Transcript Cognitive Linguistics Croft & Cruse 6 A dynamic construal approach to

Cognitive Linguistics
Croft & Cruse 6
A dynamic construal approach to
sense relations I:
hyponymy and meronymy
6.1.1 Hyponymy
• Hyponymy is a relationship of inclusion
within a larger set
– More often encountered with nouns (koala:
marsupial) than with verbs (punch: hit) and
adjectives (maroon: red)
– This means that the superordinate term is a
proper part of the meaning of the hyponym,
so marsupial is a proper part of the meaning
of koala
6.1.2 Hyponymy and context
• But sometimes not all
examples of the
hyponym category
are examples of the
superordinate
category, cf. “parahyponymy” of dog:
pet, where not all
dogs are pets and
construal plays a role
6.1.2 Hyponymy and context
• Hyponymy is a
transitive relation
because containment
is also transitive, but
sometimes transitivity
seems to fail due to
construal (car seat:
seat, and seat:
furniture, but not car
seat: furniture)
6.1.3 Relations between
lexical items
• Is hyponymy a relation between words or
between construals of word meanings?
Are there any context-independent
relations? Probably not. We are always
construing meaning relative to context.
6.1.4 Taxonymy
• This is the relationship in which “X is a kind of
Y” (note that “a kind of” is one of Wierzbicka’s
semantic primitives)
• Not all hyponyms are good taxonyms
– Hyponyms large spoon, deep spoon are not
“a kind of spoon”
– Taxonyms teaspoon, soup spoon are “a kind
of spoon”
6.1.4 Taxonymy, cont’d.
• Focal orientation: this is a
perspective that the
hyponym/taxonym and
superordinate term must
share so that the
relationship works
– A blonde is not a kind of
woman because blonde has a
hair color focal orientation that
woman lacks
6.2 Lexical aspects of the
part-whole relation
• Meronymy (aka partonymy) is a relation
between meanings, not strictly a partwhole relation, which is a relation between
individual entities
• Part-whole is motivated by the imageschema of containment
• Notice that some words are more
autonomous than others, as in airplane
parts vs. airplane pieces
6.2.1.3 Factors affecting the GOE
(Goodness of Example) of parts
• These factors include:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Inclusion in boundaries
Sharing of substance
Clear discontinuity between part and whole
Internal cohesion of the part
Part has a definable function
Part is autonomous and can have replicas
The part is consistent with the type of the whole
• Some parts are segmentable (body parts) and
some are systemic (nervous system) and thus
less salient
6.2.1.5 Ultimate parts and
ultimate wholes
• A part-whole chain prototypically has two
endpoints.
• There may be a point beyond which it
does not make sense to identify smaller
parts (fingertip)
• Ultimate wholes may be variously
construable (does pan include lid?)
6.2.1.6 Core parts
• Sometimes the core
part is profiled, for
example: stainless
steel knife, where
stainless steel refers
only to the blade, not
the whole object
6.2.1.7 Variable construal and the
transitivity of the part-whole relation
• Some parts are more integrated into the whole
than others (handle is more integrated into
spoon than hand is to arm)
• Transitivity often fails because there are
construals where the whole does not necessarily
include the part (arm has hand, but arm does
not have fingers)
• [I think that a lot of this is better resolved by
referring to Langacker’s profile vs. base]
6.2.2 Meronymy
• “If A is a meronym of B in a particular
context, then any member a of the
extension of A either maps onto a specific
member b of the extension of B of which it
is construed as a part, or it potentially
stands in an intrinsically construed relation
of a part to some actual or potential
member of B.” (Cruse’s third try…)
6.2.2 Meronymy, cont’d.
• Notice that meronymy
differs across
languages, for
example the different
ranges of words
corresponding to arm,
hand, finger