Lexical Semantics: Hyponyny Networks

Question 2 not all dictionary definitions conquer classifiers, entirely m each do, and in more or less cases when you look up the classifier itself, you find another even more habitual classifier within its definition. For example, you might like to think about the following definitions from the collins English lexicon. Colostrum is the thin milky secretion from the nipples that precedes and follows true lactation. It consists largely of serum and neat stock certificate cells. A secretion is a nerve that is released from a cell, in peculiar(a) a glandular cell, and is synthesized in the cell from dim-witted substances extracted from the blood or similar fluid.Substance is (1) the tangible basic bailiwick of which a thing consists or (2) a specific type of matter, especially a homogeneous material with defined or fairly definite chemical composition. Matter is (1) that which dupes up something, especially a physical disapprove material. What atomic number 18 the cla ssifiers in these definitions? (Why is this question hard to answer? Can you alter the definition to make it easier? ) Draw a diagram to show the subordination drawing string you found in (a), with hyponyms shown below their classifiers. Can you think of either additional levels that you post put in the subordination chain supra secretion?Add them. Sebum and saliva argon co-hyponyms of foremilk. Add them to the diagram, along with ii co-hyponyms for each level of the chain. Add distinguishers to your diagram, to narrate each of the co-hyponyms you have added. On an intuitive level it would seem a transp atomic number 18nt task to divide the different classifiers within each of the supra definitions however, several problems arise which depart this. Colostrum is the easiest to deal with as it is the most specific of the four terms, although thither is still potential for an error to be do.The only classifier in this interpretation is secretion as, according to Hudson ( 1995 26) the classifier is the first common noun that follows is1. Although this syntactic comparisonship is useful as a method of identification, it is not the reason secretion is a classifier of colostrum. Syntactic affinitys follow surrounded by lexemes, not signifieds, and are governed by the likenessships between senses, thus it is the last mentioned that hyponymic networks cost. The classifier (C) is the concept that is higher-up to the ense in question (S1) in that S1 must let enough characteristics of the classifier to make it a type of that concept, even if not a regular(prenominal) 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 run short we stooge tell ap art that colostrum is a type of secretion.It is important, however, to refine the concept of what it is if this is taken to overwhelm a material concept as well as a typical one, i. e. , what it is made up of or consists of, in that location is more scope for what eject be considered a classifier. Under this description both serum and white blood cell back end be considered as classifiers of colostrum. This does not seem to be train 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 eliminate concepts about the material of which a referent of the devoted 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 further difficulties. It is safe to say that substance is the classifier of secretion according to the above rule but the use of substance twice in the definition go forths potential for confusion according to the definition for secretion above we can make the following direction (A) a secretion is a substance1 made up of substances2.The difficulty 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 inclined 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 issue is provided in the definition of secretion SUBSTANCE1 is istinguished from SUBSTANCE2 by the addition of simple to the latter(prenominal). In this way it can be seen that SUBSTANCE1 refers to sense (2) whereas SUBSTANCE2 refers to a d ifferent sense that is touch based to, but more specific than (2). To avoid such confusion replacing SUBSTANCE2 with a different lexeme could prove useful, e. g. , COMPOUND, although this is not necessary 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 up 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 base solely on the definitions given above however, the claim can be made that this diagram does not contain a peg set of classifiers for colostrum. There are facts about secretion that are not contained in substance (2) but that cannot be considered as erratic to it, in contingent those about its relationship with organisms 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 shared temper or type. When the hyponym y test is applied the mismatch is more plain a secretion is a type of cell. This does not deny that the two are related however, only that they are not the same gracious of thing, so instead n alternate 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 withal be considered the product of an organism. We can go a step further 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 switch over organism and instead state that a secretion is a substance particular to a body or, more c risply, it is a embodied substance. A second gap exists between material substance and substance for the same reason as above arguably, a natural 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 one distinguisher (Hudson 1995 27). Each of the co-hypony ms in Fig. 3) meets these criteria but this does not mean to imply it is a simple task. crawfish out matter and substance (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 appear 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 co ncept is the broader is the string of its hyponyms because the sense becomes more generalised at each level. Furthermore, it also shows how concepts can share multiple classifiers and hyponyms. Fig. 3) Hyponymy 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 chance on a prototypical 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 n eeded to clarify a concept whilst comprehensive information attempts to provide all of the facts about a concept.The danger with the latter is that information may be include 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 stake 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 hold confusion between quotes and senses.