AssalamualaikumWR.Wb. kali ini mimin mau membagikan contoh Tugas Jurusan PBI yaitu Makalah Sematic - Bahasa Inggris , yaitu Makalah yang membahas tentang suatu Makna yang terkandung dalam suatu Bahasa. Semoga makalah ini bisa membantu teman - Teman yang mau membuat Makalah tentang Sematic.
Oke langsung saja lihat Makalahnya dibawah ini :
Makala Semantic
Lexical relations
(Lexical fields,
kinship, hyponymy, synonymy, antonym, binary and non-binary antonyms, a
comparison of four relationship, converse antonym, symmetry and reciprocity,
expression of quantity)
Disusun oleh :
Nama : Dwi Tuning Sari (12551122)
Oktavia Hasanah(12551135)
Siti
Mareta (12551035)
Mata Kuliah : semantic
Prodi / Kelas : PBI/Ve
Dosen
Pembimbing :
PROGRAM STUDI PENDIDIKAN BAHASA
INGGRIS
JURUSAN TARBIYAH
SEKOLAH TINGGI AGAMA
ISLAM NEGRI
STAIN CURUP
2014
Lexical relations
A.
Lexical fields
To some extent we can ‘define’ a lexeme
by telling what ‘set’ it belongs to and how it differs from other members of
the same set. Some obvious sets of this sort are sports (tennis, badminton,
golf, soccer, basketball…), creative writings (poem, novel, short
story, biography, essay…), manual occupations (electrician,
plumber, welder, carpenter, painter…), colors (red, blue, black ,
green, yellow …). It is not difficult to say what the members of each set
have in common. It may be more troublesome to say just how much is included in
the set and to find the truly essential characteristics that differentiate each
lexeme in a set from all the others in the same set, to establish the most
economical system of features that explains how the members of the set are
related to one another.
Some lexical sets involve part-whole relationships (arm
includes hand, which includes finger and thumb). The
set second-minute hour- day is a part-whole relationship that is
also hierarchical.
Some sets are sequential (numbers one,
two, three etc.) or cyclical (January, February, etc.; Sunday, Monday,
etc.; spring, summer, autumn, winter).Some sets, mostly small
ones, form paradigms. The words man, woman, boy and girl, all
denoting humans, are interrelated this way:
Male
Female
Adult man
woman
Child boy
girl
[Human]
is the semantic feature shared by all members of the set and through which tiger,
tree and numerous other lexemes are excluded from the set. Using square brackets
to indicate such semantic features, [male/female], and [adult/child] are the
features, or components, that differentiate the members of the set from one
another. The determination of such features has been called componential
analysis. The paradigm provides definitions (man= [adult male
human], and so on) and analogies (man is to woman as boy is
to girl, boy is to man as girl is to woman); in other
words, a paradigm shows that lexemes are systematically related. Definitions
can be made somewhat more sophisticated through binary features; instead of
[male] and [female] the labels can be [+male] and [-male] (or [-female] and [+female]),
and instead of [adult] and [child] we may have [+adult] and [-adult] (or
[-child] and [+child]). But the notion of binarity raises problems: can all
contrasts be expressed as pairs, Yes versus No? In this case we may accept that
humans are either male or female; sex is a biological distinction and clearly
binary. Age, however, is a continuum, and the distinctions we recognize are
partly biological
and
partly social. Being social, they are arbitrary. Note that English has a lexeme
adolescent, which is [-adult]
and [-child], but there are no English terms for male adolescent and female
adolescent except boy and girl. For a much-used illustration of
componential analysis let’s consider these nouns:
stool chair bench sofa
These
have in common a component [piece of furniture] that is also shared by, for
example, table, but not by door. They also share a component
[furniture for sitting], which table does not share. How do the four
items differ from one another? Clearly, stool and chair differ
from the other two in being [for one person]. Let’s say that chair differs
from stool in the feature [having a back]; all chairs have backs while
stools do not—but see below. As for the differentiating feature for bench and
sofa, we might be inclined to consider that also to be [having a back]:
a sofa must have a back, while a bench may or may not. A better candidate for a
differentiating feature is [having upholstery]; a sofa must be [+upholstery]
and a bench is [- upholstery]. Upholstery is not a necessary element, a
defining feature, of a chair, nor are arms nor rockers. The important point
here is the recognition of two kinds of features, distinctive and
non-distinctive. All features that can be recognized in an entity are part of
its description, but the definition of a lexeme within a set or field requires
us to note what feature or features distinguish it from other members of the
set or field and what features are just ‘there,’ not distinctive. (There is a
problem, however, about the lexeme stool. A so-called ‘bar stool,’ with
longer legs than most stools, may have a back. Is it
then
not a stool, or might we say that the distinctive feature for stool is [no back
unless long legs]?)
