Lexical Semantics: Hyponyny Networks

Question 2 Not all(a) dictionary definitions contain classifiers, precisely m both(prenominal) an(prenominal) do, and in some cases when you heart up the classifier itself, you find another horizontal more general classifier within its definition. For example, you might like to think about the following definitions from the Collins English Dictionary. colostrum is the thin milky secretion from the nipples that precedes and follows true lactation. It consists largely of serum and white blood cells. A secretion is a marrow squash that is released from a cell, especially a glandular cell, and is synthesized in the cell from round-eyed tickers extracted from the blood or similar fluid.Substance is (1) the tangible basic matter of which a thing consists or (2) a precise type of matter, especially a homogeneous strong with definite or fairly definite chemical composition. Matter is (1) that which makes up something, especially a physical object material. What are the classifiers in these definitions? (Why is this question hard to answer? Can you change the definition to make it easier? ) Draw a diagram to parade the hyponymy chain you constitute in (a), with hyponyms shown below their classifiers. Can you think of any additional levels that you can put in the hyponymy chain in a higher place secretion?Add them. Sebum and saliva are co-hyponyms of colostrum. Add them to the diagram, along with deuce co-hyponyms for each level of the chain. Add distinguishers to your diagram, to differentiate each of the co-hyponyms you have added. On an transcendent level it would seem a simple task to select the different classifiers within each of the supra definitions however, several problems arise which belie this. Colostrum is the easiest to divvy up with as it is the most specific of the four terms, although there is still potential for an error to be made.The only classifier in this description is secretion as, according to Hudson (1995 26) the classifier is the first customary noun that follows is1. Although this syntactic congenatorship is multipurpose as a method of identification, it is not the reason secretion is a classifier of colostrum. Syntactic relationships exist between lexemes, not senses, and are governed by the relationships between senses, thus it is the latter that hyponymic webs represent. The classifier (C) is the judgment that is superordinate to the ense in question (S1) in that S1 moldiness possess enough characteristics of the classifier to make it a type of that concept, even if not a typical one, as well as distinguishers that serve to differentiate it from the classifier and any other co-hyponyms. More simply, S1 is a hyponym of C iff all S1 are a type of C, but not all C are S1 (op cit. 16). Furthermore, classifiers for common nouns will always capture what S1 is, not how or why it is. In the case of colostrum only secretion performs this function we can say that colostrum is a type of secretion.It is imp ortant, however, to refine the concept of what it is if this is taken to include a material concept as well as a typical one, i. e. , what it is made up of or consists of, there is more scope for what can be considered a classifier. Under this description both serum and white blood cell can be considered as classifiers of colostrum. This does not seem to be correct though, as colostrum is not a type of serum or white blood cell, nor does it possess enough of the characteristics of either to qualify as a hyponym.Therefore, in such cases we can occur concepts about the material of which a referent of the given sense consists as candidates for classifiers. Having established the criteria for identifying classifiers it should now be easier to identify those for the remaining senses however, there are merely difficulties. It is safe to say that join is the classifier of secretion according to the supra rule but the use of substance twice in the definition provides potential for confus ion according to the definition for secretion above we can make the following secernment (A) a secretion is a substance1 made up of substances2.The hindrance seems to lie in SUBSTANCE being polysemic (Palmer 1981 100), a fact apparently proven by its having two definitions. This implies that SUBSTANCE1 represents one of the given senses of substance whilst SUBSTANCE2 represents the other, but neither fits with sense (1) as both are a specific type of matter. Therefore, both must be the concept in sense (2) but if SUBSTANCE1 and SUBSTANCE2 do have the same sense statement (A) has no useful meaning, for it to do so SUBSTANCE requires an additional sense. The solution is provided in the definition of secretion SUBSTANCE1 is istinguished from SUBSTANCE2 by the addition of simple to the latter. In this way it can be seen that SUBSTANCE1 refers to sense (2) whereas SUBSTANCE2 refers to a different sense that is related to, but more specific than (2). To avoid such confusion replacing SU BSTANCE2 with a different lexeme could prove useful, e. g. , COMPOUND, although this is not essential so long as we understand that SUBSTANCE is polysemic and we know which sense each refers to. As substance1 has the sense (2) in the definition we shall refer to it as substance (2) and it is this sense that is the classifier for secretion.The definition provided for substance (2) makes identifying the classifier here straightforward as it begins by telling us that it is a specific type of matter (my emphasis), which is the central criteria for hyponymy. So given that matter is the classifier for substance (2) we can now find the next classifier in the chain. It could be assumed that the brevity of the definition makes this task even more simple however, the definition is a consists of statement which rules out any concepts it contains as a classifier. It is thus the case that not all concepts have a superordinate concept.As such we can say that matter