker is `sameness of sense'.

Ex:

Almosthas the same sense as nearly. These two words occupy the same place in the net of relationships in a

language. The same happens with vertical and upright.

John took off his jacket

John took his jacket off

They have different syntactic structures but they have the same sense.

Bachelors prefer red haired girls.

Girls with red hair are preferred by unmarried men.

They also have the same sense.

The opposite also happens, that is, we may have two different senses and one linguistic expression. This is the

case ofpolysemous words.

Ex:

Bank (of money)

Bank

Bank (of a river)

One single sentence can also have more than one sense. These sentences are represented in two different trees

depending on the sense.

Ex:

The chicken is a living animal and is going to eat.

The chicken is ready to eat.

The chicken has become a meal and is ready for us to be eaten.

It's a lexical question.

If`with a smile'is a constituent of the higher level, the one who smiles is `He'

He greeted the girl with a smile.

If`with a smile'is a constituent of the lower level, the one who smiles is `the girl'

It's a syntactic question.

3

7/28/2019 00036924

4/69

7/28/2019 00036924

5/69

Nancy married a Norwegian.

Nancy wants to marry a Norwegian.

John is looking for a car.

A man with a limp killed Bob.

In A. she married a certain Norwegian, C. and B. clearly admits both interpretations and B. is has a referring

interpretation.

If we want to clarify the interpretation of a noun phrase you insert `a certain'. Definite noun phrases havereferring interpretations by default. However there are some cases in which they have no referring

interpretations. The meaning of a pronoun is inherently a referring expression but sometimes the utterance

produces nonreferring interpretations.

Ex: If anyone ever marries Nancy, he is in for a bad time.

He' has no referring interpretations because there is not anyone in our mind.

An equative sentence is a sentence that asserts the equivalence of the reference of two expressions. It always

contains the verb to be: something is something else / A is B.

Ex: Margaret Thatcher is the P.M.

That Woman over there is my daughter's teacher.

John is the person in the corner.

Both expressions in each sentence have the same referent.

Cairo is a large city. Ted is an idiot.

This is not a referring expression so they're not an equative sentence.

One of the properties normally given to equative sentences is irreversibility, that is, A is B and B is A. But

some sentences which are not equative can be irreversible.

Ex: A pint of beer is what I need

What I need is a point of beer

But there may be case also of equative sentences which aren't irreversible, which doesn't accept irreversibility.

Ex: That is the man who kidnapped my boss.

This isn't irreversible but it's an equative sentence.

2. Lexical units, semantic transparency, semantic opacity.

An opaque context is an utterance in which this association of one referent with two linguistic expressions

doesn't occur. What is it that provokes an opaque context? This has to do with the factual world and the

world of thoughts. In a situation in which someone talks about his thought, believes, what this person says is

true because it doesn't belong to the world of facts.

5

7/28/2019 00036924

6/69

Ex: Nancy believes that the British P.M. is the Leader of the Conservative Party.

If we take the fact that the British P.M. is the Leader of the Labour Party, this sentence is wrong but it's true

because it refers to the world of thought and not to the world of facts. This is an opaque context.

Dennis thinks that the P.M. is a genius.

Dennis thinks that the Leader of the Labour Party is a genius.

These utterances may not be connected on with the other, because they are introduced by the verb to think.

The idea that we work in lexicology about lexical units it's not very different from that used in lexicography.

A lexical unit in lexicography is the entry of a dictionary. The problem is that in lexicography sometimes

there's no coherence, stability in the arrangement of entries in a dictionary.

Ex: The skylight was open.

She refused to open the safe.

The word `open' in the first sentence is an adjective and in the second one is a verb. They can appear as lexicalentries depending on their grammatical information. But there some dictionaries that doesn't treat them like

that.

Lexical units in lexicology normally follow two criteria. On one hand the basis fact is that a lexical unit is the

smallest part which satisfies two things:

A lexical unit must be one word.

A lexical unit must be a semantic constituent.

Ex: We have a sentence containing the word `disobey'. The problem is that it has an internal structure: dis

obey. Both parts have their own semantic contribution to the whole sentence. It can be turned into: `didn't

obey'. The thing is that `dis' is not a lexical unit because it is not a word.

Arthur pulled a fast one.

`To pull a fast one' is to cheat someone in a money matter. In this utterance we have the word pull' but it's not

a semantic constituent alone because it doesn't contribute to the meaning of the whole sentence. In this

utterance pull' alone means nothing. Therefore it isn't a lexical unit even if it's a word. The lexical unit would

be pulled a fast one'.

This is what happens with idioms. They're especial semantic combinations, that is, expressions whose

meaning cannot be inferred from the meaning of its parts in isolated contexts. Idioms have to be lexically

complex and semantically they are one single semantic constituent.

Ex: This will cook Arthur's goose

The idiom seems to be `to cook someone's goose'. So this sentence has four semantic constituents: this, will,

Arthur, cook `s goose. It's obvious that `this' seldom would appear as an idiomatic expression. Proper nouns

can be very often part of an idiomatic expression, but this is not the case

Idioms are elementary lexical units and they behave like single words in many respects. This is reflected in a

number of characteristics they have. In many ways, idioms behave like words and they don't resist

6

7/28/2019 00036924

7/69

interruption and reordering of the part.

Ex:

To kick the bucketIdiom

To kick the large bucketNo idiom

To pull somebody's leg Idiom

To pull somebody's left leg No idiom

Arthur apparently has a chip on his shoulderIdiom

*Arthur has a chip, apparently, on his shoulder

After a shaky start, we took them to the cleaners

*We took them, after a shaky start, to the cleaners

Neither of the following mechanisms can be applied to idioms:

passive

inversion

topicalization

The idiom has to be left intact.

Ex:

*What john pulled was his sister's leg topicalization of the verb: it breaks the idiom

What john did was pull his sister's leg topicalization of the action / event: the idiom is left as such.

This also happens with the constituents of a sentence.

However, sometimes idioms show characteristics of phrases, that is, sometimes the elements inside an idiom

can behave as individual words and, therefore, these words can be affected by morphological phenomena.

Sometimes idioms accept pluralization. The plural mark isn't given at the end of the idiom but in the place it

corresponds.

Ex: John has bees in his bonnet about many things.

*John has beeinhis bonnets about many things

In morphology, there are mechanisms to create new languages out of words. Idioms, sometimes, enter this

kind of mechanism. Idioms mostly behave as blocks but sometimes idioms show properties of phrases like the

nominalization of the verb. They are semantically minimal but syntactically dual.

Ex: In English we can say `a legpull'.

The question of idioms takes us to the idea ofdegrees of opacity. Idioms are in terms of meaning opaque, but

7

7/28/2019 00036924

8/69

these expressions show a degree of opacity. Some are more opaque than others and some are more transparent

than others.

Ex:

Blackbirdis more transparent than Ladybird

Ladybirdis more opaque than Blackbird, but more transparent than Red herring or In a brown study

Red herring or In a brown study are the most opaque of the all.

You can say that Blackbirdis a type of bird but Ladybirdis not a bird although it connects with the idea of an

animal. Red herring is not a type of bird, neither a type of animal, neither a type of herring. And In a brown

study has nothing to do with its meaning. Blackbirdhas a semantic indicator but red herring has no semantic

indicator.

The difficult part is to identify parts inside. It's more a question of feeling than a linguistic matter. However,

there are some parts inside. Jackendorff stresses the idea that idioms have two types of components:

predictable lexical itemsunpredictable lexical items

The thing is that it's impossible to systematize these two types.

Ex:

smile at / *take a smile at / make a smile at / *have a smile at

sniff (*of) / take a sniff of / *make a sniff of / have a sniff of

listen to / *take a listen to / *make a listen to / have a listen to

look at / take a look at / *make a look at / have a look at

think about / *take a think about / * make a think about / *have a think about

guess about / take a guess about / make a guess about / *have a guess about

ride (in/to/) / take a ride (in/to/) / *make a ride (in/to/) / have a ride (in/?to/)

drive (in/to/) / take a drive (in/to/) / *make a drive (in/to/) / *have a drive (in/to/)

fuss about / *take a fuss about / make a fuss about / *have a fuss about

try (*at) / *take a try at / make a try at / *have a try at

stab (at) / take a stab at / make a stab at / have a stab at

etc.

