Part whole relationship in semantics a word

part whole relationship in semantics a word

Noun 1. part to whole relation - the semantic relation that holds between a part and the whole ThesaurusAntonymsRelated WordsSynonymsLegend: Switch to . Part-whole relations SIABO PhD School: Ontology & Lexicon – Theory and . in the localisational semantics ONE RELATION OR A FAMILY OF RELATIONS?. tinguished several types of part-whole relation. Contrast. This family consists of relations in which the meaning of one term contrasts, opposes, or contra-.

A handle is a part of a bag. A bag has a handle. What is a part-whole relation? What is a part? What is a whole?

part whole relationship in semantics a word

Part-whole relation — formal strict ordering relation: Simons; Varzi Liebe hat ihre eigenen Gesetze. How can you characterise the underlying part-whole relations? Can you find additional examples showing differences not covered by the ones given? Consider the relation between the linguistic coding and the underlying concepts. What observations can you make?

Part-whole relations | Andrea C Schalley -

Different parts of a car, such as engine and tank, are in a structural and functional relationship, whereas different slices of a cake are not. The part is internal and not visible or directly accessible from the outside.

An engine is an encapsulated part of a car, whereas the tow-bar is not. The part can be exchanged with an equivalent one without destroying the integrity of the whole.

Tyres are exchangeable parts of a car, whereas the brain of a person is not. A functional relationship exists between the part and the whole. A car and its engine block have a functional relationship, whereas a cake and one of its slices do not.

part whole relationship in semantics a word

The part is similar to the whole, i. A slice of a cake and the cake are similar in nature, whereas a tow-bar of a car and the car are not. The part is comparable to the other part s of the whole in a regarded aspect. The parts are thus conceptualised as congeneric and uniform. The tyres of a car are homogeneous parts of the car, whereas the brain of a person is not homogeneous to any other part of that person.

part whole relationship in semantics a word

The part cannot be removed from the whole without destroying the whole, it is not optional. A mandatory part of a car is its chassis without its chassis the car is not a car any morewhereas a seat cover is not. The part is required with regard to the completeness of the whole i.

The rear-view mirror is a canonically necessary part of a car, whereas the chassis as a mandatory part and seat covers as facultative parts are not.

The part can be removed from the whole. A removable part of a car is the rear-view mirror, whereas sugar is a non-removable part of lemonade. Meronymy refers to part-whole relationships that hold between words on different hierarchical levels e.

Whereas hyponymy involves a relationship of inclusion between different classes, this is not the case with meronymy. Synonymy and hyponymy contrast with various types of semantic opposites. The most important sense relations that are based on the logical relation of contradiction are antonymy, complementarity, conversion, and incompatibility. The term complementarity binary antonymy, nongradable antonymy refers to an either-or relationship between the two terms of a pair of semantic opposites.

part whole relationship in semantics a word

It is a binary relationship in which the meaning of one lexeme is equivalent to the negation of the other lexeme e. In contrast to this binary relation, gradable antonyms are restricted to gradable expressions that usually correlate with opposite members of a continuum e.

This type of relationship is strongly connected to the notion of comparison, i. The third and fouth type of semantic opposites are characterized by a reciprocal semantic relationship between pairs of words: While converses relational opposites describe the same situation from different perspectives e. Finally, the notion of incompatibility refers to a non-binary semantic opposition of two expressions that are semantically similar yet differ in a single semantic feature and are thus incompatible e.

Since in most cases co-hyponyms are semantically incompatible in a given context e. Exercises on sense relations.