Definition and Examples of Hyponyms in English

Definition and Examples of Hyponyms in English In linguistics  and lexicography, hyponym is a term used to designate a particular member of a broader class. For instance, daisy and rose are hyponyms of flower. Also called a  subtype  or a  subordinate term. Adjective: hyponymic. Words that are hyponyms of the same broader term (that is, a hypernym) are called co-hyponyms. The semantic relationship between each of the more specific words (such as daisy and rose) and the broader term (flower)  is called hyponymy or inclusion. Hyponymy is not restricted to nouns. The verb to see, for example, has several  hyponyms- glimpse, stare, gaze, ogle, and so on.  Edward Finnegan points out that although hyponymy is found in all languages, the concepts that have words in hyponymic relationships vary from one language to the next (Language: Its Structure and Use, 2008). EtymologyFrom the Greek, below name Examples and Observations Hyponymy is a less familiar term to most people than either synonymy or antonymy, but it refers to a much more important sense relation. It describes what happens when we say An X is a kind of YA daffodil is a kind of flower, or simply, A daffodil is a flower.(David Crystal, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, 2003)Hyponyms of Red[L]et us consider words that have a similar meaning because they belong to the same segment of a domain. For instance, the words pink, scarlet,  orange, hot pink, and pumpkin . . .  are all more marked, specific terms for colors that derive from the color red. . . . These words share many of the semantic properties of the word red. Because these words form a subclass of the word red, they are referred to as hyponyms of red. Similarly, maple, birch, and pine are hyponyms of tree.Hyponyms are  more specific words that constitute a subclass of a more general word.(Bruce M. Rowe and Diane P. Levine,  A Concise Introduction to Linguistics, 4th ed.  Routledge, 2016) A Test for HyponymyHyponymy involves specific instantiations of a more general concept such as holds between horse and animal or vermillion and red or buy and get. In each case, one word provides a more specific type of concept than is displayed by the other. The more specific word is called a hyponym and the more general word is the superordinate which may also be referred to as a hyperonym or hypernym . . .. Where the words being classified according to this relation are nouns, one can test for hyponymy by replacing X and Y in the frame X is a kind of Y and seeing if the result makes sense. So we have (A) horse is a kind of animal but not (An) animal is a kind of horse and so on.(Ronnie Cann, Sense Relations. Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language and Meaning, Vol. 1, ed. by Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner. Walter de Gruyter, 2011)InclusionIn general, there are a number of hyponyms for each superordinate. For example, boar and piglet are a lso hyponyms of the superordinate pig, since the meaning of each of the three words sow, boar, and piglet contains the meaning of the word pig. (Note that in defining a word like sow, boar, or piglet, the superordinate word pig is often used as part of the definition: A sow is an adult female pig.) Thus, it is not surprising that hyponymy is sometimes referred to as inclusion. The superordinate is the included word and the hyponym is the including one.(Frank Parker and Kathryn Riley, Linguistics for Non-Linguists. Allyn and Bacon, 1994) Hierarchical Relationships and Multiple LayersHouse is a hyponym of the superordinate building, but building is in turn, a hyponym of the superordinate structure, and, in its turn, structure is a hyponym of the superordinate thing. A superordinate at a given level can itself be a hyponym at a higher level.(Patrick Griffiths, An Introduction to English Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburgh University Press, 2006)​Hyponyms and hypernyms have multiple layers, as in the following examples, where fry is a hyponym of the hypernym cook, but fry itself is a hypernym for some other types of frying:Hypernym: cookHyponyms: bake, boil,  grill, fry, steam, roastHypernym:  fryHyponyms:  stir-fry, pan-fry,  sautà ©, deep-fry(Michael Israel, Semantics: How Language Makes Sense. How Languages Work: An Introduction to Language and Linguistics, ed. by  Carol Genetti. Cambridge University Press, 2014)  .   Pronunciation: HI-po-nim

Definition and Examples of Linguistic Prestige

Definition and Examples of Linguistic Prestige In sociolinguistics, linguistic prestige is the degree of esteem and social value attached by members of a speech community to certain languages, dialects, or features of a language variety. Social and linguistic prestige is interrelated, notes Michael Pearce. The language of powerful social groups usually carries linguistic prestige; and social prestige is often granted to speakers of prestige languages and varieties (Routledge Dictionary of English Language Studies, 2007). Linguists draw important distinctions between overt prestige and covert prestige: In the case of overt prestige, the social valuation lies in a unified, widely accepted set of social norms, whereas with covert prestige the positive social significance lies in the local culture of social relations. It is, therefore, possible for a socially stigmatized variant in one setting to have covert prestige in another (Walt Wolfram, Social Varieties of American English, 2004). Examples and Observations: Linguistic prestige is directly associated with power. As [Thomas Paul] Bonfiglio (2002:23) puts it, There is nothing in the particular language itself that determines its worth: it is the connection of the language in question to the phenomena of power that determines the value of that language and that contributes to the standardization process.(Gerard Van Herk, What Is Sociolinguistics? Wiley-Blackwell, 2012) Old English certainly had words for language and female and face, and we could perfectly well have carried on using them [after the Norman invasion], but the much greater prestige of French induced many English-speakers to introduce French words into their speech in the hope of sounding more elegant. This attitude is always with us: French no longer enjoys quite the prestige it once had, but you may perhaps know someone who cannot resist spattering his English speech or writing with such French words and phrases as au contraire, joie de vivre, au naturel, fin de sià ¨cle and derrià ¨re. (R.L. Trask, Language: The Basics, 2nd ed. Routledge, 1999) Prestige in Grammar In grammar, most prestige forms are related to prescriptive norms of standardness or even literary norms. For example, the use of whom in Whom did you see? or the placement of never at the front of the sentence Never have I seen a more gruesome sight might be considered prestige variants in some social contexts. Apart from these somewhat special cases, it is difficult to find clear-cut cases of prestige variants on the grammatical level of language, particularly in the grammar of ordinary informal conversation...For present-day American English, it is clear that the vast majority of socially diagnostic structures exist on the axis of stigmatization rather than the axis of prestige.(Walt Wolfram, Social Varieties of American English. Language in the USA: Themes for the Twenty-First Century, ed. by Edward Finegan and John R. Rickford. Cambridge University Press, 2004) Overt and Covert Prestige A standard dialect speaker of English who intentionally switches to use of social markers such as aint and he dont is said to seek covert prestige. Such prestige is covert because its elicitation will often not, if successful, be consciously noted.Deliberate (as opposed to instinctive) use of taboo words such as fuck and shit, usage which tends to characterize male more than female speech, may also seek covert prestige, but the strength of these as social markers makes this more difficult to achieve. In a contrasting register, one uses unusually formal non-vernacular forms in vernacular contexts. For example, one will ordinarily say Its me to the question Who is it? asked by a familiar interlocutor, but, when asked the same question by one from whom one seeks prestige, the same speaker may say It is I. Similarly, except after prepositions Americans ordinarily say who in preference to whom: Who did you ask?, not Whom did you ask?  but in some circumstances, the latter may be substituted. Such usage is said to seek overt prestige because the often dubious prestige one gets from such usage is ordinarily consciously noted, hence overt. One may use jargon similarly seeking overt prestige, saying, for example, semantics when nothing more than ordinary meaning is intended.(Grover Hudson, Essential Introductory Linguistics. Blackwell, 2000) Labov on Prestige and Gender [American linguist William Labov developed] three principles regarding the linguistic behavior of men and women: 1. For stable sociolinguistic variants, women show a slower rate of stigmatized variants and a higher rate of prestige variants than men (Labov 2001: 266)2. In linguistic change from above, women adopt prestige forms at a higher rate than men (Labov 2001: 274)3. In linguistic change from below, women use higher frequencies of innovative forms than men do (Labov 2001: 292) Ultimately, Labov formulates the corresponding Gender Paradox: Women conform more closely than men to sociolinguistic norms that are overtly prescribed, but conform less than men when they are not.(Labov 2001: 293) All these principles and the Gender Paradox itself appear to be fairly robust findings with almost universal applicability in contemporary sociolinguistics...[E]very language period and every language community must be investigated independently and in its own right (pace Jardin 2000). The actual concepts and functions of class, gender, networks, and, most importantly, norms, standards, and prestige, differ radically in different communities.(Alexander Bergs, The Uniformitarian Principle and the Risk of Anachronisms in Language and Social History. The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics, ed. by Juan M. Hernndez-Campoy and Juan Camilo Conde-Silvestre. Wiley-Blackwell, 2012) Prestige, Status, and Function What do we mean by status and function? The two terms are often confused with one another and also with another term, prestige. Basically, the essential difference between prestige, function, and status is the difference between past, present, and future. The prestige of a language depends on its record, or what people think its record to have been. The function of a language is what people actually do with it. The status of a language depends on what people can do with it, its potential. Status, therefore, is the sum total of what you can do with a languagelegally, culturally, economically, politically and, of course, demographically. This is not necessarily the same as what you do with the language, although the two notions are obviously related, and indeed interdependent. They can also be connected with the prestige of a language. Let us illustrate the differences. Classical Latin has had a lot of prestige but it has few functions. Swahili has a lot of functions, but little presti ge. Irish Gaelic has status, official status, but few exclusive functions.(William F. Mackey, Determining the Status and Function of Languages in Multinational Societies. Status and Function of Languages and Language Varieties, ed. by Ulrich Ammo. Walter de Gruyter, 1989)

Leadership & Ethics for Managers week two DB Essay

Leadership & Ethics for Managers week two DB - Essay Example Addiction in this case comprises salary/wage, which I get from my work because there is no other alternative currently available. I will feel different because the drive behind my motivation to work more than required descends from the love and passion of the setting as well as the kind of task I am undertaking. Liking the kind of task, I am undertaking comes from one’s favorable environment, which respective authorities or corporation has ensured for its workers such that they are capable of enjoying while working. This implies I am not putting up with the setting in order to meet my goal, which is earning much money to sustain me in life. Have you ever considered that this is an issue of perception? In other words, we view people who like to work a lot as not following what is â€Å"right† – which often means having a perfect balance between a work life and personal life. Yes. Since much of their work encompasses thinking about work to the extent when they are not working or out of their working environment, most of the time one feels uncomfortable (Burke & Cooper, 2010). Mostly, while out of their working environment tend to think they are failing the corporation, which desperately needs their contribution to succeed (Burke & Cooper,