Also found in: Dictionary, Wikipedia.
Related to meronymy: hyponymy
Graphic Thesaurus  🔍
Display ON
Animation ON
  • noun

Synonyms for meronymy

the semantic relation that holds between a part and the whole

References in periodicals archive ?
The relations which are particularly richly represented here are meronymy and hyponymy.
When we extract real-world relations besides hypernymy and meronymy relations into the ontology, we are extracting those relations from the Wikipedia web pages with text analysis techniques.
The most common are Synonymy, Antonymy, Hypernymy, Meronymy etc., and we are interested in using the synonymy relation to find polarity of a word.
Synsets are connected through a series of relations: antonymy (opposites), hyponymy/hypernymy (isa), meronymy (part-of), etc.
As Table 2 indicates, compared to content students, a greater number of non-content students make use of word repetition and meronymy. However, this tendency reverses in the remaining classes of reiteration, where the number of students who use any of these categories is greater in the content group than in the non-content one.
Distribution of lexical reiteration in content and non-content students' compositions Content Non-content Fr.A Mean sd Fr.A Mean sd Word repetition 64 2.13 1.25 111 3.70 1.60 Superordinate/Hyponymy 41 1.37 1.03 37 1.23 1.30 Meronymy 21 .70 .79 26 0.87 1.00 Synonym/causi-synonym 21 .70 .83 18 0.6 .81 Antonymy 8 .27 .45 7 0.23 .50 General Noun 7 .23 .43 5 0.17 .53 Table 2.
To this classification, we added two additional categories: meronymys and antonyms.
As can be inferred from the raw frequencies and the means shown in Table 1, word repetition is the most frequent lexical reiteration tie in the compositions of both groups, followed by superordinates/ hyponyms, meronymys and synonyms.
Likewise, production of general nouns is related to the type of instruction with content students using a significant higher number of this kind of lexical cohesive ties than non-content students (chi 6.82 p < .05); and, iii) no significant differences are found between content and non-content students concerning the use of superordinates/hyponyms (chi 3.61, p> 0.05), synonyms/cuasi-synonymys (chi 0.320, p> 0.05), meronymys (chi 1.223, p> 0.05), or antonyms (chi 1.773, p > 0.05).
Subdomains Move Step Cardiac Results Presenting (64%) General Disorder Methods Introduction (40%) Cardiac Disorder Results Observing (63%) Conclusion -64% Protocol of the Method Introduction Therapy -58% Therapy Method Description (50%) Results Presenting (50%) Subdomains Substitution Reference Cardiac Synonymy: subtechnical terms, General hyponymy Disorder Cardiac Disorder Meronymy Synonymy: acronyms Comparison definition Protocol of the Synonymy: eponym, subtechnical Comparison Therapy terms Therapy Synonymy abbreviation, Comparison subtechnical terms Subdomains Prominence Cardiac Repetition Passive voice General Forefronting Expentancy chains Disorder Cardiac Disorder Repetition Passive voice Forefronting Protocol of the Passive voice Therapy Therapy Table 6.
Both languages reported repetition as the most frequent sub-type, but synonymy and meronymy were the least used sub-categories.
R = {[perpendicular to], Synonymy, Antonymy, Hyperonymy, Hyponymy, Meronymy, Holonymy} is a set of relations
7 on meronymy), or the experimental work based on subjects' ratings, which is chiefly interested in distinguishing different types of meronymic relations (e.g.
[U.sub.1], (13)": {hyponymy: target term is a kind of term, hyponymy: term is a kind of target_term, target-term [term.sub.1] is a part of [term.sub.2], meronymy: parts of term, synonymy}
antonymy, synonymy, hyponymy, meronymy) postulated by structural semantics (see in this respect Ruiz de Mendoza 1996, for an interesting proposal for semantic relations within the cognitive linguistics framework).