Lexical Relations

Lexical relations
Lexical relations
Not only can words be treated as “containers” of meaning, or as fulfilling “roles” in
events, they can also have “relationships” with each other. In everyday talk, we often
explain the meanings of words in terms of their relationships. If we’re asked the
meaning of the word conceal, for example, we might simply say, “It’s the same as
hide,” or give the meaning of shallow as “the opposite of deep,” or the meaning of
daffodil as “a kind of flower.” In doing so, we are characterizing the meaning of each
word, not in terms of its component features, but in terms of its relationship to other
words. This approach is used in the semantic description of language and treated as the
analysis of lexical relations. The lexical relations we have just exemplified are synonymy
(conceal/hide), antonymy (shallow/deep) and hyponymy (daffodil/flower).
Synonymy
Two or more words with very closely related meanings are called synonyms. They can
often, though not always, be substituted for each other in sentences. In the appropriate
circumstances, we can say, What was his answer? or What was his reply? with much
the same meaning. Other common examples of synonyms are the pairs: almost/nearly,
big/large, broad/wide, buy/purchase, cab/taxi, car/automobile, couch/sofa, freedom/
liberty.
We should keep in mind that the idea of “sameness” of meaning used in discussing
synonymy is not necessarily “total sameness.” There are many occasions when one
word is appropriate in a sentence, but its synonym would be odd. For example,
whereas the word answer fits in the sentence Sandy had only one answer correct on
the test, the word reply would sound odd. Synonymous forms may also differ in terms
of formal versus informal uses. The sentence My father purchased a large automobile
has virtually the same meaning as My dad bought a big car, with four synonymous
replacements, but the second version sounds much more casual or informal than
the first.
Match the correct synonyms.

Old Mad
Strong Scorched
Fat Fair
Blond obese
Crazy Robust
Strange Aged
Dry Bitsy
Good Buoyant
Light Smashing
little Eerie
Antonymy
Two forms with opposite meanings are called antonyms. Some common examples are
the pairs: alive/dead, big/small, fast/slow, happy/sad, hot/cold, long/short, male/
female, married/single, old/new, rich/poor, true/false.
Antonyms are usually divided into two main types, “gradable” (opposites along a
scale) and “non-gradable” (direct opposites). Gradable antonyms, such as the pair big/
small, can be used in comparative constructions like I’m bigger than you and A pony is
smaller than a horse. Also, the negative of one member of a gradable pair does not
necessarily imply the other. For example, the sentence My car isn’t old, doesn’t necessarily
mean My car is new.
117
With non-gradable antonyms (also called “complementary pairs”), comparative
constructions are not normally used. We don’t typically describe someone as deader or
more dead than another. Also, the negative of one member of a non-gradable pair does
imply the other member. That is, My grandparents aren’t alive does indeed mean My
grandparents are dead. Other non-gradable antonyms in the earlier list are the pairs:
male/female, married/single and true/false.
Although we can use the “negative test” to identify non-gradable antonyms in a
language, we usually avoid describing one member of an antonymous pair as the
negative of the other. For example, while undress can be treated as the opposite of
dress, it doesn’t mean “not dress.” It actually means “do the reverse of dress.”
Antonyms of this type are called reversives. Other common examples are enter/exit,
pack/unpack, lengthen/shorten, raise/lower, tie/untie.
Match the correct Antonyms
Float Full
Near Girl
Empty Sad
Give Sink
Boy Guilty
Happy Hard
Innocent Far
Soft evil
Good Receive
Hyponymy
When the meaning of one form is included in the meaning of another, the relationship
is described as hyponymy. Examples are the pairs: animal/dog, dog/poodle, vegetable/
carrot, flower/rose, tree/banyan. The concept of “inclusion” involved in this relationship
is the idea that if an object is a rose, then it is necessarily a flower, so the meaning
of flower is included in the meaning of rose. Or, rose is a hyponym of flower.
When we consider hyponymous connections, we are essentially looking at the
meaning of words in some type of hierarchical relationship. We can represent the
relationships between a set of words such as animal, ant, asp, banyan, carrot, 118
cockroach, creature, dog, flower, horse, insect, living thing, pine, plant, poodle, rose,
snake, tree and vegetable as a hierarchical diagram.
Looking at the diagram, we can say that “horse is a hyponym of animal” or
“cockroach is a hyponym of insect.” In these two examples, animal and insect are
called the superordinate (= higher-level) terms. We can also say that two or more
words that share the same superordinate term are co-hyponyms. So, dog and horse are
co-hyponyms and the superordinate term is animal.
The relation of hyponymy captures the concept of “is a kind of,” as when we give the
meaning of a word by saying, “an asp is a kind of snake.” Sometimes the only thing we
know about the meaning of a word is that it is a hyponym of another term. That is, we
may know nothing more about the meaning of the word asp other than that it is a kind
of snake or that banyan is a kind of tree.
It is worth emphasizing that it is not only words for “things” that are hyponyms.
Words such as punch, shoot and stab, describing “actions,” can all be treated as cohyponyms
of the superordinate term injure.
Prototypes
While the words canary, cormorant, dove, duck, flamingo, parrot, pelican and robin
are all equally co-hyponyms of the superordinate bird, they are not all considered
to be equally good examples of the category “bird.” According to some researchers,
the most characteristic instance of the category “bird” is robin. The idea of “the
characteristic instance” of a category is known as the prototype. The concept of a
prototype helps explain the meaning of certain words, like bird, not in terms of
component features (e.g. “has feathers,” “has wings”), but in terms of resemblance
to the clearest example. Thus, even native speakers of English might wonder if
ostrich or penguin should be hyponyms of bird (technically they are), but have no
trouble deciding about sparrow or pigeon. These last two are much closer to the
prototype.
Given the category label furniture, we are quick to recognize chair as a better
example than bench or stool. Given clothing, people recognize shirts quicker than
shoes, and given vegetable, they accept carrot before potato or tomato. It is clear that
there is some general pattern to the categorization process involved in prototypes and
that it determines our interpretation of word meaning. However, this is one area where
individual experience can lead to substantial variation in interpretation and people
may disagree over the categorization of a word like avocado or tomato as fruit or
vegetable. These words seem to be treated as co-hyponyms of both fruit and vegetable
in different contexts.

Lexical Relations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lexical Relations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lexical Relations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lexical relations

Match the correct synonyms.

Match the correct Antonyms

You might also like