The advantage of componential analysis
is that it reflects the system through which lexemes have their respective
senses. To tell what something is requires us to tell what it is not, what it
contrasts with and what feature or features make the contrast possible. A
possible disadvantage of componential analysis, though not a necessary one, is
that we may find ourselves unduly concerned with classification of the
phenomena represented in language, forgetting that our concern is language
itself.
5.2 Kinship
Kinship systems make an interesting area
for componential analysis. Kinship is universal since all humans are related to
other humans through blood ties and through marriage, but kinship systems
differ from society to society. A relationship is a kind of predicate.
Sentences such as Harold is Alice’s father and Rose is Jerry’s sister
have a propositional content that we represent this way:
Theme Predicate Associate
Harold
father-of Alice
Rose
sister-of Jerry
Some
of the predicate relations in all kinship systems can be described with four
primitive features: [parent], [offspring], [sibling] and [spouse]. We also need
the components [male] and [female], of course, which we will indicate as M and
F, respectively. Combining M and F with the four basic features gives
definitions of eight predicates: father=M parent, mother=F parent, brother=M
sibling, sister=F sibling, son=M offspring, daughter=F offspring, husband =M
spouse, wife=F spouse. Other relations are defined by combinations of features:
grandmother=parent’s
F parent, grandfather=parent’s M parent, granddaughter=offspring’s F offspring,
grandson=offspring’s Moffspring. Note that in English, and in European
languages generally, the difference between male and female is marked only with
regard to the person indicated: both males and females call their female
sibling ‘sister,’ a male sibling ‘brother.’ In contrast, some kinship systems
have ‘cross-siblings.’ Tok Pisin, the national language of Papua New Guinea,
began as a creole form of English and has acquired a substantial part of its
vocabulary from English, but the way the vocabulary is used often reflects a
different cultural outlook. In Tok Pisin the word borata, from English
‘brother,’ means sibling of the same sex as oneself, and sesta, from
‘sister,’ is a sibling of the opposite sex (Hall 1949:74). Thus:
male
sibling female sibling
male
speaker borata sesta
female
speaker sesta borata
In Tok Pisin, then, [same-sex] and
[cross-sex] replace M and F as features combining with [sibling]. Languages of
East Asia have another feature in their kinship systems, using terms that
distinguish older and younger siblings. Mandarin Chinese, for example, has ge
for ‘(one’s own) older brother,’ dì ‘younger brother,’ jie ‘older
sister,’ mèi ‘younger sister.’ In English grandmother names the
mother of one’s mother and the mother of one’s father, and grandfather is
similarly the father of either parent; the sex of the person named is
distinguished but not the sex of the intermediate relative. Compare the Swedish
terms farfar, farmor, morfar and mormor, which, rather
transparently, distinguish the four grandparents from one another. Similarly,
the words used in English for siblings of one’s parents and offspring of one’s
siblings have rather wide application. An aunt, in English, is the
sister of either parent—or the wife of a brother of either parent—and uncle
is the brother of either parent or the husband of the sister of either. A
nephew and a niece are, respectively, the son and daughter of one’s brother or
sister, and also, respectively, the husband and wife of a sibling’s offspring.
