Hyponym variations of semantic fields in Lutirichi

Sylivia Khavaya Shirosio; Benard Mudogo; James Matseshe Sasala

doi:10.51867/AQSSR.2.4.20

Authors

Sylivia Khavaya Shirosio Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology, Kenya Author https://orcid.org/0009-0004-9781-4947
Benard Mudogo Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology, Kenya Author https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4290-8706
James Matseshe Sasala Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology, Kenya Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3552-9321

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51867/AQSSR.2.4.20

Keywords:

Entailment, Hypernymy, Hyponymy, Lutirichi, Semantic Field

Abstract

Studies in the field of semantics show that hyponymy is a basic semantic sense relation through which the nexus between a generic term (hypernym) and a specific instance of it (hyponym) can be manifested. However, to understand hyponymy, the inclusion relation between a hypernym and hyponymy within a semantic field is crucial. The purpose of this study was to examine hyponymic structures and their variations within selected semantic fields in Lutirichi, such as flora, fauna, kinship, and artifacts. The study was anchored in the Semantics Field Theory (SFT). A descriptive research design was employed. Data was collected through administering key informant interviews to native speakers of Lutirichi. The findings established that some semantic fields exhibited a high degree of lexical specificity and multiple layers of hyponymy, whereas others relied on broader, more generalized terms. The study also observed that hyponymic variations were also due to the sense of entailment in Lutirichi hyponyms. The study concludes that hyponymy in Lutirichi is meaningful only in their semantic field, and thus they are bound to change their meanings from one context to another context. These results contribute to a deeper understanding of semantic field structuring in underrepresented languages and provide insights into the cognitive and cultural underpinnings of lexical organization in Lutirichi. We recommend deliberate documentation and preservation of Lutirichi lexical items across semantic fields to safeguard their contextual meanings and promote linguistic vitality within the community.

References

Andriani, E., & Bram, B. (2023). Central meanings and hypernym-hyponym hierarchy of word definitions in online Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia. Sanata Dharma University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

Anjiji, C. (2008). Noun derivation in Tiriki. [Master's thesis, University of Nairobi].

Bertuccelli, P. M. (1997). Implicitness. In J. Verschueren & J. Ostman (Eds.), Key notions for pragmatics (pp. 139-162). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.1.08pap DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.1.08pap

Cruse, D. A. (2000). Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford University Press.

Finnegan, R. (2008). Oral literature in Africa. Oxford: Clarendon Press; Cambridge: Open Book Publishers.

Frank, P., & Kathryn, R. (1994). Language: Its structure and use. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace.

Kebeya, H. U. (1997). Investigating linguistic accommodation between Luhya dialects: Lulogooli and Lwitakho (MA thesis, Kenyatta University).

Koh, E., & Owen, W. (2000). Descriptive research and qualitative descriptive research. In Introduction to nutrition and health research. Berlin: Springer.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1401-5_12 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1401-5_12

Lehrer, A. (1985). English classifier constructions. University of Arizona, USA.

Marlo, M. (2011, April 1-20). Reversal and predictability in Luhyia tone. Paper presented at the 38th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, University of Georgia.

Mei, J., Zhu, Y., & Yin, H. (1987). Semantic field and semantic system. Foreign Languages, 49, 18-23.

Miao, C. (2020). Lexical sense relations and their application in vocabulary instruction. Journal of Arts and Commerce, 9(6), 32-38.

Mudogo, B. A. (2017). Word level strategies used to attain functional Lukabras equivalence in the translation of Mulembe FM Luhya newscasts (Doctoral dissertation, Maseno University).

Nordquist, R. (2017, April 25). Semantic field definition. ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/semantic-field-words-1692087

Nouwen, R. (2011). Vagueness in communication: International Workshop, VIC2009, held as part of ESSLLI, Bordeaux, France.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18446-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18446-8

Rambaud, M. G. (2012). Basic semantics. UNED.

Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wu, Q. (1988). Introduction to semantics. Changsha: Hunan Education Press.

Yule, G. (1996). The study of language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zhou, W. (2001). A new research on English semantic field. Journal of Beijing International Studies University, 102, 30-35.