Vehicles are part of our everyday life. They help us transporting goods, traveling and are part of our free time activities. This leads to many different types of vehicles, many lexemes and therefore a large lexical field.
In this paper I will have a closer look at the semantic field vehicle. I will concentrate on vehicles that move on solid ground. Starting by analyzing the sense relations within the semantic field, synonymous, hyponymic, meronymic, polysemous, and homonymous relations will be the key aspects of my analysis. Furthermore, I will have a look at the prototype theory and the Goodness-Of-Exemplar-Rating in connection to the lexical field vehicle.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. Analysis of sense relations
2.1. Synonymy
2.2. Hyponymy
2.3. Meronymy
2.4. Polysemy and Homonymy
3. Is a skateboard a typical vehicle? – Prototype Theory
3.1. Goodness-Of-Exemplar-Rating
3.2. Family resemblance
4. Conclusion
5. Appendix
5.1. Semantic Field Vehicle
5.2. Semantic Field Fahrzeug
5.3. GOE Evaluation Vehicle
6. References
1. Introduction
Vehicles are part of our everyday life. They help us transporting goods, traveling and are part of our free time activities. This leads to many different types of vehicles, many lexemes and therefore a large lexical field.
One may think that semantic fields are not structured and therefore there is no point for an analysis.
Theories of semantic fields assume, on the other hand, that the vocabulary of a language is structured, just as the grammar and phonology of a language are structured—the words of a language can be classified into sets which are related to conceptual fields and divide up the semantic space or the semantic domain in certain ways. (Lehrer 1974: 15).
In this paper I will have a closer look at the semantic field vehicle. I will concentrate on vehicles that move on solid ground. Starting by analyzing the sense relations within the semantic field, synonymous, hyponymic, meronymic, polysemous, and homonymous relations will be the key aspects of my analysis. Furthermore, I will have a look at the prototype theory and the Goodness-Of-Exemplar-Rating in connection to the lexical field vehicle.
2. Analysis of sense relations
The lexical field vehicle offers different ways of analyzing the sense relations. In this chapter I will analyze synonymous, hyponymic, meronymic, polysemous, and homonymous relations.
2.1. Synonymy
First I am going to analyze the synonymous relations. This kind of relation “… is used to mean ‚sameness of meaning’” (Palmer 1977: 59), which leads to various findings in the lexical field of vehicles. Palmer points out “… that there are no real synonyms, that no two words have exactly the same meaning” (1977: 60). Therefore, he suggests different ways in which potential synonyms can differ from each other. In the lexical field of vehicles these differences can be found in dialect and in register and style.
A typical example of the first group is lorry and truck. While lorry is used in British English, truck is used American English (AmE). Furthermore, tram and streetcar (AmE), underground and subway (AmE) and goods train and freight train (AmE) are also synonyms. In comparison to lorry and truck the last three examples do not have one utterance which is typical for British English. They have an additional lexeme in American English. Palmer explains that “it is simply a matter of people speaking different forms of the language having different vocabulary items” (Palmer 1977: 60). Regional differences like the above mentioned are examples of synonymous relations in word fields.
Although speakers do not usually change from one dialect into another, this is possible where it comes to differences in style and register[1]. This is the second group which contains for example bicycle and bike. While the first is rather formal, the second one is colloquial and more often used in ordinary conversations. This is similar to motorcycle and motorbike, where the latter is used in informal contexts. These synonyms are especially important if one wants to create a certain image in the listener’s mind[2].
2.2. Hyponymy
Hyponyms are words which share features, that indicate that they all belong to the same word-class. All relations that can be seen in the structure tree (see 6.1. Semantic Field Vehicle) are one of hyponymy.
The more specific terms, called the hyponyms, are one level below the more general term, called the superordinate or hyperonym. Kreidler points out “… that the denotation of the hyponym is included in the denotation of the superordinate … , but the meaning of the superordinate is included in the meaning of the hyponym …” (1998: 93).
a) A Mercedes is a car.
b) A Mercedes is a vehicle.
The truth of a) entails the truth of b) but the falsity of the a) does not entail the falsity of b). On the other hand one can not be sure that a) is true if one only knows that b) is true. However, one can be sure that a) is not true if b) is false. Here the term car is a hyponym of vehicle. Therefore, vehicle is the superordinate of car. If one combines the two sentences above, one creates a tautology[3]: A Mercedes is a car and (a Mercedes) is a vehicle.
The terms motor vehicle and non-motorized vehicle are hyponyms of vehicle but are also superordinates, each of goods vehicle and passenger vehicle. “This also illustrates the fact that hyponymy is hierarchical: one term may be a superordinate to various hyponyms and at the same time be a hyponym of some higher superordinate” (Kreidler 1998: 96).
In the case of the semantic field vehicle (see 6.1. Semantic Field Vehicle) the fourth level is the substantive level for it has “… the richest set of characteristic properties …” (Cruse 2000: 181). The lexemes of this level are more often used than the more general or the more specific terms. Children and learner of English as a foreign language will first acquire these words.
illustration not visible in this excerpt
+Fig. 2.1: Hyponymic relations of car
“A characteristic of taxonomic hierarchies is that they have well-developed levels” (Cruse 2000: 180). One example of a well-established relationship is shown in figure 2.1. There is no other superordinate than car possible for theses hyponyms. Convertible and its co-hyponyms could additionally have other superordinates, e.g. different types of convertibles, but car would always serve as the first hyperonym. This hierarchy is well-established because “… the relations of dominance and differentiation are constant throughout the structure” (Cruse 2000: 180).
However, this is not always the case. It is important to mention that the hyponyms of vehicle and also the following level of hyponyms, are chosen rather arbitrarily. Of course one could interchange their order and even use different types of differentiation as hyponyms, e.g. one-wheeled vehicles, two-wheeled vehicles, three-wheeled-vehicles and so on. Kreidler points out that “… semantics analysis is often messy. Sometimes we find co-hyponyms without a superordinate” (1998: 93). While motor vehicle is an expression which is normally used in the English language, non-motorized vehicle is no lexeme. Therefore, one might say that there is a lexical gap[4] in this case.
2.3. Meronymy
In addition to hyponymy one may find meronymic relations in the lexical field of vehicle. “Meronymy is a term used to describe a part-whole relationship between lexical items.” (Saeed 1997: 70). One example of this is shown in figure 2.2. All of the meronyms of car that are shown here are necessary. Although one may add other meronyms that may be normal but not mandatory to car such as spare tire or that are optional, e.g. airbag (cp. Saeed 1997: 70).
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Fig. 2.2: Example for transitive meronymy of car
“Hyponymy is always transitive … but meronymy may or may not be.” (Saeed 1997: 70). The example in the figure 2.2 is transitive: rim is a meronym of wheel, and wheel is a meronym of car. Rim is a meronym of car because one may say A car has a rim. Therefore this example is transitive.
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Fig. 2.3: Example for intransitive meronymy of car
A non-transitive example can be seen in figure 2.3, which is taken from Saeed (1997: 70): A car has an engine and an engine has a valve. Still one would not say that car is a meronym of valve.
[...]
[1] cp. “We do not normally pass from one dialect to another, but we can within a single conversation change our style …” (Palmer 1977: 61)
[2] cp. “… and in particular, can change the vocabulary items to achieve different effects.” (Palmer 1977: 61)
[3] “A tautology is a sentence with two predications, such that one entails the other.” (Kreidler 1998: 93)
[4] cp. “Lexical gaps are not infrequent in taxonomic hierarchies, especially in levels above the basic level.” (Cruse 2000: 182)