sits at the top of the hyponymy chain and is the broadest sense of colostrum. Given this information we can now represent all of the relationships above in the following diagram Fig. 1) Initial hyponymy chain for colostrum. This chain is based solely on the definitions given above however, the claim can be made that this diagram does not contain a complete set of classifiers for colostrum. There are facts about secretion that are not contained in substance (2) but that cannot be considered as unique to it, in particular those about its relationship with beingnesss and organic matter.This claim is based on the fact, as given in the definition, that secretion is a substance particular to cells, which are the constituent parts of an organism. All of this information is unrepresented within the chain as it is because the relationship secretion has with cell is not due to a dual-lane nature or type. When the hyponymy test is applied the mismatch is more evident a secretion is a type of cell. This does not deny that the two are related however, only that they are not the same kind of thing, so instead n alternative way must be found of including and representing this relationship. As cell is the missing concept there must be some sense it shares with secretion. According to my definition of cell many together make up an organism and because any substance that is a secretion is the product of a cell, it can also be considered the product of an organism. We can go a step just and state that both are types of substance particular to organisms, which allows the statement a secretion is a substance particular to organisms.This can be further refined when the concepts glandular and blood are considered as these relate specifically to body, not just to any organism in general. We can thus replace organism and instead state that a secretion is a substance particular to a body or, more concisely, it is a bodily substance. A second gap exists between bodily substance and substance for the same reason a s above arguably, a bodily substance has characteristics shared with other types of particular substance that together constitute a more general type of substance.As mentioned above organism bears a relation to organic material in that all of the substances of which an organism is composed are organic. Given that a body is a kind of organism any bodily substance must also be organic but not all organic material is of the body hence, organic material is a classifier of bodily substance. These new facts can be added to Fig. 1) to provide a more complete sense network Fig. 2) Full hyponymy chain for colostrum.When considering potential co-hyponyms there are two criteria that must be met the co-hyponyms must share most if not all of the sense of the shared classifier but they must be differentiated by at least(prenominal) one distinguisher (Hudson 1995 27). Each of the co-hyponyms in Fig. 3) meets these criteria but this does not mean to imply it is a simple task. Take matter and subst ance (1) the two could initially be considered to be co-hyponyms. This, however, is not the case. Essentially, the definitions for substance1 and matter are the same we could give a definition of matter s that of which a thing consists because CONSISTS OF and MAKES UP have the same sense. Nor does there attend to be any fact about either concept that serves to differentiate them so we must accept that rather than matter and substance (1) bearing a hyponymic relationship they are actually synonyms. As such, SUBSTANCE (1) is nothing more than an alternative lexeme that can be used to represent matter and so can be omitted from the network. Fig. 3) shows that although many of the co-hyponyms do not bear a direct relation to colostrum they are part of a conceptual network that illustrates how senses are related.It also displays the fact that the further up the chain a concept is the broader is the range of its hyponyms because the sense becomes more generalised at each level. Furthermo re, it also shows how concepts can share multiple classifiers and hyponyms. Fig. 3) mastery network for colostrum. Distinguishers can be concise or generalised providing they serve as differentiators between the senses. When selecting appropriate facts to include the notion of prototypes should be accounted for in that any potential distinguisher should ideally describe a first referent of the given sense (op. it. 20). Take glandular it appears in the definition of secretion but it has been omitted from the network. This is because it is not a prototypical characteristic in that not even the majority of secretions are from glandular cells, it is only provided as an example of the kind of cell involved. A further difficulty in selecting distinguishers is deciding what kind of information to include. Definitive information serve to provide the minimum data needed to clarify a concept whilst encyclopedic information attempts to provide all of the facts about a concept.The danger with the latter is that information may be included that does not serve to differentiate that concept from another. I would argue that both kinds of information should be included provided that each fact is part of the sense it iff that fact is relevant to the function of differentiation. Fig. 4) includes information of both kinds and, although I have removed the referent and lexeme classifier for the sake of clarity, it can be considered as the most complete network of senses that relate to colostrum. Fig. 4) Complete hyponymy network for colostrum. Bibliography Hudson, R. (1995). Word Meaning. Padstow Routledge. Palmer, F. R. (1981). Semantics. Bath Cambridge University Press. Stevenson, A. (ed. ) (2007). Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (6th edition). Italy Oxford University Press. Word Count 1693 not including diagrams. 1799 with diagrams 1I have used for quotations rather than to prevent confusion between quotes and senses.