Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T11:31:50.428Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Coats and bras and jeans – and clothes, too: lexical contrast between hyperonyms and hyponyms1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2016

ANU KOSKELA
ANU KOSKELA*
Affiliation:
English Language, Faculty of Arts, Design and Humanities, De Montfort University, The Gateway, Leicester LE1 9BH, United Kingdomakoskela@dmu.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A special case of lexical contrast involves contrasting a hyperonym and a hyponym (as in clothes and socks), leading to the narrowing of the hyperonym's sense. However, not all hyperonym/hyponym pairs are amenable to contrast (e.g. ?animals and cats). While category prototype structure forms a strong motivating and constraining factor for hyperonym/hyponym contrast (e.g. Lehrer 1990), what is lacking in previous work is a systematic consideration of the co-hyponyms in real language use. To that end, data from the GloWbE corpus (Davies 2013) were used to investigate which terms for items of clothing (e.g. coat, bra, jeans) can be contrasted with their hyperonym (either clothes or clothing). While marginal members of the item of clothing category (e.g. belt, hat) have a stronger potential for contrasting with the hyperonym, even prototypical hyponyms (e.g. shirt, jeans) contrasted with clothes/clothing in at least some contexts. Language users can therefore manipulate category boundaries to meet their discourse needs, exploiting a range of dimensions of difference to create contrast. Many clothing terms were also found to contrast more readily with clothes than with clothing, suggesting that the meaning of clothes is generally narrower than that of its near-synonym clothing.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , November 2017 , pp. 475 - 499
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

I am grateful to M. Lynne Murphy and the anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier versions of this article. All errors and mistakes naturally remain my own.

References

Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1987. The instability of graded structure: Implications for the nature of concepts. In Neisser, Ulrich (ed.), Concepts and conceptual development, 101–40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Battig, William F. & Montague, William E.. 1969. Category norms of verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 80(3, part 2), 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlin, Brent. 1972. Speculations on the growth of ethnobotanical nomenclature. Language in Society 1 (1), 51–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, W. P. 1978. A cross-national comparison of English-language category norms. Language and Speech 21 (1), 50–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Croft, William & Cruse, D. Alan. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. Alan. 1986. Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2004–. BYU-BNC (based on the British National Corpus from Oxford University Press). http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/ (accessed 15 May 2015).Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2013. Corpus of Global Web-Based English: 1.9 billion words from speakers in 20 countries. http://corpus2.byu.edu/glowbe/ (accessed 1 November 2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Matt. 2012. A new approach to oppositions in discourse: The role of syntactic frames in the triggering of non-canonical oppositions. Journal of English Linguistics 40 (1), 47–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubey, Amit, Keller, Frank & Sturt, Patrick. 2008. A probabilistic corpus-based model of syntactic parallelism. Cognition 109 (3), 326–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geeraerts, Dirk. 1993. Vagueness's puzzles, polysemy's vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics 4 (3), 223–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk, Grondelaers, Stefan & Bakema, Peter. 1994. The structure of lexical variation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampton, James A., Dubois, Danièle & Yeh, Wenchi. 2006. Effects of classification context on categorization in natural categories. Memory & Cognition 34 (7), 1431–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hampton, James A. & Gardiner, Margaret M.. 1983. Measures of internal category structure: A correlational analysis of normative data. British Journal of Psychology 74 (4), 491–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Coordination. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, 2nd edn, 1–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hearst, Marti A. 1992. Automatic acquisition of hyponyms from large text corpora. Proceedings of the fourteenth International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Nantes, France.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1984. Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Schiffrin, Deborah (ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context, 11–42. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1991. Parts and boundaries. Cognition 41 (1), 9–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jeffries, Lesley. 2010. Opposition in discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Jones, Steven. 2002. Antonymy: A corpus-based perspective. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Steven, Lynne Murphy, M., Paradis, Carita & Willners, Caroline. 2012. Antonyms in English: Construals, constructions and canonicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempson, Ruth M. 1980. Ambiguity and word meaning. In Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan (eds.), Studies in English linguistics, 7–16. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Koskela, Anu. 2014. Shoes, boots and vertical polysemes: The dynamic construal and conventionality of word senses. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 12 (2), 259–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1973. The boundaries of words and their meaning. In Bailey, Charles-James N. & Shuy, Roger W. (eds.), New ways of analyzing variation in English, 340–73. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Lang, Ewald. 1984. The semantics of coordination, trans. Pheby, John. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, Adrienne. 1990. Prototype theory and its implications for lexical analysis. In Tsohatzidis, Savas L. (ed.), Meanings and prototypes, 368–81. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Markman, Ellen M. 1985. Why superordinate category terms can be mass nouns. Cognition 19 (1), 31–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCawley, James. 1975. Lexicography and the count-mass distinction. Berkeley Linguistics Society 1, 314–21.Google Scholar
Mettinger, Arthur. 1994. Aspects of semantic opposition in English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, M. Lynne. 2003. Semantic relations and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, M. Lynne. 2006. Antonyms as lexical constructions: Or, why paradigmatic construction is not an oxymoron. Constructions SV1-8/2006. http://constructions-journal.com/ (accessed 16 November 2015)Google Scholar
Murphy, M. Lynne, Jones, Steven & Koskela, Anu. 2015. Signals of contrastiveness: But, oppositeness and formal similarity in parallel contexts. Journal of English Linguistics 43 (3), 227–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, Carita & Willners, Caroline. 2011. Antonymy: From convention to meaning-making. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 9 (2), 367–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günther. 1985. Dogs, bitches and other creatures. Journal of Semantics 4, 117–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor, Mervis, Carolyn B., Gray, Wayne D., Johnson, David M. & Boyes-Braem, Penny. 1976. Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 8, 382–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, Emilie M. & Shoben, Edward J.. 1983. The effect of context on the structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 15 (3), 346–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuggy, David. 1993. Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics 4 (3), 273–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uyeda, Katherine M. & Mandler, George. 1980. Prototypicality norms for 28 semantic categories. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation 12 (6), 587–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard. 2005. Co-compounds and natural coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ware, Robert. 1979. Some bits and pieces. In Pelletier, Francis (ed.), Mass terms: Some philosophical problems, 15–29. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar