Stephen van Vlack

Sookmyung Women`s University

Graduate School of TESOL

Introduction to Linguistics

Fall 2004

Week 8 - Questions for discussion

Intro. to Ling. pp. 193-225

1. What is hyponymy? Give at least one example.

     Hyponymy is a type of semantic relationship between words which enjoy a one-way entailment. This means that a hyponym is a part or type of one thing, but that thing can only partially explain the hyponym. For example, a dog is a kind of animal, but knowing that a dog is a kind of animal is not enough for us to figure out entirely what a dog is. Taking this further, animal is a necessary part of the meaning of dog, but dog is not a necessary part of the meaning of animal. One thing about hyponymy that must be understood is the leveling. A hyponym is a more specific term than its superordinate. That is, a hyponym exists within a superordinate - subordinate relationship. Below, (1) shows an example of hyponymy in a group of verbs.

(1) SPEAK --- yell, whisper, mumble, grumble, murmur, mutter, etc.

Of course we are learning this because this is essentially how the meanings of words are recorded in the mental lexicon, through as series of different types of connections to other lexemes and organized in a specific way.

2. How are taxonomies arranged? Explain.

     Taxonomies are arranged according to the level of the words within the entire system. Words are put in levels based on their specificity or their reliance on one another. It is assumed that we all have this kind of taxonomical structure in your brains, but it is a little bit different than it looks on paper. The brain is able to deal with levels through the length and strength of connections. So, if we decide to draw up a taxonomy around the superordinate food, well we know that food has the hyponyms meat, dairy, vegetable, grain, etc. The meat category can be broken down into pork, beef, poultry, mutton, etc. The lexeme pork has the following hyponyms; bacon, ham, pork etc. Now, we know that the connection between bacon and pork is much stronger than the connection between bacon and food. This is how the brain deals with the levels in the taxonomy. Thus, while we represent these visually in a hierarchical structure shaped more or less like little pyramids stacked on top of each other there really are no tiny pyramids in the brain. In the brain the situation is handled through connections between neurons which vary in strength and scope (as we shall see next week) depending on the strength of the connection.

     Also, it bears mentioning that these taxonomies are by no means universal. All humans presumably arrange lexemes in taxonomies, but the content of the taxonomy is not only language/culture-specific, but actually varies slightly from person to person within a language/culture group. We all have a different amount of lexemes and the relationships between the lexemes will, to a certain extent, vary based on our own personal experience. We are all individuals and use language slightly differently based on our different exposure to language. The UG system, however, works in a way that preserves the similarities, so that all users of a language can understand each other.

3. What is meronymy? Give at least one example.

     Meronymy is a relationship between words in which the words enjoy a part whole relationship and therefore a different kind of one-way entailment than we sw above. For example, a door is a necessary part of a house. A door is therefore a meronym of the lexeme house. Let`s examine following sentences.

(2) The angry elephant destroyed the door.

(3) The angry elephant destroyed the house.

We can understand sentence (2) as indicating that not only the door, but also the house was destroyed. But if the house was destroyed it may also, but does not have to mean that the door was destroyed as well. Following this, we can easily see that meronyms enjoy a special relationship based on the fact that what occurs to the part also occurs to the whole and what occurs to the whole might also, but not necessarily occur to the part. Meronymy is a similar type of relation between words as hyponymy, but is a bit different and generally easier to understand.

4. Why do the authors refer to synonymy as cognitive?

     The authors refer to synonyms as cognitive basically because there is no such thing as perfect synonyms. This would go against the basic policy of economy in language. Language it is claimed is, above all, economical. Using this idea of economy as a basic organizing factor in language it would make no sense for two words to be exactly the same. There have to be subtle differences between how synonyms, even close ones, are used even if their entailment relations and truth conditions are the same.

     From a structural point of view synonymy can be described as a two-way entailment.

(4) `the elephant toppled over the railing` entails `the elephant fell over the railing`

                  And also .......