In Generative Grammar this doesn't have interest because there is no rule to follow so he says that there may

be some generalizations. Facial expressions generally occur with make but there are many idiosyncratic

variations also.

Ex: smile at / make a smile at

Sniff (*of) / *make a sniff of

The other factor affecting degree of opacity is the discrepancy between the combined contribution of the

indicators, whether full or partial, and the overall meaning of the idiom. It is of course difficult to measure

such a discrepancy objectively, but it does seem that, for instance, some of the socalled irreversible

binomials: expressions usually of the form X and Y (where X an Y are noun phrases), whose semantic

8

7/28/2019 00036924

9/69

properties change when the order of the noun phrase is reversed.

Ex: fish and chips' is taken to be as a fixed expression. It's a particular type of cooking the fish. You can say

`chips and fish' but there's no longer the idiomatic expression in that. The same happens with fish with chips'.

Other examples are: salt and vinegar

soap and water

bread and butter

Many dictionaries don't list this kind of expressions so lexicography doesn't pay attention to this.

We need the help ofcognitive linguistics to find a theory that explains why the irreversible binomials are like

that. Language is a cognitive skill, like smell, hearing and many others we have. There is a theory called the

Theory of Markedness, which is related to our cognitive capacities as human beings. It says that there are

things which are marked and things which are unmarked. This division is related to two factors: salience and

frequency. Salience is: if something stands out in the world that is much more easily perceived by us than

something which isn't so outstanding. And frequency is: if something happens more frequently in the outside

world that is much more easily perceptible to us human beings. Salient and frequent things are filtered inmuch more easily than the rest.

How does this relate to the language? Salient and frequent things become unmarked in the language. In what

way is the unmarked element different from the marked element? These elements cover an area of knowledge

in the world. The unmarked element (positive) is representative of the whole of the domain, whereas the

marked element (negative) is restricted to that part of the domain. You can't represent the whole thing.

Ex: Affirmative adjective question

How long is it? Very long / Very short

So `long' is a marked element because it's reduced to that area of scale

The theory that covers this is that the element is much more easily perceived than the rest cognitively

speaking.

Ex:

Positive Negative Perceptual Property

big small ease of visual perception

tall shortease of visual perception

wide narrow ease of visual perception

loud quite ease of auditory perception

heavy lightease of weight perception

We can translate this into the question of irreversible binomials. The order of irreversible binomials follows

this. The first element has to be easier for us to perceive than the second one. So the first element is the

9

7/28/2019 00036924

10/69

unmarked and the second the marked one.

Perceptual Saliency: something that is near is easier to perceive than something which is far.

Ex:

Near Far

Now and then (*then and now)

Here and there (*there and here)

Something which is large is easier to perceive than something which is small:

Large and small (*small and large)

Something which is singular is much better perceived than something plural:

Singular Plural

One and all (*all and one)

Ham and eggs (*eggs and ham)

Cheese and crackers (*crackers and cheese)

There can also be combinations:

Singular/large plural/small

Hammer and nails (*nails and hammer)

This theory explains these tendencies of order but it's not a recipe. We can also talk about the influence of

cultural perspectives.

Ex:

Adults are more salient than nonadults:

Father and son (*son and father)

Mother and daughter (*daughter and mother)

Males are more salient than female:

Man and wife (*wife and man)

Humans are culturally more prominent than nonhumans:

A man and a dog (*a dog and a man)

The possessor is more salient than the possessed thing:

10

7/28/2019 00036924

11/69

John and his brother (*his brother and John)

An exception to all this could be the expression `Ladies and Gentlemen', which follows a phonological patron

and that's the reason of its special order. It's a question of the suprasegmental structure of English language.

The same happens with the expression `black and white', which in Spanish is the other way round, that is,

`blanco y negro'.

A collocation is the tendency of two words to occur together or cooccur. In any case each of the two words

are semantically independent.

Ex:

Fine weather Light drizzle

Torrential rain High winds

Collocations tend to favour specific meaning contexts:

Ex: `heavy' favours the idea of consumption and therefore it can be used in any phrase if that idea of

consumption is implied. So you can say `heavy drinker', `heavy smoker', `(a car may be) heavy on petrol'

Collocations are easy to handle because they more or less behave freely. The problem comes when the link

between words in the collocation gets tighter. These expressions are called bound collocations: the two

words of the collocation are mutually selective and one depends on the other. In many respects they behave

like idioms, but they are not considered idioms because of their syntactic behaviour.

Ex: to foot the bill

the electricity bill

all the bloody bills

These changes wouldn't be possible if it were a true idiom.

Bound collocations require the presence of the partner next to it. This means that the pronominalization is

unacceptable in these collocations.

Ex:

I've just got the bill for the car repairs.

*I hope you don't expect me to foot it.

This is not possible because footneeds the company ofbill.

You can't break the collocation with a sentence constituency.

Ex: I'm expected not only to foot, but also to add up, all the bills.

This is unacceptable.

So what distinguishes these collocations from idioms is that it can be modified like in the first examples. It

11

7/28/2019 00036924

12/69

can be modified one of the elements.

(Photocopy `Colours and their associations')

Ex:

Red alert: we can only have one interpretation which in this case is idiomatic. The noun `alert' would never in

a normal situation accept the adjective `red', except in an idiomatic expression like this.

Green belt: we can have two interpretations:

belt cinturon. This is a literal interpretation. We have two semantic constituents.

idiomatic reading: we only have one semantic constituent green area of a city.

So we have two kinds of expressions:

expressions which only accept one interpretation

expressions which accept two interpretations: the literal interpretation and the idiomatic expression.

3. Core meaning or fuzzy meaning. Theories of the mental lexicon

Core meaning is the meaning which is at the centre of the word. And fuzzy meaning is a diffuse meaning.

Meaning can also be denotative or connotative. Denotative meaning refers to the hard core of essential

meaning of the word. Surrounding this core meaning there are a number of accidental facts that can be added

or omitted without altering the basic meaning of the word. This is the connotative meaning.

Ex: bachelor[+human] [+male] [+adult] [ married]

Anything you know apart from this, which is the hardcore meaning, is added information, that is the

connotative meaning.

Some people concentrate only on the hard core of the words, whereas some others give more importance to

the extra information.

Denotation is intrinsically connected with reference. But denotation of a word is always invariance and

utterance independent, it's part of language system independently of its use on particular occasions of

utterance. Reference is variable and utterance dependent.

Ex:

'Dog' always has the same number of concepts that define the category of `dog'. It always defines the same

class of animals. Dog' by itself has no reference, what gives reference to it is the determiners added to it in an

utterance. The lexeme DOG has denotative meaning.

G. Aitchison examined the word `tiger' and this is the information she found in two dictionaries:

large Asian yellowbrown blackstriped carnivorous maneless feline.

type of very fierce wild cat that has yellowish fur with black bands across and lives in Asia.

The feature that these definitions share is only two: [+animal] [+feline]. Therefore, what are the basic

concepts which are permanent in an object for us to call it `tiger'? then the characterization of words doesn't

simply rely on a number of basic features and this is the example. This characterization needs to include some

12

7/28/2019 00036924

13/69

extra skills. Aitchison says: what happens with a tame tiger living on vegetables which is still called `tiger'? so

there can be several types within the same category.

Componential analysis is a theory of lexical semantics which tries to characterize (). There is a universe of

atoms of meaning which are understood to be concepts. A concept is represented by a word.

Ex: the word `human' is used to represent the concept [human].

The first problem here is that there are doubts that these atoms exist and the other that these need to be defined/ limited to define the core meaning of words. Aitchison is wrong in this and Wierzwicka, a woman who

represents a school of semantics, has elaborated a list of concepts.

Contrary to this idea of core meaning is that offuzzy meaning. The meaning of lexical items isn't simple an

addition of concepts. Aitchison and Lakoff believe that meaning of words is fuzzy (). Discrete means that you

can establish the limits of something, you can give an exact definition of it. Discrete meaning is the exact

definition of a word and fuzzy meaning is the contrary. Aitchison says: `Words have fuzzy edges in the sense

that there's no clear point at which one word end and another begin' (Words in the Mind, p. 46)

Large areas of the vocabulary of English have been described using this core meaning theory using nouns and

verbs. One of Aitchison's criticisms is that not the whole of a language can be described with core meaning.Not all types of verbs can be defined, only action verbs are easily defined. That's because words don't have fix

edges but fuzzy edges. Aitchison and Lakoff rely on a theory to justify their opinions about language and

fuzzy meaning: Cognitive Linguistics. Experience is part of our linguistic capacities.

Rosch's Prototype Theory (P.T.) is based on cognitive linguistics and tries to explain the way we categorize

the world. (Photocopy)

Ex: `bird'

Our experience of birds gives us more information than that it's an animal but the core meaning makes it

difficult to find concepts exclusive of birds. For Spanish speakers the typical bird is a sparrow but English

speakers' experience makes that their typical bird are robins. In a Prototype the word in the core contains all of

the features of the category. Not all of the elements of the bird category have the same features and that's what

hardcore meaning theory doesn't admit. The scale of prototypicality is itself a fuzzy meaning. In that scale

we can talk about: core birds, less core birds, peripheral birds, more peripheral birds.

The typicality conditions are the features that the best example of a category fulfils. One of these typicality

conditions must be included in the sense / meaning for the sentence to be grammatical. A linguist called

Persson tried to reconcile the two options, to take the best of core meaning theory and the best of Prototype

theory and put them together in a sort of coherent way. Both approaches recognize the existence of some

features which are essential and other which aren't. the emphasis is what is more important. P.T. the essence is

the prototypicality whereas in the core meaning theory the emphasis is made on the basic feature. We have the

same facts but view from different angles.

Ex: Woman description

+human

+female

+adult

13

7/28/2019 00036924

14/69

human

womb

children

This is Persson's model. We have like two boxes. One box that is close includes CC (Core / Categorial

Concept). Below that (so there is no inclusion) there is another box with a dotted line which includes typical

attributes. It's open because the list of features is open too.

In Core Theory we work with concepts but in P.T. we have examples. Persson's model uses plain English,

natural language words because the knowledge native speaker has is manifested in plain descriptions /

definitions, using natural language words. Native speakers knowledge of language follows an order which is

the one his model has: first the essential features and then the typical attributes. Some people have criticized

the inclusion of female in the categorical concept. It's redundant for them to say female and then the typical

attributes.

Some people have criticised the inclusion of female in the categorical concept. It's redundant for them to say

female and then the typical attributes. But they are wrong because there is no redundancy. They are the

extension of the others.

The Network theory (called by Aitchison the Cobweb Theory) is a theory of the mental lexicon. Behind this

theory what we have is a conception of the mental lexicon as a net in which each dot of the net is a word.

These words are connected through others to the whole of the system. The relationships established between

words have multiple routes. Not all the words are related equally. Distance: some are closer than others to the

rest. Words from a same family are closer than those outside this family. There is a problem with this theory.

Network theory fails to capture the overlapping of meaning. We have this when we have hyponymy or

synonymy, for example. These semantic facts are difficult to reconcile with this theory.

word

Net

Person thinks that words are containers of meanings and this idea is compatible with the Cognitive Theory

and Lakoff's idea about meaning. He assumes the question of distance in the network theory and the question

of word families. In Persson's model we also have the common core metaphor, that is, the overlapping of

meaning. Some words may share part of the meaning.

Container / word

Common core metaphor

There are psycholinguistic tests that prove this. ()

It's obvious that the mind doesn't process words in the same way.

Ex: hammer concern

saw

car

14

7/28/2019 00036924

15/69

Hammer' and `saw' belong to the same family but they have nothing to do with the other words.

If we have words like pretty', `handsome', `beautiful' and `nice', in a Network Theory this words form a

family. Person thinks that they share at least one atom of meaning so this has to be represented in the theory.

In `hammer' and `saw' there's no common feature, but in these other words we have a common core: `pleasing

to the senses'

Common core

Person again tries to improve the difficulties of a theory giving a new version

The triangle of meaning (Odgen and Richards) was made for capturing the _________ of meaning.

Concept / Reference / Thought

Linguistic expression World Referent

There are two types of _________ semantics:

Extensional semantics: the relationship between the linguistic expression and its referent and theworld.

Intensional semantics: relationship between the linguistic expression and its referent, but reference

as a concept without paying attention to the world.

So we talk about the extension and the intension of words.

Ex: Figure (19)

Spinster: the person who spins this is the categorical concept that changes to the meaning it has nowadays,

that is an unmarried woman. First it was used as a neutral name but in the 70's the typical attributes began to

take importance and now we distinguish between an unmarried woman and a spinster. The typical attributes

become defining and, moreover, pejorative. ()

Questions related with the problem of categorizing:0

Have you ever argued with another English speaker about whether or not to call some object blue?

Have you ever been in doubt yourself, as an individual, about whether to call something pink or

orange?

Have you ever been in doubt whether to call something a tree or a shrub?

Questions related with the Prototype Theory:

Could a doubledecker bus (of the kind found in British cities) be a prototype for the predicate bus

for a British Englishspeaker? Yes

Could such a bus be a prototype for the predicate bus for an American Englishspeaker? No

4. Meaning Inclusion or Hyponymy

Hyponymy is the relationship of meaning inclusion between a superordinate term and one or more

subordinate terms or hyponyms. We have a hierarchical relationship here. The meaning of the superordinate

term is included in the meaning of the hyponym. We can also define hyponymy by using extension and

intension. The superordinate term has greater extension than the hyponym and the hyponym has greater

15

7/28/2019 00036924

16/69

intension than the superordinate term, that is, this is more vague in meaning and therefore including more

entities from outside world, whereas the hyponym has more semantic features so it's restricted to fewer

entities in the outside world.

Hyponymy Tree

1

2 3

4 5 6 7 8

9 10

There is transitivity because there is a way of reaching the top from the bottom. 10 is a hyponym of 7. if 7 is a

hyponym of 3 and 3 is a hyponym of 1, then 10 is a hyponym of 1 too.

Ex: Figure (1)

The two criteria along which we portray hyponymy are adulthood and sex. But it's incomplete so we shoulddraw a tree like in figure (2). We have to combine both conceptual areas.

Boy: human, not adult, male (connected to man through the concept `male')

If this were a tree, it would be wrong because the crossing of branches is forbidden in theory. So this

method was criticized, and Persson created a new system shown in figure (8).

Systematic Functional Grammar has as a basic tool the system which is just a set of semantic options. And

through the combination of the options available in the system you get the grammar and lexical items. The

basis is semantic information. You also have lexical semantic information, a hierarchy and the syntactic

information include in that lexical items. The superordinate term includes the set of items denoted by the

hyponym.

Ex: superordinate

subordinate

The group of all women would be inside the group of adults.

We have two types of inclusion:

Referential inclusion is an `is a' relation. Ex: `a woman is an adult'

Superordinate

`is a'

Hyponymy

Semantic inclusion is a `may be' relation. Ex: `an adult may be a woman'

Superordinate

16

7/28/2019 00036924

17/69

`may be'

Hyponymy

Drawing the hierarchy in figures (1) and (2) isn't perhaps very convenient. But following person we arrange

the same information in his conceptual model in figure (8). In this example, the concept `human' is in the core.

Then we have a second level. In the third level we have lexical items. So woman is a `human' that is `adult'

and female'. `Girl' and `woman' are joined by the feature female'.

1

2 3

2 and 3 are cohyponyms and their relationship is that of contrast.

Problems with hyponymy:

Use of concepts in the design of the hyponymy tree.

Ex: Figure (8)

Persson says that the concept [adult] hasn't counterpart in languages. This is a problem because in the idea of

[adult] we have two atoms of meaning included: `child' and `adolescent'. The interesting part here is the

definition of the words `boy' and `girl'. Persson says that these words include these two features. Therefore the

lexemes become vague lexemes rather than ambiguous. When you say vague you mean that they can mean

either only `child' or `adolescent' or both of them. Their meaning isn't discrete enough.

We deal with ambiguous items, when they mean either one thing or another but never both.

Disjunction is the relationship of `or'. In a vague word both senses can be included so vagueness is the same

as inclusive disjunction, which is an `or' relation in which both elements may be included. Whereas

ambiguity is an exclusive disjunction, that is, an `or' relationship in which one of the terms excludes the

other.

Ex: `Stone'

a piece of hard compact earthy or mineral matter.

the hard central portion of a fruit.

Only one of the meanings can be activated, so the word is ambiguous; it's an exclusive disjunction.

Figure (10)

Instead of `not adult' we have `child' v `adolescent' (`v' represents inclusive disjunction).

If the meaning lexeme `male' is exhausted by the feature [female] and if the meaning of the lexeme `child' is

exhausted by the feature [adult], then a boy would be a `male child'. But `an 18yearold boy' is certainly

not a child. That's why we have to include in the system the concepts `child', `adolescent' and `adult'. So a boy

is a `male child' / `male adolescent'.

Question of the concept young'.

17

7/28/2019 00036924

18/69

The following analysis was made by Fromkin Rodman:

Woman

+female

+human

young

Girl

+female

+human

+young

The problem here comes with the concept young'. It is the antonym of `old', not of `adult'. `Young' and `old'

make a pair of gradable items.

Contradiction takes place whenever you state a property of something which has the opposite property. If we

say the women are [young], the phrase young women' would be a contradiction. The same happens with the

phrase young adults', if in the idea of adult we include the feature [young].

Tautology is when you say in the phrase a feature inherent to the definition of the word. So young girl' is a

tautologous phrase because girl is defined as [+young]. The same happens with young children'. But all these

phrases are correct. The problem is the inclusion of the feature [ young] in their definition. So this analysis is

totally wrong. If figure (12) were correct a woman would obligatory be defined as an old female and a girl as

a young female, which isn't necessary true.

*old boy *old girl

These two phrases are anomalous in a neutral context, that is, outside a friendship context. This reinforces the

idea of the problem of using [ young] in a definition.

*an unmarried bachelor this is a tautology

All this is resumed in that we, perhaps, need a kind of scale: young', `middleaged' and `old'.

Persson's quotations:

`You are still young enough to think that torment of the spirit is a splendid thing, a sign of superior nature.

But you are no longer a young man; you are a youngish middleaged man...'

Muriel was followed by a female child, unknown to me...'

`Young girl' is usually used as a young female person' because for a young female child' we use `little girl',

18

7/28/2019 00036924

19/69

which is more discrete than the first one.

(...)

`boy' `a male child from birth to puberty'

`girl' `a female child' it's not correct

The definition of boy is more neatly defined in terms of age than that given for girl. In English youth' couldcover the time span from adolescence to adulthood. However in real English, `boy' and youth' are used

indistinctively. So the definition given to `boy' is not correct in the real world.

With all this Lyons talks about Functional Aspects of meaning. The following text is a quotation by Lyon:

By any of the most obvious criteria, girls reach what would normally be described as adulthood earlier,

rather than later, than boys; and yet they are described as boys. The proposition X is now a man may well

imply X is no longer a boy: but X is now a woman doesn't imply X is no longer a girl.'

So we can see that the meaning of `girl' and `woman' overlap in some aspects. So although they are

cohyponyms they don't contrast totally.

Ex: grown up girl *grown up boy

Ex: Miss Simpson studied the girl seated across the table from her in the busy tea room. In the years since

they had last met she had grown into a charming young woman...'

`Girl' and `woman' here refer to the same person.

`girl' `a young unmarried woman'

`spinster' `a woman who has passed the usual age for marrying or seems unlikely to marry'

Persson notes that the idea of marrying is also part of the knowledge we have of girl and woman.

Ex:

unmarried girl married woman *married girl

This is a contradiction.

Would it be ok to include [married] in the definition of `girl'? No, because the example `unmarried girl'

would be a tautology and it's not considered as that. So the idea of unmarrying is associated to `girl', but we

cannot include it in the definition.

There is overlapping in the meanings of `girl' and `woman'.

There are no purely linguistic reasons for this. Lyons says that the kind of knowledge of the world we

associate to words `girl' and `woman' is different from those associated to `boy' and `man'. It's a question of

connotations. In the world of jobs `woman' gets the favourable connotations rather than `girl'.

Figure (54)

19

7/28/2019 00036924

20/69

`child' v `adolescent'

`girl'

`young female adult'

The most fuzzy meaning is that of `girl' and isn't a cohyponym as such of `woman'.

Carter concentrated basically on the question of artefacts and hyponymy. The idea behind this is that thereare many words in the lexicon of a language which are defined depending on the purpose for which they are

used.

Ex:

BUILDING

factory

hospital

house

museum cottage

theatre bungalow

school villa

The superordinate term is `building'; factory', `hospital' and `house' are put one below the other in order to

apply the rule ` is a type of'. Museum', `theatre' and `school' and `cottage', `bungalow' and `villa' are grouped

in different groups because the first are private and the others public. The wrong thing in this tree is that as

`museum' is below house, it implies that a museum is a type of house. It can be improved by the point of view

of function. There are many cases in which buildings are defines because of the use we make of them.

`School' has lots of meanings:

`an institution for educating children'

`a place of education for children'

`attendance or study at such a place; a course of learning at such a place'

`the body of students (and teachers) at such a place'

All theses senses are related to the function. It's a fuzzy word because in the same utterance it can have several

senses.

Figure (60): A functional hyponymy system.

This is a container model. All these words may be understood as an institution or as a place. And then they

may be a building. In the third level we have that a house is a building. In the forth level, we have the function

of the buildings. Here we have for the first time brackets, which imply optionality. But the function is always

active. The problem here is that the superordinate term, that is, the core of the analysis, is optional and there's

no obligation till the fourth level. But there is no solution. Either `institution' either `place' have to be

activated.

20

7/28/2019 00036924

21/69

Figure (62)

It's the function what makes the categorical classification. There is no optionality.

Figure (63) The same but with the container model.

Categorical hyponymy is when morphologically related words share part of the meaning. A derived lexeme

contains the concept expressed by the base plus the additional semantic contribution that is added to the word.

We can also establish the relation between several derivatives of the same word.

A base

B C

Derivatives

Ex: employ

employee employer

Morphology accounts for the meaning of `employer' in terms of a facet of `employ'. This facet of `employer' is

[+agent +action] and of `employee' [+experiencer] or [+affected], which basically is the same as theme. These

words include `employ' plus a semantic component. In the container model this would be:

employee [+theme] `employ' [+agent] employer

There are not only derived words, cases of conversion are also included here.

Ex: to drive core concept the / a drive [+location]

The verb `stand' can have several senses:

He is standing

I can't stand you

The meaning of the base `stand' is included in the second `stand' but this is more complex syntactically and

semantically than the first one. It requires more thematic roles.

What is at the heart of this approach is meaning inclusion. The meaning of the superordinate term is included

in the hyponyms, which are more complex than the base.

Hyponymy has the `a type of...' test, and then we also have meronymy, which uses the `a part of' test. With

Meronymy we have the opposite case than in hyponymy. The meaning of the higher terms includes the

meaning of the lower terms. It's a wholepart relationship between lexical items.

A

B C D

E F

21

7/28/2019 00036924

22/69

`A' includes the meaning of `B', `C' and `D'; and `C' includes the meaning of `E' and `F'.

PLANT

leaf stem flower shoot

petal stamen

There can be plants that have no flower, but it's included anyway.

Meronymy trees are open to Prototype theory (some parts may be there or not, depending on the degree of

prototypicality). They are useful for words that have more than one sense. The fuzziness of these words is

captured in this kind of trees. Meronymy hierarchies are less clearcut and regular than taxonomies.

Meronyms vary for example in how necessary the part is to the whole.

Ex:

Day 24 consecutive hours.

sunlight scope.

Night nonsunlight scope.

Night' may contrast with `day' but also with `morning', `evening'...

DAY

Day Night

down morning afternoon twilight evening night

The lower you come the subtle the meaning is.

Some authors emphasise the idea oflexical gaps, which has no explanation. They occur when there is no

concept for that idea in the gap.

BUS

coach bus

singledecker doubledecker

mini bus trolley

5. Meaning Exclusion or Incompatibility

Jespersen distinguishes between contradictory terms and contrary terms. Contradictory terms are pairs of

terms that excludes each other and they don't have middle terms, for example, like `white / nonwhite'.

Whereas contrary terms are terms that admit a scale and middle terms, for example, like `rich / poor'.

The complexity of the question of meaning exclusion is enormous. We have several terms to refer to it:

antonymy, incompatibility, opposition, contrast, polarity... There are three types of meaning exclusion:

22

7/28/2019 00036924

23/69

Taxonomic Opposition: G. Leech says that there are two terms when the contrast is absolute, like a

territorial boundary. The idea is that a domain is named by a property and it's divided in two parts and the

two terms of the opposition cover two halves of the domain. Ex:

Territory [ live]

Terms alive / dead

One is in opposition with the other.

There are syntactic tests to prove this. They are test of entailment.

Ex: John is alive. John isn't dead

The dead animal is still alive (contradiction)

John is a bachelor but he is not married

Taxonomic opposition poses a fundamental problem in its arguments and there's no agreement in how to solve

it. It has to do with the use of a concept to define the territory. In the example were we have [ live] asterritory, why can't we have [ dead]? There's a question of markedness here. If we say that `alive' is simpler

than `dead', we imply that `dead' is more complex than `alive'. Wierbicka says that `alive' is the negation of

`dead' and not the other way round. She concludes that `dead' is the default term and `alive' the complex one.

You can't mention `alive' if you haven't mention `dead' before.

The same happens with the following example:

Single not married

Marriedmarried

Persson's represents all this as follows:

He points out that probably the knowledge a native speaker has about the meaning of these two terms is not so

much about what categorial concept these terms have but rather the set of typical features assigned to living

and dead things. This means that the meaning lays on the typical features.

Polar Opposition: the terms in opposition in this relation allow some sort of degree modifiers. It's

characterized by the existence of the idea of a middles term or a middle ground, also called norm. Who

decides which is the norm? In order to establish the meaning of norm, we have to take into account the

objectrelated norm and the speakerrelated norm. Following the objectrelated norm, the norm is

defined depending on the object:

Ex: big ant small elephant

Big' and `small' doesn't mean the same in any case. It depends on the object they are accompanying. An small

elephant has not the same seize as a big ant, although this is big and the other small.

The application of polar terms in the case of hyponymy terms makes the transitivity to stop working.

DOG

23

7/28/2019 00036924

24/69

7/28/2019 00036924

25/69

Cruse's ideas about complementaries

Complementaries are exactly the same as taxonomic oppositions. We have one conceptual domain divided in

two departments and the two terms fall in one or the other compartment. There is no neutral ground, no third

term lying between them. Complementaries are recognize as an entailment relationship. The entailment is

bidirectional.

Ex: John is not dead John is alive

The door isn't open The door is shut

The first sentence entails and is entailed by the second and vice versa.

As a result from this we have the diagnosis of denying both terms and producing an anomalous sentence.

Ex:

*The door is neither open nor shut.

*The hamster was neither dead nor alive.

This diagnosis test can be applied to other type of opposites giving correct sentences. This is because they are

not complementaries but antonyms.

Ex: Her exam results were neither good nor bad

It's interesting to notice that the category of complementaries is in many cases verbs and adjectives. And,

especially in the case of verbs, Cruse says that in a pair of complementaries is possible the option of a third

term.

Ex: obey:disobey command command:obey

The idea of obeying or disobeying takes place only in a context of command. This is why sometimes there's a

mixture of one of the terms of the complementaries pair with respect to this third term. So if you're asked

what's the opposite of `command', you would say `obey', but you would never say that `obey' is the opposite of

`command', but `disobey'. The thing is that `command' doesn't have a natural opposite.

Cruse also says that it's true that some complementary adjectives are odd in superlatives and comparatives and

with adverbs, but it's not the case of all of them.

Ex:

*extremely true

*fairly dead

*a little shut

*more married than most

25

7/28/2019 00036924

26/69

*moderately female

In complementary terms sometimes one of the terms admits grading and the other not.

Ex: dead: alive

*very dead

*moderately dead

*deader than before

very alive

moderately alive

more alive than before

open: shut

*slightly shut

*moderately shut

* more shut than before

wide open

slightly open

moderately open

more open than before

Moreover there is a term, `ajar', that refers to a grade of openness.

clean:dirty safe:dangerous

These pairs haven't been considered complementaries because precisely this grading diagnosis. Since they

admit grading they aren't complementaries.

26

7/28/2019 00036924

27/69

moderately clean

very clean

fairly clean

cleaner

slightly dirty

quite dirty

fairly dirty

dirtier

moderately safe

very safe

fairly safe

safer

slightly dangerous

quite dangerous

fairly dangerous

more dangerous

Many speakers reject the entailment in:

(1) It's not clean' entails and is entailed by It's dirty'

But they accept:

(2) It's neither clean nor dirty

Cruse says that we use `dirty' when there is a clear dirtiness and that it wouldn't be appropriate to use it when

something is slightly dirty.

It's not clean' entails and is entailed by `it's at least slightly dirty'

It's paradoxical for everyone to say: *It's neither clean, nor even slightly dirty.

27

7/28/2019 00036924

28/69

This is completely different to `long' and `short'.

It's not long' DOES NOT entail and is entailed by It's at least slightly dirty'

It's neither long, nor is it even a little bit shortthis is not paradoxical since there is a region on the scale of

length which exactly fits this description.

Even if the grading test is valid to identify pairs of complementaries. We have to be careful to apply `at least

slightly' test to pairs which admit grading. This test works well with antonyms too.

Cruse says that antonyms are fully gradable and most of them are adjectives; there are very few verbs. The

pair of antonyms express one concept: size, accuracy, length, height

Ex:

long:short

fast:slow

hot:cold

easy:difficult

good:bad

When more strongly intensified, the members of a pair move in opposite directions along the scale

representing degrees of the relevant variable property. The terms of an antonymous pair are symmetrically

disposed around a neutral region of the scale, which is called the pivotal region, and which cannot be referred

to by either member of the pair. In the majority of the cases, the pivotal region is not designated linguistically

by any lexical item. There is one single exception. It's the case of `tepid' and `lukewarm', which refer to the

pivotal region between `hot' and `cold'.

Poles give us the idea of extreme ends. Antonyms don't have extreme ends either, that is, you cannot name

poles.

Ex:

The value of `slow', although it tends towards zero speed, never actually reaches it, but approaches it. This is

not a physical fact, but a linguistic one: we cannot say `completely slow' when we mean stationary. Thus, we

cannot say `completely cheap' when we mean free of charge, nor `completely short' when we mean having

zero length.

It has been said that antonyms are always to be comparative.

Ex:

Expressions like It's long' or `That's a long one' are to be understood to mean longer than X, where X is some

explicit reference point on the scale of length.

28

7/28/2019 00036924

29/69

A tall man entered the room' is likely to refer to someone taller than the average adult male human.

Isn't he tall?', however, may mean tall for his age, family, class at school, tribe, or profession or taller than

the last time the speaker saw him, etc.

This leads us to say that the meaning of antonyms is more vague, more flexible than the meaning of

taxonomic opposites.

In English there are some adjectives that are inherently superlative. Some scales, besides having a pair ofgradable lexical items that are implicit comparative, also have lexical items which are better characterized as

implicit superlatives.

Ex:

An obvious example of this is the scale of SIZE, which is associated not only with the antonym pair

`large:small', but also with huge:tiny' and `enormous:minute', which are confined to the negative an positive

extremes of the scale.

