SKRIPSI
Submitted to fulfill one of the requirements of Sarjana Sastra Degree
RIZA SEMBHARA
NIM 63707014
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LETTERS
INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF COMPUTER
BANDUNG
iv ABSTRACT
The research entitled “The Contrastive Meaning of Synonymous Term in Hydrology” was conducted to describe and analyze the contrastive meaning of synonymous term in hydrology. The theory used in this research is adopted from Larson about the aspect of meaning that causes the contrastive component that occurs in synonymous words. This theory is originally used to find the meaning from two words that are semantically close. The writer takes hydrology terms as the research object because the technical terms are unfamiliar for people.
The method used in this research is analytic descriptive. The data, which are synonymous words, are classified into their semantic set, and then, are analyzed to determine their types. Furthermore, the data were taken from magazine, newspaper, and textbook contained in Corpus America.
After conducting the research, the writer makes some conclusions that: (1). There are several aspects of meaning that bring out the contrastive component. Synonyms do not derive from their reference, but their expression; hence, it has a different in descriptive meaning but do not destroy the synonymy. (2). If the relation of two words has a minor contrast, it may be classified as near-synonymy, but conversely, if both words do not have contrastive component, it may be considered as absolute synonym. Near-synonymy may be included as hyponymy because they have a relation of exclusion. Absolute synonym is considered intersubstitutability in all possible contexts, and it is useful particularly for translators to enrich their writing skill with so many lexical choices.
v ABSTRAK
Penelitian yang berjudul “The Contrastive Meaning of Synonymous Term in Hydrology” dilakukan untuk memaparkan dan menganalisa makna yang bertentangan pada istilah-istilah yang bersinonim yang ditemukan di bidang pengairan. Teori yang digunakan untuk menentukan berbagai jenis sinonim adalah teori contrastive component yang dikembangkan oleh Larson. Teori ini digunakan untuk menentukan makna yang berbeda pada dua kata yang mempunyai hubungan yang sangat dekat. Dalam penelitian ini, penulis mengambil istilah teknik sebagai objek penelitian dikarenakan istilah teknik hanya diketahui oleh sebagian orang tertentu saja yang ahli di bidangnya.
Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah deskriptif analisis. Semua data adalah dengan mengklasifikasikan sinonim tersebut ke dalam kelas umumnya. Setelah itu, sinonim dikategorikan berdasarkan jenisnya. Data diambil dari berbagai sumber yang ada termasuk majalah, buku, dan koran yang ada pada Corpus America.
Setelah dilakukan penelitian, penulis dapat menarik simpulan bahwa: (1). Sinonim tidak berdasarkan acuan, akan tetapi dari kedekatan makna yang ada. Ada nya perbedaan makna itu akan sangat sedikit akan tetapi tidak mengganggu hubungan sinonimnya. (2). Sebuah sinonim tidak akan bisa digolongkan menjadi absolute sinonim jika dia masih mempunyai makna yang berbeda, sebaliknya jika sinonim itu masih mempunyai makna yang tidak sama maka dia hanya bisa digolongkan menjadi near-synonym. Near-synonym juga bisa termasuk kedalam kelompok hiponim karena adanya perbedaan dalam makna dan relasinya. Dari sini bisa disimpulkan bahwa absolute synonym bisa saling berganti dalam tiap konteks yang ada sehingga bisa dipergunakan oleh penerjemah untuk memperkaya khasanah tulisannya.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The writer feels so grateful to Allah SWT for giving me the power to finish this thesis as soon as possible. The writer also gives a prayer up to our beloved prophet Muhammad SAW and his family.
This thesis is entitled “The Contrastive Meanings of Synonymous Terms in Hydrology”. It is proposed to fulfill one of the requirements of sarjana satra Degree, Undergraduate Program of English Department, Faculty of Letters UNIKOM.
Finally, it is a big honor to thank to certain persons who help me in finishing this thesis. I am gladly to express my gratitude to:
1. Prof. Dr. Moh. Tadjuddin, M.A, as the dean of Faculty of Letters Unikom. 2. Retno Purwani Sari, S.S., M.Hum., as the Head of English Department.
Thank you so much for everything.
3. Dr. Nia Kurniasih, as the first advisor. Thank you so much for guiding me in writing this thesis.
4. Dr. Juanda, as the second advisor. Thank you for guiding and advising me in writing this thesis.
vii
The writer also realizes that this research is far from the perfection, and hope for any suggestions and critiques.
Bandung, July 26th, 2011
1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
In this chapter the writer deals with background to the study, research
questions, objectives, significance to knowledge, and also framework of the
theories.
1.1 Background to the Study
Nowadays, writing has become more essential part in human life. There
are various jobs that deal with writing such as novelist, composer, screenwriter
and many more. This circumstance, however, leads into many difficulties in
writing particularly in producing literary works that deal with many lexical
choices. One may be deceived by single lexical unit that have so many synonyms,
and cannot choose a proper word that fits in the context. It is not quite easy to find
a proper lexical unit among synonyms because there are so many types of
synonym.
Basically, Synonyms are different words with identical or very similar
meanings, according to Richtarcikova (2007). The word synonym is derived from
Ancient Greek syn (same) and onoma (name). English potentially has so many
synonyms, and in this research the writer focuses on how differentiate the types of
synonym. Furthermore, there are many kinds of synonymy, including
near-synonymy that are close in meaning but not identical. For Instance, fog and mist
2
components of fog are included in componential specification of mist, but they have a minor contrast. They have a different in scale of degree; it means that they
are not intersubstitutability in all possible contexts without changing meaning.
To solve these problems, finding the contrast is the suitable option in order
to determine the type of synonym. In searching the contrastive meaning, it may be
found through contrastive component that is developed by Larson. According to
Larson, by grouping together word which are related to one another and then
semantically looking at the contrast between these words, one is able to determine
the meaning (1984:79). In determining a contrastive component, a word that will
be searched for its contrastive component must be grouped together with the other
word that is semantically close. Cruse states that in looking at the meaning of the
lexical items which belong to the same semantic set, one needs to first identify the
class to which it belongs (1984:86). In this research, all the data, which are
synonym, are grouped into their generic class.
In this research, the writer analyzes synonym in specific term as the
research object. Moreover, the writer chooses synonymous term in hydrology.
Hydrology is one branch of science that is already known widely, and it has so
many sub branches. The data are obtained from two sources, which are from a
single sentence and two sentences. In a single sentence, the writer finds and
compares a pair of word weather they have relation of exclusion or not. Next,
synonyms are taken from a single sentence. Halliday and Hasan State (1976:320)
that the cohesion is a function of the relation between the lexical items
It indicates that cohesion may join two synonymous lexical units in single
sentence. Additionally, expressions may differ in sense, but have the same
reference; and synonymous means having the same sense, not having the same
referent, according to Lyons (1976:199) The synonyms do not depend on the
same reference, but from the sense relations.
This skripsi, entitled “The Contrastive Meanings of Synonymous Terms in
Hydrology”, deals with the contrastive component that compares a pair of word
that is semantically related, and their relation that make them semantically close.
The contrastive component may bring out certain aspects of meaning, depending
on their generic class. Moreover, the data are categorized into their generic class
in order to make easier in finding contrastive component and the aspect of
meaning.
1.2 Research Questions
1. What are the aspects of meaning resulted from the contrastive component of
synonymous terms in hydrology?
4
1.3 Objectives
1. To describe the aspects of meaning resulted from the contrastive component of
synonymous terms in hydrology.
2. To find out the relationship of those synonymous terms in hydrology.
1.4 Significance to Knowledge
This research aims to give information about types of synonym. Each
synonym is different. Two words may not be irreplaceable with other word if they
have a contrast in their relation though they are synonym. Through contrastive
component, the writer may differentiate the difference in each synonym, and
simplify in choosing a proper word. If a pair of word does not possess a
contrastive component, both words may be categorized as absolute synonym and
it helps us in using a difference lexical item but it has the same meaning without
having anomaly.
Additionally, the contrastive component may be used for the translator to
find a lexical equivalent or differentiate two or more synonymous words.
Furthermore, it will be useful for students to enrich their writing skills in lexical
1.5 Framework of the Theories
In analyzing the contrastive component between a pair of word, the writer
uses various theories that support the writer in this research and prove the research
hypothesis. The theory are adopted from Larson’s theory (1984). Larson states
that by grouping together words which are related to one another and then
semantically looking at the contrast between these words, one is able to determine
the meaning (1984:79).
In analyzing the data, the writer uses the componential analysis. In
addition, John Lyons explains that the sense-components (for which there is so far
no generally accepted terms) may be thought of as atomic, and the senses of
particular lexemes as molecular, concepts (1977:317). Meanwhile, Cruse states
that one of the earliest and still most persistent and widespread ways of
approaching word meaning of a word as being contracted out of smaller, more
elementary, invariant units of meaning, somewhat of the analogy of the atomic
structure of matter (2000:98)
Contrastive pairs may be very helpful in determining meaning of particular
word (Larson, 1984:79). Each word that is closely related has the contrastive
6 CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL REVIEW
In this chapter the writer focuses on describing the theories related to the
topic of the thesis. The first part of this chapter deals with the introduction to
lexical semantic. Additionally, the writer explains what semantic is, and then
decribes synonymy, hyponymy, meronymy, and polysemy.The next part is
related with contrastive component, sense-relations and conjunction.
2.1Lexical Semantic
According to Palmer (1976:1), semantic is the technical term used to refer to
the study of meaning. Moreover, he says meaning covers a variety of speects of
language, and there is no very general agreement either about what meaning is or
about the way in which it should be described.
Lexical semantic is subfield in the study of semantic. It studies the meaning
of lexical unit. Because lexical semantic deals with the meaning of lexical unit, it
is generally different from the semantic that studies the meaning in the sentence or
clause. Lexical semantic only focuses on learning the meaning of lexical units.
Cruse states that word meaning are not the sort of semantic units that one can
communicate with on individual basis, unless other meaning components are
According to Pustejovsky (1995), lexical semantic is the study of how and
what the words of a language denote. In this chapter, there are some theories that
deal with lexical unit as follows:
2.1.1 Synonymy
According to Richtarcikova (2007), synonyms are different words with
identical or very similar meanings. Words that are synonyms are said to be
synonymous, and the state of being a synonym is called synonymy. Accoding to
O’Grady, synonyms are words or expressions that have the same meanings in
some or all contexts (1997:269). In some ways, Cruse states that synonyms are
word whose semantic similarities are more salient than their differences, than a
potential are of interest opens up (2000:156). Cruse explains that synonym must
have so many similaraties, but he does not deny that synonym cannot have a
difference or a contrast. Moreover, other linguist, F.R.Palmer (1976:59),
mentions that synonymy is used to mean sameness of meaning. He says that it is
abvious that for the dictionary-maker many sets of words have the same meaning;
they are synonymous, or are synonyms of one another. Additionally, in looking at
possible synonyms there are at least five ways in which they can be seen to differ,
according to Palmer, which are:
1. Some sets of synonym belong to different dialects of the language.
2. There is a similar situation, but a more problematic one, with the words
8
3. Some words may be said to differ only in their emotive or evaluative
meanings.
4. Some words are collocationally restricted. They occur only in conjunction
with other words.
5. Many words are close in meaning, or that their meaning overlap.
In thesis there are found three types of synonym that Cruse mentions, they
are:
2.1.1.1Absolute Synonymy
According to Cruse (2000:157), absolute synonyms can be defined as
items which are equinormal in all contexts. Cruse mentions that if word (a) put in
a context, and then it is changed with word (b), then it will not result anomaly. In
the other hand, the context does not become odd because of the existence of word
(b). An unit is clasiffied as absolute synonymy when differentiating contexts are
hard to find.
Additionally, Cruse takes sofa and sette as example. Both are interchanele
in all contexts. If sofa is changed by settee in a context, there will be no anomaly
in that context. Futhermore, he ensures that the same unit of meaning is involved
in all the contexts used in the argument.
2.1.1.2Cognitive Synonymy
Cognitive synonymy is also known as descriptive synonymy, propositional
cognitive synonymy is sometimes described as incomplete synonymy. Cruse
(2000:158) states that if two lexical items are propositional synonyms, they can be
substituted in any expression with truth-conditional properties without effect on
those properties. From the statement, cognitive synonymy is synonym that refers
to the same object or referent because it has the same truth conditional properties.
Furthermore, cognitive synonymy is the different in use. Though they belong to
the same referent, but it cannot be used without a proper context.
Example:
Synonyms Use
Had intercourse In a court of law
Made love The most neutral
Fucked In an airport bookstall
Cruse takes the example above. Had intercourse, made love and fucked are
refers to same referent but they distinguish in use. The first one is more likely
used in the court of law; meanwhile, the second one is the most neutral, or can be
used in almost areas. The third one is applied in a typical novel found in an airport
bookstall.
2.1.1.3Near-synonymy or Plesionymy
According to Hirst, plesionyms, or near-synonyms, are words that are
10
Synonyms, on the other hand, do not function primarily to contrast with on another (this is what was meant by saying earlier that in the case of synonyms, heir common features were more salient than their differences). In certain contexts, of course, they may contrast, and this is especially true of near-synonyms: He was killed, but I can assure you he was NOT murdered, madam. (2000:159)
Though synonyms clearly indicate the similarity in their relation, but
near-synonym has the contrast that differ them in theirs. These contrasts are completely
covered by the similarity in their relations. Moreover, Cruse mentions two points.
Firstly, he says that language users do have intuitions as two which pairs of words
are synonyms and which are not. Secondly, it is not adequate to say simply that
there is a scale of semantic distance, and that synonyms are words whose
meanings are relatively close. In the other hand, it needs to consider the language
user’s intuition; though the synonyms have a contrast in their relations, it is still
categorized as synonym. Take a look at the following example:
fog:mist
laugh:chuckle
hot:scorching
They all have a contrast that emerges in their relation, though they are
synonym. Near-synonym must be backgrounded as Cruse mentioned; it means
that synonym may have a contrast, and the intuition of language user is more
dominant in deciding the synonymy. Among minor differences, Cruse says it may
be counted the following example: adjacent position on scale of degree aspectual
2.1.2 Polysemy
A single concept can be expressed by several different words (synonymy),
and that conversely, one word can carry different meaning, according to Ravin
and Leacock (2000). Meanwhile, Palmer mentions that polysemy is the case that
the same word may have a set of different meanings (1976:65). Palmer takes
flight as an example. The dictionary treats flight as a single word, but it
recognizes no less than five words for various meanings. Look at the other
example below:
Polysemic word First meaning Second meaning
Bank a financial institution the building where a
financial institution
offers services
From the dictionary, bank has two meanings. The first one is a financial
institution, and the second one is the building where a financial institution offers
services.
2.1.3 Meronymy
Meronymy or part-whole relation is exemplified by arm:body or
wheel:bycycle. According to Lyons. Lyons prefer to call this relation as
part-whole relation; meanwhile, other linguists call as meronymy. In instance, in the
case of finger:hand, finger is said to be the meronym, and hand is the holonym.
12
displays a prototypic character, and it seems more profitable to enquire into the
features which contribute to centrality in the concept. The concept in meronymy is
part and whole. Finger is part of hand, and hand becomes the whole of finger.
Moreover, hand becomes the centrality of all parts. Furthermore, Cruse said that
meronymy shows interesting parallels with hyponymy (2000:153). A dog is not
part of an animal, or a finger is not kind of hand. According to Larson, there are
some principal in meronymy,
2.1.3 Hyponymy
According to Cruse, hyponymy is one of the most important structuring
relations in the vocabulary of a language (2000:150). It describes relations
between two words, and it is important in structuring vocabulary of a language.
Moreover, Cruse says (2000:150):
From the extensional point of views, the class denoted by the superordinate term includes the class denoted by the hyponym as a sub class; thus, the class of fruit includes the class of apples as one of its subclasses.
From the statement above, fruit acts as the hyperonym of apple because
fruit is the superordinate. Apple is subordinate because it is the hyponym of fruit.
The meaning in of fruit is included in apple. Additionally, Palmer adds that the
upper term is the superordinate and the lower term the hyponym (1976:76).
Moreover, apple is co-hyponym with orange; their meaning is equal completely.
Look the example below:
apple (subeordinate) hyponym of fruit
orange co-hyponym with apple
From the relation above, it is distinguished from their common by
semantic features which cannot be simultaneously present, according to Cruse
(2000:165). Next, Cruse states that W(1) is a hyponym of W(2) if all the
components of W(2) are included in the componential specification of W(1).
Look at the example below:
stallion [animal][equine][male] is a hyponym of
horse [animal][equine]
Stallion becomes the hyponym of horse because all the components of
horse are included in stallion.
2.2Componential Analysis
Lyons says that the sense of every lexeme can be analyzed in terms of a
set of more general sense-components, some or all of which will be common to
several different lexemes in the vocabulary (1977:317). Meanwhile, Larson states
(1984:80) when displaying a lexical set in a chart, the words go into boxes, and
the columns are labeled by the meaning components which are the basis of
contrast between the words. This column, according to Larson, may be helpful to
the translator to make displays which show the contrastive of meaning for certain
areas of vocabulary. Through the componential analysis, it may be easier to
14
2.2.1 Contrastive Components
Larson (1984:79) said that the meaning of a lexical item can only be
discovered by studying that particular item in contrast to other items which are
closely related. Larson uses generic component and contrastive component in
searching for the meaning and distinguish one lexical unit from another. For
example, according to Larson, the contrastive component which separate table,
chair, wardrobe, cabinet, and cupboard deals with the shape and the use of these
particular pieces of furniture (1984:85). In finding the contrastive component of
the following items, it must identify the class first. Lexical items that do not
belong to same generic class cannot search for the contrastive component.
From the same semantic class, it can be studied the contrastive component.
Look at the example below:
From the example above, furniture acts as the general class. They all
belong to the same semantic set. Because of it, they can be studied in contrast, and
searched for the meaning.
furniture
2.3Coordinating Conjunction
Halliday and Hasan State (1976:320) that the cohesion is a function of the
relation between the lexical items themselves, which has both semantic aspect –
synonym, hyponymy or metonymy. Each coordinating conjunction has their
specific function besides join words or phrases. Here, it will be explained the
function of “and” and “or”. Coordinating conjunction is conjunction that joins a
single word or groups of word that have similar element. It cannot join two words
or phrases that come from different class.
2.4Sense Relations
According to Lyons (1977:197), sense is the term used by a number of
philosophers for what others would describe simply as their meaning, or perhaps
more narrowly as their cognitive or descriptive meaning. He explains that if two
expressions has the same referent, but they could not be said to have the same
sense, then they are not synonymous. Moreover, he mentions expressions may
differ in sense, but have the same reference; and synonymous means having the
same sense not having the same reference. The statement indicates that synonym
does not only come from the same referent, but it can emerge from different
16 CHAPTER III
RESEARCH OBJECT AND METHOD
In this chapter the writer describes the method used in conducting the
research. Moreover, this chapter consists of reseach object, reseach method,
technique of data collection and tecnique of data analysis.
3.1 Research Object
This research deals with lexical semantic; hence, the object of this research
is a pair of words or synonyms that are semanticaly related. Those words or
phrases are synonym that were obtained from magazine and academic journal of
hidrologic contexts.
Because the writer uses synonym as the research object, the object is
divided into two groups. Those groups are the synonyms that were taken in the
form of one sentence and two sentences.
3.2 Research Method
In this research the writer uses analytic descritive method. The data which
were obtained by the writer was analyzed based on the teories related to the
Metode deskriptif analitik dilakukan dengan cara mendeskripsikan fakta-fakta-fakta yang kemudian disusul dengan analisis. Secara etimologis deskripsi dan analisis berarti menguraikan.
Meanwhile, Surakhmad (1998: 147) states:
Metode deskriptif adalah metode yang memusatkan pada pemecahan-pemecahan masalah, dengan cara mengumpulkan data, menyusun atau mengklasifikasiakan, menganalisa, dan kemudian menginterpretasikanya.
In this research, the writer only describes data, collects, classifies, and then
makes the conclusion of the data.
3.2.1 Data Collection
The data were taken from many sources such as academic journal,
magazine and text book that contain in Corpus America. Corpus America is
reliable source and it may be used for a researcher in finding data, and the data
which is text must be written by the native and it is already published to public.
Aside from the corpus the writer uses the library as the source of collecting data.
Generally, there are several methods in collecting data, and in this case, the writer
chooses field and library research.
In this research, the writer collects the synonym. The synonym is noun,
specifically it is concrete noun. It is done to make a simple mind mapping of this
research. The data that are collected are a pair of word, and divided into their
18
1. Searching for synonym in hydrologic terms.
In hydrologic field, there are various synonymies that may be analyzed.
First, the writer searches for hydrologic terms that have a noun class, and after
that, finds its synonym that are still in hydrologic field. Both words, at least, are
closely related each other in order to find the relationship between them.
2. Finding data
The writer took the data from a hydrologic books and magazines in order
to make a valid data and it can be categorized as hydrologic terms.
3. Filtering the synonym
The data are synonymous words, and it is classified as concrete noun,
then, from these data, the writer will classify in their generic class.
4. Classifying the data based on the generic class
Finally, all the collected data were classified, and it depends on their
generic class.
3.2.2 Data Analysis
Data 1
Because lime is alkaline, adding it to the sea would also reduce ocean
In this case, sea:ocean may not be qualified as an absolute synonym. They
have contrasts in their certain aspect. These contrasts do not make them
exchangeable if they put on a context because it will cause an anomaly. Next, both
are not belong to the same referent, and not identical; hence, they may not be
classified as cognitive synonymy. Finally, they may be only considered as
near-synonymy. They have a contrast in their aspect so they cannot be more
synonymous. Here is the relation between both words
because they belong to the same generic class. In conclusion, they are having
co-hyponymy relation. In addition, they do not have meronymy or part-whole
relation, sea:ocean are not a holonym or meronym; ocean is not part of sea, and
vice verse.
Because they are included in near-synonymy relation, they have certain
contrasts, which deal with size and water volume. These contrasts differentiate
20
volume, sea deals with [small], and ocean owns [large] for the contrastive
21
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
In this chapter the writer describes the discussion in analyzing the
contrastive compenents between a pair of word and their relations based on the
data that the writer found. Therefore, the synonyms are clearly divided into two
groups. First, it is directly obtained from one sentence, and second it is taken from
two sentences. Moreover, each synonym is classified into the generic class. In
addition, the meanings of each word can be found in glosarry.
4.1 Synonym in One Sentence
4.1.1 Precipitation as the Generic Class
Data 1
You should be able to tell if there is rain, snow, or sleet in the forecast, but sometimes the clouds roll in from nowhere. (HT, p.74)
In this case, sleet, rain and snow are joined by the coordinating
conjunction indicating the semantic relations. Below are the relations among those
words:
Words Hyponymy Synonymy
sleet - snow Co-hyponym Synonym
rain - snow Co-hyponym -
22
As the table shown above, among those words there are only sleet and
snow that are considered as synonym. They may not be categorized as an absolute
synonym because they have a contrast that will cause an anomaly in their uses.
Thus, sleet and snow do not refer to samilar thing; hence, it is not included in
cognitive synonym. Sleet and snow have a distinction on scale of degree that
differentiates them. This minor difference may bring sleet and snow as
near-synonym. As the result, sleet and snow cannot become more synonymous. Here is
the relation between both words:
does not become hyponym as subclass. Thus, sleet and snow have co-hyponymy
relation because they belong to same generic class. In addition, sleet and snow
have no meronymy relation. Sleet is not a part of snow, and vice verse. Sleet and
snow is not a holonym and meronym.
As they considered as near-synonym, sleet and snow have the contrast in
certain aspect. First, the contrastive components which distinguish sleet and snow
components create the incompatibility in their relation; as the result, they have
co-hyponym relation.
Data 2
...hoarfrost accumulates, and the thick rime crushes like sugar cubes as... (TCOF, p.16)
meaning they are not samilar both in form and others. Semantically, because their
contrast in certain aspect, they may only become near-synonym. They cannot be
more synonymous. Here is the relation between both words:
Hyponymy
In hyponymy relation, hoarfrost and rime do have the relation, but not as
hyperonym and hyponym relation. hoarfrost and rime have co-hyponym relation.
Hoarfrost is not type of rime, and rime is not kind of hoarfrost. They are a pair
that belongs to the same generic class, meaning hoarfrost is not superordinate or
24
meronymy relation, considering hoarfrost is not part of rime. As the result,
hoarfrost and rime is not a holonym or meronym.
Because hoarfrost and rime is included in near-synonym, they may have
some contrasts that distinguish them. hoarfrost and rime deal with the same
generic component. Dealing with shape, hoarfrost has [needle-like ice] as the
contrastive component, and [milky and opaque granular ice] for rime. Meanwhile,
in occurrence, they have [on the ground] for hoarfrost and [on the leaf] for rime.
These aspects will influence their superordinate and subordinate. These
contrastive components become the relation of exclusion, resulting co-hyponym
relation.
4.1.2 Body of Water as the Generic Class
Data 3
Photographing water in the form of a river, stream or waterfall within a landscape image has a number of challenges. (PWIL, p.31)
In this case, river, stream and waterfall are joined by the coordinating
conjunction indicating the semantic relations. Below are the relations among those
words:
Words Hyponymy Synonymy
river - stream Co-hyponym Synonym
waterfall - river Co-hyponym -
As the table shown above, among those words there are only river and
stream that are considered as synonym. They may be classified as near-synonym
or plesionymy; they have a contrast on scale of degree though semantically they
are related. Next, because they are near-synonym, it indicates as absolute
synonym. Furthermore, stream and river are not cognitive synonym; they do not
refer to same reference. Thus, stream and river have a contrast that distinguish
them. Here is the relation between both words:
Stream as co-hyponym:
Stream has the polysemy, considering they have more than one meaning;
hence, stream has two meaning that is related to hydrologic term. In the first
meaning, stream means a flow of water in a channel. Itis part of river, and river
is the whole of stream. In conclusion, stream and river have meronymy relation.
Stream becomes the meronym and river the holonym because stream in the other
26
meaning is part of river. In the hyponymy relation, stream and river have
semantic relation and co-hyponym relation. Stream is not type or kind of river;
thus, stream is neither subordinate nor superordinate of river. stream and river
have similarities, and is type of flowing water. Moreover, stream and river are
hypernym for word or phrase for their types in taxonomic hierarchy.
Because they have contrast in their relationship, they have contrastive
components that deal with size and water volume. In size, stream and river have
[small] in size and [small] in water volume as the contrastive component;
meanwhile, river has [large] in size and [big] in water volume. This pair belongs
to the same generic class because they have homonymy relation. These
contrastive components result incompatibility, and make them as co-hyponym..
Data 4
Cook Inlet is a semienclosed tidal estuary,... (BHAICI, p.60)
In this case, both inlet and estuary cannot be considered as absolute
synonym; they have distinction on certain scale. These contrasts do not make
them exchangeable if they put on a context because it will cause an anomaly.
Next, they may not be in cognitive synonym, considering they do not belong to
the same reference and they are not identical. They may only be considered as
near-synonym. They have certain aspects that distinguish them, and they cannot
Hyponymy
As shown above, inlet is not a hyperonym or hyponym of estuary because
inlet is not type estuary or vice verse. As the result, both are not subordinate or
superordinate. In conclusion, they have co-hyponymy relation. Futhermore, in
meronymy relation, inlet is not part estuary and vice verse; hence, inlet and
estuary is not holonym or meronym.
Next, what make them may be considered as near-synonym are certain
aspects that distinguish them. They have only a little semantic relation. This is
what makes them different. These contrastive components in inlet and estuary
deal with the size and water volume. In size, inlet and estuary has [narrow] and
[wide] as the contrastive component, and then, for water volume, they has [small]
and [big]. In conclusion, inlet and estuary belong to same generic class, and
because they have the inclusion, they are categorized as co-hyponym.
Data 5
The river empties into Robson Bight, a bay renowned for the world's largest concentration of orcas.. (TBC, p.42)
In this case, bight and bay do not belong to absolute synonym because
they have contrasts that distinguish them on certain scale. These contrasts do not
28
anomaly. Futhermore, they may not be classified as cognitive synonym. They are
not identical and not belong to same reference. Moreover, they may only
considered as near-synonym; thus, they have certain aspect that distinguish them,
and they cannot be more synonymous. Here is the relation between both words:
Hyponymy
As shown above, bight is subordinate of bay. It is type of bay. Bight has
some additional characteristics that make bight type of bay. Then, bay becomes
superordinate of bight. Bay is hyperonym of bight, and bight becomes the
hyponym. Bay is the generic class of bay. In conclusion, they do not have
co-hyponymy relation. In addition, they have not meronymy relation, bight is not part
of bay and vice verse.
They are considered as near-synonym because they are semantically not
similar, yet they have minor differences. All the semantic components of bay are
shared in componential specification of bight such as [inanimate], [body of
water], [area], [surrounded by land] and [blocking some waves], but there is a
semantic component that is not shared with bay, which is [small]. It makes them
categorized as hyperonym and hyponym.
Data 6
Our eyes follow the foaming flow of a waterfall and cascade,... (TS, p.82)
In this case, waterfall and cascade are joined by the coordinating
conjunction indicating the synonymy and hyponymy. Waterfall and cascade are
categorized as near-synonym; hence, they may not be categorized as an absolute
synonym and cognitive synonym. These contrasts do not make them
exchangeable if they put on a context because it will cause an anomaly. They
have certain contrast that will cause an anomaly in a context. Moreover, they are
not identical and do not refer to the same reference; hence, it is not cognitive
synonym. Here is the relation between both words:
Hyponymy
As shown above, waterfall and cascade have hyponymy relation. Cascade
is type of waterfall; hence, it becomes the subordinate of waterfall, and waterfall
becomes the superordinate of cascade. In conclusion, waterfall becomes the
hyperonym, and cascade becomes the hyponym. They do not have co-hyponym
relation. In addition, they do not have part-whole or meronymy relation.
They are considered as near-synonym because they are semantically not
30
are shared in componential specification of cascade such as [inanimate], [body of
water], [falling water], and [vertical step in river], but there is a semantic
component that is not shared with cascade, which is [small]. It makes them
categorized as hyperonym and hyponym.
Data 7
...wetlands preserve at West Meadow Creek in Stony Brook... (News Notes, p.5)
In this case, creek and brook may not be considered as an absolute
synonym. They have certain contrast that differentiate them. These contrasts do
not make them exchangeable if they put on a context because it will cause an
anomaly. Moreover, both words can not be categorized as cognitive synonym.
They do not belong to the same reference, and do not have same identical referent.
Finally, they may only categorized as near-synonym. They have a contrast that
differentiate them even though semantically related. Here is the relation between
As shown above, brook is not hyperonym or hyponym of creek; as the
result, they are not superordinate or subordinate. brook is not type of creek, and
creek is not kind of brook. In conclusion, they have co- hyponymy relation.
Moreover, they do not have meronymy relation. brook is a whole, but creek is not
part of it; certainly, they are not a holonym and meronym.
Because they have a distinction that make qualified as near-synonym
relation, it may be obtained the contrastive components. Moreover, they
differentiate on scale of degree of size and water volume. In size, brook has the
component [large], and then, creek has [small] as the contrastive component.
Aside from size, brook and creek deal with water volume in obtaining the
contrastive component. Brook has [big] as the component, and creek obtains
[small] as the contrastive component. These contrastive components result
incompatibility, and make them as co-hyponym.
Data 8
Controlled inundation of the floodplain could reduce flood costs... (EITOS, p.321)
In this case, inundation and flood may not be categorized as an absolute
synonym because they have a contrast in their relation, meaning it will cause an
anomaly in a context. Next, they may not be considered as cognitive synonym;
they are different in referent, and they are not identical. In conclusion, they may
only be qualified as near-synonym. They have a contrast that differentiate them in
certain aspect, and they cannot be more synonymous. Here is the relation between
32
Hyponymy
As shown above, inundation and flood have hyponymy relation.
Inundation is type of flood; hence, it becomes the subordinate of flood, and flood
becomes the superordinate of inundation. In conclusion, flood becomes the
hyperonym, and Inundation becomes the hyponym. They do not have
co-hyponym relation. In addition, they do not have part-whole or meronymy relation.
Both are not holonym or meronym.
They are considered as near-synonym because they are semantically not
similar, yet they have minor differences. All the semantic components in flood are
included in componential specification of inundation such as [area of water],
[overflowing water], and [disaster], but there is a semantic component that is not
shared with inundation, which is [large]. It makes them categorized as hyperonym
and hyponym.
4.1.3 Wetland as the Generic Class
Data 9
In this case, swamp and marsh are joined by the coordinating conjunction
indicating the synonymy. Swamp and marsh are not classified as an absolute
synonym because they have certain aspect that differentiates them. Marsh may not
be replaced by swamp without having an anomaly in certain contexts. Moreover,
they also may not be categorized as cognitive synonym; they do not belong to the
same reference. Their referent is not identical or it is not the same. Then, they may
only be categorized as near-synonym because they cannot be more synonymous.
Here is the relation between both words:
Hyponymy
As shown above, marsh is not type of swamp; hence, it is not a hyperonym
or hyponym. In conclusion, marsh is not superordinate or subordinate, and same
for swamp. They belong to same generic class; they have co-hyponym relation.
Moreover, marsh is not part of swamp, and vice verse. In addtion, they have no
part-whole or meronymy relation. Marsh is not part of swamp, and vice verse.
Because swamp and marsh are clasified as near-synonym, they have
certain aspect that differentiate them in their relation. The contrastive components
34
contrastive component. Next, in location, it has [near forest] for swamp, and [near
irrigation] for marsh. These contrastive components result incompatibility, and
make them as co-hyponym.
Data 10
…and ice chest for a visit to the Gulf Islands National Seashore along the Gulf Coast. (SBS, p.58)
In this case, seashore and coast do not belong to the absolute synonym. It
is clear that they have a distinction that differentiate them, causing the emerging
of anomaly if seashore replace by coast in a context. Next, they may not classifed
as cognitive synonym. They do not belong to the same reference, and their
referent is not much identical.in conclusion, they may only be classfied as
near-synonym because they have a contrast, and they cannot be more near-synonymous
though semantically related. Here is the relation between both words:
Hyponymy
Firstly, seashore and coast have a co-hyponymy relation; thus, seashore is
not type of coast, and coast is not kind of seashore. Both belong to the same
generic class. Hence, seashore is not a hyperonym of coast, and coast is not
hyponym of seashore. In conclusion, seashore:coast is not a subordinate and
seashore is not part of coast, and vice verse; hence they are not a holonym and
meronym.
Because they have different in certain aspect, both are considered as
near-synonym, as a result, they have the contrastive component that deals with [living
plant], and location. Firstly, when it deals with living plant, seashore have
[dominated by coconut trees and grasses] for coast as the contrastive component.
Then, in location, seashore deals with [at high tide and low tide], and coast
obtains [at landward of the shore] for the contrastive component. These
contrastive components result incompatibility, and make them as co-hyponym.
4.1.4 Headworks as the Generic Class
Data 11
...the extensive North Vietnamese dike and weir systems because of the heavy loss of life such strikes would have entailed. (WD, p.103)
In this case, dike and weir are joined by the coordinating conjunction
indicating the synonymy. They do not belong to an absolute synonym; they have a
contrast in certain aspect. It does not make the irreplaceable in a context. Next,
they may not be categorized as cognitive synonym; they are not identical, and do
not belong to the same reference. Finally, they may only be categorized as
near-synonym. They have a contrast in their aspect so they cannot be more
36
Hyponymy
As shown above, dike and weir have a co-hyponymy relation because dike
is not type of weir, and weir is not kind of dike. Both belong to the same generic
class. Hence, dike is not a hyperonym of weir, and weir is not hyponym of dike. In
conclusion, dike and weir is not a subordinate and superordinate. In addition, they
have no part-whole relation. Weir is not part of dike, and vice verse; hence they
are not a holonym and meronym.
Because they have a distinction that make them qualified as near-synonym
relation, they own the contrastive components which deal with mainfunction and
shape. These contrasts make them different even though they are synonym and
cause the contrastive component. In main function, dike has [for preventing
floods], and for weir, it has [for controlling the flow] as the contrastive
component. Next, in shape, dike deals with [a low wall], and weir obtains [a long
wall] for the contrastive component. This contrastive component causes the
incompatibility in their relation; as the result, they have co-hyponym relation.
Data 12
Coastal engineering structure means but is not limited to, any breakwater, bulkhead, groin, jetty, revetment, seawall, weir, rip-rap or any other structure that is designed to alter wave,.. (HOTS, p.125)
In this case, breakwater, bulkhead, groin, jetty, revetment, seawall, weir,
and rip-rap are joined by the coordinating conjunction indicating the semantic
relations. Below are the relations among those words:
Words Hyponymy Synonymy
breakwater - bulkhead Co-hyponym -
breakwater – groin Co-hyponym -
breakwater – jetty Co-hyponym Synonym
breakwater – revetment Co-hyponym -
breakwater – seawall Co-hyponym Synonym
breakwater – weir Co-hyponym -
breakwater – rip-rap Co-hyponym -
bulkhead - groin Co-hyponym -
bulkhead – jetty Co-hyponym -
bulkhead – revetment Co-hyponym -
bulkhead - seawall Co-hyponym -
bulkhead - weir Co-hyponym -
bulkhead – rip-rap Co-hyponym -
groin - jetty Co-hyponym Synonym
groin - revetment Co-hyponym -
groin - seawall Co-hyponym Synonym
groin - weir Co-hyponym -
38
jetty - revetment Hyperonym/hyponym -
jetty - seawall Co-hyponym Synonym
jetty - weir Co-hyponym -
jetty – rip-rap Co-hyponym -
revetment - seawall Co-hyponym -
revetment - weir Co-hyponym -
revetment – rip-rap Co-hyponym -
seawall - weir Co-hyponym -
seawall – rip-rap Co-hyponym -
weir – rip-rap Co-hyponym Synonym
As the table shown above, among those words there are only six
same reference, and are not identical. Thus, they may only be considered as
near-synonym; they have a contrast, and they cannot be more synonymous. Here is the
As shown above, breakwater and seawall have co-hyponymy relation.
Seawall is not type of breakwater, and breakwater is not kind of seawall.
Therefore, breakwater and seawall is not a hyperonym or hyponym; thus, they are
not a subordinate or superordinate. In addition, they do not have part-whole or
meronymy. Breakwater is not part of seawall, and vice verse.
Because classified as near-synonym, they are have some distinctions that
deal with function and shape. First, in shape, breakwater has [a massive wall],
and seawall has [a long embankment] as the contrastive component. Moreover,
when dealing with main function, they have [for protecting a harbor] for
breakwater, and [for preventing erosion] for seawall. This contrastive component
causes the incompatibility in their relation; as the result, they have co-hyponym
relation.
Data 13
...a treaty on India's construction of the Farakkha Barrage, a dam that diverts the flow of the Ganges River into the Hooghly River during the dry season to flush silt from the port of Calcutta (WPISA, p. 167)
In this case, barrage and dam may not be qualified as an absolute
synonym. They have some contrasts that differentiate them, and it causes an
anomaly. Next, they are not categorized as cognitive synonym; they do not belong
to the same reference, and are not identical. Finally, barrage and dam may only
be categorized as near-synonym. They cannot be more synonymous in their
40
because it is a hyponym, and then, dam is superordinate because it a hyperonym.
Dam is a generic class of barrage. In addition, because they have hyponymy
relation, they do not have meronymy relation. Barrage is not part of dam; as the
result, it is neither meronym nor holonym.
They have are categorized as near-synonym because they are semantically
not similar because barrage do not have all the semantic components in the
componential specification of dam. Moreover, dam has the semantic component
that is not shared with barrage such as [inanimate], [headworks], [barrier],
[constructed across a waterway], and [controlling flow]. It makes barrage has the
semantic components that are not shared with dam, which is [used for impounding
water] that deal with the main function, and it is taken from the aspect of main
function. It makes them categorized as hyperonym and hyponym.
Data 14
...in the promotion of a religious obligation to protect the Columbia River
In this case, basin and watershed may not be categorized as absolute
synonym, considering they have certain contrast that differentiate them. These
contrasts will cause an anomaly. Next, they are also not qualified as cognitive
synonym. They do not belong to the same reference, and they are not identical. In
conclusion, they may only be categorized as near-synonym; they cannot be more
synonymous. Here is the relation between both words:
Watershed as co-hyponym:
Firstly, basin is a polysemy. Watershed has two meanings that are related
to hydrologic. Firstly, basin acts as co-hyponym of watershed. Here, basin is not
type of watershed, and watershed is not kind of basin. In the other hand, they are
not hyponym or hyperonym. In conclusion, basin and watershed is not a
superordinate or subordinate. Secondly, watershed is meronym, and basin acts as
42
Because classified as near-synonym, they are have some distinctions that
deal with mainfunction and shape. First, in shape, basin has [dividing two areas],
and watershed has [holding liquids] as the contrastive component. Moreover,
when dealing with main function, they have [ridge of high land] for breakwater,
and [enclosed area of a river] for seawall. This contrastive component causes the
incompatibility in their relation; as the result, they have co-hyponym relation.
