(For CC, c.6 From Taylor)

[Note: Taylor uses SCHEMA/INSTANCE where CC use HYPERNYM and HYPONYM.]
1. On the basis of clear-cut examples of the schema-instance relation, such as
the relation between [ANIMAL], [CAT], and [DOG], devise a set of tests for
diagnosing the relation between a schema [A] and its instances [B] and [C].
Here are some examples of test sentences.
	B is a (kind of) A
	*A is a (kind of) B
	*B isa [kind of) C
	If it's B, it must be A                                                                     _
	If it's A, it may be (but need not be) B
	If it's B, it can't be C
	?It's not a B, it's an A.
Having satisfied yourself of the validity of your tests on a range of clear-cut
examples of the relation, apply the tests to some not-so-clear data, for
	cup, mug, beaker, pot
	trousers, jeans, pants, shorts
	wife/husband, partner, girl-friend/boy-friend, friend
	house, home, cottage, bungalow, apartment, mansion, hovel, tent, hut, 
           caravan, (my) place, residence
	red, scarlet, pink, crimson, maroon
Because the words in these sets may not constitute clear-cut examples of the
schema-instance relation, and may not lend themselves to an organization in
a well-behaved taxonomy, speakers are likely to have fluctuating intuitions
on your test sentences. it will be important to test your data on a sample of

2. The tests devised for (1) were applied to nominal concepts. How could these
tests be modified so that they can be applied to relations between verbs and
between prepositions? (If you are searching for a verb which is schematic for 
(to) think, it may not be legitimate to construct sentences of the kind 
 	Thinking is a kind of mental activity. 
This test sentence makes use of the nominalized form thinking, and shows, if any-
thing, that the nominal concept [THINKING] is an instance of the nominal
concept [MENTAL ACTIVITY], not that the verbal concept [THINK] is an instance
ofa more schematic verbal concept.)

Are there prepositions that stand in a schema-instance relation? Consider
the following:
	in-inside of
	on~on top of

3. Some words in a language have meanings that are highly schematic.
Examples, in English, include (to) do, thing, creature, stuff. What other words
in English could be regarded as semantically highly schematic? List some of
the most highly schematic words in the languages with which you are familiar.