Introducing lexical relations

1
Introducing lexical relations

• Cruse (1986), Chapter 4

2
4.1 Preliminaries

• Topic different semantic relations between
  lexical units.
• Lexical unit lexical form 1 single
  distinguishing sense.

3
4.1 Preliminaries

• 2 fundamental types of sense relations

4
4.1 Preliminaries

• 2 fundamental types of sense relations
• Paradigmatic

5
4.1 Preliminaries

• 2 fundamental types of sense relations
• Paradigmatic
• Syntagmatic

6
Overview

• Paradigmatic sense relations 4.2-4.11
• - 4 basic types of sense relations 4.2-4.6
• - other types of congruence relations 4.7
• - general concepts about sense relations
• 4.8-4.11
• Syntagmatic sense relations 4.12

7
4.2 Congruence

• 4 basic relations between classes
• Identity
• Inclusion
• Overlap
• Disjunction

8
4.3 Cognitive synonymy

• identity

9
4.3 Cognitive synonymy

• identity
• Cognitive synonymy
• X and Y are cognitive synonyms if
• - they are syntacticly identical
• - Any sentence S1 containing X has the same
  truth-conditions as an identical sentence S2 in
  which X is replaced by Y.

10
4.3 Cognitive synonymy

• identity
• example fiddle vs. violin

11
4.4 Hyponymy

• inclusion
• form A is f(X)
• f(X) is an indefinite expression, and represents
  the minimum syntactic elaboration of X for it to
  function as a complement of the verb to be

12
4.4 Hyponymy

• inclusion
• If A is f(X) entails A is f(Y), but not the
  other way around then
• X is a hyponym of Y
• Y is a superordinate of X

13
4.4 Hyponymy

• If A is f(X) entails A is f(Y), but not the
  other way around then
• X is a hyponym of Y
• Y is a superordinate of X
• Example this is a dog entails this is an
  animal.

14
4.5 Compatibility

• overlap
• No systematic entailments between sentences
  differing only in respect of compatibles in
  parallel syntactic positions
• A pair of compatibles must have a common
  superordinate

15
4.5 Compatibility

• Strict compatability X and Y are strict
  compatibles if
• They share at least 1 hyponym which is
  independently characterisable.
• Example this is a snake / this is a poisonous
  creature
• Contingent compatability
• Example this is a dog / this is a pet

16
4.6 Incompatibility

• disjunction
• X and Y are incompatibles if
• A is f(X) entails A is not f(Y)
• and vice-versa.
• Example this is a dog vs. this is a cat

17
4.7 Congruence variants

• Secondary congruence relations
• Identity -gt congruent relation
• Inclusion -gt hypo-relation and super-relation
• Overlap -gt semi-relation
• Disjunction plays no role here

18
4.8 Partial relations

• relations between lexical items which don't
  always occur at the same place in a sentence.
• Example finish and complete

19
4.9 Quasi-relations

• relations between lexical items which meet the
  semantic requirements, but are of different
  syntactic category
• Example it is red/yellow/green with it is
  coloured as quasi-superordinate.

20
4.10 Pseudo-relations

• 2 lexical items do not stand in any relation,
  but under certain circumstances they show 1 or
  more characteristic of a certain relation.
• Example This triangle has 3 equal sides and
  This triangle has 3 equal angles.

21
4.11 Para-relations

• relations between lexical items which are
  expected rather than necessary
• Example dog and pet.
• ?Its a dog, but its a pet.

22
4.12 Syntagmatic relations of meaning betw.
lexical units

• syntactic control of the semantic properties of
  a sentence
• Every word has a relation to all other words in a
  sentence, and even in neighboring sentences.
• Relation through discourse propinquity
• Relation controlled by syntax

23
4.12 Syntagmatic relations of meaning betw.
lexical units

• Relation through discourse propinquity
• Example The Ruritian ambassador delivered a
  jolly strong protest concerning the recent
  violation of his countrys sovereignty

24
4.12 Syntagmatic relations of meaning betw.
lexical units

• Relation controlled by syntax
• Example The Ruritanian ambassador delivered a
  highly strong protest concerning the recent
  violation of his countrys sovereignty

25
4.12 Syntagmatic relations of meaning betw.
lexical units

• Relation controlled by syntax

26
4.12 Syntagmatic relations of meaning betw.
lexical units

• Relation controlled by syntax

27
4.12 Syntagmatic relations of meaning betw.
lexical units

• Relation controlled by syntax

28
4.12 Syntagmatic relations of meaning betw.
lexical units

• Semantic clash only between sister nodes!

29
4.12 Syntagmatic relations of meaning betw.
lexical units

• Semantic clash only between sister nodes!

30
4.12 Syntagmatic relations of meaning betw.
lexical units

• Semantic clash only between sister nodes!

31
4.12 Syntagmatic relations of meaning betw.
lexical units

• Directional properties
• selector/selectee
• Head-modifier constructions
• the modifier is the selector
• example a pregnant teacher
• Head-complement constructions
• the head is the selector
• example did you drink it?

32
4.12 Syntagmatic relations of meaning betw.
lexical units

• Directional properties
• encapsulation of semantical traits
• Head-modifier constructions
• the head encapsulates the meaning of the
  modifier.
• example ?a male uncle
• Head-complement constructions
• the head encapsulates the meaning of the
  complement.
• example ?Arthur drinks liquids

33
4.12 Syntagmatic relations of meaning betw.
lexical units

• Set of syntagmatic relations
• Philonyms 2 lexical units combined into a
  syntactically semantically normal construction
• Tautonyms ...pleonastic construction
• Xenonyms ... dissonant constuction

34
4.12 Syntagmatic relations of meaning betw.
lexical units

• Degrees of dissonance
• Inappropriateness
• when the selector has a cognitive synonym
  which is a philonym of the selector
• example the aspidistra kicked the bucket

35
4.12 Syntagmatic relations of meaning betw.
lexical units

• Degrees of dissonance
• Paradox
• when..
• The method for inappropriateness doesnt work.
• One of the lexical units involved has a
  superordinate which is a philonym of the other.
• example a male aunt-gta male relation

36
4.12 Syntagmatic relations of meaning betw.
lexical units

• Degrees of dissonance
• Incongruity
• when none of the methods for
  inappropriateness or paradox work.
• example a lustfull affix