LIN 1180 – Semantics
Lecture7
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:
 run1 = physical act of running
 run2 = place where fowl are kept
 So run is 2-ways ambiguous (2 senses)
 But run1 exhibits vagueness between a general sense of
running, and the more specialised sense used in cricket.
Ambiguity vs. vagueness (II)
 Similarly:
 daħla1 = entrance or inlet
 daħla2 = introduction to a text
 2-ways ambiguous
 daħla1 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
 I ate a sandwich and Mary
did so too
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:
 run1 = physical act of running (similar word: jog)
 run2 = a closed space for animals (similar word: enclosure)
 Pete went for
√ a run
.
√ a jog
*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.3PL) / 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
 Hyponymy is a
relation of inclusion.
ANIMAL
 Arrows can be
interpreted as “IS-A”
relations.
 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
ANIMAL
 A BIRD IS-A ANIMAL
 Therefore, a CANARY
IS-A ANIMAL
BIRD
CANARY
LIN 1180 -- Semantics
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