[block id=”bo-sung-1″]

Semantics along with other subjects like Grammar. Phonology and
Phonetics, Lexical, so on stands in the system of academic language. It is
researched systematically with a lot of different points of view and
approaches which are argued by many famous linguisticians like J. Lyons
(Cambridge University); Curse, D.A (Cambridge University); Chaffin, R &
Winston, M.E (Trenton State College); Herman D (Hamilton College); and so
on.
Semantics is not only researched but also learned in universities. To major
students at Haiphong private university like me, semantics is a new subject in
the curriculum, which brings us both excite and challenge. Furthermore, for
myself, it really attracts me in the studying at class for its strangeness,
especially Hyponymy and Meronymy. These two types of the sense relations
are popular in life particularly in scientific field. They are used to express
hierarchical relations. Besides, they also show the certainly mutual
correspondence and distinction as well, which urges me to study this issue
more profoundly.

de tai a study on hyponymy and meronymy in lexical semantics moi nhat

 Tải Đề tài A study on hyponymy and meronymy in lexical semantics

download1 google drive

BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO
TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC DÂN LẬP HẢI PHÒNG
——————————-
ISO 9001 : 2008
KHÓA LUẬN TỐT NGHIỆP
NGÀNH: NGOẠI NGỮ
HẢI PHÒNG – 2010
HAIPHONG PRIVATE UNIVErSITY
FOREIGN LANGUAGES DEPARTMENT
———————————–
GRADUATION PAPER
A STUDY ON HYPONYMY AND MERONYMY IN
LEXICAL SEMANTICS
By:
PHAM THI BICH HONG
Class:
NA1002
Supervisor:
DANG THI VAN, M.A
HAI PHONG – JUNE 2010
BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO
TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC DÂN LẬP HẢI PHÒNG
————————————–
Nhiệm vụ đề tài tốt nghiệp
Sinh viên: ……………………………………….Mã số: …………………………………
Lớp: ………………………..Ngành:………………………………………………………..
Tên đề tài:…………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………….
Nhiệm vụ đề tài
1. Nội dung và các yêu cầu cần giải quyết trong nhiệm vụ đề tài tốt
nghiệp
( về lý luận, thực tiễn, các số liệu cần tính toán và các bản vẽ).
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
2. Các số liệu cần thiết để thiết kế, tính toán.
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
3. Địa điểm thực tập tốt nghiệp.
..
..
..
CÁN BỘ HƯỚNG DẪN ĐỀ TÀI
Người hướng dẫn thứ nhất:
Họ và tên: …………………………………………………………………………………
Học hàm, học vị: ………………………………………………………………………..
Cơ quan công tác: ………………………………………………………………………
Nội dung hướng dẫn: ………………………………………………………………….
Người hướng dẫn thứ hai:
Họ và tên:…………………………………………………………………………………
Học hàm, học vị:………………………………………………………………………..
Cơ quan công tác:………………………………………………………………………
Nội dung hướng dẫn:………………………………………………………………….
Đề tài tốt nghiệp được giao ngày 12 tháng 04 năm 2010
Yêu cầu phải hoàn thành xong trước ngày 10 tháng 07 năm 2010
Đã nhận nhiệm vụ ĐTTN Đã giao nhiệm vụ ĐTTN
Sinh viên Người hướng dẫn
Hải Phòng, ngày tháng năm 2010
HIỆU TRƯỞNG
GS.TS.NGƯT Trần Hữu Nghị
PHẦN NHẬN XÉT TÓM TẮT CỦA CÁN BỘ HƯỚNG DẪN
1. Tinh thần thái độ của sinh viên trong quá trình làm đề tài tốt
nghiệp:
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
2. Đánh giá chất lượng của khóa luận (so với nội dung yêu cầu đã đề ra
trong nhiệm vụ Đ.T. T.N trên các mặt lý luận, thực tiễn, tính toán số
liệu):
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
3. Cho điểm của cán bộ hướng dẫn (ghi bằng cả số và chữ):
..
..
..
Hải Phòng, ngày .. tháng .. năm 2010
Cán bộ hướng dẫn
(họ tên và chữ ký)
NHẬN XÉT ĐÁNH GIÁ
CỦA NGƯỜI CHẤM PHẢN BIỆN ĐỀ TÀI TỐT NGHIỆP
1. Đánh giá chất lượng đề tài tốt nghiệp về các mặt thu thập và phân tích tài
liệu, số liệu ban đầu, giá trị lí luận và thực tiễn của đề tài.
2. Cho điểm của người chấm phản biện :
(Điểm ghi bằng số và chữ)
Ngày………. tháng……… năm 2010
Người chấm phản biện
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements
PART ONE: INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………….. 1
1. Rationale of the study…………………………………………………………………….. 1
2. Aims of the study ………………………………………………………………………….. 1
3. Scope of the study …………………………………………………………………………. 2
4. Design of the study ………………………………………………………………………… 2
PART TWO: DEVELOPMENT …………………………………………………………. 4
Chapter I- The theoretical background ………………………………………………. 4
1. Lexical Semantics …………………………………………………………………………….. 4
1.1. Lexical Semantics ………………………………………………………………………. 4
1.2. Word meaning ……………………………………………………………………………. 4
1.3. Sense relation …………………………………………………………………………….. 5
2. Hyponymy ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 6
2.1. Definition …………………………………………………………………………………. 6
2.2. Ingredients ………………………………………………………………………………… 6
2.3. Types ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 8
2.4. Some features ……………………………………………………………………………. 9
2.4.1. The entailment …………………………………………………………………. 9
2.4.2. Substitutive possibility ………………………………………………………. 9
2.4.3. Taxonymy as a subtype of hyponymy ……………………………….. 10
2.4.4. Synonymy as the special case of Hyponymy ………………………. 11
3. Meronymy ……………………………………………………………………………………… 11
3.1. Definition ……………………………………………………………………………….. 12
3.2. Ingredients ………………………………………………………………………………. 12
3.3. Types ……………………………………………………………………………………… 13
3.3.1. Component – integral object …………………………………………….. 14
3.3.2. Member – collection ……………………………………………………….. 14
3.3.3. Portion – mass ………………………………………………………………… 15
3.3.4. Stuff – object ………………………………………………………………….. 16
3.3.5. Feature – activity …………………………………………………………….. 16
3.3.6. Place – area ……………………………………………………………………. 17
3.4. Some features ………………………………………………………………………….. 17
3.4.1. The close relationship between members in a Meronymy ……. 17
3.4.2. The constant principle in the semantic relation of Meronymy . 18
3.4.3. Properties of Meronymy ………………………………………………….. 18
Chapter II- Contrastive Analysis of Hyponymy and Meronymy …………. 20
1. Compare of Hyponymy and Meronymy …………………………………………….. 20
1.1. Hierarchies ………………………………………………………………………………. 20
1.1.1. Hierarchies ……………………………………………………………………… 20
1.1.2. Dominance ……………………………………………………………………… 21
1.1.3. Differentiation …………………………………………………………………. 23
1.2. Lexical hierarchy ………………………………………………………………………. 24
1.3. Lexical gaps …………………………………………………………………………….. 27
1.3.1. Superordinate missing ………………………………………………………. 27
1.3.2. Subordinate missing …………………………………………………………. 29
2. Contrast of Hyponymy and Meronymy ……………………………………………… 31
2.1. Lexical relation …………………………………………………………………………. 31
2.2. Transitive relation …………………………………………………………………….. 32
2.3. The expansion of lexical item category ……………………………………….. 35
Chapter III- Implication …………………………………………………………………… 37
1. Some problems of Hyponymy and Meronymy ……………………………………. 37
1.1. Difficulties in recognizing Hyponymy and Meronymy ………………….. 37
1.1.1. Difficulties in recognizing Hyponymy ……………………………….. 37
1.1.2. Difficulties in recognizing Meronymy ………………………………… 38
1.2. Difficulties in distinguishing Hyponymy and Meronymy ………………. 39
1.2.1. The relativity in both Hyponymy and Meronymy ………………… 39
1.2.2. Quasi-relation ………………………………………………………………….. 39
2. Some suggestions to problems ………………………………………………………….. 40
2.1. Suggestions to recognize Hyponymy and Meronymy ……………………. 40
2.1.1. Suggestions to recognize Hyponymy ………………………………….. 40
2.1.2. Suggestions to Recognize Meronymy ………………………………… 42
2.2. Suggestions to distinguish Hyponymy and Meronymy ………………….. 43
2.2.1. Suggestion to difficulty of Relativity ………………………………….. 43
2.2.1. Suggestion to difficulty of Quasi-relation……………………………. 44
PART THREE: CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………….. 45
1. Summary of the study …………………………………………………………………… 45
2. Suggestion for the further study ……………………………………………………… 46
References ………………………………………………………………………………………… 47
Appendix ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 48
FIGURES
Page
Figure 1 …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5
Figure 2 …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7
Figure 3 …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8
Figure 4 …………………………………………………………………………………………… 12
Figure 5 …………………………………………………………………………………………… 13
Figure 6 …………………………………………………………………………………………… 14
Figure 7 …………………………………………………………………………………………… 20
Figure 8 …………………………………………………………………………………………… 21
Figure 9 …………………………………………………………………………………………… 22
Figure 10 …………………………………………………………………………………………. 23
Figure 11 …………………………………………………………………………………………. 23
Figure 12 …………………………………………………………………………………………. 25
Figure 13 …………………………………………………………………………………………. 26
Figure 14 ………………………………………………………………………………………… 27
Figure 15 …………………………………………………………………………………………. 28
Figure 16 …………………………………………………………………………………………. 29
Figure 17 …………………………………………………………………………………………. 30
Figure 18 …………………………………………………………………………………………. 38
Figure 19 …………………………………………………………………………………………. 38
Figure 20 …………………………………………………………………………………………. 41
Figure 21 …………………………………………………………………………………………. 41
Figure 22 …………………………………………………………………………………………. 42
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study, although, is carried out in a few month, it is the result of the
enormous amount of effort not only of mine buy also many other people.
Therefore, I would like to thank everyone who helps me finish this graduation
paper.
First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor,
Mrs. Dang Thi Van who plays an important role in my study. I am very
thankful for her enthusiastic instruction and heartfelt encouragement which
are the motivations to help me complete the study.
Next, I would like to thank teachers in Foreign Language Department of
Haiphong Private University for their assistance in my knowledge during the
last four years, which distributes cruelly to my study today.
Finally, it is impossible to mention the mental assistance of my family and
my friends. They have given me the giant encourage which help me a lot in
overcoming difficulties in the process of carrying out the study.
Haiphong, June 2010
Pham Thi Bich Hong
PART ONE: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
Semantics along with other subjects like Grammar. Phonology and
Phonetics, Lexical, so on stands in the system of academic language. It is
researched systematically with a lot of different points of view and
approaches which are argued by many famous linguisticians like J. Lyons
(Cambridge University); Curse, D.A (Cambridge University); Chaffin, R &
Winston, M.E (Trenton State College); Herman D (Hamilton College); and so
on.
Semantics is not only researched but also learned in universities. To major
students at Haiphong private university like me, semantics is a new subject in
the curriculum, which brings us both excite and challenge. Furthermore, for
myself, it really attracts me in the studying at class for its strangeness,
especially Hyponymy and Meronymy. These two types of the sense relations
are popular in life particularly in scientific field. They are used to express
hierarchical relations. Besides, they also show the certainly mutual
correspondence and distinction as well, which urges me to study this issue
more profoundly.
That is the reason why Hyponymy and Meronymy are chosen to be the
graduation paper of mine. With more detailed aspects in these two sense
relations, in my hope, it will be much easier for teachers and learners to enrich
their knowledge in semantics.
2. Aims of the study
With the study, I hope to satisfy readers with knowledge gap in Semantics
and open new direction for further study. Specially, I would like to achieve
the following aims:
– State certain aspects in Hyponymy and Meronymy.
– Point out the similarity and the distinction between Hyponymy and
Meronymy.
– Show some difficulties in recognizing and distinguishing Hyponymy
and Meronymy.
