LIN 1180 Semantics Lecture 7 Albert Gatt Continuation

LIN 1180 – Semantics Lecture 7 Albert Gatt

Continuation from last week Ambiguity and vagueness

Ambiguity vs. Vagueness (I) �In context, a word can seem to have several distinct senses. Some may appear more related than others. �In our example: �run 1 = physical act of running �run 2 = place where fowl are kept �So run is 2 -ways ambiguous (2 senses) �But run 1 exhibits vagueness between a general sense of running, and the more specialised sense used in cricket.

Ambiguity vs. vagueness (II) �Similarly: �daħla 1 = entrance or inlet �daħla 2 = introduction to a text � 2 -ways ambiguous �daħla 1 is vague between the sense of “entrance” and that of “inlet”

Ambiguity vs. vagueness (IV) �Ambiguity: �In this case, the context will select one of the meanings/senses �We often don’t even notice ambiguity, because context clarifies the intended meaning. �Vagueness: �Context adds information to the sense. �Therefore the sense of the word itself doesn’t contain all the information. �It is underspecified.

Tests for ambiguity and vagueness �There are some tests to decide whether meaning distinctions involve ambiguity or vagueness. �The do-so test of meaning identity �The synonymy or sense-relations test

The do-so test: preliminary example did so too �I ate a sandwich and Mary did too �The do-so construction is interpreted as identical to the preceding verb phrase �Similar constructions in Maltese: � Kilt biċċa ħobż u anka Marija � Kilt biċċa ħobż u Marija għamlet hekk ukoll.

The do-so test and meaning identity �Main principle: if a particular sense is selected for a word in a verb phrase, it will also be the same sense in the do-so phrase �Therefore, very useful to test if two meanings are two distinct senses.

Do-so examples �Lili għoġbitni d-daħla u lil Jimmy wkoll (I liked the entrance/introduction and so did Jimmy) �Suppose daħla here = “introduction” �Is it possible that I liked the introduction and Jimmy liked the entrance? �If not, then these are two distinct senses or daħla �I made a run and so did Priscilla �If “I made a run” = “I ran”, then Priscilla cannot have made a run for her chickens. . . �So, again, these are two distinct senses of run.

The sense relations test �Basic principle: �Words exhibit synonymy or similarity of meaning to other words. �Therefore, if a word is ambiguous, we can substitute it for a similar word in the same context, and see if the meaning stays roughly the same.

Sense relations examples �Recall: �run 1 = physical act of running (similar word: jog) �run 2 = a closed space for animals (similar word: enclosure) √ a run √ a jog �Pete went for. *an enclosure �We can’t substitute one set of words for another and still keep the same meaning.

Lexical relations: basic concepts �We have established that: �words in the lexicon can have multiple senses (ambiguity) �they can also be vague, so that the actual meaning is underspecified and becomes clearer in context �In addition: �Words are not merely listed �they are often related to one another LIN 1180 -- Semantics

Part 1 Homonymy, polysemy, synonymy

How is the lexicon structured? � Lexical items belong to semantic fields �words that belong to the same “topic” , “subject” or “usage” �lexical relations are often strongest within a semantic field �different senses of a word often fall into different fields � Examples: �computing: gigabyte, CPU, memory, disk, monitor �administration/diplomacy/politics: green, monitor, parliament, election � Notice that monitor here has two senses, each falling in a different field. LIN 1180 -- Semantics

Homonymy -- I � Homonyms are unrelated senses of a the same phonological or orthographic word. sometimes we use homographs for unrelated senses of a written word � could be considered different words � lexicographers often treat derivationally related forms as homonyms � � Examples: � bank (river) / bank (financial) � ring / wring � house (N) / house (V) � right / write LIN 1180 -- Semantics

Two subtypes of homonymy �homphony �ring / wring �same phonology �different orthography �homography �articulate (ADJ) / articulate (V) �Maltese: domna (V) (stay-late. 3 PL) / domna (N) (religious icon) �different phonology �same orthography LIN 1180 -- Semantics

