Inherent Semantic Relation

About 2 pages (488 words)

Semantics Summary

Questions on this topic? Just ask!

Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics

inherent semantic relation

Term coined by Porzig (1934) to denote the syntagmatic relationship of compatibility between pairs of linguistic expressions with a unidirectional semantic implication, such as bark: dog, blond: hair. This type of semantic relation plays an especially significant role in metaphorical transfer (e.g. barking cough). Inherent semantic relations are, in great part, dependent on idiolect. Paradigmatic semantic relations, such as those studied by J.Trier in his lexical field theory, must be distinguished from these contextually dependent semantic relations. ( also selection restriction)

Reference

Porzig, W. 1934. Wesenhafte Bedeutungsbeziehungen. PBB 58. 70–97.

inheritance

1 In word formation, process of transferring morphological and syntactic characteristics of the parts to the whole in a regular fashion. Also, the argument structure of an underlying verb is inherited by a new derivation, cf. to develop pictures—the development of pictures. Selkirk (1982) traces argument inheritance back to lexical operations defined in the lexical analysis of an affix, while Toman (1983) and Lieber (1991) assume the partial transfer of subcategorization features on the basis of the categorial information of the head by means of percolation. For Moortgat (1985) and, following him, Di Sciullo and Williams (1987) and Bierwisch (1989), the derived argument structure arises from the functional composition of the argument structure of an affix with that of its basic category. Fanselow (1988), on the other hand, takes the position that the apparently formal inheritance of arguments really represents a process of the semantic interpretation ( possible word).

References

Bierwisch, M. 1989. Event nominalizations. In W. Motsch (ed.), Wortstruktur und Satzstruktur. Berlin. 1–73.

Borer, H. 1991. The causative-inchoative alternation: a case study in parallel morphology. The Linguistic Review 8. 119–58

Di Sciullo, A.M. and E.Williams. 1987. On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA.

Fanselow, G. 1988. ‘Word syntax’ and semantic principles. In G.Booij and J.van Marle (eds), Yearbook of morphology. Dordrecht. 95–122.

Levin, B. and M.R.Hovav. 1991.

Wiping the slate clean: a lexical semantic exploration. Cognition 41. 123–51.

Lieber, R. 1991. Deconstructing morphology. Chicago, IL.

Moortgat, M. 1985. Functional composition and complement inheritance. In G.A.L.Hoppenbrouwers et al. (eds), Meaning and the lexicon. Dordrecht. 39–48.

Reis, M. 1988. Word structure and argument inheritance: how much is semantics? LSt (series A) 179. 53–67.

Selkirk, E. 1982. The syntax of words. Cambridge, MA.

Toman, J. 1983. Wortsyntax. Tübingen.

Williams, E. 1981. Argument structure and morphology. LRev 1. 81–114.

2 In artificial intelligence, the assumption of traits from a superordinate concept by a sub-concept. This behavior, which was originally restricted to conceptual hierarchies in semantic networks, was later introduced into other formalisms for knowledge representation, e.g. that of the frame. The most essential problem is in determining if or when default reasoning must be used. Inheritance is an essential principle of unification grammar.