– Give some suggestions for further study.
3. Scope of the study
Hyponymy, Meronymy and the distinction between them are complicated
and profound issues in Lexical semantics, which relate to a lot of lexical
relations like Taxonymy, Meronomy, and Hierarchical relation. Therefore it is
difficult for me to analyze clearly their relationship between them and the two
sense relations.
Due to the limited time and knowledge, my study just emphasizes on
outstanding aspects of the two sense relations as mentioned in the design. I
always percept my restricted understanding in Semantics, generally speaking
and Sense relations individually speaking, therefore it will be not wise if
further issues of Hyponymy and Meronymy like their relationship with other
semantic relations, their application in detail, etc. are mentioned with the
carelessness in the study. Conversely, the aspects such as Definition, Types,
Features, Contrastive analysis of Hyponymy and Meronymy will be stated in
detail in the study.
In my hope, the study will not be too restricted and can give the reader a
little referential knowledge.
4. Design of the study
The study includes three main parts: Introduction, Development,
Conclusion.
The first, Introduction, gives information about the reason, scope, outline,
and aims of my study.
The second one, Development- the main part of the study, denotes issues
relating two types of branching lexical hierarchy.
Chapter I will be the statement of the theoretical background, in which the
concept of the Hyponymy and Meronymy will be mentioned as well as their
characteristics and types will be denoted.
Chapter II, the main one, presents the distinction between these two
semantic relations including the distinction of the lexical relation, the
transitive relation, the hierarchical relation, the expansion of lexical units of
the two semantic relations.
Chapter III is to mention some problems in recognizing and differentiating
Hyponymy and Meronymy. Solutions suggested for dealing with the problems
are also stated.
The last part, Conclusion, giving the overview of the study comes with the
summary and the orientation for further research.
PART TWO: DEVELOPMENT
Chapter I – THEORITICAL BACKGROUND
1. Lexical semantics
1.1. Lexical semantics
Lexical semantics is a subfield of linguistic semantics. It is the study of
how and what the words of a language denote (Pustejovsky, 1995). Words
may either be taken to denote things in the world, or concepts, depending on
the particular approach to lexical semantics.
Lexical semantics covers theories of the classification and decomposition
of word meaning, the differences and similarities in lexical semantic structure
between different languages, and the relationship of word meaning to
sentence meaning and syntax .
Scope of lexical semantics refers to three issues which are closely
interrelated:
 Structure of lexical meaning
 Semantic structures (meanings) of words and how the meanings of
words are interrelated in the language
 Semantic structure of dictionaries
1.2. Word meaning
Before mentioning the notion of word meaning, it should be mentioned the
notion of ‚word‛. There are many definitions of what word is, but it can be
defined to be name or label for thing (Nguyen Hoa, 2002). Word is defaulted
by human to call an object or phenomenon in reality. In the relationship with
word meaning, word is representative for Language which is one of Mind,
Language, and Wold. It is possible to describe the relation in the following
triangle:
Language
Mind World
Fig.1
Hoa (2002:17)
Therefore, word meaning can be defined as reflect reality or express
human conceptualization of reality, as it were.
1.3. Sense relations
While reference is mentioned as an external meaning relation, which is the
relationship betw

[block id=”bo-sung”]

Từ khóa: Đề tài A study on hyponymy and meronymy in lexical semantics

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *