Hyponymy

Hyponymy is a sense relation between words such that the meaning of one is included in the
meaning of the other. Hyponymy is usually referred to as inclusion. (This means that
hyponymy is based on this notion of inclusion, the inclusion of the meaning of one in the
meaning of the other.) . For example, a relation of hyponymy is presented through the
example of vegetable. We have vegetable as a general word, and under this general word
we have different types of vegetables: potato, tomato, cabbage, cucumber ...etc. This
general word «vegetable» is called super-ordinate (it is at a higher level in this logical
relation, it is more general). While potato, tomato ...etc (specific words) are specific in
relation to their super-ordinate "vegetable», for this reason we call them co-hyponyms. We
call them co-hyponyms because they are specific in meaning, and they are all at the same
level if compared to the super-ordinate, the general word "vegetable". To make this clear,
they co-exist at the same level in relation to another general super-ordinate word which is in
this case a vegetable.

Another example, we can have: Virtue which is super-ordinate, general word, and under
this general level we have words with specific meanings. Honesty, patience, prudence,
gratitude ...etc they're all a type of virtue. (Co-hyponyms). Therefore, virtue is the super-
ordinate (the word with the general meaning) , and under this general meaning we have a
list of words that co-exist at the same level in relation to a more general one. They are called
co-hyponymes because they are at the same level, and they have specific meaning if
compared to the general meaning (the super-ordinate).

An easier example: The example of human which is a general word with general meaning
(called super-ordinate) under human, we have: man, woman, boy, girl. These are words with
a specific meaning related to human (called co-hyponymes). They co-exist at the same level,
they have a specific meaning, and they're all related toward with a general meaning. To
define Human:

Human [+living being] [+can move] [+can speak]

Remember we've said that human which is the super-ordinate of the more specific words
(man, woman, boy, girl) which are co-hyponymes are in relation of hyponymy , and this
relation of hyponymy is based on the inclusion of the meaning of one in the other.

So now which meaning of one is included in the other?

This relation of inclusion, which word is supposed to be included in the meaning of the other
word? The answer is: That is, we can admit the fact that the meaning of «human» is included
in the meaning of "man, woman, boy, girl", because when we say the meaning of man it
includes:

Man: [+human] [+male] [+adult]

So the meaning of man includes all the semantic features that characterize human (living
being, can move, can speak) plus the semantic feature "male" that would distinguish it from
woman, girl. Plus the semantic feature "adult" that would distinguish it from boy. So we say
that man and human are in relation of hyponymy because the meaning of human is included
in the meaning of man. By the way either we say: Human or (Man) with capital letter, both
mean the same thing.

Be careful you can't say that man, woman, boy, girl are included in Human in this context.
So in which context can we say that man, woman, boy, girl are included in Human? We can
say it in semantic fields. When dealing with semantic fields we can say that: Man, woman,
boy, girl is included in the semantic field of human. Potato is included in the semantic field
of vegetable. But in terms of hyponymy relation we say, as if we take into consideration the
rule of hyponymy as logically defined, hyponymy is a sense relation between words such
that the meaning of one is included in the meaning of the other. So if we take hyponymy in
this sense we can say that vegetable is included in potato in this relation of hyponymy. (If we
consider that hyponymy is based on the inclusion of the meaning of one in the meaning of
the other). The meaning of vegetable is included in potato, because when we say potato we
say that it's a vegetable plus other semantic feature that will distinguish potato from
tomato, from cucumber...etc. Be careful in many books they confuse these two notions
(semantic fields and hyponymy). In terms of semantic fields, we can say that (potato,
tomato, cucumber...etc) are members of the semantic field vegetable. But in terms of
hyponymy , we say that vegetable in terms of meaning, as it has a general meaning, is
included in the meaning of (potato, tomato...etc), because to define potato we have to
include all the semantic features of vegetable plus other kinds of semantic features that
would distinguish potato from tomato, from cucumber...etc.

So simply:

Human, which is the general word we call it the super-ordinate

Man, woman, boy, girl we call them co-hyponymes.

Human [+living being] [+can move] [+ can speak]

The meaning of Human is included in the mea

Man [+human] [+male] [+adult]

Woman [+human] [-male] [+adult]

Boy [+human] [+male] [-adult]

Girl [+human] [-male] [-adult]

Man, woman, boy, girl share the same semantic features of the general word Human, but
they differ one from another by certain semantic features, and this is what allows them to
be members of the same semantic field, because they all share the common features (living
being, can move, can speak) plus other semantic features that would distinguish one from
another in the same semantic field. But in terms of hyponymy which is based on the notion
of inclusion, the meaning of the general word Human is included in all these specific words
(man, woman, boy, girl) «words with specific meaning» Note:

We can say componential or lexical or semantic feature. Semantic fields: we say man,
woman, boy, girl, bachelor...etc are included in the same semantic field human. In
hyponymy: we say that the meaning of the general word or the super-ordinate human is
included in the meaning of the specific words (man, woman, girl, boy...etc) which are its co-
hyponymes.

Note: We analyze denotative meaning in terms of semantic properties. We analyze the

sense of a word and sense relations in terms of semantic/lexical/componential features. This
relation of hyponymy is characterized by lexical gaps. This means that the relation of
hyponymy is not always systematic and whenever we have co-hyponyms we always have a
super-ordinate. But sometime we don't always have co-hyponymes with a general word.
There are cases in which the relation of hyponymy in which we have the general word with
its co-hyponymes. But this general word doesn't have a super-ordinate. Example: We have
red, blue, green, black...etc all of these are co-hyponymes because they are color names.
Red which is a co-hyponym which is specific in meaning , can become a general word in
relation to scarlet, vermilion, crimson (these are all types of red) so they are co-hyponymes
of red . But red, blue, green, black...etc they don't have any super-ordinate. This is what we
call lexical gap. Lexical gaps mean that we can have a set of co-hyponyms that do not have a
super-ordinate.