[Lexicog] lexical relation

Tue Apr 28 22:49:36 UTC 2009

FLEx allows you to create new lexical relations. However this does not solve
your problem. The big problem with lexical relations is that they are
over-generalizations based on similarities in pairs (or sets) of words. For
instance the part-whole relation can be applied to things as diverse as
human body parts, parts of a car, and perhaps even parts of an event. But
human body parts are not easily divided from one another and therefore have
indeterminate (fuzzy) boundaries. The parts of a car can generally be
disassembled and therefore have a very different relationship to the other
parts surrounding them. Parts also can have functions. So the engine of a
car has a different relation to the whole than does the paint. To say that
the relationship of 'engine' to 'car' is part:whole is a gross
over-simplification. That isn't to say that lexical relations aren't useful.
But you have to be very careful to understand the semantics of each word and
the precise relation between them. It is nice to be able to say that the
agent:activity relation is exemplified by the pairs builder:build,
writer:write, architect:design. But when you start getting specific about
the precise relation, you find that a builder may not actually build
anything. He may just supervise the carpenters and other subcontractors who
actually do the building. A writer may use a laptop. So the precise sense of
'write' may be 'to author a document'.

When we look closely at pairs such as slip:slippery, we have to define each
word. It helps to start with the theoretical notion of a scenario. With
'slip' we need to put the word in a frame such as "John slipped and fell on
the wet sidewalk." First we have a surface on which John was walking. (He
might have just been standing, but we'll assume walking.) Second we need
some lubricant, in this case water. Third we assume he was on his feet and
that the traction between his feet (presumably shoes) and the sidewalk was
not sufficient to keep his feet where he planted them.

Next we look at 'slippery'. Take the sentence, "Watch out, the sidewalk is
slippery." Here we have the same surface as in the previous example
sentence. We have the same lubricant. We could have also chosen the example
sentence, "This oil is slippery," in which we would have had a very
different frame. Or how about the sentence, "My mother is getting feeble and
has trouble holding onto slippery glasses when she is doing the dishes." So
'slippery' has a variety of frames and therefore a general meaning. But even
if we limit the meaning to "the sidewalk is slippery", we have some serious
difficulties in describing the relation between 'slip' and 'slippery'. Let's
define both, but limit the sense to the sentences "John slipped and fell."
and ".the sidewalk is slippery."

slip v. 1) to accidentally slide a short distance quickly because the
surface on which you are standing is lubricated by some liquid or substance
such as sand, especially when sliding in this way causes you to lose your
balance and fall.

slippery adj. 1) if a surface such as a sidewalk is slippery, it does not
provide much traction because it has a wet or oily substance on it that
makes it easy for an object to slide on it.

Now we can start looking at the actual lexical relation that exists between
'slip' and 'slippery'. The practice of indicating a lexical relation by
putting the two words together with a colon between them (slip:slippery) is
misleading. Lexical relations are between the meanings of two lexemes, not
between their forms. So to be more precise, the lexical relation between
these meanings is actually:

to accidentally slide a short distance quickly because the surface on which
you are standing is lubricated by some liquid or substance such as sand,
especially when sliding in this way causes you to lose your balance and
fall:if a surface such as a sidewalk is slippery, it does not provide much
traction because it has a wet or oily substance on it that makes it easy for
an object to slide on it

Once you recognize this little fact, it becomes obvious why lexical
relations are illusions. Try to find two other words that have the same
relation as that expressed in the previous paragraph. It turns out that the
lexical relation between any two words is absolutely unique, because the
meanings of the two words are unique.

So why do we even bother talking about lexical relations? It is because our
minds have the amazing ability to generalize and see patterns in the
confusing mass of details around us. The notion of 'part of (sth)' is a
generality that we can apply to "My finger is a part of my body," and "The
engine is part of the car." So for us to talk about a lexical relation, we
need a generalized concept that we can apply to numerous pairs (or sets) of
words. What generalized concept can be applied to the meanings of 'slip' and
'slippery'? It isn't event:location. It isn't event:cause. The best I can
come up with is:

event:causative property of object associated with event

Can we think of other examples? How about cut:sharp, crush:heavy? But
thinking of examples like this requires a lot analytical thought. The
relationship is too complex and not frequent enough. For a lexical relation
to be useful it has to be fairly simple and it has to be common (there have
to be lots of pairs of words that are related in a similar way).

I prefer to deal with semantic domains. Many domains refer to a scenario. A
culture/language conceptualizes many scenarios. Each scenario has a set of
lexemes that refer to or describe various aspects of the scenario. So one
way to look at lexicography is to identify each scenario and describe how
each lexeme associated with the scenario relates to the whole. Step
1-identify a scenario. Step 2-collect all the lexemes that belong to the
scenario. Step 3-describe the scenario. Step 4-describe how each lexeme
relates to the overall scenario and to the other lexemes in the scenario. If
you look at the FrameNet website, you will see one approach to what I am
talking about.

Ron Moe

  _____  

From: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of lengosi
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 10:22 PM
To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Lexicog] lexical relation

What kind of lexical relation would be recommended for the following?

/madali/ Vsta 's.t. is slippery'
/sororo/ Vi 's.o. slips'

I'm using FLEx which provides "paired" sets of:

instrument / action
process / result
undergoer / verb

but none of these quite seem to fit. There is the rather generic Counterpart
relation, but this seems more specific than that. Any ideas would be
welcome. Thanks,

Paul

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.4/2082 - Release Date: 04/27/09
06:19:00

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lexicography/attachments/20090428/aa8e9cf3/attachment.htm>