Hyponymy and Its Varieties

  • D. Alan Cruse
Part of the Information Science and Knowledge Management book series (ISKM, volume 3)

Abstract

This chapter deals with the paradigmatic sense relation of hyponymy as manifested in nouns. A number of approaches to the definition of the relation are discussed, with particular attention being given to the problems of framing a prototype-theoretical characterization. An account is offered of a number of sub-varieties of hyponymy.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bolinger, D. (1992). About furniture and birds. Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 111–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cann, R. (1993). Formal Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cruse, D. A. (1990). Prototype theory and lexical semantics. In S. L. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Categorization. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Cruse, D. A. (1992). Cognitive linguistics and word meaning: Taylor on linguistic categorization. Journal of Linguistics, 28, 165–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cruse, D. A. (1994). Prototype theory and lexical relations. Rivista di Linguistica, 6, 167–188.Google Scholar
  7. Cruse, D. A. (1995). Polysemy and related phenomena from a cognitive linguistic viewpoint. In P. Saint-Dizier & E. Viegas (Eds.), Computational Lexical Semantics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Hampton, J. A. (1991). The combination of prototype concepts. In P. J. Schwanenflugel (Ed.), The Psychology of Word Meanings. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Lyons, J. (1963). Structural Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lyons, J. (1981). Language, Meaning and Context . London: Fontana.Google Scholar
  12. Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology , 7, 573–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H.-J. (1996). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London and New York: Longmans.Google Scholar
  14. Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Alan Cruse
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations