I will be exploring more on the topic of componential analysis.  I plan on talking about the componential analysis and the limits that it has. Componential analysis uses features to help distinguish one word from another. It works in most cases but, sometimes there are words that can’t use the componential analysis. This is because those words are too similar too each other to be able to come up with features to tell them apart. For example lion and tiger. They are different from each other but, they’re both cats. Since, they’re both cats they will share a lot of the same characteristics. For words like those it’s difficult to find features where it applies to only one of them. Words can’t share all of the same features. It would defeat the purpose of having a componential analysis. I will be going more into the words that work and why it works. Using the componential analysis helps us come up with features that distinguish one word from another word. Depending on the word the feature will either have a -, +, or unspecified. An “-“ meaning that it doesn’t apply to the feature. The sign “+” would mean that it corresponds to the feature. The unspecified sign would mean that there isn’t enough information given to decide if it has it or not. When put into a chart one can see which feature corresponds to each word. For example the words woman and man. These two words can easily have features where it tells them apart. The features can be male, woman, and adult. Woman and man are different from each other. They could share features but won’t have all the same features. I will be using the textbook used in this class and other sources to help me do this literature review. Using the sources I have it will help me to see what they think on the topic. The author of the textbook goes more into the words that can’t use the componential analysis.

For my final paper, my topic will be componential analysis. I would like to explore more about feature analysis. The feature analysis should be reviewed to fit all words. The feature analysis doesn’t always work for all words. Certain words can’t be broken down using feature analysis. I could talk about the type of words that can’t use the componential analysis. Also, what’s the difference between the words that make it work. Then talk about the reasons why the feature analysis for those words doesn’t work. For example, the word “child” can be put into the features but, cats can’t. There are many different types of cats. That was one of the examples mentioned in the textbook so, I could think of other words where it doesn’t work. I’m still thinking about what else I could include in my paper. The source I plan on using is the textbook used for this class. I still have not figured out what other sources I will be using. An issue that I have is that I don’t know if this will be enough to write about. I haven’t been able to think of any other issues that I might have.

Simple Antonyms 

Pass/fail

Nancy passed her road test.

Nancy failed her road test.

Simple antonyms are contradictory. Nancy has to either pass or fail her road test. This means that only one sentence can be true.

Gradable Antonyms

Clean/messy

Sara’s room was clean.

Sara’s room was messy.

These are gradable antonyms because her room can’t be both clean and messy.  It has to be one or the other.

Reverses

open/close 

The store was open today.

The store was closed today.

These are reverses because they denote motion or change in opposite directions.

Converses

father/son

Jerry is Tom’s father.

Tom is Jerry’s son.

Father and son are a converse pair because there is an asymmetric relationship between the two.

 

Taxonomic Sisters 

lizards/chameleons 

Lizards are a kind of reptile.

Chameleons are a kind of reptile.

Lizards and chameleons are taxonomic sisters because they are reptiles. They are the hyponym of the hyperonym reptile.

1a entails 1b

1a.  I missed the bus.
1b. I didn’t get on the bus.

2a presupposes 2b

2a. I’m looking for my missing dog.

2b. I have a dog.

The presupposition trigger is “my”.

3a presupposes 3b

3a. Maria knows that Vanessa stole her pink headphones.

3b. Vanessa stole Maria’s pink headphones.

The presupposition trigger is “knows”.