Lexical Semantics: Hyponyny Networks

Question 2 non entirely dictionary comments contain classifiers, scarcely some(prenominal) do, and in to a greater extent or less cases when you run into up the classifier itself, you find a nonher regular more than general classifier wi keep down its explanation. For example, you dexterity like to think well-nigh the pursuance descriptions from the Collins English Dictionary. Colostrum is the thin milky secretion from the nipples that precedes and follows true lactation. It consists for the just about part of serum and albumin blood cells. A secretion is a nub that is released from a cell, speci everyy a glandular cell, and is synthesized in the cell from elemental amount of m singleys extracted from the blood or similar fluid.Substance is (1) the tangible introductory social function of which a affair consists or (2) a specific vitrine of matter, especi eachy a homogeneous material with decisive or fairly definite chemic composition. Matter is (1) that whic h makes up something, especially a physical object material. What atomic number 18 the classifiers in these definitions? (Why is this question hard to answer? finish you change the definition to make it easier? ) fasten on a plot to show the mastery concatenation you found in (a), with hyponyms shown downstairs their classifiers. Can you think of any(prenominal)(prenominal) supererogatory levels that you understructure put in the subordination chain above secretion? furnish them. Sebum and saliva are co-hyponyms of colostrum. issue them to the diagram, on with two co-hyponyms for individually level of the chain. Add distinguishers to your diagram, to differentiate each of the co-hyponyms you have added. On an intuitive level it would seem a simple task to select the different classifiers inside each of the above definitions however, several(prenominal) problems arise which be trickery this. Colostrum is the easiest to have it off with as it is the close to specifi c of the quartette terms, although in that respect is still strength for an shift to be made.The only classifier in this comment is secretion as, according to Hudson (1995 26) the classifier is the first common noun that follows is1. Although this syntactic consanguinity is useful as a method of identification, it is non the reason secretion is a classifier of colostrum. Syntactic births exist between lexemes, non consciousnesss, and are governed by the relationships between esthesiss, indeed it is the latter(prenominal) that hyponymic interlocks represent. The classifier (C) is the ideal that is superordinate to the ense in question (S1) in that S1 essential have got enough propertys of the classifier to make it a subject of that fantasy, even if not a true one, as well as distinguishers that overhaul to differentiate it from the classifier and any other co-hyponyms. more(prenominal) simply, S1 is a hyponym of C iff all S1 are a image of C, only if not all C are S1 (op cit. 16). Furthermore, classifiers for common nouns will always make prisoner what S1 is, not how or why it is. In the case of colostrum only secretion performs this function we put up put forward that colostrum is a type of secretion.It is important, however, to refine the fantasy of what it is if this is taken to allow a material notion as well as a characteristic 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 two 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 all to qualify as a hyponym.Therefore, in such cases we can eliminate concepts more or less the material of which a referent of the accustomed mavin consists as candidates for classifiers. Having established the criteria for identifying classifiers it should forthwith be easier to identify those for the remaining mavens however, there are further difficulties. It is safe to say that substance is the classifier of secretion according to the above rule save the use of substance twice in the definition provides potential for confusion according to the definition for secretion above we can make the interest mastery (A) a secretion is a substance1 made up of substances2.The difficulty seems to lie in internality being polysemic (Palmer 1981 100), a situation apparently proven by its having two definitions. This implies that SUBSTANCE1 represents one of the given aces of substance whilst SUBSTANCE2 represents the other, plainly neither fits with sense (1) as twain are a specific type of matter. Therefore, some(prenominal) must be the concept in sense (2) and if SUBSTANCE1 and SUBSTANCE2 do have the same(p)(p) sense tilt (A) has no useful meaning, for it to do so SUBSTANCE requires an additional sense. The so lution 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 cerebrate to, but more specific than (2). To quash such confusion replacing SUBSTANCE2 with a different lexeme could prove useful, e. g. , COMPOUND, although this is not indispensable so long as we record that SUBSTANCE is polysemic and we k straight off 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 honest 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 adjacent 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 recital 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 culture we can now represent all of the relationships above in the following diagram Fig. 1) Initial hyponymy chain for colostrum. This chain is based simply on the definitions given above however, the song can be made that this diagram does not contain a have intercourse set of classifiers for colostrum. There are events about secretion that are not contained in substance (2) but that cannot be considered as unusual to it, in detail(prenominal) those about its relationship with beings and constituent(a) matter.This claim is based on the fact, as given in the definition, that secr etion is a substance particular to cells, which are the gene parts of an beingness. All of this development is unrepresented within the chain as it is because the relationship secretion has with cell is not due to a divided genius or type. When the hyponymy test is apply the mismatch is more evident a secretion is a type of cell. This does not deny that the two are link 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 crossing of a cell, it can in any case 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 b e further slim when the concepts glandular and blood are considered as these relate specifically to physical structure, not just to any organism in general. We can thus knock back organism and instead state that a secretion is a substance particular to a tree trunk or, more concisely, it is a bodily substance. A certify gap exists between bodily substance and substance for the same reason as 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 placid are organic. Given that a body is a kind of organism any bodily substance must excessively be organic but not all organic material is of the body hence, organic material is a classifier of bodily substance. These newborn facts can be added to Fig. 1) to provide a more complete sense network Fig. 2) Full hy ponymy 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 severalise by at least 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 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 deal outs to differentiate them so we must accept that quite an 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 represe nt matter and so can be omitted from the network. Fig. 3) shows that although many of the co-hyponyms do not bear a verbatim 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. 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 take on the notion of prototypes should be accounted for in that any potential distinguisher should ideally describe 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 volume 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 encyclopaedic 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 pertinent to the function of differentiation. Fig. 4) includes information of both kinds and, although I have removed the referent and lexeme classifier for the saki of clarity, it can be considered as the most complete network of senses that relate to colostrum. Fig. 4) cop hyponymy network for colostrum. Bibliography Hudson, R. (1995). Wor d Meaning. Padstow Routledge. Palmer, F. R. (1981). Semantics. lav Cambridge University Press. Stevenson, A. (ed. ) (2007). Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (6th edition). Italy Oxford University Press. Word deem 1693 not including diagrams. 1799 with diagrams 1I have used for quotations kind of than to prevent confusion between quotes and senses.