Upload
agatha-pitts
View
218
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Cognitive LinguisticsCroft & Cruse 6
A dynamic construal approach to sense relations I:
hyponymy and meronymy
6.1.1 Hyponymy
• Hyponymy is a relationship of inclusion within a larger set– More often encountered with nouns (koala:
marsupial) than with verbs (punch: hit) and adjectives (maroon: red)
– This means that the superordinate term is a proper part of the meaning of the hyponym, so marsupial is a proper part of the meaning of koala
6.1.2 Hyponymy and context
• But sometimes not all examples of the hyponym category are examples of the superordinate category, cf. “para-hyponymy” of dog: pet, where not all dogs are pets and construal plays a role
6.1.2 Hyponymy and context
• Hyponymy is a transitive relation because containment is also transitive, but sometimes transitivity seems to fail due to construal (car seat: seat, and seat: furniture, but not car seat: furniture)
6.1.3 Relations between lexical items
• Is hyponymy a relation between words or between construals of word meanings? Are there any context-independent relations? Probably not. We are always construing meaning relative to context.
6.1.4 Taxonymy
• This is the relationship in which “X is a kind of Y” (note that “a kind of” is one of Wierzbicka’s semantic primitives)
• Not all hyponyms are good taxonyms– Hyponyms large spoon, deep spoon are not
“a kind of spoon”– Taxonyms teaspoon, soup spoon are “a kind
of spoon”
6.1.4 Taxonymy, cont’d.
• Focal orientation: this is a perspective that the hyponym/taxonym and superordinate term must share so that the relationship works– A blonde is not a kind of
woman because blonde has a hair color focal orientation that woman lacks
6.2 Lexical aspects of the part-whole relation
• Meronymy (aka partonymy) is a relation between meanings, not strictly a part-whole relation, which is a relation between individual entities
• Part-whole is motivated by the image-schema of containment
• Notice that some words are more autonomous than others, as in airplane parts vs. airplane pieces
6.2.1.3 Factors affecting the GOE (Goodness of Example) of parts
• These factors include:– Inclusion in boundaries– Sharing of substance– Clear discontinuity between part and whole– Internal cohesion of the part– Part has a definable function– Part is autonomous and can have replicas– The part is consistent with the type of the whole
• Some parts are segmentable (body parts) and some are systemic (nervous system) and thus less salient
6.2.1.5 Ultimate parts and ultimate wholes
• A part-whole chain prototypically has two endpoints.
• There may be a point beyond which it does not make sense to identify smaller parts (fingertip)
• Ultimate wholes may be variously construable (does pan include lid?)
6.2.1.6 Core parts
• Sometimes the core part is profiled, for example: stainless steel knife, where stainless steel refers only to the blade, not the whole object
6.2.1.7 Variable construal and the transitivity of the part-whole relation• Some parts are more integrated into the whole
than others (handle is more integrated into spoon than hand is to arm)
• Transitivity often fails because there are construals where the whole does not necessarily include the part (arm has hand, but arm does not have fingers)
• [I think that a lot of this is better resolved by referring to Langacker’s profile vs. base]
6.2.2 Meronymy
• “If A is a meronym of B in a particular context, then any member a of the extension of A either maps onto a specific member b of the extension of B of which it is construed as a part, or it potentially stands in an intrinsically construed relation of a part to some actual or potential member of B.” (Cruse’s third try…)
6.2.2 Meronymy, cont’d.
• Notice that meronymy differs across languages, for example the different ranges of words corresponding to arm, hand, finger