The intuition supporting the latter hints that typical characteristics constituting the intension (i.e., concept) expressed by a hypernym (e.g., move or eat for the concept animal) are semantically more general than the characteristics forming the intension 7 of its hyponyms (e.g., bark or has tail for the concept dog).
superordinate concepts such as animal or appliance are semantically less informative than their hyponyms (Murphy 2003), which is also reflected in less specific contexts for hypernyms.