Polysemy �One phonological word, multiple senses (ambiguity) �senses are related, though distinguishable �cf. daħla (entrance) vs. daħla (inlet) �in traditional dictionaries, multiple senses are listed under the same head word. LIN 1180 -- Semantics

Homonymy vs. polysemy �Relatedness: �homonymy: senses are unrelated; �polysemy: senses are related �either historically or �based on speaker intuition �NB: Not always a clear-cut distinction. Speakers’ intuitions vary considerably. �Do you consider sole (“bottom of foot”) and sole (“flat, riverbed fish”) related? LIN 1180 -- Semantics

Synonymy �Different phonological words with highly related meanings: �sofa / couch �boy / lad �żgħir (small) / ċkejken (little) �moxt (comb) / petne (comb) �Very very difficult to find examples of perfect synonyms. LIN 1180 -- Semantics

Imperfect synonymy �Synonyms often exhibit slight differences, espcially in connotations �petne (“comb”) has Romance origins; probably used by most speakers today �moxt (“comb”) has Semitic origins (cf. xuxa “hair”) �Usage differs depending on dialect, context… LIN 1180 -- Semantics

The importance of register �With near-synonyms, there are often register- governed conditions of use. �Register = a style of language specific to a situation (e. g. formal, colloquial etc) �E. g. naive vs gullible vs ingenuous �gullible / naive seem critical, or even offensive �ingenuous more likely in a formal context LIN 1180 -- Semantics

Synonymy vs. Similarity �Native speakers often have strong intuitions about words which are “related”, though not necessarily identical, in meaning. �E. g. boat/ship; car/truck; man/woman �But also near-synonyms such as: snake/serpent �Similarity is broader than synonymy, since even words with “opposite” or “antonymous” meanings can be judged as similar; e. g. large/small LIN 1180 -- Semantics

When are two words similar? �Contextual view of meaning (Wittgenstein, 1953…): �the meaning of linguistic expressions can be characterised by looking at how they are used �two words are similar to the extent that they’re used in similar ways LIN 1180 -- Semantics

Example: master/pupil � These words have very different meanings, but share a core set of uses. � Both refer to human roles which tend to be practised in the same real world contexts (school etc). � Is this reflected in the way we use the words? �master of X school, pupil of X school �past master, past pupil �… � Rather than in contextual terms, we could view similarity as simply arising from links in a network of concepts. LIN 1180 -- Semantics

Part 2 Opposites and antonymy

Semantic opposition �Traditionally, antonyms are words which are opposite in meaning. �dead – alive �We can find other kinds of opposition: �hot – cold �explode – implode �writer – reader, employer – employee �black – white, red – orange (? ) LIN 1180 -- Semantics

Simple vs Gradable antonyms �Simple antonyms: dead – alive, hit – miss �truth of one implies falsity of the other �? X is dead but he’s alive. �Gradable antonyms: hot – cold, big – small �both may be “false”: neither tall nor short �typically, many terms to express gradations: �hot >> warm >> tepid >> cool >> cold �often modifiable with intensifiers: �very hot, somewhat cold �exhibit global dependencies: If we say X is big, we mean “big for an object of type X” �big elephant is much bigger than a big mouse LIN 1180 -- Semantics

Reverses and converses �Reverses: explode – implode �a kind of opposition where one terms “reverses” the other. �often found with terms related to movement (go/come, etc) �Converses: employer – employee, own – belong to �describe a relation between two entities from different viewpoints �“complement eachother” �if X is Y’s employer, then Y is X’s employee �if X owns Y, then Y belongs to X LIN 1180 -- Semantics

Taxonomies Colour red orange yellow green blue • Taxonomies are classification systems, often in the form of a tree. • Sisters are elements at the same level. LIN 1180 -- Semantics

Taxonomic sisters �Usually taken to be complementary or “opposed” or “incompatible” or “mutually exclusive” �NB: Taxonomies are often our way of imposing a discrete categorisation on a continuum (e. g. colour). LIN 1180 -- Semantics

