A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE OF SEMANTIC RELATION 3

Transcription

1 42 Interdisiplinary Journal of Research and Development, Vol. 4, no. 3, 2017 Dr. Ekaterina STRATI 1 ; Dr. Miranda SHAHINI 2 A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE OF SEMANTIC RELATION 3 Abstract Through a theoretical research study on semantic relations among words and phrases with an emphasis on paradigmatic semantic relation, in this article we will analyze some of the main features of semantic relations highlighting antonymy as our main focus. The most common semantic relations such as antonymy, synonymy, contrast, hyponymy and meronymy will be analyzes in a comparative view. Furthermore, a classification of each semantic relation is given along with the specific properties they have. Factors to be considered in determining semantic relations among words are the semantic aspect (meaning) of a given set of words and the non-semantic factors (such as context, morphology, phonology etc). Keywords: theoretical research study, comparative perspective, semantic relations, paradigmatic relations, antonyms, synonyms, etc. Introduction Paradigmatic semantic relations such as antonymy, synonymy, hyponymy etc. have been studied in different perspectives. There are researchers who consider such relations as the main goal of lexical semantics (Kempson) and others who believe that such relations between words determine meaning. It is still considered to be an unsettled linguistic issue. 1 University of Durres Aleksander Moisiu, Faculty of Education, Albania ekaterina_gjergo@yahoo.co.uk 2 University of Durres Aleksander Moisiu, Faculty of Education, Albania mirashahini@yahoo.com 3 Paper presneted in 3 International Conference Foreign Languages in a Global World, Linguistics, Literature, Didactics Durres, June 2017

2 Interdisiplinary Journal of Research and Development, Vol. 4, no. 3, It is not only linguistics that deals with such relations but they are subject to researches in many study areas such as psychology, philosophy etc. in the attempt to solve the triangular relation between words, their meaning and our mind. These interpretations have led to different interpretations and theories. The biggest question that arises in this triangular relation between words, meaning and mind is: How do we know if words are semantically related or not? From the pragmatic perspective the semantic relation between words is based on the semantic qualities of the words. However, it is also the context in which words are used that determines the semantic relation among words (Murphy). For example, what is considered an antonym for the word cold in a specific context can be a different word (antonym) in another context. Therefore, cold is related to the word hot in a specific context and in another context cold is related to the word warm in the opposite perspective. In terms of definition, the term semantic relations is replaced by the term lexical relations. The basic element is the word relation which Murphy determines as paradigmatic relation where the set of words forms some sort of paradigm, such as a semantic paradigm that contains members of the same grammatical category that share some semantic characteristics in common, but fail to share others (Murphy, 2003). He goes further explaining that not all paradigms are semantically defined considering the fact that there are also morphological paradigmatic relations. Semantic relations are not only observed in words but in phrases and sentences as well. Thus, we have paradigmatic semantic relations among words and paradigmatic semantic relations in phrases and sentences such as paraphrasing. As we mentioned above, relations between words are not only determined semantically because there are also a set of non-semantic factors that determine some semantic relations. Nonsemantic factors to be considered are the phonetic form, the register, morphology, etc. From these non-semantic factors a certain number of non-semantic relations derive such as the phonetic relations (related to the phonetic factors), morphological relations (related to the morphological factors), etc. The definition matter of the term lexical relations represents any paradigmatic relation among words including semantic relations, the phonetic relations, morphological relations, and morpho-syntactic relations. The main lexical relations are: synonymy, antonymy, contrast, hyponymy and meronymy. Antonymy is regarded as contrast within a binary paradigm (Murphy, 2003). This binary semantic paradigm represents a contrastive perspective among lexical items. Etymologically the term antonym dates back to 1867 when C.J. Smith used it in his book synonyms and antonyms. It is a word with a Greek origin meaning counter name.

3 44 Interdisiplinary Journal of Research and Development, Vol. 4, no. 3, 2017 The definition issue has generated arguments among researchers trying to make a distinction between oppositeness and antonyms. On one hand are those who have a broader sense of antonyms. They suggest that antonyms include all types of lexical opposite. On the other hand, are those who restrict the definition of antonyms to gradable antonyms (Lyons, 1968). According to the second restricted definition of antonyms there are a set of properties shared among all gradable antonyms (Cruse, 1986): 1. They are mainly gradable adjectives but sometimes they can also be verbs 2. The elements of the gradable pair express degree (e.g. height, weight, etc.) 3. If the components of the gradable adjective antonymous pair are intensified (using very, rather, quite, etc.) this means that the two components move in opposite directions in a degree scale (e.g. quite hot/ quite cold is more distinct in the scale of temperature than the gradable pair fairly hot/ fairly cold ). Muehleisen adds that good opposites are adjectives that do not only occupy opposite ends a shared semantic dimension, but also describe the same kind of things. For instance, the antonymous pari happy and sad are both used to describe feelings. According to Jackson (1988), in order to define antonyms it is not only necessary the lexical value but also the semantic one. He says that antonyms need to have oppositeness of meaning. The term synonymy stands for similarity of meaning which is considered as the most important lexical relation in the WordNet model (Millar and Fellbaum, 1991). It is usually defined considering the similar semantic elements among the words. In terms of contrast, the element that is different in a synonymic pair is the form. Therefore, based on the contrast grounds we can say that a synonym set includes only word-concepts that have all the same contextually relevant properties but defer in form. Muehleisen (1997) believes that some synonyms are synonyms because of the fact that they are associated with the same semantic dimension but they are differentiated by the fact that they modify different kind of nouns (e.g. big-large ; little-small ). She uses the term true synonyms only for those synonyms that share the same collocational profiles as well as the same semantic dimensions Considering the fact that similar morphological forms exist between words of the same or different meaning we can say that it makes these words better synonyms. For example, we can say that in the antonymous pair attach/ detach makes a more relevant pair than the attach/unfasten considering the fact attach-fasten are synonyms (Merriam Webster Dictionary). Cruse establishes a scale for synonyms, the same as he does with the antonyms. He also distinguishes between absolute synonyms and contextual

4 Interdisiplinary Journal of Research and Development, Vol. 4, no. 3, synonyms (Cruse, 1986). Absolute synonyms are those synonyms that are identical in all their contextual relations (Haas, 1968). Lyons provides another classification of synonyms: 1. Fully synonymous words (whose all meaning are identical) 2. Totally synonymous words ( synonymous in all contexts) 3. Completely synonymous ( identical on all dimensions of meaning) In order to be absolute synonyms need to be fully, totally, and completely synonymous. Lyons uses the term partial synonyms where as partial synonyms are those that are only fully synonymous or only totally synonymous and so on. Contrast is used in a broader sense (including antonymy as a subtype). Antonymy is usually a binary paradigm, whereas contrast is extended to a larger paradigm (e.g. cold/cool/warm/hot or sweet/ sour/bitter/salty) Hyponymy is known as class inclusion. It is hierarchical and asymmetrical relation. For example, if we consider the hyponymy group snake < reptile < animal, the word snake has a different relation to the word reptile compared to the word reptile with the word snake. snake < reptile and reptile > snake This means that snake is hyponym for the word reptile where as reptile is a hyperonym of the word snake. Similarly, meronymy is also a hierarchical and asymmetrical relation. It is also called the part-whole relation (Cruse 1986). Cruse suggests that there is a great similarity between the classification of living things and that of a language. It takes as an example the parts of the human body which he argues that are quiet similar to the part-whole hierarchies ( body > arm > hand > finger ). As Cruse emphasizes, it is important that all the components of a partwhole hierarchy be of the same type. For example, if one of the items is a concrete noun so must be all the other items of the same meronymy set. For example, the meronymy relations between sentence < paragraph < essay, the word paragraph is a meronym of the word essay but the word essay is not a meronym of the word paragraph. Both meronymy and hyponymy, create a relation between a category and its subordinate or the vice versa. In this perspective the above semantic relations can be classified in two main categories: The symmetric relations (in synonymy, antonymy and contrast) as opposed to asymmetrical relations (meronymy and hyponymy). But, which are the characteristics of semantic relations? To answer this question we will analyze seven of the most important characteristics that semantic relations share.

5 46 Interdisiplinary Journal of Research and Development, Vol. 4, no. 3, 2017 To start with, let us consider the ability to produce and generate new relational links. Generally discussing, semantic relations among words create rules that can be used to produce or generate other relations which make them productive. Productivity means that we can create new pairs or sets of antonyms, synonyms, hyponyms, etc. Therefore, if we apply a certain criteria in establishing a new synonymous pair than we can say that is possible to create a mechanism that helps to predict that some words can be related in terms of synonymy. For example, the prefix non is considered a very productive antonymous prefix. We can attach it in front of any adjective and get an antonym of that adjective. A second property of semantic relations is the binarity which is typical characteristic for antonymy. For example, in the antonymous pair boy-girl the antonym of the word boy is girl which means not a boy. However, it is not meant that oppositeness is always in a binary form. There are cases when contrast is shown in a scale with more than two opposite endings (extremes). For instance, in the antonymous set of the words sweet/sour/biter/salty we do not have two fix ends of a scale. Despite the fact that there are more than two words involved in this contrary set of taste, still there is an evident binary pair (sweet/sour) within the set which is called a canonical binary antonym pair (Terminology used by Murphy in 1994 but previously provided by Cruse in 1986). In this context we distinguish two main types of antonyms: canonical and non-canonical. Other examples of canonical antonyms are good/bad, hot/cold, which are those kind of antonyms that are most easily perceived in the human mind. They automatically follow one another in a typical task asking the students to identify the opposite meaning of the word big, hot, sweet, etc. Furthermore, an additional characteristic of semantic relations is prototypicality and canonicity. Canonical pairs (peripheral) are those pairs which Herrmann (1986) notice that were rated in a scale of degree of perception. He noticed that the most often pairs were the canonical ones (Charles and Miller, 1989) For the term canonical antonyms Jones (2002) uses the term prototypical. On the other hand, Jones uses the term peripheral for the term non-canonical. The distinction between canonical and non-canonical antonyms is the presents of the lexical value which means that the antonymous pair hard/soft are considered canonical because of the lexical and semantic components that distinguish these two words where as the antonymous pair malleable/ rigid. On the other hand non-canonical pairs are usually antonymous in a specific context (e.g. big/small, happy/angry, sour/bitter, etc.) In terms of frequency, according to Charles and Miller, canonical pairs such

