Recall the common understanding of relatedness: X and Y are "related" if they share an element of meaning, and if either Y is derived from X by a morpholexical rule, or Y equals [...].
- Williams (2004), a pag.218

Suppose we said that X could be related to Y if Y would be the result of removing the head of X - then X and Y could be related to Y in such a structure. For example, the head (or, one of the heads) of "Godel numbering" is "-ing" - if we remove this head, we get "Godel number". In this way, the paradoxes all dissolve. The "advantage" this has over the usual notion is that it allows a word to enter into several different possible networks of "related" items, since a complex word can have several heads (nested inside of each other).
- Williams (2004), a pag.221

We may then define "relatedness" as follows: (50) X can be "related" to Y if X and Y differ only in a head position or in the nonhead position.
- Williams (2004), a pag.222