Data 15
Storms are rising, and the walls and levees are simply points... (E, p.36)
In this case, levee and wall are joined by the coordinating conjunction
indicating the synonymy. They may not be categorized as an absolute synonym;
thus, they have a contrast that makes them irreplaceable in a context. Moreover,
they also may not be considered as cognitive synonym; they have a contrast, and
as the result, they belong to different referent. Next, they may only be considered
as near-synonym. They cannot be more synonymous that this. Here is the relation
As shown above, leeve is kind of wall; hence, it may be concluded that
levee is the subordinate of wall, and wall is superordinate of levee. Next, wall is a
hyperonym, and levee is hyponym. Wall is the generic class of leeve. Furthermore,
levee is not part of wall, and vice verse, considering they are not a meronym or
holonym.
Because they have a contrast in their relation, they will ermerge the
contrastive components. The contrastive components for levee and wall deals with
main function and shape. In main function, levee has [for regulating water levels],
meanwhile, for wall; it has [for separating space] as the contrastive component.
And then for shape, wall has [a thin layer], and levee has [a thick embankment] as
the contrastive component. This contrastive component causes the incompatibility
in their relation; as the result, they have co-hyponym relation.
4.1.5 Watercourse as the Generic Class
Data 16
The water is diverted through a flume or millrace toward the steel and cast-iron waterwheel,,... (TG, p.80)
In this case, flume and millrace may not be categorized as an absolute
synonym because they have a contrast in their relation; thus, this contrast will
create an anomaly if each word is replaced by another word. Next, they may not
be considered as cognitive. Both word have different referent, and the referent is
44
semnatically, and their relation cannot be more synonymous. Here is the relation
between both words:
Hyponymy
As shown above, flume is not kind of millrace, and millrace is not kind of
flume. Thus, they have no relation in hyperonym or hyponym. In conclusion,
flume and millrace are not a superordinate and subordinate. Because they belong
to same generic class, they can only be considered as co-hyponym. Moreover,
flume is not part millrace; as the result, flume and millrace are not a meronym or
holonym bcause they do not have part-whole relation.
Because they have a contrast in their relation, they will ermerge the
contrastive component in which the component deals with main function. Next,
when it deals with main function, as the contrastive component, flume has [for
conveying logs], and [for driving a mill wheel] for millrace. This contrastive
component causes the incompatibility in their relation; as the result, they have
co-hyponym relation.
Data 17
Inadequate drainage and sewerage systems not only tainted the water supply but also subjected houses... (HARSITPS, p.30)
In this case, drainage and sewerage are joined by the coordinating
conjunction indicating the synonymy. They may not be classified as an absolute
synonym. They have a contrast that differentiate them, and cause an anomaly if
they are put alternately in a context. Next, they also may not be categorized as a
cognitive synonym. They do not belong to the same reference, and are not
identical physically. In conclusion, they are only qualified as near-synonym. They
have a contrast in their relation, and they cannot be more synonymous. Here is the
relation between both words:
Hyponymy
As shown above, sewerage is not part of drainage, and drainage is kind of
sewerage. Both belong to same generic class; as the result, it is not a hyperonym
or hyponym so they are not superordinate or subordinate. In addition, they do
have meronomy relation, considering drainage is not part of sewerage, and vice
verse.
Because they have a contrast in their relation, they will ermerge the
contrastive components. The contrastive components for drainage and sewerage
deals with main function. Drainage has the contrastive component, which is [for
46
component. This minor semantic component creates the incompatibility in their
relation; as the result, they have co-hyponym relation.
Data 18
...the extensive destruction of its road, canal, irrigation and logistical systems;... (AST, p.10)
In this case, sleet, rain and snow are joined by the coordinating
conjunction indicating the semantic relations. Below are the relations among those
words:
Words Hyponymy Synonymy
irrigation – canal Co-hyponym Near-synonym
road – canal Co-hyponym -
road – irrigation Co-hyponym -
As the table shown above, among those words there are only irrigation
and canal that are considered as synonym. They may not be catogorized as an
absolute synonym because they have a contrast that will cause an anomaly in
their uses. Thus, canal and irrigation do not refer to same thing; hence, it is not
included in cognitive synonym.. This minor difference may bring canal and
irrigation as near-synonym. As the result, canal and irrigation cannot become
Hyponymy
As shown above, irrigation is type of canal; as the result, irrigation is
subordinate because it is a hyponym, and then, canal is superordinate because it is
a hyperonym. Canal is a generic class of irrigation. In addition, because they have
hyponymy relation, they do not have meronymy relation. Irrigation is not part of
canal; as the result, it is neither meronym nor holonym.
They have are categorized as near-synonym because they are semantically
not similar because irrigation do not have all the semantic components in the
componential specification of canal such as [inanimate], [watercourse],
[waterway], [artificial] and [used for irrigation]. Moreover, canal has the semantic
component that is not shared with irrigation. It makes canal has the semantic
components that are not shared with irrigation, which is [used for shipping], and
it is taken from the aspect of main function. It makes them categorized as
hyperonym and hyponym.
Data 19
Butrint owes its importance throughout history to its excellent location on a bluff overlooking the Vivari Channel, an important waterway
connecting the Straits of Corfu... (AOA, p.18)
In this case, channel and waterway may not be categorized as an absolute
48
create an anomaly if each word is replaced by another word. Next, they may not
be considered as cognitive synonym; thus, they do not belong to the same
reference, and identically the referent is not the same. Next, they are only
qualified as near-synonym, because they cannot be more synonymous. Here is the
relation between both words:
similar or identical because waterway does not have all the semantic components
in the componential specification of channel such as [inanimate], [watercourse],
[canal], and [used as a means of travel or transport]. Moreover, channel has the
semantic component that is not shared with waterway. It makes channel has the
two bodies of water], and it is taken from the aspect of main function. It makes
them categorized as hyperonym and hyponym.
4.1.6 Excavation as the Generic Class
Data 20
...much as waves on the surface of a swimming pool or pond distort the apparent position of something in the water. (HTIYI, p.60)
In this case, pond and pool are joined by the coordinating conjunction
indicating the synonymy. They may not be catogorized as an absolute synonym
because they have a contrast that will cause an anomaly in their uses. Thus, pond
and pool do not refer to same thing; hence, it is not included in cognitive
synonym. Pond and pool have a distinction on a scale of degree that distinguishes
them. This minor difference may bring pond and pool as near-synonym. As the