That is,
uncle =parent’s M sibling; parent’s
sibling’s M spouse
aunt =parent’s F sibling; parent’s
sibling’s F spouse
nephew =sibling’s M offspring;
spouse’s sibling’s M offspring
niece
=sibling’s F offspring; spouse’s sibling’s F offspring
Leaving
the sex difference aside for the moment, we can condense the four previous
definitions this way:
uncle/aunt=parent’s
sibling(‘s spouse)
nephew/niece=(spouse’s)
sibling’s offspring
The
lexeme cousin is the only English kinship term that does not distinguish
sex (though it was borrowed from French, in which the distinction is made—cousin,
cousine). We restrict the lexeme here to ‘first cousin.’
cousin=parent’s
sibling’s offspring
Relations
that exist from birth are consanguineal relations. Relationships that
are established through marriage are called affinities. These are
expressed in English with the suffix -in-law.
mother-in-law/father-in-law=spouse’s
F/M parent
daughter-in-law/son-in-law=offspring’s
F/M spouse
sister-in-law=spouse’s F sibling;
sibling’s F spouse
brother-in-law=spouse’s
M sibling; sibling’s M spouse
Again
English has a limited number of lexemes with rather wide application. Compare
Russian, in which the vocabulary makes meticulous distinctions in affinity,
including the following:
svëkor husband’s father
svekrov husband’s mother
test’ wife’s father
tëšca wife’s mother
dever’ husband’s brother
zolovka husband’s sister
šurin wife’s brother
svojacenica
wife’s sister
To
describe kinship in Japanese another pair of features must be introduced,
[self] and [other]. Japanese has two lexemes for every relationship, one used
in talking about one’s own kin and the other for somebody else’s relatives.
Thus chichi can be used only for one’s own father, o-toosan for
someone else’s father.
Related
to the speaker Related
to others
wife tsuma, kanai okusan
husband shujin go-shujin
mother haha o-kaasan
father chichi
o-toosan
older sister ane o-nee-san
older brother ani o-nii-san
younger sister imooto imooto-san
younger brother otooto otooto-san
3.
Hyponymy
Turning
now to truth conditional semantics, let’s consider these pairs of sentences:
1a Rover
is a collie.
1b Rover
is a dog.
2a There
are tulips in the vase.
2b There
are flowers in the vase.
Here
we see a kind of relation that is an example of entailment. If we know
that sentence 1a is true, we know that 1b must also be true; but if we know
that 1a is not true, we cannot say anything about the truth of 1b; if we know
that 1b is true, we do not know if 1a is true or not; if we know that 1b is not
true, we know that 1a is not true. The relationship between 2a and 2b is analogous.
The term collie is a hyponym of dog and tulip is a
hyponym of flower; dog and flower are, respectively, the superordinates
of collie and tulip. (Some semanticists use the term
‘hyperonym’ instead of ‘superordinate.’)
We
can also say ‘A collie is a dog’ and ‘A tulip is a flower.’ Any lexeme that can
be substituted for a hyponym is also a hyponym. Chihuahua, Dalmatian and
Irish setter are other hyponyms of dog, and they are co-hyponyms
of collie. Daffodil and rose are two cohyponyms of tulip.
Note
that the denotation of the hyponym is included in the denotation of the
superordinate (the set of all collies is included in the set of all dogs), but
the meaning of the superordinate is included in the meaning of the hyponym (the characteristic of being a dog is
part of the characteristic of being a collie). A sentence with a hyponym (e.g. There’s
a Palomino in that field) is more informative than a sentence with
the corresponding superordinate (There’s a horse in that field).
The
relationship between two sentences [a] and [b] that differ only in that [a]
contains a hyponym and [b] contains a superordinate can be summarized this way:
The
truth of [a] entails the truth of [b], and the falsity of [b] entails the
falsity of [a]; but neither the falsity of [a] nor the truth of [b] can lead to
any certain conclusion about the other.
The
same information can be presented in tabular form:
A b b a
T T T
?
F ?
F F
If we join two of these sentences with and
3a Rover is a collie and (Rover is) a dog
we create a redundant sentence called a tautology. A
tautology is a sentence with two predications, such that one entails the other.
If we combine two of these sentences but have them differ in polarity,
3b
Rover is a collie but (Rover is) not a dog
The
result is a contradiction, a sentence with two predications such that
one denies the other.
Hyponym
and superordinate may be nouns, as in the examples above. The same relation is
found also in adjectives and in verbs.
4a My necktie is maroon.
4b My necktie is red.
5a The weary soldiers trudged forward.
5b The weary soldiers moved forward.
Let’s look back at two sentences from chapter 4:
We ate lunch (in the kitchen).
We ate (in the kitchen).
The relation between these sentences is the
same as the hyponym superordinate relation. The first sentence is more
informative than the second. If the first sentence is true, the second must
also be true—assuming the same identity for ‘we’ and occurrence at the same
time. If the second is false, the first is false.
The foregoing statements suggest that the
hyponym-superordinate relationship is a well-established one. In reality, there
are various anomalies in lexical relationships—semantic analysis is often
messy. Sometimes we find co-hyponyms without a superordinate. The Portuguese set
illustrated below contains three co-hyponyms and their superordinate. The
corresponding English co-hyponyms have no superordinate.
Faca garfa
colher knife fork
spoon
There is no single word in English that can
refer to a knife or a fork or a spoon, but to nothing else—no single word that
can take the place of X in A knife
is an X, and a fork is an X, and a spoon is an X, whereas in Portuguese it is possible to say Uma faca é un talher, uma
garfa é un talher, um colher é um talher. Similarly, English trunk,
suitcase, handbag name
similar items; all of them are included under the collective noun luggage,
but the only possible superordinate would be piece of luggage.
Another instance of a lexical gap is seen in
these verbs:
|
Fly |
|
Crawl |
|
Walk
|
|
Run
|
|
? |
|
swim |
Move
Is
there a single term that can be applied to movement over the ground, which is
parallel to swim and fly and which includes run, walk, crawl
as its hyponyms? English offers only the rare word ambulate. The lack of
a superordinate for knife-fork-spoon, for trunk-suitcase-handbag,
and for run-walk-crawl are instances of lexical gaps.
5.4 Synonymy
6a Jack is a seaman.
6b Jack is a sailor.
Assuming
that Jack refers to the same person in the two sentences, then if 6a is
true, 6b is true; if 6b is true, 6a is true; and if either is false, the other
is false. This is our basis for establishing that seaman and sailor are
synonyms: when used in predications with the same referring expression,
the predications have the same truth value. The lexemes seaman and sailor
are synonyms; sentences 6a and 6b are paraphrases of each other.
Synonyms
can be nouns, as in 6a and
6b, or adjectives, adverbs, or verbs.
7a The
rock is large.
7b The
rock is big.
8a The
train traveled fast.
8b The
train traveled rapidly.
9a The
bus left promptly at 10.
9b The
bus departed promptly at 10.
Thus for any two sentences [a] and [b] that
differ only in the presence of synonymous terms we can express their truth
relationship this way:
a
→ b & b → a (The truth of [a] entails the truth of [b],
and vice versa.)
~a
→ ~b & ~b → ~ a (The falsity of [a]
entails the falsity of [b], and vice versa.)
Thus
synonymy is an instance of mutual entailment, and synonyms are instances of
mutual hyponymy. Large is a hyponym of big, for example, and big
is a hyponym of large. If we join two of these sentences with and,
10a The rock is large and (it is) big.
we
create a tautology. If we combine two of them but have them differ in polarity,
10b
The train traveled fast but (it did)
not (travel) rapidly.
the
result is a contradiction.
Two sentences which are paraphrases may
differ this way:
11a
Mr Jenkins is our postman.
11b
Mr Jenkins is the person who delivers
our mail.
Here
the complex term person who delivers (our) mail is a paraphrase of the
simpler term (our) postman, but we do not call it a synonym. Synonyms
are typically single lexemes of the same weight. The longer term explains the
simpler term, but not the other way around. As we learn a language, we often
acquire simple terms like postman through some sort of paraphrase.
Dictionaries typically provide a number
of synonyms for at least some of the lexemes they define, and in fact there are
whole dictionaries of synonyms. But synonymy is not a simple matter, for two
lexemes never have the same range of syntactic occurrences, and even where they
share occurrences and make predications about the same class of referring
expressions, they are likely to differ in what they suggest. It would be
wasteful for a language to have two terms that occur in exactly the same
contexts and with exactly the same sense.
5 Antonymy
16a
Alvin is watching television now.
16b
Alvin isn’t watching television now.
Two
sentences that differ in polarity like these are mutually contradictory. If one
is true, the other must be false. Two sentences that have the same subject and
have predicates which are antonyms are also mutually contradictory.
17a
The television is on now.
17b
The television is off now.
18a
Mr Adams is an old man.
18b
Mr Adams is a young man.
19a
The road is wide here.
19b
The road is narrow here.
Lexemes
like on and off, old and young, wide and narrow are
pairs of antonyms. Antonyms are opposite in meaning, and when they occur as
predicates of the same subject the predications are contradictory. Antonyms may
be nouns like Communist and non-Communist or verbs such as advance
and retreat, but antonymous pairs of adjectives are especially
numerous.
English
has various pairs of measure adjectives:
Long short tall
short
high
low wide narrow
old
young deep shallow
old
new thick thin
They
are measure adjectives because they can be combined with expressions of
measurement: four feet long, two meters high, nineteen years old, etc.
We note, first, that these adjectives, like others relating to size (e.g. big/little,
large/small, heavy/light) are antonymous, and, second, that their meanings
are very much dependent on the topics they are associated with; a big rat is
not as big as a small elephant, for instance.
In each of the pairs of measure
adjectives above, one member is marked and one unmarked. The unmarked
member is also the global member of the opposition. For example, in the
pair old and young, old is the global, unmarked adjective. It is
used with units of time to express age. When we say The baby is four days
old, we are not saying that the baby is old, and in saying The box is
three inches deep we are not saying that the box is deep. (Which is
the global member of the pair long/short? wide/narrow?) We
sometimes say things like “She is 40 years young” but this is precisely a
marked expression. Presumably, She is 40 years young is equivalent in
truth value to She is 40 years old.
6 Binary and non-binary
antonyms
There are different kinds of antonymous
relationships. On and off are binary antonyms: an electric
light or a radio or a television set is either on or off; there is no
middle ground. Other binary pairs are open/shut, dead/alive,
asleep/awake. The terms old and young are non-binary
antonyms and so are wide and narrow. They are opposite ends
of a scale that includes various intermediate terms: Mr Adams may be
neither old nor young, the road may be something between wide and
narrow. (Non-binary antonyms are also called polar antonyms; like the
North and South Poles, they are at opposite ends with territory between
them. Analogously, binary antonyms might be called hemispheric antonyms;
as with the Northern and Southern hemispheres [or the Eastern and
Western hemispheres], there is no space in between, only a line of
demarcation. Some semanticists use the term ‘complementary antonyms’ in
place of ‘binary antonyms’ and ‘contrary’ instead of ‘non-binary.’)
The difference
between binary and non-binary antonyms can be shown this way:
|
Dead Alive |
Adjectives that are non-binary antonyms can easily be modified: very old, rather young, quite wide, extremely narrow, and the like.
|
Old Young |
Logically
it would seem that binary antonyms do not accept modifiers— an organism is
either dead or alive, a door is either open or shut, a floor is either clean or
dirty, one is either asleep or awake. But language is not logic. Quite dead,
very much alive, wide open, slightly dirty are meaningful expressions.
Speakers cannot agree as to whether a
door
which is ‘ajar’ is open or shut, nor on the precise location of the distinction
between clean and dirty. In previous chapters we have noted that language is
fluid-flexible. The other side of this flexibility is that language is, in some
respects, necessarily vague.
As we see from the list above, the
opposite of old is young if we are talking about animate beings,
but the opposite is new with reference to an inanimate object like a
newspaper. Adjectives like old which participate in two different
oppositions are ambiguous. What are the two opposites of They’re old friends
of mine? Short contrasts with long with reference to a pencil, a
piece of string, or a journey, but the antonym is tall when talking
about humans
and
other animals—a difference between horizontal measurement and vertical
measurement. (But is a journey necessarily measured on the horizontal dimension
in our times?)
Non-binary adjectives are also gradable
adjectives. We can say, for instance, very long, rather short, quite strong,
somewhat weak, too. old , young enough, extremely rude, utterly happy.
Each such expression constitutes a measurement—a rather imprecise one—against
some norm or standard. The standard may or may not be explicit, and indeed in
most everyday use of language usually is not. Arguments about whether something
is, for instance, really soft are often due to failure to establish a standard.
Of course, a standard is more easily established for descriptive adjectives
like long, heavy, expensive than for evaluative ones such as pleasant,
clever, or tiresome.
From a logical point of view binary adjectives
are not gradable. What can it mean to say that some action is very legal, some
product is perfect enough, some person is too asleep? But people treat these
essentially ungradable adjectives as if they were gradable. Something is either
complete or incomplete, but we sometimes say more complete.
Some pairs of antonyms are morphologically
related; one member of the pair is formed by adding a prefix to the other:
happy, unhappy; proper, improper; trust,
distrust; tie, untie;
or
by changing a prefix:
exhale, inhale; converge, diverge;
progress, regress; inflate, deflate.
7.
A comparison of four relations
Synonyms
Hyponym
and Superordinate
(p) Jack is a seaman. (p) Rover is a collie,
(q) Jack is a sailor. (q)
Rover is a dog.
p ↔ q ~ p ↔ ~q p↔
q ~q ↔ ~p
(The symbol ↔ indicates double entailment: the truth of
[p] entails the truth of [q], and the truth of [q] entails the truth of [p].)
Non-binary
antonyms Binary
antonyms
(p) Luke is rich. (p) The window is
open,
(q) Luke
is poor. (q)
The window is closed,
P → ~ q q → ~p p↔
~q ~p → q
We
see from this table that synonyms and binary antonyms are mirror images of each
other: if one of two sentences containing synonyms is true, the other is true;
if one is false, the other is false. Of two sentences with binary antonyms, if
one is true, the other is false, and if one is false, the other is true.
Non-binaries are like binaries in that the truth of either member of the pair
entails the falsity of the other member, but unlike binary antonyms, both members
of a non-binary pair can be false. Hyponym and superordinate form a still
different pair: the truth of the hyponym entails the truth of the superordinate,
and the falsity of the superordinate entails the falsity of the hyponym.
8. Converse antonyms
To illustrate synonymy, hyponymy and
antonym in the previous sections we presented pairs of sentences; each sentence
of a pair had the same subject and different predicates; each predicate had a
valency of one—there was only a subject and no other referring expression. The
next paired sentences contain converse predicates, which necessarily
have a valency of 2 or more.
20a The map is above the chalkboard.
20b
The chalkboard is below the map.
21a
Sally is Jerry’s wife. (Sally is the
wife of Jerry)
21b
Jerry is Sally’s husband. (Jerry is
the husband of Sally)
Converseness is a kind of antonymy
between two terms. For any two converse relational terms X and Y, if [a] is the
X of [b], then [b] is the Y of [a]. In 20a map has the role of Theme and
chalkboard the role of Associate; in 20b the roles are reversed. The
same applies to
Sally
and Jerry in 21a and 21b.
The features [parent] and [offspring],
introduced in section 5.2, are converse features: if A is the parent of
B, B is the offspring of A (represented symbolically: A parent-of B ? B
offspring-of A). Common converse pairs include kinship and social roles (husband-of/
wifeof,
employer-of/employee-of)
and directional opposites (above/
below, in front of/behind; left-of/right-of; before/after, north-of/south-of;
outside/inside).
There are a few pairs of converse
3-argument predicates: giveto/
receive-from;
sell-to/buy-from; lend-to/borrow-from.
22a Dad lent me a little money.
22b
I borrowed a little money from Dad.
If A gives X to B, B receives X from A.
All three of these pairs of predicates are built around the relationship of source
and goal, which we examine in Chapter 6.
23a Danny broke a window.
23b
A window was broken (by Danny).
24a
Olga wrote a marvelous essay.
24b
A marvelous essay was written (by
Olga).
25a
Simon climbed the wall.
25b
The wall was climbed (by Simon).
26a This package weighs two kilos.
26b
*Two kilos is/are weighed by this
package.