Implicit superlatives can be recognized by a number of distinctive properties:

They are, generally speaking, resistant to grading, although to varying degrees:

*very huge

*fairly huge

* This one is huger

*rather minute

*very minute

*This one is minute

*slightly enormous

*pretty tiny

They can be modified by unstressed `absolutely':

absolutely huge

absolutely enormous

absolutely minute

Simple antonyms sound very odd when spoken like this:

29

7/28/2019 00036924

30/69

*absolutely large *absolutely small

Although they cannot be lexically or morphologically graded, they can be prosodically graded, that is to say

by means of stress and intonation.

*gladder `glad' is the inherent superlative of `happy', so it's not gradable, although `happy' is fully gradable.

There is also a group of verbal opposites which share a great many characteristics with equipollent antonyms.

Ex: Consider `like:dislike' they represent psychological states and they are fully gradable:

I quite like it.

I like her enormously

And there is a neutral area between the opposites poles:

I neither like nor dislike her she leaves me totally indifferent.

A further resemblance between verbs of this group and adjectival opposites is that they include what appear tobe inherent superlatives.

Ex:

`love:hate' seem to be of this type. First, they are not so fully gradable as `like' and `dislike':

I quite like him.

I dislike it, a little.

*I quite love him

*I hate him, a little

Second they are modifiable by unstressed `absolutely':

I absolutely love it!

I absolutely hate it!

*I absolutely like it!

*I absolutely dislike it!

Underlying many lexical opposites there is a type of opposition which Cruse calls directional opposition. A

pair of lexical items denoting opposite directions indicate potential paths, which would result in their moving

in opposite directions. Cruse says there are three types:

30

7/28/2019 00036924

31/69

Antipodals: one term represents an extreme in one direction along some salient axis, while the other

term denotes the corresponding extreme in the other direction.

Ex:

top:bottom

peak:foot(of mountain)

head:toe

always:never

all:none

start:finish

beginning:end

cradle:grave

We have verbs, nouns, nouns derived from verbs, adverbs

Reversives: pairs of words which denote motion or change in opposite directions. There are two main

ways of characterising `opposite direction' for reversive verb pairs. The first applies to those verbs

which refer to change between two determinate states. The reversivity of the verb pair resides in the

fact that one member denotes a change from state A to state B, while its reversive partner denotes a

change from B to A.

Ex:

appear:disappear

tie:untie the relevant states are being tied and being untied. The action of `untying' a shoelace is not the literal

reversal of the action of `tying' it: usually one unties a shoelace merely by pulling the ends of the laces.

enter:leave

What is important is that the appropriate states should come about.

The second characterisation of opposite direction involves not absolute, but relative, states. Reversive verbs of

this type denote changes between states defined merely as having a particular relationship to one another.

Ex:

ascend:descend

31

7/28/2019 00036924

32/69

advance:retreat

Syntactically, the most elementary type of reversive opposites are intransitive verbs whose grammatical

subjects denote entities which undergo changes of state.

Ex:

rise:fall

enter:leave

Converses: pairs of words which express a relationship between two entities by specifying the

direction of one relative to the other along some axis. So they are characterized by not representing

the extreme end but the direction to that end. This definition doesn't match with the examples given

by Cruse for it because they don't really show the idea of direction or movement.

Ex:

above:below

ancestor:descendat

guest:host

in front of:behind

father:son

teacher:pupil

before:after

husband:wife

master:servant

They express a relationship and depending on the perspective you give one label or the other.

Converse pairs in which the interchangeable noun phrases both occupy central valency slots are called directconverses; those where a central and peripheral noun phrase are interchanged will be called indirect

converses.

Ex:

give:receive

32

7/28/2019 00036924

33/69

bequeath:inherit

buy:sell

pay:charge

These are examples of indirect converses because you always have a third element between them. They havethree roles:

you give something to someone

you pay something to someone

you buy something to someone

`Give' and `receive' are the same but it depends on your perspective.

6. Lexical Ambiguity: Homonymy and Polysemy

The notion ofrelatedness unifies homonymy and polysemy. A case ofhomonymy is one of an ambiguousword whose different senses are so far apart from each other and not obviously related to each other in any

way. And homonyms are unrelated senses of the same phonological word.

Ex: drinking vessel

Mug

gullible person

There is no obvious conceptual connection between its two meanings.

Some authors distinguish between:

Homographs: senses of the same written word.

Homophones: senses of the same spoken word.

Saeed uses generally the term homonym. And he distinguishes different types depending on their syntactic

behaviour, and spelling:

Lexemes of the same syntactic category and with the same spelling:

Ex: circuit of a course

lap

part of the body when sitting down

Lexemes of the same category, but with different spelling:

Ex: ring wring

Lexemes of different categories but with the same spelling:

33

7/28/2019 00036924

34/69

Ex: the verb `keep' and the noun `keep'

Lexemes of different categories and with different spelling:

Ex: not knot

We can talk of prototypicality here, being the first case the most typical example of homonyms.

On the other hand, a case ofpolysemy is one where a word has several very closely related senses:

Ex: of a river

mouth

of an animal

The two senses are clearly related by the concepts of an opening from the interior of some solid mass to the

outside, and of a place of issue at the end of some long narrow channel.

There is a traditional distinction made in lexicology between homonymy and polysemy. Both deal withmultiple senses of the same phonological word, but polysemy is invoked if the senses are judged to be related.

This is an important distinction for lexicographers in the design of their dictionaries, because polysemous

entries are listed under the same lexical entry, while homonymous sense are given separate entries.

Lexicographers to use criteria of `relatedness' to identify polysemy. This criteria include speakers' intuition,

and what is known about the historical development of the items.

Ex:

Various senses of `hook' treated as polysemy and therefore listed under one lexical entry:

Hook: n.1. a piece of material, usually metal curved or bent and used to suspend, catch, hold, or pull

something. 2. short for fishhook. 3. a trap or snare. 4. Chiefly U.S. something that attracts or is intended to be

an attraction. 5. something resembling a hook in design or use. 6.a. a sharp bend or angle in a geological

formation. b. a sharply curved spit of land. 7. Boxing. a short swinging in which the ball is hit square on the

leg side with the bat held horizontally. 9. Golf. a shot that causes the ball to go to the player's left. 10. Surfing.

the top of a breaking wave, etc.

Two groups of senses of `hooker' treated as unrelated, therefore a case of homonymy, and given two

separate entries:

Hooker1: n. 1. a commercial fishing boat using hooks and lines instead of nets. 2. a sailing boat of the west of

Ireland formerly used for cargo and now for pleasure sailing and racing.

Hooker2: n. 1. a person or thing that hooks. 2. U.S. and Canadian slang. a. a draught of alcoholic drink. b. a

prostitute. 3. rugby. the central forward in the front row of a scrum whose main job is to hook the ball.

The most problematic one in the analysis is Hooker2'. The distance between Hooker1' and Hooker2' is

greater than the distance between the two senses in Hooker1' or between senses 1 and 4, for example in

Hook'

Such decisions are not clearcut. Speakers may differ in their intuitions, and worse, historical fact and speaker

intuitions may contradict each other.

34

7/28/2019 00036924

35/69

Ex:

Sole bottom of the foot

Sole flatfish

Most English speakers seem to feel that the two words are unrelated, and should be given separate lexical

entries as a case of homonymy. They are however historically derived via French from the same Latin word

`solea' sandal. So an argument could be made for polysemy.

This process is likely to happen continuously.

Exercise: Decide whether the following words are examples of homonymy (H) or polysemy (P)

Bark(of a dog vs. of a tree) Homonyms

Fork(in a road vs. instrument for eating) Polysemy (because of the shape)

Tail (of a coat vs. of an animal) Polysemy

Steer(to guide vs. young bull) Homonyms (because the words categories are different)

Lip (of a jug vs. of a person) Polysemy

Punch (blow with a fist vs. kind of a fruity alcoholic drink) This is probably the most controversial onebecause you can find it as two different entries or as only one, that is as a polysemous word or as a

homonymous word.

These problem gets worse when these words appear in an utterance.

JAMES PUSTEJOVSKY

The problem: Contrastive ambiguity and complementary ambiguity

The problem for Pustejovsky is that polysemy and homonymy have been treated as different semantic

relationships among words. No account has been given from a unified perspective. both are considered cases

of lexical ambiguity. Puestejovsky believes that ambiguity is the worst problem in language processing

)language generation and language interpretation). In this dual view the generation and / or the parsing

(interpretation) is the key issue.

It is certainly true that many words in a language have more than one meaning. but the ways in which words

carry multiple meanings can vary. We can distinguish two types of ambiguity:

Contrastive ambiguity: this is seen where a lexical item accidentally carries two distinct and

unrelated meanings (i.e., homonymy).

Ex:

a. the bank of the river.

b. the richest bank in the city

a. The judge asked the defendant to approach to the bar.

b. The defendant was in the pub at the bar.

In the examples above the underlined items have more than one lexical sense. Whether these senses are

35

7/28/2019 00036924

36/69

historically related or accidents of orthographic and phonological blending, is, for Pustejovsky, largely

irrelevant for purposes of lexicon construction and the synchronic study of meaning.

Complementary ambiguity: It involves lexical senses which are manifestations of the same basic

meaning of the word as it occurs in different contexts. The alternative readings are manifestations of

the same core sense.

1. a. The bank raised its interest rates yesterday. (i.e., the institution)

b. The store is next to the new bank. (i.e., the building)

2. a. John crawled through the window. (i.e., the aperture)

b. The window is closed. (i.e., the physical object)

3. a. Mary painted the door. (i.e., the physical object)

b. Mary walked through the door. (i.e., the aperture)

Somehow, our model of lexical meaning must be able to account for how the word for bankcan refer to bothan institution and a building, how the word for window can refer to both an aperture and a physical object

Sense Enumeration Lexicon: semanticality

Pustejovsky argues that the most direct way to account for polysemies is to allow the lexicon to have multiple

listing of words, each annoted with a separate meaning or lexical sense. This is what he calls Sense

Enumeration Lexicon (SEL), which is characterized as follows:

A lexicon L is a Sense Enumeration Lexicon if and only if for every word w in L, having multiple senses s1,...,

sn associated with that word, then the lexical entries expressing theses senses are stored as {ws1, ..., wsn}.

Given this view of lexical sense organization, the fact that a wordform is ambiguous does not seem to

compromise or complicate the compositional process of how words combine in the interpretation of a

sentence.

Ex: The two contrastive senses of the word `bank' as used above could be listed in a straightforward fashion as

below, using a fairly standard lexical data structure of category type (CAT), and a basic specification of the

genus term (GENUS), which locates the concept within the taxonomic structure of the dictionary.

bank1

CAT = count_noun

GENUS = financial_institution

bank2

CAT = count_noun

GENUS = shore

`bank1' and `bank2' would be listed separately.

36

7/28/2019 00036924

37/69

Pustejovsky felt the need to include the concept ofsemanticality, analogous to the view of grammaticality,

but ranging over semantic expressions rather than syntactic structures. Semanticality refers to the

wellformedness of expressions in grammar. It's a binary judgement on whether an expression is

truthfunctional or not.

A sentence may be judged wrong because the semantic conditions or because it's semantically wrong. So a

sentence may be [ grammatical] or [ interpretable]:

A sentence may be [+ grammatical] [ interpretable]:

Ex: The book is on the table

A sentence may be [ grammatical] [+ interpretable]

A sentence may be [ grammatical] [ interpretable]

A sentence may be [+ grammatical] [+ interpretable]

Ex: Garden Path sentences: I knew the boy had been waiting for three hours it has two possibilities for

processing, that is, `the boy' is first object of `knew' and then once it's processed it's also the subject of `hadbeen waiting'.

This is what takes Pustejovsky to semanticality referring to sentences which even if they are grammatical,

there is something wrong with them.

Ex:

(1) a. *Mary kicked me with her foot.

b. Mary kicked me with her left foot.

(2) a. *John buttered the toast with butter.

b. John buttered the toast with an expensive butter from Wisconsin.

Although asentences are not ungrammatical in any strict sense, they are semantically less acceptable than the

bsentences.

(3) a. *The house was built.

b. The house was built by accomplished builders.

(4) a. *The cookies were baked.

b. The cookies were baked in the oven.

Even if the semantic role is fulfilled, there may be something wrong.

This question of unsemanticality isn't something Pustejovsky took out of the blue. Coseriu and Kastovsky

also dealt with this problem and they invent the notion oflexical solidarities. The notion of this arises out of

the need of analysing the sintagmatic relations of words. Sintagmantic means the same as structural. So lexical

solidarities deal with the problem of the location of the words in the structure and how that affects the

37

7/28/2019 00036924

38/69

semantic of theses words. Lexical solidarities are the determinations of the content of one word by a class of

other words or by a specific other lexeme.

Opposed to the lexical solidarities, we have the selection restrictions, which are negatives implications. And

lexical solidarities are the positive implication of the meaning of words in combination.

Ex:

selection restriction Green ideas sleep furiously.

lexical solidarities In the content of the lexeme `kiss' we have the content of `lips' and not the other

way round. The feature `human' is contained in verbs like `marry', `apologize', `admire', `murder'...

There are two kinds of lexical solidarities:

Unilateral

Ex:

bite teeth

lick tongue

kiss lips

Multilateral

Ex:

bark dog

neigh horse

bray donkey

The syntactical semantic behaviour is different. The determining lexeme is not expressed.

Ex:

*The dog chewed the bone with his teeth.

*He kissed her with his lips.

These are semantically unacceptable. The explicit realization is normal if the determining lexeme is further

modified.

Romeo kissed Juliet with chocolate smeared lips.

38

7/28/2019 00036924

39/69

The dog chewed the bone with his sharp teeth.

These are semantically acceptable.

With multilateral solidarities the determining lexeme may appear or not.

Ex:

You can say: The donkey brayed.

Or simply: The animal brayed.

Bray' includes the meaning of `donkey'

In order to build his lexicon, Pustejovsky is going to criticize the Sense Enumeration Lexicons. Basically

there are two types of criticisms. One has to do with the creative use of words, that is, how words can take

on an infinite number of meanings in novel contexts. The other is the permeability of word senses. He thinks

that word senses aren't atomic definitions but overlap and may make reference to other senses of the world.

Ex: Consider the ambiguity of adjectives such as `good':

a. Mary finally bought a good umbrella.

b. After two weeks on the road, John was looking for a good meal.

c. John is a good teacher.

`Good' is ambiguous in the sense that for each case it has different interpretations. So within an SEL, the only

way to represent distinct senses for this adjective would be by an explicit listing of senses in the received

usage of the word: good1, good2, ...goodn. For the sentences above, this would correspond to the three fixed

senses listed below:

good(1) to function well

good(2) to perform some act well

good(3) tasty

The conditions which make an umbrella `good for something', however, are very different from those which

make John a `good teacher'. For each novel sense we encounter, the SEL approach must enter a new lexical

item into dictionary, creating one entry for each new sense.

In English, there are verbs which are systematically ambiguous, requiring discrimination with respect to

changeofstate vs. creation readings, depending on the context and on the internal argument.

Ex:

a. John baked the potatoes (changeofstate)

b. Mary baked a cake (creation)

a. Mary cooked the carrots (changeofstate)

39

7/28/2019 00036924

40/69

b. Mary cooked a meal (creation)

Sometimes words have several senses which are logically related to each other. If we apply a SEL (Sense

Enumeration Lexicon), the senses have to appear separate and this logical relation is not manifested whereas

with a different model this logical relation is captured.

Ex:

Window1

CAT = count_noun

GENUS = aperture

Window2

CAT = count_noun

GENUS = physical_object

The problem with this is that the logical relation that exists between the things in the world denoted by these

expressions is not expressed, and these senses are embodied in the use of the as in :

John crawled through the broken window

It activates the meaning of `physical object'

It activates the meaning of `aperture'

We have plenty of evidence against this idea of one sense, one word, because words behave in a much

complex way than in this unilateral strategy.

Constructional Polysemy: Qualia Structure

Constructional polysemy is when a word acquires multiple senses depending on the construction in which

that word appears (normally more abstract meanings). This is the same as syntactic polysemy. Depending on

the syntactic construction in which a word appears, this word acquires several senses. This is a question of

specialization of meaning; i.e. words get more and more specialized.

Ex:

reel its meaning depends on the `ofphrase' that accompanies it. The word `reel' is different from a film reel'

or a fishing reel'. This means that this word alone is taken to be something like a container. It's a vague word

and specializes in contact with the `ofphrase' or a with a pronominal modification. We have sometimes that

`reel' is used with the meaning of the content and therefore it adopts the whole of the meaning of the phrase:

I just accidentally exposed three reels [of Kodak].

We cannot omit `of Kodak' because `reel' adopts the whole meaning of the world. Sometimes `reel' specializes

and adopts the meaning `reel of film':

The mystery is only resolved in the final reel.

40

7/28/2019 00036924

41/69

This happens because it's a question of the construction in which in which this word enters. It's always a

process of specialization. There is a degree of specialization. It goes from a general term to a concrete term.

Perhaps a clearer case of the specialization of meaning is the adjectible premodification. It happens to be

that in English when you premodify a noun with an adjective, that adjective acquires multiple readings.

Ex:

a. a sad poem / poet / day

b. a fast motorway / car / driver

The adjective doesn't mean the same in all the cases.

The crucial idea for constructional polysemy is that the meaning of the head noun determines the meaning of

the adjective. So we can defend that there is a close relationship between the adjective and the noun. What

Pustejovsky says is that the adjective is like a higherorder predicate which establishes the link with the noun.

It works as if we have a verb with its arguments. In this case the object is the noun and the adjectives are the

predicates that take objects. Adverbs are always higherorder predicates, because an adverb is like the head

predicate that takes the whole utterance as its argument.

Ex:

carefully higherorder level

the teacher

the lesson 1st order level

explained

`Carefully' has scope over the rest of the predication, i.e., the first order predication. It is the nucleus and `the

teacher explained the lesson' is its argument.

`a fast typist' meaning `a person who types very fast' or `a typist who does other things fast'. The Generative

lexicon has to interpret it as the default reading (`somebody who types fast') and then as an extra

interpretation. We have the meaning `a typist who does something fast'. In order to achieve this other

meaning, the context has to be informationally rich. The meaning of `typist' includes the predicate (verb)

`type', which has an argument (x) and an event argument (e). this event argument expresses fast', which is the

way the event is realized. So when you combine fast typist', it means `someone who types fast':

[x][typist (x) ^ fast (e) ^ type (e,x)]

[x][type (e,x)]

The meaning of typist includes the meaning of type, which implies a person (x) and an event (e).

The meaning of a lexical item necessarily enters on relationship with the neighbouring words. Pustejovsky

believes that this relationship that is established between words has to be present in the lexical entries of

words. A purely denotational approach is not enough because knowledge of the world is part of the meaning

of lexical items. This is the Qualia Structure, which is the structured representation which gives the

relational force of a lexicon item. It's a way of formalizing knowledge of the world. Obviously this has

41

7/28/2019 00036924

42/69

something to do with cognitive linguistics. This gives a formal representation of cognitive capacities. Qualia

Structure specifies four essential aspects of a word's meaning (or qualia / quales):

Constitutive: the relation between the object and its constituent or proper parts:

Material

Weight

Parts and component element

Formal: that which distinguishes it within a larger domain:

OrientationMagnitude

Shape

Dimensionality

Colour

position

Telic: it purpose and function of the object:

Purpose that an agent has in performing an act.

Builtin function or aim which specifies certain activities.

Agentive: factors involved in the origin or `bringing about':

An object

CreatorArtefact

Natural kind

Causal chain

All these kinds of information intermingle and have consequences on the meaning of

the structures in which these words appear. A purely compositional analysis isn't

enough. There are two general points that should be made concerning qualia roles:

Every category expresses a qualia structure but not all the four quales are necessary in

the Qualia Structure of words:

Ex:

cookie and beer

We recognize that they are `foodstuff' and `beverage', respectively. While `cookie' is

a term that describes a particular kind of object in the world, the noun foodstuff'

denotes by making functional reference to what we `do with' something, i.e., how we

use it. In this case, the term is defined in part by the fact that food is something one

eats, for a specific purpose, and so on. Similar remarks hold for the information

related to the noun `beer'. The TELIC quale for the nouns food' and `beer' encodes

this functional aspect of meaning, represented informally as [TELIC = eating] and

[TELIC = drinking].

novel and dictionary

Although both objects are books in a general sense, how we use them differs: while

one reads a novel, dictionaries are for consulting. The respective qualia values

encoding this functional information for `novel' and `dictionary' are [TELIC =

reading] and [TELIC = consulting]. This distinction, of course, is not the only way

these concepts differ; the structure of the text in a novel is characteristically a

narrative or story, while a dictionary is by definition a listing of words. This

42

7/28/2019 00036924

43/69

distinction is captures by the constitutive role, expressing the internal structural

differences: [CONST = narration] and [CONST = listing of words]. Finally, even

with their overall similarity as expressed in identical formal roles ([FORMAL =

book]), novels and dictionary also differ in how they come into being, expressed in

the agentive role. That is, while a novel is written, a dictionary is compiled:

[AGENTIVE = written] and [ AGENTIVE = compiled].

All this is basic to understand how these words may appear in a construction.

CONST =

FORMAL =

QUALIA = TELIC =

AGENT =

This kind of representation is derived from the Headdriven Phrase StructureGrammar. This is a model to capture the relational form.

Ex:

novel

CONST = narrative

QUALIA = FORMAL = book

TELIC = reading

AGENT = writing

There you have information but there's no relation. Reading' expresses `someone

reading something'. That's what we have in the following one:

novel

FORMAL = book(x)

QUALIA = TELIC = read(y,x)

agent object (book)

In these action of `reading' you connect the agent with the object. You have to

include the roles in the action of `reading'.

break

E1 = e1: process

43

7/28/2019 00036924

44/69

EVENTSTR = E2 = e2: state

RESTR =

7/28/2019 00036924

45/69

The qualia structure is a way of capturing the semantic oddity of many utterances.

Ex: Pustejovsky says imagine we have examples like:

a. Sam enjoyed(drinking) the beer.

b. Sam enjoyed(watching) the film.

c. Sam enjoyed(reading) the book.

d. Sam enjoyed(eating) the caviar.

A theory of lexical semantics has to explain what `enjoy' means and what `beer' is.

The thing is that we know what they mean separately, but together they mean `enjoy

drinking the beer'. A different model to Pustejovsky's would simply list the senses of

`enjoy' when it's combined with certain words. For example `enjoy the beer' refers to

`enjoy drinking the beer'. The default interpretation in these cases is possible because

of the meaning of `beer', film', `book' and `caviar'. Our knowledge of the world of

these words tells us that if we apply `enjoy', `drinking' is part of the meaning of

`beer', `watching' is part of film', `reading' is part of `book', and `eating' is part of`caviar'. So in the qualia structure of `beer', it's included that it's for drinking, that

film' is for watching, that `book' is for reading, and that `caviar' is for eating.

The question of metaphor is a phenomenon called broaderning:

Ex: cloud of mosquitoes /dust cloud

We all know what a cloud is. Why then is it possible to say a cloud of mosquitoes or

a dust cloud? In principle, the word `cloud' has its qualia structure. If one of the

quales of its qualia structure is overridden then these examples are interpreted as

acceptable. In the Constitutive quale is `water vapour'. If we override it, then we can

say a cloud of mosquitoes. We substitute the information of `water vapour' by `group

of mosquitoes'. In the case of `dust cloud', it is overridden by `dust'.

Sense extensions

The qualia structure is part of the lexical entry of a word. Where as the Sense

Extensions are lexically governed treatment of the phenomenon, that is, lexical rules

applied to lexical items. One of this lexical rules is grinding: a process of sense

extensions which creates mass nouns denoting an unindividual substance from count

nouns denoting an individual physical object of the same kind.

Ex:

Count Noun Mass Noun

a lamb lamb

a rabbit rabbit

a chicken chicken

A dictionary doesn't list `lamb', `rabbit' a