Opposites and similarity �To many native speakers, the most highly related word to an adjective is its antonym or opposite. �also typical of taxonomic sisters �does this mean that opposites are synonymous? �No! It just means that “similarity” under the contextual view is much broader than synonymy. LIN 1180 -- Semantics

Part 3 Hyponymy and other relations

Definition of hyponymy o Hyponymy is a relation of inclusion. ANIMAL o Arrows can be interpreted as “IS-A” relations. o Unlike taxonomic sisterhood, which is horizontal, hyponymy is vertical. LIN 1180 -- Semantics BIRD CANARY MAMMAL SPARROW

Elements of hyponymy �If Y IS-A X then: �X is the superordinate or hypernym of Y �Y is a subordinate or hyponym of X �e. g. HUMAN is the hypernym of MAN, TOOL is the hypernym of CHAINSAW �Inclusion: �if Y is a hyponym of X then Y contains the meaning of X (plus something extra) �e. g. MAN includes all the features of HUMAN, plus the specification of ADULT and MALE. �Transitivity: �if X IS-A Y and Y IS-A Z, then X IS-A Z LIN 1180 -- Semantics

Transitivity -- illustration �A CANARY IS-A BIRD �A BIRD IS-A ANIMAL �Therefore, a CANARY IS-A ANIMAL LIN 1180 -- Semantics ANIMAL BIRD CANARY MAMMAL SPARROW

Special cases of taxonomic relations � Sometimes, language exhibits special cases of relations that are: �well-established and lexicalised �seem to depend on an underlying taxonomy or hierarchy � ADULT-YOUNG �dog – puppy, duck – duckling, etc � MALE-FEMALE �woman – man, dog – bitch, drake – duck, etc � NB: These pairs are often asymmetric. The unmarked case in the MALE-FEMALE is the MALE. �We tend to use it for the name of the species. LIN 1180 -- Semantics

Meronymy or part-whole �A different kind of taxonomic relationship. Arrows are interpreted as “HAS-A” ANIMAL LEG HAS-A IS-A BIRD WING HAS-A LIN 1180 -- Semantics

Meronymy vs. Hyponymy � Meronymy tends to be less regular than hyponymy: �NOSE is perceived as a necessary part of a FACE �CELLAR may be part of HOUSE, but not necessarily � Meronymy need not be transitive: �If X HAS-A Y and Y HAS-A Z, it does not follow that Y HAS-A Z � window HAS-A pane � room HAS-A window � ? ? room HAS-A pane � Common-sense knowledge plays a very important role in acceptability of these relations. LIN 1180 -- Semantics

Member-collection relations �We often lexicalise names of collections of specific things: �flotta (fleet) : a collection of ships �merħla (flock): a collection of sheep �Native speakers know there is a member- collection relation: �flotta (fleet) – vapur (ship) �armata (army) – suldat (soldier) �merħla (flock) – nagħġa (sheep) �Can be viewed as a special, lexicalised case of meronymy. LIN 1180 -- Semantics

Are collections singular or plural? �In many languages, there is the possibility of switching from: �a view of a collection as a single entity vs. the “contents” of the collection as a group or set �English: �The band played well tonight. �It drove the crowd nuts [SG] �They drove the crowd nuts [PL] �Maltese: � L-armata rtirat (The army retreated. SG) �? L-armata rtiraw. (The army retreated. PL) �Perhaps not as acceptable? Only with some nouns? LIN 1180 -- Semantics

Portion-mass �Mass nouns: �nouns denoting things which have no units �noun is also true of portions of the substance �liquid, coal, hair �Languages often have lexicalised concepts denoting portions of specific substances: �qatra (drop) for liquids �strand of hair LIN 1180 -- Semantics

Summary �This lecture gave an overview of some standard ways to classify relations between lexical items. �homonymy vs. polysemy �synonymy (and contextual similarity) �taxonomic relations: part-whole and hyponymy LIN 1180 -- Semantics