If a predicate consists of a verb and its
object and the object has the role of Affected (23), Effect (24), or Theme
(25), there is a converse sentence in which the original object becomes
subject, the verb is passive, and the agent may be deleted. Of course there is
no such passive converse when the object of the verb, or apparent object, has
the role of Associate (26a).
Some
conjunctions, or clause connectors, like before and after form
converse pairs.
27a
Herbert left the party before Jean
(left the party).
27b
Jean left the party after Herbert
(left the party).
We
see that in all these examples of sentences with converse pairs, [a] and [b]
are paraphrases. Since above and below are converse antonyms,
sentences [a] and [b] have the same truth value. Thus,
a↔ b
~a ↔ ~b
Consider these paraphrastic sentences:
28a
The dictionary is heavier than the
novel.
28b
The novel is lighter than the
dictionary.
Although
heavy and light are non-binary antonyms, the comparative forms
are converse: more heavy=less light; more light=less heavy.
29a
The dictionary is more expensive than
the novel.
29b
The novel is less expensive than the
dictionary.
These
are also equivalent sentences; more expensive and less expensive are
converse terms. Factoring out the common term, more and less are
converse.
In the discussion of simple antonymy we
recognized non-binary antonyms like rich and poor, which are
gradable, and binary antonyms, like asleep and awake, which are not.
In converse relations most adjectives allow for gradience—more A and less A,
with a scale along
which
there are various amounts of “more” or “less.” Converse relations with other
parts of speech are more like binary antonymy: parent and offspring,
over and under, give and receive are not relationships that
occur on a scale.
9 Symmetry and reciprocity
A
special kind of converseness is the use of a single term in a symmetrical relationship,
seen in these examples:
30a Line AB is parallel to Line CD.
30b Line CD is parallel to Line AB.
This
relationship can also be expressed as:
30c Line AB and Line CD are parallel to each
other. or simply as:
30d Line AB and Line CD are parallel.
To
generalize, if X is a symmetrical predicate, the relationship a X b can
also be expressed as b X a and as a and b X (each other). Here
‘a’ and ‘b’ interchange the roles of Theme and Associate. The features [sibling]
and [spouse] are each symmetrical (C sibling-of D ® D sibling-of C; E
spouse-of F ® F spouse-of E).
Other
examples of symmetrical predicates appear in these sentences:
31 The truck is similar to the bus.
32 Line AB intersects Line CD.
33 Hampton Road converges with Broad Street.
34 Oil doesn’t mix with water.
The
following sentences have predicates that appear to be symmetrical
but
are not.
35a The truck collided with the bus.
36a Tom agreed with Ann.
37a Prescott corresponds with Dudley.
38a The market research department communicates
with the sales department.
If
the truck collided with the bus, it is not necessarily true that the bus
collided with the truck (35a), and analogous observations can be made about
36a–38a. On the other hand, in
35b The truck and the bus collided.
36b Tom and Ann agreed.
37b Prescott and Dudley correspond.
38b The market research department and the
sales department communicate.
we
are informed that the truck collides with the bus and the bus with the truck,
and the action is likewise symmetrical in 35b–37b. (34b– 37b are ambiguous as
they stand, of course, since these sentences may be the result of ellipsis: The
truck and the bus collided with a taxi, Tom and Ann agreed with me, and so on.)
The verbs in these sentences are reciprocal predicates, not symmetrical
predicators.If X is a reciprocal predicate, the relationship a X b does
not entail b
X a but a
and b X does entail a X b and b X a (leaving aside the
possible ambiguity).
Reciprocal
predicates are mostly verbs like those in sentences 35–8 and the following:
argue-with
concur-with conflict-with co-operate-with correlate-with intersect-with
merge-with overlap-with embrace fight (with) hug
Symmetrical
predicates are adjectives combined with a preposition with, from, or to:
1 A and B are congruent (with each other)
=A is congruent
with B and B is congruent with A (where ‘=’
is the sign for
semantic identity)
commensurate
concentric congruent contemporary identical
intimate
simultaneous synonymous
2 A and B are different (from each other)
=A is different
from B and B is different from A
different
3 A and B are equivalent (to each other)
=A is equivalent
to B and B is equivalent to A
equal equivalent
related
Symmetrical
predicates may also be participles formed from causative verbs: If I connect X
and Y, X and Y are connected with each other. Other such causative verbs are:
1 A combines X and Y=A combines X with Y
and Y with X
compare
confuse group mix reconcile
2 A disconnects X and Y=A disconnects X
from Y and Y
from
X disconnect distinguish separate
3 A connects X and Y=A connects X to Y
and Y to X
connect
join relate tie
10.Expressions of quantity
Our
study of hyponyms and superordinates can throw light on some terms that seem at
first to be very far removed from these topics, quantifiers like all,
no, some, many, few. What do these words mean? How did we learn to use them
when we were very young? Almost certainly a child acquires the use of these
items in connection with noun phrases that have quantifiable referents. Told to
put away ‘all’ his toys, a child learns that this means putting away the doll
and the wagon and the toy rabbit and the ball…and so on until ‘no’ toy is still
out. The meaning of no (or not any) is acquired in similar
contexts: not the doll and not the wagon and not the toy rabbit….
Semanticists
may explain these lexemes in a more sophisticated way, like this:
Given
a set X that consists of X1 X2, X3,…Xn, all X=X1 & X2 & X3…& Xn; no
X=~X1 &~X & ~X3…~Xn. More sophisticated, perhaps, but not more
illuminating.
The
meanings of some, many (or much in uncountable noun phrases), and
few (little in uncountable NPs) are vague, and the vagueness
exists by tacit agreement of the language community. In a group of 10 items, a
few is 2, 3, or perhaps 4; many, or a lot, is 9, 8, or maybe
7; and some is any number from 2 to 9. A speaker can employ these terms
in an acceptable way without necessarily knowing the exact quantity, and an
addressee accepts the terms without necessarily expecting to know the exact
quantity.
Logically,
all includes some, few and many. Thus someone who tells us
that he has done some of the assigned exercises, when he has in fact done all
of them, is not lying. Pragmatically, however, some is in contrast with all.
If our speaker accents the word—“I’ve done SOME of the assignments”—the accent gives
some paradigmatic focus and serves to exclude any quantifier other than some.
The study of hyponymy reveals some interesting facts about these quantitative
terms, as Barwise and Cooper (1981) and Larson
(1990)
have shown. Consider, first, a two-argument predicate like chase and a
subject that includes all.
Summary
Lexemes are related to other lexemes on
various semantic criteria. Field theory tries to discover sets of lexemes such
that members of a set share some semantic feature(s) and are differentiated
from one another by other systematically distributed features. Sets may
hierarchical, part-whole, sequential, cyclical, and may form structural
paradigms.
All societies have kinship systems, which can
be analyzed in terms of a few semantic features that co-occur. The features
parent, offspring, sibling and spouse are universal. Older and younger siblings
are named differently in some cultures. Gender figures differently in different
systems, so that relations on the mother’s side may have different names than
those on the father’s side, and similarly for the bride’s family as distinct
from the bridegroom’s family. Logical entailments, paraphrases, and
contradictions derive from conjunctions, negative ‘not,’ and quantifier
pronouns like ‘no one’ and ‘someone.’ Meaning relations of this sort
are used to make inferences.
Truth conditional semantics investigates the
relations among lexemes that can be predicates for the same referring
expression. Two such predicates may be related to each other as synonyms, as
hyponym and superordinate, or as antonyms. Among antonyms we
distinguish binary and non-binary antonyms;
non-binary antonyms are opposite ends of a scale along which intermediate
degrees exist; for binary antonyms there are no intermediate degrees. For any
pair of sentences in which the predicates are synonymous, antonymous, or
related as hyponym-superordinate a truth table can be established, setting out
what can be known about one sentence if the other is known to be true or to be
false.
Two predicates are converse antonyms if each
links noun phrases
In the roles of theme and associate, the noun
phrases occur in reverse roles with the two predicates, and the resulting
sentences have the same truth value. A symmetrical predicate also links noun
phrases in the roles of theme and associate; the noun phrases may be reversed
without changing the truth of the predication. Quantifiers such as all, some, no can be understood and explained by comparing sentences in which a
superordinate term and a hyponym are contrasted in subject position and in
object position.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar