Search Results

A semantic theory must account for both how words are related to other words (intralinguistic connections) and how words connect to the world. Semantic field theory, which is appropriate for intralinguistic relations, is applied to wine words in this chapter. The semantic relationships most commonly found among wine descriptors are synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy (class inclusion), and incompatibility. Association, a weaker connection, also plays a role in understanding words. Four classes of descriptors are discussed: natural kind terms, gradable adjectives, evaluative words, and metaphors. The role of experts is discussed, but there are different kinds of wine experts, not all of whom use the same terminology. For example, wine writers use and generate metaphors (brawny, decadent) which the wine scientists consider silly or meaningless.

Pairs of words used in statutes may have: opposite meanings (antonyms), identical meanings (synonyms), different meanings, shared meanings (overlapping terms), or conjoined meanings (hendiadys). A pair of words may be linked conjunctively (requiring both terms to be satisfied) or disjunctively (requiring only one of the terms to be satisfied). It is not the case that where the link is ‘and’ the terms are conjunctive and where it is ‘or’ the terms are disjunctive. The terms ‘and’ and ‘or’ are often indistinguishable in English usage An example of weightless drafting (described in Chapter 6) is the use of a pair of terms where a doubtful case must fall within one or other of the terms but it does not matter which because the legal effect of the enactment is the same either way.

This chapter is a commencement address the author gave to graduating law students. It deals with the words graduation, degree, and gray. Degree is simply ‘degrade’ in a Frenchified form. Just as commencements can mark a beginning as well as an end, so reflexes of Latin gradus (step) can indicate going down, going up, or being leveled out. Gradus plays an outside role in the punning and word games in Nabokov’s Pale Fire. So the author meant to give an anti-commencement address by pointing to the down as well as up sense of the degree the students were getting. This provides a fitting end in this book to the number of auto-antonyms that figured in many of the preceding chapters.

The chapter examines how the concept of metamorphosis has been used without making any sense or determining the morality of the two narratives in Ovid's poem. The poet has used the term only to compare the elements and the chain of events that unfold throughout the narrative. The narrator has failed to describe how metamorphosis determines the sequence of events that unfold in the poem, rather than human behavior. The narrator has been unable to derive any meaningful conclusion from the metamorphosis or transformation of the chain of events that unfold throughout the narrative. The narrator has also failed to understand that metamorphosis and morality are antonyms. Metamorphosis only describes human sentiments and behavior superficially, while morality passes judgment on both. The chapter also finds that the narrator has failed to understand that metamorphosis can only be better understood in the absence of morality.

This chapter reviews research on the acquisition of paradigmatic structure (including research on canonical antonyms, morphological paradigms, associative inference, grammatical gender and noun classes). It discusses the second-order schema hypothesis, which views paradigmatic structure as mappings between constructions. New evidence from miniature artificial language learning of morphology is reported, which suggests that paradigmatic mappings involve paradigmatic associations between corresponding structures as well as an operation, copying an activated representation into the production plan. Producing a novel form of a known word is argued to involve selecting a prosodic template and filling it out with segmental material using form-meaning connections, syntagmatic and paradigmatic form-form connections and copying, which is itself an outcome cued by both semantics and phonology.

This chapter discusses several more epistemic adjectives. Certain and its near-synonym sure are maximum adjectives that combine with proportional and percentage modifiers. A comparison with non-modal adjectives suggests a ratio-scale classification with at least an upper bound. Several lines of evidence indicate that certainty and likelihood are formally closely related. However, there are puzzles around the interpretation of uncertain that indicate that the relation may not be one of identity. I consider three possible analyses, all of which have certain advantages and drawbacks. I then turn to possible, which is often claimed to be non-gradable. Naturalistic data indicate that possibility is a graded concept (e.g., increase the possibility of), and that possible is gradable (e.g., too/very/n% possible). While an analysis in terms of some kind of scalar coercion is technically feasible, the most natural explanation is that possible is a gradable adjective whose scale is closely related to likely’s scale.

• Is a crossword puzzle clue a definition of a word? • Can you enter to exit? • Are unrecoverable errors recoverable? • How can a word like “caution” mean “guarantee”? • What is it that happens unless you do something else? … This chapter is about the ways in which elements of language are at times able to correspond to each other in usage and in meaning. It explains equivalence, the baseline for distinctions between words, and clarifies widespread misconceptions about synonyms. It shows that words have values that are sometimes obvious and sometimes concealed. These concepts are relevant to all word choices in language, and they must be considered with due attention with translation of a user interface or documentation into another language. Ambiguity and culture are the two big issues that will inevitably come to the fore at such a time. It will also become clear that there are gaps to be filled in languages, and that interference and confusion are bound to get in the way. Multiple language environments create their own special demands with respect to all of these concepts. In a typical crossword puzzle, we are asked to think of words that correspond to descriptions or suggestions of their meaning. Because a crossword is a kind of game, the clues may well be phrased so as to make the word discovery difficult. By contrast, in dictionaries, descriptions of meaning are meant to correspond much more directly to designated words. A direct link is made between a particular language element—a word or phrase—and the language used to express its meaning, which stands in or substitutes for that element in a variety of ways. Definition is one way, within one language; translation is another way, between languages. Equivalence, in the sense of a perfect match on the level of meaning, may be achieved through definition, which draws on a rich range of language resources, but equivalence is much more problematic in translation. In translation into a target language, a word with exactly the same meaning may not exist.