In opposition to an organized lexicon: Pragmatic principles and lexical semantic relations
Murphy, M. Lynne
This item is only available for download by members of the University of Illinois community. Students, faculty, and staff at the U of I may log in with your NetID and password to view the item. If you are trying to access an Illinois-restricted dissertation or thesis, you can request a copy through your library's Inter-Library Loan office or purchase a copy directly from ProQuest.
Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/2142/23226
Description
Title
In opposition to an organized lexicon: Pragmatic principles and lexical semantic relations
Author(s)
Murphy, M. Lynne
Issue Date
1995
Doctoral Committee Chair(s)
Green, Georgia M.
Department of Study
Linguistics
Discipline
Linguistics
Degree Granting Institution
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Degree Name
Ph.D.
Degree Level
Dissertation
Keyword(s)
Language, Linguistics
Psychology, Cognitive
Language
eng
Abstract
This dissertation argues that what are traditionally called lexical relations (antonymy, synonymy, hyponymy, meronymy, etc.) are not strictly part of linguistic knowledge. Instead, these semantic relations among words are shown to be predictable from more general cognitive principles. Special attention is paid to the case of antonymy, since arguments that lexical relations are specified in the lexicon have crucially relied on antonymy data. However, such treatments fail to account for the fact that antonymy and other lexical relations are context-dependent. A pragmatic Principle of Opposition is introduced which requires that antonyms (i.e., opposites) (a) comprise a binary set, (b) share all contextually-relevant properties but one, and (c) describe incompatible conditions/objects/events/situations. The oft-cited cases of big/little and large/small are discussed in detail in order to test this principle. In order to show that markedness relations need not be specified in the lexicon, a scalar treatment of gradable adjectives is provided which accounts for the asymmetric distribution of so-called 'marked' and 'unmarked' adjectives. This dissertation also argues that synonymy is a subtype of a more general similarity relation and that other so-called lexical relations merely reflect relations among the things that the related words refer to. None of these relations among words can be represented within lexical entries, since all depend on the particular senses of the related words in context. Since the senses of words cannot be simply listed in the lexical entry (because there are an unlimited number of them), relations among specific senses cannot be represented in the lexical entry either. Thus, like reference (Nunberg 1978), relations among lexical items are a pragmatic matter, depending on knowledge of what the words are used to refer to, what qualities the referents have, and what aspects of the referent or its name are relevant to the context at hand.
Use this login method if you
don't
have an
@illinois.edu
email address.
(Oops, I do have one)
IDEALS migrated to a new platform on June 23, 2022. If you created
your account prior to this date, you will have to reset your password
using the forgot-password link below.