(5) `the elephant fell over the railing` entails `the elephant toppled over the railing`

     So, synonyms have the same meaning as far as entailments and truth conditions are concerned, but they cannot always replace one other so neatly for a multitude of reasons. One of the most basic ways of differentiating synonyms is through levels of formality. Another common way is through emotive value. We know that all words include some sort of emotional baggage. This can work well in distinguishing synonyms. The set of words below are all synonyms but they all vary in their patterns of usage based on some subtle or not so subtle differences.

(6) smart - bright - ingenious- intelligent - resourceful - clever - shrewd - wily - quick - astute - perspicacious - witty - capable - alert

     Words like smart, bright, intelligent seem to have the same core meaning but vary in their formality and degree of force. Ingenious and resourceful both refer to specific type of smarts, one related to problem solving in a general sense. Clever, shrewd, and wily all share very similar meaning but they vary quite a bit in their emotive value with clever being quite positive, wily being decidedly negative and shrewd somewhere in between. Witty is related to humor while alert, astute and perspicacious are all similar in meaning scope but vary in their degree of formality. Quick and alert are similar both to the previous three and each other but focus attention on different parts of the process of problem solving. Quick relates to just the reaction time while alert deals with noticing the problem to begin with.

     From this array of different relations we can see how this system of synonyms shows the detailed connections between lexical items which exist outside simple semantic memory. Here we can see how word meaning is really related to a complex interplay between different forces. So,, we might be able to posit taxonomies as a way of partially distinguishing or defining words, but co-hyponyms can only be dealt with by integrating information and experiences from a wide variety of sources, such as personal experience, reference, and other types of memory.

5.What is the difference between antonymy and complementaries?

     The use of the entailment relationship is the best way to explain the difference between antonyms and complementaries. Complementaries are two words which enjoy a two-way negative entailment. An example would be the lexemes alive and dead.

(7) `the porcupine is alive` entails `the porcupine is not dead`

(8) `the porcupine is dead` entails `the porcupine is not alive`

                                     also

(9) `the porcupine is not alive` entails `the porcupine is dead`

(10) `the porcupine is not dead` entails `the porcupine is alive`

This type of relationship, however, does hold for antonyms.

(11) `the water is hot` entails `the water is not cold`

(12) `the water is cold` entails `the water is not hot`

              but

(13) `the water is not hot` does not entail `the water is cold`

(14) `the water is not cold` does not entail `the water is hot`

     We can probably better understand complementaries by thinking of the definition we have of sounds in complementary distribution: They never occur in the same place. Here too, complementaries are perfect opposites. Antonyms, however, are not perfect opposites, they oppose each other, but not in all conditions are we saw from the examples (11) - (13) above. This is because antonyms are gradable. Antonyms can be extended out on a continuum of relations wih one occupying one extreme end fo the continuum and the other the opposite end and at some point they either blend or other terms come in between as would eb the case of hot - warm - cold.

6. What are some problems with semantic feature theory?

     The basic idea behind semantic feature theory is that lexemes consist of, or can be broken down into, a finite set of universal components. This should not be a new idea as it is basically borrowed for the idea of minimal features, which we saw in our study of phonology. On the surface it sounds like a great idea and if we think merely about some concrete nouns it might seems possible. Once we start to get deeper into the idea however, we find that it does not really work very neatly. Take a simple noun, like rose. What would be the features that make it up?

(15)   [-animal]

         [+plant]

         [+flower]

         [-tree]

         etc.

     Well, we are just guessing, but those would be some of the features, but the same problem that we saw when considering dictionary-like definitions arises. We would have to have another semantic feature grid for all features themselves. Also, it seems hard, if not impossible to distinguish all lexemes based on semantic features alone, principally because they lack any involvement from the outside world. Semantic features are purely linguistic concepts. Yet, semantics (word meaning) is at the forefront of language`s encapsulation of the world at large. Think of language as a tiny little version of the world inside the head of each and every one of us. Like the world itself, language includes components and systems that we do not understand. Semantics is a major part of that. What I am basically trying to argue is that it is impossible to break all the components of the world, both concrete and abstract, down into a few purely linguistic features. We have not advanced enough scientifically to do that, not even for the concrete elements.

7. How can knowing all of this make you a better teacher. What are the applications of semantic theory to teaching?

     All what we have learned poses a problem for us teaching in an EFL situation because it requires a large amount of exposure to authentic materials and authentic input as well as an authentic response to what the students are doing with the language. It is only in this way that the students will really acquire their own sense of what words mean and will make the right connections in the brain to make their use of language efficient. By teaching word meaning overtly we are not using the mental lexicon much and by using translation we are denying the students the opportunity to create their own connections from the L2 word to other L2 words, thus creating an L2 system.

Section 12 - Word meaning

       Although the oldest and most written about area of linguistics, word meaning (semantics) was the last major area to be affected by the linguistic revolution initiated by Chomsky in the late 1950s. Much work has been done of late to systematize and simplify the relationships between words. Reading through the first major part of this section you might have been reminded of formal logic, and if you were you wouldn`t have been too far off. Modern semantic theory has been very much affected by logic theory. One might angrily point out that language is not logical and while this is the case it is impossible to deny the elegance and simplicity of the system that has been devised to account for word meaning.

       Through the careful use of the concept of entailment, the authors are able to show and relate a wide variety of different relationships between words. From this we can derive such lexical relationships as; hyponymy, meronymy, cognitive synonymy, antonymy, and complementaries. The idea that allows us to do this is the belief that these relationships between words seem to be part of the mental lexicon. All native speakers of a language are inherently aware of these relationships and use this knowledge to help them figure out what word to use in which situation.

       ̋Entailment is a semantic relationship between two words or sentences, such that if the first is true, the second must be true (e.g., if something is a couch, then it is also a piece of furniture, therefore couch entails furniture).̋ (1994. Language Files, The Ohio State University, p. 457) The relationship of hyponymy relates to superordinates and subordinates, for example, house is a hyponym of dwelling. Here house is subordinate to dwelling. In all languages such words are arranged into patterns of hyponymy called a taxonomy. The shape of taxonomies necessarily change across language and cultural boundaries. We would, therefore, not all speakers of the same language to have the exact same typological structure in their minds. Meronymy is a relationship between parts and wholes. Then, of course, there is cognitive synonymy. The authors chose to call this cognitive because there is no such thing as perfect synonyms in any language. Even if the meaning seems to be the same and one entails the other, the use of such words is different and restricted. Antonyms are words that are entailments, but with the negative NOT. They are also one directional. `X is stupid` entails `X is not smart` works quite well, but `X is not stupid` entails `X is smart` does not work. Not everyone who is not stupid is smart. Words which are two directional (where the negative can go on either side of the equation) are called complementaries.

       Having done all this it is easy to see that words cannot be merely defined/understood/differentiated by their relationships to other words. There must be more. We must analyze words unto themselves. The belief that words have internal semantic structure has been kicking around for many years now, but it is only recently that linguistics have made real efforts to systematize and simplify this. As one can expect their efforts run parallel to what was done with distinctive feature theory in phonology. Words are said to made up of certain features for which they have a +, -, or +/- value. The lexeme GIRL, then, is composed of the following features [+HUMAN, +FEMALE, -ADULT]. This seems nice and easy, but it does not work so well for all words or for extensions of words. Male humans sometimes refer to other male humans as girls. Following semantic feature theory this would be weird. The three features HUMAN, FEMALE, and ADULT are enough to distinguish men, women, girls, and boys from each other, but fail to mention any of the core associations that go along with them. To solve this problem we could go ahead and create a new category called FEMININE, but then we have to ask ourselves, where will all this end? How many categories do we need? Another often cited example is the lexeme BACHELOR [+HUMAN, -FEMALE, -MARRIED]. We all know that bachhelor really means much more than this.

       One way linguists have come up with to try to explain this richness and variability; flexibility even in word meaning is prototype theory. For each lexeme, and even more so for categories, there is a central or more basic meaning and all other related meanings are tied to and extend out from that central meaning. This central meaning is created based on a collection of properties that the prototype contains. Following this, the boundaries between lexemes are not neat and clean, but rather are fuzzy. Take the lexeme WHALE for example. A whale is a mammal, but it is far from the prototypical ideal of MAMMAL, which is a cute, furry land animal. WHALE is necessarily included in the set of mammals, but at the very edge and definitely the edge that extends out to the lexeme FISH. Here the boundaries become fuzzy. If you don`t understand this go to your computer and open up any kind of graphics or photo program. In it there should be a color chart. Look at the chart and try to figure out the point where one color begins and another ends. It`s next to impossible. Then try to find the prototypes of the colors. It should be easy. Have fun with it.

Section 13: Children and words

       This chapter is a nice throwback to the SLA class you took in the SMU-TESOL Program. In it the authors try to pull all this together and show us how children build up inventories of words in their minds. One of the main things they have to say is that children seem to use subordinate words in the taxonomies in superordinate (or base) positions. In this way they account for the fact that children use one lexeme in a wide variety of linguistic situations. They seem to do this based on certain attributes that the lexeme contains, that make it up. This is not far from the idea of semantic features, but occurs at a possibly more basic level.

       Next the authors delve into morphological acquisition. They introduce the idea of the morpheme order studies as a way of showing the systematic nature of children`s morphology and that children seem to go through a series of regular stages of development. The culmination of all this is the familiar overgeneralization, what they call overregularisation. They use this to show the overall systematicity of children`s morphology. For example, they point out that children often overgeneralize the standard plural marker /-s/ but that often irregular nouns behave differently than regular forms. This corresponds to the idea that irregular forms are stored separately in the mental lexicon.

CogLing, Unit 7: Language Change, pp. 116-136

8. In the cognitive model, how is language proposed to change. Describe the process.

     Language change as a result of he same cognitive processes people use to create linguistic utterances in the first place. That is, speakers make decisions regarding the specific features words have in their exhaustive frames and determine how they are going to use them to deliver a specific meaning to a listener. This is done by evoking specific and regular patterns (prototypes on various levels; sound, word, construction) and using them over and over again with subtle changes each time. The regular process of language production in cognitive linguistics involves speakers taking these different level prototypes and altering them to suit his or her purposes. Each instance of language use involves not only making choices regarding what features of a unit to use but also altering, blending, and transposing features both through and within mental spaces. Again, much of this is highly regularized in that we tend to produce language bits we have heard before but often we also make things anew and this is how change comes about. There is no special process for change.

9. What role do frames play in the process of change? Give an example.

     Frames allow change to occur by proposing meaning in a flexible way which is adaptable and changeable under certain conceptual constraints. By proposing that meaning is housed and organized in gigantic frames which cover many different connected senses and even show the path of development, change is allowed to occur as a regular process, not as an extraordinary one.

     We mentioned in class, for example, that the lexeme girl has changed in several ways over the last thousand years of English but the most striking aspect of this change is that it used to be used to denote a young male entity, not a young female entity as it does today. This is a good example of change in that only certain features of the word have changed. Change is always partial in that only certain features in the frame change. Thus the feature young did not change and many of the other features, such as job and dress, did not change but some did, those relating to gender. Remember though change occurs, the meaning must still remain transparent to listeners and this limits the amount and scope of the units involved in the change.

10. How are creativity and change linked in the cognitive model?

     In the cognitive linguistic model of language there is no strict distinction made between language production and language change. It is important to remember that all instances of language usage are the result of creative processes which, though constrained by general cognition, are free to create new and different forms almost inexhaustibly. The cognitive model differs significantly from the generative model in that regular production brings about change. That is, the same processes that speakers use to create their utterances on a regular basis are the same processes that bring about enduring change in languages. Change does not occur as a process principally brought about by technical developments or outside linguistic/cultural influence, it occurs as a result in subtle shifts in productive patterns and tendencies generated through normal processes and generally without purpose orrecognition.