6 Interdisiplinary Journal of Research and Development, Vol. 4, no. 3, as big/little are found together three times more often than the non-canonical pair big/small. Another characteristic is variability which means that words establish their meaning in a specific context. Thus, what is an antonym in a given context is not antonym of that word in another context. This characteristic is closely related to the polysemous nature of the words. This way the same word can have different antonyms and different synonyms in various contexts. If we take an example of the antonymous pair white/black, in a different context the black color could have the red color as an antonym. Predictability is another property of semantic relations. People as good users of their native language (but not only) can predict specific relations between words. Predictability is related to productivity because as we mentioned before we can generate new pairs of antonyms, synonyms, etc. based on the rules derived from existing sets of synonyms, antonyms, etc. Universality is the characteristic of semantic relations related to speakers of different languages. Murphy distinguishes two levels of universality: the general level and the particular level. As far as the general level is concerned Murphy has identified that speakers of different languages practice similar or identical semantic relations. Across linguistic experimentation by Rayback and Herrmann (1999) with speakers of Greek, Italian, American, English, British English, etc. proved that the three subtypes of relations shared by all the above languages specifically (contradiction, directional opposites and reversives) are part of one single relation. On the particular level, Murphy (2003) defines as universal the fact that for the same semantic relation apply the same concepts in different languages this means that generally the same associations are made by speakers of different languages. Semi-semanticity is another property of semantic relations. Nonsemantic factors such as grammatical, phonetical, etc. are also to be considered. For example, despite the fact that sadness and upset share the same denotative meaning (negative emotional state), we cannot consider them to be proper synonyms because they represent different parts of speech (noun-adjective). As a conclusion, this article highlights the problems related to the definition of lexical and semantic relations and also focuses on the definition of paradigmatic semantic relations such as antonymy, synonymy, contrast, hyponymy, and meronymy. Specific features of the above mentioned paradigmatic semantic relations are seen in different perspectives from different linguists. Furthermore, the article summarizes the seven main characteristics of semantic relations such as productivity, binarity, canonicity, variability, predictability, universality, semi-semanticity. Many questions arise during this theoretical research which may be later addressed for further studies in the field.

7 48 Interdisiplinary Journal of Research and Development, Vol. 4, no. 3, 2017 LITERATURE REVIEW 1. Charles, W.G; and G.A. Miller (1989), Context of Antonymous Adjectives. Applied psycho-linguistics. 2. Cruse, D. Alan. (1976) Three classes of antonym in English. Lingua. 3. Cruse, D.A. (1980) Antonyms and gradable complementaries. p Cruse, D.A. (1986) Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Antonymy revisited: some thoughts on the relationship between words and concepts. p Cruse, D.A. (1994) Prototype theory and lexical relations. p Cruse, D.A. and Pagona Togia. (1995) Towards a cognitive model of antonymy. Lexicology Haas, W. (1962) The Theory of Meaning, Oxford University Press. 9. Jackson, H. (1988) Words and their Meaning. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 10. Jones, Steven. (2002) Antonymy: A corpus-based perspective. London: Routledge. 11. Lyons, John. (1977) Semantics, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 12. Miller, George, ed. (1990) WordNet: An on-line lexical database. International Journal of Lexicography 3: p Muehleisen, V. (1997) Antonymy and Semantic Range in English. 14. Murphy, Gregory L., and Jane M. Andrew. (1993) The conceptual basis of antonymy and synonymy in adjectives. Journal of Memory and Language p.32, Murphy, M.L (1995) in opposition to unorganized lexicon: pragmatic principals and lexical semantic relations. University of Illinois ( doctoral theses). 16. Murphy, M.L (2003) Semantic Relations and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.