How Words Mean: Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models, and Meaning Construction

How Words Mean Mean ••I How How Words Words Mean Mean - For Edith Edith For Thank you you for for my my English Eng...

Author: Vyvyan Evans

109 downloads 2714 Views 123MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

How Words Mean Mean

••I

How How Words Words Mean Mean -

For Edith Edith For Thank you you for for my my English English words. words. Thank

Lexical Lexical concepts, concepts, cognitive cognitive models, models, and meaning meaning construction construction

VYVYAN EVANS EVAN

OXFORD O XFORD UNIVERSITY L'NIVt "'\11 V PREss I'RI \,

OXFORD OXFORD

Contents Contents

UNIVERSITY NIVI:;RSITV PRESS PRE'S MU fu." 61)r GreatCbmWon tiarendon Street, Oxford 01.1 (JI'~.t !"Ilrm, Odurd

Oxford tnlYnllly University Pr Presaliis..ackpanlMnl department of of ttl< the University Oxford l'nI"",,,'ly of of Oxford. Oxford. It further. the University's objective of excellence in research, II furthtn tM llmvtrllty', ob,atl pf n...dlnkt m rtW.mh, scholarship. kh...,bnlll J'. and education by publishing worldwide in .nd «Ilk.1ll"n by ruhh~lIni W\lri.Jwuk m Oxford New Oxford I'<W York \ork Auckland UJ't CapeTown Town Oar 1)ar nes ~m Salaam tHong Alk.kbnd I nl Kong Knns Karachi K.lr~hl Kualalumpur 1 umpur 1.adnd Madrid Melbourne City "Nainki Mub 1dhtlutnC' Mexico klk.O (.Jly m..tM New{)rlh. Delhi Shanghai 'lawn loronto Mw h.tncN1 T'I",", rvn.tnlO

Acknowledgement Acknowledgements p",fac Preface Li Listt of of Figures List I List of of Tab Tables Abbreviations Abbreviations

viii IX XIV XVI XVII

With oftktt offices In in With Republic IFiance ArgentinaAu Austria BrailllChile • iech RtruhL _ ArJtntlfu Irt.1 8rl.1I1 hlk c:u...h r,lI'''..:' Greece (.r('(t..t Guatemala Itunllry Hungary Italy (.lUlnn.a1.l lI.aly Japan J'l"n Poland PoLlnd Portugal I\.nupl Singapore 'm..Pllr.:' South Korea Switterland Thailand Turkey South Korc. ~'lzn1.lnd Tlu.u.nd lurlry Ukraine l'mu,," Vietnam VIt1rwm registered trade mark of Oxford University Oxford is a Oxfllrd li a rtploltrN I~ muk pf Oxfmd L'mwnlly Press Prna in 1M the UK and in other countries m UK .nd m certain t.:n1.ln (11M lounlnn Published In in 1M the United Publi.haJ UmlN States !"lU.I by Oxford Oxford University by Umvnslty Press PrftI Inc.. Inc.. New 'f:W York ....ork

Part Introduction Part II Introduction I.i. Words Word and meaning meamng 2. Toward a new Towards .1 new account account of of word word meaning 3. 3. Cognitiv~ Cognitive linguistics 4. in LCCM LC M Theory Th ry 4. Word Word meaning in

I

3 27

47 65

Vyvyan Evans VlO9 moo ,• • Vyvy n fun The moral TM mUr
"what

Typeset Typnn by by 519 PI Publisher Publn.htrServices, ~k.n..Pondicherry, i\.ndldwfTy.India lnJla Printed in Great Britain Pnnled In (.mlt 8rll.ln on on acid-free ...t
Part Lexical representation Part IIII Lexical

85

Symboli unit Symbolic units Semanti tru ture Semantic structure Lexi a1 con cpt Lexical concepts Polysemy Polysemy Conceptual structure structure 10. Cognitive Cognitive models model to.

87

5. 6. 6. 7. 7. 8. 9.

100

127 '49 175 193

mantic compositionality compositionality Part III III Semantic Part

215

II. Lexical Lexi 31 concept c ncept selection selecti n 11.

2 17

12. Lexical concept con ·ept integration integratIon 12. 13. Interpretation Interpretation 13.

236

Part IV IV Figurative Figurative language language and and thought thought Part

279

14. Metaphor Metaphor and and metonymy metonymy 14. IS. The The semantics semantic of ofTime Time 15.

181 }02

Part VV Conclusion nelusion Part

333

16. LCCM LC M Theory in in context wntext 16.

33S

(,10 ~ry (Aossary Referen es References Index Index

3-13

25 2

9711-o-59-913467-7 ~:"I-o- 19-91}4lt7-i (Pbk.) ( Pbk.)

'."J

7 9 10 A 111 7 9 10

I i $

lb 4 2

3S8 .173

-----------------------Words OlIT of all OUT of us all That make rhymes, rhyme>. Will Will you you choo choose Sometim($Sometimes— M u~ As the winds use A cmck wall crack in the wall Or a drain, drain. Their joy or their pain To throughTo whistle through— Choose me, me. You Engli h words? word,? You English I know you: You 35 dreams, dream.., You are arc light light as 35 oak, oak. Tough as Preciou Precious as gold. gold, M com. As poppies and corn, Or an old cloak; cloak; weet aas our birds bird Sweet to the ear, ear. M burnet rose As the hurnet In the heat Midsummer: Of Midsummer: races tmnge as the races Strange Of dead and unborn: trange and sweet Strange Equally, Fqually. And familiar, familiar. lu eye. To the eye, As the dearest faces faces That know,. That a man knows, And home> are: are: And as lost homes But older far far But though older Than oldest old"'t yew. yew, M hll" are, arc. old, old. As our hills Worn new Worn Again and again: agam:

\treams Young aas our streams After rain: mm: And as a dear dear A eanh whi
(ontent Make me content some sweetness sweetness With some From rrom Wales, Wales. nightmgales Whose nightingales Ha\'e no wings, wings, Have rrom Wiltshire and and Kent Kent From lIerefordshlrc. And Herefordshire, the villages villages there, there. And the rrom the names, names. and the the things things From No less. Ie>'. Let me sometimes dance dance Let you. With you,
WORD WORDS

-

VII vu

Acknowledgements Acknowledgements L, M Theory ha been under development development since ~in« May May zoos. 2005- Since S,n« that that time time LCCM Theory has been under the research research which which has has culminated culminatetl in inthe thepresent presentwork workhas hasbenefitted benefittedfrom from the ofcolleagues colleagues to towhom whom II am am indebted. indebted, For For their their discu ions with with aa number number of discussions feedhack on on many many aspects aspeels of ofthe theideas idea presented pr.,.;entetlininthe thefollowing follOWingpages pagM1 Iam am feedback Danoel Casasanto, Casasanto. Paul Paul Chilton, Chilton. Alan Alan Cienki, ienki.Peter Peter particularly grateful particularly grateful to to Daniel Harder. George Lakoff. Chris Chris Sinha, inha. Andrea Andrea Tyler, Tyler. and and lOrg Jorg Zinken. Zinken, For For Harder, George Lakoff, on various variou chapters chapter. 1I am am extremely extremely indebted indebtetl toto reading and commenting on reading and commenting Daniel Casasanto, Casasanto. Peter Peter Harder, Harder. and and three three anonymous anonymou readers readers for forOxford Oxford Daniel UniversityPress. Press, 1I also also gratefully gratefully acknowledge acknowledgethe theassistance a istanceofofLaura LauraMichaeMichaeUniversity Ii who who provided provided leads leads and and advice advice on oncertain certain aspects a\petls of ofConstruction ConstructIonGramGram lis mar, II am ight and wisdom of ofall all of ofthe theabove, above. and and ask ask for for mar. am grateful grateful for for the the in insight and wisdom ignore. peel of oftheir theirexcellent excellent their forbearance forbearance where have chosen chosen to to ignore their where II have aspects advice, doubt the the present pr.,.;ent work work would would he be less I~ prone prone to to error error than than itIt advice. No No doubt otherwise i had had II adopted adopted all .11 of of the the many many sound sound suggestions suggestion that thathave havebeen been otherwise is put to me. me, In In addition, addition. Ilowe pecialthank you to toStephanie StephaniePourcel, Pourcel. both both put to owe aa special thank you many of of the the issues i ues and and ideas idea presented prescntetl here, here •• nd for forher her for for her her feedback feedback on on many and indefatigable upport in in all all else. else, II am also grateful grateful to two of ofmy mygraduate graduate am also to two indefatigable support Kyle Jasmin Andrea Morgado Morgado de de Matos. Matos, Both BothKyle Kyleand andAndrea Andrea student students:: Kyle fasmin and and Andrea have LCCM Theory in their their own research. forcing for(lng me me to to rethink rethink have engaged engaged with with LCCM Theory in own research, detail. making making the the work work richer richer and and sounder sounder than than itit might might some ignifi ant details, some significant otherwise have been. been, II also upport of of also gratefully gratefully acknowledge acknowledge the the faith faith and and support otherwise have John at Oxford Oxford University Unover ity Press. Press, Finally, finally. with with immense immense John Davey. Davey, my my editor editor at ofmy my mother, mother. Edith, EdIth. who whofirst first gralltude. and love love of acknowledge the the support support and gratitude, II acknowledge dedicated to toher. her, taught words mean. mean, This This book book isis dedicated taught me me how how words

Preface Preface What What isis the the subject ubjectmatter m atte rof ofthis thisbook? book? This a contemporary Th,s book book represents repr~nt ,a contcmpo,,:,ry treatment treatment of ofword word meaning meaning and and how how words In service servICe of ofsituated sItuatedmeaning meaningininlanguage languageunderstandund"Mandword arc arc combined combined in ing. That is, I am concerned with the areas that are traditionally referred ins, That is. I am concerned with the areas that are traditionally referredtotoasa lexical Irxical semantics selllall',es and and compositional eompoS/liollalsemantics. selllallll($,I I use use the the term term meaning "'falling conCOlito refer to the phenomenon (or rather phenomena) I address in struction ,,,"flloll to refer to the phenomenon (or rather phenomena) I addr inthe the following pages. The problem that the book seeks to address concerns how (ollowlng pages, The problem that the book seeks to address concerns how to account for to acco~nt fo~ the theinherent inherent variation variation in in meaning meaningexhibited exhibited by bywords, words. as as isi evident In their the .. use use inIndifferent dllTerent contexts. contexts,That Thatis,i • II am am concerned concerned with with how how eVIdent in words mean. mean. This This problem problem comes comes in in aanumber numberof offorms, forms.asasillustrated illustratedbelow: below: (t) decided to declare decidetlto declarehis hi undying undYInglove lovefor forher her ( I) a. a,Helie b. b, He He told told the the customs customs officer officer he he had had nothing nothing to todeclare declare c. c, The The Prime Prime Minister, Minister. Neville 'eville Chamberlain, Chamberlain. was was obliged obligetl to to declare declare war on Germany following the Nazi invasion of Poland war on Germany following the azi inva ion of Poland (2.1 a. (2) a, France Franceisisaaregion regionofofoutstanding outstandingnatural naturalbeauty beauty b. France is a pivotal country in the European b, France is a pivotal country In the European Union Union

(3) a, a. France France defeated defeated New New Zealand World Cup Cup Zealand in in the the 2007 2007 Rugby Rugby World (3) h. The b, The ham ham sandwich sandwkh has has wandering wandering hands hands a. My (4) a. My boss boss isi a• pussycat pu rat h. The b, The time time for for aa decision decision has has arrived arrived In the the examples examples in in (I). (1), the declare appears to to have have aa distinct distinct meaning meaning in In the form form drc/areappears In each example; in (ta), the meaning of relates to a forthright assertion declare each example; in (Ia). the meaning of drc/arr relates to a forthright a sertion of aa particular fact or or behef, belief. In In (Ib) (th) drc/arr legal requirement requirement to to declare relates relates to Ja legal of particular fact make aa formal formal statement as to to whether whether dutiable dutiable goods make tatement as goods are are being being transported tran poned (tc) relates to a acrossan an international international border border ero crossing. The use use of of drclarr declare in in (tc) across ing, The relates to a specificsort sort of of speech act, wh/th which brings about a pee
xX

PREFACE PREPA B

lexicon. That That iis,• the different mental lexicoll. typically the IIIfllt,,1 different semantic !>Cmantic typically referred referred to to aas the in each are held held to to be the contribution each example example are the result result of of (at (at declare in contributions of declar~ which are are stored stored in in memory. declare, which distinct meanings Ie.") meanin~ Of of tlrel"rf. memory. . least) three distinct appears to to have have a.d. a distinct meaning France also appears therorm tllltt mea",~g In In the the eumples examples in (1). (2), the form r","uabo refers to to aa particular geographic France refers in each each =mple. example. For instance. instance, in (2a) in (13) Frallet partlcular.geographlC region identified identified as 2b) France hanee relates rel~t~ to a particular pJrticular political political entity, ent.ty.aa region a France. hance. In In ((w) nation state whith which has political and economic particularsort. sort.Yet, Yet. nat.on economICinfluence IIlnueneeofofaaparticular linguists ordinarily ordinarily view view variation variation of of meaning of linguists of this this sort sort as as having having aa different diffe~nt is not held status vis the declareex.,mples III (I). (.). That That is, .\0 France France.s held to toexhibit exh.b.t declare examples in status Vls·a vis-a-vis two distinct senses. Rather, t,m Rather. the perspective perspective often olien taken taken assumes assumes that that context context serves to fill in, in some way, the precise semantic details, thereby allowing the sef\es to fiU in. some way. the precise scmantic details. thereby allmving the France in each example. language uscr user to to interpret interpret the the referent rekrent of of f","ct in each example. . language which as metonymy, in (3) relate to the phenomenon The examples in phenomenon known known lII~tOIl}111Y, wh"h makes salient meaning associated associated with mak .. uuse of a particular particular salient \vith the form form in in order order relates not not to France relate to identify aa related related referent. referent. For I'or instance, instance. in in (3a) ()3) Prallet to aa to identify in (1». (2)), but team of (as in region or political nation geographical reg.on nation state state (a but rather rather to to aa.team?f fifteen rugby players who represent filieen represent France France in in the thegame gameofofrugby. rugby.Similarly, .m.larly.inIII relates to to aa cu customer who ordered hate: CS and and Radden Radden 1998). '998). Put Putanother another way, from from this latter perspective, way. perspective. the variation in in word word meaning meaningapparent appJrent in in of a distinct kind from (3) is of from the the nature nature of ofvariation variationin inword wordmeaning meaningapparent apparent 1). in (2), (1). and, and. for for that thatmatter, matter.inin( (.). Finally, the the examples in (4) !'inally. (4) have havebeen beenvariously variou Iyreferred referred toto as a metaphor. lIIf1ap/lOr. In In is being conceptualized in terms of some aspect of my boss (4a) the referent (43) referent of of my boss i term of some a pect of what it isi to what to he beaapussycat: pussycat: presumably, presumably. qualities qualities relating relating to torelative relativedocility. docility. does not relate mot.on ascribed ascribed to to it: it: arrived. arrived. Yet, Yet. time "lIIf not relate to to In In (4b) "me t u ne has motion an entity that way.for forinstance, instance.that thatother other an that can can literally IiteraUy arrive, arrive. in in the thesame sameway, entities, such as people, entities. people. can. can. Some Some scholars, "holar •working workingprimarily primarily on on examples examplesof of the sort illustrated "is a") illu trated in (4a), (4a). involving involving the thepredicate predicatenominative nominative(or (or"i a") construction, ofcomparison comparison con truction. have have claimed that that metaphor metaphor constitutes constitutes aa form form of (e.g., Bowdle, Wolff. Wolff, and and Boronat Boronat 100.). toot). Others Gentner. Bowdle. Others have have argued that that (e.g.• Gerstner, Glucksherg 2003). it involves a form of of categorization catl,&orir.ation (e.g., (e.g ..Carston CarMon 2002; 1001: Glucksberg 1003). Still Still others, Johnson (1980, ('980. 1999), '999). who whohave haveprimarily primarilyexamexamothers. notably notably Lakoff Lakoff and Johnson IIled data data of of the the type type exemplified exemplified by by (4h) (4b) understand unde .... tJndmetaphor metaphor to to involve involve ined systematic correspondences between between structured domains sy tematic c()rropondcm:~ ~trm.lllrcd dom ..1IIl\ of ofexperience, expenenlC, for (or in tance. Time and Space. These arc belllg the the province provlllce not not of of instance, are thought thought of of as being language, but rather, language. rather. underlying underlying conceptual tonceptual correspondences wrr"'pondences or or mappings. mappll1gs. known as a conceptual couuptmd metaphors. tIIewplrors.

- -- -

PRPPAce PREFACE

x. Xi

The data.such ueh as a the the above above raises raises for for the the analyst analyst isi as a follows. follow. The challenge that data face of of it, On the face it. and and intuitively. intuitively, word meanings appear to be relatively stable. After all. all, for language mmmunication. words word Mter language to be effective facilitating communication, to he effective in in facilitating must have associated with them them relatively relatively stable stable semantic scmanticunits, units.established establi hedby by commuconvention. given linguistic Iingui tic commuconvention, and hence widely known throughout a given nity. Ilowever. words are are protenll is. and and as a illustrated illu trated above. above. nity. However, protean in in nature. That is, they hift meanings meanings in different different mntexts of use. U!>C. The The challenge challenge then, then. in III they can can shift contexts of accounting for meaning construction in in aa theory theoryof oflanguage languageunderstanding, understanding. "is to model the the nature that language language nature of the Iinguisti to be able to model linguistic knowledge that uver have access while being able able to to account account for for the theway way word word users mu mustt have access to. to, while ofuse. use. meanings shift hili in varying contexts of The received view in linguistics, Iingui tics. and and philosophy philosophyofoflanguage. ha attempted attempted language, has recondle this challenge by distinguishing d.~tinguishing between between two twokinds kindsof ofmeaning: meaning:aa to reconcile word. and a conconcontexl-independent. "timeless" meaning associated associated with words, context-independent, "timeless" text dependent meaning. meaning. That That is, is. words words contain tontain context-independent context'lI1dependentmeanmean text-dependent way> by by virtue virtue of ofthe the ings which whi h can he be interpreted interpreted in in context-dependent context·dependent ways ings application of of various variou principles principles of ofinterpretation, interpretation. e.g., e.g.•the theGricean Griceanmaxims. maxim. I'or ofthis th. "nen-Gricean" "neo-Gri can" perspective, per pective. see seeLevinson I.evinson For aa contemporary account of (2000). Thi (1000). per pective. which Recanati Recanati (2004) (1004)refers refers to to as literalism, literallSlI/. This general perspective, enshrines as axiomatic aa principled principled distinction di tinctionbetween betweensemantics scmanticsand andpragpragmati . The position that that II develop in this thi book, book. one one which which isi in inkeeping keeping with with matics. pages which which follow, follow. takes takesthe theview viewthat that much recent recent research research discussed discussed in the pages the distinction between pragmatics isi not not principled. principled.Rather, Rather.itit between semanti semantics and pragmatics is artificial. for the the inherent inherent variation variation in inword wordmeaning meaningisi My approach approach to accounting for sy.tem-thelinguistic linguistic principled separation separation between between the the linguistic Iingui ticsystem—the to posit aa principled the non-linguisnon Iinguis that words knowledge that words encode--and encode—and the conceptual system system—the tIC knowledge knowledge that that words word facilitate fa ilitate access ace to. This This distinction distinctionI Imodel modelininterms tern. tic the theoretical theoretical constructs con truct of of the the lexical concept concept and the the cognitive cognit.ve model. mode/. of the These two constructs construct are are central central to the the theory theory developed developed in in these thesepages. pages. These Hence. II refer refer to the the approach approach as as the the 71.eo'1 ofLexical LexicalConcepts Collcep"and allliCog Cogllit.ve Hence, Theory of ► itive Models Models (or LCCM LCeM Theory Theory for short). hort). Briefly, Brieny. aa lexical lexical concept i a bundle of of concept is knowledg~=ribcd in in detail detail in in Chapters Chapters 66 and and 7—which 7- which varying sorts of of knowledge—described in language. language. In In contrast, contrast.cognitive cognitivemodels model are specialized specialized for being encoded in ofcoherent coherentand andstructured tructured non-linguistic non-linguisticknowledge— knowledge-constitute a body body of constitute described d=nbed in detail detail ininChapters Chapter 99 and and 10. '0. Cognitive .ognitive models modeh consist consist of of "recorded" subjective states including in luding information information derived derived recorded" per«ptual perceptual and and subjective from sensory-motor sensory-motor perception, perception. proprioception, proprioception. and andintrospective introspectivestates, states. from including emotions, emotion. the the visceral visceral sense, vense. cognitive cngnitive states, tat .... and and so '>0 forth. forth. In In including perceptual and subjective .ubJectivestates, "ates. addition. to tobe beable Jbletotoproduce producerehearsals rehearsalsofofperceptual addition, form. the the perceptual perceptual symbols ymbols can can he be combined combinedproviding providing albeit in attenuated form, (onccptualiz.ltion\. The The re-enactments rt·cn3ltmcnts ofofperceptual pcn:cptuJIand andsubjective SUh;Cdivc novel conceptualizations. states Slales and and the the novel novel conceptualizations coru;cptualil.llions are are referred refcrrctl to as J~ simulations. 5;IIIlIlnt'O"5. 4

XII Xii

-------------------------

PREFACE PREFACE

lienee. cognitive cognitive models modelsprovide provideaa level level of ofnon-linguistic non · linguisticknowledge knowledgewhich whichisis Hence, specialized for for being being accessed accessed via via lexical lexical concepts. concepts. specialized LC M approach follows. Words Words encode encode aa core core content, content.the the The LCCM The approach works works as as follows. 1;lIgll/$';( lexical concept, (oncept. which which relates relatel. to tohighly highlyschematic schematICinformation: information: linguistic lexical (Olllml. This Thi represents represents the the core core information information associated associated with withaagiven givenword. word. content. ofnon-linguistic non"lingui ticcontent: content: In addition, addition. words word facilitate facilitate access access to to aa large large body body of In co/lccpruai content. cOII'errl. This Thi is i achieved achieved by by virtue virtue of ofaalexical lexkalconcept conceptfacilitating facilitating conceptual access to a body body of ofcognitive cognitive models, models. which which II refer refer to to as as aa word's word's semantic semantic access to a po,ell,wl. Not Not all all of ofthe the cognitive cognitivemodels model totowhich whicha aword wordfacilitates facilitatesaccess acces are are potential. in word word meaning meaningarises arise. actIvated in in any any given given utterance. utterance. Hence, lienee. the thevariability variability in activated from the the partial partial activation actIvation of of the the semantic semantic potential potential totowhich whichaaword wordfacilifacilifrom tates access. access. tates In presenting presenting LCCM LCCM Theory. the range range of of In Theory, II develop develop aa unified unified account account of of the phenomena presented (4) above. above. That That is, is. I Itreat treat the the phenomena presentedininexamples examples(I) (i) to to (4) phenomena above. distinct. as a being being continuous continuous and and hence hence being being phenomena above, while while distinct, explainable term of common set set of ofrepresentational representational and and compositional compositional explainable in in terms of aa common mechanisms. does not not mean, mean.however, however. that that IIprovide provideidentical identicalexplanexplanmechanisms. This does ations for each each of of the the phenomena phenomena IIaddress, address. as as we we shall hall see. sec. ations for Finally. to develop develop aa cognitive cognitivelinguistics linguistiCS Finally, LCCM LCCMTheory Theoryisis an an attempt attempt to of lexical lexical representation representation and meaning construction. construction. One Oneimpulse impulseinin account account of and meaning ofmeaning meaningconstruction construction cognitive lingui tics has been to to develop develop accounts accounts of cognitive linguistics has been which priVIlege non"lingui tic processes. processes. This i true true both both ofofConceptual Conceptual which privilege non-linguistic This is Metaphor Theory (Lakoff (Lakoff and Johnson 198o, 1980. 1999) 1999) and Conceptual Conceptual Blending Blending and Johnson for example. example. Indeed, Indeed. these these approaches approaches Theory (Fauconnier and and Turner Turner 2002). Theory (Fauconnier 2001), for in the the present present work. work. Any Any linguistically linguistically centred centred account account of of remain remain important important in language uch as as LCCM LCCM Theory, Theory. must must interface interface with with these, these.as as language understanding. understanding, such is to to integrate rntegrate and and discussed Neverthel • my my main main concern concern is discussed later later in in the the book. book. Nevertheless, many of of the the important important advances advances in in terms term of ofresearch research on on linguistic linguistic build build on on many semantics linguistics. and and to to incorporate incorporate semantics and and grammar grammar evident evident in in cognitive cognitive linguistics, these recent advances advances in in philosophy philosophy and and cognitive cognitive psychology, psychology. which which these with with recent have fresh impetus impetu for for an an "empiricist" "empiricist" approach approach to toknowledge knowledge have provided provided fresh .• Barsalou 1999. 2008; Prinz 2002; Gallagher representation also Gallagher 2002; sec sec also representation (e.g (e.g., 2008; Prinz Barsalou 1999, 2006; 2006; Johnson Johnson 2007). 1007)•

Who the book book for? for? Who iis the The with aa number number of of different ditTerent readers readers in rn mind. mrnd. This ThIs The book book has has been been written written with number of of challenges, challenges. in in terms terms of ofcoverage, coverage. inevitably inevitablybrings bringswith with itit aa number accessibility. linguist Firstly,the thebook hook attemp" attempts to cater for general linguists on. rirstly. accessibility, and and so so on. who linguistic;. II have ha"e attempted attempted to to situate situate who may may not not be be familiar familiar with with cognitive cognitive linguistics. LCCM lexical semanlics and compositionality, compositionality. in in LCCMTheory. Theory,as asan an account account of of lexical semantics and umptions and and approaches approaches of cognitive linguistics. linguistics. II have have term termsof of the the core core aassumptions of cognitive included many of of the the background ba
PREFACE PRePACE

xiii

Xiii

attempted attempted to to situate situate the the theory theory presented presented here here in in terms temu ofofhow howititreacts reactstoto received received approaches in cognitive linguistics linguistics (both (bothtotosemantics semanticsand andpragmatpragmatics, ics. but but also also to to grammar), grammar). and andininterms temuofofthe therelevant relevantcognitive cognitivelinguistics linguistics approaches upon which it builds. builds. Accordingly, Accordingly. I hope hope that that the the hook bookwill will approaches upon which it provide provide a useful useful way way of of approaching approaching some of ofthe theseminal seminal work work that that has has been been developed developed over the the last la t couple couple of ofdecades decades inincognitive cognitivelinguistics, lingui tic. as a well well as as current current trends trends and and new newdirections. d,rections. The The second second reader reader I have have in mind mind isis the the cognitive cognitive scientist. scientist. One One of ofthe the potential pitfalls that a linguist faces in attempting to provide an account attempting to provide an account of of that lingui t faces meaning construction is to provide an account that is psychologically plausconstruction i to provide an a count that i p ychologically pia us ible. ible. My aim in the the present pre.ent work work has been to develop develop such such an an account, account. one one that in some of firmly grounded grounded in of the the most mo t recent recent work work on on knowledge knowledge that is firmly representation representatIon available. avaIlable. Hence, lienee. my my account account of ofcognitive cognitivemodels, model.for forinstance, instance. employs, ofillustration, illustration. the the recent recent work work on on perceptual f1"ceptual symbol symbolsystems syst.ms employs. by by way way of associated associated with the the pioneering pioneering work workofofLawrence Lawren e Barsalou Barsalou and and his hisvarious various collaborators. ~olla~rators. While the flavour navour of of that that work is IS empiricist, empiricist. itIt isis highly highlyplauspiau" ible, given our current knowledge of the brain, based on research in cognitive Ible. gIven of the brain. based on research in cognitive neuroscience, and iis,• in outline, outline. consonant consonant with with the theapproach approach to toembodied embodied neuroscience. and cognition in cognitIve cognitive linguistics. As such. such, I hope to (ognitlon prevalent prevalent III linguistics. A to provide provide the the cognitive lexicalrepresentation representation and andsemantic semantic cognitive scientist scientist with with an an account account ofoflexical composition compo ition which whichsits itswith withwhat what is, is.at at present, present. the the best best developed developed simulation simulation ofknowledge knowledge representation representation available. available. Such Su h an an account, account. IIhope, hope.will will account of show what show what linguists lingui ts can do do for for cognitive cognitive psychology psychology and andcognitive cognitivescience science more generally, generally. and provide a programmatic programmatic framework framework that that can can both bothfurther further theoretical development and theoretical and provide provide aa basis basi for for future future experimental experimental work. work. The third third reader reader iis the cognitive linguist. linguist. As As discussed discu sed below, below. one one of ofmy my aims has oflinguistic linguisti semantics. semanti . This This aIm has been been to provide provide aa joined-up joined"up account account of necessitates dr drawing upon significant, nec~it~tes •.wing upon ignificant. and and often often complementary, complementary. cognitive cognitive linguistic theories th~n~ that that address address semantics semantics and and grammar, grammar. while while developing developingan an IrngulSuc account whICh which is IS orthogonal orthogonal to, to. and and hence hen ecomplementary complementary to, to. cognitive cognitive account. linguistic approaches approaches whi which arc not primarily Irngu"tlC h are primarily concerned concerned with with (accounting (accounting for) language. language. In In so so doing. doing, I attempt ofthe thediverse diverse strands strand of of for) attempt to unify unify some some of research in in cognitive cognitive linguistics, as well research linguistics. as well as as presenting presenting an an account account which which appropriately emphasizes emphasizes the the significance of language appropriately ignificance of language in in meaning meaning construcconstruction processes, by taking seriously its semantic complexity. tIon processes. seriou Iy its semantic complexity. The final reader I have in mind is The final reader have in is the the educated educatedlay layreader. reader. Such Such aa reader reader will will he interested interested in in language language and and how how It it interfaces with the mind, be rnterfaces with mind. and the role role of of language in language contributing to meaning meaning construction. construction. These Theseare are central central issues issues in in developing an account of how words mean. word mean. developing an account Evans Vyvyan Evans www.vyvevans.net www.vyvcvans.net January 200<) 2oo9 '.nuary

OJ.! FIGURES FIGURES LIST OF

xv XV

------------------------~~~-------10.1 Typo (ognHlvc model 10.1 Types of cognitive model 200 100 10.1 Frame h41me for CAR CAR 10.2 '0 .. 1 Pani.1 cognillV' mod.1profile profil.for for[FRANCE IroANCEII 10.3 Partial cognitive model

list List of of Figures n O\CfVlt'W htC'rali m of literalism overview of 1.1 An 1.1 ible trajectories trawtori for. 11lt The Possible for: 1.1 , ... 1.2 Po

8

jumped over cat Jm"Pt~d 0\'«the tiltwall Willi

Different profiles d derived :LI ... nl pmfil ... ,w from the Ih. same sam. base hal< 2.1 Oiff 22.2 .1 ThC' ·groilmm.u (ontinuum lexicon-grammar continuum The lexiulO 2.3 Fusion l.J Fu Ion of of the the ditransitive duroiln III\"e and and hake b.Jkc constructions ,-on truc.:tlOn L4 l .. ical representation repr..... ,.,ion in III LCCM LCCM Theory Theory 2.4 Lexical representation in LCCM 1.S Semanu,- reprN:ntoiltion I (,CM Theory 2.5 Semantic )3.1 . 1 Th tudy of of meaning III anlng and .lind grammar grammilr in In cognitive (osmtlvC''linguistics lingui ti The study ).l A lattice lallie< of of mental m.nlal spaces 'poc.. 3.2 A 3.) IIIl
8.4 The 11ltumbrella umbrcll"isisiniffhis hishand hand 8.5 711<~" The pear isiJ in the basket 8.i 1II1/1f I...ktl 8.6 Parameters Puamclen and ;lind their thtir relationship relation hipwith withthe the"state" "~ute·lexical lexII.:.lI1 concepts for in conttpt for III 8.7 Parameters Par;lI11ctt'n and their their relationship relation hip with with"state" " t.ltC''' lexical lexiul concepts concept oJassociated ",iated with on or. 8.8 Parameters Puameters and and their their relationship rt'lation hip with with" lalt''' lexical lexlc.:~ concepts con(t'pt "state" for at 9.1 The familial filmili.ll network network which whilh forms forlll\ the thebase bil~against .lIg.tIn'1 which whilh the uncle is profiled Ih • •entity nllly designated d ign•• w by ",,,1<. pmhlw 9.1 The respective r r«tlve activation activation of oflinguistic Iingui~tI, and and conceptual com.:eptuill 9.2 The knowledge knowl
11.1 arrowing In IIUJlcd interpretation Inlerprc:utiun of ofwords word 11.1 Narrowing in Iht' the situated 11.1 Processes Pnx ohemanlit: compo IlionininLCCM l.CCM Theory Throry of semantic composition 11.2. II.) Selection SeIKl.on types Iyp<s it.3 11.4 ground and and the the discourse di ounc representation rC"prCKntallon 11.4 ('..omOlon Common ground 11 .. 1 Stages StOlg 10 the process ('roc of fusion fusion in the of 12.1 .) .• Pani.1 modd profile profil.for for [FRANCE] IFItAN _I 13.1 Partial pnmary primary cognill" cognitive model 13.2 Partial ').1 Pan ••l primary cognitive cogniti .. model moddprofile profil.for forILANntaAssl ILAN"MA 13.3 cognitive model '3.) Partial PUli.1 primary pnmarycognil'" moddprofile prohl.forfor(NATION] INAT.ONI 13.4 Partial forfor [BEAUTIFUL] ').4 Panial primary pnmary cognitive cognill"model modelprofile profil. IOEAUT.FULI ').1 Partial Pan ..1 primary modd profile profil. for for !COUNTRY] leocNTRyl 13.5 primary CogOlIl" cognitive model 1.\.6 A profile for (or (INDIVIDUAL (INDIVIDUAl A partiill partial primilry primary cognltlv cognitive model profile 13.6

14 24 J4 34 37 )II 38 4i 45 41 45 10 So Sl 52

SA I[ll IOHNJ rOlIN] NAMED

').7 lruct.on in III LCCM LC M Theory Throry 13.7 MUOIng Meaning con construction

SI 55 75 7S

78

'4.'

So 80

89 95 91 96 96

.0.

l,l .8 Activation (tiv.11ion types t)'J"tS within aa cognitive (ognlllvC' model modd profile profile 13.8 13.9 Access route [FRAN( ').9 lL roul< established labli hwby bythe Ih.interpretation IIIl<rprclallonofof InANu I ') .• 0 Th. rdallon hip belween I.xical concepts, coneS<Sin IIILCCM LCCM Theory Throry '4.1 Partial Panial cogOlli\" profile for for IIFRANCEI rltANccl cognitive model profile 14.2 '43 Parllal pnmary mod Iprofile prom. for for [moss! 100 14.3 Partial primary cognlllV' cognitive model '4-4 Pani.l cognitive ognill" model mod.1 profile profil. for for [PussvcATi Ipu feATI 14.4 Partial 14.5 Partial cognitive '4-5 Pania! cOSOIli .. model mod.1 profile profil. for for (WENT IWENT UPI I:pl 14.6 Partial 14.6 Pilrlla.1 cognitive model modd profile profil for for IItAM 5A.NllWl( III HAM SANDWICH[ 'S .• Representation Repr nlallon of ofthe Ih. linguistic Jingu. II( content cOnl ..1I encoded .ncodw by by is.'

to

.04 104

.06 106 118 III 121

157 'S7 16o 162 162 163

168 171 '7' 173 185 189

(LOCATIO. TIME,FROM FROM PERSPE[:TIVE PER PECTIVE OF OF EVENT] EVENTI [LOCATION OF OF EVENT EVENT IN TIME, 15.2 IS.l

10. 201 208 108 219 119 219 119

=

222

n8 228 240 140 253 153 254 154 254 154

15] 2 57 257 15] 264 267 268 269

270 170 273 17) 286 186 183 2.88 291 19' 292 191

194 294

196

296

317 )'7

Representation encoded by [by LOCATION Repr ot;lIion of ofthe thelinguistic hngui ticcontent content t'ncoded [lOCATIOS OF EVENT IN IN TIME TIME, fROMPERSPECTIVE PlR Pt (;TIVlOF OFEXPERIENCERI EXPERILNfER) OF FROM

319 )'9

'S.) p
Ix I SEQUENC1-1) \lQl~lN( 1:.1) URI TitAN vi IX IS FARTua tiR THAN YI

)10 320

IS·4 Rt'tro Jl('\:tive relation encoded enuxled by by the tht'TFoR TFoR lexical luiul concept: c.:om:ept: 15.4 Retrospective [ EVENT Xx 15 I SEQUENCED EQUEM:£O LATER LATER THAN THA EVENT EVENT111 vi

15.5 Partial primary cognill" cognitive model 'S·S p.ni.1 pnmary modd profile profil. for for ICHR1STMAsl Ic"o. T.. A IS·6 Putl.lll cognitive (ognitivemodel modelprofile profile [APPROAUtlNG) 15.6 Partial forfor [APPROACHING]

)11 321

323 )13 )18 32,8

a

List of ofTables Tables List 2.1 ('..on lructions and lh~ir (orrcsponding

tn

from ('x~ri "(r

2.1 and theirIypn corresponding scenes from experience ~.I Constructions ()j IIntlion in Idiom 5.1 Distinctions in idiom types j.1 Prop
with d~-da

vrhicl

content associated with closed-class vehicles 6.1 6.1 Schematic Rich COnl
6.2 content associated vehicles 6..1Rich A ummary of k
',mt

Abbreviations Abbreviations 3919 919'

93 93 91 95 .03 103 103 to; '07 to7 125 "5

13 '3'1

'39 139 '46 146 16

.6.

.84 184 198 '98

Note ·ole that thaI definitions definition ofoftechnical technical terms term can Cdn bebefound foundininthethGlossary Clo ry on onp.p.339. 339. CR CR

cognitive cognitiverepresentation representation

CS C

Conceptual n eptualSystem ystem

EI· F ICM ICM LASS LASS LCCM L M LM LM LS NP P

event event

NTL TL

'99 199 115 225 3·6 316

figure figure Idealized Idealized Cognitive CognitiveModel Mod I Language Simulation ·ituatedimulallon Languag and and Situated Lexical ~xicaJ Concepts ncepts and and Cognitive Cognitive Models Model landmark landmark linguistic lingui tic system ystem noun noun phrase phrase

013I OBI Obl Obi PP PP PP PSS PSS RO RO RP RP

Neural Theory of ofLanguage Languag N ural Theory Object Object Oblique Oblique preposition prepo ition perspective point point perspective Perceptual Symbol Perceptual ymbol Systems y terns reference object referen e object referencepoi point reference nt

S

Sentence nlen e

SEL SEl SFoR ToR SUM UBI TFoRs TfoRs TNS TN TR TR

VV VP VI'

Sense[numerat.v Enumerative ~.i Lexicon Sense On spatialframe frameof of reference reference patial Subject ubjcct temporalframes framesof of reference reference temporal tense ten trajector trajcctor Verb Verb verbphrase phrase verb

Part II Introduction Introduction The four chapters chapters that that make make up Part Part I lay the th foundations foundalion for for the the developdevelopof LCCM L .M Theory in III the the remainder remainder of ofthe the book. book. Chapter hapter t1addresses addres "the the ment of IIlherent variation meaning in situated ~ituated contexts context~ of ofuse u the • thecentral cntral inherent variation in in word word meaning IIlth book. Also AI reviewed—and reviewed-andrejected—is r j "ted-i the thestandard tandard problem addressed in the book. alCount of of meaning meaning in in linguistic lingui tic semantics, mantics.referred referred to to as a~ literali III. Chapter Chapter 2 account literalism. llltroduc the theoretiul starting ~tarting points point. and and assumptions ~ umplion upon upon which whilh introduces the theoretical LCCM t. Chapter th perspective persp tive provided provided by by cogcogLCCM Theory Theory rrests. Chapter J3 introduc introduces the Illti,e linguistics, lingui ti • and hows how how this thi informs informs the thedevelopment developmentofofLCCM L .M nitive and shows I hcory. Chapter to the the account accountofofword word Theory. Chapter 44 provid provides an an informal informal introduction to meaning provided provided by by LCCM LCCM Theory.

1 1 Words and meaning Words and (Weaning (M).aning isi the Ih."holy "holygrail" grail" not nOI only onlyofoflinguistics, ling" Ii •but bUIalso alsoofofphilosophy, philosophy. psychology, and neuroscience... Understanding how we we mean ps)'\:hology. and ode unding how man and and how howwe We" think is I ait vital vitill issue issue for (or our Colur intuitive intulli\·C' sense rue of ofourselves our Ives as it human hum~n beings. bti"&>. For For the study of language—far most people, is intuitively poopl•• meaning mtaninglS inluluvtlythe lhocentral «nlral issue i"".inin tho Iudy oflanguag f.r more mo'" important import.nl than th.n understanding und....l.ndingdetails d
Providing an aaccount of the Providing an counl of the nature nalure of ofmeaning meaning and and meaning meaningconstruction con InlClion of processes as observed in the the quotation quotation above, abov •the thtHoly 1I0lyGrail rail linguistics linguisti proc iis,• a. of related disciplines aas well wtll as a a range rangt of rtlated di iplin in the tht humanities humaniti and and the tht social social and and cognitive sciences. cognItive itn <s. In this thi book II am am concerned con emed with with word word meaning. meaning. and and the tht role of of word. words in meaning meaning construction: constru tion: how howwords word mean. mean.This Thi isisfundamental fundamtntal to an account ofthe tht role rolt of oflanguage language in in giving giving rise ri to tomeaning. meaning.Nevertheless, everthd a count of accounting for for the role accounting role of of words words in in meaning meaning construction constru tion has has proved proved to to be h< both controversial and problematic for ontroversialand for much much of ofthe the relatively rdatively short history hi tory of of linguistics as a discipline, linguisti discipline. as a well well as as for for research research on language language within within philosophilosophy, and. and, indeed, phy. indeed. for work work more mort generally generally in in cognitive cognitivescience. scienct. The specific Tht pecific problem that that II address addr in this thi book book isi this: thi: how howdo dowe w account a ount for the for tht inherent inh rent variation variation of word word meaning mtaning in in language language use? u 1 That That is, i •the tht meaning associated meanong a sociattd with any any given word word form Co rm appears appear to to vary vary each each time timt itit isi used, in in terms teml of of the th conceptualization con eptualization that that it, it. in in part, part. gives giv rise n to. to.To To used. France: illustrate, con consider the following examples iIIustral<. id r tht txampl<s focusing focu ing on on the tht form form Frallce: (1) a. a. France (I) han. isis aa country country of ofoutstanding outstandongnatural natural beauty h
In these France van varies across In these examples exampl<s the tht meaning meaning associated associattd with with Frallu a ro each ea h instance of use. In the first example, France relates to to a specific on tan e of u . In th first example. frallce relat peeil; geographical geogr.phi al landmass coincident with the borders of mainland France. In land rna coincidtnt with tht bordt ... of mainland Franct. In the the second second example, t France he political nation state, encompassing its political relates to th politi I n.tion talt. en omp. ing it political examplt. Frlll"r relat infrastructure,political politicaland and C'ulnomic economic influence, infra.strw.:turt. influ nce. and its it citizens, citi1Cn\, including including

those in French ov overseas territories.. In tht the txamplt example in (lc) France relates to the tho r a terrilori (oc) frallcrrdal<s

4

WORDS WORDS AND AND MEANING MEANING

IINTRODUCTION TRaDuCTION

team of of fifteen fifteen rugby rugby player.. players, drawn drawn from from th the pool pool of of French team ofrugby rugby players player ,of hench citizenship, who who represented citi7enship. rrpr=nted the the French Fren h nation nationininthe the2007 1007Rugby RugbyWorld WorldCup. up. the hench French electorat electorate,.' and. and specifically France relat'" relates to to the. In the the linal final example. example, i-mllff In pC<:lfitally that part partof of the the cIelectorate which voted agam againstt proceeding that torate whi h voted procffil~ng with wIth ratification rallfic.tlon of of proposed EU EU con constitution aa proposed titution in in aa national national referendum referendum in mZoos. 1005· appears to to be as France These examples illustrate that a word form such The", eXJl11ple Illustrate that. won! form su h .., rmllff appcars be of upon the context in part dependent protean in nature: nature: its its meaning is flexible, protean ne~ble. in part d pendent upon the conte .. of its use. use.This This notion notion of of conte context of the follow1l1g. following, its .. must must include, m lude.at at the the very very least, least. all all oflhe make up up the the the chapter:(i) ) the in theth.pter: discussed in more detail later in disations associated a sodated with with aa word word such u h asa France in the PmllCf as .. illustrated illu trated in th examples exampl above. Finally, Finally. I attempt att mpt to do do all all this thl hearing in in mind that meaning construction con truction constitutes con titutes aa form form of ofjoint joint while bearing 1996). in service ",rvlCe of of situated situatt-d communicative communicative goals. go.1 . Hence, lIenee. the the aaction tion (Clark 1996), approach take to lexical and compositional approach I take lexical and compo itional semantics semantic must must be be thoroughly thoroughly grounded in a usage-based perspective (Langacker woo). The tack in a u ge-based per pC<:ti, (Langa ker 2000). The tackI Itake, take.inin presenting of the issues outlined, is pr~ntmg an ao:ount account of i sues just outlined. is to to develop developand and introduce introduceaa new—or lea t a differently nuanced—theory nuanced- theoryof oflexical lexicalrepresentation representationand and new---<)r at least meaning construction. construction. This is termed the Theory of Lexical Concepts and Thi i termed the Theory of lexical Concepts and Cognitive Models Models (LCCM ( M Theory). Theory). I begin beglll the the presentation pr~ntation of of this this new new approach approach in in the the next next chapter. chapter. However, mu t first first examine examine the thereceived r ei,ed view viewofofword word meaning m aning that that Ilowever. we must has andconsider con iderproblems prohlemsthat thaIarise arisefor for ha emerged in contemporary contemporarylinguistics, lingui tic.and it. This lexical representation, Thi~ will will allow allow us u to tomove movetowards toward aJnew n waccount J((ountofoflcxkJI rcprl.'\Cntation, and compositionality—how words are composed in service of situated compo itionality- how word arc composed in service of ituatedmeanmeaning construction. This is our task in the present chapter. ing com.tru(tion ('hi\ i\ our ttl k in the prC\Cnt chapter. hook. • II will Will spettfy pruh the dw future n..tUft' of I" .ritunti, t !'Ilk.tructure lfU&.luf('.t..tinted alWmnIbyby!CCM I' ( MTheory 11w'lltYinInfart P,utIIIIofofthe the' twNll

S5

The meaning The received received view view of word meaning The tandard account t in Anglo. account of of word meaning. The standard meaning, atat lea least in the dominant dominant Angloan tradition. lit rali m; in this this II am am following followingRecanati Recanatl ,\l11en American tradition, II refer refer to. to as literalism; fa t. Iiterali mil count of word w rd meaning, meanmg. being bemg more mor an an (2004). (2oo4). In fact, literalism is less an an aaccount account nature of oflinguistic lingui ti semantics semantic in in general, general. of ofwhich whi hword word account of of the nature pC<:1. literalism a iated meanong d arlyaa central meaning isI clearly central aaspect. Literalism iis also also less an account associated i probably probably fair fair to to claim, claim. asa with any individual individual scholar. holar. Nevertheless, everthel • Itit is with any Recanati ition in modern modern linguistics lingui tics Recanatidoes. does, that that itit represents representsthe thedominant dominant po position pC<:t to nature of word meaning, meaning. sentence ntence meaning, meaning. and and speak with with rrespect to the nature speakerr meaning. in In particular, parti ular.literalism take. as axiomatic axiomall the pnnClpled literalism takes principled division division of labour -the context-independent context independent aspects a peet of ofmeaning— meaninglabour between between Kmanti semantics—the Jnd the context dependent aspects a peeh of ofmeaning. m aning. In In this thi section sectionII and pragmati pragmatics—the context-dependent literali m. before going goong on ontotoargue, argue. lir peetive provided by literalism, firstt present present the the per perspective in nt section. perspective on word word meaning, meaning. and and the th role role in subsequ subsequent sections, why a new perspective of words in meaning meaning construction, construction.isI required. required. nce of ofadding adding or orcomposcompos · Literalism Literalism views views senten sentencee meaning as a consequ consequence meaning. together together with with the thegrammatical grammaticalconfigurations conliguration inin ing smaller mailer unit units of of meaning, whi h they appear. appear. In words. accounting ac ounting for for linguistic linguisll meaning, meaning. from from which In other words, oflanguage languageare arewords wordsand and thi per pective. assumes a urnes that that the the"ingredients" "ingredients" of this perspective, rules. with conjoin "atomic" "atomic" meaning meaningelements element encoded encodedby by rules, with rules serving to conjoin thi view, view. aa descriptively d 'ripti,c1y adequate account ac ount of oflinguistic Iingui tic semantics semantic words. On this hould provide provid an an observationally ob rvationally accurate accurate account of these these "elements "e1ement of of should account of meaning" ((associated iated with ingle word), word). and and the the"rules "rul of ofcomcom meaning" with words words or a single bination" (resulting (r uhing in aa sentence). senten e). bination" Id ntilication of of the th elements elementsofofmeaning m aningisisOften oftenreferred referred toto as as componcomponIdentification analy is. This Thi. approach approa h seeks to work out how how to represent repr=nt the th meanmeanential analysis. ongs of ofwords, word. or or more precisely, precisely. what arc termed lexemes—the lexemes th meaning meaningthat that ings I held h Id to to underlie underli aaseries ro ofofrelated relatedforms, form •for forexample, example. sing, sIIIg. sang, sang. sung, sullg. is sillgmg. and so forth, forth. which which are are assumed a umed to to all all have ha,e the the same m meaning, meaning. SING. SING. singing, ofthis this approach approa h isi that that word word meanings meanings are are made made up up of of The essential insight of atoml elements eI m nt or or components. components. Typically, Typically. lexical lexical items item are ar thought thought of ofasas atomic being tagged tagged with syntactic, ynta tic. morphological, morphologi al. and andsemantic semanticfeatures. featur . An early early such componential-style componentIal · tyleanalysis analy.is was wasthat thatdeveloped developedbybyKatz Katzand and coUcagu (Katz (!(an and and Fodor I'odor1963; 1963; Katz !(an and and Postal Postal1964; t96~ Katz !(an1972). t972). InInthis this colleagues scmanti markers markersand anddistinguishers. dl tinguishers.Seaccount. word word meanings mcanings consist con istofofsemantic account, by words, words, while whiledistinguishers distingui hers mantic markers markers compri the information inforonationshared haredby mantic comprise the constitute the theidiosyncratic idiosyncraticinformation infonnationspecific pccifi totoaagiven givenword wordmeaning. meaning.For ('or constitute on Katz !(an and and Postal Postal (1964), (1964). the the polysemous pol mou senses sensesfor forthe theword word instance. based based on instance, bllc/Jclor can an be be represented represented as in in (2), (1).where wherethe thesemantic scm,lIlti markers markersare aregiven gIVen in III bachelor parentheses and and the th semantic manticdistinguishers di tinguishersare aregiven si' nininsquare squarebrackets. brackets. parentheses (2) a. a. (human) (human) (male) (male)lwhu ha never never married( mJrried) who has b. (human) (human)(male) (male)lyoung knightserving servingunder underthe thecolours oloursoforanother' an th rl h. (young knight

( 2)

WORDS AND MEANING

INTROOUc:.'ION INTRODUCTION

6

(. c. d. d.

(human) (recipient (r"'lpient of ofthe th lowest low tacademic acad mildegree' degree( (mal) (young (youngfur fursealIwithout withoutaamate] mate I ((non-human) n n·human) (male)

lore r",ent phi'ti13ted componential componentialanalyst-s analyses of of word meaning meamng More recent and and mor more sophisticated ar by Anna nna Wierzbicka WierzhlCka (e.g., (e.g.• 1996) 1996) in in her her Natural I tu ralSemantic manticMetaMetaare provided by language ((NSM) 'SM) account allount of ofword wordmeaning, 01 aning.and andRay lUylackendoff lalkendoff(1983, (1983.1990) 1990) In hi theory of of Conceptual nceptual Semantics. Semanti . Nevertheless, 'erthel • itit isi important important to to point ptllnt in his endo~all alia pect of ofliterali m.In In out that that neither neither Wierzbicka Wierzhicka nor nor Iackendoff lackendoffendorse aspects literalism. partilular. they th view that that compositional compo,itional (i.e., (.i.e..sentence 'nteneelevel) It'Vdl particular, theydo do not not take the ~mantil patterlll> after aft r reference, reference. nor that sentence >entenl meaning meanmgshould houldbe betruth truth semantics patterns th discussion disco ion below). evaluable (see the evaluable (5« .. r. th hallmark account. and and the the view view of of word word Ilowe However, the hallmark of of componential accounts, meamng under literalism, lit rali m. is i that that word w rd meanings 01 .nings are ar assumed a umed to to be be meaning adopted under relalively table. Put another another way, way. the the semantic manti primitives primitiv which whi h relatively fixed fixed and and stable. ofcontext. ontext. make be identified identified independently independently of make up up a given word word meaning can he Onle Idenlified. word word meanings meanings are are integrated, mtegrated. by by applying applying the Iherules rules ofofthe the Once identified, provide sentence nlemantilunits unil> nature, positing grammatical principles which ensure that which result resull are chang or delete the tbe meanings meanings of ofthe tbeunits unitswhich whichare are are unable unable 10 to change conjomed 10 form form aa larger larger semantic sernanli< unit umt or orexpression. exp ion. This Thi restriction restriction serves ~ to 10 conjoined to make larger exp=,i n. for nOlonicwith withrespect respecl to10itsII> make a larger expression, for instance instance aa >cotenc sentence,• m monotonic componenl parts. where where the term lerm "monotonic" "monotonic" has has to 10 do dowith withthe theview viewthat thaithe the component parts, componenl pari> retain rrlain their their original onginal meanings l11eanings in in the lhe larger larger expression exp"'" ion (e.g., (e.g.• ,- omponent parts Cann '" rd meanings meanmgsdo donot notalter allertheir theirmeaning meamngin10the lbe Thus, the individual word (*Ann 1993). Thus,lhe they form form part. part. larger manli units of larger semantic of which they Onl itionhas ha occurred, occurred. this thi gives giVe. rise ri to to sentence nten emeaning. meaning.Under Under Once compo composition tru th Iiterali m. >entence propo ition. isi truth literalism, sentence meaning. meaning, t",hnically technically known known aas a proposition, evaluabl although thi i ue isi potentially potentiallyproblematic. problematic.>2 That That is, is. aa sennevaluable—although this issue formed gral11matical word - i held held toto"carry" "carry" aa tenl a well tence—a well-formed grammatical string string of words—is ofaa meanmg which patterns patterns after after reference: reference: th onv nllonal assignment ignment of meaning which the conventional of affairs affair to the the complex complexlinguistic lingui ticexpression e pr ionresultr ull worldly entity tate of entity and state ing ilion of ofthe the individual mdlvldual elements el ment in informing formingaasentence. ~nten e.The The ing from from compo composition that is, is. the the meaning aassociated sociated with ntence constitutes onstitutes the proposition, propo it Ion. that with the sentence ~nten e meaning. the following following example example sentence: ntence: sentence meaning. Thus. Thus, in the J

A numbn' lh.! Pragmatic PnpNtk. tradition InJlltOn (e.g.. Cr .... Bach 8.kh 1997:(:orston 1'#970 ( nt(ln iuoz; JOOl;Recanati R«.ln.JU number of of khubn scholars WOrlonlln working in the

lUI"") tu\'t ot'twnni " often (,hm (or ft" usuallyi u~,.) the 1Mcase \:.utthat thaithe Itwlinguistic Imgul heform (nrmuttered uuntdby byan o1n zoo4) have observed tlul that IIit is tntnt,."Ulnr III " meaning. mc.mma.. Thai "Th.It is. I utterances unt'l'alkn are aIT often vitro not n..tpropositional. rn'P' Ih.. ruJ. interlekutor PolnJrnktnml underdetermines lhtthe sentence but ttmW'dpragmatic J'RPMIK intrusion. ",IN"",".such WI. hthat lh.,inferential mt.'ftntwpro. rn"nift but h.aw have Id to bt hewmrAttnJ completed br"'NI by whathol, has~ ten termed esses ;t~ In render rtndcr the tM utterance ullft'lIkC propositional rrop,lISJlk)f\Mand andhence btrk.ctruth trulhI.-valuable. ~nlwtW :Arston. <':'I'llIn.for fur are m;auirN required In in ordn" order to InM"n..~. nultnn that ttYI linguistic Imitul tkmeaning nW'nall. rr-~mabl,. quIlt' (lh\k'U. an dw meant by a speaker... is something sentence-shaped (priipouti4inAi the top shrill. (cmlnl Ifnr nam~ the lInn )'UU Iln ioolJna fur i. on 1M ",..hdl I is on context (for example. 'the item you are looking for

torrUn. .. ..

It,. rN

77

( 3 ) Brighton (.I) IIrighton isI 50 50 miles mil south \(luth of ofLondon london the proposition propo ition "carried" "carried" by the sentence ntence can can he he evaluated evaluated as as being beingtrue trueor or false t.ll", with respect r pcct to the the state tat of ofaffairs affairs which whi h holds hold ininthe theworld. world.InInthis thi case, ca • the proposition propo ilion expressed expr~ by by (3): (3): that that Brighton Brighton isi so 50 miles mil from from London, London. isi true, true. Thu far, far. we have have been heen addressing addr 109 the first fir t half half of of literalism: ht rali m: the th study tudyof Thus of ",mantics. According A ording to to literalism, literali m. word word meanings meanings and and the theresulting r ullingsentence ntenc semantics. meaning, meaOlng. is i context-independent. contextind pendent. However, 1I0w 'er. the th full full meaning meaning of ofaasentence, ntence. what to as speaker "hat is referred rrferred to peaker meaning, meaning. may may also al", depend depend on on context. conte.t. This Thi aspect of meaning meaning falls falls under under the the purview purview of ofthe thesub-branch sub· branch of oflinguistics Iingui ti a'peet known as a pragmatics. pragm.ti . The [he distinction distinentenlemeaning meaningand andspeaker ,peak rmeaning meaningwas wa introintro duced dUled by by the th British Briti h philosopher philosopherPaul PaulGrice Gri e(e.g., (e.g.•1989). 1989).Grice Gri edistinguished di lingui hed between what a sentence h<:tween what ~nten -e means, mean. its it literal literal meaning, meaning. and and what what aasentence ntence implicates, ofthe the context context ininwhich whichititisi deployed, d ployed.and andthe thespeaker's peaker' Implicates. by virtue of communicative communi alive intention intention in in deploying deplo ingitit ininthe theparticular parti ular context context of ofuse. u .The The rt of of meaning meaningisi what what Grice .ricereferred referred to toas a speaker peaker meaning. m anlng.According A cording latter sort to HI literalism hteralism then, then. there there is i\ aJ principled prinllpled distinction di,lInction between hetween semantics, semantic.which whilh is is concerned concerned with with literal literal or or sentence sentence meaning, meaning. and andpragmatics, pragm.ti •which whi h isi concerned loncerned with context-based contelt·hased speaker peaker meaning: meaning: what what isi implicated. impli ted. To illustrate, reconsider "10 illu trate. Ilet's t' rIXon id r the th sentence '>Cntence in In (3). (3). The Theliteral literal meaning meaningofofthis thi sentence ntence relates rdat to a state tate of ofaffairs affair in the world w rid referenced referen ed by by the the proposition propo ition expressed this sentence. e.pr sed by thi ntence. However, 1I0wev r. the proposition propo Ition expressed e.pr~ is i independindepend . part of ent of of any any given giv n context lontext of ofuse. u .To To illustrate, Illu trate. now now consider con ider (3) (3) as'part ofan an exchange between between two interlocutors exchange interlocutors in (4) (4) who whoare are driving driving to toBrighton, Brighton.are are just jU\l north north of of London, I.ondon. and and whose who petrol petrol gauge gaugeisishovering hoveringjust ju tabove aboveempty. empty. (41 A: Do Doyou youthink thinkwewecan canmake m.keitittotoBrighton Brightonwithout withoutfilling fillingup? up? (4) B: Brighton B: Brighton is i 50 miles south of ofLondon l.ondon According to to literalism, by B means what According Iiterali m. the the sentence ntence expressed e pr BOlan what itItdoes: d Brighton iis 50 50 mile. miles 'iOuth south ofl.ondon. of London, which is independent of IIrighton i truth evaluable ind pendent of given "lOtext context because any given bc..au\e it It can be be assessed a'~ by virtue of of.a context-independcontext independ . in the world. world, Brighton really 5o miles of affairs: affairs: in really is So mil south uth of ofLondon. London. ent state tate of However, in in th the context associated mean more more Ilowever. a sociat<'tl with the the exchange exchange in in (4), (4).ititmeans than thi this. This ofthis thi sentence nt nee in inthis thi context contextimplicates implic.t than rhi isi because bc..au the the use u of something in in addition addition to tothe theliteral literal meaning meaningexpressed expr~ by bythe th sentence. ntence.The The Mlmething implicature associated with with the sentence Impli ature ","lCiated \Cntenc uttered uttered by by BII isi that thatthe th travellers travellers cannot reach lannot r alh Brighton IIrighton unless unl they they first Ii"t obtain obtain more morepetrol petrolfor f()rtheir theircar. ,u. Thus, Thu\, the speaker !h peaker meaning m .ning is I aa consequence onsequence of ofinterpreting interpreting the thecommunicative communicative a given ofthe the speaker peaker in deploying the th sentence \Cntence meaning meaning in ina 81Hn context. ,ontext. intention of A ~omt"whdt somewhat simplified of the m overview ur main \implifil'tl u\crvicw .. in element, clemcnh of or literalism literali m arc arc presented pr nted in Figure figure Li. 1.1.

WORDS AND MEANING ti

INTRODUCTION

(the semantics/pragmatics distinction) is illusory.' From this it follows that Speaker meaning

PRAGMATICS

Pragmatic piincipies of inference

Snntencs

the position that word meanings are context-independent is potentially problematic. For instance, in the Pragmatics tradition, researchers have shown that the meaning of a given word, and hence the truth conditions of the sentence to which the word contributes, is typically (perhaps always) a function of context/background knowledge (see in particular C-arston 2002; Searle e.g., 1983; Recanati 2004). By way of illustration, consider the following examples of open based on those discussed by Searle (i983):

meaning (5

SEMANTICS Rules of composition

Word meanings

)

a. John opened the window b. John opened his mouth c. John opened the book d. John opened his briefcase e. John opened the curtains 1. The carpenter opened the wall g. The surgeon opened the wound h. The sapper opened the dam

FIGURE LI. An overview of literalism

In sum, and from the perspective of literalism, word meanings involve relatively fixed and context-independent atoms of meaning. These atoms are concatenated, given the rules of the grammar, and then interpreted, by virtue of principles of language use. The context-independent atoms of meaning associated with words contribute to sentence meaning, and speaker meaning relates to the use to which sentences arc put (including the context-independcnt word meanings which constitute them), which speaker meaning builds upon. Problems with the received view

Literalism as an approach to meaning construction suffers from a fatal problem: the principled separation between context-independent (sentence) meaning and context-dependent (speaker) meaning. Put another way, the difficulty at the heart of literalism is the principled division of labour that it posits between semantics and pragmatics. In terms of the approach to word meaning adopted by literalism, words are assumed, apart from a number of notable exceptions such as indexicals (for instance he, or here), to have meanings tied to them which are context-independent. This follows as word meaning falls under the purview of semantics (rather than pragmatics). However, a by now large number of scholars have argued that the prin.:iplcd separation of context-independent and context-dependent meaning

As Searle observes, in examples such as these the meaning of open is a function of what he refers to as the "background", which is to say our knowledge of the sorts of ways in which entities and objects of different kinds are opened. Cnicially, the different ways in which we can open things is a function of our encyclopaedic knowledge, which is to say knowing about and experience with the very different sorts of operations involved. For instance, opening a wound involves, for instance, the skilled use of a scalpel on flesh, to create an aperture of a certain size and shape for a particular purpose, such as to clean the wound and/or remove potentially damaged or diseased tissue. The opening of a wall involves different sorts of tools, typically carpentry tools of a particular kind, which are applied to a wall, made typically of wood, and resulting in an aperture of a certain size and shape for a very different sort of purpose: for instance to create or insert a doorway. Both of these operations differ from opening a mouth, which involves muscle gestures on a pre-existing aperture, or opening curtains, which doesn't involve an aperture at all, both of which serve very different functions. Finally, opening a dam by a sapper involves knowledge relating to warfare—a sapper is a military explosives expert—and destroying the dam in question as part of a military action. Thus, understanding what open means in (5h) involves knowledge of a very different sort of event, agents, and purposes.

' Fora flavour of the range and nature of the problem. that have been raised for a principled separation between context-independent and context-dependent of mcanIng. we, for example. the apprihithes to Lingua", and situated .onsmun ► at ► on highlighted by the following: Limon 211 ► 2; Clark i4496; C ► ulson zoom Croft itxx); 204 ► 444; l'Atitonfiler I987: 1akutt Lingacker 1987; Rrianali 24)04; Sperber and Wilson tins: Sweetwr 199w Tyler and Evans 2o93).

tp 10

WORDS WORDS AND AND MEANING

IINTRODUCTION STROOUCTION

In addItIon. addition, in eeach of these examples In eh of th cumpl the th sort n of of encyclopaedic cneydopaedic knowledge knowledge involved Iis aa fun function the word mvolved tion of the utterance utteran e context in which which .the wort!.isis embedembedded. Thu Thus,• not not only is dcd. i the th meaning me ning of of the the word word aa function fun tlon of ofquite qUIte distinct dl tmct sorts the 'iOn sort of elley lop cdie knovsledge, knowlcdge. the of encyclopaedic cncydopaedic knowledge knowledge to to n of encyclopaedic is a function of the context in which the word access i a function of whi h th provid Ie ont t in whi h the word which the word provides embedded. That That iis,• th the lingui linguistic iis embeddcd. ti context cont xt in in part pan serves rv to narrow narrow the the sort 'iOn of of relates in in each example. open reiat encyclopaedic knowlcdge knowledge to which enq'dopacdic which o~" aeh cum pie. Thus, Thus. and and as a makes to to the open mak Searle observes, the semantic th truth truth . arle observ • th mantI contribution ontribution that that o~" conditions of of sentences, ntenc • such u h as a these, thoc. varies, vari • being being aa function fun tion of ofthe thesentensenten condItion tial (()Otext context 10 in which it It isi embedded. embeddcd. lIal While the examples above While exampl above relate r late to to literal hteral sentences, nt n •the the context contextdependdepend is even more marked if we consider uses that are, intuitively, ence open i cven more markcd if w on ider u that arc. intuitively. ence of of opt'" in nature. Consider more figurative hgurativ III nature. Con ider the th following following indicative indicativ set setof ofexamples: exampl : discussant The di u lOtopened openedthe th conversation (onversati n (6) a.•.The hank aC«lunt account John 01 opened b. John ned aa bank John opened opened the meeting c. John m tlllg John opened a dialogue d. John opencd • dialogue hostilities e. The Germans t;erman opencd tihti." against against the the Allies Alh in 1940 1940 opened ho f. The skies ki opened opened his mind to g. He opencd to aa new new way way of ofthinking thinking He finally opened up finally opencd up to to her h r h. lie examples The meanlllg of open opt'" in each each of these th exampl relates relat to distinct di tinct sorts sort of of The meaning actions, event. events, and In the action. nd situations. ituation. In the first /irst example, cumpl • opening opening aa meeting m ·tlllg requires aa designated rcquir designatcd authority: authority: a meeting meeting "chair", "chair". who, who. in in declaring d laring the the meeting open. open, performs meeting perform aa specific peeific speech pecch act, act. thus thu facilitating fa ihtating the th meeting meeting process. In opening a dialogue, two (or more) interlocutors begin pnx . In ol",nmg dialogu • two (or more) mterlo<:utol"o begin and and continue aa conversation via continu conversati n that that can cantake takeplace pia eface-to-face, face· to-face.electronically ele.:tronicallyvia email, on the email. the telephone, telephon • or or via via the th exchange exehang of ofletters. letters. To To open open such u han an exchange relates exchang . To To open aa hank bank account account exchange relat to the the initiation initiation of the exchange. involves completing completing cenain certain formaliti formalities such involv uch aas an an interview IIIterview with with aa bank bank official, financial financial checks, and the the filling he.: • and filling in in of ofpaperwork. paperwork. In In contrast, ontra t. toto official. (6e), concerns open hostilities, in (be). ho tiliti •as a in In the the example examplcm conlCrn the initial inillal actions acllon involved IIlvolvcd in warfare. Thus, each each of of these uses u of of open ope" relates r lat to very different different forms form of of warfare. Thu initiations,• involving inillallon involving different differ nt sorts 'iOn of ofevents, event. procedures, pnxcdur • and and agents. agent>. InIn to a and contrast, in the the «ample example in in (6f). (60, the the usage u... g of of open opt'" relates rdat to •.sudden udd nand contra t. in heavy downpour of rain, hcavy downpour rain. while whil the th last I. t two t\\O examples e.ampl relate relate to to flexibility f1exibihty of of thinking thinking and emotional cmotional responses r pOll and/or and/or being being more more expansive expamivc in in terms term of of spoken, poken. physical, phy Ic.d, or emotional motional interactions. mtcra(.tion'\. What examples such such a; as tho those in (5) What exampl (5) and and (6) (6)illustrate Iliu trale isi the thefollowing. follow mg. hr tly. 3a word such \ul.h as a open open provides prOVide access olle.. '\ to In an an impressively Iml?r ive~y diverse divrr array array of or Firstly. and cnt.ydnp.lcdic.: knowledge knuwledge involving IIwolving distinct di,tin-.:t scenarios, su:n.lflO • actions, JltlOI1\, events, eyent •• 1Iltl encyclopaedic agents. agent. As A we w have ha,e just )",t seen, ....'Cn. things thmS that that can canbe I'<'"opened" "ol>cnl..!"include IIldud an anarray arrayofof

II

dlllerent 'iOrt. of of physical phy;i al entities ntlti and and abstract ab tract events—which event - which is is related related to to difkrent sorts ~Jrlc'. "background':' Understand 109 the and (6) (6) Searle'snotion notion of of "background".4 Understanding the exampl examples in in (s) and (lIves complex detailcd knowledge knowlcdg about about the the sorts son of ofscenarios enario that that In' involves complex and and detailed 1'/,<'" ca h example e ample and, and. thus, thu • the thc specific ;pccific way way in III which whICh Of>ell open reiat relatesto to in in each open apphes mouth involves involvesaavery very different different form form applies in each case. After all. all, opening a mouth IIr than when wh n aa carpenter carrentcr opens open aa wall, wall. or or when when aasapper pperopens, open.and and of opening opening than thus destroy destroys,••a dam. darn. Ilenc Hence,• the m meaning open in ea~h thll' ning of of O~1I1O .. mple is, i •in 10 part, pan. aa each c example of tapping tapplOg into IOto the the encyclopaedic encyc10pacdl knowledge, knowlcdg. in 10 order order to to determine determin fUllction function of of open O~II in a h example. eumplc. Put Put another another way, way. it isi the thc the \pecifi meaning meaning of the specific in each open rrelates "enano that Opt'll lat to that. in in part, pan. determines determin the th nature nature of ofthe th scenario that to that, l1Iealllng a lated with with Opell ea h case. c. . meaning associated open 10 in each Secondly. in each ach case ca it it appear ntential context. whi hiis to to say say Secondly, appears to be th the sentential context, which the other words word in 10 the thc sentence, ntcn e. which which serve rve to to direct dire.:t the thesort sort of ofencyclopaecneydopa dil knowledge that opm provid ace That is, is, while while Of>ell ha a• large larg open provides dic knowledge access to. to. That open has l>
m....,... ....

• While \\hak encyclopaedic ,·oInIk. knowledge. ~.wkJ • in In the thl' sense It'MC' that tiLit I Iuse U itIIhere. httt.and an...!asIUdeveloped dndllpntinIn (.1"",""( cognitivelinguistics IlJlCUblk (see tt« the the discussion di u ."inIna(lwp(('f ,)).lI'rr;lUbiy rd.t<'\l to Searles !'tartt',notion nul .. ,nofol-bk.qnlWkJ".t ." :hapter 31, is arguably related "hat kground - it is

nnt quite qUIll' the the-same. 11M' For h'r Searle, ,uk. background b.k~uu.nd has h.u to h) do "j.lwith Withwhat ",h .. twe ~might mightthink Ihm'-of(.(asatknowledge knatWlnl which "hl~h not constitutes um 1,lul entrenched. nttr.:n..hn.I,non-representational nHn ~1'rcvnl"lk'n.aJpractice. rr tkt What \\'h .. t II take I b trim frvm Searle 'W-~rk is I the thl' idea ..I...that ttut NORI "'uN meaning knowledge which, mrnun, is .. always AI-., contextuallied "1>nlnttWl1l'\.1with ""lIhrespet:t r I t to Il)"'~ ""hKh,inmI large) 11.I'Jt)part, J'lr1, dciermines tWtC'rml , ... the linguistic hnctuSJ ... meaning. nwanmJ.

1Z

I NT RODUCTION

WORDS AND MEANING

referring to as encyclopaedic in nature. Moreover, the meaning of open only ever appears in given contexts of use, even when these are the minimal contexts of use deployed by the linguist: a numbered "linguistic example" set off and embedded in the running text of technical articles published in academic journals.s In other words, word meaning emerges from a large semantic potential which is narrowed by the sentential (and extra-linguistic) context in which it is embedded. As such, word meaning appears to be guided by and a function of context: words, I suggest, do not mean independently of context. Thus, the fundamental problem with literalism is that it attempts to artificially divorce (word) meaning from (situated meaning in) context of use. More precisely, literalism lives in something of a fool's paradise. It holds that language users retain an idealized, timeless meaning for open which they neatly keep apart from the situated meanings of open which arise from its use in examples such as in (5) and (6). The mistake that literalism makes, then, is in being reductionist and simplistic about meaning.

An additional challenge: figurative language

' See similar arguments made by scholar. including t lark wit); CA ► ulson /00 ► ); brit% . IvIer anti Evans t1ou3). fauctmnici ( "or ) ; "nfokier 119871; Swectser 11t>90;

The challenge, then, that awaits an account of lexical representation and the ro le of words in meaning construction is to work out the difference, if any, be tween the role and function of literal and figurative word use in meaningc onstruction processes. To illustrate the nature of the challenge, let's consider the following example: (7)

2ootil;

John's boss is a pussycat

Presumably this utterance doesn't mean that John's boss is a pussycat, in the sense of a four-legged organism, with a tail and pointy ears that utters "miaow." Rather, the meanings associated with the phrases John's boss and pussycat have to be integrated with the predicate nominative construction, which ordinarily carries a class-inclusion meaning. 6 Informally, this construction has the following syntax: "SUBJECT is an NP," and means, again informally: "The subject is a type of the entity specified." To illustrate, consider the following: (8)

As we have just seen in our discussion of open, the protean nature of word meaning relates both to literal and figurative uses. A challenge for any theory of lexical representation—which is to say, the mental representations associated with words, consonant with the protean nature of word meaning discussed in this chapter—is to provide an account of literal and figurative language. Under literalism, these are treated as radically different sorts of language. It is often assumed, from this perspective, that figurative language involves the "defective" use of literal language, as argued, for instance, by Searle ((19791 1993). On this view, the use of figurative language arises from the context-dependent interpretation of literal language, and thus involves principles of pragmatic inference being applied once the context-independent sentence meaning has been derived. Put another way, figurative language is a function of language use, and thus falls under the purview of pragmatics, rather than semantics proper. The difficulty for what we might refer to as the literalism perspective on [figurative language, is as follows. This perspective predicts that understanding a literal sentence should be faster than understanding a figurative expression: we must first understand what the sentence means before we can interpret what the speaker intends us to infer by using the sentence in a non-literal way. However, as has been shown, based on investigations of psycholinguistic processing, language users often appear to be equally as efficient in computing the meaning of figurative language utterances as they are non-figurative ones (Gibbs 1994; Glucksberg 2001, 2003; See also Giora 1997, 2003).

13

John's boss is a pianist

The meaning that a language user would ordinarily derive, for an example such as this, would be that John's boss is included in the category of those who play the piano and thus constitutes a pianist, and that this situation persists through time. But, the same construction does not provide a class-inclusion reading for the previous example in (7). The challenge then, for our account of the variation in word meaning, is to be able to provide an explanation as to why (7) means something other than what it literally says, while (8) means what it does literally appear to say.

The nature of context I suggested above that the fundamental problem with literalism is that it attempts to artificially divorce meaning from context of use. Before proceeding with an attempt to identify the ingredients of a theory of word meaning and meaning construction, we must first get an initial sense of the different sorts of context which serve to narrow the meaning of a word. Accordingly, we will begin to see that the notion of context is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon crucial for language use and language understanding. Accordingly, the notion of context is fundamental to the development of LCCM Theory that I begin to sketch in the next chapter, and develop in detail in the " The nominative predicative construction involves the copular or "linking" verb fie which com• pine. with a nominal. e.g.. "a pianist." The nominal fu n ctions as the mentirl part of the Predicate: is a pianist." 1.ang.s. ker twou in his a tt.th.sts of the n ► nuttateve pretts‘ ate lion argues that he entoties the -cunt tnudtt ton through tune of a stable situation chma t ierucci only as a st.itive relation" (find. 65).

1-1 '4

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTIO.

re'>I Ih btx)k. book.'7 Hence, Ilen«. the the account de ount of ofword word meaning m ningprovided pmvidw isi diametdiamel rest of of the rically opposed to that offered by literalism. rically oppoS«! 10 Ihal oU rw by lileralism. As Ihe the approa approach take iis uusage-based, the term lem. utterance, utteran e. rather ralher than Ihan A h I lake ge' ba5Cd. I uuse Ihe sentence, in discussing word meaning. This reflects my assumption t hat meaning. Thi refllxl my umption thaI itil isi nlenee. in di u ing taking aaccount language in counl of oflanguage in use u that Ihal we we can can hope ho~to 10fully fullyunderstand under land only by laking the ndlure nature of of word word meanong. meaning. It also follows follow from the Ihe position po ilionthat Ihalsentences, nlenc •asa Ihe understood theoretical Iheory.are ar artificial artlfidallheor lilalconstructs, (on Irllct abstracted • ab Irallw under lood in in linguistic lingui lictheory, from actual actual usag usage ev~ events, from 1 • which whi h isi to 10say, say. utterances. utterane . IIwill will have have more moreto10sayy about the distinction aboullhe di IInClion between belw nsentences nlen and andutterances utteranc ininChapter .hapler 44.

Utterance context context above, the open above. France and Of>t:1I As we saw with the A w w,lh Ihe examples exampl relating relallng to 10 Frallcr Ihe utterance utterJIK elements which occur in 10 a a given utterance utterance contribute, conlribule. in in part, part. to 10determining delerminlOg the meaning Ihe word. word. That ThaI is, i and and as a suggested ugs IW abve, above.the Iheutterance utteran e Ihe mcanlOg of the provides aa wnle.1 context whilh which aassists in narrowing the meaning 1\1 on narrowlOg Ihe meaning of the Ihe word word in in pmvides question. qu lion. To 10 illustrate, illu lral • consider con ider the the following foUowingexamples: exampl (9) a.a.OnOn May 1st, my (9) ~by I mygrandfather grandfalh rexpired PIrW b. On b. On May May'1stI my driving licence licence expired expired expired in The m meaning meaning of rxplml in each a 'h example eumpl is I aa function function of ofthe Iheutterance utterance inin expired relates to an which it whICh il isi embedded. embWdw. In In the Ih first fir Iexample, example. rxp"ed relal 10 an event 'enl to expiry involving ddeath, while in the involving alh. whil Ihe second, second. expired! expirrd relates relal 10 p'ry of of the Ihe term I rm for whkh which an individual's to drive on the for individual' right righllo Ih public public highway highway was wa; sanctioned '>3nclionw or "licensed." "lie nS«!." Now ow consider con ider another anolher example ample involving involvingaaverb. verb. This Thi involves involv _the Ihefollowfollow. alternation associated ing well-known w II known context-dependent wnle I-dependenlaitemalion a '>tl
((10) to) a.a.Fred Fredbaked hakedthe Ih potato polalo b. Fred I red baked bakw the Ihe cake cake While the rial to 10aachange-of-state chang oof· lal reading, reading. the Iheexample exampl Ihe example exampl in (ma) (loa) relates can in That 10 (lob) (,ob)relates relale'> to 10adcreation creal ionreading. reddins."' hal is, i,. in (lob) (lob) the Ihe meaning meaning of of bake 1."lHan ma) be paraphrased paraphra;ro by "made" "mdd " or "created', "crealed". while whil the the meaning meaningofof bake !hIke in ((,oa) cannot cannol be be paraphrased paraphra5Cd in this Ihi way. way. The Th shift hifl in meaning meaningassociated aSMXidled with wilh bake I.. l. potato versus cake, appears to be a function of the object associated with appea" 10 be. oflhe nbjed a l
15 WORDS AND MEANING __ --------------------------------W~0=.~O~S~A~N~O~~'~A~,~'N~G~----'~5

rather laIc. aa cake fact exists e i " once on e it,I has ha been beenbaked, baked. as ratheralTecl affectsilits state, cake only only 10 in fact bbaking •• king isis one Ihe requisite requi ile stages lag involved inv Ived in in making making aacake. cak . one of of the Mv Ihe role rol of ofutterance utt.,an e context conlexl in in contributing conlribulongto10the Ih My linal final example example of of the meJI;ong relal 10 whal Schmid S<.hmid (2000) (2000) terms I m. "shell "hell nouns." noun ." meaning of a given word relates to what ,~«ording hmid." hell nouns noun make make up up an an open-ended open-endedfunctionallyfunctionallyo according 10 to Schmid, "Shell defined da Ira I nouns noun that Ihal have, hav .10 varyingdegrees, dcgr •the Ihepotential polcntialfor for class of.b of abstract to varying of hems a conceptual conceplual shells hells for for complex, complex. proposition-like, propo ilion·like. pieces p,ce of being used used as IOformalion" Common examples exampl of ofshell hell nouns noun include: include: case, ca .... (ibid. 4). 4). Common information" (ibId. d"wu, itltl', news, nnv point, POlllt, problem, problem, po 11;0". reason, rrusall, rrpor/, S.tutltlO", position, hance, [m:I, fact, idea, report, situation, t/IIII!!. 19oifi(an<e of hell nouns noun for the Ih present proenl discussion di u Ion is i that Ihal the Ih of shell thing. The significance emanli valu Ihe shell hell noun noun isi normally normallydetermined delerminw by bythe Ih utterance ullerance semantic value of the "",lex\. 10reov
om

( II) TheGovernment's (;",'ernmenl\aim aimis Ito10make makeGPs (.P more morefinancially financiallyaccountable, .(Counlable.inin ii) The

.ha e of Iheir own budgets, budgel ••as well well as to 10 extend eXlend the Ih choice choiceofofthe Ihe charge of their alient patient In Ihe (II) Ihe hell noun isis in in bold. bold. The Th idea ,dea the Iheshell hellnoun nounrelates relales In the example in (11) the shell 10 i underlined. underlinw. The shell hell noun, noun. the Ihenoun nounphrase phraseininwhich whichitiloccurs, occu ....and andthe Ihe to is IdCJ it II relates relales to, 10. which which here here isis mediated medialed by by the Ihe copula copula is, is. are arc collectively coIICdively idea o tcrml"'lhe" h II -(Onlenl compl x." termed the "shell-content-complex." hmid. the meaning of hell-conlenl-complexin inexamples examples According 10 to Schmid, of the shell-content-complex " ... h.as this thi' arc oflhe pc.xifi< combination combinalionof oflh h IInoun nounand andthe Ihe such are aa funclion function of the specific the shell ,dea it il relates relal 10. ThaI is, i the lhe shell-like hell like function fun lion of of the Ihe shell h Unoun nounisi not nolanan idea to. That Ih noun nounitself, itself.but bUIrather ratherderives deriv from fromthe theway wayitilisillS«!. inalienable pro~rty inalienable property of of the used. In this Ihi example, example. the Ih speaker ~Jker presents presenl aa particular particular idea ide. ("to ("~m.ke (;P" ~ make GPs more findneiall JlCrv", 10 encapsulale the lbe various variou components compon~" and and complex complexideas idea;contained contained serves to encapsulate Ihe idea idea as a aasingle, ingle.relatively relativelystable, slable.albeit albeil temporary, lemporary. concept. concept.ItItdoes doessoso in the by casting ca"ing "this "Ihi mmpl of information informalion into inlo one onesingle inglenoun nounphrase" phrasc" by complexx piece of 10 ((11", ibid. 7). 7). Evidence !'vidence for forthi unOly comes com from fmmthe Ihenext nl'Xlsentence senll'll'"presented pr nledin10(12): ('2): this unity (11) The Thr overnm.:nt'aim aimis Itoto m.lke (,Pmore mnrefinancially finJnliall.raccountable, (countable.inIn (12) Government's make GPs cha e of their theor own budgets, bud ct>. as a, well well as as to 10 extend exlend the Ih choice (hoiccofofthe Ihe charge do<:torsarererequired requirwto10produce produce ali nl. Under nder this thi new newscheme, heme.family familydoctors patient. .1OnllJI reports reporl for for their theor Iloll,ent annual patierit.. ..

WORDS AND MEANING 1(►

INTRODUCTION

Here we see that once the complex idea has been encapsulated, it can he glossed with a different characterization as signalled by the shell noun phrase this new scheme, marked in (12) in bold. In essence, the content associated with shell nouns comes from the ideas, that is, the utterance context, they relate to. Yet, the ideas receive their characterization, and even their construal as a single unified idea, from their participation in a shell-content-complex.

Manner of utterance The manner of the utterance can provide a context which serves, in part, to determine the meaning of a particular word. For instance, whether a particular word receives stress or emphasis of some kind can contribute to the meaning of the word. Consider the following by way of illustration. 03) a. Look at that blackbird b. Look at that black bird The compound blackbird receives primary stress on the adjective black. In contrast, a bird that happens to he black, but is not a blackbird, receives primary stress on bird, as in the second example. Here, stress serves as a type of context ualization cue, serving to determine, in part, the semantic contribution of black to the utterance. ■

Extra-linguistic context The time, venue, or medium (e.g., spoken or written), or the genre of the medium (e.g., newspaper report versus spoken lecture) of an utterance can contribute to the meaning of given words, and thus provide a context. In this case, the context is extra-linguistic as it constitutes the "location," broadly construed, in which the utterance occurs. To illustrate, consider the following utterance: (4) "I watched the young lady approach the bar." The meaning of bar in this utterance is determined, in part, by the kind of venue to which the utterance relates. For instance, if uttered in a court of law, the notion of bar would refer to the raised platform at which the judge sits. If said in a public house, it would refer to the area at which alcohol is ordered and purchased. Consider another example of extra-linguistic context, this time employing the word sale in the context of a child playing on the beach. The examples are based on Sweetser (1999 ):

• 11w term - contextualiration sue" was ',tinted hs riunwert 1102 I. In borrowing the term here, limit- 1(1 of his I am using it in a slightly different way from that of (infirm: who applied it in the work on (ode- swit‘ hing.

17

(15) a. The child is safe b. The beach is safe c. The shovel is safe

In this context, the meaning of (isa) is that the child will not come to any harm. However, given the extra-linguistic context, (15b) does not mean that the beach will not come to harm. Instead, it means that the beach is an environment in which the risk of the child coming to harm is minimized. Similarly, (15c) does not mean that the shovel will not come to harm, but that it will not cause harm to the child using it to dig in the sand. These examples illustrate that there is no single fixed property that safe assigns to the words chile!, beach, and shovel. In order to understand the utterances we must interpret them, in part, with respect to a specific extra-linguistic context, a scenario, which holds. In this scenario, there is a child on a beach, employing a spade to dig in the sand. In order to successfully interpret these utterances we must also draw upon our encyclopaedic knowledge relating to children, beaches, and shovels, and the potential harm that shovels can cause if misused, for instance.

Encyclopaedic knowledge Earlier in this chapter I noted that the utterance context serves to narrow that part of the encyclopaedic knowledge to which a word potentially provides access. What I have in mind by encyclopaedic knowledge has been referred to by a range of terms in the linguistics and cognitive science literature. These include the following: background knowledge, common-sense knowledge, sociocultural knowledge, and real-world knowledge. By encyclopaedic knowledge I have in mind the highly detailed, extensive, and structured knowledge we as humans appear to have access to in order to categorize the situations, events, and entities we encounter in our everyday lives and in the world, and the knowledge we draw upon in order to perform a range of other higher cognitive operations including conceptualization, inkrence, reason, choice, and the knowledge which language appears to rely upon. This kind of knowledge is primarily non-linguistic, or conceptual in nature, and appears to constitute a vast structured body of relational information which psychologists sometimes refer to as frames (e.g., Barsalou 1992, 1999: Barsalou et al. 1993). Although I will revise the notion of encyclopaedic knowledge as the hook proceeds, the notion of encyclopaedic knowledge will he central to the theory of word meaning and compositional semantics developed in this hook. While speakers and hearers call upon encyclopaedic knowledge in using language, this knowledge thereby serves as a kind of context against which words receive and achieve meaning. For instance, the meaning of France in each of the examples in (i) above, draws upon a different body of knowledge. In the example in (la) we draw upon our knowledge of the geographical

18

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

landmass associated with Iran
Interactional norms as context Interactional norms as context A particular particular<;ort sortof ofencyclopaedi encyclopaedic knowledge which A whi h provides provid a salient form form of of behavioural norms. This notion is someor context relates to interactional interactional or behavioural nomlS. This notion I some· context relates times referred referredto toaas aa cultural cultural script script or or a cultural cultural routine, routine, or simply imply as as aa times script, particularly particularly as as developed developed in the script, th computational computationalliterature literatureassociated associated with the WIth the work work of of Schank Schank and and Abelson Abelson (1977). (1977). For I·or instance, in tance, the th following followong (1988: 190): 8: 190): script is is adapted from Schank hank and and Kass Ka (198 rrestaurant taurant script (16) 1.t.Agent (16) Agentgoes goestotorestaurant restaurant 2. Agent iis seated 2. ted Agent orders orders meal from 3. Agent 3. from waiter waiter Waiter brings brings meal to agent 4. Walter agent Agent eats eats meal 5. Agent S. meal Agent gIves gives money to 6. Agent to restaurant restaurant 7. Agent leaves 7. leaves restaurant r taurant

(, IJr).. "h-,.crvC\ Ihat

WORD MEANING WORDS AND AND MEANING

19 19

rvl e encounters nCOUnlCrS such ut.h as as this Ihl one, one.interlocutors, interlocutor. in service t lark observes that 10 hr""gh joint .cllon. negotiate negottate the th accomplishment a complishment of ofcommunicative communicallv through joint action, ~"J'" In this thi example example the theserver server indicates indicates their their availability availability to to take take the the goa l,. In ,,,,ullller\ tomer. That th customer ustomer takes takes the th customer'sorder order by by grccttng greeting th the cu customer. That iis,• the Hi!, as grL-.:tlllg. u.tteranc HI!. ignallin~ an off~r to to receive r eive the the customer's cu tomer' as signalling an offer greeting, the the utterance "rdcr. for H,! thl meaning, meamng. the the server server and customer cu tomer Hi! to have this order. ("learly. Clearly, on in order order for 11I",t nature of the the interaction intera tion and and its it must ,h.lre share an an understanding understandingas as to to the the nature "hWdIVC'>: re to (which isi achieved achieved by by objectives:the theserver serveriis th there to receive receive aa food food order (which the ustomer wishes wi h to to place pIa ean an order. order. the g,,'Cting) greeting) and and the customer

Discourse Discourse topiC topic as os context context I he finJI context II will will mention mentton relates relates to to the the notion notionofofdiscourse dis
A cultural cultural script as thi thiscon constitutes an interactional norm which ript such uch as tit utes an whi h provides provides For instance, 9 the context against which words derive a particular meaning. .gain t which word derive a particular meaning.< I'or in tance, the meaning the meaning of the the word word rrestaurant .. /auralll iis,, in in part, part, informed informed by byknowledge knowledge relating to the script captured in relating in (16). (16).

context Interactional goals Interactional gools os as context Another foml form of of context which whi, in in part, part, to til determine detemlln the the meaning meaning of ofaa given word constitutes constitutes the the interactional interactional goals goal of ofthe theinterlocutors. interlocutors.According Ac ordingtoto Clark (1996), Iingui linguistic communication form of Clark (1996). tic communi at ion iis aa form of joint joint action, action. in in which whi h interlocutors interlocutor negotiate, negotiate. establish, tablish. and and attempt attempt to toachieve achi",einteractional onteracttonalgoals."' goals. These goals, goals. which which can can be be explicitly explicitlysignalled, igoaDed. or orarise arise due dueto tothe theextra-linguistic extra-Iinguisti context or some some aspect a peet of ofencyclopaedic encydopaedi knowledge knowledgesuch suchasasaacultural culturalscript, ript. serve oflexical lexical items item. can can he, be. in inpart, part. ",rve as the context lOntext against again.t which which the the meaning of determined. determined. For instan instance, consider e. con ider the the following followingservice rvi encounter encounterininaafast-food ~ t· foodrestaurant: restaurant:

I.

(17) serving counter I (17) Customer: Customer: Waits (Waltat at serving counter( [Appears Server. Server. (Appea .....after fter a short hort delay delay after .fter fetching fetching another anothercuscustomer's Hi! llrderilli! tomer'. orderI Customer: Cu to mer: AAdouble doublewhopper whopper meal meal please. plea in Mc. J• In the Iht
fn context of ofaa conversation conversation on onaarecent recentcentral centralhank bankbase-rate base rateincrease, oncrease. In the context I,ik~ might might relate relate to to the the financial financial pain pain involved involved in inan anincrease increa thi, this mention mention of of hike 11\ mortg.lge repayments. repayment. Ilowever. context of of a discussion di u ion of of aa recent recent in mortgage However, in in the context "",,-country walk. the pain pain might might he be more morephysical physicalininnature. nature. cross-country walk, ofthis this discussion di u ion has ha been been the thefollowing. following. Context Context isisaa The point. then, then. of The point, L
A possible possible solution? solution? Sense SenseEnumerative EnumerativeLexicons Lexicons A If the fixed, fixed. componential componential view viewofofword wordmeaning meaningoffered offeredbybyliteralism literah mfails, fails. If what then? then.? A A possible po",ible solution ,,,Iution to ttlthe theapparent apparent variation variation ininword w"rdmeaning meaning what exhl~lted in 111 language language use use might might be be to to posit po it aavast vast number numberof ofdistinct distinctsenses. sen . exhibited lor instance, III tan(e. rather rather than than assuming a \uming that that the the range r.lng of ormeanings 111 aning associated a M\(iated For with, With. say, \dy. open ope" in in the the examples cX.JmplC'\ above doove are Jrc somehow \omchuw due due to tocontext context and/or and/or enl1,dopaedic knowledge, knowledge. we w might might assume a, ume that that open ope" has ha exactly exactly the the same !>am encyclopaedic

20 20

IN rRODUt.TION INTRODUCTION

numberofofdistinct di tin"meanings, meanong technically , tethnicallyknown knownasd\senses, sen as ,a the thenumber numberofof number dIfferent sentences sentence; in in which whichitItappears, appear,and andthat thateach chofofthese the,",are arestored toredinin different long· term manti memory. long-term semantic memory. Pu'tejov ky 0990 (1995)ininhis hi pioneering pioneeringwork workononlexical lexicalsemantics o;cmanti~'refers rtfer~toto Pustejovsky approach which which posit po it aalarge largenumber numberofofdistinct distinctsenses sen for forgiven gIVenlexical lexIcal approaches items as a Sense ScnscEnumerative En umerative Lexicons lexicon (or (orSELs Elsfor forshort). hort).However, However,asa items Pu te)ov ky observes, ob rves, even even such such accounts account> cannot cannot predict predict the thecreative creativeuse u ofof Pustejovsky words in in novel novelcontexts. cont xts.That That is, i ,even lexi onswhich whichassume a umeaahigh highdegree degreeof of words even lexicons granularity fail the score ore of ofdescriptive de.criptiv adequacy adtotowhich whichwords word,are areput, put, from even when one a um a highly granular lexicon: one that po it a lars even when one assumes a highly granular lexicon: one that posits a large number of ofdistinct di,tinct senses. n .This Thi, follows follow,., thenumber numberof ofdistinct di. tinctword wordsenses '>Cnsc> number as the rCmantic memory. memory. capabilities To illustrate illustrate the the fiiregoing, foregoing, consider comlder the th lexical lexi al item item fast, fllSl, discussed di u;;cd by by To Pu tejov kyo ItIt iis commonly assumed that that this thi. word word has ha aa number number of ofconconPustejovsky. commonly assumed ventional senses—mentally n e mentallystored tored semantic mantI units—asstxiated unit a ;oc:iated with with it. it. These Th ... ventional ondude the followong: include the following: (19) a fast car (t9) a fast car

(fast,: move quickly( quiddyJ (fast,: to to move

(20)

(20)

aa fast fast typist typist

(fast,: to perform some a t quicklyJ (fast,: to perform some act quickly)

(21) (21)

aa fa\t ((a t,:s: to r
However, fully capture However, the thedefinition definitions provided provided do do not not fully capture the the "type".semantics "type-semantics that th ... e .. ,mpl" of ji, I arc in,tanc", of. For in tance, jil I illu trated in (09) that these examples of fast are instances of. For instance, fast illustrated in (19) relates capable o( moving quickly, qUICkly, whilst whilst the the type typeillustrated Illustrated in in relatesto to an an entIty entity capable of moving (20) That is, i, (2o) relates relates to to entities entities capable capable of of perfomling performing action actions quickl)', quickly, and and 'Kl so on. on. That each .t>;(Xiated WIth it !>C1c<:tiollJl each putatively putatively(onventional conventional;en'>C senseo( of jiw fast ha; has associated with it selectional r< triction what I will ref"r to as selectional tendencie . The "to move quickly" restrictions, what I will refer to as selectional tendencies. The "to move quickly" nsc, for sense, for instance, instance, <elects selects (or for membe~ members o( of the the cia class o( of movable movable entities. entities. Ifowever, now con ider the (ollowing example: However, now consider the following example: (u) (22)

a (ast driver

a fast driver

Thl Thisusage usageo( of}IISI fastconcern concernsnot not the theactions actions o( of the the driver. driver.That Thatis, is,ititiisnot not the the action, o( the driver which arc perfonned quickly. 'or would thi utteran e actions of the driver which are performed quickly. Nor would this utterance normally , cven were performed performed qUldJy. normallyrefer refertoto,uch sucha
--

WORDS AND 21 __________________~WORD. ANDMEANING tEAN~IN~G ~__~2~1

fast,, , rather I,i\<'. ratherthan, than,strictly, . trictly,the thedriver. driver. Thus, Thus,the thecombination combonationofo( (a t"with with driver produces a novel reading in which fast might he paraphrased as driver, produces 3 novel reading in which fasl might be paraphrased a "to "to quickly". to move I.JU"C Just. 10 move quickly". Now 'owconsider con Iderthe thefollowing (ollowingexample: exampl :

:1",,,,,,

;

lane (of ,;) (z l l the the fast (astlane (ofthe themotorway) motorway) also relates Presumably lane is a3 venue Pre.umablythis thi usage usageof o(fast fllS131 relatestotofast,. (a t,.Yet, Yet, the III.fast fasllalld venuefor for rapid locomotion rather than an entity capable of rapid locomotion. In other rapId I(xomotion rath r than an entity capable o( rapid locomotion. In other words, \\lmh, both both the th uses u of o(fast jiw in in (22) (22) and and(23) (23)while whileseemingly s«minglyrelated relatedtotothe the fast in (21) have different semantic selectional tendencies, and meaning of meaning o( fasl in (21) have different semanlic selectional tendencies, and somewhat ",,"ewhal novel novel meanings. meanings. We We could could posit po il that Ihal both bolh(22) (u)and and(23) (23)constitute con titul continue distinct senses. However, we can finding novel uses of fast, d"llnct!>Cn . Ilowever, we can continue finding novel uses o( fasl, for (or which which Indeed, we \\c could could produce produce aavirtually virtually infinite infinitelisting. Ii ting. Indeed, the the same ' is that Ihal all all the Ihe examples exampl we we have have What considered, and might wish to consider, upon close analysis predicate in "''''idcred, Jnd might wish to (onsider, upon close analy i predi ate in aa slightly different different way. way.In In oth other words, each each unique 'Iighlly r words, unique instance in tance has ha a3 distinct di tincl utterance context, and is associated with a slightly different semantic ullerance (ontexl, and i as;oc:ialed wilh 3 hghtly different semanticvalue. value. Thus, we can conclude from this that, in principle, every instance of use of aa 'r hu" we can condud from Ihi that, III prin iple, every in tanee o( usc o( word such fast ha has aa different "Sense "ord uch aas fllSl differenl meaning. meaning. To To take lake aa" n Enumerative" Enumerative" approach10 to word word meaning meaning would would be he 10 to sanction approach sanction an an infinite infinile proliferation proh(eration of of word senses stored in memory by language users. Such a position is psycho"nrd \Cn lored in memory by languas users. u(h a po ition i I' yeho. logically untenable. untenable. logically

Wordsas ascontextual contextual expressions expressions Words observationwilh with whICh which Ihi thisbook lx)ok proceed" proceeds, Ihen, then, is is Ihal that word; words .re are never never '1The he "h...,rvallon meaningfulondependent independentof of the the ulterance utterance in in which which they they are areembedded, embedded, and and meaningful theenC)'dopaedi encyclopaedicknmvledg knowledgeand and exIra extra-linguistic context which which guide guide how the linguisti conlext how words embedded in an utterance should be interpreted. Indeed, evidence word, embcdd d in an ullerance ,hould be IIlterprell-d. Indeed, eYldencc fromIhe thepcr perspectives of;oc:ial socialp;y
sociolinguistics, cognitive lingui\tics, linguistics, (orpu~ corpus Iingui\liu, linguistics, and and (Ompul.llional computational \Ociohngui Ii • cognitive!' linguisticsrcvC'al, revealsthat thatthe the view viewthat that word words ~On\tilule constitute fixed, context context-indelingui\ti(\ indc pendent structures, andthat thatmeaning meaning(on construction is appropriately appropriately modelled modelled pendent IrUf.:tur~, and IrUliion i~

'noo,

11

21

_ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _WORDS MEANING WORDS AND AND MEANING

I NTRODUCTION INTROD CTION

in term terms of of th the straightforward approach to to (Ompo compositionality in traightforward approach itionality sketched ketched above untenable. iis untenable. . _~ . h As observed by a large number of scholars, the meanings associated A ob.erved by a large number scholar , th~ meanings. I.teu with WIt words are flexible, open-ended, and highly sensitive to utterance context. words are flexible, open -ended, and highly .emltove to utterance context. Such scholars include, include,but but are are by by no no means u h scholar mean limited limited to to Allwood Allwood (2003), (2003), Carston (2002), Clark (1983, 1996), 1996), Coulson (2000), Croft Car ton (2002), lark (1983, oulo;on (2000), Croft (1993, (19?3, moo), 2000), Croft and and Cruse Croft Cru (2004), (2004), Cruse Cru (20432), (2002), Evans I-van (2oo4a), (200411), Fauconnier I·auOme usage-based usage-ba;cd approaches approa -h . to to language language (e.g., (e.g., Thompson Thomp"on 2002; 2~2; Croft roft and and Cruse ruse 2004; 2004; see Harder Harder 2009 for a description d ription of of the the risk risk of of ending endong up up in on the the extreme e treme position po,itoonhe hecalls (all "usage "usagefundamentalism"), fundamentali,m"),isi hard hardto10maintain. maontaln.After After all, as pointed all,. pointed out outby bySweetser Sweetser(1999), (1999),the thevery verydistinct d"tonetreadings reading,typically typo<.lIy derived from ofthe th following followingkind: kind: from utterances utteranc of (25) (25) a.a. John lohn ran ran up up the Ihe stairs \lai", b. b. John lohn ran ran down down the th stairs lair

23 23

form are a MlClated WIth relatively relatIVely well the fact fact that that lexical lexical. forms arc associated with do with with the t do . . . well' . hli,hed-in of conventionalized—semantic conventoonalozed-semanto representations. representatIon.For For blished—in lhe the sense sense of esta ~,;~·:anee. mething quite different different from (25b) (25b) isi_a the fact fact that that (25a) (25a) mean. means something a instan ce, the '1'lenee of sWltchong the particle up for dowlI. As we hall begin to sec on consequence switching the particle for down. As we shall begin to see in \.(Hl~'" . Ihe next ,hapter, my claim i not lhat word do not have table mantIC the next chapter, my claim is that words do not have stable semantic rcpre',ent.t tions associated with lhem. largu thatthcy do, and and refer refer to these these re presentations associated with them. I argue that they lexkal conceplS. Rather, my claIm is IS that that these these lexical leXIcal concepts concept provide prOVIde concepts. Rather, my claim a s lexical ~:,e" encyclopaedic knowledge—a knowledge-a semantic manti potential—which potential-which is i conc~n to encyclopaedic access to ,tr.lIl1ed Thu • the the semantic mantI structure tructure (lexical (leXICal strained and and deterntined determined by by context. context. Thus, ,,,neept) ~sociated with wi.th does does not nO.t in infact ~act equate equate that aa word word i. is conventionally conventionally associated co ncept) that \\with IIh the the word's word's meaning. meamng. Word from this lhl perspective, perspectIve, isI always always aa Word meanmg, meaning, from lundilln situated interpretation: interpretation: the the context context in which any word is i function of aa situated in which any word eonlxooJde'tl wh"h itit contribut.". contributes. embedded and and to which have to hJ\~ (

A further problem: problem: compositionality compositlonality In the foregoing we we have have considered con idered the the nature nature of ofword word meaning. meaning.IIsuggested uggested the foregoing for, the the inherent inherent variation variation of of word word meaning meaning that be accounted that the the problem problem to to be accounted for, m language uuse,,i~, in part, part, a function function of of words word providing proyidong access a c to to encycloencyclo· in language is, in in turn turn is i narrowed narrowed by by context, context, effectively effectively delimiting delimiting paedic k.nowledge. paedic knowledge. Thi This in "hilh part of the encyclopaedic encydopaedi knowledge—the knowledge- -thesemantic semanticpotential—availpotential-avail which part of the able any given given word w rd is i activated actlyated in IIIany anygiven givenutterance. utteranc . able to to any Yet, providing u h an count is is not not enough enough ififwe weare areto tofully fullyget gettotogrips grip Yet, providing such an aaccount with the controbution of words word to meaning meaning construction. construction. To To do do so, so, we wemust, mu t, with contribution of in addition, addition, be be able able to to account account for for how howutterance utterance (i.e., (i.e.,sentence) nten e)meaning meaning in unilS,each ea h arises. Utteran e meaning meaning involves involv several, several, often often many, many, linguistic lingui ti units, arises. Utterance IIr which which individually mdividuallyexhibits exhibitsgreat greatvariability variability(Goldberg (Goldberg2006; 2006;see secalso alsoKay Kay of and Michaelis Michaelis forthcoming). forth oming). That That is, i ,on mu t also also be be able able to to account a count for for the lh and one must integration of lexical and and constructional con tructional meanings: meaning: we we require require an an account a count of of integration of lexical \emantoc compo itlonality, one that isis coherent coherent with with the the observable observable facts fact of of semantic compositionality, one that language, and, course, one one which which isi cognitively cognitiyelyplausible. plausible. language, and, of of course, One of ofthe the most mo tsobering soberingrealizations realizations for for any any cognitive cognitive scientist ienti tattempting attempling One oflanguage language in in meaning meaningconstruction constructionisi that thatdespite despite tn grapple grapple with with the the role role of to the apparent apparent ease with which which we w construct constru t and and interpret mterpret utterances utleranc in m our our everyday liy nature of semanti composition compo ition isi aadeceptively deceptivelycomplex complex everyday lives,,the the nature of semantic procc . Moreover, Moreover, the the details detail of ofthis thi process proc are ar far far from from being beingfully fullyunderunderprocess. \tODd. I-or in tan e, th way in which th m aning f even a " impl "senten stood. For instance, the way in which the meaning of even a "simple" sentence e icon tructed isi incredibly in redibly complex. complex. is constructed Til illustrate, Illu trate, consider con ider the th example example of: of: Tire 71.. cat cal jumped Jlmlpell over ov~r the lilt wall, To di"u ;cd by by Tyler Tyler and and Evans Evans (2003). (2003). This Thi utterance utterancedescribes dribesaajump jumpunderunderdiscussed taken by by aa cat. cat. Figure Figure 1.2 1.1 presents presents some somediagrams diagram which whichpresent presentpossible po ibl taken traJectori." of the jump. trajectories of the jump. tra)Cllori associated a~lated with WIth this thi utterutterWhIle there there are are at at least lcast four four possible po Ibletrajectories While ance, the the canonical canonicalinterpretation interpretationisis that that the the cat cal begins bc:gins the Ihe jump jump on on one oneside side of of ance,

,,,,ll,

24

INTRODllCTIO . INTRODUCTION

nature of semantic composition. My first objective, and the subject of Part II _________________________WORDS MEANING ~ W~·0~.~D ~AND A ~N ~ D~ M ~2 ~ A ~.~ G~

/

•

•

DDD D (I) (a)

FIGl'U: L2. FIGURE 1.2.

(b) (b)

(e) (c)

(d) (d)

Po Ibl~ trajectories tr~f«lon for: (()r~ The Th~ cat cat jumped /wllpt,1over O~'tT the tll~ wall tmll Possible

waU. moves mme through through an an arc-like arc like trajectory, tr.""tory. and I.nd on the the other otherside. . ide. the wall, and lands ptures thi ue to be accounted a",ounted for for isis Figure l.2(d Figure 1.2(d)) best best captures this Interpretation. interpretation. The The iissue that the th reading reading typically typicaDy derived derived relates rcl.t to tothe thetrajectory traj«torydiagrammed diagrammed why it isi that in •. l(d ) rather rath r than th others. othe". That That iis what what isi\ ititthat thatexcludes exdud the the in 1.2(d) than one one of the 1.1(a )1 After the utterance ulternnce contains contamsaa trajectori represented repre.ented in in Figures Figures1.2(a—c)? trajectories After aD. all, the number of ofwords words that that have ha"e aa range range of ofinterpretations. interpretation The Thebehaviour behaviourdescribed described by )lImp to involve involveaavariety varietyof oftrajectory trn"",tory shapes. hal"'\- For Forinstance, in\tance. jump ha has the potential to jumpmg from the th ground ground to tothe thetable tableinvolves in"ol" the thetrajectory trajectoryrepresented rcpresented in in jumping from Figure 1(a).Jumping relat to to the th trajectory trn;"'
Research Researchissues issuesto to be be addressed addressed Th u highlighted chapter rcla. ,wo i,issues u <entral my central to to my highlightedinin th. this chapter relate '0 to two The iissues cone m in rd in mColning (on tru(tion, and nd the construction, the the ral role of of \\ words in meaning concerns in thi this book: hook: lh~

25

IS

IIJture " I \Cmantlc eompll 11.(,". My fir t objed"e. and the ubj t of Part II lexical ,,1 this th" hook, book. isi totoprovide provid an anaccount a countofof lexicalrepresentation. rcprt<entation.As Aalready already larly I advance the perhaps controversial claim that words do not ",,,,'.1 JI" "c. I advance the perhap controve"ial claim that word do notinin thisthiposition is not without precedent, viceng, although -:IcI .da hiha, th savitxe:nmeaning. lad although po\ltion i not without precedent.particupaniw . lady in the psychology literature (e.g., Barsalou et al. I,,.,, in the psychology hterature (e.g.• Barsalou et al. 1993; '993; Murphy Murphy 1991). '99' )' Onn

1 :

my a function 111) account, .luHunt . meaning meaningisis.1 functionofofan dnutterance, UUerdll(C,rather rdthcrthan thana .1given givenlexical I xk.11 epresentation tation associated .l\.\Oglllll, hngu. tIC . '!owewr•• he )'tlthe. ,,\elf, genuIIlci m"e1. ,,,-,<.ally In so far fara.\asItit\enservestotomttgratc integratecogniti\c cognitive lingui linguistics In ti( approaches approa h to to grammatical grammat1(al

26

26

INTRODUCTION INTRODU('-ION

organization,lexical lexicalscmantl semantics,• scmanll semanticcompo composition, language.. organization. it ion. and and figurative figurative languag doing,itit attempts unifyththecomplementary complementaryand andsomttimes sometimes competing competing ttempts totounify InInsosodoing. theoriesand andapproa approaches thatabound abound in in cogniti' cognitive linguistics. he:. thJt linguistic. Moreover, Moreover. while while theories the role of language in semantic composition is crucial to cognitive grammarthe role of language in mantic composition is crucial to cognitive grammar· 20436), it has tended to be ignored Goldberg '995. 1995,2(06). ians(e.g ( e.g., langacker 1987. 1987,2008; 2008;Goldberg ians .• Langacker it has tended to be ignored (oratatleast leastdown downplayed) incontemporary contemporary aaccounts of meaning meaning construction (or played) in (ount of coostmction in in cognitive linguistics (e.g., Fauconnier and Turner 2ooz). LCCM Theory also cognith-e linguisti (e.g.• Fauconnier and Turner 20(2). LCM Theory al servestoto rrestore, or at at least scrv tore. or I t redress, redress. the the centrality centrality of of language language to to semantic semantic compositionality, whilst also recognizing the importance of non-linguistic compo~ltionality. whilst also recognizing the importance of non-lingUl tic propro cesses in meaning construction, pointed to by Fauconnier and Turner, and c in meaning construction. pointed to by Fau onnier and Turner. and George Lakoff (see, for example, Lakoff of indeed others, not least in the work indeed others. not least in the work of ,eorge Lakoff (see. for example. Lakoff Lakoffand and Johnson Johnson 1980, 1999). 1993,1996. 1996,1006; 2006; Lakoff 1993. 1980. 1999)· As we we shall Theory tak takes its its name A hall see, see. LCCM LCCM Theory nam from from the th two two central central constructs upon which it is built, the lexical concept and the cognitive con tructs upon which it i built. the lexi al con cpt and the cognitive model. The The purpo purpose of of the the next next three three chapters chapter then, then. is i to to begin begin to tosketch ketch an an model. of LCCM Theory. The The rrestt of of the the book book will aaccount count of Le M Theory. will work work out out the th details. detail. Summary Summary This 'hapter chapter has has argued argued that that the the received view of meaning Thi received vi w of meaning in in linguistics, Iingui ti •what what II refer to as literalism, is flawed in a number of respects. The distinction refer to a Iiterali m. i flawed in a number of r pect. The distin tionitit meaning and sentence meaning posits po its between between sentence and speaker speaker meaning meaning makes makes aaprincipled principled distinction between context-independent meaning (semantics) and distlOction between context independent meaning (semanti ) and contextcontext dependent meaning (pragmatics). The consequence of this for word meaning dependent meaning (pragmatics). The consequen e of thi for word meaning is i that that word word meanings meanings are are assumed a umed to tobe bestable tableand andrelatively relativelydelimited delimited "atoms of meaning: which are context-independent. I have argued, "atom of meaning." which arc context independent. I have argued. on onthe the meaning is inherently variable in language use. This is word contrary, that c ntrary. that word meaning is inher ntly variable in language use. Thi~ isaa function ofboth both encyclopaedic encyclopaedic knowledge knowledge and and context context of ofuse. u .I Ihave havesugugfunction of gested that word meaning provides access to a sophisticated and structured gested that word meaning provides ac es to a sophi ticated and structured body ofnon-linguistic non -Iingui ti encyclopaedic ncydopaedicknowledge. knowledge.This Thi constitutes con titutesa aword's word' body of semantic potential. The precise part of this semantic potential which semantic pot ntial. The preci part of thi semantic potential whichisi relevant in any any given given utterance utterance is i, aa function fun lion of ofcontext, ontext.which whi hserves serve. toto relevant in narrow or constrain onstrain the the semantic semanticpotential. potential.Thus, Thu word • wordmeaning meaningis ialways, alway. narrow or in part, a function of and determined by context. I have also argued that in part. a function of and determined by context. I have also argued thatthe the notion of context is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon which includes notion of context i a complex and multifa eted phenom non whi h includes linguistic lingui ti as a well well as a non-linguistic non lingui ti aspects a peetsofofthe thecommunicative communicativeevent. event.InIn addition additionIIhave haveargued argued that that aaSense n Enumerative Enumerativelexicon Lexiconapproach approachtotoword word meaning meaningisISunable unahletotocapture capturethe therampant rampantvariation variationininmeaning meaningexhibited exhibitedbyby words words in inlanguage language use. usc. IIhave have also also pointed POlOted totothe theproblem problemfor forany anytheory theoryofof compositionality compo itionalitythat thatarises arisesby byacknowledging acknowledgingsuch uchvariation variationininword wordmeanmeaning. This follows as the meaning of any utterance is a function, in part, of thethe ing. This follow,", the meaning of any utteran« i J function. in part. of word these word meanings mcaning\ which whi hcomprise ,ompri~ it, it,and dndyet, yet.each a~hofof thC'\eword wordmeanings meaning\ varies on each occasion of use. varies on ~ach occasion of u .

22

-

Towards Towards a a new new account account of of word word meaning I he purro thi chapter chapter is I to to outline outlinethe thetheoretical theoretical orientation orientation that that The purpose of of this provide tudy of of meaning meaning construction construction presented presented in in providesthe the foundation foundation for for the the study thi' involves examining examining several several recent recent advan es in the study tudy of of this book. book. This This involves advances in the I.,ngudge. way they thcy interface interfa e with withconceptual conceptualorganization, organization. all all language,and and the the way achieved in the cognitive linguistics. lingui ti . II begin, begin. in in the the next ne t section, Ion. the context context of of cognitive achieved in oy mo t general general terms, terms. the the overarching overarching assumptions a umptionswhich which by presenting. presenting, in in the the most IOform the approach approach II take. take. II then then present present five five recent rent and and significant significant develdeve! inform the opment that have have emerged emerged in in language language science, ience. which whi h inform in~ rmthe thedevelopdevel I' opments that ment of LCCM L M Theory. Theory. Following Following on from this, thi •I Idiscuss di u the th principled principled ment of on from "i,tlllction at the the heart LC M Theory: di tinction between between semantic manti distinction at heart of of LCCM Theory: the the distinction the one one hand, hand. and and conceptual conceptual structure tructur on on the the other. other. This Thi >tructure. on structure, on the distinction. operationalized operationalized in in terms term of ofthe thedistinct di tincttheoretical theoreti alconstructs: constructs: distinction, the the lexical lexical concept con cpt and and the the cognitive ognitivemodel, model.represents representsthe thehallmark hallmarkofofthe the Theory of of Lexical Lexi al Con cpt and and Cognitive Cognitive Models--LCCM Models-LC MTheory Theoryfor forshort. hort. Theory Concepts weshall hall see see in in later later chapters, chapter. makes makes the the Moreover. this thi distinction di tinctionisi what, what.asaswe Moreover, dpproach to to encyclopaedic encydopaedi semantics scmanti s developed developed here here distinct distinct from from its itsforefore approach in cognitive cognitive linguistics. lingui ti bears in bears

Starting points points Starting In this thl section tionI Ibriefly brieflyreview, review.from fromaavery verygeneral generalperspective, per peetive.my mystarting tarting In pmnts for for the thestudy tudyofofmeaning meaningconstruction con tructionpresented presentedininthis thi book. book.These These points besummarized ummari7edasasfollows: follows: an be can M mngconstruction constructIon occurs interfacebetween betweenlanguage, language.communicommuni ••Meaning occurs atatthethinterface cation. and and cognition cognitionand andcan canonly onlybebefruitfully fruitfullystudied tudiedby byvirtue virtu ofofanan cation, interdi -iplinary effort. effort. The Thesorts sort ofofresearch r=archareas area'implicated implicatedinclude in ludeat at interdisciplinary least the thefollowing: following:cognitive cognitivelinguistics lingui ti (including (indudingcognitive cognitivestylistics stylisticand and least cognItivepoetics), poeti ).cognitive cognitiveanthropology, anthropology.discourse discolmCanalysis anal)'>isand and(inter(intercognitive actional)sociolinguistics, 5otics,gesture gesturestudies, IlId; developmental developmentalpsychology, psychol"!,.".social social actional)

psychology.neuropsychology, neuropsychology.cognitive cognitiv psychology, I',y.hology.and and(cognitive) «ognitive)neuroncum psychology, ience. learly. u h an amb,tiou interdisciplinary endeavour i beyond science. Clearly, such an ambitious interdisciplinary endeavour is beyond

~ ~

28

___

INTRODUCT~I~O~S~

INTRODUCTION

____________________________________

the "opr scope of the of the the present pr"",nt work. work. Nevertheless, ' 'erthel ", IIattempt attempt totointegrate integraterecent recent findings and theoretical frameworks from cognitive linguistics, and recent findings frameworks cognitive lingui ti and recent findings from cognitive psychology, in a finding: from cosmtiv p ycholoSY, in way way that thai presents prC'iCnl\ aa coherent mherenl starting position from from which which to to begin to develop tartmg po;lIion b..llin 10 develop aa more more detailed detllied view view of of construction. meaning con lruction. My My purpose purpose isi to tocreate crcate aapsychologically p hologicaUyplausible, plausible. programmatic framework framework which which can can feed feed into present programmatic pr"",nt and future fulure work work in in the olher other areas of concern concern mentioned 01 ntionedabove. above.InInparticular, particular.given gi,cnrecent recent the area of advances in in cognitive cognitive Iingui linguistics, discussed in in more advan ti dio;cu.ro more detail detail below, below. and and in in of the motivation behind 3, part ofthe Chapler behind the the development dC\dopment of ofLCCM tCCM Theory Chapter J, word meaning and up" cognil" cognitive lingul linguistic of "ord i, tic theory of is to present a "joined ·up" aim to build construction. In In so doing, doing. II aim build upon upon recent recent advances, advan meaning construction. theoretical perspectives concerned with meaning synthesiting aa number of theoretical per;pectives concerned synlhesiLJng meaning as con conceptualization,' eptualization.' and and meaning meaning as a; part part of ofthe Ihe study ,tudyof ofgrammar. grammar. This Thi should hould provide provide aa set set of ofconcrete concrete ideas ideas on on how howlanguage language contributes contribut to to meaning mn\lrultion. construction, and and should hould facilitate faciiltale empirical empirical testing, te ting. both bolh inin meaning terms of behavioural that ask ask human term; behavioural studies—those ludie.--tho Ihat human subjects ,ubjects to make make of various various sorts—and sorts-and those thosethat that deploy deploy judgements and perform activities of brain-imaging hrain imaging techniques. lechnique . Meaning construction • M aning conslruction is i influenced influenced by by usage. u;age. This This involves involves situated ituated acts a t; of language use u and other non-verbal cues, cues. such uch as a gestures, gestures. in in service servi e of of expression of situated, the expre'~ion ,ituatl'(). goal-directed goal directed communicative communicative intentions, mtentions. in inaJ particular phy physical setting and and aa cuhural cultural milieu, milieu. making making use use of ofvarious vanou particular ical setting cognitive mechanisms and processes. some of in this cognitive mechani m and proc~. II address address some of these these in this book. study of of the role and contribullon contribution of language to oflanguage to meaning meaningconstrucconstruc• The ;Judy tion is is now now aa tractable tractahle problem, problem. and the Ihe outstanding out tanding unifying unifying challenge chaUenge yet 10 to be grappled yet grJppled by hy many mJny of of the the social \<)(ial and and cognitive cognilivesciences. "ienc .AccordAccord ingly, the attempt to integrate and advance recent research findings ingly. 10 integrate Jnd advance recent research finding. that that aim at model of the aim at aa psychologically p ychologicaUy plausible piau ible model the role role of oflanguage language inin bolh timely limelyand andoverdue. overdue. meaning construction con truclion proces'es proc . isi both -

Recent developments Rece nt significant developments LCCM Theory an arises m in the context of LCCM Theory offive five significant Ignificant developments developm nt which which emerged, in turn, have emerged. turn. in in the Ihe context conlext of ofcognitive cognitivelinguistics. Iingui~tic .These Theserelate relaleto: 10:

•• • •• • •

Embodied Embodied cognition cognilion Lexical Lexical representation repr"",ntation Encyclopaedic I· ncydoPJedic semantics semanl", The symbolic .ymbolic nature nalure of ofgrammar grammar The interactional interadional nature nature of of situated ituatoo language l.lngu,1ge List' u c

' I use the terns conceptualiration interchangeably with meaning construction

------...:..::...

TOWARDS NEW ACCOUNT ACCOUNT Of MEANING TOWARDS A A NEW WORD MEANING OF WORD

29 29

developments. 2 In lIon II introduce these Ih"", developments,> In Ihi' this ....... section

Emboclled Em bodied cognition I he thesis Ihe,i, of embodied cognitio n is I at at the the heart heart of ofmuch muchresearch reseafch within wlthm cognition The "n,lIve linguistics linguistics ((Evan l004a; Evans Evan and Green rccn 1006; John n1987, 1987. 2007; 100]; Evans 2004a; zoos; Johnson c ognitive ~:,LtJ developmenl Lakoff1987; 1987;Tyler TylerJnd andhan Evans1003), 2003),and andha hasbeen been influential influential in developments 'ognitive psychology p ychology (in (inparticular parti ularBarsalou Barsalou1999; 1999; Barsalou Barsalou 01 al. 1993; in cognitive et af. 3993; ,n(,knbcrg l ded .. (B 1997).'3 This thesis—also thesis-also referred referred to as a grounded gro un cogmllo n(Barsaarsa · cognition (;lenberg 3997). III" andfirst fir Ideveloped developedinincognitive cognitivelinguistics Iing"i"i~bybyLakoff \.akolTand andJohnson Johnson lou "1<,8)2(x0—and k-!\., ly80) holds that that the human huma~ mind min~ in ingeneral, general. and ~nd conceptual concept~alrepresen~epresen ( e .g., 1980) IJlinn particular. is gro unded in m bodily, bodily. neurological, neurological.and andsubjective ubJectlvestates. lat . tation in particular, grounded I h,'l ". conceptual system— ystem That is, the the rJnge range of of concepts concepts that that populale populate Ihe the human conceptual concepts that that form form the thebasis ~ i ofof high r-Ie~elcognitive cognuive Ihe repository repo,II0ry of concepts the higher-level nperalion on-I aa function function operations such such as as categorization. categorization, reason. reason, chOIce. choice, and and so on—is nl Ihe 'peties' pecifk nature nature of our bodies, bodies. and and neuro-anatomical n uro-anatomIC:,,1 substrucsub trucspecies-specific of the IUT< .• whi h have the particular particular ecological ecological niche nich that that we, we. as a tures, which have evolved evolved to to the human" thi thesis th ,i means, 01 an • in in practical practicallerms. i that that cognitive cognitive humans, inhabit. What this terms, is lunction not aa consequence consequen e of ofaadisembodied disembodied mind, mllld.which which functions fun(lion. function i, is not ondependently body-based states states (perceptual, (perceptual. motoric, motori •cognitive, cognitive.subjectubjectindependently of of body-based i,e, hrined in the th mind/body mindlbodydualism duali 01 associated associated with with ive, Jnd and so so forth). forth), a view en enshrined ""cnleenlh-century French hench philosopher philo\ro.enl~lIon of ofthe the organism, organa m, will happen .md if if they they continue monitoring mOnlton"g the states sial of of the the organism organi m in 10 action. act jon. In In brief, brief, neural ncural and (m:ull represent rtprnent the the organism organl~m continuously, f,;ontmuously. as ~ it it is i perturbed Pf:nurbrd by stimuli I1muli from from the the circuits ph) II.~I oInd MXl(XUItUT.l1 cnvtronll1cnt • ::md ~ II .nl on tho ('nvlronmcnt~. and as it acts on those environments. physical and sociocultural environments, (,b,d. 226) 116) (ibid. In essence, e,sente. Damasio's DJma io' argument argument is i, that Ihal the the brain, brain. which whICh computes (ompul the Ih mind, mind, e'ol,ed in order order to 10 facilitate fa ilitate the the survival urvival of of the the body. body. In In so so doing, doing,this thi gave gave evolved ri to aa mind mind which whicharises ari from fromaasymbiotic ymbioticbrain–body brain-bodyinteraction, interaction,what what rise MJrk Johnson John""n refers refer. to to as: as: 'J1,r 1>o
(lr

('Ihbt, tzoo6). t 1.....6).For Forrelated rC'a..ttdperspectives pn"Jla.I1\ which whk.h posit rowl that ltul cottnlll\"(" fUrK1.on and/or &nJJor knowkdge ~kdJ<'reprerqmo. Gibbs ognative function sentation Itnt,,!!nn isI grounded I'munJc.J in In multirnodal muhltfll;lolt.aJ stalearnes.h.misins UI mt'\.h.tm m see 1ft Allport AlIrort 105), h9l''I"I\.an.1luu hyW).lb,rn.ut4' Itarsalou (1999), I %mum) I'I~I. log), t(.knhC'rt acobe i g 11997), (199;"', Martin hrtln ((zuOI .1UI.I7',.oJ ,hlU I ur important Imp,n.. nt perspec J"Cf'J'Iir'.II\ sonn S‘ hill (lOU)'. 2003). For WM.•2007 ). and I('h.'m hn,iii...... uses

un the t~ embodied C'llllllwJk'd nature fUlu«, of tot language Lmgu.agr see.• for fur example, C' .... mrl • Gknherg «lrnMrs and ;mJ Kaschak h.tlt hun1), ""lull.and .nJ zooz Kaschak on (jlmhnJ VlpK..O et rt al. ",- (long).and (10''19., .ndZwaan /wun lino4). 11IJ0.41• ilenherg (lOGOl. (loots). Vighocco boJl' 1'1 ,,.,. mind """,11\ Ill< title tllk of «,I Johnson's Ivhn ....n \ seminal urullyAl tw,..~ The body in the is the i987 hook.

• n...

10

TOWARDS A NEW ACCOUNT OF WORD MEANING

INTRODUCTION

The notion of embodied cognition is limdamental to the account of semantic representation in LCCM Theory, as we shall see in Part II of the hook. Both linguistic and conceptual representations arc grounded in bodily and cognitive states, which emerge from the situated action of the human organism. In short, the two theoretical constructs at the heart of LCCM Theory: the lexical concept and the cognitive model, are, in slightly different ways, grounded in the states experienced by the body—brain coupling that gives rise to the embodied human mind. Lexical representation Recent work in cognitive lexical semantics—that branch of cognitive linguistics which is concerned with word meaning—as well as recent work in corpus linguistics, has begun to show that the nature of lexical representation is extremely complex. This complexity requires that we rethink the nature of the linguistic knowledge associated with words.' In this section 1 briefly mention three of the recent findings which relate to this complexity: • Polysemy is conceptual in nature • Words are associated with selectional tendencies • Grammatical categories have a semantic basis Since the seminal work of Claudia Brugman and George Lakoff (e.g., Drug_10R:1988; Lakoff 1987), it has become clear that man 1988; Brugman and 1_2 part of the variation associated with word meaning is due to word forms being associated with distinct underlying conceptual representations: the phenomenon of conceptual polysemy. Polysemy occurs when a word form exhibits more than one distinct but related meaning conventionally associated with it. Brugman and Lakoff argued that these distinct but related meanings arise due to language users having a range of distinct but related meanings stored in their heads, in semantic memory, hence, "conceptual" polysemy: the polysemy which is exhibited is a function of underlying granularity in semantic memory. To illustrate, consider the following examples which all employ the verbal form flying: ( i) The plane/bird is flying (in the sky) (2) The pilot is flying the plane ( in the sky) (3) The child is flying the kite (in the breeze)

(SELF-PROPELLED AERODYNAMIC MOTION' (OPERATION OF ENTITY CAPABLE OF AERODYNAMIC MOTION] (CONTROL OF LIGHTwEIGHT ENTITY'

flag is flying (in the breeze) T he

'SUSPENSION OF LIGHTWEIGHT OBfECTJ

For convenience I have glossed the semantic contribution Of each of the instances of /lying. The glosses appear in small capitals inside square brackets a longside the relevant examples. In (1) flying relates to the ability of an entity such as a bird to undergo self-propelled motion. In the example in (2) flying relates to the ability to operate an entity such that it can undergo aerodynamic motion. In (3) the meaning of flying has to do with the control of an entity such that it remains airb o rne, while in (4) flying relates to the suspension of a lightweight entity that is attached to another entity. While these meanings are distinct, they are nevertheless intuitively related. After all, while the example in (1) might, for many people, represent the most typical instance of flying, what we might refer to, following Lakoff (1987) as the central (or prototypical) sense, the application offlying in (2) relates to the operation of an entity such that it undergoes aerodynamic motion close to that in (1). Similarly, the meaning of flying in (3) is close to that in (2) in that control is a salient aspect of the meaning. Finally, the meaning of flying in (4) is close to that in (3) in that the lightweight entity in question, while not under the control of an agent, is nevertheless attached to the ground, in the case of (4) due to a flagpole. In cognitive lexical semantics, it has been common to model polysemous senses in terms of a radiating lattice structure arranged with respect to a central sense or prototype (e.g., Lakoff 1987; Tyler and Evans 2001, 2003). 6

The second recent finding relates to what, in the previous chapter, I referred to as selectional tendencies. Recent work in cognitive lexical semantics (e.g., Dabrowska 2009; Evans 2oo4a, 2oos, 2006) and in corpus linguistics (Atkins 1987; Gries and Divjak 2oo9) suggests that part of the linguistic knowledge associated with words includes the kinds and range of semantic arguments kith which a word sense can co-occur and the grammatical constructions in which a particular word sense can appear. While any given usage of a word will have its own unique selectional requirements, in terms of, for instance, with which other words and grammatical constructions it will co-occur, general patterns ("tendencies") can he established, and form part of the conventional knowledge associated with a particular word sense. In Part II of the book I will characterize this notion in terms of what I refer to as a lexical profile.' To illustrate, reconsider the distinct senses of flying exhibited above in (0 to (4). A salient grammatical feature for verbs is transitivity, which is to say whether they take a direct object or not. While a verb like die doesn't: He died, a verb such as kick does: He kicked the balL One way of beginning to distinguish the lexical • %cc• ans and Green rime: ...h. to) tot

Many formal and t ► mputational approathes to word meaning traditionally assume that word, t.orreprise bundles 01 SC1111.111ilt wntattst and morpholcogical features (see l'usteitivsky tuys; - Ivicr and Evans rotri for disco...ion. and Evans and in-en limo for a review).

31

an 11Vrf ICW

tither terms have hren used to express a similar Idea "behavioural profile" 1( i nc. and Divjak 2009).

lilt

luting "II) Tag" (Atkin ►

1917) and

32 \1

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

above, is to to examine examine which of flrillg, flying, alxwe,. profiles of of the the four senses prof.Ie<. me; of ,:"hich of of the the senses ~ are are transitive (require a direct object) and which are intransitive (do not require whICh mtran .1Ive (do not reqUIreaa transitive (require a direct object) do not not and (4) ( 4 ) do flying in in (.) (1) and direct obJect). object ). For Forininstance, the ""n senses aassociated direct t.nce, the iated with fI}'"g takeaadired directobjcR()OY' The ",n sense of of flYIIIg to the NA tiC MOTION' IOTI() ] i,is restricted r tricted to the operation operalion by an an entity enllty which which can (an be be NAMIC construed aas an an agent, construed agent. and, and, moreover, moreover, to 10 entities entitie. that that can canundergo undergoselfselfpropelled aerodynamic aerodynamic motion. motion. Further, the entity entity must propelled Furlher, the mU t be be able able to to accomaceom means of of transport. Thisexplains This explains why the agent and thereby serve aas aa mean modate theagenland modale aeroplanes and and hot hot air air balloons aeroplanes balloon are compatible with this this sense, sense, but but entities em ill unable to accommodate an unable an agent agenl are are not. not. This Thi isi illustrated iIIu trated by by example example(5). (s)·

,II.

?Hie was was flying (5) ??He (s) nying the the sparrow parrow across acro the the English Engli h Channel hannel Nevertheless, entities which which un can be construed tOnMrued as as being being guided, gu.ded, or oratalleast least 'evertheless, entitic. susceptible to being u eptible to being trained trained by by aa volitional volitionalagent, ag nt,which whichnevertheless neverthel cannot cannot accommodate an accommodat an agent, agent, are are partially parlially sanctioned nClioned by this thi lexical lexi al concept, concept, as a the the following example followmg exampleillustrates: illustrales: (6) He lie succeeded u((ceded in m flying nying the the homing homingpigeon pigeonacross aao the theEnglish Fngli hChannel hannel In the case of of [CONTROL (CONTROL OF OF LIGHTWEIGHT L1GHTWE.GHT ENTITY ENT.TY] as evidenced eviden ed by by the Use use of to be restricted sense of of flying of flying flrillg in (3), (3), this Ihi sen flyillg appears appear 10 r tricted to to entities entiti that that are ar capable of becoming airborne capable of airoorne by turbulence, turbulen e, and can he be controlled coni rolled by by an .n agent on the the ground. ground. This Thi lexical lexicalconcept con eptappears appearstotobe bespecialized peeiatizedfor forobjects objects such uch as as kites kiles and and model/remote-controlled modeUremol ·conlrolledaeroplanes. aeroplanes. The final final sense, ",n"" glossed glo~ as a 'SUSPENSION ]su Pl '0 OF O. LIGHTWEIGHT L1(iIlTWllGIIT OBIECTi, ()B'Ecr], selects Ie t~ for entities enlities that that can can he be supported upported by byvirtue virtueofofair airturbulence, turbulen e,but butremain remain "connected to" wellasashair hair to" the th ground. ground.This Thi lexical lexicalconcept conceptapplies appli totoflags nag asa well and scarves, which can "fly" in the wind. and arv . , which c.n "ny" in the wind. The third third finding finding concerns concern the the position po ilionthat Ihatgrammatical grammaticalcategories calegorieshave haveaa semantic basis. as basi. In In particular, parlicular, II am am here h reconcerned concernedwith wilhlexical Ie ieal classes da a semantic categories. Until relatively recently, particularly in the previously ",manlic categorie>, Until relatively recenlly, particularly m Ihe preViously dominant tradition ofofformal linguistics dominanllradilion formallingui ti associated a-'SOCialedwith wilhthe thework workofofGeneraGenera tive live Grammar, Grammar. itit was wa assumed ~umcd that thai lexical lexicalclasses, da ~.e.g., c.g ..nouns, noun.verbs, verb,adjectives, adjct:tivcs. etc., etc, were purely purely grammatical gramm.ukal categories, C~ltegOri • determined dclcrmllll"ti on un the the basis ba\i\ of ofdistridistrin bution—where bution ·where in III the the sentence nlen the Iheform formappears—and appears-andmorphology—i morphology. ·in

TOWARD WORD MEANING MEANINC TOWARDS AA NEW NEW A(:COUNT ACCOUNT Of' OF WORD

33 33

""lI,UI.".lhc for instance, in .'an(C, word-ending, word·ending,associated associaled with withaa the kind kind ofinnection, of inflection, for particular, Ihlrn 1 For .der the following followmg English Engll hsentence: nten e: form. example,,con consider . For exampl I hc IxlY boy kicked kicked Ihe the Ix,y, boys (7) The (7 11
.tlOn. On this th. basis, baSl,.t ount> as a aa noun. noun.In Incontrast, conlra t,the the ,subject u[l,cd or orobject object po position. it counts Ie I(al form innected with with the the past past tense ten marker marker -ttl can be inflected -ed and and cannot lexical form kick can ,'rr it ion. Thus, Thu , it.t counts counl as as an an instance instan eof ofaaverb. verb. appear in ,ubjecl subject or or object object po position. c'" in ' a word a noun or a verb Wierzhicka 1988). In other words, what makes a word a noun verb isi a• lund.on. ofabstract abstract grammatical grammali aI features features reflecting renecting the word's word' distribution di tribulion function, not of III properties of oflh worditself. itself.On Onthis thisview, view, in aa <enlcnee, sentence, but rather the semanti semantic properties the word Ic .cJI clJ' rgent property of word function. fundion. lexical class i,is an an em emergent I·or in tance, Langacker Langa ker (1<)87) noun; For instance, (1987) argu argues what what mak makes a given word aa noun is Ih.II.ld,"
·1he third third recent recenl development development relates rebl to 10the thenature nalureofofthe Iheknowledge knowledgetotowhich which The word, provide ace . In r ·enl ye." work in cognillve linguisti ... in pired by words provide access. In recent years work in cognitive linguistics, inspired by

rc\C.ulh on knowledge knowledge representation rcpre\Cntdtion in in cognitive (Ognltl\;Cpsychology, I'\y.. ho!ogy,has h.l'~argued argul'tlth.ll research that of th va. t repos.lory of enC)'dopaedlC knowledge word m aning i a function word meaning is a function of the vast repository of encyclopaedic knowledge to10

34

_----....;T~O:..:WARO COUNT OF UAN,.::;IN;.:G=--_-'3!!5 TOWARDSAA NfW NEW A ACCOUNT OFWORD WORD MEANING 35

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

which ilit iis connecled. connected. 1wo Two inOuenliallhcones influential theories of of encyclopaedic which encydopaedic semantics semanli have have been pul put forward, (e.g.,.• 1987) been forward. by Langacker unga ker (e.g 1987) and and Fillmore Fillmore(e.g., (e.g..1982, 19 1,1985). 1985)· The hasi' basic insighl insight iis Ihal that word meaning The meaning is is always alway relativized rclalivized with wllh respect respecl to 10 largerbody bodyof of knowledge knowledge wilhoul without whi which aa larger h it il could not nol be heproperly properly underunder· stood. This is to as base lood. This i variously variously referred referred 10 ba (Langacker) (unga ker) or semantic semanlic frame fra me The meaning meaning of of this diameter. The (Fillmore). To To illustrate consider Ihi (Fillmore). illu lrale con ider the Ihe word word ,Iia",clrr. word iis aa fun function of that part of the circle In other word lion oflhal parI oflhecir I which it II ddesignates. ignal.",.ln olh r words, word. function ofthe of the ba base (or semanlic semantic frame), diameter iis aa function the meaning meaning of of din",dcr Ihe fram ). namely the enlire entire cirde circle wilh with respect to which the respecl 10 which its il meaning meaning isISderived. derived. From From this Ihi perspective, word meaning involves both a profile, what is designated, per pecllVe. word meaning involv bolh profile. whal i designaled. which conslilul constitutes a substructure ub lructure in aa larger larger structure, tru lure. and and namely namely aabase basc which of a function ( Langacker1987). 1987).According According10 to unga Langacker, wordmeanlllS meaning is Ihu thus a fun lion of (L.1ngacker ker. word organization, and aas such profile/base profil Ib organizalion. u h cannot cannol be he separated separaled from from the Ihe larger larger which depicts depicts aa 2.1 which to which it units 10 knowledge unil knowledge il affords afford access. acc . Consider Con ider Figure Figure 2.1 circle. This This ba base can can provide numerous circle. numerou profiles, profiles. e.g., e.g .•arc arc (Figure (Figure2.1a), 2.13). radius radius circumference (rigure (Figure 2.ld). 2.1d), and and so on. 2.1c), ci«umferen, 2.1b), diameler diameter (Figure 2.1C). (Figure 2.lb). (I:igure Crucially, each profile profile iis understood rucially. each underslood with with respect respect to 10the Ihebase: ba :circle. circle.

• a: 'arc'

I

cc:'diameter' 'dlamele(

b: b 'radius' 'radlus'

I he encydopaedic perspectivereveals reveals that Ihal word word meanings meaningsare arerelated relaled The encyclopaedic selllanlics semantics perspective In lructurcs. However, However. the the approach approachtaken laken larger(and ( andmore morecomplex) complex) knowledge structures. to IJrger "' Ihi' book hook diverges diverges from from the the received received view view of ofencyclopaedic ncydopaedi semantics semanli in in in this ,,>gnll"'C Ii asasdevel red bybyunga kcr (1987). r instance. Instance. For l'or Lanun linguistics, developed lanpcker (1987), fofor c ognitive lingui ~J,kcr. con Cnlallons Ihose that thaI relate rclale 10 ncepto the human conceprepresentations encoded by language and those LC Theoryisisthat thaIthe therepresentations represenlations lual de\'e1opcd in in LCCM tual <)"Iem. system. The The position developed Theory e,,«xled language are kllld than than Ihose the conceptual conceplual very differenl different kind those in emoded by language are of aa very in the Ihe human human conceptual conceplual system tem is IS continuous continuous with With the th conceptual conceplual ",lel11. As the system. A5 ",\em preceded. in in evoluev lusystem of of other other primales primates ((Barsalou Barsalou200S; zoos; Hurford Hurford 2007). zoo7), and and preceded, 1;'lI1Jry laler emergence of of language language (Deacon (Dea n 199;r. tionary lem,s, terms, the much later 1997; Donald Donald 1991; 1991; \hlhen 1999). then then the meanings mcanangs represented represenled in III Tomasello 1999), 1996; Renfrew 2007; 2oo7; 'Iolllascllo Mithen 1996; Ihe likely to be he of ofdistinct di tinct kinds. kinds.'8 This Thi is is enshrined enshrined in in LCCM LC 1 the t\\ two systems are likely I hl'o,), IIIlhe separalion between hctwccn the the two twotheoretical theoreticalconstructs con truetsthat thaIprovide providethe th Theory in the separation Ihl'll')' name. the lexical lexical concept and and cognitive cognllive model. model theory with its name, The basis for Ihi nuanced per pective on encyclopaedi semanti isis the the The basis for this nuanced perspective on encyclopaedic semantics «result ... ult of recenl work work in in cognitive cognilive psychology. p ychology. Recenl of knowledge knowledg Recent Ihcori theories of of recent on frames, fram • has ha emphasized emphasized the Ih represenlali n. uch r enl work w rk on representation, suchas as th the recent relalional nature nature of of knowledge knowledge representation represenlation (see (secBarsalou Barsalou1991, 1991.1992a, 1992a. relational 1992lr. aL 1993). enl work i,ed Ihe role of of Barsalou cl et rtaf. 19921r, Barsalou 1993). More More rrecent work ha has empba emphasized the role simulalions: rehearsal of body·based and and cognitive cognilivestates lates(Barsalou (Barsalou 1999, 1999. simulations: rehearsals of body-based 2003.2008; also Glenberg Glenherg and and Kaschak Kaschak 2002; 2002; Zwaan Zwaan 2004). The notion nOlionof ofaa 2003, 2oo8; sec see also 2004). The qua largeIe. coherenl menIal representation, represenlalion. and and the the infinite infinile set sel of of frame qua large-scale, coherent mental "mulalion that Ihal it II can can give gIVe rise ri to, 10. isis an an issue i uethat thaI 1I shall hall take lake up up in in detail delail in in simulations and to. 10. As A we we shall shall see, see. these these notions notion feed feed into intothe Ihetheoretical theorelical Chaplers 99 and Chapters (on"ru I of of the the cognitive ognillve model. model. However, However. IIdiscuss di u ininslightly lighllymore moredetail delail construct below the the way way in inwhich whichsemantic semanli representation repr nlalion isi separated, separaled. ininLCCM LC M below Theory. into inlO distinct di linct linguistic Iinguislicand andconceptual conceplualrepresentations. representalion . Theory, The symbolic symbolic nature nature o( of grammar grammar The rhe fourth fourth significant ~ignifi anI development developmenl has has emerged emerged in in the Ihe context onlexl of ofcognitive cognitive

d: d: 'Circumference' 'etrcumference'

FIGURE F1GlTRl 2.1. 1.1. Different Oift~renl profiles prom derived derivedfrom fromthe Ihesaint. samebase bne

approa h to to grammar. grammar. Here Iler linguistic Iingui Ii units—the unil Ih entities enlilieswhich whichpopulate populaleaa approaches language user's uscr' mental mental grammar—are grammar-are treated treated as as being heing inherently inherentlymeaningful, m aningful. language way. in in principle, prinCiple.as a words. words.That ThaIis,i grammatical • grammali alconstructions con lru lion in the Ihe same same way, in above - the "Jbove" Ihe level level of ofthe Iheword, word.for forinstance, in. Ian e.sentence-level senlen e levelpatterns pattern ofofsyntax, ynla • 10have havemeaning meaningconventionally convenlionallyassociated associaled with wilhthem. them. have been hccn found found to have Ilence. grammatical grammall I constructions, con Iru lion. like like words, word, are arc symbolic symboli ininnature. nalure. Hence, a-'SOCialed in in particular partICular with wilh the Ihe theories Iheories of ofCognitive Cognitive This perspective, per pective. associated This Grammar (e.g., (e.g .•Langacker unga ker1987, 1987.1991a, 19910.1991b, 1991b. 1999, 1999. 2008) 2008) and and Cognitive Cognitive ConConGrammar lruction Grammar Grammar (Goldberg (Goldherg 1995, 1995. 2006)—the 2(06)-lh two Iwogrammatical grammalicaltheories Iheori struction • Scc the dmuwon in I hapter 9.

36

INTRODUCTION

which have most influenced the development of LCCM Theory—holds that a grammatical unit such as the sentence string SLIM V 01311 OBJi, variously known as the double object construction and the ditransitive construction has a conventional meaning associated with it. Goldberg (e.g., 1995), who has studied the ditransitive construction in detail, argues that this construction exhibits polysemy in the same way as words. She shows that one of the meanings conventionally associated with ditransitive syntax is the following: X INTENDS Y TO RECEIVE Z. To illustrate consider the following example: (8) John baked Mary a cake This sentence exemplities the ditransitive construction, consisting of a subject, John, a verb, bake, and two objects: Mary and a cake. In terms of the schematic meaning held to be associated with the syntax exhibited in (8), X corresponds, in this example, to /ohm Y to Mary and to the cake in question. Thus, the meaning of the sentence can be paraphrased as follows: John intended Mary to receive the cake by virtue of baking it. However, the verb bake does not ordinarily have the 'intend Y to receive Z' semantics associated with it. That is, all things being equal, bake does not ordinarily have a meaning Of transfer associated with it. Goldberg compellingly shows that it must be the construction itself which has this novel meaning associated with it, thus facilitating the intended transfer meaning associated with the act of baking a cake. The consequence of adopting a symbolic approach to grammar is that grammar is no longer viewed as constituting an abstract set of rules which operate on words. Rather, the lexicon and grammar form a continuum, each consisting of bipolar symbolic units comprising a form and meaning: a phonological pole and a semantic pole, also known as the lexicon-grammar continuum, as depicted in Figure 2.2 (Croft 2002; Langacker 1987; Goldberg 1995). From this perspective, semantic composition becomes at once more complicated than the received view, and more straightforward. It is more straightforward in the sense that semantic composition in LCCM Theory involves nested integration of lexical concepts within larger lexical concepts. For instance, the meaning of bake—to create an item such as a cake—must be integrated with the ditransitive construction: X INTENDS Y To aEcEivE Z, such that bake implies 'X intends Y to receive Z' by virtue of baking." However, this view of semantic composition is also more complex. The integration of lexical concepts—the semantic structures associated with symbolic units such as words and constructions—has to proceed in a way which is compatible with integration of the range of meanings associated with each of the lexical concepts in question. There arc complex possibilities involved in the meaning of each lexical concept, each of which must be compatible with the lexical concepts which they are being integrated within: the • - the issue of "nested integration" is dissussed in Part III ail the book

TOWARDS A NEW ACCOUNT OF WORD MEANING

Open-class elements

Closed-class elements

37

-IP.

FIGUR E 2.2,. The lexicon-grammar continuum

p henomenon of nested integration just alluded to. For instance, bake must be

integrated in the larger linguistic unit, the ditransitive construction, and the meaning of bake must be integrated in a way which is compatible with this

larger unit. one of the issues that Goldberg studies in detail in her pioneering work is that words, and larger, multi-word constructions, are integrated in such a way that the semantics of each fuse with the other providing a derived meaning which is more than the sum of the parts. For instance, Goldberg argues that

both verbs and larger constructions have, as part of their meaning, slots for semantic arguments. These constitute part of the semantic frame—in the sense of Fillmore—associated with each construction, be it a verb or a larger linguistic unit such as the ditransitive construction. With respect to verbs, Goldberg refers to these semantic arguments as participant roles. while for sentence-level constructions, such as the ditransitive construction, she refers to such slots as argument roles. While the verb bake brings with it two participant roles: the baker and the object of baking, the ditransitive brings three: the agent, the object of transfer and the recipient. A consequence of Fusion of the two sorts of constructions is that the more specific "baker" role of bake is fused with the agent slot of the ditransitive construction: the more specific role of "object of baking" is fused with the "object of transfer" role which comes from the ditransitive construction (see Figure 2.3). What motivates this is semantic coherence, which Goldberg formalizes in terms of what she calls the Semantic Coherence Principle."' In addition, the ditransilive construction adds a role not present in the bake semantic frame: that of intended recipient who is to receive the object of baking. The fusion of the ditransitive construction and the verb bake is illustrated in Figure 2.3, The point is that semantic composition, from this perspective, is not due to language being constituted in terms of words and rules, with the rules being abstract conventions for combining "atoms" of meaning, the words. Rather, a language system consists of symbolic units—conventional symbolic assemblies of form and meaning—at all levels. Semantic composition is thus the result of integrating the semantic material associated with the various symbolic units, including sentence-level constructions. We end up with an utterance such as: John baked Mary a cake, which provides meaning which is far more specific than the highly schematic I° This principle stairs that part ii; ipant roles arc matched with Argument noir. with which they overlap. such thAt one c.m 1w construed as an instance oil Another. For onstArkr. gerwrAl tatcwirmation principles enable us h ) 110 el mine that the !taker !smirk 1114111 fi ► k of the rob bake (wet Lips sufficiently with the argument role Ageol. of the chtrAnsitive construction. because ixith ..hate seti ► Anix properties such as Aniniacy. Intentkmality.(..AusatKin. And so forth.

1$

-----'-=

TOWARDS ACCOU T OF or WORD WORD MEANING MEANING TOWARDS A A NEW ACCOUNT

INTRODucnON INTRODUCTION

Agent Intends (X) intends (X)

Balter Baker ,ntends intends

Baker

FIGURE FIGURE 1.). 2.3.

to transfer transler (verb)

to transfer transfer by bakulQ baking

bake(verb) (verb) [bake

recopoent to recipient (Y) M

to recipient recopient

object 01 of transfer (Z) (Z)

of object 01 baking balong

Object of baking

Dttransit., OItrans1tJve

constructJon Construction

,h.,

a ~~' ~.;i". ubJ
("n~lrudIOIl Construction

Form hum

Meaning M .nm8

)it ransit ive I htrJIl\II!H

Sub' ~ub, V V Objt Ob" Obj2 Obi'

CAl'\FS Y TO X CAUSES

((..Ju~.J .3 used nlOtinn motion

\ubj V V Obj Subj Obi Ohl

N:~ UhJII\t.' Koultative

Sub, V V Obj Ob, Subj comp

IlntrJmll!\C ntransitivr motion nmlion ( :onat tmJIIH~ lye

Sub) V Obl Obi Subj V

bake

construction

Fmion dunn ilivt and bake bakt constructions con Iruelions Fusion of of the ditransitive

m aning of ditran it". construction. on tru tion. This Thi isi due due totothe th specific peeificsemantic semant, meaning of the ditransitive h brings aa particular particular activity activity and and specific peeific framr with bakt, bake, whi which frame associated with participant rol . Equally, Equally, the hematic semantic manti structure stru ture provided provided by bythe thr participant roles. the schematic ditransitive truct.on serves to to encode en odeaaparticular part. ular scene, en,and andframes fram the the ditransitive con construction activity associated with with bake within the thr context of ofthi scene.Thus Thusthe theactivity activity this scene. sem.nti frame, fram, iis concertu.liled in terms temlS of ofan an "inten"inten· encoded by bakt,.t conceptualized in bake, its semantic en ing the addition of ofthe th intended lilt ended t.on to cause cause transfer" transfer" scenario, enario, thu tion to thus Iilicensing rrecipient ipient role. rolr. aptur the the following followlllginsight. III ight. Intuitively, ymboli perspective prrspeetive nicely mcely captures Intuitively, th the symbolic Bake iis normally normally aa two two · place, it"e, predicate. predicate. Canonically, Canonically, itit transitive, place, i.e., i.e., aa tran requires agent and and aa patient: patient: 'Joim 01111 baked the Il,ecake. cake. The semanti of of requires an an agent The semantics intended tran fer or typically, a function funct.on of ofthe th verb verb bake. IHlke. hom thi intended transfer are not, typically, From this perspective,,the the approach sketched by prrspeet" by Goldberg Goldberg isi compelling. comprlling. prr peetive on on grammar grammar provided provided by by In general terms, term , the symbolic perspective In more general ~ Goldberg, Langacker, Lang.cker, and appraling. The Th holar such uch as scholars and other others iis intuitively appealing. ofgrammar grammar isi totoencode en odescenes enesand andscenarios scenano .might that one function function of insight iis that ar in the work work of of relating everyday exprrience. i particularly particularly cI relating to to everyday experience. Thi This is clear in the .oldberg. Scenes 'enario include in Iud agents ag nt performing prrforming actions, action, agents agents Goldberg. Scenes and and scenarios tran ferring object reClp.ents, agent ing other entities ent.tie to to move movefrom from transferring objects to recipients, agents cau causing ~ rmalizes this thi observation observation in in one location to to another, another, and and so so on. on.Goldberg Goldbergformalizes term ene-en odinghypothesis. hypoth i.One Oneofofher herbasic ba icobservations observation is.sthat that terms ofth of the scene-encoding ntence·level constructions con truction~ serve many of nfthe the typical typical scenes nand and sentence-level serve to encode many cnario Wt txperience in in our oureveryday "eryday lives. live. Such Su hscenes scenesinvolve involvtseveral veral scenarios we experience kinds of participant, and at< encoded by senlence level con Iruction . Table of participants, are encoded by sentence-level constructions. Table I.' trate some "'ntence·level constructions con\lructiom studied ""died by byGoldberg, Goldberg, 2.1 iIIu illustrates some of of the sentence-level and the scenes and en from experience they they encode. en ode. -

~ I comt (Aln\tnu;.tl(lll aoJthen Ihclrt:OITt"f"-lJkilllg Cfk"\from tmOlexperience tXpenC04.C ructions and wrresponding skews Tao 2.1.

Aesuhof Result of

nested integration WltegralJOn

39

Sub, V V Subj Obi •• at Obi

Example I'""mpl

r
Mary a john 101m SOH q", Afdry"

gcnt gives 81\ an on Agent

ob)d III~ x CAUSES CAl'~f' y to John sneezed the X Y TO oh,«1 from from One one object tlit iIttlrr ft:17)tier off the MOVE Z 10V'1 I()('OItion tablt location to another OInother Agent CAU I Y Tel TO T/I~ dtme Iltel; I genl acts old on The anaesthetist X CAUSES BE OME Z rtllllatd lilt a patient au iog the causing rengiered BECOME Z palle", undergo patient them to undergo ,WWtlj( lOUS l.llt a d\01nge change of of state ta le OHSCJOUS y 111t "".up JIm' mlo Entity [ntllY moves mov to 10 The wasp flew into x MOVES MOVE. Y X Il,t room a ntw location new location the room /01", llLled at lilt Agtnl dirat\ an .n fohn kicked at the Agent directs llIaUT x DIRECTS rul lilt ion towards tow.ud action rat ACTION anolher entity tntity another AT Y Y Rf( tlVt RECEIVE

zz

10l-,t Itttcr letter hwe

The of language The usage-based usage based nature af -

\, we saw ".w in III the theprevious previnu, chapter, chapter, Grice Grice (e.g., (e.g., 1989) '989) made made aadistinction di~tlll tlon As and what gIVen ",nten mean and what its use use means mean, in in aagiven given b.:twecn what what aa given sentencee means between context: the distinction di tin tion between between sentence sent ncr meaning meaningand andspeaker sprakermeaning." meaning." context: In lingui'tic ,thi di\tin tionbetween betweensentence sentenceand andspeaker sprakermeanmean In modern linguistics, this distinction IIlg i embodied in in the the disciplinary di iplinary distinction di tinction between betweensemantics semanticsand andpragprag· ing is ofthe thestudy tudyofofmeaning: meaning:literalism. literali m. matic , and infomlS the the received received view view of matics, and informs I'mm the per I""'tive of literalism, lit rali m, semantics—the semantic the study study of ofsentence senten emeanmean · From the perspective ng- i, normally nomlally considered con idered to be beprimary, primary. and and prior priortotopragmatics—the pragmati - the mg—is tudyof peaker meaning. The supremacy suprema y of of semantics semantics isi enshrined en hrined ininformal forma l study of speaker tradition which which isi directly directly descended descended from from the thelogic-inspired log.c inspired '>emanti semantics,,the the tradition work of the th ideal ideal language languag philosophers. philosophers. point out out that in fact fact However, in However, in seminal seminal work, work, Ilerbert HerbertClark Clark(e.g., (e.g.,1996) Igo) points thi\ perspective pr"f"",tive situates ituates thll1g\ wrong way way round. round. (lark larkargues argue<.that that this things the the wrong " During the analytic II l)unn. the the- twentieth 'wt'nhcth century I.mtury the the study Ilkiy of (,f n•aring mrantrlIinIn 1M ~n.aJythphilosophs• . rhll.~y14tlflanguage bn~u.aer l iri g Fregr. lIok.i.hun W,I\ rhl into mh. two two caniri. um The fhC'first. fir I,the tM"ideal -,,1':.111language Lanttu.agc'philosophers rh1ic*'rt\ll;n-- inchrc uk.luJm, 11'fJl'. tradition was split Ruurll. (Larnap. m.lJ\.nJ 1.arU.I, ".,UN (Ju, the the meaning mt-.1In1na (It ...umpnlit\J of ut its Its component 4..VmJ'l4.'fknl 4 .. IC'nlcfk.C' sentence it is comprised And Tardki. argued that p.ln .nd me.n'"l reflects rdl('\:1 nrference. rtf«nk~. Thu tk. symbols ymbol could UlOid he brassigned .tuianNworldly \lW\uldlyentities nil III PdrN, and meaning Thus, Img:ul linguistic absent .. A ~wn given f:(tntnl context (If of use. second g p. theIht so-called "ordinary language abtrnl ute' Thr 1lw- 1C'\,.(lnd ,n,ur. ~~lIcJ "tlrJuury Lln,u.t philcistiphers". ph.J rhrn-, i n cluding Austin. arid ,scrit ..a sprcifk 1n...luJmg A~tm, Strawson. 'Ir. .n .• nJ the the:- later Lli r 1Vittgenstem. WIHttt·n,h·m . argued dui ltu •al.abownt I"l'lh( contest ""lllt Iwords wvrJ cannot rd". unn"l Rulh group ,ruupt%\IIoC'ft 'raJJJ<'\.I by I'Aul ".aul (',rk.t" wh.;. littered "flt'tcJ a• way w.ty +It t.1 umlmll b...lh sets wt of (., (ince who uniting both refer. Both were str.iddled concerns bydl by distinguishing and ~(I~ lmj(UI~lna between brtwttn sentence wnl(1'k,.c and anJ speaker ~J't".k.tr meaning. mc.. nm... nJ arguing .trJum that llut both both are otrc: required rtoqulrcd f.lr.a fuU rn-~ of tIl some 'rlW of 01 thew thewconcerns. .... for full ok,-(Iunt Account(., ot mr.mng. meaning. ~ Sec R~nall Resanati(J''''.) 0°04) for a review

.aflUt'\!

ft., •

0&.'""

40 ~

40

__

INTRODUCTION

~I~N~T~R~0~O~U~~IO~N:-

-

_____________________________________

speaker meaningiislogically logically prior priorto to ""11Ien« sentence meaning." After peaker meaning A(ter all we we can't can't talk about words and sentences having meaning without assuming a speaker talk about words and ~ntenccs having meaning without assuming a speaker and aa hearer hearerwho who arc are ",ing using the the word~ words and and ""ntene." sentences in in order order to ,1I1d to accomplish a compli h interactional goals. As Clark puts it: "Signals [ i.e., words and sentences] int ractional goal. A lark put it: "Signals Ii .. , word and ",ntenc.,,1 aren't Jren't important merely because they mean things. They are important because Important merely becau they mean thing. They are important becau they they arc u~ used in in di\Cour~ discourse to accomplish arc a«ompli;h the the participants' participants' goals" goal" (ihid. (ibid. xx). xx). Put Put another way: way: "Word "Wordsand and ",ntence; sentencesare are type; types o( of signals, ignal, linguistic lingui tic units unit another abstractedaway awayfrom fromany anyocca occasion on which which they they might abstracted ion on might he be used, u~, stripped stripped of all all relation to particular speakers, listener, listeners, tIme; times and and places. ... uto( relation 10 particular ;peake", pIa es. [Yeti IYetl ... ut· terancesare arethe theaction actions o( of producing words, words, sentences, and other things terance. ntenc ,and things on on (ibid. particular occasions by particular speakers for particular purposes" particular ocea ions particular speakers (or particular purposes" (,bid. (:lark's point is that 128). Clark'; point i that the 128). the conventions—the convention th words word and andgrammatical gram mati 31 constructions—that linguists study under the guise of sentence construdions- that linguists tudy under the gui", o( senten« meaning meanmg are, in in (act, fact, ab abstractions, traction, derived from language in in use, use, and and hence h nceare are logically logically are, dependent on U~, that that is, i;, speaker ;peaker meaning. meaning. dependent on language I.nguag use, In cognitIVe cognitive lingui linguistics, the mo mostt influential language In ti - ,the influential usage-based u ge - h.~ model model of oflangu.ge is the the theory theory of of Cognitive IS Cognitive Grammar Grammar developed developedby byLangacker Langacker (e.g., (e.g., )987, 1987,1991a, 199 1a, 2oo8). In CognitIVe Cognitive Grammar, the symbolic units unit that th.t make make up up an an individual individual 1008). language user's knowledge of the language system are derived from language u""r'. knowledge o( the language sy. tem are deriwd (rom language language use. This takes place by processes of abstraction and schematization. Abstracof ab traction schematization. Ab trac· u . Thi takes place by proc tion is the process whereby structure emerges as the result of the generali7.ation generalization procCS,s . tructurccmerg r _ult of For example, example, a a speaker acquiring of patterns across instances of pattern aero in tances of of language language use. usc. I-or peaker acquiring English offrequent frequentexposure, expo ur ,"discover" "discoverrecurring recurringwords, word , Engli. h will, as a the the result result of phrases, and ""ntence-Ievel sentence-level constructions phra , and con;truction in inthe theutterances utteran they theyhear, he..,together together me.ning associated a iatl'(\ with WIth those those symbolic ymbolie units. unil;. SchematizaS<:hematiza · with the the range r.nge of meanings lion is hon i aa special peeial kind kind of o(abstraction, abstraction,which whi hresults r ultsininrepresentations representationsthat thatare are much much less Ie ; detailed detailt,(\ than than the the actual actu,ll utterances utter.nce; that that give give rise ri to to them. them. SchemaS<:hema · tization results in schemas. This is achieved by setting aside points of til.ation rc ult, in hema. Thi i .lhieH'(\ by setting. ide points ofdifferdIffer· ence between actual structures, leaving just the points they have in common: ence between actual structures, leaVing just the point they have in common:a a schema. "hema. To illustrate, consider the the exampl examples in in (9), illu trate, con;ider (9), focusing (ow ing in inparticular p.rticul.r on on the the meaning of the the preposition prepo ition in: ill: meaning of

(9) (9) a. a. The The kitten kitten isi, in in the thebox box b. The flower is in the vase b. The flower is in the v c. i, in in the the vase v.'" c. The The crack crack is

41 41

TOWARl}!) TOWARDSAA Nl:.W NEW ACCOUNT ACCOUNT Of OF WORD WORD MEANING MEANING

udc' lrum not prompt prompt for for.a relationship relationship of ofenclosure endo;ure protrudes fromIt.it.In In(ye) (9c) '" in doc> does not l'f( 'Ir . qUl le Ihe me way: xterior o( th vase, va ,aas opposed opposed to to the .. same way: the the crack" crack is on on the the exterior of the i n quite '~. th exampl illustrate, illu trate, the th specific pecific spatiopatio. interior. A As these examples t he H.lumetri v olumetric interior. ~'~'l11ctri'. ure meaning i not not fixed, fixed, geometricdet~il; details.;;ociated associatedWIth withthe theendo enclosure meaningo( of 1/1 in is vc'(\ on th utterance utteranc context. context. but but I'is den derived in part part (rom from the IThe he .... hema that ari from these specific example leaves leaves aside a ide the the schema that arises from these specific examples «.ntc t ' I"'tilic detaIl,. R.ther, it It Siv ri"" to to aa highly highly abstract abstract spatial spatial relation relation details. Rather, gives rise con te xt-specific in\l.h ins endo ur : th ing aero alh context of use. use. It It is is involving enclosure: the commonalityari commonality arising across each context of thl' that .. tabli h the hema for for 111. 10reover, the hem a for for this,,>1llmonality commonality that establishes the schema in. Moreover, the schema "' ry little I· and th.t they they must mu t exist, exi,t, says \C very littleabout about the the nature nature o( of the the F and RO, RO, only only that in ',1\ have the the basic basic properties properti that that enable enabl enclosure. en do ure.Crucially, eru ially, and and ih.t that they they must must have tCognitive "gllltive Grammar umes that units which which populate populate the th Grammaraassumes that the the symbolic symbolic units ment.1 more than than schemas, hem., abstracted ab tr.cted from (rom language language mental grammar grammar are are nothing nothing more hall begin to see,,in Chapter 40 LC ' M Theory Theory enshrines en hrin 4, how use. We We .shall begin to in Chapter how LCCM ~ aas fundamental count of meaning construction. construction. Specifipecifi . language language uuse fundamental to to it its aaccount of meaning ",II), . mantic units, unit, the thelexical lexi Iconcepts, concept>, cally, II ,Irgue argue that that lingui'tically linguistically ennxk,(\ encoded semantic ir situated ituated interpretation. IIlterpretation. A A situated situated interpretation interpretation is, i ,by by under>pec ify (or underspecify for th their function of oflanguage language use. u . ddini tion, aa function definition,

U"'.

Semantic structure Semantic structure structure versus versus conceptual conceptual structure ('nsniti ve Iingui;t, (or example and [Anacker Langackcr(1987)—have (1987)-have Cognitive linguists—for example Talmy Talmy (1000) (2000) and di,tinguished between two types types of ofsemantic semantic knowledge: knowledge: that that which whi h isisrich rich distinguished between two which is i; schematic. -hematic. This This distinction di;tinction is i implicit implicit in in the the work work of of and that that which and L.mga,ker and in the the work work of of'lalmy. T.lmy, for (or instance, in,tance, distinguishes di'tingui he; Langacker and explICit explicit in Talmy. Taliny, meaning associated a iated with with what what he he refers refer to to as as the the closeddosed· between >chemati between schematic meaning das or nr grammatical grammatical subsystem, ubsy tern, and and the the rich rich meaning meaningassociated a soci.ted with withthe the class illu,trate,consider eon,iderthe thefollowing (ollowingexample: e .mple: open- lass or o rlexical lexi .1 subsystem. ubsy tem.To -1" illustrate, open-class

filii

(to) (111) A A popstar /'t'ps/,Ir kissed k. d the the Om

'I he forms fo rm in m bold: bold: a, a, -ed, ·ed,the, the,and and-s· are areassociated a soclatedwith WIththe thegrammatical grammati al The ub,y,tem. Their Their semantic ",m.ntic contribution contribution relates relates totowhether whetherthe theparticipants participant subsystem. (/'t'p,"'rlfiIllS) evoked by by(to) ( HI )can canbe beeasily ca ilyidentified Identilil'(\by bythe thehearer—the hearer- theuse u'"ofo( popstar/fiws) evoked the indefinite indefinitearticle article aaver u the the definite definite article arti Ie the—that the-thatthe theevent eventtook tookplace place the versus before now—the now- the use u of ofthe thepast-tense pa,t ten",marker marker -ed—and ·ed -andhow howmany manyparticipartid · before I'an" were were involved—the involved- thepresence pre>enleor orabsence ab",nccofofthe theplural plur.1marker marker ·s.. pants In In contrast, contra t,the theforms (orm ininitalics: italics:popstar, popS/ar,kiss, kiss, and andfan fall are are associated associated with with the the leXical subsystem. , ub y,tem. That That is, i , their their semantic ""manti contribution contributionrelates relate to tothe thenature natureof of lexical the participants partieip,,"" involved involved in in the the experiential experiential complex, com pIe , and and the therelationship rd.tio",hip the holdmgbetween between them, them,namely namelyone oneinvolving involvingaakiss. ki ,.InInother otherwords, word while , whil the the holding do\C'd dd , forms form encode cn((k1~ content ( Onlentrelating reloltingto10structural tnu.: turJIaspects d pct:hof ofwhat whatwe we closed-class -

These examples Th examples involve involve spatial . patial scenes en ofofslightly lightlydifferent d,ffi rentkinds, kmd where , where in '" reflects a spatial relationship between the figure (F) and the reference object retle"" patial relatiomhip between the figure (P) and the re~ r nce object (RO). (RO ). In In (9a) (9' )the the F,1-, the I'" kitten, kill"',is" fully (ully enclosed ndo ....'(\by bythe theRO, RO, the II"box. btl\. However, Ilowcver,in m the the other other two twoexamples, examples, in ill does doe> not not prompt prompt for for quite quile the the same ... me kind kmd of of relationship. rel.tion hIp. In In (9h) (9b)the theflower nowerisi;not notfully fullyenclosed endo ....'(\bybythe thevase, v. since , inleit ilpartly partly "

("lark uses the term "signal meaning" to refer to sentence (and vrord I meaning.

rnlght refer refer to to.1' the experiential xpcrientialcomplex omplexevoked, evokc..~,the theopen-class 0llCn -dJ ,forms form\give give might as the

42

INTRODUCTION

rise to detailed information concerning the nature of the participants, scenes involving the participants, and the states and relationships that hold. The distinction in types of semantic representation is also present in Cognitive Grammar (e.g., Langacker 107). As we saw above, Langacker argues that lexical classes such as nouns and verbs encode schematic: meaning. 15 Another distinction claimed to hold between nouns and verbs has to do with whether there is a temporal dimension encoded. Langacker maintains that verbs (but not nouns) relate to time, and encode the evolution of a particular event or state through time." A further schematic aspect of meaning has to do with whether a form encodes a schematic trajector (TR) and/or landmark ( LM ). For example, Langacker argues that relational lexical classes, such as prepositions, encode a highly schematic TR and LM as part of their semantic structure. 15 For instance, in terms of an expression such as: under the sofa, it is by virtue of under encoding a schematic LM that a noun phrase (NP) can be integrated with the preposition under, giving rise to the complex expression: under the sofa. 1 ^ In addition to schematic meanings of this sort, Langacker also assumes that words encode "rich" semantic content. As we saw earlier in the discussion of encyclopaedic semantics, this is conceived of in terms of J profile/base complex, in which a given form designates or profiles a given substructure within a base. The distinction between schematic versus rich aspects of meaning can also be seen in Goldberg's work on Construction Grammar. Recall that Goldberg argues that sentence-level constructions, such as the ditransitivc, have a highly schematic meaning associated with them, serving to encode argument roles. In contrast, individual words such as the verbs which populate these constructions, e.g., bake, are associated with rich frames and participant roles. In this book I argue that the distinction between schematic versus rich meaning identified by Ta!my, Langacker, and Goldberg actually reflects a distinction in types of meaning representation, and that the two distinct types of representation relate to distinct systems. Schematic meaning relates to representations that are specialized for being encoded by language. That is, such representations take a form that is highly schematic in nature, specialized for being encoded in the auditory (or signed) medium that is language. Representations of this sort are what I refer to as semantic structure. The " The distinction between verb% and nouns concerns the nature of what is being profiled: a region in a domain. in the caw of nouns. and the relations that hold between such regions. in the case of '• I angacker refers to this as sequential scanning lie distinguishes the way in which verbs encode time from the way time is encoded by other - relational - lexical classes, such as adiectives, adverbs, and prepositions (see Langacker 59117, 199th, 1999, :ANA; see Evans and I irecti 21,04s for a review). .r.111Inut 'I Indeed. this notion is important for constituency in t I* In I angacker's terms, the NI' elaborates the conceptually dependent preposition under. I will discuss what it means to be conceptually dependent in more detail in Part II of the honk. The issue of elaboration. in the sense of Langacker. will he discussed in more detail in Part III 44 the 1 ►4,4 ► Ic.

TOWARDS A NEW ACCOUNT OF WORD MEANING

43

theoretical construct I develop to model semantic structure is that of the lex ica l concept. In contrast, the rich representations are associated with the conc eptual system. and are not directly encoded by language—although language facilitates access to this level. Representations of this sort are what I refer to as conceptual structure. The theoretical construct 1 develop to model o mceptual structure is that of the cognitive model. Cognitive models involve a frame and simulations deriving from the frame. As briefly introduced, simulations are reactivations of sensory-motor, cognitive, and subjective states, based on, but not identical to the perceptual and subjective experiences that arc stored in the conceptual system. Part of my argument in this book is that semantic structure and conceptual structure form two distinct levels of representation, and do so because they inhere in two distinct representational systems: the linguistic system and the conceptual system. Following arguments presented by Barsalou et al. (forthcoming), 1 suggest that the linguistic system evolved, in part, by facilitating more effective control of the extant representations in the conceptual system. 17 That is, linguistic representations are specialized for providing a "scaffolding" to structure conceptual representations, thereby facilitating their use in communication. While the conceptual system evolved for action and perception, i.e., for non-linguistic purposes, the emergence of language facilitated the use of conceptual representations in linguistically mediated meaning construction, thereby providing cognitively modern humans with a significant evolutionary advantage. With the association of linguistic and conceptual representations, humans were able to engage in the advanced symbolic behaviours that led to the explosion of sophisticated ritual practice, material culture, art, and science around 5o,000 years ago during the later Stone Age, the period that archeologists refer to as the Upper Paeleolithic ( Mithen 1996; see also Renfrew 2007). In essence, the argument I shall be making during the course of the book is that semantic structure and conceptual structure involve fundamentally distinct sorts of representations. Moreover, it is this distinctiveness that facilitates meaning construction. It is by virtue of semantic structure facilitating access to conceptual structure that words appear to he protean in nature. That is, what we might informally refer to as the "meaning shifting" properties, so to speak, associated with words is a symptom of there being two distinct types of representation implicated in meaning construction. But to claim that there are two distinct representational systems involved in meaning construction is not to adopt a modular perspective (e.g., Fodor 1 983). Modularity holds that the mind consists of domain-specific encapsulated modules, which work by virtue of one module working on the output of another. As we shall see, in LLCM Theory meaning arises by virtue of a dynamic exchange taking place between the linguistic and conceptual " This is discussed in more detail in a hapter

INl"ROOl'CTION INTRODUCTION

44

\yMcm\. M aning construction (on IrU(lion involves IOvol ..., aa continual which which do do give gi,erise ro to 10simulations. imulalion,.As As activation of we shall hall begin delaill.ler Ihe principled separation paralion begin 10 to see in more detail later in Ihe the book, the of ",manlic structure lru lure from from conceptual con eplual structure lru lur calls calls for for aa revised revised approach approach of semantic 10 encydopaedic semantics emanli as a, adopted adopled in III cognitive
The ''''gllislic linguistic system consists •■ Th s>~le", con i ts of of symbolic ymbolic units. unil . • Symbolic S,.",/lOlic units omirs are form and and lexical I xical concepts. concepl . are mad made up up of of phonological forms •■ '1 he co/lfeploml S>",lflll con i IS of cognilIVe models. modeh. consists of cognitive The conceptual system • Cog,lIli.·e ",oCnlalion of ()flexical lexical structure, "rUllur.,the Ihesubject ubjClIofof provides a diagrammalic diagrammatic representation Part II of the book. Pari II oflhe In rigure hed line between belween the Ihe lexical lexical concept conceplinin In Figure 2.41h 2.4 the d. dashed Ihe y,lem and the Ihe cognitive cognilive model—represented model- repro nled by bythe Ihecircle—in irdc- on the linguistic system the conceptual which associates the (OI1l.:cptual system ,y,tclll represents rCJlr~nb a path of of .14.:4..C"" d''''k:iJt the the two. two. access whilh !-igur. Ihe nature nalure of of semantic 'manlic representation rcpre",nl.lionininLCCM LC M Figure 2.5 2.5 allempls attempts 10 to convey the notion 1,1 11W nelll(," ilrili1011 III 01 .. a ~Up'll 'I Ihr il m<Jl.ld I battJ I'I'W) ""Iton III a.. .14111111410r. Imul~lor flat- rrC'\br ilignitivr Ft% t‘c model ,% Kiwi" un f\.lruJuu II144411 th s(up.rd iInn relmiolishir %irimi.ii411. n.dW t 0of1 a• cognitive '-''lUUhu' model, Ul<,Jd.. and "00 IIit%rN tlnnlfup with whh the thotconktruit "onlolrlklni nl mill t or. isI dlkuunj nature Chaptersindcly10. (.h.&pttn ~ .00 ~ r«"'lh' 10. .

TOWARDS A AC OUNT OF OF WORD MEANING MlANING TOWARDS A NEW ACCOUNT

45

----~~~~~~~~~~~~--~ LEXICALREPRESENTATION REPRESENTATION LEXICAL

LINGUISTIC SYSTEM LINGUISTIC

CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM CONCEPTUAl.

SYMBOlIC UNIT UNIT SYMBOLIC

COGNITIVE MODEL MODEL

~................ ......

1e""",1 lexical concepl concept

·1

lllol RF: 1. .. . F161.•1E 2.4.

I

phonopIoonoIogocal logical form loon

I

t exiul representation in LCCM LC .M Theory Thcory Lexical

LEXICAL LEXICALREPRESENTATION REPRESENTATION

LINGUISTIC LINGUISTIC SYSTEM SYSTEM

CONCEPTUAl. CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM

-_..._.

COGNITIVE MODEL .............

.'.' :•

•'.

, '.

'0__

....

"......

--

SYMBOLIC UNIT SYMBOlIC UNIT

_.•... ._- lexocai·····... .......' -..-. .

lexical concepl concept

./

...

.........

.

--

phonopIoonological IogocaI form loon

-V

f l<.l'RI .l.S. mantic: representation rtpl"bC'nt.ltion in inLCCM Le . 1Theory Th ry FiGv•E 2.5. Semantic

I he()ry. Figure Hgure 2.5 a Figure I;igure 2.4 except excepllhal addilionallyfeatures fealur that itil additionally Theory. 2.5 is Ihe the same as a dashed da~hed elipse encircling the Ihe lexical lexi al concept—in con epl- in the Ihelinguistic lingui Ii system—and sy Itm- and Ihe model - in the Ihe conceptual conceplual system—the ~YSlem- th two Iwotypes Iype. ofofrepresenrepresen · the cognllove cognitive model—in laloo n which collectively c U""lovciy comprise comprisesemantic manli representation. represenlalion. tation

Summary Summary In this Iho chapler have, in broad lem", Ih. starting I.rting points poinl and and guiding gUiding chapter II have, terms, oUllined outlined the d" .. mpli()n of ()flh 1 hcory of of!Lexical exildl Concepts (.on«pl and and Cognitive CognlliveModels Model (LCCM (I CCM assumptions the Theory ·1 heory). The larting poinl for this lhi study ludy isi the theobservation observation that Ihal word word Theory). The starting point for meaning is mc:aning i\ inherently inherently variable variable or protean protean across auo situated \ituatcd instances in\tancC4iofofuse. usc.InIn allel11l'ling 10 addre, Ihi' issue, i,,"e, LCCM I n .M Theory 111l'(ory arises dri from from five live recent '<'<eoll develdevel · address this attempting to opment Ihe language languag sciences. ·oenc . These relate rei.le It) ( i) the Ihe embodied embodiednature nalure of of opments in the to (i)

46

46

'NTRODUCT~'~O~N ~

INTRODUCTION

________________________________

cognition, (ii) cog111tion, (i.) the th view viewthat thatlexical lexical representation repr~ntation isis more more sophisticated !>Oph. t •.catedthan than has previou previously been aassumed, has Iy been umed, (iii) (i.i) the theview v.ewthat thatlexical lelU alrepresentations representat.on relate, relate, in part, part, to to non-linguistic (iv) the m non Iingui"i knowledge knowkdge structure, t.ructur , (.v) the view v.ew. that that the the mental mental grammar consists of symbohc symbolic assemblies of form and rammar con iSIs of a scmbh of and meanings, meaning, rather rather than than words and and abstract abstract rules rules whi which operate on on words, words, and and (v) the ~,ord h operate the view v~ewthat that meaning con construction arises in in the the context context of meaning truction ari of language I~nguag use, which whICh.is to to say .say the situated situated and and interactional the interactional nature nature of linguistically hngUl ucally mediated med.ated communicaco.m111UnlCa tion between That is, is, meaning arises as as aa function tion between interlocutors. interlocutors. That meaning arises funct.on of .ofthe th: expression of of situated intentions. I also exprCS5.on ~itu3ted communicative ommunicati.. intention. al discussed, d.scussed, in m this th. of LCCM Theory, the the presump presumpthe hheart chapter, tm tion at at th rt ofl .Cr.~ Theory, chapter, the the pnncipled principled di distinction tion that consist tion that the linguistic lingui tie and conceptual con eptual systems tern con. t of distinct d. unct types types of of representation: the lexical concept and the cognitive model. As we shall see, rcprC\Cntation: the lexical con cpt and the cognitive A we. hall see, although distinct, these representational types interact and thereby distinct, these reprC\CntJt.onal types mteract and therebygive gIVerise nsetoto short, LCCM the apparently protean nature the apparently protean nature of of word word meanings. meanin~. In short, L 'M Theory Theory assumes a principled di distinction as,umes tinction between between semantic semantIC structure stru ture and and conceptual conceptual structure. trutture.

3 Cognitive linguistics \, the lex; al representation representat.on and Jnd semantic semanu composition ompo .tion As the present present treatment treatment of lexical "is grounded grou nded in the the perspective perspective known known as as cognitive cognit.velinguistics, linguistics,this thi chapter chapter hrlefly Iinguisti enterprise. enterpri . Cognitive Cognitive linguistics lingui tic isi briefly introduces introduces the cognitive linguistics drgu.,bly rapidly devel ping approach approach to the the relationship relation hip between between arguably the the most most rapidly developing 1.lOguage, sociocultural experience experience in in the the language language sciences, iences. language, mind. mind, and and human sociocultural .10<1 i, increasingly inerea ingly influential influential in in the theinterdisciplinary mterdi iplinary project project known known as a and is ,,'gnitive In this chapter chapter II present present its it guiding guiding assumptions assumption and and also also cognitive science. science. In hriefly two best-developed best-developed sub-branches: ub-branches: (i) cognitive semantics, semantic, briefly review review it its two (I) cognitive .111<1 cognitive approaches approa h to grammar. grammar. I ddo this thi in in order order to toprovide provid aa and (ii) cognitive lUntext the discussion di ussion at at various various points point throughout throughout the book. book. II then then context for for the
The nitive linguistics linguistics enterprise enterprise The cog cognitive A A number of rent developments de"e1opmC1lts discussed di usscd in in the theprevious previou chapter, chapter, upon upon of the recent

whlth LCCM ICCM Theory is i. based, based, derive deriv from from cognitive cognitive linguistics. Iingul ti .In Inparticular, parti ular, which fC M Theory tarting point point the the core coreassumptions a umptionsand andprimary primary LCCM Theory t3k takes as as its starting Ulmmi tmC1ltsof ofthe thecognitive cognitivelinguistics Iingui tiesenterprise. enterprise.Accordingly, Accordingly,in inthis thi.section section commitments I briefly briefly ontroduce the nature nature of ofthe the cognitive cognitivelinguistics Iingui ti enterprise enterprisefor forthose tho introduce the rCdder> to it may may be beunfamiliar, unfamiliar. before before proceeding, proceeding, in in the the following following readers to whom whom it "'
.oinprchensive book,letigth introduction to cognitive linguists.% as Evans and t ;men 120061.

1.INTRODUCTION TROOU(;TION

-

they tmerged emergeddunng during Ih the 196<1 loos and Ihey and1970s, 1970 •particularly particularly cognitive cognilive psychology. p'YLhlll~,gy. Nowhere this dearer 'owhere iis Ihis dtarer than Ihan in 10 work work relating relalmg to10human humancategorization, calegonzallon. particularly as adopted Charles parll(ularlya dopled bby (harl ... Fillmore I illmor. in the Ihe 1970s 1970 (e.g., (e.g.•Fillmore !til more1975) 1975) and Georg George L.tkoff Lakoff in in the Also of and Ihe 198os 1980 (e.g., (t.g .• Lakoff Lakon 1987). 1987). AI", ~f importance Imporlanc have ha\c been earlier traditions such as Gestalt psychology, as applied to the structure betn earlier lradilion u haG lall p y,hology. a apphed 10 Ihe Iru lure of language by by ILeonard TaImy (t.g (e.g., 2000) and oflanlluag conard '[Jlmy .• 20(0) and Ronald Ronald l-angacker I.. nga(ker (e.g., (e.g .• 1987). 1987), Finally, the neural underpinnings of language and cognition have had Finally. Ih n ural undcrpinnin~ of languag and «>gnlllon ha\e had, longlong. standing influence on the character and content of cognitive linguistic 'landing influence on Ih character and conlenl of cognlli\e hngul IIC theIh ories,• from from early early work work on on how how visual biology constrains colour-term systems orie vi ual biology con'lrain coIOl~r'lerm y,lems ( Kay and McDaniel 1978) to more more re recent (t;ayand 1<0 niell978)to enl work under the Ihe rubric rubn( of ofthe Ih Neural cur I Theory of of Language Langu,lge (Feldman 2006; 2006; Gallese Gall and and Lakoff Lakoff 2oo5). l00S). In In recent re<enl years. )'can.. Theory cognitive lingui linguistic ~a~e become bt-come sufficiently ulhuenlly. sophisticated ",phl\llldled and an~ (Ollnllive lic theories Ihe"ril'" have detailed to begin making predictions that are testable using the broad range delailed 10 bt'gin makIng predlcllon Ihal are l"lable u"ng Ihe broad range of (o",erging converging mel methods of hod from from the Ihe cognitive cognilivesciences.] , itn.( ..1 . ' It is important to note that cognitive linguistics is best described It i, importanl 10 nol Ihal cognlll\e hngul Ill' I.' he I d""rtbt~ as a an an enterprise" precisely because it does not constitute a single closely articulated "enlerpri~" pre
for anUvdudury introductory essays • See ~ (,ont.ile. toOlr\L1lkJoSlarquer 1.artt11tZet~ al. aL 1241417) (1oo~' for nwrs by by leading lad...researchers r h.twn on linempirical nnplfial methods in topinive linguist rnc1M.1 In ctlf1llhW' hnpbtK

COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS

"

49 49

I he (.enerali'duon ludies (If The Generalization C.ommilmenl Commitment ha has lonuele concrete consequenles consequences for for studies of Il.•anguage. ognlllve hngui IIC studies ludi fOlU nguage. Fi~tly. Firstly, cognitive linguistic focuson on whal what iiscommon common among ... 1' nf u successful UCl ,ful methods mel hod, and and explanations explanalion, spects Oflanguage. language,\CCking seeking10 to re· re-use a"1" :,,,. , Ihl'>C pe I . I'or lance. ju ., word word meaning mean 109 displays di,play prototype prolOlype these aaspects. For 10 instance, justI as a cross ' -Ihere arc wor~ examples example of of referents referent of of given given words, word,. are hetter better and and worse e llectsi—there ,.IJI«I "" vvarious riou studies ludi have Ih same same prinprin . related10 in parlicular particular wa ways—so have applied applied the ,pic> lU Ihe organization organilJlion of of morphology morphology (e.g., (e.g .•Taylor 'Jylor 2003), 2(lO). syntax ynlax (e.g.. (e.g .• ciples to the (, hlhe rg I99S ). and (e.g .•Jaeger Jaeger and Ohala Oh"'a 1984). 1984). 1995), and phonology phonology (e.g., Goldberg I h "second 'ond (Ommilmenl i the Ihe Cognitive COSOltiv Commitment Commllmenl(Lakoff (Lakoff1990). 1990).This Thi, The commitment is nrepresents I'r,,,,,n" aa",mmllmenl 10 providing pnlVldingaacharacterization chara ·Ieri/.llion of ofthe Ihegeneral gener'"prinprin commitment to <'I'b (ognilionfrom from ciples lor for language language Ihal that a(lord accord wilh with whal what iis known known aboul about human human cognition Ihe brain sciences, <'(Ienc"" particularly partkularly psychology, p y,h logy. artificial artificial intelliinlclli the nlher tither lC>gntlive cognitive and brain grnce. lencc. and phil""'l'hy. In In other olher words, "'nrds. the Ih Cognitive Cognili,. gence, cogniuve cognitive neum neuroscience, and philosophy. (Commitment nmnlllmenl asserts a rt that lhal models mooel of oflanguage language and and linguistic lingui Ii organization organizalionshould hould nil d whal known about aboul the Ihe human human mind, mind.rather ralherthan Ihanpurely purelyaesthetic aeslhetic reflect what Iis known ,hdJle, use of o[ particular particular kinds kind, of of formalisms formali,m, or or economy lxonomy of 01 dictates ,uch such aas Ihe the use n·pre" nlalion. aas in approach to 10lingu15u representation, in Ihe the (case of of formal approaches linguistics..'4 'I he CognillVe Commilmenlhas ha,aanumber numberof ofconcrete (Oncreleramifications. ramificallon ,Firstly, Fir Ily. The Cognitive Commitment hngu"lic 11 include include structures IruLlur or or processes prlllc"" that Ihal violate viol.le known known linguistic Iht.'Ories theories cann cannot Ihe human human cognitive (ognllive system. y I m. For I;or instance, in lance.ifIfsequential C,uch: cognitive ogniliv semanli and cognitive cogniliv (approaches (approa h to) (0)gramgram ' areas of research: semantics and mar (see ( 'cFigure Itgur.3.1). J.I ), mar

«cd'

'I he area area of ludy known known as a cognitive cogniu\' semantics semanli isi concerned (on emedwith wllhinvestigat10' IIgal The of study IIIg the Ihe relationship rdali(ln hip between helwc n experience, experience.lhe conceplual, lem.and and(he Ihesemanscman ing the conceptual system, U, structure lruLlure encoded en"l
, See Lakoff lJa10tI(a987) ( 1'*'7)and anJ Taylor h yto r (2ooi). (aoo," l nih (t998) \l9'fAl for fu, discussion dlJ(u....... of (,.this. lhG. • See Croft

so

CO(iNITIVE LlNGUISTI S _ COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS

INTRODUCTION

.!50~_.......;';;.;T'OD\JCT'ON

Cognitive linguistics: COgnH'vellngu'"uc.: The study of language in a way that is compatible The Il\Jdywhat 01 ~ in a way"'" .. - - is known about the human mind. with

w,II1 who' II k.-n oboU1 "'" hum8II n1II1d.

language as reflecting and revealing the " treating . ."", ~ . . refleclong end , ....1Ing "'" mind n1II1d

Cognitive semantics: CognlUve _11eo: representation. The study of semantic _ The Il\Jdy oI_tJc _ lIOn. conceptual system and the human "'" hum8II c;or<:epIlJOl ayslem end meaning constEUCtiOn processes as moonong conslNC\lOn proceol" II revealed by language

grammar: Cognitiveapproec:hee approaches to to grammar: CognlUve The ltudy study 01 of "'" the oymboIIc symbolic linguistic The IInguII\IC their language, and and " comprise units that ..... ",., compnM Ia~. principles of organization prwcploo 01 organozallOn

, ....ledby~

in cognitive linguistics 3.1. The The study of meaning FIGLIRF. FU.il' Rl }ole tudy of mnning and and grammar grammar in cognitive lingul Ii

he interested interested in in modelling modelling the the human human mind much it is is concerned concerned w,th with be mmd just just aas mu h as as it investigating Iinguisti linguistic semanli semantics,• which which is inv~tigaling is to 10 say say semantic semanlic structure. slructure. grammar is concerned with modelling modelling the to In contra contrast, cognitive approach to grammar, concerned wilh In I. aa cognitIVe lhe language system: the mental grammar, rather than the nature of mind per language y.lem: the mental grammar. rather lhan Ihe nature of mind per se. . so by taking as its starting points the conclusions of work in does so by laking a its tarting points the conclu ion of work In However, it doe> 1I0wever. meaning is to cognitive as meaning cognitive semanti semantics.. Thi This follows cognillve follow a~ i central central to ognitiv. approaches approach to grammar. Indeed, it is worth observing that the centrality of meaning to grammar. Indeed. il i worth observing lhallhe centrality of meaningfor for the Ihe study of grammar is another way in which cognitive approaches to grammar are study of grammar i anolher way in whi h cognitive approa h to grammar are fundamentally cognitive. cognitive, as (2000). a~ observed observed by by Talmy T.llmy (2000). fundamentally Although the Although the study tudy of ofcognitive cognitive semantics semanti and and cognitive cogniliveapproaches approaches to to grammar are occasionally separate in practice, this by no means implies that grammar arc o(c. ionally parale in pra Ii e. Ihi by no mean impli Ihal their Iheir domains domains of of enquiry enquiry are arc anything anylhing but bUI tightly lighlly linked—most linked mOSI work work in in cognitive cognilive linguistics Iingui li finds find itit necessary nee ry to to investigate inv tigate both both meaning meaningand andgramgram matical organization simultaneously. malicalorgani7.ation imultaneou Iy. As As with with research research in In cognitive cognilive semantics, manllCS. cognitive cognitiveapproaches approa he totogrammar grammar have one of have also also typically typically adopted adopted one of two two foci. foci.Scholars holars such ueh asasRonald Ronald 2oo8) have emphasized the study of Langacker (e.g., 1987, 1991a, iy9tb, 1999, Langacker (e.g .• '987. '99w. '99,11. '999. 2008) have empha ized Ihe tudyof the the cognitive cognilive principles prin ipl that th.t give give rise ri to 10 linguistic Iingui tic organization. organization. In In his histheory theory of Cognitive Grammar, Langacker has attempted to delineate the principles of Cognitive Grammar. Lang. ker has attempted to delineate lhe prin iples that that structure Irueture aa grammar, grammar. and and to 10 relate relate these these to 10aspects aspects of ofgeneral generalcognition. cognilion. The second avenue of investigation, pursued by researchers including The second av nue of inv IIg.tion. pur ued by researcher including Bergen Bergen and and Chang Chang (2005), (2005). Croft roft (2oo2), (2002).Fillmore Fillmor and andKay Kay(Fillmore (Fillmore att al. al. Goldberg (1995, 2006), Lakoff (Lakoff and Kay and Fillmore 1988; '988 ; Kay and Hllmore 1999), '999). Goldberg ('995. 2006). Lakoff (Lakoff and Thompson 1975; Lakoff 1987), aims Thomp,,"n '975; L.lkoff '987). and dnd Michaelis Mkhaelb and and Lambrecht .... mhrc..hl (1996), ('996) •• imsto10 provide provide aamore moredescriptively d riplivelyand andformally formallydetailed deta.led account • count of ofthe Ih linguistic Iingui lic units that comprise a particular language. These researchers attempt unil Ihal comprise a parlicular language. The. researcher attempl toto provide language, ,from from morphemes provideaabroad-ranging broad .ranginginventory inventoryof ofthe theunits unil~ofoflJnguag morphcl11 accounts of their structure, to words, idioms, and phrasal patterns, and seek t words, idiom.s, and phrasal pattcrn~, and ~k Jt:.t:.ount~ of their truc.:turc. compositional «lmpo"lionalpossibilities, po ibilill and • andrelations. rcla,inn Researchers . Re..carcher who whohave havepursued pur uedthis Ihi

51 .£. 51

Iinc IIlH'>lIgalion are Iheories that Ihal are are collectively coli lively arc developing developingaa sel set of of theories li ne "ofI investigation known lruction grammars. grammars. Thi g neral approach name known J' as con construction This general approach lak takes it its name Iro'" language iis the Ihe the new view in in cognilive cognitive linguistic linguistics Ih.1 that Ihe the basic basic unil unit of of language fro mIhe "n,I)(,II( ·ulh symbolic ymbolic uni III si.mbolicUIllI. unit,as asIIllroduced introducedabove. above. Such units arc are aiM> also known. known, in \.oll,(rudion grammars,aasconstruction.' constructions.' co nstructiongrammars,

Antecedents of LCCM LCCM Theory Theory Antecedents of IThe he "I'Pro'lh to be be approach10 to lexical lexical rcprc.entalion representation and and semanlic semantic compo;itionalily compositionality to "r,'..cnled ha feet fcct in in both both cognitive cognilive semantics, semantics, and and presentedminthe the rCSI restof of the the book book has ,o~llI li vc .pproaches lilulCS aa cognitive scmanti theory Iheory cognitive approaches10 to grammar. grammar. ItItcon constitutes cognitive semantic J' meanmg-con IrUllion processes, proce.ses. figurative figuralive and and nonnon as .1it "is conI, linguistic.organization organization and mncerned of the Ihe key key aspects aspects of oflinguistic lingui lic knowledge, knowledge. and and the the concerned Wllh with some some of ) m!>ohc nalure language which.. shall argue argue in in detail detail later laler ininthe Ihe symbolic nature of of language which, as II shall h"nes mcognitive cOSllIllvelinguistics, hngUi II s.upon uponwhich whichLCCM LC ' MTheory Thcorydraws dr.w antecedent theories in ndlo r bu,lds m order to begin 10 give a sen of (i) ils di linctive conlribuand/or builds in order to begin to give a sense of (i) its distinctive contributII"ln, . .and (ii) ( ii )how howit ilattempts altemp"to10 ynlh i7esometimes somelimesdivergent divergenlcognitive (ogllll.ve ion, and synthesize l IIOgu"l Ih . . . eon es.in Inorder order to 10begin begmto tomove moveto10aasingle ingle"joined-up" "joined · up"cognitive cognitive . I( theories, inguistic IOgu"llC Ihcory I . 'd 'fi . . ne goal goa is, to10provide prov, ea aunified Ulll edperspective, perspeclive.relating relatinglinlinlinguistic theory.. One tigU"I" guistic . . h \lrUClur d n other. an organization l' stiocsithe org.10ll..dtlon on onthe t eone onehand, hand,and .1I1dmeaning meaningconstrueconstru ructureand um on the other.

h:.

s See ( .oldberg f 2006: db.

10) for discussion of the different varieties Of Cons'

rut non ;1.11111114f.

~ ~1 ~

52

___

INTRODUCTION

'NTROOUCTI~O~N ~

Meaning construction Meaning Within cognitive semantics two significant Withon semantic; there there have haw been been.',,'O ignifkant attempts attempt totoaddress add~ the role role of language th language in meaning meanmg construction. con,tructlon. These 1 h~ relate reiate to toMental iental Spaces Space, and the more recent (1994 1997), Theory. Gilles Fauconnier buconnier (1994. 1997). a~d the more re<:ent Theory, developed developed by Gilles Conceptual Blending Conceptual Blending Theory, Theory. developed dewloped by by Gilles ("II Fauconnier fauconlller and andMark 1arkTurner Turner (2ooz see (2001; see also also Coulson Coulson woo), 1000).which whichbuilds build,upon uponMental MentalSpaces pa," Theory. Theory. Mental Spaces Theory repr represents anattempt attemptto.. to account nlS an ount for for issues I u~ of of Mental paces Theory reference on in di discourse which ha"e have proved problematIC problematic in reference ou«;c which m the the Anglo-American ng1o .Am~n an philosophy of language tradition. The novelty of Mental Spaces "\ he noveity of Mental SpacClo Theory Theory'is that that philosophy of it provides a way of modelling discourse in terms of mental spaces—distinct it provide a way of modelling di oursc term of paces:-- aa network network of ofmental mentalspaces, pac • which proliferate as we think and and talk talk (see (seeFigure Figure 3.2). 3. 1 ). The lat later development of of Conceptual Blending the The r development BlendingTheory Theoryadopts adopt!>aspects aspeet of oft~e architecture of of Mental Mental Spa Spaces Theory in order to model architecture Clo Theory model the thecreativity creatiVIty associa,;(ICIated with with meaning meaning con construction language in ~eaningconstrucc?n tru ated tru tion and and the the use u of oflanguage in meaning tion as well as developing significant theoretical machinery of tion a, well a developong iglllficant theoretical machm ry of its ,t own. own. However, what is common to both theories is that their primary focus conHowever. what i, common to both themi i that their primary focu, con cerns compo compositional ~therthan ~hanat .. t cern itional mechanisms me hani m that thatoperate operateat at the theconceptual con eptu~1rather the linguistic the lingu"tic level. level. In In other other words, words. neither neither of .ofthese t~ . theories theone isIprimarily pru"anly focused on the focu!>Cd the nature nature of ofor or contribution contnbutlon of oflinguistic \ongu"tlcknowledge, knowledge.including mdudmg words, to meaning-construction word. meaning-con tructi n processes—what processes-what Fauconnier Fauconnier refers refer to as as backstage cognition. For theories ba kstage cognition. I-or instance, in,tante. an an important illlponantconcern concernof ofboth boththese thcsc.'heon is the importance of of conceptual mechanisms in meaning coni, mc<~anism and and processes p~oces m .meanmg con struction. By way of illustration, consider the following quotation: _truction. By of illu tration. con ,der the followmg quotat, n: Base

---:,8::--... .. .'. ------~/" /

.1'"

I\. , , ,l

3.2. FIGURE FIC.l'R'}.L

(;()GNITIVE COGNITIVE LINGUISTIC LINGUISTICS

________________________________________

...

A lattice lanile of ufmental men'oJl spaces paces

.........

6 ",

-...

..

'0

53 53

ujge,• as lholg .. ni!UJ~c .n we II. is i but but the Ih tip tiPofofthe Ih iceberg Kebergofofcognitive cognlll\' construction. lon,tructIOIl. As As we U use it, ta~"U~unfolds, unfold,much mu hisi going goingon onbehind behmdthe thescenes: en :New .~domains domainappear, ,ap~.u,linlu are ji„ourse links are • f'lrt:t:'J. truUurr emerges ('mcrg~ and and spreads, prtad. vicwroint torpedoJh"tract abstractmeaning meaningsopera't, operate, internal internal structure viewpoint p shifting. htryJ.lY l.1lk rC.l\4.lOlns,art upportcd by by focus ke keep shifting. Everyday talkolnd and(Onlnlon",'n;t commonsense reasoning are supported „nJ lid h'k.U\

•

",,,,,hie. trall. m ntJI
IFor IIr I-.uconnier. imponant. and and therefore therefore some some of ofthe the most mo t Fauconnier,some someof of the the mo mostt important, IIIt
.. nding "iu I "hal y"; the Iv soy independent of of standing "just what the the word words .. say"; the word words them themselves say n(Jlhing nothing independent the riLhly del.lilcd knowledge and olnd powerful IlOwt.·rful cognitive c.:ognili"eprocesses prt)( webring bringto10bear. beolr. the richly detailed knowledge we

(Turner1991: '99" zoos) 206) (Turner \ly point point is i not not totodeny denythe theimportance importanceofofconceptualization conceptuali/ationprocesses proc My \,h"h occur (ICcur "above" "above" the I .e\ of oflanguage, languag •and and which whOthare arcself-evidently If-evidently which the level < -.cntlal for meaning construction, con truction. as as both bothFauconnier Fauconnierand andTurner Turnerrightly rightly essential for meaning 'or do on relative relative terms. term. linguistic lingui tic units unit serve rYetotoprompt prompt IIh'erve. Nor Observe. do II deny deny that. that, in prot . Nevertheless, evenh Ie • thus thu, far far in in the thedevelopdevclop . lur rich "I.h conceptualization conceptualization processes. for ment of of contemporary contemporary approaches approa h to to meaning meaning construction con truction inincognitive cognitive ment of words word ininmeaning-construction m ning-con truction processes prot . has has been been IIIl·ui,tics. the role of linguistics, the role underplayed. While ;emantlc values valu associated a -iated with with linguistics linguistic units— unit underplayed. While the the semantic concepts-are impoverished impoverished with with respect rC!>peel to tothe the what II refer refer to to as a lexical lexical concepts—are what lUnccptual knowledge knowledge structures tructur." to which they they afford afford access, ace •and and are are also also conceptual to which 'mpoveri,hed with with respect r _Plxt to to the the conceptualizations conceptuali/.ation,totowhich whichthey theygive giverise, ri!>C. impoverished they nevertheless neverthel s exhibit ignifi ant complexity complexity and and sophistication. phistication . they exhibit significant 'Iy purpose purpo;e in in this this book book isi to to explore exploresome someof ofthis thi'complexity, complexity.and andthe th role role My II plays play, in in interfacing interfaling with with the theconceptualization conceptualizationprocesses proces;e ofofbackstage bac~tage It I.ognll,on. studied u h as a Coulson Coulson (e.g., (e.g .• 2000), 1000).Fauconnier, fauconnier. Cognition, studied by by scholars scholars such IlIrncr. and M Theory ofas a aa theory theory Turner, andother_ others.. Accordongly. Accordingly, LCC LCCM Theory c.n can be be thought thought of III frontstage front tag cognition. cognition_ ItIt represents rcpre...,n" an .111 attempt attempt to to study \ludy the thecomplexity compleXItyofof of the semantic ",mantic units umt (lexical (lexical concepts) con ept )associated associated with withlinguistic lingui ti units unit!>such uchasas the Word,. and and the the central tentral role role they they play play in 111 language language understanding. under\landing. Such Suth a• words, tht.'ury mll", of t:tllli"C, mc,h with d lhl'ory of b.lc.:k tdge l,.(}gnition. rhu . theory must, of course, mesh with a theory of backstage cognition. Thus, the the theory theory to to be bedeveloped developed attempts attempt. to to remain remain consistent con i tent with with what what we we now now

knowaboul about Ihe the nalure nature of of Ihe the conceptualization processes Ihal that give give ri~ rise 10 to know conceplualil.allon proces5e' meaningconslruClion. construction, and and Ihu thus the meaning Ihe general g n"al perspective per pechv< provided provided by by Mental Menial Spaces Theory and Conceptual Blending Theory. Spac Theory and onceplu.1 Blending Thtory. Thedivi division of labour thai that hold holds belween between fronl>lage frontstage and and backslage backstage Iheone theories The ion oflabour of cognilion cognition can can be of be delineated delinealed as a follows. follow. A A theory Ihtory of o~ frontstage fronlslage cognition cognili n (e.g., LCCM Theory) involves an account of the following: (e.g.• I.e .M Theory) involv an a counl of Ihe followmg:

AA model model01 ofbackstage backstage eognltoon: cognition the the processes and principles pnncoples 01 processes and of concepluallzation prompled for for by conceptualization prompted by processes of frontstage frontstage cognition cognItion processes of

the relalion relationship between lexical lexical forms forms and and semantic Ihe hip belween manti structure, IruClure. . the nalur nature of of Ihe the relationship holding between relallon hip holding belween semantic ~manll structure IruClure (in(m Ihe hering in the linguistic system) and conceptual structure (inhering in henng in Ihe lingui II y leml and con eplual Mru 'IUre (inhering in the Ihe conceptual system), conceplual y lem I. . ' the principles principles of of lexical lexical composllion composition that •• Ih Ihal serve ~rve to 10integrate mlegrale lexical lexl(al concon cepts and facilitate the selective activation of conceptual structure, and epl and fa ililale Ihe sel hve a
cognrtoon: the the A A model model of of frontstage frontstage cognition: nalure of IIngUlsbc knowledge. conlext. nature of linguistic knowledge. context. lexocallnlegraloon. actovaloon of of nonnonlexical integration, and and activation IIngulslic knowledge. In service of linguistic knowledge. in service of prompllng promptingfor forprocesses processes 01 of backstage backstage cognltoon cognition

Theories of of backstage cognition (e.g., Theori ba kslage cognilion (e.g.. Conceptual nceplual Metaphor Melaphor Theory, Theory.,Mental Menial Spaces Thcc)ry. Theory, and and Con Conceptual Blending Theoryl Theory) involve eplual Blending involve the Ihe following: followms: Spaccs

The both frontstage ofbolh fronl lag and and backstage 00 kslage approaches approa h to 10 cognition cognolion isI Th ultimate ult,male aim aIm of to 10 achieve achieve the Ihe following: following: •• aa model ofdiscourse discoursemeaning: meaning: aadynamic dynami and andtemporary lemporary set sel of ofideas, idea • mod Iof represented and partitioned in conceptual space, which is an emergent represenled and partilioned in conceplual pace. whi h i an emergenl and ()fsituated ilualed communication, communicalion. and andmediated, medialed.inIn and evolving evolving property properly of part, part. by by language. language. The The interaction inleraction between belween frontstage fronl lage and and backstage oockslag theories Iheorie of ofcognition cognolionisi summarized summarized inmFigure !'igure 3.3. 3.3.

Lexical LeXICal representation representation One frontstage One of ofthe Ihekey keyaspects aspecl associated a socia ledwith wilhananaccount accountofof fronl5lagecognition cognilion the relates to lexical representation, which is the subject of Part II of book.AN A relal 10 lexical represenlalion. which is Ihe ubjcci of Part \I of Ihehook. we we saw \.3W in inthe theprevious previou\chapter, ,hdpter.lexical Icxi(dlrepresentation rcprc\Cntdlion constitutes umstitute (i) (i)the the inventory (symbol i, inv nlory of oflinguistic linguisticknowledge knowledgeavailable availableto10language langu.geusers u~rs ( ymbolic

55 55

AAmodel model01ofdiscourse discoursemealllng meaning

•• ••

the non-linguistic • Ihe of non-Iinguislic principles principles that Ihal facilitate facililale conceptual conceplual integration inlegralion of structure as prompted for by language, lruclure a prompled for by language. the ofbackground ba kground non-linguistic non.linguislicknowledge knowledgestructures, lruclures, e.g., e.g.• • Ihe integration inlegrahon of frames, in service of the construction of sophisticated and novel conceptual frames, in rvice ofthecon IruClion of phi licaled and novel con eplual structures (what Fauconnier to as as pattern IruClurcs (whal Fauconni" and and Turner Turner refer refer 10 pallem completion). complelionl. the dynamic •• Ihe dynamIC construal con Irual of ofconceptualizations conceplualizalion (what (whal Fauconnier I'au onnoer and and Turner refer refer 10 to variou variously as elaboration elaboration or or running Turner Iy as running the the blend) bl ndl

COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS

-

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

54 54

roc r •• 01

H The interaction inl ..action of fronl lage and and backstage ba kstage approaches approach to 10 cognition cognition 3.3.. The of frontstage

10how howthis Ihisinterfaces inlerfaceswith wilhnon-linguistic non linguistic unol,). and and (ii) (ii) knowledge knowledge as a to units), in the Ihe conceptual conceplua) system y lem (cognitive (cognllivemodels). model ). knowledge in knowledge A key key aspect a peel of oflexical lexica) representation repr=nlalion isi semantic manlicstructure, IruClure. modelled modelledinin A lenm of of lexical lexi al concepts—the concepl - Ihesubject ubjcciofofChapters haplers 66 and and 7. 7. The Th hallmark hallmark of of terms mJny lexical lexical concepts, con cpl. and and aa key key aspect aspecl of ofsemantic semanli structure, lru lure.concerns concerns many knowledge of Ihe other olher words word and and constructions con lruclion with withwhich whichaagiven givenlexical lexical knowledge of the offlying, Jlyltlg. in in examples examples (i) (I) to 10 c"neepl can can co-occur. co-occur. Indeed, Indeed. in in the Ihe discussion discu ion of concept (4) in in the Iheprevious prevIouschapter, chapler. we wesaw sawthat Ihaldistinct di linCllexical lexicalconcepts oncepl associated a ialed (4) in distinct dislinct ways waY' ininterms termsofoftheir theirselectional selectiona)tendenlendenwith this Ihi form form pattern pattern in with l ie, ~ r example, exampl • the the semantic mantic arguments argumenl they Ihey co-occur co-occur with. wilh. As A noted, nOled. cies—for u'C the Ihe term lerm lexical lexi I profile profile to 10 refer refer to 10semantic semanlicstructure tructure of ofthis Ihi sort. sort.The The II use 10 the Ihe lexical lexical profile profil developed developed ininLCCM LC M Theory Theorybuilds build upon uponthe the approa h to approach of Principled Principled Polysemy, Poly my.aacognitive ognilivelinguistic Iingui Ii theory Ih ryofoflexical lexical earlier theory Iheory of earlier IwO hook book.lenglh trealmenl by byAndrea AndreaTyler Tylerand and represenlalion. developed developedinin two representation, length treatments mY'Clf(Evans (Evan 20o4a; 2oo4a; Tyler Tyler and and Evans Evan 2003). 20031. myself Theearliest earliesl work workon onPrincipled Prin ipledPolysemy Polysemy(e.g., (e.g.•Tyler Tylerand andEvans Evan 2001, 2001.2003) The 2003) ftl
lS~6

____

OGNITlVF LINGUISTIC COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS

INTRODUCTION____________________________________

'NTRODUCT~I~O~N

cognitive lexical lexical ""manlic semantics,• particularly the early early pltmeering pioneering work work inincognitive work parllCularly Ihe work of of Claudia Brugman and and George Lakoff in Iheir their work work on on the laudia Brugman corge lakoffin Ihe English Engli h preposition prepo ilion Brugmanand andlakoff lakoff 1988; lakoff 1987). For in instance, Dominick Sandra over ((Brugman oo'rr 1988; LakofT 1987), i'or lance. Dominick Sandra (1998),aa ppsycholinguist, challenged cognitive lexical lexical !>Cmantici semanticists to develop (1998). y holinguisi. chall nged cognilive I 10 devel p clearded decision principles Ihal that make clear ion principl make semantic seman lie network nelwork analyses analyses objective objective and and verifiable,and and Ihu~ thus a,'oid avoid whal what he he referred to as verifiable. referred III a the Ih polysemy poly myfallacy. fallacy. The The fallacy relates to the following fallacious reasoning: because a lexical item fallacy relal 10 Ihe following fallaciou rca;oning: becau a lexical ilem exhibits aa novel novel meaning meaning in exhibil in context, conlexi. each ea h distinct di lin I semantic semanlic contribution conlribulion isi due 10" to a di distinct due Iinct underlying underlying sense sense stored ~Iored in in memory. memory. According Accordingto 10Sandra Sandra this Ihi, reasoning is fallacious as it does not follow that all or even many distinct reasonmg is falla ious a il docs not follow Ihal all or even many di linll instances associaled associated wilh with aa lexical lexical ilem item provide inslances provide evidence evidence for for distinct di linct senses n , stored m in semantic ~Iored manli memory. memory. Indeed, Indeed. work work by by Brugman Brugman and and Lakoff, lakofT. which which serves 10 to proliferate the number over, for for in instance, serv proliferale the number of ofsenses !>Cnses associated aialed with wllh over. lance. can be be criticized on similar can CTilicized on imilar grounds grounds to 10 models model of oflexical lexical semantics mantics that Ihal constitute Sense Enumerative Lexicons, discussed in Chapter I. Indeed, this con~lilUI Sen Enumerative Lcxkons. discussed in 'hapler I. Indeed. thi, is Ihe the tack will lake take III in Ihe the next where II briefly briefly review review Ih the model model of is la k II will nexl chapter, chapler. where of word meaning proposed by Brugman, Lakoff, and others. word meaning proposed by Brugman. lakofT. and olhers. Tyler and and I.1, in in the Tyler Ihe earlier earlier phase pha of ofresearch rcsearCrve d lennine what whal counts ounl as as aa distinct dislin I sense n (i.e., (i.e,. aa lexical con concept—a time in lelCical epl-a term lerm that Ihal was wa used for for the the first fir I lime in the the context conlext of of Principled Polysemy in Evans loo4a), and thus should distinguish bePrin ipled Poly""my in [van 2oo4a). and thu hould di lingui h be tween senses stored Iween sen lored in m semantic semanlic memory, memory. and context-dependent conlelCl-dependenl meanmeanings ing constructed constructed "online," "online," and and •• they Ihcy should hould establish lablish the Ihe prototypical prolotypical or orcentral cenlral sense sen associated a ialed with wilhaa particular network. This poinl point isi important particular semantic manli nelw rk. Thl Importanl because because cognitive cognilive semanticists manlicisl have have not nOI always always agreed agreed about aboul the Ihe central central senses senses of ofsemantic semanlic categories. '987) argued calegories. For For example, example. while whileLakoff lakoff((1987) argued that thai the thecentral centralsense sen'" for for over o.'rr is i the Ih ABOVE-ACROSS ABOVE-ACRO S meaning, meaning. Kreitzer Kreilzer (1997) (1997) has has argued argued more more recently that it is an ABOVE meaning. recenlly Ihal il i an ABOVE meaning. In In our our 2003 2003 hook book The Tilt Semantics Selllall"csofofEnglish EnglisllPrepositions, PreposillOllS, Tyler and II sought ughl to provide decision principles that could be applied to the entire class to provide deci ion principl that could applied to the entire cia of of English prepositions. Here I will briefly outline the principles we proposed in Engli h prepo itlon . Ilere I will briefly oUlline the pnnClples we proposed in that that work work for for the the first fir t of ofthese th issues: issues: how how totodetermine determine what what counts countsasa distinct distinct lexical lexi al concept concept associated a iated with withaagiven givenprepositional prrpo itionalform. form. We provided two criteria for determining whether a particular We provided two criteria for determining whether. particular sense n of ofaa preposition counts as a distinct lexical tont:L.1n: prcpo Ilion (ounb a J diMinlt lexical (om.:ept: i.I. For ror aa sense ~n~ to to count lounl as a distinct, di\tmc..t. ititmust must involve m"'(llve aa meaning meaning that that isis not not purely purely.spatial patial in in nature, nature. and/or and/or aa spatial ,p.lt ..1configuration configuration holding holdlllgbetween between

57 57

Ihe Referen e Ob,e.! distllllt from from the the the I·igure Figure(n (F) and and Reference Object (RO) (RO) that that iis distinct other n conventionally iated with prepo ition; and other senses conventionally aassociated with that preposition; "n., There There must that are instances of of the the sense sense that are context-independent: context-independent: must also also be be instance lI"tanc in which the di tmct sen ould not be inferred he inferred from from anoth anotherr instances in which the distinct sense could .. "''' and ontext in which itil occurs. oc urs. sense and the the context

,

1<' the criteria are applied. ider the utterances utleranc in ((I) and (2): (2): applied, con consider i) and we how these l „ 'C"

(II

I he hummingbird i hovering over the flower flower The hummingbird is

(2

.( he opter iis hovering over the city cuy he heli helicopter

In (d.over ""rrdesignates d . ignatrsaaspatial patial relation relallon in in which whi hthe th F,p. rllf the 1IIIIIII/IIIIgb;"I. hummingbird, isis I n (1 ""ated Ihan the RO. Ille -palial the flower. In In (2). (2), oo'er over also designates aa spatial the 1(0, located higher higher than rd.lIionship the F, r. lilt 11r!;copter. is higher than than the th RO. RO. is located higher the helicopter, relationship in in which which the In .. exam pi • neither neilher instance in~tance of patial interinternon-spatial over involves a nonIn Ihe these examples, of oo'er prdation. n. encode the th same same spatial spatial relation. relation. According According to to pretation, and and hoth both senses the tances do encode distinct di tinct senses, sen • so SO the firM first criterion. criterion, then. then, the the two two in instances do not encode the mnd crilerion not apply. apply. The of oow over that iis represented in the .. second criterion d~ does not The sense sense of both tht~ examples examples is what Tyler Tyler and and II called called the the ABOVb ow sense. Now ABOVE sense. both these is what cumpare (I) and and (2). (2) . compare the the example example in in (3) (3) with (1) t li))

lohnnailed nailed a board board over the ceiling c iling over the hoi hole in the John

In <'(3), 1). the spatial ~patial configuration configuralion between RO is i not consistent consi ten I with and RO between the Frand In AntlVb meaning meanmg in in (1) (I) and and (2); (2); in in (3) (3)the Ih board hoardisISactually a -tuallybelow below the th hole the ABOVE ceiling. In In addition, addition. there there isis aanon-spatial non-spatial aspect a peel totothis !hi sense: sen :part part in the ceiling. nl the the meaning meanmg associated a iatedwith with over over in in (3) (3) relates rclates to to COVERING, cov, RING. because because the the RO RO of '1OIe) is is obscured ob ured from from view view by by the the F.r. This This COVERING COVlRIN(; meaning meanlllg is i not nOI (( II,,' the hole) .pparent III exampl (1) (t) and and (2). (2). The Thepresence presence of ofthis thi non-spatial non- pati.1aspect aspectinin apparent in examples Ihe sense ..,nseof oowin meet. the the first firsl aassessment ment criterion, criterion.which whichmeans meanswe wecan can the of over in (3) (3) meets n.ow consider lI""ider the the second -ondcriterion. criterion.In Indoing doingso, so.we wemust mustestablish tabli hwhether whetherthe the now (OVfRING meaning meaning isis context-independent context-independentororconstructed con tru ted"online." "online." COVERING Tyler and argued that thai the the meaning meaning of of over over inin (3) (3) cannot cannot be be computed computed Tyler and II argued nnline. and and isis therefore therefore context-independent. contexl independent.InInother otherwords, word~.the th knowledge knowledge online, that over oo'crinin (3) (3) has has an an ABOVE ABove meaning meaning does does not notallow allowus u totoinfer inferaa COVERING OVERING that meaning from from the the context context supplied _uppliedby by(3). (3).To Toelaborate claborat this thi point, point.Tyler Tylerand and meaning provided aa different difTerenl example example in in which which the th COVERING COVPRING meaning meaning isisderivable derivable 1I provided from context. context. Consider Considerexample example(4). (4). from ( ~ ) The Thetablecloth tabledothisi over over the the table table (4)

in contact contactwith—the with- th RO RO (the (II" and in In (4), (4).the theFI (the (II ..tablecloth), rllll/re/oril). isi above—and aile" In covert-d or or obscured oh.... ured by hythe thetabletabletable). '"ille}. The 'I he interpretation interprelation that that the thetable tabl is covered

58

COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS

INTRODUCTION

lexical concept identification procedure developed in LCCM Theory.' I report o n this in Chapter 7, and address the issue of polysemy from the LCCM perspective in Chapter &

cloth can be inferred from the fact that the tablecloth is above the table, together with our encyclopaedic knowledge that tablecloths are larger than tables and the fact that we typically view tables from a vantage point higher than the top of the table. This means that the meaning of COVERING associated with over in (4) can be inferred from the ABOVE lexical concept exhibited. together with encyclopaedic knowledge. This type of inference is not possible in (3) because the spatial relation holding between the F and the RO is one that would normally be encoded by the expression below—The board is below the hole in the ceiling— given our typical vantage point in relation to ceilings. According to Tyler and Evans (2oo3) then, the COVERING meaning of over in (3) must therefore be stored as a distinct lexical concept associated with over. The problem with the perspective provided by the model of Principled Polysemy, as just sketched, is that it is not always clear how one goes about determining whether a meaning is contributed by or independent of context. After all, as I observed in the opening chapter, any given instance of use of any word will always represent a distinct meaning given the context in which it is embedded. For instance, the meaning of want in the examples below is necessarily distinct in each example precisely because the desire being expressed relates to a different sort and thus is unique on each occasion of use: (s) a. I b. c. d.

eniai,r .F)ignueraotfiv language

want a cigarette I want a beer I want a hamburger I want a pizza

The point of the Principled Polysemy approach was to determine the sense units—i.e.. lexical concepts—that words, qua lexical forms, have associated with them. Thus, the difficulty with the version of Principled Polysemy model developed by Tyler and Evans (tool, 2003) is that it could not in fact do this, as context necessarily enters into any given meaning. It sought to isolate meaning from context, which is, by definition, impossibl•. 6 In a later version of Principled Polysemy (Evans zoo4a, Zoos) I developed criteria that reformulated the methodology for identifying distinct lexical concepts. The reformulation allowed for the critical role of context in contributing to word meaning by building the notion of context into the decision principles, rather than by attempting to exclude it. These criteria operationalized utterance context in terms of the semantic and grammatical selectional tendencies, which is to say, the range of semantic arguments and grammatical constructions with which broad classes of meaning types co-occur, as illustrated in the discussion of flying in Chapter L This later work improves the criteria for identifying distinct lexical concepts, and forms the basis for the

59

•

4 4 4

of cognitive linguistics has been to model the t he co mplexity and richness of the human imagination. Until relatively recently in linguistics and in cognitive science more generally, it was assumed either that the human imagination was peripheral to cognition or that it could not he systematically studied. The cognitive linguistics enterprise has provided an approach to studying human imagination, and has been influential in arguing that language reveals systematic processes at work in human imagination. Cognitive linguists have argued that such processes are central to the way we think. The role of imagination in human thought has been approached, in cognitive linguistics, by way of positing relatively stable knowledge structures which are held to inhere in long-term memory. These knowledge structures are termed conceptual metaphors ( Lakoff and Johnson 1980, 1999) and are claimed to have psychological reality, with reasonably robust empirical support (see Koroditsky 2000; Casasanto and loroditsky 2008). In addition, conceptual metaphors are held to be manipulated by virtue of conceptual integration networks becoming established in service of backstage cognition as discussed above (see Fauconnicr and Turner 199g, 2002; Grady 1997, 2005). The way in which these structures and processes have been studied has predominantly been to examine systematicities in figurative language, particularly in the study of conceptual metaphors. George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, the proponents of the study of conceptual metaphor and the architects of Conceptual Metaphor Theory, argue that figurative language IS a consequence of the existence of a universal set of pre-linguistic primary metaphors (Lakoff and Johnson 1999; see also Grady 1997), and a languagespecific set of compound (or complex) metaphors, both of which map structure from more concrete domains of conceptual structure, referred to as source domains, onto less easily apprehended aspects of conceptual structure, referred to as target domains. Together these knowledge structures are held to give riseboth to the productive use of figurative language as well as to more creative aspects, such as poetic metaphor, for instance (see Lakoff and Despite the importance of Conceptual Metaphor Theory in terms of accounting for deeply ingrained systematicities in conceptual structure, it is I argue in Chapter 7 that the lexical profile of a lexical concept. whkh is to say knowledge relating In its sties lion tendencies, ',All he dcrloyed in order to identify which leskal tiiikcpt motivates a given

• See Evans ttorthtisming) fora discussion 4,1 presented in 'Eyler and Evans 12cio31.

14

mu- of the drawbacks of Principled P ► lvsemv as

Instance of use in context. This provides a nwthodoksgy for identifying distinct but se lihmik aily relatdxiconpsatedwih%uxform.

60 60

-

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

\\c ,,,InnthlOk of mantil.: pace a the multifaceted field of conceptual potential withm we ca think of semantic space as the multifaceted field of conceptual potential within "itldl conl.:qltuollilAlUon unfold; mantic structure \trudure un then he ~ which th.,uitht thought and and conceptualization unfold; aa semantic can then

"0

•• See. Evans (1Ot44':"h.)) lsonor .h. si ~. for jut trounce. ,",t.ana.i-n I. •• See, ~.for furinstanie. In I~~.Silva II ....Sinha "nN etrtal. .11. forthcoming l1ho.um.nl)

r..

61 61

... e1113111h. UOlI dcrlltti rd.;Jtl~r or concept or relativeto to lOgOlI!\lC cognitive domJIn!\., domains, .lnd and any any umlt"Jlt V+Iemantic unitsarc arelhu characterized "'nl,\,kJ~ ... \"system tern c~n '" The an asaa d~lmalll domain for forthl') thispurpo purpose... The meaning meaning of of an can function function ~ kno,d edge ,pre: ~lcUl (,«Ifiatlon 10 in many many cogmu~e cognitive domam domains.. ion typl(Jlly typically lO\lol~ involves specifications express (rlll,/. 1987:6)) 63) ibid. 19117;

not aa theory theory about not about language, languag • nor nor about about figurative tigurative language language understanding. under tanding. Rather, Conceptual Metaphor Theory primarily provides account of of Rather. nceptual lttaphor Throry primarily provides ananaccount knowledge repr representation. Indeed, in in spite of its knowledge ntation. Indet-d. pIt of it success, u ce • it It fails fail to to adequately adequately account for systematicities in language, for instance within a single J(lOunt for ystematiciti in language. for in tance within a 'ingle language,* language.' nor in terms of accounting for detailed differences in figurative expression nor in temu of accounting for detailed differen in figurative expr Ion 9 What is required, therefore, that emerge emerge cross-linguistically. ,.lingul ti ally.' \\fhat i, required. therefore. iis aa cognitive cognitive that linguistic account of of front frontstage cognition: an an a«ount account of how tag cognitIon: how the the symbolic ,ymbolic Iingui tic .((ount resourcesm in aa specific language interfa interface with the resource pecific language e with the conceptual conceptual structure struClure (i.e., (i.e.• conceptual metaphors) in in service of situated meaning construction. con eptual metapho,,) service of ituated figurative figurative mcanmg con,truction. Theory is '<"Iuiredinordertoa«ount required in order to account In Part [Vol the book I argue that LCCM InPartIVofthebooklarguethatL:' lThcoryi interfaces with with conceptual for how how figurative for figurative language language (semantic (semantic structure) struClure) interfa conceptual metaphors (conceptual structure) in figurative language understanding. metapho" (conceptual ,tructure) in figurative language understanding. Thus, Thu • as with Conceptual Blending Theory, Conceptual Metaphor Theory remains a' with Conceptual Blending Thl'Ory. Conceptual Melaphor Thl'Ory remain, an an essential part of an overall account of meaning construction. essenlial part of an overaU accounl of meaning constructi n.

Grammar Grammar The J totogrammar, grammar,particularly particularly Cognitive Cognitiv Grammar e.g., 2oo8), and .• 2008). and Cognitive Cognitive Construction Con truction Grammar Grammar Grammar (1.angacker, (Langacker. e.g (Goldberg, e.g., (Goldberg. e.g .• 2006). 20(6). The The first fir t relates relat'" to to the the sharp harp distinction di tmction drawn drawn in in LCCM Theory between LC M ~eory belween semantic semanlic structure tru ture and and conceptual conceplual structure, tructure, as a discussed in the previous chapter, and in more detail in Part II of the hook. discu sed m Ihe previou chapter. and in more detail in Part II of Ihe book. For at at Langacker's 1991a) For instance, mstance. one onecriticism "itici,mthat thathas hasbeen beenlevelled levelled Langacker'(1987, (1987.199'") Cognitive Cogntllv Grammar Grammar relates relates to to the Ih relationship relation hip between betweensemantic semanticstructure tructure and conceptual structure. Langacker argues that semantic structure and conceptual tructure. L.lngacker argu that mantic structureasasenen· coded in language "is" conceptual structure. For instance, in Cognitive coded In languJg~ "i .. con ~pt~JI tru(lurc. For in'tanu:, in Cogniti\'c Grammar, semantic structure Grammar. semantIc structure is, I • in m large large part, part. equated equated with withnon-linguistic non linguistic or encyclopaedic knowledge. This is also true of the approach or n ydopaedlc knowledge. Thi i also true of the approach totolexical lexical representation as reported in proposed by Alan Cruse, Croft and Cruse r pr ntation proposed by Alan (ru • a, reportl'ti in Croft and Cruse (2004). of illustration (2004). By By way wayofillu tration consider con id r the the following followingrepresentative representativequotations quota lions from Langacker. from Langacker.

COGNITIVE TICS COGNITIVE lINGUI LINGUISTICS

",h.lr,ldl"rl/l-tl 10 semantic 'mJntll.: space. pol4..e. location or or a a umhguration configuration in characterized olas •a Icxallon (ibid. 76)

I he' term lOll\.cplUai structure lrulturr will wilitle applitd indiscriminately indl~nmH\alely to 10any Joysuch ulhentity entityI Ii.e., i.t.. be applied The min conceptual th(,u~hl • I..oaxepts. and mental menial experience txptri nle in in general', gmer-tli.whether whether thoughts, concepts, ptrl..cptlon perceptions,• images. images, and hn~ul'u", or non hngubl" in nature. A mantic tructUrt i then ddlncd a a concep~ linguistic or non-linguistic in nature. A semantic structure is then defined as a concepIU<11 fUlKtioru. aas the \4:mantil pole pol of of;l hngu~t".: expression. C' p \Ion. Hence lIelKe the semantic a linguistic structure tholt that functions t u al !llrudun: lll.lIlli", structures tnn.turn arc art regarded rcpnJcd as cOIlf.:cptualiullon hapcd for purpo for symbolk symbolic purposes conceptualizations shaped semantic ..... '\ rJI0 8 to organization. according to the dictat dictates oflinguistic of linguistic organization.

(d,,,/. (ibid. 911) 98 )

•

4

,,'hat i that thaI the the semantic scmanll material— matenalWhat Langacker Langackerappear appearstotohave havein in mind mind is Informally what he he formally formally refers refer to to as a aa predication—associpredi ation-a iinformally the the meaning, meaning, what atloJ lexical form, form. i.e., i.e .• aa word, word. relates relates directly d" ,tly to the contents content of of ated with. with a lexical to the c(lnceptual IruClure. In In principle, principle.lhi conceplualstructure IruClurerelates relalesto toaadiverse diver conceptual structure. this conceptual ofnon-linguistic non-Iinguhticknowledge, knowledge.what whatLangacker Langackerrefers refers to to and body of and ,",phi,tlCated sophisticated body a, matrix. Take, Take. for for instance, in tance. the the word word uncle. Imde. The The meaning meaning of IIlIde. of uncle, as aa domain domain matrix. (ln this thi view. i potentially potentially aa function function of of the th vast va Ibody bodyofofencyclopaedic encyd paedic on view, is mean to to be be someone's someone' uncle. uncle. In In addition addition toto knowledge we knowledge we have have of of what what it it means the 'IX'<-ilic relalionship holding holding between between the the child child of ofuncle's uncle' sibling, ibling,this thi also also the specific relationship mdude, detailed detailed knowledge knowledgerelating relatingto 10marital marital relations, relalion •familial familialrelations, relalion •the the includes ,,"'ial status \I.ltu, of of uncles, uncles. the the types types of ofbehaviours behaviour associated associatedwith withuncles, unci as • aswell wellasas social und IIldividual knowledge knowledge any any given given individual individual may may have have with with respect respect to touncles individual they have have known. known. Yet Yel while while this this knowledge knowledgeisi encyclopaedic, encycJopaedi it • itisifor forLangacker Langacker they 1'.1rt of semantic structure, "ructure.i.e., i.e .•directly directlyencoded encodedbybya alexi fom,.Langacker's Langacker' part of semantic lexicalalform. wayofofseparating par tingputative pUlativelinguistic Iingui Ii argumen t is i that that there there isI; no noprincipled principledway argument from non-linguistic non-lingui ticsemantic semanticrepresentation. representalion. from On the contrary. I argue in detail PartIIIIthat thatthere Ihereisi aaclear dearand andprincipled principled On the contrary, I argue in detail ininPart be nude. made.I Isketched ketchedthe theoutlines outlinesofofsuch uchaadistinction di ttnclionininthe th d""'1
'° See the review in Itarwlou el al. ( forthcoming 1.

62 61

(:OGNITIVP. LINGUI TI S COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

One ne way in on which whi h the the present pre 'nt proposals proposalscan canbe Ixinterpreted interpretedisisas aaclarifica darifica tion on the nature nature of ofthe the interface interface between Ixtween semantic semanticstructure tru tureand andconceptual conceptual tion structure, and and aa correctiv corrective on on the encydopaedic encyclopaedic semantics approach approa h adopted adopted ,tructllre, in cogmtive cognitive linguistics. In specific pecificterms, term,LCCM LCCM Theory Theorysuggests uggest,that thatrather rather in lingui ti . In than the semantic equated %vith than mantic representation representationencoded encodedbybylanguage languagbeing Ixing equated with conceptual structure, conceptual stnl ture, semantic mantic structure strll ture takes tak", aa distinct distinctform. form.Specifically, peeifically, semantic structure, unlike conceptual conceptual structure, scmanll tructure, unlike tructur, is i directly dir -tly encoded in In lanIan refer to as 1 guage, takes a specialized pecialized and highly highly elaborate elaborate form: form: what what I refer guage, and and takes concepts, they encode are' concept, lexical lexical concepts concept art en ode aa highly highly lexical concept. concepts. While lexical schematic fornl form of of semantic representation, schematic representation, one one that that isi specialized 'peeialized for for being Ixong directly en encoded directly oded in and and externalized externalized via via language. language. In In contrast, contrast, conceptual conceptual structure takes aa qualitatively qualitativelydistinct distinct form, form, which which I model in ofthe the tructure takes in terms term of theoretical con construct model. theoretical truct of the cognitive model. In other words, In word, the the encyclopaedic encyclopaedic knowledge knowledgethat thatLangacker Langackerequates equat with with the semantic of linguistic lingui ti expressions, exp ion, isi not, not,ininLCCM L MTheory, Theory, what what isis the mantic pole pol of structure. semantic structure meant by semantic manti stru ture. Rather, semanti tructur relates relat to the th range range of of purely linguistic information purely information that that lexical lexical forms formsare are conventionally conventionallyassociated associated and 7. in Chapters Chapters 6 and 7. with, which is i detailed detailed in In addition, lexical concepts In oncepts provide access a ces sites ites to to conceptual conceptualstructure. tructure. Langacker says something apparently similar, Langacker ys something imilar, suggesting that that words word provide provide access" to conceptual conceptual structure. structure. However, I!owever, he he appears appear to to mean mean ""points poont of access" something quite something quit different. different. As noted, noted, on onLangacker's Langa ker' view view word word meanings meaning. relate directly directly to to and thereby, part, constitute constitute encyclopaedic encyclopaedic knowledge, knowledge, relate thereby, in part, qua conceptual structure. In LCCM Theory, lexical concepts (i.e., qua con eptual structur . 1J . M concept (j.e., semantic scmantic structure) ar are quit quite distinct distinct from from the non non-linguistic structure) -lingui tic conceptual on eptual knowledge knowledg to to in detail which as we we will will see in detail in Part Part II II of whi h they potentially potentially afford afford access, acc ,as the hook. th book. The second way in in which whi hLCCM LC M Theory Theory differs differ from from other othercognitive ognit"e Th -ond way approaches to to grammar can Ix be approached with respect approach grammar can approached with r peel to Cognitive ConConstruction ofConstruction Construction Grammar Grammar developed devel ped in inthe the truction Grammar: rammar: the version ver ion of work of of Adele Ad Ie Goldberg Goldlxrg (1995, (1995, 2006). LCCM LC M Theory adopts the position po ition that that lexical concept concepts are associated with all linguistic lingui tic units. units.Lexical Lexicalconcepts concept are are lexical with all then fused, to to produce produce lexical conceptual units unil which whi h are are then then interpreted, interpreted, which aninformational informationalcharacterization characterization from from the the whi h is i to to sayythey Iheyreceive r . ive an cognitive cognitive models to to which which they they afford afford access. acc . This This view view isi consistent consi tenlwith with the th general gen ral position po ition advocated advocated in in Cognitive ognitive Construction Con tructl nGrammar. Grammar. As A we w saw in the saw the previous previou chapter chapter in in discussing di u ing the the symbolic symbolIC basis ba i ofoflanguage, language, (sentence-level) (senlen e-Ievel) constructions conslruction are are held to to have have aa semantic manlic value value independent independenl of of the the words word which which instantiate in tantiate them. them. That That is, i" constructions con truction have hav meaning m..aning in in their their own right. right. Moreover, Moreover, constructions con truction can be be fused. fu.,ro. For I-orinstance, in tance,the the ditransitive construction ditran itive con truction involves a schematic schemati meaning meamng which whi h can canbe Ixfused fused linguistic with the the meaning m aning of of the individual ondividuallingui tic units unit which which constitute con tllute it. It. This Thi isi similar to the position to be developed here. The main difference is in terms Imllar po ilion to Ix dev loped her. Th main dIfference is on termsofof focus focu and and detail. detail.

63

(-ngnltive ConstructionGrammar Grammar isisprimarily primarily concerned concerned with WIthdeveloping developing cognitive Construction sort of of (grammatical) (grammatical) constructions construction that Ihatalanguage uchas as of the sorts a language such 3 ,: count of ann JLLnllnt :Eng ng",h h." at it disposal. di po al. In In particular, parti ular, the focus focll has ha been Ixen on ondescribing d ribingand and ikli has at its Idlng a Iheorellcalarchltecture count for for formal aspects a peets of o~language, theoretical architecture to aaccount language, providing hI form can can co-occur, co-occur, and and the Ihegeneral generalsemantic semanll patterns patterns studying whICh which forms by ,tudying form. In In contrast, contrast, LCCM 1J - M Theory Theoryisi primarily primarilyconcerned oncerned .1,.n";Jted uch forms. ,,,,,,dated with such d riptiv analysis analy i of the forms form that Ihat populate populateaagiven givenlanguage. language. nnt with a.1 descriptive of the no t ",th with: RJther. gather, it is largely concerned with:

1'""

I.i. eXJmining range of of lexical lexi al concepts, concept, qutl examining and describing the range qua semanti semantic unit , a socialed wilh a given language, units, associated with a given language, II. al concept lingui tic conceptual conceptual way th these lexi lexical concepts afford afford ace access to to non non-linguistic ii. the way servi e of ofderiving d riving what what IIrefer r fer to toasa an an knowledge structures tructur in service informalional characterizalion: Ihal i ,a itualed interpretation, interprelalion, and and informational characterization: that is, a situated III. lexical concept in service service of of way in which these lexical concepts can combine in iii. the way prompting for processes proc of meaning meaning construction: constru lIon: that that is, i ,backstage batkstage of cognilion. cognition. Ihe approa h taken lexi al concepts—the on ept Ihesemantic manlicpole pole The approach taken here, here, 10 to emphasize lexical of symbolic ,ymbolic units, rather ralher than Ihan the Ihe formal pole—stems pole-- lems from from the Ihe view view that Ihal the the f""m are Jre primarily the "vehicles" "vehi I "for making semantic semanti representations representation availavailforms for making (I.e., intersubjective) inlersubjective) purposes. purpo . Indeed, to make make this thi ahle for able for communicative (i.e., pclint explicit, explicil, II henceforth henceforth use u the Ihe term lerm phonological phonological vehicle (or vehicle vehicle for for point lexi al form. fornl . It It is i the the semantic semantic units unil themselves, themselves,the the h"rt), to refer refer to a given lexical short), lexieal concepts, whose who ability abililY to afford afford access a ces to to conceptual con eptual knowledge, knowledge, and and lexical to be Ix combined in in aa range range of ofways, way , that Ihat provide provide the Ihe essential ntial component componenl of of the mental mental grammar grammar deployed deployed by by language language users USC" in in service scrvi e of of constructing con tructing mcalling. Thu present approach approa h to the the study tudyofofgrammar grammarexhibits exh,b,l,aa meaning. Thus,, the present differe nce in from that Ihal of ofCognitive CogniliveConstruction Con truclionGrammar, Grammar,and and difference in emphasis from ondl'C
Summary Summary In this th" chapter t hapter II have situated LCCM I.e .M Theory in III the Ihe larger larger cognitive cognitIvelinguistics IongulSti in cnterpri of which itIt isi aa part. part. IIbegan Ixgan by byintroducing inlroducingcognitive cognilivelinguistics, linguisll , enterprise commitmentsand andguiding guidingassumptions: a umption: and by briefly reviewing its primary commitments n()tably the Generalization Generalization Commitment and alld the the Cognitive CognitiveCommitment. Commitment. notably argued that Ihal LCCM LC M Theory Theoryrepresents represents aa cognitive semantic semanllC theory, Iheory, concon I argued i with with the the nature nature of ofmeaning, m aning,meaning meaningconstruction, construction, and and the the cemed aas it is cerned relatioll,hip between between literal hteral and and figurative figurative language language and and thought. thought. LCCM l.eCM relationship 1heory is i also also aa cognitive cognitiv theory theory of ofgrammar, grammar, as .5 itit focuses focu"" on on the thenature nature of of the semantics semanti of ofgrammar, grammar, both both in in terms term ofoflexical lexicalrepresentation, rcpr~ntation,and andthe th

64

INTRODUCTION

way in in which which lexical lexical representations repr"",ntatlon, are ar fused (u>Cd or or composed, composed. giving givingrise risetoto way oflanguage. language. II also al considered con id r dthe th way wayininwhich whi hLCCM LCCMTheory Theory unit of larger units erve<; to to build build on on antecedent antecedent theories throrie<; inincognitive cognitivelinguistics. linguistic..InInsoMldoing, doing, serves ,uggested that that LCCM LCC 1 Theory Theory provides providl'S aa frontstage front tage theory throry of ofmeaning meaning II suggested whIChmust mu tinterface interfacewith withan an account a countofofthe so·calledbackstage ba kstage con truction.which construction, the so-called proccssc> involved. involved. IIalso also suggested -uggested that thatLCCM LC M Theory Theoryserves ~rvesas a aacorrective mrrecti,-e processes approach. to tothe therelationship rdation hlpbetween betweellsemantic ~manticstructure tructureand and nil previous previou, approaches on con eptual structure tructure in in cognitive cognitive linguistics, linguisti •an anissue i u addressed addressed ininfurther further conceptual detail in in Chapter Chapter 9. 9- In In particular, particular. in in this thi chapter chapter II argued argued for for aaprincipled principled di>tlll
4 Word meaning meaningininLCCM lCCM Theory Theory .. ~,crH-d at the outset out ..t of ofthe thebook bookthat thatword wordmeanings meaning are arcprotean proteaninInnature: nature: II observed %vords appeartotoexhibit exhibit(often (often significant) variation in their semantic I\\",h .lppear ignificant) variation manticcontricontribution hut ion across aero utterances. utterances. As A lean lean Aitchison Aitchisonstrikingly _trikinglyputs putsit: it:"Word "Word meanings meanings cannot Flutter ,.11111"t be ~e pinned pinned down, down. asa,ififthey theywere weredead deadinsects. lIl"xt,.Instead, In\lead.they they flutter 39-4o). In this chapter around elusively like live butterflies" (Aitchison 1994: amuml elUSIvely lik live butterflie<;" (Aitchison '994: 39-40). In thi chapter I argue argue as as follows: follows: the the key key to to developing an account of ofthe the protean protean nature nature of of words, a' as exhibited exhibited in in meaning meaning construction, mn truction. isi to toprovide provideaadescriptively de\Criptively adequate account of of (1) (i) the the sorts sorts of ofknowledge knowledg that that words wordsprovide provideaccess ace to, to. .Iul"luate account and (ii) ( ii) an an account account of and of how how word word meanings, mcaning •and andthe theknowledge knowledg structures tructurestoto which they afford access, aec <. are integrated (or composed). compo>ed). Nly main main purpo purpose in this ~Iy thi chapter chapter is i to to present present aa very very general overview overviewof ofthe th architectureof of LCCM Theory, and and in particular, ar.Ige tdil of the theory theory which which are arc presented in Parts II II and III III of of the book. and The chapter chapter begins. begins, in in the The the next next section, se<:tion. by by briefly briefly reviewing reviewing some meprevious prevIous approaches to word meaning. I argue that the difficulty with these approaches, approach dPl'roach", to word mealling. I the difficulty WIth th from the present perspective, is that (i) they fail to recognize that from the present perspective. is that (i) they fail to recognize that semantic semanti representation must include semantic stricture (linguistic knowledge) aswell well representation must include semantic structure (lingui tic knowledg )as as conceptual structure (non-linguistic knowledge), and (ii) they are not usagea, C()OccptuJI structure (non lingui tic knowledge). (ii) they are not uCetion section I tum turn to a discussion di -u ,ion of of developed the usage-based Theory, before employing the perspective that that infOrms the u'>.lge-b.t>ed perspectIve IIlfnnn LCCM I (:CM rhl,(lry. before el11l'loylllg the specific proposals developed there as a basis for introducing inlrtxluung the outlines outline<; of of 'p,-xillc propo'>.ll devcioped there as a hash for

I'''''''.

hh

WORD MEANING IN LCCM THEORY

INTRODUCTION

the theory. Finally, I present an illustration of how LCCM Theory works in let ins of aLcounting for the role of words in language understanding.

Previous approaches to word meaning Until relatively recently, models of semantic representation typically failed to observe that word meaning is subject to the sort of variation in language use described in Chapter L Thus, prior to the 198os, lexical semanticists often assumed that the semantic contribution of a word was a consequence of a stable and relatively rigid knowledge structure (Allwtxxl 2oo3; Harder 2(109). More recently, linguists have begun to attempt to provide theories of word meaning which are compatible with the variation in meaning observed. There have been at least three sorts of accounts that have been invoked by scholars who recognise that word meaning is protean in nature, and thus who take issue with the view of word meaning adopted under literalism. I will characterize these three approaches as follows: i. The sense-enumerative perspective. This involves positing a vast number of distinct senses associated with a given lexical form, which attempts to exhaust the possibilities that actually occur in language. ii. The abstract underlying semantic representation perspective. This sort of approach employs cognitive and/or linguistic "devices" (including context) that operate on relatively abstract (in the sense of underspecified) underlying semantic/lexical entries in order to generate surface interpretations of words. iii. The semantics plus pragmatic principles perspective. This approach assumes relatively stable underlying semantic/lexical entries (semantics) together with specific principles/rules of interpretation (pragmatics). I briefly review each of these perspectives in slightly more detail, by focusing on a well-known exemplar. The sense-enumerative approach posits a proliferation of distinct sense units associated with a given form, which are held to he stored in the mental lexicon. A well-known representative example is the study of the English preposition over by Brugman and Lakoff (1988; see also Lakoff 1987), briefly discussed in the previous chapter. Lakoff and Brugman, in their various publications on the topic, argue for a highly granular mental repository of sense units, positing a large number of distinct senses associated with the lexical form over. This approach Lakoff (1987) refers to as the full-specification account. The difficulties associated with this specific version of this general approach have been outlined in detail elsewhere.' However, as has ' See. for instante, grottier 1 1 997 1 : "rYkr And I '4118 I 2 ► (2006: ch. to) for a review.

'

►

l• VJ Mk'

1990 ); and Evans and t;reen

•

67

been pointed out by Pustejovsky 0990 any sense-enumerative approach is nlikely to be able to fully predict the range of senses associated with even a u 'hisfollows as any given usage of an individual lexical item will word.I always be unique, and thus provide a subtle context-dependent meaning distinction. I n turn, this is the case as distinct instances of use often correlate with what I have referred to as distinct selectional tendencies in terms of as exemcollocational patterns. 2 For instance, even the expression I p lified in the utterances I Want a beer versus I want a cigarette., involve different kinds of semantic arguments and thus two distinct semantic contributions of tvant. Informally, the sort of "want" involved is of a different kind in each case. The range of semantic arguments with which any lexical item can co-occur will always far outnumber even the most detailed full-specification or sense-enumerative accounts available. As part of the task of the lexical semanticist is to be able to account for the range of semantic arguments with which a form can be combined, adopting a sense-enumerative approach leads, in effect, to infinite polysemy. Some scholars, including Sandra (1998) and Sinha and Kuteva (1995), have roundly criticized this tendency, arguing that it amounts to a methodological failure.' The second perspective proposes the following. Rather than expanding the number of distinct senses that must be stored in the lexicon, the lexical entry itself can he made more abstract and thus more flexible. This might include adding various semantic dimensions or "slots" to the lexical entry which can be differentially selected for based on the linguistic context which combines with the lexical entry in question, and the ways in which lexical entries are combined, or coerced into behaving. A well -known example of such an approach is that of Pustejovsky (1995). In his account, Pustejovsky argues for relatively abstract lexical meta-entries. Although abstract in nature, these meta-entries contain more potential for detail and thus far more flexibility than has traditionally been associated with lexical entries, particularly as advocated in computational and formal approaches to lexical semantics, with one or two notable exceptions (e.g., Sperber and Wilson 1995; Carston 2(102). This is achieved by positing so-called qualia roles associated with any given meta-entry. These qualia roles, which have unspecified values in the underlying meta-entry, relate, at least for nouns, to notions such as purpose, origin, material type, and so forth. Generative devices operate on the meta-entry in order to fill the value of the qualia roles, while a given qualia role need not always be tilled in. The advantage of this approach is that it is not static lexical entries that combine in meaning construction, which is the difficulty with a sense-enumerative perspective. Rather, meaning construction occurs, on this account, by virtue of filling in values for and combining qualia roles. This goes some way towards accounting for the protean nature of situated word meaning.

I

See also Pustepovsky 199s. As we saw in the previous hapter, Sandra has dubbed this tendenss the polysemy fallacy.

f1

INTRODUCTION

8

WORD MEANING IN LCCM THEORY

A significant drawback of Pustejovsky's account, despite its ingenuity, is that it

is far from clear that his proposal for lexical meta-entries with +paha structure is psychologically plausible. While psychological validity may not be of paramount concerti for cognitive scientists who sack a computationally tradable account of semantic representation, and the way in which words combine—which is one of Pustejovsky's ultimate concerns—the goal of the present work is to develop a psychologically realistic account of semantic representation and meaning construction, one that is consonant with the Generalization and Cognitive Commitments of cognitive linguistics discussed in the previous chapter, and one that is consonant with recent findings from psychology. The third perspective, the semantics plus pragmatics approach, assumes that while words have the semantic representations that they do, these underspecify for meaning in context due to pragmatic principles which guide the way they are applied in specific utterance contexts. A relatively well-known example of this general perspective includes Herskovits's (1986) account of spatial relations. Herskovits argues that what she terms the simple-relations model Of spatial prepositions, as presented in formal semantic accounts, fails because it underestimates the role of pragmatic knowledge and the principles of language use which language users deploy when using lexical items such as prepositions. However, Herskovits herself takes a rather narrow view of what the semantic representations associated with prepositions look like. More recent research, for instance by Coventry and Garrod (2004), Deane (2005), Evans and Tyler (2004), Feist (forthcoming), Tyler and Evans (2003) and Vandeloise (e.g., 1994), suggests that in addition to a spatial relation, preposi Lions also encode functional/qualitative meanings.' Adopting this proposal makes redundant many of the pragmatic principles posited by Herskovits. In general terms, there are two difficulties common to each of these perspec Lives as they attempt to account for (situated) variation in word meaning. Firstly, each of the accounts assumes that word meanings are stable, circumscribed knowledge structures which can he (relatively) straightforwardly identified—a problem also true of the view of word meaning under literalism. That is, they assume that the semantic values associated with words are relatively rigid, discrete sense units, qua mental entities. As we have begun to see in the previous chapter, scholars who take an encyclopaedic perspective on linguistic semantics have suggested that in fact word meaning is less a discrete body of circumscribed knowledge. Rather, words serve as points of access to larger-scale conceptual knowledge structures, cognitive models, which are potentially vast in scope, as I argue in detail in Part II of the books On this view, words provide access to what I first referred to, in Chapter i, as a semantic potential, with different sorts of knowledge being potentially activated.

4

I develop an IC.t:M account id %pawl partttles in t:hapter Fur related perspectives see. in partit tam. Allwood 2003; Cron 1993; t .ruse

Zlatev 2003.

211412. I aligatkel

69

The second difficulty associated with the three perspectives sketched above, no twithstanding their attempt to handle variation in word meaning in language use, is that they do not constitute usage-based accounts of word meaning. That is, they make no serious attempt to relate their theoretical c laims to the nature of situated meaning, and thus how words derive from and sjinc tion contextualized usage events. Nor are they concerned with how words arc used in context in order to express localized communicative intentions. The semantic contribution of a word, which is to say, which part of its semantic potential is activated, will always be a function of how it is being used in any given context. As we saw in Chapter t, this includes both the linguistic context—the surrounding words and grammatical constructions—and the e xtra-linguistic context—including the situated communicative intention of the language user. Thus, we require an account of the nature of the semantic potential that words provide access to, and an account of how this semantic potential is constrained by virtue of the way in which words are combined and their contexts of use (i.e., the cognitive operations that facilitate differential activation of a word's semantic potential). Thus, we need a theoretical account of context, and the role of the language user as an intentional agent who employs language, in part, in service of the expression of situated communicative intentions (see Clark 1996; Croft 2000; Sperber and Wilson 1995).6

The semantic potential of words Recent work on knowledge representation in cognitive psychology (e.g., Barsalou 1999, 2003, 2008; Barsalou et aL forthcoming)' suggests that words

provide access to simulators: large-scale coherent bodies of body-based (e.g., perceptual, motoric, subjective, etc.) knowledge that can give rise to simulations.' From this perspective, one reason for the protean nature of word meaning is due to the large body of non-linguistic knowledge to which words afford access, and the potential for simulations that arise. In recent work, Rolf Zwaan (2004) has developed a language-processing model which is concerned with modelling how language provides access to simulators, and thus prompts for simulations. This he refers to as the Immersed Experiencer framework. For instance, consider the use of the lexical item red in the following examples: (I) a. The teacher scrawled in red ink all over the pupil's homework exercise b. The red squirrel is in danger of becoming extinct in the British Isles

' This is an issue I develop in :barter ii. For Mated atimunts And dist ussion ol the relationship between aspetts of language and stimuli Nuns see ah., liergen And t 'hang (2000. t deriberg and kas.hak (2002 hak and t denherg ( 2 01 )1 )); and Vigliotko et ▪ Recall that simulations are re-activanons of body-bawd stales, as briefly discussed in Chapter L

I

70

70

arr

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

Zwaanmakes makesthe thepoint point that that in in linguistic examples such Zwaan lingui tic e""mpl uch aas (t), (I). which whi h are indicativeof of those those he he u uses in in his red ddesignates two different different sorts sorts of of indicative hi model, model. red ignates two sensoryexperience experience preci precisely becausethe the cont context constrains ",nsory Iy beeau ..t con train the sort sort of of simuImu lations derived derived by by language language use users. That Iis,• while while the .... That the simulated imulated hue hue derived denved lations red in from the the use use of of red in ((ta) 13) is i quite quite aa vivid vivid red, red. the the hue hue of ofthe the simulation imulation from prompted for for by by ((lb) a dun/browny prompted Ib). is is likely likely to be be closer to to. dun/ browny colour. colour. In In present pr ' 01 red ha terms, retl has.3a relatlV relatively largesemantic semantic potential. potential, whllh which relates term. Iy large relates to a range of differentpo possible hues (one (one dimension Ibl hues dimension along along which whi h the the colour colour spectrum pectrum dIfferent varies). That aspect of the word's potential which is activated is a come varies).' That a peet of the word' potential which is .ctivated a consequence, in part, of the way it is constrained by the utterance context, quence. in part. of the way it i con trained by the utterance ontext.and and IO specifically thescene sceneevoked evokedby bythe theutterance utterancecontext. context.' pecifi ally the An important Ie lesson from the of Zwaan, and indeed others who take An important n from th work of Zwaan. and ta ke what.1I will will refer refer to to aas a simulation what imul.tion semantics sem •.nties approach approach to to language language underundc rstanding (e.g., Bergen and and Chang coos), is .• Bergen hang 2005). I that that the the semantic semanti potential potential assoa sotandlllg (e.g ciated with with words is primarily non-linguistic ciated non linguistic in in nature. nature. That That is, i •the thesemantic semantic potential of red is not "there" in the word itself. That is, whatever potential of ret! i not " there" III the word itself. That is. whatever rcd red designates, we are not dealing with purely linguistic knowledge, as the same designates. we are with purely linguistic knowledge. 35 the same form prompts for two very different sorts of rent sort ofmental mentalrehearsals rehearsalsofof"redness." "redn""." form prompt for two very diffi Rather,the the form form red provides ace access to perceptual Rather. ret! provides per eptual information infornlatlon and and knowknow1I ledge, which which can or simulated." ledg~. ~an be be reconstructed reconstructed .or imulated. The .Thegeneral general perspective perspective provided by by simulation Imulatlon semantics "'manllc is I adopted adopted and and integrated llltegrated with with the the perperproVIded spective of cognitive peetlVe of cogOlllve linguistics hngUlstlcs that that isi central central totoLCCM LCeM Theory, Theory. and anddeveldeveloped in in Part Part II II of of the the hook. book. oped in more more detail detail in

Meaning M eaning and and use use II now now turn tum to to aadiscussion discu ionofofthe th relationship relation hlpbetween betw nlanguage languag use u and and meaning. I do so by adopting a version of the usage-based thesis employed mea~l~g. Ido . by adoptlllg a ver Ion of the usage-based th is employed in in cognitive linguistics (as developed most notably by Langacker e.g., z000)," cogmllve hngUl IICS (a developed most n tably by Langacker e.g .• 2000)." which whl(h II present present below. below. Language use language: our our knowledge knowledgeofoflanguage: ourlanguage languagesystem tem u is i integral to our (or mental mental grammar). grammar). The Th. organization organization of ofour ourlanguage languagesystem sy temisi intimately intimately related derIVes directly directly from, from. how how language language isi actually actuallyused used(Croft (Croft related to, to. and and derives woo; Langacker zoo3). Through of 2000; Langa.cker 2000; 2000; Tomasello Toma 1102003). Through processes proc ofabstraction ab tractionand and schematization z000), based on pattern he~atlzallon (Langacker (Langacker 2000). pattern recognition recognition and and intentionintentionreading abilities (Tomasello 1999, 2oo3), language users derive symbolic uni". «adlllS abliltl . (Tomasello 1999. 2003). language users derive symbolic units. These are relatively well-entrenched mental routines consisting of conventional These are relallvely well-entren hed mental routin con i ting of conventional pairings pairings of ofform fonn and andmeaning meaning(Langacker ( Langa ker1987). 1987). • That language serves to prompt for simulations as a point t h at ha% been nude, albeit in slightly different terms, by a number of other stilialars. See in partisular [Ursalou 11999). and Kas.hak and tilenherg Isom)), "I See Zwaan and Radvansky I iswal for di.. ussion tit the important e of Lonstrikting anal drawing upon situation models—knowledge of spes:11% scene% and situations—fir Language understanding. Is For discussion see Rarsaksu t1999). 52 See /:vans and Green Om*: ch. 4) fm a review .

-

771

IIH ow ",c, cr. the unit available available to to the th language language user u r masma ever, the range rangeof of symboli symbolic units underdetennine range or situation, events, events, states, tat relationships, relation hip derdetermine the the range of situations, sive ly un ,I dI other o,her ,nterpcr>onal that the the language language user user may may potentially potentiallyseek seek interpersonal functions that an , an' " .. ,c ,or this thl. is , that that language language users users se 1,InSuaSe language to to express express and and ,ullil. fulfil. One One rcason reason for i„ u ~ ,n io physical matrix hiftin.g and 0 two two ::: sociophysical matrix 'hat.i that is continuallr continually shifting and e~olving. evolving. No live i n a "IC ,uall un'. feehngs. hIp. at POlllt in 10 time, lime.are areexactly exa t1y situations, feelings,or or relallon relationships, at any any g,ven given point "lIkC. We arc contlllually using language to expr . unique meanings. about a like . We are continually using language to express unique meanings, about a nique uniqu ways. way. While While language languag has ha nique states states of of affairs affairsand and relallonship relationships,• in unique u ~a r.uo~e made schema • oror ymboli h can an be to rangeuf Ofready· ready-made schemas, symbolicunits unitswhi which be combined combined to to refer refer to to and and eexPfC" ntative range press aa rcpr representative rangeof of th the !>Cenario scenarios we we may may wish wish to ,k",ribe. rily und rdet rmine the human experiexpen describe, these these nce necessarily underdetermine the mutability mutability of of human employed by by language language users u r can can only only cnle ence. AClordongly. Accordingly,the the symbolic symbolic unit units employed e,er y sanction nction (in Langacker' s ternlS) the situated SItuated way way in in which whi hthey they ever partiJll partially (in Langacker terms) the Jre 1996) observ • language are u,ed. used. As As Clark Clark((1996) observes, language use use involves involves solving solving aa coordincoordination problem. in which language uscrs must employ non onventional ation problem, in which language users must employ non-conventional """Jonatlon trategies and devic . That That,is,•language language users u r typically typiGlllyemploy coordination strategies and devices. employ ,he repertoire of lingui ti units, units, including in ludong patterns pattern of ofassema mthe (on\'entional conventional repertoire of linguistic hling ( u h as a word-order word order conventions, conv nti n •which whi hare arethemselves themselves bling linguistic linguistic unit units (such Iingui\li' non -conventional ways." ways."On Onthis thisview, Vil~. meaning, meaning,which whichisi~ linguistic unih), units), in in non-conventional a,,,,,ia,ed u ge event). is aa consequence consequen e of ofcombining combining associated with with th the utterance utterance (or (or usage event), is unit in in novel novel ways ways in in order order to to solve solvethe theparticular particular coordination coordination the ,ymboli the symbolic units pruhlcm Jt th reby facilitating facilitating communi ation. problem at hand. hand, thereby communication. We >aw previou section section that that one one reason reason for for the the protean protean nature nature of of We saw in in the the previous "",J meaning arises ari from the the non-linguistic non ·lingui tic semantic semantic potential potential to towhich which word meaning from lex ical con epts afford afford access, a«ess. and th range r.lIIge of of simulations imulationsthat thatcan canarise. arise.In In lexical concepts and the " Motion. aa second second reason reason arises arises as as lexical lexical concepts—the concepts--the semantic semanti pole pole of of addition, ,ymbo lic units—are units-are only only ever ever realized reali,ed as as part part of oflinguistic lingui ti utterances. utteran es.UtterUttersymbolic .• by . ituated. and and thus thu,form formpart partofofan Inact act ance. are arc nnecessarily ' rily (i.e ances (i.e., by definition) definition) situated, of communication. communi ation. But But in in being being so sorealized, realized. lexical lexi .1 concepts con epts give give rise rise to to of semantic contributions; contributions; as a we weshall hall see see in in Part Part II, II. the the linlin ontext. indu ed semantic context-induced gu "tic content «(lIItent encoded encoded by bylexical lex".ll concepts conceptsconsists con iSIS of of"bundl different "bundles""of of different guistic t}'f'C> of oflingui tic knowledge. knowledge. Accordingly, Accordingly. different different aspects a peel of ofthis thi knowledge knowledg types linguistic can become beeome active active in in different different contexts. onte.ts.The Theconsequence consequen eofofthis thisisi that thatlexical Ie ical can ill tow. 10/0. Rather, Rather. itit is is only only the the contextually contextually w nccpt are are never neveractually actuallyrealized re.li,ed in concepts relevant aspects aspect which whi h surface unace in inlanguage languageuse. u . relevant wecan canliken likenthe thedistincdi tinc. Borrowing Bo rrowing an an analogy analogy from from phonological phonological theory, theory.we loo n between between lexical lexical concepts concep" on onone onehand, hand.and andtheir theircontextualized contextualizedinstaninstan tion on the the other other as as akin akin totothe th distinction distinctionbetween betweenphonemes phonemesand and tiallon on tiations ju,t as as with withphonemes, phonemes.lexical lexicalconcepts concep" qua 'I'm mental mental representarepr nta aliophones. lust allophones. tlon, arc are never never actually actuJlly perceived. pcr<elVc'tl. Rather, Rath r. their their existence exi"ence isi,inferred inferrc'tl based basedon on tions the variability, variability. and and commonalities, commonaloti •ininword wordmeaning m aningacross aero (situated) (. ituated usage ) u>ag the event,. as a judged Judged over over many many instances in"anc of u . In In this, this. then, then. the the job jobofofthe the events, of use.

-,d:

■

WORD IN LCCM L eM THEORY TlIEORY WORD Mf.ANIN(i MEANING IN

I

11 This Th aaissue t uc is 11discussed dl wtNfurther lurthc-rinInChapter l h.irll."fILIL

"

I

72

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

lexical semanticist ",mantid t isi to toemploy employthe thesituated Ituatl.,)semantic manticcontribution contributionofof gIVen lexical a agiven word. by by analogy analogy akin akin to to allophones, allophone. in in order order totoinfer onferthe theexistence exi ten eofofthe Ihe word, underlying lexical lexical concepts—stored concept $lored mental mental schemas—akin hema -akin totophonemes. phonem • underlying which partially partially sanction '>Jnction the thesemantic '>Cmanticcontributions contribution.which whichsurface. surface. In In view view which ofthis Ihisdistinction, di tinction.ininthe theremainder remaonderofofthe th book bookI Iwill will refrain refraon from from using u ingthe the of term "word "word meaning." meaning."Rather, Rather. IIwill will refer refer either eilher to tothe theconstruct con tructofofthe th lexical lexic.1 term conccpt - when IIam amreferring referring totothe theunderlying underlyingsemantic '>Cmanticstructure—or, 'tru tur r.toto concept—when the semantic ;em.ntic contribution ontributionof ofaagiven givenlinguistic lingui ticform—when form - whenI Iam amreferring referringtoto the in tance of ofaa lexical lexical concept. concept. ituated instance aa situated In view view of of the the foregoing, foregOIng. we we are are now now in III aa position po ition totoprovide providesome somebask ba Il In di tinctIon with with respect rCl>pcct to to meaning meaning and and use u that thatare arecentral c nlraltotoLCCM lCe 1 distinctions Theory. First Fir t of all. we we need need to to provide provid aa definition definitionofofan anutterance. utterance.This Thi is" Theory. of all, I straightforward traightfon>..d aa task t. k than might assume. a ume. As,I will define defoneit,it.aausage U\dge less than one one might I will event or or utterance utteranc has ha aa unit-like unit like status Matus in in that that itit represents reprC5Cnts the Iheexpression expr ionof of event coherent idea, idea. making making (at Cat least lea\t partial) partial) use u e of of the the conventions convention ofofthe the aa coherent languag informally. Ihe lingui lic behaviour behaviour in in aaparticular particular language—informally, the norm norms of of linguistic Iingui lic community, communily. but bUI see \ee Croft Crofl Cl000). olherwords, word.an anutterance utteranceisi linguistic (boo). InInother om<whal discrete di rele entity. enlily. However, However. II use 05e the Ih expressions expr ion "unit-like" "unil.like" and and aa somewhat •"somewhat ...omewhat discrete" d,\(rele" because beeau", an an utterance utterance isi not nolan anabsolutely ab",lulelydiscrete, di ·rele.nor nora a preci;ely identifiable identiliabl unit. unit. This Thi follows folloW5 as a utterances utteran e5involve involvegrammatical grammalical precisely forms uch as a word word order order and and lexical lexical items, ilem •lexical lexical concepts, concepl •speech speechsounds, sound,. forms such pattern, ,uch as a pitch pilch contours, COnIOuf\.slight 'lighl pauses, pau~ and and accelerations accelerallon patterns of of inlonalion intonation such and and so so forth. forth. While Whil these IhC5Cproperties pr perti converge convergeon ondiscretedi\(releand deceleralions. decelerations, and nand Ihey do nOI co-occur co·occurininfixed fixedpatterns, patterns.and andtherefore Ihereforedo donot nol ness and unily. unity, they do not provide ",I of ofcriteria crileria for for collectively colleclively identifying idenlifying an an utterance. utteran«. In In this thi. provide aa set rrespect, peel. utteranc r laled nOlion ofaa sentence. ntence. utterances differ differ from from Ihe the related notion of A in particular parti ular by by formal formallingui t •isi an an abstract abstract entity. entily. A <entence. sentence, as as defined defined in linguists, In It is i an an idealization id.ali1.Jlion that Ihal has hasdeterminate delermimle properties, properti .... often often In olher other word,. words, it taled in grammallC.1 structure. tructure. For For example. definition of of(an Can stated in ternl terms of of grammatical example, one one definition Engli h) sentence i t ofofIhe VI'. English) sentencemighl mightcon consist theformula: formula:S Sc>NPPVP. The of aa sentence, ",nlenee. while while based b.l\l.,) on on prototypical prolotypical patterns patterns found found in in The notion notion of utterance. an utterance. utteran e. Utterances Utteranc typically typically occur OCcur sponponutterances,i,is not not the the same same aas an laneou Iy. and conform to 10 the Ih grammaticality grammaticality requirements requiremenl of of. taneously, andoften often do do nol not conform a ~ell formed ",ntence a, undef\l(xld in formallingui\lic thl'ory. I'or example. well-formed sentence as understood in formal linguistic theory. For example, on i t of ingle word H;.~. aa phra in lerm, terms of of 'Iructure. structure, an an utterance utterance may maycon consist of aa single word C(Hi!), phrase C(No '0 Imy!). an incomplete ",ntence C Did YOII pilI l/or , .. n. or a ntenee way!), an incomplete sentence (Did you put the... ?), or a sentence thai that (onlJin "error,," of pronunciation or grammar btxau\e the peakcr 1\ tirl'ti. contains "errors" of pronunciation or grammar because the speaker is tired, di;tracted. While much much of offormal formailingui ti has has been been distracted,or oreXClled. excited,and andso so on. on. While linguistics concerned the properties properti of offangu,'ge Ihat enable enable us u to to produce proxluce concerned wilh with modelling modelling the language that grammatically formed \Cntencl .... utterance exhihll graded grad d gramgrammaticallywell well-formed sentences, utterances "ftcn often exhibit grammalicality .ngocker 1987:;ee hort. whil maticality (( seeILangacker 1987; seeal", alsohan Evansand and(,rcen Green1(06). 20 o6).InIn short, while aa <enlence can be preci>ely and narrowly defined. an ullerance cannot be. sentence can be precisely and narrowly defined, an utterance cannot be. \Vhilc 'nl Ihe \(xiJll'll With uttcr. While\Cntcnu,\ sentences repr represent the\tru(turc structureJassociated with aa prntntypkal prototypical utterJnlC. ance,UtlcranlC utterancesrcpn."\Cnt represent pt.*f,;ifil specificand anduniqu uniquein\tJI1'-l: instancesof ofIJnguage languageu~. use.On(e Once

sentence is given meaning, context, and phonetic realization, it becomes a WORD WORDMEANING 1EANINGININLCCM LeeMTHEORY TIIEORY

I

7373

a Il h..'.H:e i\ given meanmg, context, and phonetic realization. it lltxome a lexical ....ken) ,kcn )utterance. utterance.Accordingly, Accordingly.as asIIam am concerned concernedwith withan anaccount accounlofoflexica] ( •,po h i· 1'1"lrl''ot,. · construction . that sentation isIused, it• It repre ' ntJtiolland In dmeaning me.mmg (on\trw,:tlon th atreflects rc nlXl\how owlanguage .1nguage u\CtI· is::IU ultimately ltllll,ltcly the Ihe utterance, utterance. rather ~ather then Ihen the the idealized idealoled notion nOllonofofthe Ihesentence, \entence. ith which IIhith IJam amconcerned concernedin111the thepresent prC5Cntwork. work. w,,'th }wing provided ofof ananutterance, IIJ' 1118 prnvidedthis this(qualified) (qualofied)definition definilion utterance.weweare arenow nowinina a position I"",tion totodistinguish di ~ingui hmeaning meaningfrom fro~lexical lexicalrepresentation. repre ntJlion.My Myclaim d~imis "that that distinction between lexical representation and meaning is that the th,'essential n..ential dl linctlon between leXIcal repr.... ntatlon and meanons I Ihat while the utterance, IIhlk meaning meaningisI aa property property of oflhe utterance.lexical lexicalrepresentations repre..entation,consist c(1n,i,1ofof the Ih,' mental Illenlal abstractions abstra tio", which whichwe weinfer infermust mu tbe bestored ,toredasaspart partofofthe thelanguage language user's knowledge of language: symbolic units, together with the range u a\ knowledge of language: symbolic unit. logether with the range of of cognitive models, the semantic potential, to which a lexical concept affords "'~I1II1VC models. Ihe \emanlic pot ntial. to which a lexical coneept affords access. .I"e" . Hence, lIen( • lexical lexical representation represenlalion involves involVe!> structures )!ructur... of ofdistinct dislincttypes 1ype5 which system II hich inhere inhere in in two IWOdistinct di tinctrepresentational representationalsystems: YSlem:the thelinguistic lingui tic. y lem and the conceptual system. The interaction of these distinct types of struc.11ll1 Ihe coneeptual 'Y'tem. Th interaction of Ihe di\linct t)'PC' of tru tures gives rise Ill .." gIve, ri\e to to meaning mcaning associated a sociated with withan anutterance. utterance.The Themeaning 01 aningassoa~) conception. will refer to as a with an utterance I ciated lOa ted wilh an utterance I will refer to a a conception. for the An architecture architecture for the role role of of words words meaning in mea ning construction construction

The conclusions rhe (ondu ion to to emerge emerge from from the the previous previou discussion di u ion suggest ugse5t aa number number of of We require requirements for a theory of lexical and compositional semantics. requiremenl for a theory oflexi(al and compo,ilional ",manlics. We require

4. 1

both an an account account of hOlh of lexical lexical representation reprC'>Cntatlon and and aa theory theory of ofsemantic >emantic compos(ompo ition, which ltiun. which together togelher should hould contribute contribute to toa adescriptively d riplivelyadequate adequate and and require We psychologically reali realistic account of of meaning I',ychologically tic aecounl meaning construction. cun;truction. We require aa theory of of lexical thc~lry lexical representation repre>ent.ltlon which which provides providCl> aadescriptively dC!>er appear appear to possess. We al", also require requirean anaccounl account which which provide. provides Ja meam means of of understanding I'" \C". We undef\\.nding how lexical representations interface with conceptual knowledge, how le"ical rep ...... ntation inlerfalC with conceplu,li knowledge. which which isi,to10 their;emanlic semantic potenlial. potential. That That is, say, their \dy. i • we we require require aa theory theory that that shows how how howthe Ihe linguistic and conceptual systems interact in order to produce semantic linguistic and conceplual . y tem interact in order 10 proldULC \emantic representations. Weal'><, also require requirean an alcount account of of how repre..entatiun . We how lexical lexOlal representations, repre\Cnlation>. together wilh with Ihe the informational together informational characterizations characterization derived derived from from the thesemantic semanti potential available, available,combine combine inin order order 10 to provide I'otential provide situated situated meanings, meaning. that thai is, is. conceptions. Finally, as Ihe the .. semantic contributions associated "'nccplion,. J.inally. a, mantic c"nlrihuli,,", a""x:iated with with words word,are arc function of of specific and thus aa fun, and Ihu aa consequence consequence of ofdiscrete discrele usage usage events,the the d(c.:ouni account dcveloped developed of event. or lexical Ie iedl representation rcprc ntJtion and and semantic 'Cl1lJntic com(om As the two aspects of the thoroughly u\Jge·ba\Cd usage-based in in nature. position mu,t must be be Ihtlroughly p,"ition nature. A, the IWO a,pec" of Ih presentaa summary of the the architectheory II prc;enl presentare are relalively relativelycomplex. complex. II pre;ent theory ummary of archilecarc argued for in detail in II turebelow. below.All Alloflhe of thecomtru," constructs inlroduced introduced are argued for in tlet,liI in Parts lure Part II andIII IIIofofIhe theIl<xll.. book. and

_4

WORD MEANING IN LCCM THEORY

INTRODUCTION

LCCM

75

theory

LCCM theory consists of (1) an account of lexical representation (symbolic units and cognitive models) and (ii) an account of semantic composition: integration of lexical concepts in a way which activates, or, in my terms, provides an access route through the cognitive models to which a given lexical concept affords access. This can serve to highlight particular attributes— aspects of a cognitive model, such as properties—and structural invariants—relations holding between attributes—of a given cognitive model. As noted above, the fundamental assumption is that meaning—more technically a conception—is a property of an utterance—a situated instance of language use—which arises, in part, by cognitive operations which apply to the lexical representations—lexical concepts and the cognitive models to which lexical concepts provide access sites—deployed by language users. Thus, meaning arises by virtue of language users forming interpretations based on the lexical concepts employed, the way lexical concepts are combined, and the access routes through the sets of cognitive models—the cognitive model profile—accessed by a given lexical concept. Moreover, these interpretations are always guided by linguistic and extra-linguistic context."

txic he :tic:::if: at :11; t e'rgnreadtiiaotned meaning construction process takes place by of semantic composition. This process involves two component procs ( i) lexical concept selection and (ii) fusion. Lexical concept selection vc ei rs,Isue: invo lves selecting the most appropriate lexical concepts associated with each vehicle in an utterance, guided by utterance, discourse, and extra-linguistic c ontext. The appropriateness or otherwise of the selected lexical concept is a function of semanticality—the semantic acceptability of a conception. This is discussed in Chapter 13. Fusion, the second compositional process, consists of two further constituent processes which are held to occur in tandem: (i) lexical concept integration and (ii) interpretation. Integration involves the construction of larger lexical entities, driven by linguistic knowledge (lexical concepts). These larger lexical units, which 1 term lexical conceptual units, are then interpreted. That is, the larger unit receives what I earlier referred to as an informational characterization. As such, those parts of the cognitive model profiles (semantic potential) associated with each lexical concept in the larger unit are interpreted in a way that is in keeping with the larger unit. Put another way, integration provides (linguistic) instructions which serve to determine how the various lexical concepts are collectively interpreted, and

Lexical representation LCCM Theory

LCCM Theory holds that knowledge of language includes (i) symbolic units, and (ii) cognitive models. Symbolic units consist of bipolar assemblies of form, what, as noted in the previous chapter, 1 refer to as a phonological vehicle (or vehicle), and a lexical concept. Lexical concepts constitute linguis tically encoded concepts—that is, highly schematic knowledge encoded in a form that can he externalized via language. Lexical concepts are conventionally associated with vehicles of all kinds including words—the focus in this book— hound morphemes, idiomatic phrases, and grammatical constructions. Accordingly, lexical concepts, by definition, concern purely linguistic knowledge, as discussed in Chapters 6 and 7. A second important part of the lexical representation is the notion of the cognitive model, which is a large-scale coherent body of non-linguistic knowledge which lexical concepts provide access sites to. The range of cognitive models which are accessed, either directly or indirectly by a lexical concept, as noted above, I refer to as a cognitive model profile. Individual cognitive models consist of attributes and structural invariants. 15 These ideas are developed in more detail in Chapters 9 and to.

Lexical representation

symbolic units

vehicles

18

The role of context in scrturitic ‘.ortipo‘ii n t%

III of the book 85

wo∎ril In nun(' tleJil at Various remit

1

in Kul

cognitive models

lexical concepts

Semantic

composition

lexical concept selection

lexical concept integration

semantic representation

.

See Bamilou ltyyzu. winbl; Bars( mu

a al- 0993)-

l'ItiLlte 4.1. An overview 01 the architecture of LCCM Theory

tusan

interpretation

76 7t'

thus, th access ace route rout that that each ~ach individual indly,du,ll lexical lexical ((incept wnceptaffords afIordsthrough thro ugh thus, the itits cognitive cogniti\e model profile. profil . The Th result r""ult is i that that any any given given word word will will provide provide aa unique unique activation a semantic '>Cmantic potential pot ntial on every every occasion occa ion of of u<.e. Thi follows follow~ as as every every utterance, utterance, and and thus thu the the resulting resulting conception, conception, ist use. This unique. A cordingly, thi compo itionality isi radically radically different difTerent from from the the Accordingly, this view view of compositionality view which underpJO rc<eiH'd !-regean vIew Iiterali,m. While While Fregean. !-regean compo IIi received Fregcan underpins literalism. composition.litya sum that that each each usage usage of ofaa word word recruits recruit. stable, stable, context-independent context·independent onality assumes information, LC M Theory a ,ume, the th semantic semantic contribution contributionassociated a soda ted information, LCCM Theory assumes with word will will vary vary slightly slightly every every time time it it isi, used. u\Cd. An Anoverview owrview of the with a word ar hitettur is presented pr~nted in in Figure I'igure4.1. 4.1. architecture

An An illustration In this section '(tion IIprovide provide aanon-technical non technical illustration illu tration of ofthe therelationship relation hip In this octween lexk.1 concept and its it cognitive cognItive model mod I profile, prohle, and and the the way waya between aa lexical concept and ann individual peeific lexical lexical concept concept will give give rise rise to to aa individual usage usage sanctioned sanctioned by by a specific di tinlt informational informational characterimt charaCmantic potential- the cognitive cognitive model model semantic potential—the prolile-to which they afford aflord access, ac<e ,which t the the scene ene for forthe thedetailed detailed profile—to which which sets development the theoretical theoretical constructs constructs of the the lexical lexical concept concept and and the the development of of the ((1gl1ltive in the the next next part part of ofthe the book. book. cognitive model in begin, con consider To be'llin, ider the the following followingfour fourutterances utteran .",first fi"tdiscussed di ussedininChapter hapter1:J. (2) 2)

WORD MEANING IN 1.CCM 'EMORY

INTROOUCTION INTRODUCTION

a. h,m« isi aa country country of ofoutstanding oUl>tandingnatural natural beauty OC,lUty a. France b. !-rJnce nation in in the the European European Union Union France i,is one one of the leading nations c. France 'ew Zealand th 2007 2007 Rugby Rugby World World Cup Cup France beat beat New Zealand in the dd.. !-rance E «In tllution in in the the2oo5 200Sreferendum referendum France votl'" voted agaimt against the the EU constitution

In each each of th these exampl examples the semantic In <emantic contribution contribution associated a iated with withthe the form France is /-rlll'ff slightly distinct. distinct. That That is, i ,the mantic contribution (ontribution provided provided by by is slightly the semantic France va /-mllff ric> across aero, these the..,. distinct di lJJlct utterances. utterance,. The key key insight in 'ght of ofLCCM LCCM varies Theory that the the reason reason for for this thi variation variation isis due duetotodifferential differentialactivation activation Theory is that of non-linguistic non ·lingui,tic knowledge knowledge structures, ,truttur , the th cognitive cognitive model model profile, prolile, to to which whith the lexical lexical concept associated a\Sotiate'" with WIth /-rlll,er and France afford, affords a«"". access. The linguistic and non · linguistic processes proce that give give rise rise to tothis thi differential differential activation, which non-linguistic that relate. hngUl til contexts (nnlcxt In /:,cmu relate, In in part, to the diffcrcnc.: differences in the four linguistic in which which France Theory iis emocdded are highly highly complex. complex.LCCM LCe 1 '1 hl,(lry represents repr< 'n" aa programmatic embedded are attempt to to identify attempt id ntify the the sorts son of ofmechanisms methano m involved IIlvolved in inthis thisactivation activation process. concept (om" 4. onventionally In lhc~ cx.lmplc II am ulOlcrnoo with wilh the thc lexical Icxi.,;.)1 \.om.cpt cntionally these examples am concerned above, and as with the vehide As noted .bc,,·e, aassociated SOliated wllh a we we shall hall see detail vehicle Frtll'ff. France. A, see 111 in detail prcXC~\.

77

Ilater 'r ct hapters, h.lpte'" a lexical lexical concept «Incept constitutes ((lnstitute, aa relatively relatively complex comple. body body of of in 101 '11'tit knowledg foml aa representational repr~ntJtional unit. II identify identify these the linguistic knowledge whkh which forms long""-ntational . 'd' I bel . '01tational units, I XI al concept), can ept), by by providing proVI JOg aa label a in111small ma II units, (the lexical rer rest rel"'1a.1 1\ "'uare br.lket . Thu I..ical «Ineept associated J>><xiJted with with!the th ls within square brackets. Thus,, the lexical capit .al" ..... . concept in the the examples in (2) II gloss [FRANCE].. In which appears appear in exampl.", 111 glo as ~ ['RANt' /."mn' which fo rm France horm . II addition, concept affords a,I.I,IO" n, aJ key property is i that that aa lexical concept afford access ace"", to toaapotentially potentIa y e set of "",t of cognitive cognitive models: model" its Its cognitive cOllnltne model model profile. pro hIe. AArobust robust finding findll1g Ilarg .,. led " h cognitive psychology 'nml psyc~ologyon onknowledge know gerepresentation reprco;entatlonisI that t at recent work in co~niti~e from «<ent .h< representations whICh II1h re in 111 the conceptual can eptual system, . y tem, while whIle extremely extremely the representations which inhere are not an an unstructured unstructured assemblage." a '>Cmblage.'·Indeed Indet'"recent relent r.",.arch proco mplex, ,~)I 111,le'\ • arc . research .pro. vides tompelling compelling evidence evid nee that that rather rather than than knowledge knowledge being bell1g organized o.'ganlzed in 111 of attributes, Iterms "''' "off lists lim of attributes, a key key aspect peet of ofknowledge knowledgerepresentation representationinvolves II1volves th, rd.It,on> that oct ween discrete di"rete aspects .>peel of ofknowledge knowledge(e.g., (e.g.,Barsalou Bar",lou the relations that hold between 1992a). My ~umption, assumption, therefore, is IQ~ld). \ly i> that a lexical I~xical concept c.oncept provides provid.",access ~""'>to toaa sophisticated and and structured body of of non non-linguistic "'l'hi\licated truClured body .hngul tIC knowledge. knowl:<,g : This Thl body body of .of knowledge I model in terms of a set of cognitive models. LCCM Theory posits ~n. teeM I heory PO"" that part of aa given lexical lexical concept isi to to provide providean anaccess all site ite that part of of the the function of In a tognltiv profile. In In addition, addition. as a cognitive cognitivemodels modelsprovide providecohercoherto cognitive model profile. bodi . of ofknowledge, knowledge,and andare arcinterlinked, interlinked,affording affordingaccess all"" toto ent and tolllplex complex bodies other {ogniti,e models, and and thus, thu>, other other bodies bodi of ofcomplex complexknowledge, knowledg ,aa other cognitive models, parlOwlar utterance ub<et of knowledge within within particular utterance context context can serve to activat activate a subset of knowledge ' lIlgle cogniti,e the process prOt >which which II refer refer to as as highlighting." highlight ing.' a single cognitive model, the Returning 1'1.", in in (2), (2), the theinformational informationalcharacterization charaCleri1.alOonassoaSSG' Returning to to the exam examples "allod with [[FRANCE] f RANU! in each each of ofthese th examples examples concerns concerns France Fran e as a aa geogea' ciated with !\rJphilallandma, (23), France I'ranee aas a political entity, enllty, a nation state, state, in in (2b), (2b), graphical landmass in (2a), Ihe een player> th French hench rugby (2C), and and in in (zd) (2d) the fill fifteen players who who make make up up the rugby team team in in (2c), Ihat ofthe the French Fren h electorate electorate who whovoted voted"non" "non"when whenpresented, presented,inin that proportion of rete nt referendum, referendul11, WIth prul"'~ll to endorse endorse aa constitution constllution for for the the a recent with the the proposal IEuropean uro pean Union. In order order to to provide provide these thesedistinct di>!in"interpretations, II1terpretation •this thi Union. In Ie ical concept rve aas an an access a ces site it for for aa cognitive cognitive model model profile profile lexical concept must must serve tha t, al very least, lea t, includes II1dud.", the the sort von of ofinformation infornlatlonindicated IndICatedininFigure !-igure that, at the very 4.2. This 4!. I hi, figure figure represents repre nt an indicat the th sort sort ofofknowledge knowledgethat that an attempt attempt to indicate language u\Cr. hav access ac "'" to when speaking peaking and and thinking thinkingabout aboutFrance. France. users must have In ligure 4.2, Ihe lexical lexical concept (oncept!FRANCE' [I RANG !provide" actC\s to t(1 aa potentially potentially In Figure 4.z, the provides access large number number of knowledge structures. large tructur.",. As each ea h cognitive cognitiv model model consists can i t of a cllmplex and structured stru tured body of ofknowledge knowledge which which provides provides access a "" totoother other complex ,ur" knowlt"'ge, we we can can distinguish di t,ngui h between oct ween cognitive cognitivemodels model which whicharc are sorts IIf of knowledge, .I " etll y all"""'" mod I ,and Iho directly accessed via via the lexical lexical concept: concept: primary cognitive models, and those cognitive models mod I which which form form substructures ub tructure of those tho which which are arcdirectly directly aetC ,,"': secondary model. These rhl..,. secondary "",ondary cognitive mgni"\C models model accessed: secondary cognitiv cognitive models. Me are mdircltly indirectly al'~'\.Cti accessed via via the the IcxkJI lexical (onccpt." concept."

,It'"

I

• Sire ItarsAlkiu 8.u 'nu t(mina) lIN"" ) tot fUf a• review. ft't M"W

17

H , hghhn,lI!.. 11 U inIndetail Jrl.lllinInChapter C "It" I ~ Highlighting is discussed

1 ° 1I mAke the UIK case kl, kwltv thedl-.tln..hun dioinokin lietween t. ~ thehd'ftftnprimary r"nwv And 1J icciindAry cognitive nimbi., in ampler ux

INTRO lll'( 'ION INTRODUCTION

CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM SYSTEM

NATIONAL NATIONAL SPORTS SPORTS

GEOGRAPHICAL GEOGRAPHICAL LANDMASS LANDMASS

WORD MEANING IN LCCM THEORY WORD MEAN IN(i IN l M TtIEO RY

HEADOF OF HEAD STATE STATE

ELECTORATE ELECTORATE

POUTICAL POLITICAL SYSTEM SYSTEM

CUISINE CUISINE

NATION NATION STATE STATE

HOliD AY HOLIDAY DEST INATION DESTINATION

(FRANCEI [FRANCE]

F,G .... 4." Panial
.) FIGURE 4.2. Partial cognitive model profile for [FRANCE' The partial cognotiv mod I profil pr nted in Figur< 4.2 con titute The red partial cognitive model profile presented in Figure 4.2 constitutess aa tru
79

79

sorts of sports French icass .1 alarge . . C"toto lars body bodyofofknowledge knowledgeconcerning
social and economic andand constraints that apply to these sports ~n'l ""iJI and onomconditions ic condi tion on Iraint that apply to th port

30

in"'France, respect to these particular I r.onle.France's fran " international mtern ation al standing tandi ngwith with r peet to these partic ular themselves including the r"rt" and and further furth er knowledge s ports, knowledge about about the thesports port them Iv incl~ding the rules so ,on. is derived from rul," that th •• tgovern govern their th orpractice, praCtIce,and and" on.This Thlknowledge knowledg • derived from through cultural lar~e number numb er of ofsources .1 J large soure including indud ongdirect dir"'texperience experienceand and throu gh cultural transmission. crao\rni\Sion. With SYSTEM, \\'Ith respect r peet to to the th secondary onda ry cognitive cognitive model model ofof POLITICAL. POIITl<'A. Y HM, models which I'gure4.2 4.2 illustrates Figure illu trate aa sample mpl ofoffurther furth ersecondary onda rycognitive cognitive model which are secondary cogni,.r< accessed a<,C\'oed via via this thi cognitive cognllivemodel. mod I.InInother otherwords, word ,each co h onda ry cogni which it provides access ti"" ve model mod Ihas hasfurther furth er (secondary) ( onda ry)cognitive ogn. t" models mod I wh"h it provid ace accessed via the to. h'.For lorinstance, '"'tan ce, (FRENCH) (FRENUI)ELECTORATE llfCTORATE isi aacognitive cognitivemodel model accessed via th the cognitive model cognitive 0<.iated with withthe th form form France, Fmtlcr, whi h rclat to the GECKAAPHto aa particular particular geographical geographical region, regi n, derives d riv from from activation activation of of the GfOGRAPII!CAL have knowI< At LANDMASS • ANnMA \ Cognitive cognitive model. model. That That is, i individual Individuallanguage languageusers users hJ\' knowledge to the terrain, and its I Jge relating reldting to the physical phy ical aspects peets of ofFrance, Fraoce, including includmgits .ts terrain, and its geographical location. serves to activate g'~lgr aphicailocat ion. In In this this example, example, the the utterance utteran e context context serves to activate this part of th the mgoo cognitive model profile bybythe the lexical concept [FRANCE'. thi'p artof li\'em odelp rofileaccessed acc lexi alcon cept IrRA NuJ. In the the ....second example, the utterance activate a different part of In "ond exam pl ,th utteranc context ontext serves rv to to altiva t a different part of tile cognitive modell profile which the lexical concept [FRANCE] affords access. tn«og nitiv e mode profile to to which th lexical con ptl.RAN E) afford sa , In thi this example, the informational characterization relatesto to the the cognitive In example, the informational chara cteri1.. tion relat cogni ti' model of of IFrance as a a pololi political entity. Thisiis due due to to activation of the NATION modd raoce "' al entity . Thi activat.on of th NAT'O N STATE cogni cognitive model. In the the exam example in (lC) (2c) the use of France relates to the "ATE tive mode l. In ple in th u of Fratlcr relat to the group offift of fifteen French individuals as,aa team team and and thergr aphicallaod m nor cal enlity , aanatio n state, tate, nor to a group of Fifteenrugby rugbypla)'e players whohappe happen hereprrs representing population of "IIeen " who n totobe enllng ththe entire ntir popu lation of Rather, relatestotothat thatportio portion of the voted IFrance. rance. Rathe r, it itrelat n of the French French electorate electorate that that voted against ratification theI·EUcon constitution held in 2oos. "!:din t ratific alion ofofthe litulio n inin aa referendum referendum held on 200s. whati isactiva activated hereiisththe ELF(.T cognitive model. ELECTORATE -\Accordingly, "",.dingly, what led here ORATE cogni ti\' mode l. example provides anelega elegant illustration of the the way in which Thhis • . lalast t exam pl provi des an nt illu tratio n of way in whi h activation of aUlgnl cognitive model serves to provi provide a situated interpretation of alllva llon of. live modd rv to de a .tuate d int rprctJ lion of a lexical concept byg.ving givingririsetoto an an access the semantic • lex"a l mnle pt by a«cs . route rout through throu gh the \eman ti potential. thiseexample, interpretation requires thatan anace access route is poten tial. InInthi ample, interp ret lion requi r that rout i established through the,ognl cognitive modell profil profile accessed via the lexical cone,tahlo hed Ihrou gh the live mode e de< 'oed VIJ th lexil JI",n ceptIf[FRANCE) wayth.J1 that1\iscon consistent withthe theIlexical concepts associatedlcpt R.ANt t)mintl aWoly I lent With xkallom,:c pt .. Mklo1 ted withthe theother otherIongui linguistic formsand andunilS unitsininthe the ullera utterance. The interp interpretation wllh tic fornl n e. The retali on

80 So

IN1RODUCT_~IO~~

______________________________________

INTRODUCTION

~Iated in this thi, example x.mpl has h. to to do dowith withthe theFrench Fren
.(,[J

CONST1TUTIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM

ELECTORATE ELECTORATE

HEAD OF STATE

NATIONAL NATIONAL SPORT S SPORTS

POLITICAL POUTlCAL SYSTEM

CUISINE CUISINE

GEOGRAPHICAL LANDMASS

NAT10N STATE

HOLIDAY DESTINATION

--

[FRANCE] (FRANCE]

in Ihr route established h(.l'RI Au.t: mutr loIbh hed by hythe theinterpretation 1Il1l"rrrctolUunofof'FRANCE! ~. RAN( I 1 In uller the utterFIGURE 4.l. 4.3. AWL'S, ao4.(' ~'tltt'fl nsmtl ttl" V constitution flltJflllutWtl France voted against the fEU ance J·"mu

-

WORD MEANING IN IN LCCM LCCM THEORY TIIEORY WORD

81 Si

IIFiboics1 ,RAN"I J afford and (id) (2d)which whi,h affordsd"c'. access.InInthe the ex.mple examplesin in (2C) (2c) and

llltultlVely figurative in nature, natur • aactivation tivation involves IOvolv cognitive cognitive models models intuitively feel more figurative which the h' "hi
Frequently asked Frequently asked questions In develop 109 and presenting pr ntlOg LCCM LeCM Theory, Thcory. both both in in lectures latur." and andtalks talk;atat developing world. there there are a number of of questions question that that have have variou various \·enue:. venues around around the world, repeatedly been put put to me. At close of rqlCatedly been At the dose of this thl introductory introductorypart part of ofthe the hook bookitit ... ..,ms fitting fitting that II present prescnt aa few few of ofthe th most mo;tfrequently frcquentlyaddressed addre sedhere hereand and seems rehearse my pon toto them. meant to help help clarify clarify some some of ofthe the rehearse my rresponses them. Thi This iis meant nUl\t.,nding i ,ues that that II will Will return return to in more more detail detail later later in in the the book. book. outstanding issues

Q. Are lexical lexical concepts concept universal? univer
8.

INTRODUCTION

aa gIVen al con cpt may imilar to given lexi lexical concept may ~ be broadly broadly similar to (an)other (an)other lexical lexical concel't( concepts ) aero language(s). across (a) language(s). Q. All All the th linguistic Iingul ti examples examples employed employed in inthis thi and andprevious previou chapters chapter relate reiate modem standard tandard English, Engli h. rather rath r than than other othervarieties, varieties. languages, languages. and andtime time to modern periods. In period. In view vi w of of this, thi •isis LCCM LC M Theory Thcory meant meant to to address address how howlanguage language in on general xpressing meaning i itit meant meanl to 10account a counljust ju Ifor for general contribute contributes to to expressing meaning or is the situation itualion with wilh respect r pectlO Engli h! to English? A. The theory Iheory developed developed in in later laler chapters chapler in the Ihe hook book presents presenl an accounl A. The account of of Ilexical xocal representation represenlalion and ompo ilion. While While the Ihe processes processes inon and semanli semantic composition. volved semanlic compo ition are are held held to 10 be ~ universal, universal. the Ihe nature nalure of ofthose Iho volved in semantic composition lexical wn concepts epl is i. specific peeifi to 10 each ea h language language and and indeed indeedeach ea hvariety varielyof ofaagiven given lexical language. Ihcory does account accounl for for the Ihe universal unoversal nature nalure of ofmeaning m aning language. Thus. Thus, Ihe the theory of lexical lexical concepts concepts isi con Iruction. while acknowledging acknowledging that thai the repository repo ilory of construction, language· pedfi . From po ible to 10 use u one onevariety, variely. language-specific. FromIhi this perspective. perspective, ilit iis possible lexi al concepts concepl of ofmodern modernstandard landard English lngli h to 10 namely the Ihe language-specific language· pecific lexical iIIustrale ral proc conslruclion. illustrate the the language-gen language-general processes of of meaning construction. Q. IsI there there any any inconsistency in on i teney in on the Iheclaim claimatatthe theheart heartof ofLCCM LC ' M Theory Theory that Ihal word Ii units units associated associaled with wilh them them (lexical (lexical concepts) concepts) and andyet yel words have have seman semantic Ihal nol have have meanings m anings associated associaled with wilh them? Ihem? that Ihey they do not A. In I. Ihis i not nol quite quile what whal 1I am am claiming. claimIng.IIargue argue that thai while whilewords word are arc In fa fact, this is of semantic semantic structure lruclure (lexical (lexical concepts), concepl ). meaning meaning as as aassociated ialed with unil of with units and do so so using u ongthe Ih technical techni alterm lerm"conception"—concerns "conceplion" oncem aa I1 define define iiit—and compo Iii nal process. process. That Thai is i •meaning meaningresults r ult from from integration inlegralion of ofsemantic semantl< compositional meaning construction, conslruclion. guided guided by bycontext. conic I. represenlation representations via via processes processes of of meaning Thu word do make make aa semantic .. manti contribution, contribution.but butthis thisisi always alwaysassociated a'>SOCiall-d Thus,• words with a particular parli,"lar utterance. utteran e. II reserve reserve the Ih term term "meaning" "meaning" for for the the conception concept Ion so in inorder ordertoto aassociated iated with utterance. to which words word contribute. I do so with an utterance, move away away from probl matlC view apparent apparent in many many semantic mantic theories theori from the problematic wnstruction results r ult from from the the operations operation on on which a umes that that meaning meanong construction which assumes meanings. ofsemantic semanti structure tructure associated associated with withwords. words.As units or atom atoms of meanings, qua unit thong: aaunit unit I1 offer lightly different not as a aa thing: offer aa slightly different perspeclive. perspective, viewing meaning not of something which isis tied lied to toindividual indIvidualword wordforms, form.but butrather ratheras a the theresult rCloult something which of a compositional process, proc •there there is i no no inconsistency. incon i teney. Q. LCCM LCCM Theory Theory addresses addresses meaning meaning associated a sooated with withindividual ondividualutterances. utterances, Yet ituated exchanges, exchang • whi h is i to to say sayextended extendeddisdi Yet meaning meaning ari arises from from situated which cou,....,. LC .M Theory meaning above above the the level of the the course. Can Can LCCM Theory ~ be applied applied to meaning utterance? uttcranc.:c? A. While I am am concerned, con emed. in in this thi book, book. with with meaning meanong at at the the level level of ofthe the A. While utterance it is i. important important to to note notethat that aJ full full account account of of utterance (thai (that i~. is, conceptions), conceptions), it the role role of words worcJ, in in meaning meaning construction (on trm.tion must I11U\t also .11\0address addrc meaning meaningabove above the level of the the utterance, utterance. that that is, i • at at the the discourse di",our.c level. I vel. Such Such an an account a count isi the level

-

WORD THEORY WORD MEANING IN IN LCCM lC Ic.T .:.;H =EO:..R " ,Y , - _ - ,83 8", 3

kvond the Ix",nd thescope opeofofthis thl book, book.which wh"hseeks seekstotopresent presentthe thetheoretical theoretIcalarchiarchi of LCCM Theory. Nevertheless, such an endeavour ..dure of LCCM Theory. evertheless. su h an end avour must mu t include, include. at at ttecture th" H'ry least, least. an an account ac ount of ofthe theinterpersonal interpersonal and and interactional interactIonal nature natur of of t he very dl"m""'" a studied, tudil-d. for for instance, on;tance. by by scholars ;cholar such ueh as a Goffman Goffman(e.g., (e.g .•1981) 1981) discourse, as "ml (;umperz (e.g., (e.g.• 1982), 1982). the the structural tructural aspects aspect of ofdiscourse, discourse. as a studied tudiedby by and Gumperz 1974). the nature nature of ofmemory memoryconstraints constraint 'o,,,k,, Scheglnff. and Jefferson Jeffe,,"n (e.g sac ks, Schegloff, (e.g.,.• 1974), applied to discourse ." di;cour.c and and topic topic shifts, hift. as a addressed addressed in in the th work workofofChafe Chafe a s "pplied ((e.g., ... g., 1994), 1994). the work ofZwaan truction of of situation ituation models model in in the the of Zwaan on on the con construction "nnprehen ion of of discourse di 'ourse (e.g., (e.g.• 1999), 1999). and and the therole roleof ofbackstage ba kstagecognition cognition co mprehension as studied ,I' ,tudied by scholars 'holars such uch as as Lakoff Lakoff and and Johnson Joh""on (1980, (1980. 1999), 1999).Fauconnier I'auconnier (e.g., Coulson (2000) .• 1997), 1997). Coulson (2000) and and Fauconnier Fauconnier and and Turner Turner (e.g., (e.g .• 2002). 2002). IIanticiantici(e.g pate that LCCM Theory, by by developing developing a theory of I' .• t< that L 'C 1 Theory. offrontstage (rontstag cognition cognitionwill WIll ",n< fuller account a count of ofthe therole roleofoflanguage languageinindiscoursedi;course· serve to to contribute contribute to aa fuller OJ,,-d aning construction. con truction. based III meaning

1\ it It necessary necClosary to invoke the notion notion of ofaa simulation, imulation. which whichisi\somewhat Mlmewhat to invoke Q. Is ali .. n to the the linguist? linguist? After After all, all. you you are are developing developing aa theory theory ofoflinguistic linguistic alien r than mechanism involved involved in on knowledge knowledge 'mJntics. rath semantics, rather than aa theory of of brain mechanisms rc:prc~ntJtion or semantic scmantic processing. processing. representation A. Actually. an of linguistic linguistic semantics mantics will, will. ultimately, ultimately. have have to to be be A. Actually, an account account of "tuatl-d in the brain brain mechanisms mechanism and and processes proccsse that that form form the the basis ba i for for situated in the development of ofLCCM LCCM Theory is i driven driven by by the the Ill<Jmng meaning (on~tructlon. construction. The development reqUIre aa psychologically psychologically plausible plausible account account of ofmeaning meaning premIse that premise that we require on\truction Jnd the role role of oflanguage languJge in inmarshalling marshallinglinguistic Iingui Ii resources resources toto construction and the represents a larger.;cale larger-scale attempt attempt to do book that that by by taking taking account account of ofthe the lar. tail in lar, II argue argue in in ddetail in the the next next part part of the book role of simulations rule ill,ulJtion in in language develop an an language underitanding. understanding, we we .ue are able able to develop cll'gJllt prole.tll nature of meaning. elegant .1((()unt account of of the protean of word meaning.

S.I

INTRODUCTION eTlOS

Summary Summary In Ihi this chapler chapter II have have reviewed reviewed aa number of on word In of perspectives per peclives on word meaning meaning which acknowledge acknowledge Ihe the variability whIch variabililY in in word word meaning m aning described described in in previous previou chapters. One of the main difficulties with all of the perspectives chapler . One of Ih main diffi ulties wilh all of Ihe per peeliv briefly brodJy reviewed is that they fail to explicitly provide a level of conceptual i.e.,.• reviewed i Ihal they fail 10 explicilly provide a level of con eplual( (I.e sense units non-linguistic) knowledge represenlalion representation10 to which non . IingUlslic) knowledge which the Ihe '>Cn unilS they Ihey afford access. One of my key points in this chapter has been to suggest po it afford a c . ne of key points in Ihi Ch?pler has been 10 ugs. I posit of non·longul non-linguistic level of that an an aaccount Ihal counl which provides provIde a level II knowledge knowledge represenrepresentation 10 to which lexical concepts orderr 10 to a«OUnl account for lalion wneepls afford atTord access a«cs\ is crucial crudal in ord the observed observed variability in the the variabilily in Ihe semantic semanli contribution contribulionofofwords word across a ro utterutterances. I1 have have inlrodu introduced an approo approach, Theory, which which can. can inin principle, ances. ed an h. LCCM L CM Theory. principle. handle Ihe the ..orl sort of of varialion variation observed. observed, together with principles of composition handle logelher wllh principlcs of wmpo. Ilion which facilitate differential aactivation of linguistic which facilitate differential tivalion of Iingui tic and and non-linguistic non ·lingui lic knowkno"ledge. LCCM Theory advances the potentially controversial claim that words ledge. LCCM Theory advances Ihe polenlially onlrover ial claim Ihal words not in fact meaning. Meaning do fall have have meaning. Meaning is is held held to 10 be be aa function funclion of ofan an utterance, utterance. do nolon rather Ihan than aa given rather given mental m ntal representation repres ntalion associated a ialed with wilh aa word, word. or orother other linguistic i.e., symbolic) unit. Iingui lic ((i.e .• symbolic) unit. That ThaI is, i •meaning meaning results r ult from from situated silualed acts am of of communication, ininwhich communicalion. whIChlanguage languageplays play,aapart, part.rather ratherthan Ihanbeing beingaadiscrete discrele which can can be ""thing" thing" which be assembled assembled and and manipulated. manipulated.In Inthis thischapter chapterIIalso alsomade mad the C.l case for th for words, words. and and symbolic ymbolic units unit. in in general, general. being being associated a iated with with the the construct of the lexical concept, a unit of semantic structure. A lexical concept on\lnICI of Ih le,ical concepl. a unil of semanlic Iruelure. A lexical conccpl is is aa representation represenlation specialized peeialized for for being being encoded en oded ininand andexternalized eXlernalizedby by language. Of course, an account of lexical representation would be incomplete language. Of cour><. an a"ounl oflexicdl represenlalion would be incomplele without considering wilhoul con idering the Ihe level level of ofconceptual wneeplual structure slruclure to 10which whIChlexical I xl(alconlOn cepts provide This level eepts provid access. a c . Thi level is i populated populaled by by what whal are are referred referred to 10 as a cognitive 11 of the book cognillve models. model .Part ParlH oflhe bookaddresses addres lexical lexicalrepresentation repr nlationinindetail. delail. In In this Iho; chapter chapler II also also introduced, inlroduced. briefly, brieOy, the Ihe meaning-construction meaning· on Irucllonprocesses prOt ,c'" which which make make use use of ofthe thesemantic manli and andconceptual conceptuallevels levelsofofrepresentation represenlalion inin service '>Crvice of of situated ilualed utterance utterance meaning. meaning.These The..involve Involvean anaccount accounlofofhow howlexical lexical utterances (i.e., linguistically mediated specific in concepts are integrated concepl\ ar inlegraled 'pecilic utt rances (i.e .• Iingui"ically mc'tliJled usage events). Thus, the second usage events). Thus. Ih ondkey keyobjective objectiveofofLCCM LCCMTheory Theoryisistotopresent pr nl an account of semantic composition which is compatible with the account accounl of semanlic compo Ilion which is compalible wilh Ih a counl of of lexical lexlcdl representation represenlalion developed. This isis the Ihesubject ubjecl of ofPart Part Ill IIIofofthe Ihebook. bool.

Part II Part II Lexical Lexical Representation Representation

* IP

✓

4

I hI' parI Ihe book book isi made mad up upofof chaplersand andaddresses addr leXICal This part of of the sixsixchapters lexical «prc-enlalion. ub lrale deployed in linguisticlinguislic· representation. lexical Lexical represenlalion representation iis Ihe the substrate alh i subject ubJecl to 10 the Ihe compositional compo ilional processes proc ally medialed mediatedcommunication. communication, and and is rc uhong in tru lion-processesthat Ihatare are addressed addressed in in Part Part III III of of resulting in meaning meaning con construction—processes Ihe lexi al represenlalion Iwo the book. book. Lexical representation involves involves represenlalion representation Iypes types found found in two d"lind Iingui tic system y lem and and the Ihe conceptual con eplual system. sy.lem.The Thefirst firsl distinct 'yslem systems:; Ihe the linguistic Illur Part 11 II addr the linguistic Iinguisti four chaplers chapters in in Part address the the representation representations found found in the w,tcm. tw chapters, chapter. Chapters harters 99 and 10 deal deal with with representations representation system. Th The final two and to Illund Y"em. The The first fir t chapter, chapter. Chapter Chapter 5, 5. makes makes the thecase case found on in the conceptual system. fur the linguistic Iingui ti system y tem being being comprised comprised of ofsymbolic ymbolicunits. units.This Thi chapter chapter for the .Iddre,-es ymbolic units. units. Chapter Chapter 66 focuses focuses on on the the nature nature of ofthe the addresses the the nature nature of of symbolic ",mJntic by symbolic symbolic units. unit.InInparticular, partICular.semantic semanti structru · semantic ,tructure structure encoded by lure t rm of of lexical Ie i al concepts con epts which whi h are are made made up up of ofbundles bundlesof of ture isis modelled modelled in terms dilferent types of Iingui tic content. conlent.Chapter hapler 77 provides provid an an overview overview of ofmany many different of linguistic of III the Ihe key hoy properties and knowledge types types associated associated with wllhlexical lexicalconcepts. concept.InIn PJrtl~ular. thi in detail detail the thenature natureofofthe thelexical lexi alprofile profile particular, this chapter also addresses in a"<>Cla ted wllh leXICal concept. con ept. In In the the light lightofofthe thefirst fir tthree threechapters hapter inin associated with the lexical Part I'm 11, II . (hapter inve,tigates the th status . tatu. and and nature nature of ofpolysemy polysemyininLCCM LCCM Chapter 88 investigates I hc·ory. Thos i achieved a hleved by by virtue virtue of ofaa case study tudy of of the the English Cngh h prepositions prepo iti n Theory. This is in, III. on, 011. and at. at. Chapter Chapter g9 provides provides an an overview overview of ofconceptual conceptualstructure, structure,based based lin a.1 review revIew of ofrecent recent work work on onknowledge knowledg representation representatIoninincognitive cognitivepsychI' Y h on uJ.lgy: It It also re-evaluates rc·evaluates the the thesis th I of ofencyclopaedic encydopaedicsemantics semanticsinoncognitive cognitiv ology. Iongul tIC. Chapter .hapter to 10 addresses addres . the construct of ofthe the cognitive cognitivemodel, model.which whi h linguistics. " held held to to embody embody conceptual (onceptual structure trulture for for purposes purpo. . ofofaccess ace via VO.lrepresenrepresen Is tation s tatulOs from from the the linguistic Iingui tic system. ystcm. It It does d on the the light light of ofthe Ihenature natureofof so in ,oncept ual structure IrUClure developed developed ininChapter hapter 9.9conceptual

5 Symbolic units

IMF

'Phis chapter is concerned with the symbolic unit: the conventional association between a vehicle—a phonological form—and a semantic unit—a lexical concept.' In LCCM Theory, the symbolic unit is the type of representation that is hypothesized to populate the linguistic system. LCCM Theory assumes a constructional view of grammar. That is the view of the linguistic system adopted here assumes the symbolic thesis, as discussed in Chapter z. In view of this, my presentation of the nature and structure of the symbolic unit in this chapter involves a synthesis of some of the key ideas drawn from Construction Grammar, 2 as well as Cognitive Granimari The existence of symbolic units: idioms

Perhaps the most well known arguments for the symbolic unit constituting the basic form of representation in the linguistic system come from the 1988; pioneering work of Charles Fillmore and Paul Kay (e.g., Fillmore et -

' In this chapter. and in the rem oldies book. I use the term "symbolic unit - (Langacker 19871 rather than the perhaps more 1;4)m:ikon term "construction"---in cognitive linguistks. I do so as different Lognitme•linguistic approaches to grammar have employed the term -construction" in slightly different ways. For instance. (kildberg I 1995..1006 I. in her theory of Cognitive I :onstrik lion Grammar. ILISC% the term "construction - to refer to any t; onvrn num I symbolic assembly including simpkx 'A11111441c assemblies, such as eeitittarj, as well as more cortipkit symbolic assemblies such as the SOsailed ditransinve construction discussed in Chapter L In contrast. in his theory of Cognitive Grammar, Lingacker (e.g.. 19147. 2nott) reserves the term "construction - for complex symbolic awnihil•s. In Cognitive Grammar, the term "symbolic unit - is used to reler hs both simple.% and crimples bipolar assemblies. I tolkiw 1..ingacker in deploying the trim symbolic unit to refer to any comeentional bipolar assemble involving form and sentantic structure. 1 Construction I :ranunar is in fact a lamas of theories—construction grammars -associated with the pioneering MA irk c,i a number •11 ...holm % who ha ► r drYtiOlpeti a number of distinct theism's of -

cons4n1Cthfil granintar. Thew Int lutic .Irgniiiret:onstruction Grammar ioldberg iws, 2006; I .ikuiti

■

1967). Embodied I onstruction (irammar L Bergen and I. hang zoos). Radical Construction Grammar ( ( -roft sour). Sign •hased Construction Grammar I Werner and Michaelis 2ooes; Sag 2oo7). and Unification) Construction Grammar r 1111rnore a al. him; Kay and !Amore tiora., Michaelis inoi; Michaelis and Lambri.. ht KKR, Vochile there are important points of thsvrgetke across thew various approaches (see Goldberg 2006: ch. 101. they are broadly similar in key respects. Not least they all assume the symbolic thesis- The theory of Cognitive Construction (iramniar• which is centrally placed Within and inforni•tl by the cognitive linguistics tradition. is the particular version of (instruction it anima r whic h. along with t. ogninw Ca-Ammar. has twit the most influential i.iinstruitional 4 11 1/ritAth for the development iit .M Tiwory. ' Cognitive (:rarnrnar has been developed by Langacker (1987. 19910. 199111, 1999. sewn). (

K,8

-

88

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

I [X.CA l REPR ESENT ATION

-------

Kay and Fillmore i999). While it is uncontroversial in linguistics that that the the K.1y and I-illmore 1m) . Whil it i unwn tmve "ial 10 longui,tie lexical item (i.e., the word) constitutes a symbolic unit, in their now classik cia ic lexical item (i.e .• th word ) con titut a ymboli unit. 10 Iheir now 1988 paper, Fillmore, Kay, and O'Connor sought to extend this perspective to JY, idio ynerati<- Thi blur the more traditional distinction adopted in linguistics between Ihe en the blur the more tradll lonal di tincti on adopt ed 10 hngu i t, betwe lexicon—traditionally the repository of the arbitrary and the idiosynidio ynI xicon -trad ition ally the repo itory of the arbitr ary and the cratic—and the grammar—traditionally the rule-governed component of onen t of cratie - and the gram mar- traditionally the rul ·gove rned comp linguistic knowledge.' lie knowledg .' lingui In their 1988 paper Fillmore, Kay, Kay,and and O'Co O'Connor challenge will callU what II will nge what nnor chaUe In their 1988 paper Fillmore, the words plus rules model assumed by the standard Generative model modd the word plu rule mode l • umed by the 'itand .,d (,ene rative advocated in various versions, in the work of Chomsky (e.g., 1965, 1981, 1981. advocated 10 vario us versi on. in the work of Chom ky (e.g., 1965. 1995) and others. According to this model, the properties of language be can be age can 1995) and othe .... According to thi model, the pr perti of langu accounted for by a system of "words and rules," where the words are the are the a"ou nted for by a y tem of "wor d and rul ," where the word individual lexical items in the speaker's lexicon, and these words are subject to subje d to indiv idual lexi al it 01 in the peaker's lexl(on, and th..., words are rules of different types within the language system. Phonological rules govern govern rul of different type> withi n the language ystem. Phonological rul the assembly of complex strings of sounds. Syntactic rules govern the assema m the a ;emb ly of comp lex tring of wund . SyntacII rul govern th bly of words into grammatical structures such wh,1 sent n •while and sentences, phra and a phrases ueh as bly of word mto gram matic al trudu r semantic rules assign a semantic interpretation to the sentence, according ign a mant , interp retati on to the nten e. a cordi ngtoto sema ntic rules the principle of compositionality as advocated by literalism. As we saw 10 w in th principl of comp o Itionahty as advocated by lit rali m. A we Chapter t, this gives rise to propositional meaning, a purely semantic meaning mean ing Chap ter I.thi giv n to propo llIonal meaning. a pur Iy mant ic that is independent of context. In addition to syntactic and semantic rul , icrules, that i indep enden t of context. In addit ion to yntactic and mant speakers also have knowledge of pragmatic principles that map propositional itional peake ... also hav knowledg of pragm ati prineipl that map propo meaning unto context, and guide the hearer in drawing the relevantntinferinfermean ing onto conte xt. and guide th heare r 10 draw ing the releva ences. Crucially, this approach is modular in that syntax, semantics, •and and enc . rucially. thi appro ach i modu lar in that yntax. sema nti phonology are encapsulated subsystems that only communicate with one with one phon ology arc encap "Iated ub y,tem that only comm unica le another via linking rules.. This words plus rules type of model is represented ntl-d anoth er via linking rul Thi words plu rul type of mod I i, repr by the diagram in Figure 5.1. by the diagr am in Figur 5.1. This model of speakerr knowledge only accounts for what is regular arin10 Thi mode l of peake knowledg only accou nts for what i regul language, and leaves aside idiomatic expressions (e.g., He kicked the bucket), bllclel), language. and leaves a ide id,om allc e pr ion (e.g .• He l"I.L,III,,' which, according to Fillmore et aL (1988: 504), have the status of an "appendix ndix whi h, a ordm g to hllm or. .' al. (1988: 504). ha .. th tatu oCan "appe to the grammar." In other words, in the words plus rule model, the only theonly to the gram mar." In other words, in Ihe word plu rul model. complex units that are stored whole are those whose properties cannot tbe be comp lex unit that ar< tored whol ue tho whose pmpe rties canno predicted on the basis ofofthe Accordingtoto gram mar.According thegrammar. rulesofofthe regularrules theregular predi ted on th ba i is very large, effectively assigning many thouFillmore a al., this appendix Ihoulillm ore
• It ..Utik'd .... u

n

01lC UNIT~ SYM8 SYMBOLIC UNITS

89

LEXICON

SYNTAX

PHONOLOGY OLOGY PHON

II

NTICS SEMA SEMANTICS

y lem Imgul III system Ihe linguistic 5.1. The htitTRE \.1. The "orm words rlu plus rul rules modd model of of the 111,1'" word the words gram mar. the ofgrammar, mode l of the model p itit i, mar. then the rul rules of of th the gram grammar, then perhJ perhaps is the Ihe fault. whi h isi atatfault. themselv • which expr ion themselves, the expressions than the rathe r than model, rather plus rul rules model, plu rathe r irregular. rather theirregular, onthe focu on to focus ed to al. decid Fillmore ., prem i • Fillmore Given thi premise, .. n this et al. (;i decided In \(1 r prc.".,ntation . In Iingui tic representations. oflinguistic model of th ir model l1g their regular, III Ih.1I1 than the regular, in buildl building so the than r ralhe ion expr ati idiom onidiomatic focu illS on by focusing began by they began . they doing, expressions rather than the dOll1g guage . oflan ntences of governed sentences ently rule· apparently rule-governed language. appar idiom a idioms— to as referrrd to arc referred what are that, what a\Sum that, model assumes rul", model plu rules word ; plus The words th know ing the by knowing 'mply by out" simply "w rk out" canno t "work user cannot language user that a language expressions expr ion that excep tion. as exceptions. Ii ted as imply listed languag~r simply vocabulary of and the vocabulary grammar gra mma r and of aa language—are accou nt of con tructi onal account their constructional dcveloping their in developing til. in et al. I-illmorc et by Fillmore taken by lalk taken The The tack of argue They tion. excep lied ' . th withthese so-called exceptions. They argued d beginwith tobegin y tem isi to lingui ti system the the linguistic then "ex eptio n ,"then the"exceptions," forthe way,for prin ipledway, ac ount.ininaaprincipled toaccount, po ible to is possible that Ihat ifif itit is an froman natur allyfrom outnaturally fallout houldfall guag eshould oflan a peet of regular aspects ofth an the regular language Jcwu nt of an account irregular, theirregular. ofthe a"ou nt of account and impo rtant and two important rea hed two al.• reached rl al., Fillmore et idiom .Fillmore on idioms, work on their work In their In gram matic al regulargrammatical ;omeregular di playsome dodisplay idiom ,do l'ir tly. idioms cond u,ion .Firstly, ,nfluem,al conclusions. influential confo rmtoto d n't confinm and don't do and they do how they based on da itied based be classified can he properties, on how prope rti • and can Iways fully notalways arcnot henceare and hence patte rn. and gram mati al patterns, and grammatical ;ema ntic and regular semantic regular fully led moda accom be can idiom dly. Se.:on rt. ubpa their subparts. Secondly, idioms can he accommodated from their I'rl-dillable from predictable plu rule wordsplus th words Jettisonthe wejettison y temififwe lingui ticsystem thelinguistic mod Iofofthe within aa model within rules that holds which l. mode nal ructio const a propo seda constructional model, which holds that theyproposed pia e,they it place, In its model. In model. a mbli b'pol arassemblies unit:bipolar symb olilunits: ntirelyofofsymbolic upentirely madeup 'Y temisi made IlIlgui>licsystem the thelinguistic par imo moreparsimoper peetiveis imore Thiperspective 01 ning.This andmeaning. formand con tructi on )ofofform (~rconstructions) (or than Ratherthan reaw n.Rather followingreason. thefollowing I forthe mod for rul model plu rules wordsplus Ihewords thanthe nious n,ou than idiom Iheidioms withthe rul •with plu rules, word plus repre;cnlaloon : words type ofofrepresentations: IW()types assuming a \umin g two advtx aledbyby Gram maradvocated Con Irucli onGrammar l of modeof Ihemodel words,the akin totowords, being akin being Construction _ymboli unit_ of repr ntalio n: kind ingle al. po iled rt posited 1-,lImore et Fillmore justiua I. single kind of representation: symbolic units. be held 10 can be ma,hll1ery can IhemelicJI machinery >Jllletheoretical Ihesame that the argu that Iheyargue hon, they In short, In held to

\yMem . 1I0gu l\11( Ihe unit ofotthe idium.uu.:units dndidiomatic rq;ulJrand bothregular forboth .:a countfor account linguistic system.

-

LEXt At REPRESENTATION REPRF. ENTATION LEXICAL

90

In developing developing their their account, a (ount,Fillmore fillmore etrlal. /II. developed developed aa typology typology of ofidiomidiom In atic expressions expr ion based based on on four four main mainparameters, parameters, each each of ofwhich whichI Ibriefly bri fly atic di-;cuss below: below: discuss

•• •• •• ••

SYMBOLIC SYMBOLIC UNITS UNITS

91

d spill an JnJ ,p,l/the lirebeans brallS are are substantive substant" idioms idiom because beeau most most or orall allofofthe thesubstanubstan

orcontent contentexpressions expression involved involved are are intrinsic intrin i to tothe theidiom. idiom.InIncontrast, contra I, t11\~ ive or rmal idioms ""m,,1 idioms provide provide syntactic yntacti "frames" "frames" into into which whichdifferent different lexical lexi alitems item fo example of can ",n be he "inserted." "inserted." An example ofa formal fornlal idiom idiom isisthe th let kl alone alolleconstruction. (onstru tlon. As \, the following following examples examplesillustrate, iIIu trate, the theframe frameprovided providedby bythis thi construction con truction he tilled with all sorts of lexical items. In other words, this type ,.tIl he filled with all sorts ofl xi al item. In other word, this typeofofidiom idiomisi om

d oding and and encoding en oding idioms idiom decoding ver u extragrammatical extragrammati al idioms idiom grammatical versus sub tantive versus ver u formal formal idioms idioms substantive ,diom with with and and without withoutpragmatic pragmati point. point. idioms

pnl<.luc.:tive.

e. doesn't vred I ) 1taa. doesn'tunderstand understandwomen womeniningeneral. general,letletalone alonethe theunique uniqu creature creature lc. tiFFred 1:( 17 that isi Holly IloUy Golightly Golightly HoUy can't wash wa h up, let let alone alone cook cook b. Holly wouldn't describe c. I wouldn't d ribe Holly's I lolly' predicament as a amusing, amusing, let let alone alone hilarious hilariou

Decoding and andencoding encodIngidioms idioms Decoding D oding idioms idiom like like kick kick the lilt bucket b"ck,., have to be decoded decodedor or"learnt "learnt whole" whole" in in the th~ Decoding sen that that the the semantic semantic contribution contribut,on of ofthe the expression expres;ion cannot cannothe beworked worked out outon on sense first hearing. ontra t, encoding idiom like wide wuleawake aWdkr may may be be understood understood first hearing. In In contrast, encoding idioms on the the first first hearing: hearing: the theadjective adjective wide wi,le functions functi n as as a degree dcgr modifier, modifier, and and it it is , on po ,ble to to work work out out that that this thi expression expression means m ns "completely ',omplet Iyawake". IlowC\.r, possible awake: However, peaker would nat he be able to to predict predict this thi isi the the conventional conventionalway w.yof encoding the speaker would not of encoding •a particular part,cular idea In other other words, words,there thereisi nothing nothinginIIIthe the"rules" "rul."," idea in the language. In of English In&li h that that enables a speaker speaker to predict predict the the existence exi tence of ofthis thi expression expr. ,onas a, of opposed to, say, say, lIarrow awake,narrow lIarrowasleep, aslerp. or alert. Encoding En oding idioms idiom~ narrow awake, or WIde wide alert. opposed to, also in lude expressions expr i n that thatare areperfectly perfectlyregular, regular, but but just ju thappen happentotorepresent represent also include the w.y of ofsaying saying something. something.For Forexample, example,the theexpression expr . ion dnvlIIg the conventional conventional way driving licellce is an encoding idiom in the n that it represent the convenli nal way licence is an encoding idiom in the sense that it represents the conventional way of that could could be be (but (but isi not) not)called called a driving dnvlllg permit pcrlllil or of describing aa document that or aa dnvlIIg ,100·"lIIelll (Taylor driving document (Taylor 2002: 2002: 547). 547). Grammatical versus extragrammatical extragrammatical idioms Grammatical versus idioms Grammat, al idiom are expressions expression that that obey obey the theusual usualrules rulesofofgrammar. grammar. Grammatical idioms are For the grammatical grammatical idiom idiom Spll/ Il,e beans, beall" aa verb noun For example, example, in in the spill the verb tak takes aa noun phr.", omplement. In extragrammati,al idioms idiom such such aas /11/ of a/I phrase complement. In contr3.~t, all of contrast, extragrammatical su,ldell not obey u ual rules rules of grammar. In thi expression, exp' ion, the th sudden do do not obey the the usual of grammar. In this quantifier prepo ition phrase, phr. ,where e pc
Idioms Id,ams with and without withaut pragmatic pragmaticpoint paint

Some idiomatic idiomatic expressions expr ion exhibit exhibit aa specific specifi illocutionary iIIocutionary force force (Searle (Searle Some 1969), which iis to say they 1969), which they have have a clear clear communicative communi ative function functian in aa specific pecific refer to as pragmatic et al. extra-linguistic context. This notion Fillmore f\tralinguistic context. Thi notion Fillmore el al. refer a pragmatic point. Examples of idioms which exhibit such a very clear pragmatic Examples of idioms whi he hibit su h a very lear pragmaticfunction fun tion Now do you do? or express a particular include those tho which whi hserve rYeasa aagreeting: greeting: How do YO" do? or express a particular your ear in my ti'hat's YOllr (negative) n<'gatlve) attitude: attitude: Wllat's car doing doillg itl my parking parkitlgspace? spact? In In contrast, contra t, other idiomatic idiomati expressions expr ions appear appear to be be pragmatically pragmatically neutral, neutral, in the th sense sense that they can can be used in that they in any any pragmatic pragmati context. context.Expressions Expression like like by and atldlarge large on IlIr the whole and 011 wllole fall into this category. Table 5.1summarizes summarizes these these four four distin distinctions. lable 5.1 tions. As A this thi table table shows, hows,aasingle ingle idiom can be classified according to each of these four parameters. ,d,om can be cia ified a cording ea h of these four param ter. For For example, the expression by atld a decoding idiom that is extragramand large is large i idiom that i extragram-

JI • A Kt

51. AI,.F So'.

it

SubstantIve versusformal formalidioms id,ams Substantive versus The tin tion is i between between.substantive ub tantive and formal formal idioms. idioms. Substantive ub. tantive The third third di distinction ,diom ally filled, which means mea", that that they they have have fixed fixed lexical lexical items itel'" as a, idioms are are lexi lexically filled, which part itlon. For For example, example, kick have the the same me kick Ilrr the 1II0p mop dQCl, partof of their theircompo composition. does not not have communicative as kick buckrt, and bram does have spill lire the beans and spil/ communicative function function as kick lire the bucket, does not not have Ihe pili 'lit lWd-.f' Roth kid. the clUI",pagllr. champagne. Both kick ,IIr the bucket the\.,lme same(ommunic.:.llive communicative func.:tion function 3\ as .spill

DistUnc.:tlOru 1>i inctions In in Idiom idiom types

a

II

r.

Idiom Iype Id,om type

Scm~ntl(

Semantic structure tru ture

Example

Il<.;ooong Decoding

kit* the kic! Ih, bucket bucket

Grammatical Gr<Jmmalical 1·Extra-grammatical ~lril · 8r~mm.ltiul Sulhl.lnllv(' substantive •urnial formal

Neither semantic contribution t'lther Kmanli onlribulion nor nor predicted conventionality can he conventionality can M predided contribution may .Semantic mantic contrihution may he be predicted, bUI but not not convtntionality conventionality prtdicttd, Obey the rules of grammar Obey of grammar Do m" not obey the Ihe rules rul of ofgrammar grammar [)o Lexically filled Lexlully Lexicallyopen open Lex;ully

Pragmatic.J'tlint point PrJgmalic.: No pragmatic pomt point '0 prilgm,uic.:

spekitic pr.JllmJlIc.: pragmatic func.:tlOll function SrcL1f1(" Pragmatically neutral neutral Pragmaliully

Encoding Inwding

Whie

awake

,h,

spill the beans spill all of of IIa iUtftl,." sudden all spill "the spIll .. beans beallS the "let alone" the "'et ~Ion(''' construction con lrUdion do? JHow low do ,10 y.ou )'(111 Ilo?

by atllllllrg~ and large by

92

SYMBOLIC UNITS

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

matical (a preposition is co-ordinated with an adjective), and is also subst live and pragmatically neutral.

The symbolic unit as the basis of the linguistic system Having accounted for the exceptions, idiomatic expressions, in terms of the symbolic thesis, we turn to the next stage in developing the symbolic unit as the basis for representation in the linguistic system. This involves applying the constructional perspective to all that is regular: the rule-governed component, or the "syntax," of the words plus rules model. One of the most influential developments in this area has been Adele Goldberg's work, most notably her landmark 1995 books Influenced both by the work of Fillmore and Kay and by the early work of George Lakoff on the symbolic basis of language, 6 Goldberg developed a theory of Construction Grammar that sought to extend the constructional approach of Fillmore and Kay from "irregular" idiomatic constructions to "regular" constructions. In order to do this, Goldberg focused on verb argument constructions. In other words, and as we saw in Chapter 2, she examined ordinary clause-level sentences such as transitives and ditransitives and built a Construction Grammar on the patterns she found there. The central thesis of Goldberg's theory of Cognitive Construction Grammar is that sentence-level constructions "themselves carry meaning, independently of the words in the sentence" (Goldberg 1995: 1). According to this view, constructions—symbolic units in present terms—are themselves theoretical primitives, rather than "taxonomic epiphenomena" (Chomsky 1991: 417). As Goldberg observes, the issue of argument structure alternations has received a considerable amount of attention in contemporary work in linguistics. To illustrate, consider the examples in (2) and (3). ( 2) a. Fred brought Holly Golightly some breakfast h. Fred brought some breakfast to Holly Golightly

4

93

interest here relates to the fact that while the prepositional construction 1 110 Ws the recipient to be either animate (2h) or inanimate (3b), the double o bject construction requires that it be animate (compare (2a) with (3a)). The ; ism, that arises from this observation is how these differences are best ca ptured in the model of the linguistic system. Goldberg argues that the most explanatory account associates these semantic restrictions directly with the grammatical construction itself, rather than stating the information in the lexical entries of individual verbs. That is, and as we saw in Chapter 2, ;oldberg argues that the ditransitive construction, for instance, constitutes a symbolic unit independently of the lexical items which happen to fill it. In so doing she claims that it represents a bipolar unit, which consists of a conventional vehicle, a specifiable syntactic arrangement, with a semantic structure which she glosses as: x CAUSES Y TO RECEIVE Z. Goldberg argues that the ditransitive symbolic unit is associated with the syntactic frame (sum v oBt i l I (e.g., Fred gave Holly /lowers), where both objects arc noun phrases (NPs). The ditransitive unit is not associated with the syntactic frame INP v NP PPI I (e.g., Fred gave flowers to Holly), which identifies the distinct prepositional symbolic unit. These two symbolic units are distinct—although related by shared aspects of form and semantic structure—because any difference in either vehicle or semantic structure signifies, in Cognitive Construction Grammar, a distinct symbolic unit. Goldberg lists a number of properties that are specific to the ditransitive symbolic unit, which cannot be predicted either from the individual words that till the symbolic unit, or from other symbolic units in the language. The properties of the ditransitive symbolic unit are summarized in Table 5.2. In more recent work which complements that of Goldberg, William Croft (2002) has developed a constructional account of language informed by research on the grammatical diversity across the world's languages. This approach, which he terms Radical Construction Grammar, is noteworthy for completely eliminating syntax (rules relating to word order), and grammatical categories (such as subject and object) from the model of linguistic representation developed. In particular, Croft argues that the symbolic unit

(3) a. •Fred brought the table some breakfast h. Fred brought some breakfast to the table As these examples illustrate, the ditransitive verb bring can occur in two different construction types. Examples like (2a) and (3a) are termed ditransitive or (double object) constructions because the verb is followed by two nominal objects. In examples (2b) and (3b), which is termed the prepositional construction (Goldberg 1995: 8), the indirect object (Holly Golightly or the table) is instead represented by a preposition phrase (PP). The point of ' See also I .4 ddherg 12 ► 0n) in whs. h roldbers revises crrt.rin aspek Is of her earlier theory of Construction (11'4111111/f • GOldheig was influenced in particular by Lakoffs (1987) caw study of there constructions_

TABLE S2. 1995)

Properties

of the English symbolic unit: ditransitive construction (601,11-berg

The English ditransitive: X

CAUSES

Y

TO RECEIVE Z

that cannot be attributed to the lexical verb argument must be animate (RECIPIENT rather than PATIENT) Two non-predicative NPs are licensed in post-verbal position The construction links RE role with oat function The sump role must be filled with a volitional AGENT, who intends TRANSFER COMTIbilICS TRANSI FR WIllalliks

The

GOAL

94

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

( i.e., the "construction") is the only primitive unit in the grammar, and may therefore be either simplex or complex in terms of form, and either specific or schematic in terms of its semantic structure. This means that grammatical categories--for example, word classes such as noun and verb, or grammatical functions such as subject and object—have no independent status, but arc defined in relation to the symbolic units within which they occur. This does not mean that word classes, for instance, do not exist, but that word classes cannot be categorized into divisions that have any reality independent of the symbolic units that make up a given language. Hence, what makes Radical Construction Grammar radical is the position that the symbolic unit becomes not only the primary form of linguistic representation but the only constituent of the linguistic system. From this perspective, it is to be expected that the types of word classes that we observe from one language to another might be significantly different. Moreover, because no universal word classes are posited, this cross-linguistic variation is not only unproblematic but predicted. Croft therefore argues against the traditional distributional approach to word classes, as assumed, for instance, in traditional grammar, structuralism, and the Generative paradigm. Instead, Croft argues in favour of language-specific symbolic units, and in favour of symbolic unit-specific elements (grammatical subparts) and components (semantic subparts). Given the fundamental status of the symbolic unit in Radical Construction Grammar, the only syntactic relations admitted are the part-whole relations that hold between the symbolic unit as a whole and the syntactic elements that fill it. In other words, the model does not recognize grammatical relations (grammatical functions) such as subject and object as having any independent reality outside of individual symbolic units. Instead, to the extent that grammatical functions emerge from symbolic units, these also have the status of construction-specific epiphenomena. In this model, constituency is conceived in terms of grouping, where grammatical units are identified in terms of contiguity and prosodic unity, and heads receive a semantic characterization as primary information-bearing units or PIBUs (Croft 2002.: 258). 7 In sum, the defining feature of constructional approaches, as adopted by LCCM Theory, is that a symbolic unit as a whole constitutes a conventional assembly of form, a vehicle, and semantic structure, a lexical concept, in the same way as a lexical item is conceived as constituting a symbolic unit in the received view of the lexicon. The types of distinct symbolic units arc presented in Figure 5.2. The anatomy of a symbolic unit is presented in Table 5.3.

SYMBOLIC UNITS

41■.•

95

Symbolic unit

Syntactic properties Vehicle

Morphological properties Phonological properties

Symbolic correspondence

Semantic properties Pragmatic properties

41111+0■11■

Semantic structure

Discourse-functional properties

5.2.

TABLE 5.3.

Anatomy of a symbolic unit (adapted from Croft

Taxonomy

of symbolic units (adapted from Croft

Type of symbolic unit Complex and (mostly) schematic Complex and (mostly)

%pecific

4►

mplex

but bound

2002: i$)

2002: 17)

Traditional name

Example

Syntax

NP be-TENSE VERB-en

Idiom

pull-TENSE

Morphology

NOUN-S/( MORE THAN ONE OF

by NP/f ACTION

FROM PERSPECTIVE OP PATIENT' NP'S ieg/ITO TEASE AS A

SOMETHING', VERB-TENSE/]TIME REFERENCE WITH RESPECT TO CODING TIME]

Atomic and schematic

Word classes

NOUNITHING), VERB/TEMPORALLY GROUNDED RELATION I

Atomic

and specific

Lexical items thei[THEI, jumperiliumPeR1

The non-reductive nature of symbolic units An important feature of constructional accounts of the linguistic system— what is generally referred to, by linguists, as the "grammar" is their nonreductive nature. Following Langacker (1987) I assume that one of the factors —

I hi% notion I% Jo.11ogous 101.111,014:kcit's lc.,,-.19117) notion of the head bring what he refer,. to .1 the profile determinant

involved in the establishment of a symbolic unit is frequency: if a particular

LeXICAL REPR[S[ TAllON LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

SYMBOLIC UNITS

lingui,tic structure tru,ture recurs rew" sufficiently ,ufli(lently frequently, frequently. itit achieves aOrnesymbolic ymboli come unit arc are instances in tan (Langacker (Langacker 1987) 1987) of of other other more mor abstract .b,tract units, units.which which units Langacker refers 10 illustrate, illu~trate. consider con ider prepositions prepo ition (P) (P)such su h Langacker refers to to as as schema. schemas. To ., to, and III. which are combined with a compl ment n un phra ( P) as to on, and in, which arc combined with a complement noun phrase (NP) to form form aa preposition prepo It",n phrase phra (PP). (1'1'). In In example example (4h (4).the theNPPisisbracketed. bracketed. to

0".

4

(4) a. to (me) (4) a. to fowl b. on on ((the noor) the flood b. c. in in (the (thegarage] garage) c.

•

The expressions expre>,ion, in (4). to to me, lilt. on 0" the tl,cfloor, floor. and and in 1/1 the tilt garage, gartlgc. are are common common The in (4), phrase that that probably probably have have unit unit status tatu for for most mo tspeakers pakersof ofEnglish. Engli h.InInother other phrases word. they they are are,symbolic ymbolic units. unit. However, However. there there isi another another schema hema related related to to words, th ... symbolic ,ymbolic units, unit.. which which has ha the thehighly highly,schematic hematl vehicle vehi Ie"P "I'NP" P"and andthe the these highly hemati semantic semanti structure tructure which whl h IIgloss glo as as [DIRECTION (OIREt;TION OR ORLOCA LOCAhighly schematic TION WITII RESPECT RESPECT TO TO SOME SOMf PHYSICAL PIIYSI AL ENTITY]. ENTITY). The Th symbolic ,ymboli units units in m (4) (4) TION WITH arc thu, paine instances in tances of thi more more abstract ab tract ,ymbolic lInlt. This Thi, isis illusIllu are thus specific of this symbolic unit. trated Figure 5.3 h identifies the symbolic ymbolic units unitsbased basedon ontheir theirvehicles. vehid trated in in Figure 5.3 whi which identifies the Thi view of of the the linguistic lingui ti system y tern isi non-reductive n n·reductiv in in the thefollowing followingway. way. This view The ymbolic unit in (4) (4) can an be be predicted predicted by by the the more more general gen ralhema of The symbolic units in schema of which they are are instances. instances. However, However. the the fact fa t that that they they can can be bepredicted predi ted does d which they not that they they can can be be eliminated eliminated from from the the linguistic Iingui tic system—the sy t m--- themental mental not mean mean that repo itory of unit. On On the the wntrary. the fact fact that that expres ion ofth" expressions of this contrary, the repository of symbolic symbolic units. kind retain unit unit status statu as as distinct di tinct kind are arc frequently frequently occurring occurring ensur ensures that that they they retain ymbolic units. unit. Moreover, Moreover. that that fact fact that that they they share shar aa similar imilar structure structure and and aa symbolic wmmon ab tra t semantic manti structure tru ture ensures en ure, that that the th more moreabstract ab tra t schema s.ch ma common abstract also them in in the th linguistic Iinguisti system. system. also co-exist co-exists with with them Thi tand in direct oppo,ition to the the words words plus plu This non·reductive non-reductive model model stands in direct opposition to rllles is becau the words words plus plu rules rules model model assumes a sum that that the th rapid rapid rules model. model. Thi, This is because the

PNP

97 97

acquisition acqui itlon of ofan an infinitely infinitely creative creativ system 'y tem of oflanguage languagecan canonly onlybebeplausibly pIau Ibly accounted principles. accountedfor forby byaasmall malland andefficient efficientset setofofprin iples.InInparticular, partIcular.the thewords words plus rules model seeks to eliminate redundancy: the same information plu rllles model <eeks to eliminate redllndan the 'y,tem non. parsimonious. parsimoniou . According According to to this thi view, view. the thefact fact that that the theexpressions expr ion inin(4) (4)are are predictable from the more abstract symbolic unit means that these instances predictable from the more ab tra t ymbolic unit mean that th ... 111 tanc can (.m he be eliminated eliminated from fromthe thelinguistic lingui ticsystem, y tern.and and"built "builtfrom fromscratch" scra"h"each ach time they are used. In lime they are used. In the th words word plus plu rules rul model, model.the theonly onlyconstruction con tructionthat that would would be be stored stored in in the thelinguistic linglli tksystem y temisisthe theabstract ab tractschema. schema.However, Ilowever.this tho; schema "hema would would lack lack schematic s..hematic meaning, meaning. and and would would instead m tead have hav the thestatus tatu of of an about what what kinds an "instruction" "instruction" about kinds of of vehicles vehi les can can be be combined combined totomake make grammatical ~rammatical units. units. In In the the words word plus plu rule rule model, model.then, th n.what what II am here here calling calling a schema is actually a rule. While schemas are derived from language use ..... hema is actually a rule. While s.chema are derived from languag useand and thus incorporate semantic structure—a lexical concept—rules arc minimally thu incorporate semantic structure--a lexical concept-rules are minimally specified '(>t amount amount of ofinformfor. mation possible po ible in in the the most most economical economicalway waypossible. pos ibl .

The structure of symbolic symbolic units units Lexical concepts are aSMlCiated associated with vehicles, I exical concept. vehi les. aa consequence consequence of oftheir theirstatus tatu as as the semantic pole of bipolar As the vehicles can the semantic pole of bipolar symbolic ymbolk units. unit. A an he be complex, complex. made up of simpler vehicles, lexical concepts can be simpler or more complex. made of impler vehi I • con epts impl r more compl x. Moreover, just as a vehicle can he construed as having ~Ioreover. iu t a a vehicle can be con trued a having part-whole part-whol organizaorganiza tion, so too lexical concepts have part-whole organization. In lion. Ml lexical concep" have part whole organi,ation. In other other words, word. there are relations that hold there arr relation~ that hold between between distinct distin t symbolic symbolic units. unit .'9 To To illustrate, illu trat • consider the following examples: (on ider following examples: 4' ( 5) (S)

d10

a. Vrhlde: a. Vehicle: ""France" f'mt"t" Lexical l.exi al concept: (FRAN [FRANCE] .) h. Vehicle: b. Vehicle: kickFINITE ""NP P kic/.FI ITF the l/of bucket" llllckfl" Lexical concept: concept: (AN IAN ANIMATE Lexical ANIMATE ENTITY rims] ENTITY OIFS) c. Vehicle: c. Vehi Ie: VERB NP NP" ""NP p FINITE F1 IT[ VERB P" concept: (TIIIN(; ILexical exi al concept: [THING X THING THING 11 x CAUSES CAl!\fS Till (. Y Y TO TO RECEIVE Rf.(:fIVI TflIN(. I)

to make mention of of the formatting conventions I(will will he ItIt Iis necessary nee "'ry to make mention formatting convention be

to rna

on the floor

In the garage

FiGl.t. lalioni holding ymbollt..: unit units FiGuRE 5.). g 3 ~htm.1·insl~nc.:t Schema-instance rrelations holding lxlw«n between symbolic .

deploying in in the the rest rest of of the the chapter. chapter, and the book. hook. II use use italiu italics to represent deployong and the repr... nt phonetically overt overt vehicle. vehicle, such such as as Frallct. France, t/o. the bucket, or kick-this kick—this iis akin akin to to aa phonetically buckft. or the notion of the sub substantive the notion ofthr tantiv idiom discussed di II sed above. above.II use u", capitals capitals to torepresent represent phonetically impli implicit vehicles—akin to the the notion notion of of a formal phonetically it vehid -akin to formal idiom—such id,om -such as FINITE to indicate a finite construction, e.g., the nature ., II ITt to indicate a fin"e construction. e.g.• the nature of the the tense ten

.

• for A F'C'\'tC'W(.( 1hto ..-ok 01 fuqU('ncy In tM II.r.. ~ pf ymholk. unit. 1ft ( ruft and t NliIt (lOno4l. • For a review of the role of frequency in the storage of symbolic units sec ('rift and t ruse 12004).

ntis to Il.mpk1-· arigatit.res'I~") (t9P7)lOntnu content noqUtrmlml requirement Inus Ins holds the mtJy only conti'," entities •• Th .. corresisonds ""rnMroptood In h...aJ, 1that .... 1 thtperinissthle within the grAttlmar GSM 0) phonologital, semantic. and sviiiholk units; 12) the relations J""mmabit Within Ih.: mm...... rt"! III to'1l.lnlk. ... nd *vmbl.h" urut . U) the n::Lthvn (3)Ihr the schein.i+ th.ri~nlltw rrprevrnt those un II thathc.&d hok1hn~ betwren1htmo them;..and t ..... nd (\1 hemal th.1

v ..

rhe.t'II .... .".. ....

LEXI LREPRESENTATION REPRESENTATION LEXICAL

9$

_ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _SYMBOLIC UNITS ~Y!:!.~'!"OllC

Involved. or orNP,p.which whichstands sland for ror"noun "nounphrase." phrase."Vehicles Vehlcl .which whi
the lexical lexical concept on epl II gloss glo asa (FRANCO. IFRAN el. Thi ymbolic unit, unit. by by virtue vinu of of the This symbolic con i ling of ofaa phonetically phonelically overt oven vehicle, vehi Ie. isi lexically lexically filled. filled. lexical Lexi alconcepts con epls consisting
Integration of symbolic symbolic units units Integration of On my central cenlral c
via operation known known as a unification unification in in unification-based unification based Construction Con tru ·Cion via an an operation (,ram mar (e.g .• Kay Fillmore 1999). ion in in Cognitive Cogniliv ConstrucCon Iruc· Grammar (e.g., Kay and and Fillmore 1999), fu fusion lion rammar (e.g., (e.g.. Goldberg Goldberg zoo6), 2006). and and elaboration elaboration in in Cognitive Cognitive Grammar Grammar tion Grammar

Thll 11 an I 1M ttul I Will ..&.trn. In muR' det"llln PAI'l III. In p.lrtkuLu ( turltt u. 1111% Is All Issue that I will address in more detail in Part III in particular o :hapter Iht dl IlIkllun httW'ft'n InI('r""lIy t'p
.

II

h..rt"

II" RA..all U lun of • •l.on In Recall 1M the ddiscussion of nnled nested Inl integration in <-Chapter1.t

99

UNITS'-_-:t99~

13 For le.g.. Langacker 1..lI1gacker 107). 1987)." I'orinstance, in'lance.Goldberg Goldberg(2.006: (2006: 21) 11) observes ob.crvcs that thaIthe Ihe utterance (6) isi made madeup upof ofall allthe thesymbolic ymboli units unitsinin(7): (7): uller.nce given in (6) (o) dozen ( />1 A A dOlenroses, ro~.Nina inasent senther hermother! mOl her! (7) (;) a. a.Ditransitive Dilransilivesymbolic ymbolicunit unil Topicaliyation symbolic h. b. Topicali1A1l1on symboli unit unol VP symbolic unit (. VP ymbolic unil c. d. d. NPP symbolic ymboli unit unil Ce.. Indefinite Indefiniledeterminer delerminersymbolic symboli unit unil f.f. Plural Plural symbolic unit unil g. g. dozen, doze". rose, ro$l', Nina, Nilla. send, $l'lId. mother lIIollorr symbolic symbolic units unil Of Of course, course, my my concern concern in in this this hook book isi with with the theway wayin onwhich whi hunits unitsofofsemantic semanli structure—lexical concepts—arecombined combined in in order order 10 to prompt 'Inlcture--Iexical concepls-are prompl for for the Iheconcon struction ,Iruellon of ofsimulations. Imulalions.Nevertheless, evenhel.,LCCM 1.«M Theory Theorytakes lakes from from constructional construcllonal approaches the perspective approaches Ihe perspe
Summary In Ihi this chapler chapter I have have provided a brief overview of of the In Ihe nature nalure and structure lructure of of the symbolic symbolic unit, Ihe unil, as a developed developed in in constructional onstruclional accounts a counl of ofthe Ihe linguistic linguislic system in in cognitive Theory the 'y>lem

I It

constructional perspectives on semantic

SEMANTIC STRUCTURE 101 _____------------------------____~,~E~I~A~N~~ STRU uR~e~__~l~o~l

6

LeXICal concept Lexical concept (semantic pole pole of of symbolIC unll) symbolic unit)

-

Semantic structure structure

encodes encodes'

~'

factlltates access to: facilitates access to:

"""-

JE

JongUIStoc linguistic content (semantIC structure) (semantic structure) This chapter is concerned with developing an account Thi chapter icon erned with developing an a.,,?unt of of the the nature nature of of chara ter of of sesemantic tru ture. In In particular, parti ular. I exanlln. the distinctive dl tlnctlV< character semantic structure. examine the manti "rudure. contra ting it with with conceptual con«ptual structure. ,tructur .In In I.CCM lC M'I hemy mantic structure, contrasting Theory semantic tructure iis mod lied in terms terms of of the the theoretical theoretical construct con tru t of ofthe tho semantic structure modelled Ie ical con ept. lIence. thi chapter chapter also also lays lay the foundation foundation for for the the lexical lexical Hence, this concept. lexical wncept. foeu IIlg in m particular particular On on the that itit encodes. encode,. concept, focusing the kmd kind of content that The main mak. in in this this chapter chapter isis that that lexical I xical concepts concept have have The main claim that that II make biportit. structure. tructur<. Firstly, Fir, tly. lexical information that that can canbe be, bipartite lexical concept concepts encode information direttly and externalized externali1ed via, via. language. language. Hence, lienee ••information nfornlatlon of oj directly encoded encoded in. in and thi i unique unique to tolanguage. language.This Thi relatively relativelystable stable information informatIonI Irefer refertotoasa this sort is Iingui tic content. In addition, addition. aa subset ubset of oflexical Ie i al concepts concepts (as (a discussed di u~ linguistic content. In below) serves serves.as access act , sites ites to a representational repr","ntation.1 type which isi non-linguistic non-Iingui" il m natur : con eptual structure—modelled tructure--mod lied in term of of the the construct con tru t of ofthe th in nature: conceptual in terms .ncoded,by by cognitive cogniti\'e cognitIVe Th non-linguistic non-lingui tic information information encoded cognitive mode!. model)I The models refer to nt. Content of of this thl type tn" isI not notdirectly doret tl y models I refer to aas conceptual cont content. not.n odedinilllanguage. language. encoded • whi h iis to say itIt isi not encoded by by lexical lexical concept concepts, which encoded hence VIn via language. Thus, acee sed by by lexical lexical concepts, con ept •and and hence Thu • Rather Rather itit can can be accessed linguistic encode lingui tic ,tnl ture of lexical le,,,al concepts conlCpts means means that that they they fIlCO./f the bipartIte structure the bipartite content and facilitate facihtatt access access to to a potentially potentially unlimited unlimited array array of of conceptual oncepwal content and This situation 4. Thi (ontent-the semanti potential potential discussed di u sed in inChapter Chapter 4itualion is i, content—the semantic summ.lmed in Figure I-igure 6.1. 6.1. summariied in In Ih next nexl section, lion. which whi h synthesizes synlh Il and and builds bUIlds on onwork workby byLeonard Leonard In the lay the Ihe foundation foundalion for foran anaccount a countof ofsemantic semanli structure. lru lure. TJlmy •. g.• 2000). Ta!my((e.g., i000l, IIlay approach to 10 semantic manll( representation, represenlalion. TaImy 'IJlmy argues Iwo levels level, of of In In hi, his approach argues for for two represenlalion facilitated fa ilitated by by language: language: a schematic hemati level leveland andaarich richlevel. levCparation Talmy's separationof of two two levels in fact Ih one onehand handand andconceptual cone plual di tinctIon belween lie conlent distinction between lingui linguistic content on on the sections 1 examine the distinction contenl the other. other. In In subsequent ,ubsequenl section I examine the di lin tion content on the belween Iingul\I" and conceplual in detail, detail ... well as ., the Ihe basis ha, i for ,for between linguistic and conceptual wntcnl content in as well distinct the di distinction. detailed examination Ih tinction. Finally, l'inally. II present present aa fairly fairly delalled exammatlon of ofthe the dlStln" the lexical IYflCS Iingui"i content.n oded by by the lexi al concept. con cpt. II argue argue that Ihat the Ihe content encoded types of of linguistic

conceptual content contenl (conceptual structure) (conceptual structure)

IFii;tTRE U.\ ' Rf tu. Iru4.lurt of aa lexical luiul concept umctpt 6.1.The TheblPUlllt bipartite structure lexical concept can lexical anIN: be best thought thought of as as aa bundle bundl. of of different different types tYflCS of of hngui\tk (ontent. linguistic content.

Rich Richversus versusschematic schematic content content

II

According central design d ign feature feature of of language languag. isi that that the the According to to Talmy Talmy (2000) (2000) aa central concepts wncept expressed expr sed are divided divided into into two two subsystems. subsy.tem . As As we we first fir t saw saw in in 2, Talmy Tal my characleri= what he he refers refer to 10 as a the the (Chapter hapler 2, characterizesthis thisinin ternls terms of of what grammatical subsystem ub ystem and I xical subsystem. ubsy tem. These Th two subsystems ub ystem serve serve grammatical and lexical two to express expr, the the experiential experiential complex—what complex. -whal Talmy Talmy refers refer to to as a the th cognitive 'I hat a speaker speaker attempts in the Ih listener listener by by virtue virtue of of represent.tion representation—that attempts to evoke in del'l ying language. language. The range rang of ofconcepts con .pt expressed .xpr~ by bythe thegrammatical grammatical deploying ,ub ystem is i highly highly restricted r lri ted cross-linguistically, ero -Iingui, tically. providing providing aa basic basi frameframesubsystem work work for for the Ihe structuring strucluring of ofthe Ihe experiential experiential complex (omplexthat thailanguage languageusers usersseek seek 10 evoke evok. in in their their interlocutors. interlocutor. Put Put another another way, way. the the lexical lexi .1 concepts conerpt associas ito ub, ystem have hav schematic content, content . providing providingaa ated with wilh the the grammatical grammatical subsystem ated ,tru(tunng n. Thus, Thu • the th lexical lexi al concepts concepts with WIth schematic hemali content (onlentpropro, structuring functi function. VIde a "scaffoldins" ri h content content associated as iated with with vide "scaffolding" SO so to speak. speak, aero across which the rich lex; al concepts of ofthe Ihe lexical lexical subsystem ub y tem can can be bedraped. draped. In Incontradistincontradi tin· the lexical to this, thi •the the lexical lexical concepts concepl associated associated with withthe theso-called so-calledlexical lexi(alsubsyssub y" tion to tem lem provide provid rich rich content, content. giving giving rise ri to to the thedetails detail (rather (ralherthan thanstructural tructural of the th cognitive cognitive representation. representation. Talmy Talmy expresses expresses this Ihi. idea idea in in the th aspects) of following way: way:

.'pect )

Together, the the grammati grammatical elements of of aa sentence Together. al clement olcncr determine determine the the majority of of the the structure elrll(fllrt' of tht CR CR (cognitive (cognitiverepresentation], repr "t.tlionl. while while the lexical lui .11 elements elemenl together together of the contribute u)nlribule the maiority majority of of its II content. nmlt'''' .•. gramm.1hul specifications 1)f'(.lfic.1110n~ in In a sentence, nt('nu~. .. The grammatical thus, thu • provide provide aII conceptual conceptual framework framNork or, or, imagistically, Imagl Ii aUy, a iii skeletal kdttal structure tructurc or or scaffoldKaffold ~ lng, for the the conceptual 4;oo,-cptual material malcrialthat lex.lullyspecified. Ilfilficd. ing, for that isi lexically

(hlmy 21). Talmy 2000: 21).

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

102

SEMANTIC STRUCTURE TRUCTURE

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

102

----------------~~~~

An important important aspect a pe
A".f

-

( 'Iosed-class vehicles

Schematic ~htm.1t1( semantic molnliccontent conl~nt

J

J

rachlar smashed smasl.,d the the guitars gllllars A rockstar ((I)a) A

.er

the.'

lexical k 11••11 class: dol, : verb \'crb (for (for serve ~"'t'))

-

-

-

lexical Inka) class: d . noun (for (for waiter/customer) M'mlfTkwto",") grammatical relation: ltrJmmalll..J) relation : subject ubja:1 (for (for wflIttr) waiter) grammatital relation: gr.mUllJlical rdoltion: object ohj I (for (for customers) c" tomm) active \oic~ voice (Clhrough through oIdl\'t

Introduces Inlroduc aareferent ref~rent which whichthe Ihehearer hearerisi held hold toto be btunable unabletotoreadily readilyidentify idenllfy (from context or preceding discourse) (from con lUI or pra:rdlOg di ounc) Designates the ign.lI a01 unitary uOItuy instantiation 10 lantialionof ofthe referent rd rent Introduces Inlrodu(t\ aoJ referent reftrent which which the thchearer hc.u risIS held held to tobe btable .bletotoreadily readIlyidentify Identify(from (from context or preceding discourse) conlext or prrctdlOg di5(.ou~) Designates ( Ign.11 multiple mul1lplc instantiations in I01ntiJlion of ofaa referent rc~ renl Designates Designat performer perform«of ofaaparticular parllcular action or activity adion or oU1Ivily Designates as an (~ignJt entity enllty.J~ an event n'cnl (as (as one one possibility) po ,b,loty) Designates Designates entity entlly as as an an object obi«t (as (a one one possibility) I"',,;h,loty) Designates Do,snat entity enllty as a being btlllg the the primary primary or or focalI entity in a designated relationship entity in a d ignat
r.

6.2. Rl(h Rich conlent content a associated 1TABLE AI' F 6.1. i;;utd with open-class optn -cia vehicles

------~---------.-------------Rich semantic.: semantic content Rich onlcnt

)pen n -dol class \'t'hu..iC) vehicles ()rc -

waiter "'.lIlec

While IIlvolves exactly exactly the the same same closed-class closed-cla~ elements, element. While the the uHerance utterance in in (2) (2) involves and the cognitive cognitive representation representation evoked evoked by hy and hence hence schemati schematiccontent content aas (I). (0, the (2) i radically radi ally different. beeau", the the content content (2) is different. According According to to Talmy. Talmy, thi, this i~ is because evoked "ieal subsystem—the ub,y tem-the example evoked by bythe theIlexical example in in (2) (z) involv involves different different open opencia vehi I .. from the exam 1' 1 in (I) involves very different content than class vehicles from the example in (t )—involves very different content than that ""-iated with hy the the closed-class d,,\Cd ·d.l vehicles. vchlll . thataassociated with schematic schematic content content encoded encoded by The ub y tem relat • people. Thelexical lexical subsystem relatesto to thlllg things, people, place. places, events. events, propertIes properties of of thing. and 50 on. The grammatical suhsystem on the other hand r lat to things, and so on. The grammatical subsystem on the other hand relates to

Serve

(di U'sed IIIinfurther r aa piece piece of of IIlfomlation informationisisold old or or (discussed furtherdetail detail below). below), wheth whether

verb nrb form)

declarative word order c..Il"\.IJrali\'e

(2) A wmlcr cn'
(onlt'nt aspectsof of \Jl.U:C, space, time. time, and and numher number topological 3\J>C1..:1. contenthaVing having10 to do do with with topologi,~l1

103

associated LAMEht. I ~I . Schematic St:helll.llltcontent lOn1tnl.1 "".,ltaJwith Withclosed-class dc)~ ·d vehicles w:hld

noun.verb, verb. adjective, adjective.and andadverb. adverb. noun, While the the concepts ron",ptsexpressed expressed by byclosed-class dosed -cia vehicles vehicles encode encodeschematic schematicconcon. While tent. they they are are nevertheless neverth I - essential essential for for the the expression expr ionofofthe th cognitive cognitiverepresenrep' n tent, tation. To To make make this this point point clear, dear. consider consider the the following following semantic semanticanalysis analy is of ofthe the tation. range of open and and closed-class closed -de elements elementswhich whichcomprise comprisethe theutterance utteranceinin(1): (I): range of open-

The forms forms in bold: a. the. and and -s arc are associated a sOClated with with the thegrammatical grammatical The in bold: a, oed. -ed, the subsy,tem. Their semantic contribution contnbution relates relates to to whether whetherthe theparticipants participant subsystem. Their semantic (rockstar/guitars) (I) can can be beeasily easily (rockstar/guitars)in in the the experiential experiential comple complex evoked evoked by by (t) identified the hearer hearer (the use of of the the indefinite ind finite article artide aa versus ver us the the definite definite identified by by the (the use arti Ie the). that the the event event took took place place before before now now (the (the use u of ofthe thepast-tense pa Hense article the), that marker how many many participants participant were were involved IIlvolved (the (the absence absence or or and how ed), and marker -eel). pr~n e of the plural marker ). presence of the plural marker s). In t. the the forms form in in italics: itali : rachlar. smaslr. and iated guitar are are aassociated and gllllar rockstar, smash, In contra contrast, with the lexical lexi al subsystem. ub y tem. That That is, i • their their semantic semanti contribution contributionrelates relates to tothe the with the nature and the th relationrelationnature of of participant participants involved involved in in the the experiential experiential complex. complex, and hIp holding between them, them. namely namely one one involving involving smashing. ma hing. In In other other words, words. ship holding between \Vhil vehi les encode encod content content relating relating to tostructural tru tural aspects a peets of of while the the dosed-cia closed-class vehicles the open-da", vehicles vehid arc are associated associated with WIth the experiential experiential complex complex evoked. evoked, the the open-class detailed the nature nature of of the the participants, participant. scenes scenes involvinvolvdetailed information information concerning concerning the ing relationship that that hold. hold. ing the the participant. participants, and and the the states states and and relationships To dearer. con ider the in (2): (2): To make make thi this POlllt point even even clearer, consider the example example in

103

-".

l Uustomer tOI11("'

Person with with aa rartll:u1ac particular (un(1Ion, function, and and somellm sometimes Penon appearance, who worlu works In in a appeac')nl . who .. particular partilulolC setting tung Particular mode of activity involving two or more people PoJrtllulJr mode of actlvily in\'olving two or more rcoplc and, typically, an entity with which one of the participants and, typiully. an cOlily with which one oflhc pJrtitipaots provided by by the the other other Iis provid
-------

new,and and whether whether th the 'peaker speaker iis providing providing information new. info rmation or or requesting requesting informformation and so on, as illustrated by (3) in which information is being mation and 50 on. as illu trat
customers? the cuslomers? (3) Which waiter soled (3) Which waolcr tn'
.04 1 04

LEXI 'AL REPRESENTATION

-

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

Theclosed-class do!>Ctl·da vehicles .. hid",I Ihave ha'ediscussed di"u\!>CtIthus Ihu tar farhave haveananovert overlphonetic phonelle The realizalion. 1I0wever. ea h of Ihe exampl di -ussed alcnl a lalmY·Slyle analr i .n order 10 illu!>lrale Ihe Tables 6.1 and 6.2 present a Talmy-style analysis in order to illustrate the dislinCl.on in hemalic versu rich Onlenl. The lables are based on Ihe distinction in schematic versus rich content. The tables are based on the example in (2). example in (2). As is evidenl from a compari;on of "[abies 6.• and 6.2. Ihere i, a dcar As is evident from a comparison of Tables 6.1 and 6.2, there is a clear dislinction belw n the nalure f th conlenl associated with closed- "er;u distinction between the nature of the content associated with closed- versus open-clas \'Chicles. While Ihe number of c1osed·c1 vehi les required 10 'oke open-class vehicles. While the number of closed-class vehicles required to evoke Ihc experienlial complex d"'ignaled by (2) are more numerous, Ihey rela le 10 the experiential complex designated by (2) arc more numerous, they relate to lructural a pect of Ihe <eene. and rYe 10 relate differenl aspects of th structural aspects of the scene, and serve to relate different aspects of the COGNITIVE REPRESENTATION:

COGNITIVE REPRESENTATION:

The expenenbal complex evoked The experiential complex evoked by language by language

GRAMMATICAl. SUBSYSTEM

GRAMMATICAL SUBSYSTEM dellneales slructural propert.es delineates structural properties of !he COOllllwe represenlabon

of the cognitive representation

LEXICAl LEXICAL

SUBSYSTEM SUBSYSTEM

prOVIdes provides neh richconlenlful contentful delall detail of of lhe the COOllillVe represenlalion cognitive representation

Cl.OSED-CI.ASS ELEM NTS

CLOSED-CLASS ELEMENTS aSSOClaled Wllh SChemahc associated with schematic conlenl

content

OPEN-CI.ASS OPEN-CLASSELEMENTS ELEMENTS

assoc.aled associated Wllh withneh richconlenl content

he.l'.' 6.2. rht' hifun.•l1IHn In Iht' f"pro. Ion nf Iht' U)~nHI"(, rrprnenl.ttlOn 10 The bifurcation in the expression of the tognitive representation In language

IA, .1 'RE 6.2. I,JOguoige

STRUCTURE __ ----------____________SEMANTIC ~~~~~~~~__~.o~s los

cognitive the .,,!!nill'lance. hape. siu. and so forth. This distinction is summarized in Figure 6.2. ,,,1<1 0,(' fonh. Thi di linaion i ummarizcd in Figure 6.2.

Recasting Recasting the the distinction distinction between betweenrich richversus versusschematic schematic content contentininLCCM LCCM terms terms Having 11.1\ IIlg considered con .deredTalmy's Talmy's distinction di IInclionbetween betweenschematic hemalicversus versu rich richcontent, conl~nl. II now address the way in which this insight is recast by LCCM Theory. nnw address Ihe way in which Ihis in ighl i recasl by I.e . 1 Theory.As Aswe we 2, LCCM Theory makes a principled distinction between saw in Chapter '-1\\ in Chapler 1, l.eeM Theory make a principled dislinclion belween semantic on one 'tlry systems y;lems that Ihal recruit rccruil information informalion relating relaling to 10 the Ihe external environment and the human individuals' interaction with the envire, lerna I environ men I and Ihe human individual' interaction wilh Ihe environment—as well as nnmenl -as well a proprioception—the prol'rioceplion -Ih~ systems ,y\lem, that Ihal recruit rccruil information infonnalion relating to the motor aspects of the body's own functioning—and rclalmg 10 Ihe 1Il01l)r .'IX'<.ls of Ihe body' own funllioning-and subjective subjeclive experience—which includes experiences ranging from emotions, nperien c--which in ludes experienc ranging from emolion,. temporal lemporal and other cognitive states, to the visceral sense (see liarsalou 1999). Jnd mher cognilive Sial"'. 10 Ihe vi eral \cn (\CC Bar",lou '999). Concep('..onceptual content provides records of perceptual states, in the sense just lual conlenl prov.des record, of perceplual \1.1 • in Ihe sen..., jusl given. given. Accordingly, analogue in in character. character.Thai Thatiis, conceptual conlenl content encodes encodes (Cordingly. iliti,isanalogu~ • conceplual information Ihal that parallels parallelsIhe the muhimodal multimodal body·ba<ed body-based (perceptual, .nfonnalion (perceplual. motoric, mOloric. subjective, etc.) experience that it constitutes a representation of. 2 As such. such, ub,edi,'c. elc.) experience Ihal il con Inul a repTl'SCnlalion of.1 As conceptual structure not suilable suitable for for being being en encoded conceplual Iruaur~ isisnOI oded in in language. languag~. After After all, all. language as a representational system consisting of symbolic units is simply language a, a rel'rC>Cnlal.onal y,lem cO",isling of symbolic uni" i ,imply notequipped equipped 10 to dlrcclly directly ~ncodc encode Ihe the rich. rich, muhm,odal multimodal charJller characterof of sen sense-_ nUl perceptoryand and subjective experience.While Whilelexical lexicalcon concepts do nol not encod encode ubjcchv experience. epl do perceplory multimodalinformal information of Ihis this '>t,n. sort, as as ,ugge\led suggested in in I'ar! Part IIof ofIhe thebook hook Ihey they do do muhimodal ion of provided((C access10to(Olltent contentof of thi, this ,orl. sort. provide contrast, schematiccOnlenl content didiscussed byTalmy Talmyi isnOI notan ananalogu analogue InInCOnira I. Ihtheschematic ussed by representationof ofmuhimod.11 multimodalcxpericn( experience. Rather,itit rcpre represents anJh,trdl.tion abstraction representation . R.:lthcr, cnl an onceptual content is not an exact statesth.at thatArt' arc captured.IYthrr. Rather.II it._is , (.(In..q'tu.d (.onlml u. nut .In n.a...1 r«unJ (.1 the- mUhlll14oJ..J t.ln urtuk'd record of the mult

rewhat,mmWlh"\J attenuated.~ SeeB..ruktu Barsalou i t999) ·rnrwtut (I"",) Inrfordldis.ussion. WQon .14 )

SEMANTIC STRUCTURE

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

106

over multimodal content of various sorts, provided in a form that can be directly encoded in language, i.e., by lexical concepts. Content of this kind constitutes what I refer to as linguistic content, and forms part of the information encoded by a lexical concept. While the distinction between rich and schematic aspects of the cognitive representation provides evidence for the distinction in linguistic and conceptual content just outlined, the distinction in open-class and closed-class vehicles provides evidence for a closely related distinction in the nature of the associated lexical concepts. 3 The distinction in vehicle types provides evidence that lexical concepts fall into two distinct categories. Closed-class vehicles are associated with lexical concepts which are specialized for encoding linguistic content. Lexical concepts of this sort I refer to as closed-class lexical concepts. Open-class vehicles, while also encoding linguistic content, arc, in addition, specialized for serving as access sites to conceptual content. Lexical concepts of this sort I refer to as open-class lexical concepts. In sum, the distinction between open-class lexical concepts versus closedclass lexical concepts embodies the bipartite organization of lexical concepts introduced at the outset of the chapter, as captured in Figure 6.3. To reiterate, while both types of lexical concepts encode linguistic content, I hypothesize that only open-class lexical concepts afford access to conceptual content. The distinction between "encode" and "afford access" is critical here. Linguistic content is encoded by lexical concepts precisely because this is the content which makes up lexical concepts. However, conceptual content, as we have begun to see above, and as we will see in more detail in the next section, is associated with a different representational type, the cognitive model, which is non-linguistic in nature. Thus, conceptual content is not directly encoded in language, although the linguistic system has developed the means to access

paired with closed-class vehicle

encodes linguistic content

LEXICAL CONCEPT

paired with open-class vehicle

provides access site to conceptual content

FIGURE 6.3. The distinction in content associated with lexical concepts

t h is %%inbuilt wish Air nhidc ,orkepts

up 01 forms which Ncrve is veht, le, tut the .1%uktJ1ed lexeLAI

107

rAst t 6.3. A summary of key terms in 1.CCM Theory

icrm

Description

The collection Of symbolic units comprising a language, and the various relationships holding between them. A conventional pairing of a phonological form or vehicle tivnibolic unit and a semantic element. The semantic element that is paired with a phonological lexical concept vehicle in a symbolic unit. The type of content encoded by a lexical concept. This Linguistic content content is of a highly schematic type that can be directly encoded in language. The body of non-linguistic knowledge captured from Conceptual system multimodal experience. This knowledge derives from sensory-motor experience, proprioception, and subjective experience. The representational form that knowledge in the .ognitive model conceptual system takes, as modelled in LCCM Theory. Consists of frames which give rise to a potentially unlimited set of simulations. : ► nceptual content The nature of the knowledge encoded by a cognitive model. inital representation The primary substrate deployed in linguistically mediated meaning construction, and modelled in terms of symbolic units and cognitive models. Semanti. representation The semantic dimension of lexical representations, consisting of semantic structure and conceptual structure. Semantic structure That part of semantic representation encoded by the linguistic system. Semantic structure is modelled, in LCCM Theory, by lexical concepts. Conceptual structure That part of the semantic representation encoded by the conceptual system. Conceptual structure is modelled, in LCCM Theory, by cognitive models. L i ngu ist k. system

•

conceptual content via association areas, discussed in more detail in Chapter to. Table 6.3 provides a summary of the way some of the key terms introduced so far are used in LCCM Theory. Before concluding this section, it is important to spell out one of the consequences of the distinction between lexical concepts types identified. As pointed out by Croft (l0°7), the bifurcation between open- and closedclass vehicles and hence the content versus structuring distinction, as presented by Talmy, is problematic if we assume that there is a sharp distinction between open- and closed-class vehicles. Rather, the distinction between the lexical and grammatical subsystems should be thought of more as a

108 108

SEMANTIC TRUCTUR£ SEMANTIC STRUCTURE

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION LEXI AL REPRE ENTATION

continuum.' llence, Hence, while while I make distinction between dosed- and
The distinction distinction between between linguistic The linguistic content and conceptual conceptual content and In order order to to obt.1II obtain aa more detailed sense of the In thr distinction di~tinetion between between the thenature nature of linguistic and conceptual content, consider the expression given in (4): oflinguistic and content. the in (4): (4) (4)

• a

a

red ball ball in in the aa red th box box

",,/1,

red, ball, and and /",;(. box. The Them.' This expression expre ,ion features featur"" three three open-class open-cI.. vehicles: vehid",,: wi. RE131„[ BALL],, vehicles are are paired paired with with lexical concepts vehid coneepts which which IIwill will gloss glo as "'I IRLDI.IBAu) and [Box! of these lexical Ea h of th lexical concepts concept (i) (i) encodes en od slinguistic lingui tic and IBoxl respectively. respectively. Each content, and (ii) provides access to conceptual content. To illustrate, let\ content, .nd (ii) provide .((e to
a. all over •. The Theteacher teacherscrawled rawlt'llininred R'IIink ink.1I merthe thepupil's pupil\homework homeworkexercises excr.,," b. The red squirrel is in danger of becoming extinct in the British Th red squirr I i in d.nger of becoming extinct in th Briti hIsles hie,

As already seen, seen, III in eJch each of of these A we have hav. already the utterances utteranc the the use U\C of of red wi gives giY<'" rise ri\C to to a distinct "mulation isi~an ananalogue anal guemental mentalrehearsal rehear\al ofofa a di>!inct simulation. imulation. A A simulation multimodal experience r -orded and and represented represented in in the th conceptual conceptual experience that that isi, recorded

<..

r shwussion 4 ,",,"..II the t~ dissussion d. u ton of t)1the lhtlexicon-grammar k lI.un ar"mnu.r continuum ulnlmuuminInt. llupter h.ar1tr 11. FIour dl UtUOn of (II th Iht for relritItsetW"t t(.mlnrr ;mum and MiBoroditskv Ilun-.llw..y (loot (lOOt)I. evolution of di.. ussion has unplk awns the proses. of,.I Krainmatitaliiatnm: ''lklnf The foregoing IIneda u Inh.&.lml''' lion for furthtJ'n... .... mm.IK.&huleon the tMC"Vt.luilunl" class vehicles and lexical c oncepts. It has slosed tilt% rrpm from upon and lexical dOlnl- Class ~la. vehicles ,ch ... ,".nd kll~.1cork ""'IlLCVt Ilrm 4..Uu \('hl..Jn .100 lux-.alI.."lkcrt It ~been b«nwell wdI has been termed semantic bleaching: the documented dc"urnmtnJthat tNt grammaricalisarion ,r.amm.ttl.. .I1W11Iun involves IOwl what ",holt tw. '-"«n Inmrd wmanhc blnchina: ttl
e reason. nature ontinnum holding open and vehicles RltUrT of (If the tht- t.I..onttnuum huk!.n, between hc1:Wft1l (Ipm .00dosed-class dnwd nhtdt\and andsom l~ ~~~un

•

-

"JU

dia

Ul9 109

",tclU. imulation is i aa type type of of experience experielKe that that can can he be prompted prompted for for As \uSOCi.ted le~ associatedwith with thevehi the vehicles class lexical lexical concepts suPPER I and ,I'pprr and these lexical lexical concepts, oncepts, designating designating champagne respectively. respectively. Both Both these and c/Jampaglle slipper ph)",ical • relate of space. pace. In In so sodoing, doing,they theyfacilitate fa ilitatr physical entlti entities, relate to to the the domain domain of J .. e ,to complexconceptual conceptualcontent. content.I SLI IsIIPP' for instance, inMance. relates rd.tes to to knowknowPPERRII for access to complex ledge having do with with. typeofoffootwear, footwear, worn worn inina arestricted restri ted context context ledge having to to do a type the day. day. Such Su h knowledge knowledge isi based based on on Jnd typically, at particular times and typically, at particular times of of the experiences- that is, i •experience experiencewhich whichisi personal per",n.1 Jh tr.cting acro. abstracting across epi'>Odic episodic experiences—that and situated, ituated. including including personal per n.lobscrvation-a wellas ascultural cultural experience— e perienceand observation—as well knowledge gleaned through narrative, narrativ. story, tory. and on. As A such, uch, knowledge knowledge knowledge gleaned through and so so on. (II this thi sort ~rt isi~ extremely extremelyrich rich in III nature, nature. and and hence hene< is is conceptual—that conc ptual-that is, i , nonnon of lingui tic-in nature. natur. Similarly, imilarly. the the lexical lexical concept concept !CHAMPAGNE', ICHAMPAGNE). relates relates to to linguistic—in ofaaparticular particulartype, type,served rvedand and knowledge concerning concerning an an alcoholic alcoholi beverage, beverage.of knowledge drunk in III a• particular particul.r way, w.y. for for particular particular reasons, reason. and and in III particular particular venues. venu .. drunk ~lIniiariy. thi knowledg constitutes constitutesconceptual conceptualcontent. content. Similarly, this sort sort of of knowledge In addition, addition. both both lexical le.ical concepts concept also also encode en ode linguistic linguistic content. content.For For In ., we we shall hall see sec below, below. they they are are both both nominal nominal lexical lexi .1 concepts, can epts. in'tance. and instance, and as whICh means mean they they refer refer to to aathing thing(cf. (d.Langacker Langaeker19871—an 1987)-3n entity entity which whichisi which III some someconceptual conceptualdomain domain( (in Langa ker' terms)— term )held to to relate relate to to a• region region in held in Langacker's r.ther than than encoding ncodlllg aa relation, relation •• nd hence henc constituting constitutingaarelational rel.tionallexical lexical rather and concept. This Thi distinction di tin lionisi discussed di ussedlater. later. concept. Moreover. both both 'SLIPPER! IsIIPPfR) and and ICIIAMI•AGNE1 (UIA IP"';NI) encode encode different different. peet of of Moreover, aspects the category category plexity plexity (Talmy ('IJlmy woo). 20()(»).Plexity 1'leXltyisi a•category c.tegorythat thatrelates rdat totothe th the domain of ofboth both TIME 11M •• nd SPACE, \PA( l. although although as a~ itIt concerns con
110

SEMANTIC STRUCTURE

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

comes from the fact that [SLIPPER] can undergo integration with the plural lexical concept as encoded by the vehicle -s, as in slippers. In contrast, IcliAMPAGNEI encodes multiplex structure, evidenced by the fact that it cannot he integrated with the plural lexical concept. In other words, the nature of the plexity encoded by each of these lexical concepts determines, in part, the range of other lexical concepts with which they can undergo integration. Now let's turn to a brief consideration of the lexical concepts associated with closed-class vehicles. Returning to our example in (4), above, this includes the vehicles: a, in, and the, which arc associated with the lexical concepts [AI, [ENCLOSURE], and [THE) respectively. I focus here, briefly, on one of these, the lexical concept [ENCLOSURE] associated with in. In fact, we need, at this point, to anticipate a discussion which follows in a later chapter.' Firstly, it is important to note that the lexical concept (ENCLOSURE] encodes linguistic content. That is, it provides highly schematic spatial information: it fails to provide precise geometric details relating to size or distance, shape or substance. This I refer to as being magnitude-, shape-, and substance-neutral—to be discussed in detail in the next section, below. This lexical concept specifies a relationship holding between one entity, the Figure (F), and a second entity which I refer to, following Tyler and Evans (2oo3) as a bounded landmark.' The lexical concept IENct.osuREI specifies that a bounded landmark must have the structural properties interior, boundary, and exterior, and that the F must be smaller than the landmark (LM), such that the LM encloses the E However, beyond this schematic topological information it specifies no perceptual information relating to the precise nature of the F or LM, nor to the precise spatial relationship, for example, in terms of where, in the bounded LM, the F must be located, whether there must he contact between the F and LM, and so on. Empirical evidence for the dissociation between linguistic and conceptual content comes from psycholinguistic and neuropsychological work relating to representations for space. For instance, Munnich et al. (2001) suggest that there are divergences between the linguistic and perceptual encoding of spatial location, and that the language-specific semantic structures captured by, for instance, prepositions--and other closed-class spatial markers—are employed primarily when a language user has to package a spatial representation in a form that can be easily expressed in words. A similar idea is advocated by Landau et al. (forthcoming) who argue that spatial language is of a different format from conceptual representation of space, and serves to

A given linguistic form can he assist wird with mine than one Irxt.al .incept, the phenomenon of polvsemy, introduced in Chapter 2. As we will see in Charier the English vehit le in is as' 4 +(lain' with a range of lexical concepts. The lexical concept that is %eletted- see t Kipter II for a (listussion of selection in 14) I refer to as (t Nt I ll ■ Unt The notion of a (hounded ► landniark. as I use it with respect to spatial semantics, is akin to the notion of reference object (R()) introduced in Chapter 2.

111

e nh ance our representational power

of space. Further evidence for the distinction comes from a neuropsychological study by Kemmerer and Tranel (2000) which shows that the meanings of locative prepositions can be selectively impaired depending upon the nature of the non-linguistic spatial task be ing engaged in. In a more recent study, Tranel and Kemmerer (2004) additionally found that subjects with lesions in the left interior prefrontal brain region and the left inferior parietal region while severely defective on tests involving the use of locative prepositions were robustly intact on nonlinguistic tests involving visuo-spatial and visuo-constructional skills. This is suggestive that different brain processes and/or regions are responsible for semantic and conceptual representations of space.

The nature of linguistic content As the property common to all lexical concepts is that they encode linguistic L- ontent, in this section I outline the nature of linguistic content in more detail. Linguistic content concerns the information available to a language user, encoded by language. Put another way, it represents the informational form that conceptual structure takes for direct representation in language. That is, linguistic content takes a form that can be encoded in a format that is externalized in an auditory stream (or a manual gestural stream in the case of signed language), which is severely time-pressured—which is the case with language. Such a format presumably requires filtering out the complexity associated with the range of multim(xlal experiences—in the sense defined above. There are a number of distinct features associated with linguistic content. These include the following, all of which, except the lexical profile, are examined in detail below: • • • • • • • •

parameterization non-analogue nature topological reference restricted set of domains and categories a distinction between nominal and relational lexical concepts referentiality pragmatic point lexical profiles

A lexical concept—a unit of semantic structure—can be thought of as a bundle of different types of highly schematic content which is thereby specialized for being encoded in language. As such, semantic structure provides a distinct representational format which is, as 1 have argued, highly schematic vis-a-vis the rich perceptual basis of conceptual structure. One consequence • I address this aspect of linguistic content in the next chapter.

SEMANTIC STRUCTURE __ -----------------------------____~I~M~A~N~T~I~C~ S~T!R~U~(~ 'T~U~R~_____113 '~11J

LEXICAL REPRF.SENTATION 1 EXI

III 112

('r,·>cIlI . and I'ulure. Some Some languages language have have more more than Ihanthree Ihreeparameters, paramel r • Present, and Future. distinguishing JI>longui hlllg additionally addilionally Remote Remote Past Pasl from Irom Recent Recenl Past, Pa I. for for instance. in Ian e. The Th lIJllg"ag a nguage with wilh the Ihe most moslparameters param ler thus Ihu far farreported reportedisi,an anAfrican Africanlanguage: language: mileke-1)schaing lia ke () hang with wllh eleven. eI en. Crucially, ruoall. parameters f,arameter> are encoded enu><.led by byspecific Jl<' encoded en«><.Ied by by linguistic IingUl Ii content eonlenl serve rYe to 10"strip " Iripaway" away" most mo Iofofthe Ih differences differen apparent in in the Jpparenl Ih original original experience, e"peri nee. thereby Iherroy reducing redu ing it II to 10 aahighly highlylimited limiled para meIer>. numl",r of parameters. number

of Ih hIghly schematic hemalic nature nalure of of the Ihe content conlenl directly dirt"t1yencoded <.Iedin10language languageisi the highly of be Ihal language languag exhibits < hibll representational repr nlalional limitations. Iimitalion . However, lIowever. this Ihl isi to1.0 be that eXl'<'led. given the Ihe inherent mherenl limitations limllalion ofo~language lang"a!;easa a arepresentational repr~nlaho,nal expected, given formal. which which must mu I encode enu><.le content conlenlin10a •time-pressured 11m pre... uredauditory-physical auditory, ph~ Kal format, the argum argument the linguistic 'tream- in Chapter hapl
by taking laking advantage dvanuge of of an an extant exlanlrepresentational repre nlalional format, formal. the Iheconceptual c~nc plual by sy lem which is i much much richer ri her in in nature. nalure. ItItisi by byvirtue virlueofoffacilitating faclhlJllIlgaccess 3(<< system, 10 the Ihe conceptual ~onceplual system lem that Ihal language language can un prompt prom 1'1 for for simulations, imulahon. taking taking to nch representations repre nlallon\ which non ,lingui tic in in nature, nalure. inIII advanlage advantage of of rich which Jre are non-linguistic 'rvice of linguistically hngui hully mediated medlaled communicallon service communication..

-

Parameterilation Parameterization

The first fir I key tic conlenll addr is i that of of parameterization. parameterization, key feature feature oflingui of linguistic content I address One way in which whith knowledge, knowledg •in ingeneral general terms, term. can can be berepresented reprc nted isi in interms lerm, reflect Ihe the complexity of richly inflected inflected nuanc Ihal serve to 10 reflecl c(llllpleXlty of ofexperience. experiente. nuances that of richly An • such ueh fine tincllon into 1010 two, IWO. three, three. or ur An ah<.Ie content mnlenl by hy adopting adophng the Ihe parameters. content serves to encode as paramel laller lralesy. which i to 10 say, say. to 10employ mployparameterization. parameteriution.Parameters Paramelersare arc latter strategy, which is information that Ihal aa lexical lexical concept onc pI serves '>Crvev to 10 encode. encode. hente part oflhe hence part of the bundle of of information III trale Ihi con ider the Ihe complex comple range range of ofexpressions expre "on that Ihalaa To illu illustrate this nOhon. notion, consider in order orderto 10"locate" "Iexale" themselves Ih mselv with wilh language uuserr might mighl employ, employ. in in English, Engli h. in lim. thereby Iherroy facilitating fatllilJling time lime reference. reference. Any Anyone ofthe Ihe following following r Jl<'ct 10 respect to time, one of today, /lIIllIary. January, 2oo8, could conceivably conctill); this ,/Oi5 week, ...eek. this "';5 month, 1110111',. this ,'ns quarter, I/I",r,er. this ",; year, )'ellr. ,,'" this lIIi,IIl,e. minute, this /",11 <ellllll")'. this ,Ins century, Ulllllr); this '/115 ,...", ..1. the ,/oe 8th 8,1, day I/"Y of ofthe '/Itmonth, 11111111/,.this ,/ouera, era.this '/11' half century, period, 1I"lItllmllm. and A potentially polentially unlimited unlimiled set , Iof offiner finerand andfiner finerdistincdi hncand so on. A ago, I1 /","r hour .j4 ~colIIl ago, ago, 2 seconds ~collll5 ago, Ilon\ can additionally addihonally be be made mad (e.g., (e,g,.,i second tions can reflecting any manner of ""mll(51111.1 ecolllis ago. ofltemporal mp",al days IIgo, ago, elc.). etc.), retlecllllg ago, 22 litlp minutes and J3 seconds di lin lion we might mighl care care to 10 make. make. distinctions I. pJrameleri7ahon hy dividing all alllhe po ,ibl permupermu, In In contra contrast, parameterization (unclion functions by the possible talion rcl.lting to a gi\cn category. such uch;l\ rcrcrcn(C~t IOU) mJII set \Ct of tations relating given category, as time reference, into aol small divi ion: parameters, paramelers. Such paramelel'> mighl .Ii linguish between belween the IhePast, Pa I. divisions: Such parameters might distinguish in the b. basis for the tense for in lant • and 'on pa l. Indeed. i Ihe i forth len •system y lelll III this is past. Indeed, Ihl instance, and th the Non IEnglish, ngli h. aas illu traled by the Ihe following: following: illustrated

,//u

-

(6) lIekicked kicked Ihe Pa I ball Past the ball (6) a.a.He b, lIe kicks kilks the Ihe ball ball on pa I Non-past h. He

rngli\h ju,t two twoparameter% pdrdmctCf\ th.u tlOlt reference: rc(efcm:e: Past Pd t versus \(I'U English clluxlc" encodes just that rel.lte relate to time and thus manifests a hmary binary 'un pa'l. hy the th examples example 111 (~). and Ihu manofe,1 in (6), exhibited by past, a, as exhihill"tl Non di,lmction. Som languages, languast>. such uch as a French, I rench. have ha"three threeparameters: para meIer>. Past, Pa t. distinction. Some -

Non-analogue Non·anologue As \ , conceptual " In"plual content conlenl relates relalev to 10 records r 'ord of of multimodal muhlmooal states lalev captured caplured dirdlr' ectly eclly from aa variety variely of of experience experience types Iypes including sense sen perception, perceplion. proprioproprio-

4MP

ception,. and cepllon and subjective ubll"live experience, expenen«. itil therefore Iherefore consists con" I ofofperceptual perceplualstates ;tal recorded fa hion: in in a format lormal that Ihal isi~ similar imilar to IIIthe Iheperceptual perceplual reco rded in analogue analogue fashion: experiences gave ri rise 10 to Ihem, them. Indeed, experienc that Ihat ga,' Indeed. there Iher is i a good deal deal of ofevidence, evidence. in in the Ihe neuroscience neum 'icncc literature, lileralure. that Ihal sensory-motor ",n""Y' molorrepresentations, repre'>Cnlation\.for forexample, example. are stored in the same areas of sensory-motor cortex that process sensory.lre 10r<'tI on Ihe >am ar as of n'Ory mOlor cortex Ihal pnx n ry. motor experienc (Pulvermuller 1999, 1999, Zoo;). 100.\). experience (PulvermUller In contrast, II .rgue In tOnlra,l. Ihal hngui lie content (Onlenl isi\ so \(, highly hlghlyhemalic nalure argue that linguistic schematic ininnature that it is n n.analogu : itII takes lak.. a format formal that Ihal isi not nOI analogous analogou to 10 the Ihe multimuhi . Ihal II I non-analogue: modal experiences Ihallll that it is aa.. schematization of Hence, m.><.Ial experiene hemalil.ation of. Hence. due due to 10 the Ihe reduction reduction of of rich perceptual onfomlalion information to m h perceplual 10highly highlyimpoverished impoveri,hl-dparameters, parameler>.this Ihi gives gi,evrise ri • to a qualilati,dy qualitatively very different Iype type of of information 10. ,cry dillerent informal Ionfrom from the Ih kind kond captured caplured by by conceptual conceplual structure. lruclure. To To illustrate, illu Irale, take lak< the Ih parameters param I r> Past Pa I and and Non-past . 'on ' pa I discussed with respect .I, .... " ....'11 with re petl to 10 example example (6) «(0 )above. above.These 'I hevcparameters parameler> are Jrc highly highly "schematic hcmallc abstractions ab;traClion drawn from front the Ih complex compl xrange rang ofoftemporal temporalrelationrelalion . that hold hclwccn between our experience h,p, Ihal our experience experience of ofpast, pa I. and our ourexperi nce of ofnow: now: our our ,ships temporal location as Temporal experi-. Icmfltlrall,,,alion a,. experiencing e perientlng centres tenlr of ofconsciousness. (on IOU nt> ,1cmporalexperi ence,• a • form fom. of ofsubjective ubleeli,c experience, experience. isi,extremely eXlremelyrich richininperceptual perceplualterms I rm encc (Evans 2oo4a). Yet the parameters and Non-past (h an 10(411). Y Ilhe paramelers Past Pa I and 'on ' pa I are are not not rich rich at al all. all, An important consequence n import,]"t lonM."tluc'."nlc of the the observation ob 'r"\'Jtlun that thJI linguistic Iingul\lk content luntent isi non-analogue non' analogue in nature nalure is i the Ihe following. following. II claim daim that Ihal linguistic lingui IIC content COnlenl does .I not give rise, directly, to simulations. By this n01 give ri • directl)'. 10 imulation , Ily.'hi II do not not mean m an that Ihal lingulingu . content cannot Iistic li t: (ontent (d"nnt contribute ulOtnhule to simulations, 1n'IUI.lhnn . for lor instance, in Idnf.:c. as J\ part pdrl of ofan ;jill utterance. "The uttcrancl:. I he meanings—conceptions—which mt.·anin~ ~unu·pllun whi{..h arise n from from utterances utt rJIu,c are ilrc

114 1 14

SEMANTIC STRUCTURE

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

"

pc the the totality totality of o(our ourexperiences ex~rien The degree of diffuseness will depend With ntllyor orevent" event"((Iblil. 39). o( diffu!>en depend ibid. 39). with a certain entity rang of o(issues i u including in ludingthe thefrequency (requ neyof o(the therepresentations repr ntation ofo(the the upon a0 range entity, thi case c redness, rron ,aero relevant cognitive models model in inthe th language languag~ entity, in this across relevant u~r's y tem, recency receney of o(our our interaction interactionwith withthe thegiven givenreferent, re(erent. user's conceptual conceptual system, hay seen, n, in the the examples exampl in in (s) (s)aaspecific peeifi utterance unerancecontext context and so on. As we have rv to con train the the diffuse diffu activation activationof o(the thereferent referent giving givingrise risetotoaadiscrete di -rete serves constrain o(semantic mantic imulation. This Thi narrowing narrowing process pro.: involves involv different different processes priX simulation. of in Part Pan III III of o(the the book."' book.'· In In essence, nee, the inability mability of ompo ition, discussed di ussed in composition, lingui tic content—and content-and hence hence closed-class do~-cI lexical lexi al concepts—to con epts--todirectly directlyevoke evoke linguistic .simulations Imulatiom is i\ another anothcr way way of o( saying that closed-class dosro ·da lexical lexical concepts con epts do do not not (aeilital< th conceptual conceptual system. y tem. facilitate a.gives give rise ri,c to (i) perceptually ~"eptually rich ri h aspects aspect o( e~rience, and, as 0 such uch (ii) (ii) isi likely likely to to give gh of experience, ri~ \imulation directly. dire
115 115

< I",nen«, while whil conceptual onceptual content, cont nt. to to which which open-class open-da lexical lexical concepts onceI'I>

ttJ"hlate -.aIlltrtci ii'i tai t.ne caeees relates to to pr precise, at< s, relat i • metric m tric distinctions. di"lnoion .

To consider III illustrate IlIu,trate con ider the the closed-class clo~ cI lexical I ical concepts con cpt associated a iatro with the the demonstrative vehlCl this ,IllS and that. ,hnt. These Th lexical concepts concept encode encooe aa distincdi hnc,Ie","n trativ vehicles glossed as as (Till Inns],I. t;on between between an entity construed as a proximal to the speaker, peaker. glossed tion versus an entity construed ,Cd·classlexical lexical concepts con cpt provide providetopological topological longui,tic content and thus thu closed-class reference. In contrast, ontrast. the the open-class o~n-da lexical I xi,.1 concepts con epts facilitate (a ilitat access a ces toto rckrcnce. In conceptual ll<' employed to to express expr metric metri details d tail of o( ,nnlcptual content, content. and and hence h n e can he di,tance giving rise ri.e to toEuclidean Euclide.nreference, referenc •asa illustrated illu tratroby by (8): distance

WU'

PIP

(8) "Sit on the 2.54 metres metres away away from (romme!" me!" (R th chair chair 2.54 Inc expression expr Ion "2.54 "2.54 metr o~n- lass lexical lexical concepts conceptsrather ratherthan than The metres".. involv involves open-class closed-class con ept •and and serves servC'l totoevoke evokethe thechair chairprecisely. precisely. d,ht'tl cia lexical concepts, encoded aas hngui linguistic content exhibit exhibit a range , The I ~~ parameters p.ram ter ~nmdro tic content range of o(other other Euclidean neutralities: notably with with rrespect to the domains Eu hd an neutraliti : notably peet to domain of o( SPACE PACE and Tts,tu.. Interm terms o( of SPACE, 11 II In ,PAt l. in addition to being magnitude-neutral, magnitude· neutral. closed-class clo>Cd la lexical conc concepts lexlt.1 pt are also al\O shape-neutral ha~-neutral and .ndsubstance-neutral. ub tan e-neutral.To Toillustrate Iliu trate th examples exampl below, ll<'low. adapted adaptro from fromthose tho used ~bybyTalmy: Talmy: con ider the consider

Shape-neutrality ShallC n utrality (9) a. a. IIzigzagged zig23SSro through through the the forest (or t h. The b. The road road circled circled through through the the forest (ore t The Ihe lexical lexical concept concept glossed glo~asOJ>ITRANsEcrioN1 (nAN EClIONI associated associated with with through ,hrough in In these exampl examples is th"", ; shape-neutral. hape·neutral. That is, i . the the shape hape of o(the themotion motiontrajectory tra,ectory derives not from (TRANSECTIONI dCrlvc\ not from (TRAN" (,liON) hut frum conceptual c.:onc.;cptu.l1 content umt nl accessed .lClt:. \Cd via via but from the open - class Ilexical concept associated the open-c~ xieal Cd through the window/steel

116 116

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION REPRE [ TATION LEXICAL

SEMANTIC STRUCTURE 117 ___ ----------------____________~~~~!T~R~U ~CT ~U~R~____~ 1~ 17

1"".1

The example example in in (to) (10)again .galOdeploys deploy the thelexical concept conceptassociated \SOCiatedwith with through Ilrrougll The that II gloss glo s as a ITRANSECTION1. (nAN ECYION]. In In this thi case, case. ITRANSECTION1 (UAN ~(''TION] is i substanceub ta~ ethat neutral: it it can can be be applied applied to tolandmarks land mario involving involving substances mb tanc of ofany anykind. klOd. neutral: lienee. the th application appli ation of ofthl do'>ed - da~ lexical lexical concept concept does docsnot notrequire rcquir or or Hence, this closed-class sprcify aa particular particular substance. substan«. Rather, Rather. the pemll ible set set of ofsubstances ub tanc isis specify the permissible ofthe therange rang ofofsubstances sub tanc that thataalaser laserbeam beamcan canpenetrate, pen trate.based based function of a function on conceptual conceptualstructure tructureassociated a~iated with with laser la'>Cr beams, beam. as a accessed ac<e>sed via via the the openopen on

After all, th the reduction \Her all. redu tion to content content that that does d(\C not notdirectly directlygive gIVerise risetotosimula;imula . tions results in a reduction that, for some domains such as lion; r ult a reduction that. for some domain uch as COLOUR, OLO R. may may eliminate d ll"IOate the th essential ntial character character of of the the information information thereby thereby making makingitituninunin terpretable. A second reason iis that that ""me some domains terpretable. A -ond rea""n domain do do not notrelate relate in inaaubiquiubiqui . tous lU u, way way to to the the humanly humanlyrelevant relevant scenes scenes that that language language serves serves to to encode. encooe.For For instance, categories that to the 11l,1.lIlee. cOItcgori thai relate rciate 10 Ihe domain domain of or MEDIAEVAL MflllAfVAl M1t'\ICOL()(iY, or USICOL(X1Y, or wen e, cn parameters parameter that relate rclate to less Ie ; esoteric domains domain such uchas a\ LOVE LOVl Or or JOURNEYS 10 RNEY are arc not as a ubiquitous ubiquitou in in human human experience experienceas as parameters parameters relating relating to to domains domain TIME, MOTION, such \lH. h as 3~ SPACE, PAC-f, TI~n. tOTION, and Jnd MENTAL IENTAI STATES. STATI:". The range range of domains domain encoded encooed by by linguistic lingui;tic content content appears appears to to be behighly highly restricted. As already already intimated. intimated, domains domains encoded re\tncted. A encooed in in linguistic lingui tic content contentininTIME, SPACE, MOTION, and clude MENTAL du deTIMF. PM F. MOTION. MLNTAl STATES. . TAT! s.ln tothe therestricted rC\tricted In addition addition to set domain encoded, ncooed. linguistic IingUl ti content contentalso alsofeatures fcatur only onlyaasmall smallnumber number ,,·t of domains of of categories categories within within each ea h domain. domain.To Toillustrate, illu trate. consider con ideraafew fewof ofthe thecategorcategorie, associated .1,-"",iated with the th domain domain TIME: TIME: ies (

cia lexical lexical concept concept (LASER (LA lR REA t]. BEAM]. class of the the domain domain of of TIME, TIMF. linguistic Iingui tic content also serves rve> to to encode encooe In terms term of In A5 we w saw ~w above, abov •in in LCCM LCC 1 Theory Thcory tense ten systems y,temsare arc reference. As topological reference. in terms term of ofparameterization. parameterization.In In English English there there are are two two such uch paramparamcon eived in conceived eter : Past Pa t ve"u on -past. These These parameters paramete" arc are time-neutral time-neutralwith withrespect respecttoto eters: versus Non-past. [udidean reference, reference. and hence provide topological topological reference. reference. Indeed, Indeed.precise preci'C Euclidean metri details, detail. as a we we saw w earlier, earlier. can only be be expressed expr sed by by virtue virtu of ofopen-class open-cia metric lexical concepts concept which which facilitate fa ilitate access acee ~ to to conceptual con eptual structure, tructure. as asillustrated illu trated by the following followingexamples: e ampl by the (11 ) a.• .Two Twodays da ago ago ( it) b. The day before before yesterday y terday The day b. c. hours ago ago Forty-eight hours c. Forty-eight

(12)

Category: Roundedness Category: Boundedn Holly has (13) a. 1I0lly (13) ha left len the th party party b. Holly b. Holly isi leaving leaving the the party party

A restrided of domains domains and andcategories categories restricted set of A on<equence of parameterization parameteri/(lme -da lexical concepts concept, facilitate facilitate which open open-class to which For in instance, some domain_ domains to ce<;,. such as COLOUR. not appear appear at 10 aaccess, do not at all all in in lerm, terms of of linguistic content in COLOUR, do I·English ngli,h or parameters. in the sense <)\e. above, that to this m,,,, ) domains domain' do do not notrelate relatetotoexperience experiencethat thatcan canbebestraightforwardly "raightfo"yardly most) parameteri1ed humanly relevant rei 'ant way. lea t two two likely likely parameterizedinin aa humanly way. There There ar are at at least eXpldllJtium. )-ir dr. the q,uc lion may molY not not explanations for for thi\. this. Firstly, the nJturt natureuf of the the dum.lin domain i~ in ,question lend llself to 10 being l\Cing"reduced" " reduced " to 10 highly highlyschematized "hemallll-d digitized dlSltlledparameters. parameter. lend itself 1

Domain: TIME TIME Category: Time reference referen e lie kicked kicked the the ball ball a. He h. He b. He kicks kicks the the ball ball

•

Parameter: Parameter: Past Pa t Non-past on-pa t Bounded Unbounded

Category: Plexity Category: PleXlty (14)) a. Fred Fred coughed (14 Uniplex h. Fred coughed for for 10 to minut minutes Multiplex b. Fred coughed MultIplex The category that II refer to as time reference rhecategory referenc is more more traditionally traditionallyreferred referred to to as a tense. Each exhibits a small ten'C. Each category exhibit. ,mall number number of ofparameters. parameter. As A already already noted, noted. English el1coo." encodes just two parameters: versus "l1gli,h ju Itwo parameters: Past Po tver us Non-past, on -past. as a exhibited exhibitedby bythe the examples in (12), and exampl in (11). thu manifests manifests aa binary binary distinction. di tin tion. As A noted notedearlier, earlier. and thus other languages have more other more than than two two parameters param te"such uchas a French hench with withthree, thr •and and Bamileke-Dschang with Ilanltleke-U"hang WIth eleven. two categories categori illustrated, iIIu trated. these theseare are normally normallytreated treated as a relating relating Of the other two what iis commonly commonly referred aspect. Th The more usual refern.-d to as J\ Moreet. u~ual terms term for for uniplex uniplex and and to what multiplex, as they relate to TIME m ult'ple •• a they relate to TIM' are" melfacti.." and and "iterative" "iterative' respectively. r pectivcly. are "semelfactive" The examples in usually (13) are u ually referred to as a perfective and imperfective imperfectiveaspect. aspect. Ille example> in (13) Some examples of categories Some e,ampl of categories and and parameters para mete" associated • iated with wllh other other domains domain encoded Iingui"i, content wntent arc cn« lded in linguistic are provided below:

118

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

SEMANTIC STRUCTURE

which encodes the speaker's belief that a situation is counterfactual yet pos-

DOMAIN: SPACE

s ible, as in a language such as Russian.

Parameter: Category: Number Singular ( 1i) a. Holly lost a slipper b. Holly lost both her slippers Plural

Nominal versus relational

Parameter: (16) Category: Unitizahility (or countability) Unit a. She gave him slippers for his birthday b. She gave him champagne for his birthday Mass Domain: MOTION (17) Category: Windowing of motion path (cf. Talmy's 2000 notion of Parameter: the "windowing" of attention) a. The crate fell out of the plane Initial windowing b. The crate fell through the air Medial windowing Final windowing c. The crate fell into the ocean With respect to a path of motion of the sort diagrammed in Figure 6.4, linguistic content serves to encode different portions of the path, as evidenced by lexical concepts associated with the prepositional phrases headed, respectively, by out of, through, and into. Domain: MENTAL STATE Parameter: (18) Category: Mood a. She bought him slippers Indicative Imperative h. Buy him slippers! The category Mood relates to the speaker's intention or mental state. English exhibits only three parameters in linguistic content: including Indicative, Imperative, and Subjunctive. However, cross-linguistically a variety of parameters belong to this category, ranging from the Admirative in languages such as Bulgarian and Ukrainian, which encodes surprise, to the Hypothetical,

Another

aspect of linguistic content is that it encodes a bifurcation between

nominals and relations ( Langacker 1987). The distinction in type of lexical concepts is as follows. Nominal lexical concepts arc conceptually autonomous: they relate to entities which are independently identifiable, such as "chair", or "shoe". In contrast, relations are conceptually dependent: they constitute a relation holding between other entities, and are thus "dependent" on those other entities in order to fully determine the nature of the relationship. For instance, in an utterance such as the following: iv) Max hid the mobile telephone under the bed

The lexical concept associated with the vehicle hid, which I shall gloss as ittoi, relates the conceptually autonomous lexical concepts associated with the vehicles Max, mobi• telephone, and bed, establishing a relationship involving "hiding" between the conceptually autonomous participants in the conception: namely I mAx J and I isEni. Analogously, the lexical concept associated with the vehicle under establishes a spatial relation between lexical concepts associated with , n ubile telephone and bed. The conceptually dependent structure of relational lexical concepts is modelled, in LCCM Theory, in terms of a schematic participant role (Goldberg 1995). The lexical concept Imp) as exemplified in (19) encodes three schematic participant roles." The rich content relating to the participant roles is not specified in linguistic content. This arises from access to conceptual structure. That is, conceptual structure encodes rich content relating to hiding: that it involves someone who does the hiding for particular reasons, and that an entity of a particular sort, often an object, is hidden. Nonlinguistic knowledge also includes what facilitates something being hidden, such as perceptual inaccessibility of the object bring hidden and/or its being placed in a novel location. Conceptual structure also encodes information relating to the motor processes involved in hiding, which involves moving the object from one location to another. The participant roles encoded as part of the linguistic content for (tool do not encode such details. Rather, what is encoded is a highly abstract representation, derived from the rich perceptual details of a hiding scenario. 12 As such we have three roles that serve to " Noose

that the vehisk hid

is polysemous. For

instanse, hid is also a+.04.-isted with the "ft-fictive

lettkal cotkept in whkh an en* utv hide% oneself. is in blur had t ► i the wardrobe. This I Om 45 I Itt-t Ittuvo. mid

FIGURE 6.4.

The path

associated with an object falling out

119

til a plane

CM Mk% [WI) St bertha IIL

lettkal on, co. whi. h

partittpant rules

The sc hematic 11.1111‘ 'pant roles are nut-grated with the rich tititern derived from uinseptual structure in a process referred to as interpretation, discusses! in c :hapter I

120

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

distinguish between the three entities involved at the most general level of detail. These participant roles are: Hider, Object, and Location." lust as the bifurcation in lexical concepts discussed above—that holding between lexical concepts which solely encode linguistic content and those which additionally facilitate access to conceptual content—corresponds to a distinction in the formal encoding of lexical concepts—the distinction between open- and closed-class vehicles—so too the distinction between nominal and relational lexical concepts has a formal reflex in terms of linguistic vehicles. In a language such as English, for instance, this distinction relates to lexical concepts associated with what are commonly referred to as nouns and noun phrases (nominals) on the one hand, and lexical concepts associated with other lexical forms, including verbs, prepositions, adjectives, adverbs, and non-finite verb forms such as infinitives and participles ( relations) on the other (see Langacker 1987 for details). In view of the foregoing, LCCM Theory assumes that every externally open lexical concept, i.e., a lexical concept which, informally, holds at the level of the phrase or below" encodes either nominal structure or relational structure. I suggest that this bifurcation in linguistic content emerges from perceptual experience, and hence relates to a highly salient, humanly relevant, dimension of embodied experience. The idea is as follows. In seminal work, Rosch (1978) argued that aspects of perceptual experience give rise to inevitable conflations due to correlations or clumping of the perceptual array. Building on this insight, Gentner (1982; see also Gentner and lioroditsky 2001) posits that objects and animate beings are thus perceived as being individuated on the basis of perceptual experience. That is, entities such as these are non-relational, in that they emerge as coherent and discrete conceptual entities from the perceptual-cognitive sphere. Gentner refers to the claim that embodied experience gives rise to the distinction between nominal versus relational notions as the Natural Partitions Hypothesis. This states that "there are in the experiential flow certain highly cohesive collections of percepts that are universally conceptualized as objects, and... these tend to be lexicalized as nouns across languages" (Gentner 1982: 324). Given the Natural Partitions Hypothesis, it follows that certain notions encoded by language in the form of lexical concepts will arise from distinctions apparent in the stream of physical experience. Those notions which are likely to emerge most easily in the perceptual stream are those which are individuable. Hence, apparent ease of individuation is a function of perceptual coherence. According to Gentner and Boroditsky (20ot) there are two factors which contribute to ease of individuation. The first factor relates to [bc way in whkh the part'. ipant roles cntoJnl by ( ► til arc integrated with other lexical ont c pt. in the kith-Tame in tail) mull% loon the to ► p ► sitional mechanism. disused in Part III of the hook. 14

Sec Chapter u for further details.

SEMANTIC STRUCTURE

121

"objecthood." This relates to the maintenance of a stable percepl cture moving against a background. Hence, entities which can tual structure tru n ei rgo motion are likely to be highly individuable. Accordingly, animate iitIt cuo e ntities arc likely to be more easily individuated based on this criterion. The second factor relates to what Gentner and Boroditsky refer to as perceptual coherence. That is, "[hi ighly coherent objects have densely interconnected representations" (i ► id. 222). This means that the range and number of internal links between component parts of a given object is, in relati ve terms, greater than the number of components that make up the object. For instance, a stool with a seat and 'bur legs has multiple connections between each component, and these are greater than the total number of component parts. A second contributing issue to perceptual coherence concerns the well-forniedness of the overall structure. For instance, a symmetrical structure is more likely to be perceived as perceptually coherent than one which is asymmetric. While many entities are pre-individuated based on perceptual experience, individuation itself constitutes a continuum. For instance, animate entities, like inanimate entities, exhibit strong perceptual coherence. However, by virtue of remaining perceptually stable during motion, animate entities are more easily individuated. Conversely, amorphous objects such as substances are likely to be less easily individuated than discrete objects because they are less perceptually coherent. Figure 6.5 presents these conclusions in the form of an lndividuability Continuum as applied to physical entities. By encoding a given entity as a nominal lexical concept, linguistic content serves to provide a particular construal, one which relates to individuahility. Langacker (1987), in his Cognitive Grammar framework, argues for a similar perspective. He claims that what he refers to as nominal predications (nominal lexical concepts in present terms) serve to designate a region: a delimited portion, in some domain: a coherent body of conceptual knowledge. This very general definition serves to distinguish the construal provided by nominals from those of relations, which are concerned with the relationships between regions of domains, rather than the regions themselves. Individuability

SELF-MOVING I

humans animals vehicles

READILY MOVED

small mobile objects

4

STATIONARY

complex structurally

cohesive objects

large amorphous simple objects

objects

FIGURE 6.5. The Individuability Continuum as applied to physical entities (Adapted from Gentner and Boroditsky 2001: 230)

122 IU

-

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

SEMANTIC STRUCTURE

123

For in instance, and FA prostoN different ('or Ian,•• while while (CAR) I( ul and II XPI 0"0, I represent r pr nl very differ nl sorts sort of of lexi on pIS. the Ihe lexical lexical concept concepl conventionally ,0nvenlionaUyassociated associaledwith wilhthe Ihelexical lexicalI concepts, lexical explosion distinct concept associated vvehicle hicle .xplo 'Otl iis di IIn,1 from the Ihe lexical I xical concepl a ialed with wilh to lo.xp'",'r. explode. EXPLOSION) iis concerned discrete Thai i • Il.xPlos,oNI con<emed with wilh an all event even I qua di 'rei occurrence occurrell'e in m That is, [EXPLODE], by contrast, TIME. PA 'f and TI IE. The relational relall naI lexical lexical concept concepl IEXPLODEI. conlrasl. is" SPACE ac • concerned with wilh aa particular parli ular process proc as a itil relates rdal to 10 aaspecific p«ificentity enlilysuch u h. dam, as dam. a, in m the Ih event 'nl evoked 'oked by by the Ih following foUowmgutterance: utterance:

in (ub). (lib), as well -'pCJle" peace" on wellasa relations relallon that Ihalhold holdbetween belweenphysical physicalentities enlil, and and Jb,lract ked" in (lla) "Ihoughl about" aboul" in in(22b), (ub),as well well hstract id ideas,,uch such as "ki "kicked" (22a) and "thought j relations, as encoded by "to" ." hemalicrelalion.aenlodedby .. \{)" in in (22c). (ucl. ,I s highly schematic

(20) (20)

aSllhree linlilypes referen e encoded encoded by bylexical I XI al concepts. onlepl . I iticlllify identify all at least three di distinct types of of reference The type relates to what to ... as ddenotational rhe first firsllype rcldl 10 whal II will refer refer 10 notalional reference. rrf.. n e.Many 1any lexical concepts serve 10 to index leXical concepl index aa physical phy ical entity enlily of ofsome somesort, sort.whether whelherreal rralor or imagined. In lI11Jgined. In this Ihi sense, n, part pari of of what whal the Ih lexical lexical concepts concepl associated as laled with wilh the Ihe John and Ill11com unicorn serve ,vehicles ...hides 10/111 rve to 10 do is i to 10 signal ignal an intention, inlenlion. on on the thc part pari of of the to refer to a given entity, Ihe speaker, speaker. 10 refer 10 entity. whether whelher real real or or imagined. imagined. The second type Iype IIrefer rer. r to 10as a cognitive cognilivereference. rrferrn e.This Thl relates rclal to10relatively reialively abstract notions or ideas d"'lra I notions idea that Ihal have havc no nophysical phy icalsubstance, ubstanee.whether whetherreal rea!oror imagined, and relate to lexical ,magi ned. and r lale 10 lexical concepts con epts associated ialed with with forms form such uch as a love, love. war, and so forth. ... d" pi:ono/op; pl,ollology. and forth. Hence, Ilencr. lexical lexical concepts (OnceI'I that Ihal serve rv to 10encode cncodc cognitive wgnili''C rekrence referen e signal igna! an an intention, inlent,on.onnthe Ihrpart partofofthe thespeaker, peaker,to10refer referto10aa non-physical non·ph ical idea. idea. The Th third Ihird type Iype II refer refer to 10 as a contextual onlrxlual reference. rderrn e.This Thi involves involv reference refercn( to10 an entity that dn enlily Ihal is i present pr=nl in the Ihr linguistic lingui Ii or or extra-linguistic eXlra-linguisli discourse di ourse context. coniC I. Hence, reference of Ihi this sort Hencr. reference of rl involves involv the Ihr encoding, rncoding. by byaa lexical I xi al concept, conerpl.of ofan an intention '.lIenl,on to 10 refer refer to 10 an an entity entilythat Ihalthe Ihraddressee addresseecan canrecover recoverfrom fromcontext. (Onlexl. One type Iype of ofcontextual ontrxlual reference refcren is i textual I lual reference. re~ r nee. One Oneform ~ rmof oftextual lexlual refcren e involves e 10 enlity already mentioned. menlioned. This Thi isistraditionIradilion· reference involves rderen reference to an entity ally reference that relal relates 10 to an an entity ally termed lermed anaphora. anaphora. Thxtual Texlual referen e Ihal enllly yet yel to 10be be mentioned textual menli ned isi termed I mledcataphora. calaphora.Examples Exampl ofofl xlualreference r ferenceare areprovided providedinin Ihe examples exampl below. below. the

'I""

12 ) a.a.Sammkicked (22) kickedthe theball ball b, Sam thought Ihoughl about aboul peace peac b. c. Sam . m walked to 10 the thepark park c.

The dam exploded 111

Thus, the of a nominal Thu Ihe essence n e of nomma! lexical lexical concept concepl isi that thai the the linguistic linguisticcontent coni nl of individuahility. In contrast, encoded concerns con em the Ih schematic hemali property properlyofindividuabilily.ln onlra I.the Ihe conceptual ediverse, diverse. as d,is" evident
(21)

a. His noise a. IIi car '!!! was w making making aa funny funny!LL b. Th more than than one onesolar solarsystem yslem The galaxy galaxy iis made up on more c. ,he nl a letter letter to 10 her her lover lover She sent His uncle d. IIi un Ie was a kind kond man man - e. Fred lea h Holly HoUy the theArabic Arabi alphabet alphabel Fred Iried tried 10 to teach f.1. The The explosion ex 10 ion in inher herengine en inemade madeher herlate lale for for work work g. lIolly' IQv!, for for Fred I red began begdn on on aaTuesday Tuesday Holly's love The team h. Th learn played played appallingly appallingly

--

Nevertheless, there iis commonalily commonality in terms of the linguistic that each everthel .Ihere mlerm oflhe lingui Ii content onlcnllhal each nominal laical concepl en od . Each Ea h nominal n minal isicon Irued as encoding n oding nominal lexical concept encodes. construed conlenl Ihal has ha to 10 do dowith wllhindividuahility. ondividuabililY. In Incontrast, onlra I. lexical lexical concepts cOnlepl content that which ar conceptually e. diverse, as evidenced. evidenced, for lexical which for example, example.by bythe Iherange rang of one italclasses da whieh encode relational relallonallaical con eplS.Nevertheless, " ..Ihel •there Ih reisi aaclear clearbasis, basi •based based on on lexical concepts. lingu; Ii conlenl. for distinguishing di lingui hing between l>elw n those Iho lexical I xical concepts mncepl which whICh linguistic content, for exhibit «lIl
R e(efent iolity Referentiality Anolh r key lingui lie content conlenl isi that Ihal it,I isi inherently inh renllyreferential referenlial in III Another key asp«1 aspect of linguistic nature. Referentiality takes aa numl>er number of of different nalure. Referenlialily lakes differcnl forms, form, as a detailed dClailed below. l>elow, However, the defining feature to encode Ilowev ... r. Ihe fcalure is i, that Ihal lexical l... x".1 concepts
(13) 8. (23) a.a.john ~hnis ismart. mart.He Hrhad hadaareading rradlng age agr of 14 by the Ihr time IImr he he was wa just ju 18. h. b. II want wanl to 10 say say just J"Sl this: Ihi : II love love you. ou. c. The The new newtarget 13 01 to 10reduce redu ecarbon carbQnemissions emi ionsby by2o% 20%by by 2020 2020 will will be be a tough lough thing thing to 10 achieve. a hieve. In the exampi examples in the lexical forms '''.I/,is, he, this, In Ihe In (23), (23).lhe lexi al concepts (on epl associated ialedwith wilhthe Ihdorm and I/,mgar thing are specialized peclalized for r. r referring r ferring 10 enlili ((underlined) inthe Ihetext. lexl. to olher other entities underlined) in There are are many many kind kinds of lexical There lexical concepts con epl which whi h encode en od an an intention inlrnlion to10 signal contextual ignal (Onle lual reference refcren( aas it II relates reldles to 10 extra-linguistic Xlra lingui III context. conlrxl, Many 1any of of treated under the heading of these are often Ihcse are oflen Ir aled under Ihe hrading of deixis. ddxi. Previous Previou research r r h has identified of diverse sorts of deistic lexical concepts including has identified aa rangr range of diver rts of dei Ii lexical con el'l in ludlng phenomena referred referred to 10 as d\ spatial p81ial deixis, dei.i •temporal lemporal deixis, d ixi • and social social deixis dei 1997; ILevinson (for details delail see Fillmore hllmor 1997; In''ln 1983). 1983),

1 124 124

-

REPRESENTATION ILEXICAL EXI AI REPRE F TAT ION

Pragmaticpaint point Pragmatic

WhileIhe thelaxonomy taxonomyof ofdimen;ion, dimensions pr"",nled presented in in Ihi this (hapler chapter mO.llikdy most likely ddoes While not exhau exhaust the properties propertiesof of lingui linguistic content, Ihe the final of nol I Ihe lie conlenl. final dimension dlmen"on. of linguistic content Ihal that II address to what to as pragmatic point. lingui lic conlenl addr relates relal 10 whal II refer rer. rIo a .pragmallC polOl. use this term to refer to et al. (1988).1 *nth is a term I borrow from Fillmore This i a lerm I borrow from hllmore rt 11/. (1988). I u<;c Ih. lerm 10 refer 10 schematic aspects of extra-linguistic encoded in linguistic content by .... hemali apeclsofexlralinguili ••context onlexlencooedilllillgui.ll( conlelllby given lexi lexical concept. As aa given al concepl. As II use use it, il. this Ihi term lerm relates, relal •broadly, broadlr. to 10two twoaspects: aspecl : (i) the contexts of use in which a given lexical concept is conventionally (i) Ihe wnlexl of u<;c in whi h a givell lexi 31 c~n epl I convenllonally employed, illcluding including settings and parli participants, and (II) (ii) some employed. elllng and ~panl '. and ~me aspects a;peels of ofwhat whal has lradilionally traditionally been been referred referred10 to aas Ihe the ilIOCUllonary illocutionary point ha ~ml (Searle (Searle 1969) 1'169) of ~faa given lexi,al lexical concepl: concept: whi which to say gi\ell h iis 10 say the the communicative communi allV purpose purpo for forwhich whICh a lexical concept is employed." a lexical conteI'I i, employed." . declared in To illustrate the notion of pragmatic point consider the form To iIIuslrale the nolion of pragmali poinl con ider Ihe form dfclllrrd 10 the exampl examples below. This isi associated leastIlhree three lexical Ihe helow. Thi socialed with wllh at allea lexi al concepts, con cpl.each each of which exhibits a different pragmatic point. of which exhibil a differenl pragmalic poin!. (24)

love for for him him a. She a. She declared declared her her lov 1939 Chamberlain declared on Germany b. Neville b. 'eville Chamherlain dcdarc'tl war war on (;em13ny on onSeptember Seplemher3rd 3rd 1939 Despite heing being over over Ihe the limil limit on on the c. Despile c. Ihe amount amounl of ofdollars doll.u: in in cash cash eligible 10 to be eligible he taken laken into inlO the Ih country, coulllry. she hedeclared declared nothing nOlhmgas a she he crossed the US border cro sed Ihe US border

serves 10 to encooean encode an inlellllon intention to in (2.\3) (24a) serv The use of declared drdllrrr/ill 10 provide provide information informal ion of a particular sort, with an above-average level of assertiveness. of a partl(ular sort. wilh an above· average level of a \CrtlVell ;.Hence, Ilen<e.the Ihe can be glossed as [FORTHdeclared lexical concept whi which sanctions this of drdllrtd can he glossed as [FO~TII. lexical concepl h sanalon thi use use of contrast, In cOlllraSI. the RIGHT RI(.IIT INFORMATIONAL. IN. RMATIO AI ASSERTION AS~I RTION].J. In Ihe lexical lexl(al concept concepl associated assoclaled with the Ih use of of declared tirc/llre,/ in in (24b) (24b) relates relale. to 10 an all assertion a~rlion which whicheither eilherchanges, challge..or IIr otherwise otherwise revises, revises, an an institutional insliluli nal state. lale. Crucially, ru ially. not nOI only onlyisisthe Iheillocutionary iUoculionary point poml distinct di lincl from from the Ihe lexical lexical concept concepl responsible rcspoll ible for for the Ih use u of of declared dre/aml in in (24a), the context too. This of use (2.\3). but bUllh conlexlof ofuse useisi distinct di;tintlloo. Thi.follows follow,asasthe Ihecontext conlexlllf usefor for in (24b) can only be successfully the (ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW LEGAL STATUS] Ihe [ANNOUNCEMENT OF NFW LEGAL STATU ] in (24b) can only he uce fuUy deployed deployed by by suitably suilablyqualified qualifiedparticipants. partidpalll~.For Forinstance, in Ian ·e.Neville evilleChamberlain Chamherlain was able to successfully deploy this lexical concept because on September was able 10 ,uet fully deploy Ih" lexical (ollcepl l>ctaU\c Oil Seplemher3rd 3 rd 1939 1939 when when he he declared d lared war, war. he he was W the Ihelegally legallyappointed appoinledPrime PrimeMinister 1inisltrofofthe Ihe United Kingdom, and under the terms of the Royal Prerogative—powers Unlled Kingdom. and under Ihe lerm of Ih Royal Prerogativ power; invested in the monarch and deployed by the Prime Minister on behalf the invcsled in Ihe mOllarch alld deployed by Ihe Prime 1inister ollhehalfofoflhe monarch—he take the monarch-hewas W legally legallyentitled enlilledto 101m Ihecountry counlryto10war. war.

•

[MANTIC STRUCTURE

SEMANTIC STRUCTURE

llS 125

I·mally. el'l which Finally,Ihe thelexical lexicalcon concept whichsanctions sanctions Ihe the uuse of of tirdllrrd decidingin in (24 (24c)) relales lMENT Of os AT AT CUSTOMS] U TOM] Ilexical xieal relates10to Ihe the [ANNOUN (ANNOUNCEMENT OF OUTIARLF DUTIABLE G GOODS .oneepl. in terms I rm; of of illocutionary illoculionary point poinl and and context(s) cOlllexl(s) concept. This This iis d,slina distinct bolh both in "I lexical concepts. on<epts. This This lexical lexical concept con<epl isi~ ofuUM: from from Ihe the previou~ly previously melllioned mentioned lexical ,pecialized involving customs cu loms provision provision at al international inlemallonal specializedfor for uuse in in conlexl contexts involving horder ing.s. Its wilh signalling ignalling as a to 10 bordercn) crossings. Itscommunicalive communicativefunaion function has has 10 to do do with good ported by suing Ihe goods hemg being Iran'ported. transported, or or caused caused 10 to he be Iran. transported by Ih the perwn person iissuing the "declaralion" r pecllO reslriction on onthe Ihenature nalure "declaration"ininIhis thisspecific specific conlexl. context, wilh with respect to restrictions and/or good that Ihal may may be he transported Iransported into inlo the Ihe country counlry which which and/or amounl amount of of goods ,.."abli,he. provi,ion. and/or alld/or tax lax payable payable on on particular partl(ular goods. good .. establishes Ihe the CUSlom customs provision, Based u ion. II present presenl in in Table Table 6.4 6.4 aa summary summary of ofthe the Rasedon on th the foregoing foregoing di discussion, ~cy pragmalic poinl Ihal are are encooed a part parI of of the Ihe linguistic lingui Ii key(omponenl~ components of of pragmatic point that encoded as lImlenl each of Ihe three Ihrcc lexical lexi 31 concepls. Mu h of of the Ihe content conlenl associated a;sodaled content of of each of the concepts. Much wilh for drclared from the the con eplual conlenl with Ihelhree the three lexical lexical concepl concepts for declared comes comes from conceptual content 10 whi ·h they Ihey afford afford access. aetes . That Thai is, i •as 3\ lexical lexi al concepts conceplshave havebipartite bipartilestruc.Iru . to which lure. are each each associated asso
l'ANIF ft 4.

Pragmatic point for three lexical concepts of declared

Seiling Setting

I.e ital concept (on(cpt Lexical

-

Partidpanl(s) Illocutionary Illoculionarypoint poinl Participant(s)

I t-clRIItRI(.11T INFORMATIONAL INIORMATHlNAI Unrestricted Unrnlrit..:lrtl Unrestricted Unr Irilo.trtl Make 1.JkC'statement tJlC'mC'nt [FORTHRIGHT "IIItItis 'W\~r1h worth re-emphasizing ~.nnrh. I1Inlhere heftthat ttullinguistic 1"'Iul"!\;content (ontmtis~schematic k.hnn.lll-..inInnature. n.tlUft.Hence, UCfk.t.while whtk declaring a state of war. for example. involves being making a speech act I Searle 19691. sue h as m.. \;'m,,. 'lKUh .... ' ISark I~ '. lk.h ill dn.l.Jnn"" l.1tt elf W.U, fur ~umrk, Uln,lvn '-'lnlable ahktotl' call ull upon urunhighly hi hlydetailed I.ktAIW!iodic-s bt~1 of ,,, conceptual UIOU,.ttul knowledge ~nol~&..-J,(' relating rnly ttl< m.. ,.-nc-rl ~ 1'>r\.1 ",duJm. "hrnlolll( information which r particular lexical concept can Is deployed, the mrmm"t",nconcerning "or,,-"TU",the thetypes IYrft014:officio (If ""ntntin In ""hl... h. r--nk.w"r kt.I ... ~1 UU"-rJ't un ~ dc-pluynl. the

I

nature and the "",Iur~of (.fthe theparticipants r~n"'l""nt involved Inu.),,n which wh ... hmust mu thold. hcokl

A\ UllIO. I ASSERTION

I

I ANNO~NCEM£NTOF OFNEW NEW [ANNOUNCEMENT 1 f(~Al STATUS' TATl'S) LEGAL

Unr Iricltd Restricted R tn trd Unrestricted

"hangC'official offidalstate statC' Change

I MlNl OF 01 Dtrt m ITlAS' f I IANN(lllNC ANNOUNCEMENT

R trktrtl Rest ricted

1.Jkrofficial oflluJIstatement 1.. lement Make

1S1

GOOD AT ATCUSTOMS' C\iSTO GOODS

-= ...........:~---

Re"llnUN Restricted

126 '26

LEXI AL REPRESENTATION REPRE FNTATIOS LEXICAL

in (z4b) (24b) gives gives rise ri to to. rich informational informational characterization, characterization. much much in in the thesame me a rich way relating to to France France discussed di usse
7

Summary This chapter has been been concerned concerned with developing an account of of Thi' hapter has ofthe th~ nature naturenf with semanti tructur<. relating relating to linguistic system, ystem. and and contrasting contra5tong itIt with semantic structure, to the linguistic conceptual structure, conceptual structure. the representational representational format format of of the th conceptual conceptual.system. y te~. I nuxlel model semantic manti structure tructure in terms terms of of the the lexical lexical concept. concept. The Themain nwnclaim cla im that made was that lexical concepts that I mad con eptshave havebipartite bipartitestructure: structure:lexical lexicalconcepts concept directly en encoded en ode information information that th.t can can be oded in and .nd externalized externalized via via he directly encode language.This This information. information,whih which iis unique unique to language, language. la.n.guage. and and which whic~ isi, refer to to as linguisti linguistic content. In relatively stable, stable. II refer In addition, addition. aa subset ubset of oflexical lexi al concepts-serv •as access access sites ites to to conceptual conceptual concepts-()pen-cla concepts—open-class lexical lexical concepts—serve term of of the the theoretical theoretical construct construct structure. structure. I1 model model conceptual structure structure in terms of the the cognitive cognitive model, mod I. addressed addressed in in detail detail in in aalater laterchapter. chapter. The The nonnon· linguistic information encoded by linguisti by cognitive cognitive models models IIrefer refer to t." as a~conceptual conceptual content. This Thi' is b not not directly directly encoded en oded by by lexical lexical concepts, concept. which whl h isI' to to sayy itII is" language. Rather not encoded '" Rather itit can be accessed a cessed by by lexical lexi .1 concepts, con epts. and and in language. bipartite structure tructure of of lexical lexical concepts concept means mean hen e via language. Thu Thus,• the bipartite via language. hence facilitate access that they ,"eo
Lexical concepts concepts Lexical I hI' (hapter erned with providing prOViding an overview overview of ofthe th main maon properties properties This chapter icon is concerned .1nd characteri ti of serv to complement complement the the and characteristics of lexical lexical concepts. concepts. A As such. such, it serves study of the ,tudy the linguistic lingui tic content encoded encoded by by lexical lexi al concepts con epts in in the theprevious previou, main sections. sextions.The Thefirst first provides provid an an
The nature of lexical lexical concepts concepts 1y starting tarting point thi chapter chapter is to to briefly briefly survey urvey a number number of of the the most most My point in this of lexical lexical concepts. concepts. These Th. are areas as follows follow and andare areaddressed addressed notable properties of 111 detail below: below: in more detail •• •• •• •• •• ••

lexical concepts lexi al con epts are elements of ofmental mental grammar grammar lexical concepts Ie ical san tion instances in tanc of of language language use use sanction lexical concepts lexical concept are are vehiclepecific vehicle-specific lexical concepts lexical concept are language-sl>ecific language-specific vehicles are not vehid notlelic.1 - peell; lexical concept concept-specific lexical concepts are aassociated sociated with different different vehicle vehicle types types

concepts have • lexical lexical concepb hav(' bipartite bipJrtlt(' structure trllcturc concepts have an encapsulation • lexical lexical concept. em':.lpsulation !Unction (UIlf...t101l concepts have a lexical • Ilexical i I concept lexi al profile profile

128

LEXICAL CONCEPTS

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

\,)%. L ► nsider the following example:

• lexical concepts can be combined • lexical concepts have relativistic consequences for non-linguistic representation

(2

(1) a. She's a fast typist b. Which courier company would you recommend to get a package from Brighton to London fast?

We need a fast garage for our car, as we leave the day after tomorrow

a

Lexical concepts are vehicle specific -

Lexical concepts sanction instances of language use

Lexical concepts sanction—which is to say license—instances of language use (Langacker 1987). While the semantic contribution of any given vehicle— word or linguistic expression—in a particular utterance is licensed by a given lexical concept, the nature of the semantic contribution associated with that expression will always be a function of the unique context in which it is embedded. In other words, any usage of a given vehicle constitutes a unique instantiation of a lexical concept, and is thus subject to processes of semantic composition—discussed in Part III of the book—due to the specific context, which, in part, determines the semantic contribution of the lexical concept in question. Given that lexical concepts do not occur in language use, but rather sanction instances of use, it is often the case that more than one lexical concept may be sanctioning a particular use of a vehicle. This state of affairs I refer to as multiple sanction. To illustrate, take the vehicle fast which I first discussed in Chapter t. The way in which this vehicle is used by language users often appears to assume a number of distinct lexical concepts, including those that can be glossed as (PERFORM SOME ACT(ION) QUICKLY], as evidenced by (la), and [REQUIRE LITTLE TIME FOR COMPLETION], as evidenced by (1b):

)

The example in (2) appears to be a "blend" of both the lexical concepts which sanction the examples in (1). In other words, the semantic contribution of fast in (2) involves nuances relating to both these lexical concepts. A garage is required in which the mechanics can perform the relevant repairs quickly, and which takes little time for completion of repairs, given that the car will be required the day after tomorrow.

Lexical concepts are elements of mental grammar

Lexical concepts are units of semantic structure. That is, they provide the semantic pole of a bipolar symbolic assembly. As LCCM Theory adheres to the svmholic thesis, symbolic units of the sort discussed in Chapter 5 are held to be the fundamental units of grammar. As such, lexical concepts arc themselves units of mental grammar. However, being units of mental grammar lexical concepts do not arise in language use. Rather, they are units of linguistic knowledge abstracted from across usage events (i.e., utterances) that encode linguistic content and facilitate access to conceptual (i.e., non-linguistic) knowledge. Thus, a lexical concept is a unit of linguistic knowledge that populates the "mental grammar," deriving from commonalities in patterns of language use. In Chapter 4 I likened lexical concepts to phonemes in phonological theory. Like phonemes, lexical concepts are abstractions over multiple instances of language use.

129

11

rte

140

Lexical concepts are vehicle-specific. That is, they are conventionally associated with specific linguistic vehicles. While it is, perhaps, obvious that the vehicles cat and car would be associated with distinct lexical concepts, it is perhaps less obvious that the vehicles sing and sang would also be associated with distinct lexical concepts. Nevertheless, this is indeed the claim made by LCCM Theory, in keeping with constructional approaches to grammar. A distinction in form spells a distinct lexical concept. Notwithstanding this claim, some approaches to lexical representation make the assumption that vehicles such as run and ran, and so forth, relate to essentially the same semantic representational unit, what is traditionally referred to as a lexeme. On this account, vehicles such as run and ran essentially provide equivalent semantic content—the lexeme RUN—and only differ in terms of the grammatical information they encode, which is held to he non-semantic in nature. In other words, the traditional view attempts to account for the intuition that the semantic units associated with vehicles such as these are closely related. LCCM Theory accounts for the intuition that run and ran arc associated with closely related semantic units in the following way. As we saw in the previous chapter, lexical concepts have bipartite organization, encoding linguistic content and facilitating access to conceptual content. Hence, lexical concepts as units of semantic structure can differ in at least one of two ways. Firstly, lexical concepts may provide differential access to the cognitive model profile to which they facilitate access. That is, they may provide access at different points in conceptual structure. The second way in which lexical concepts may differ relates to the nature of the linguistic content they encode. The difference between the lexical concepts associated with rim and ran has less to do with a difference in terms of access to cognitive model profiles. Rather, the difference relates to linguistic encoding, in particular. the nature of the parameters relating to time reference encoded by the respective lexical concepts. Hence, in LLCM Theory, run and ran are associated with distinct lexical concepts, which facilitate access to similar cognitive model profiles but

130

LEXICAL CONCEPTS

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

131

enctxle a different bundle of linguistic content. As such their linguistic

TABLE 7.1. ICI:Wean lexical concepts and their correspondence to English spatial relations

content is similar but not identical.

rie ► lta [PLACEMENT ON

Corresponds to, ..

HORIZONTAL SURFACE] -

rwuchita I IUXTAPOSITION

An important corollary of the position that lexical concepts are vehicle-specific is that lexical concepts are necessarily language-specific. Thus, each language, by virtue of comprising language-specific vehicles which populate the language, necessarily provides an inventory of language-specific lexical concepts. A difference in form results in a difkrence in the lexical concept associated with the vehicle. In short, what might he dubbed the naive view, which holds that a language represents an inventory of language-specific vehicles for encoding cross-linguistically identical semantic units is rejected by LCCM Theory. To illustrate this point, consider the way in which two unrelated languages, English and Korean, encode ostensibly the same spatial relationship. This discussion is based on the work of Choi and Bowerman (1991; Bowerman and Choi 2003). in order to prompt for the spatial scenes evoked by the utterances in (3), the English lexical concept that I gloss as I PLACEMENT OF ONE ENTITY associated with the English vehicle put on can Ise deployed.

Corresponds to...

OF SURFACES]

Snail !PLACEMENT OF

e.g.. put

[PLACEMENT OF ONE ENTITY

e.g., put magnet on refrigerator

ONTO ANOTHER]

Corresponds to...

APPAREL ON HEAD]

[PLACEMENT OF ONE ENTITY ONTO ANOTHER]

e.g.,

put

hat on

kkita

(FIT TWO ENTITIES

Corresponds to...

1 1GHTI Y TOGETHER]

[PLACEMENT OF ONE ENTITY ONTO ANOTHER ]

e.g., put

ring on finger/put top on pen/put Lego block on 1.egd ► stack

While the situation just described makes the point clearly that lexical concepts, as well as vehicles, are language-specific (see Table 7.1), my claim is that more mundane examples, for instance, the lexical concept associated with the vehicle cat in English and chat in French are also distinct. This follows as lexical concepts have bipartite organization, as discussed in the previous chapter and as summarized below. Hence, even in cases where lexical concepts share similar linguistic content cross-linguistically, the nature of the conceptual structure to which lexical concepts afford access will always he distinct. This follows as the individuals that make up distinct linguistic communities have divergent bodies of knowledge based on experiences that are divergent due to linguistic, cultural, and areal divergences.'

ONTO ANOTHER)

(3) a. She put the cup on the table b. She put the magnet on the refrigerator c. She put the hat on d. She put the ring on her finger e. She put the top on the pen 1. She put the Lego block on the Lego stack The lexical concept 'PLACEMENT OF ONE ENTITY ONTO ANOTHER' encodes placement of the figure in contact with a surface of some kind. The reader familiar only with English might be forgiven for thinking that this is the only way these spatial scenes can be encoded by a linguistic system. However, the situation in Korean is very different. The English examples in (3) are categorized into lexical concepts of four different kinds in Korean. This is achieved using the four distinct symbolic units, as in (4): a. vehicle: lexical concept: h. vehicle: lexical concept: c. vehicle: lexical concept (I. vehicle: lexical concept:

ONTO ANOTHER]

cup on table

Lexical concepts are language specific

(4)

[PLACEMENT OF ONE ENTITY

Vehicles are not lexical concept specific -

Although lexical concepts are vehicle-specific, a single vehicle can he conventionally associated with a potentially large number of distinct lexical concepts, which may or may not be semantically related. Hence, vehicles are not lexical concept-specific. Lexical concepts that are related, either in terms of similar linguistic content, or in terms of facilitating access to related cognitive model profiles—by virtue of providing proximal access sites to conceptual content— or both, are held to exhibit a polysemy relationship. For example, in the utterances below in (5), the form flying is associated with four distinct lexical concepts, each of which facilitates access to distinct, but closely related, cognitive model profiles:

11011 to

'PLACEMENT ON HORIZONTAL SURFACE]

pwuchitii IIUXTAPOSITION OF SURFACES'

ssuta [PLACEMENT OF APPAREL ON HEAD)

kkita [FIT TWO ENTITIES TIGHTLY TOGETHER' NOP

The nature of conceptual structure and come of the factor % involved in providing it with it, dictinitivrnevi, at the individual level. will he explored in Chapter in.

LEXICAL CONCEPTS

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

132

(5) a. The plane/bird is flying (in the sky) h. The pilot is flying the plane (in the sky) c. The child is flying the kite ( in the breeze) LI. The flag is flying ( in the breeze)

SELF-PROPELLED AERODYNAMIC MOTION [OPERATION OF ENTITY CAPABI OF AERODYNAMIC MOTION) [CONTROL OF LIGHTWEIGHT ENTITY) [SUSPENSION OF LIGHTWF ?( 1IT OBJECT)

1 33

ic‘ i,-,1 1 concepts potentially afford access. The potential body of non-linguistic

kn owledge: a lexical concept's semantic potential, is modelled in terms of a set of cognitive models. Recall that I refer to the body of cognitive models and their relationships , as accessed by a given lexical concept, as the cognitive model profile. A design feature of language is that it involves a bifurcation of lexical concepts into two types: open-class lexical concepts and dosed-class lexical concepts. While both encode linguistic content it is only open -class lexical concepts which facilitate access to conceptual structure.

Lexical concepts are associated with different vehicle types

Lexical concepts have an encapsulation function

As lexical concepts are conventionally associated with a given linguistic vehicle, it follows that lexical concepts are conventionally associated with a wide range of vehicle types. As we saw in Chapter 5, the range of vehicles with which lexical concepts are conventionally associated include phonetically overt %L. hides, such as cat, and phonetically implicit vehicles, such as the ditransitive vehicle: (SUBJECT VERB ORII 01112), e.g., John baked Mary a cake; John gave Mary the cake; John mused Mary the cake. Moreover, explicit vehicles that have distinct lexical concepts conventionally associated with them include bound morphemes, "simplex" words, "complex" or polymorphemic words, and idiomatic expressions and phrases.

Lexical concepts provide what I refer to as an encapsulation function. This is achieved by virtue of open-class lexical concepts providing an access site to conceptual knowledge which is often complex and informationally diffuse. This provides the illusion that words have semantic unity, and that it is language which is directly encoding the complex body of knowledge which I refer to as a cognitive model profile. Indeed, what I refer to as an access site is, in fact, made up, typically, of a large number of association areas which hold between a single open-class lexical concept and the conceptual system. Thus, the encapsulation function is a function of two distinct systems being related such that the linguistic system provides a means of interfacing at specific points with the knowledge "matrix" that is conceptual structure. 2 An example of the encapsulation function of lexical concepts comes from the following culture-specific example from Korean which cannot be easily and/or simply expressed in another language. This is the lexical concept encoded by the vehicle nunchi, which might be translated into English as eye-measure." This lexical concept relates to the idea that one should be able to judge how others are feeling, such as whether a guest in one's home is hungry or not, and thus 1w in a position to offer food so that the guest is not embarrassed by having to request it. Hence, the lexical concept facilitates access to complex ideas which are typically diffusely grounded in an intricate cultural web of ideas and information. But by virtue of providing a unique access site to this complex body of conceptual content the lexical concept provides an encapsulation function.

Lexical concepts have bipartite structure

Lexical concepts arc units of semantic structure with bipartite organization. They encode linguistic content and facilitate access to conceptual structure. inguistic content represents the form that conceptual structure takes for direct encoding in language. There are a large number of different properties encoded by linguistic content which serve to provide a schematic or skeletal representation that can be encoded in language. The various characteristics involved, the majority of which were discussed in detail in the previous chapter, include the following: • • • • • • • •

parameterization non-analogue in nature topological reference restricted set of domains and categories a distinction between nominal and relational lexical concepts referentiality pragmatic point lexical profile

In addition, a subset of lexical concepts serve as access sites to conceptual structure. Conceptual structure relates to non-linguistic information to which

Lexical concepts have a lexical profile

Many, perhaps most, lexical concepts have a lexical profile. A lexical profile constitutes knowledge relating to the range of other lexical concepts and vehicles with which a particular lexical concept regularly co-occurs. This constitutes what we might refer to, informally, as its use potential.' As such, These arc idea. gut I explore in 11101r &tail in ChAptet to. Set !later (194.07. 204 ► 3I tuna related. albeit distinct. notion ul the ux• p ► tenttal of words. tier Alv Allwood (2003).

►

1.\4 134

LEXICAL CONCEPTS

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

a each lexical concept concepl isi unique, unique,so '>0too 100its il lexical lexicalprofile prnfil isisunique. uniqu Moreover, . Morcovcr, as Ihe lexical profile relates relale:. 10 lored as a part of of the Ih linguistic lingui Ii content conlenl 411i the to knowledge, stored by aa lexical lexical concept. concepl. encoded by 1 he sorts of ofother olher lexical lexl al concepts con piSand and vehicles .ehid with wilhwhich whi haalexical lexical concept onc pi The co-occur, and and which which thereby Ihereby make make up up its its lexical lexical profile, prnfile, IIlerm selectional can co-occur, term selectional lendencies, first firsl introduced inlrodu edininChapter Chapler1.I. A Alexical lexical profile's profil 's selectional seleSOCialed. larger lexical lexical concepl, concept, and hence vehicle Exlrem rc IriClion of oflhis in aalexi 01 concept's concep!'s selectional selectionallendencie, Extreme restrictions this kind in lexical tendencies are facl rare, rare, as arc lectionallendencies whichare arewholly whollynon-restricted. non-reslricted. are in fact are selectional tendencies which Th ofrestricted r""lricled selectional seleclional tendencies lendenci", which which arc are somewhat '>Omewhalless I rare rare The kind of relale a collocations. collocalion. For For instance, in Ian e, the Ihelexical lexical relate 10 to wh.1 what are are olherwi otherwise known as concepl associaled with wilh the lhefollowing followingvehicles: vehid : stale, rotten, .otten,sour, SOli., and rancid, rallcid, concepts associated as particular food luff, exhibit exhibil the Ihe following followingrestrictions restriction in interms lern" as applied applied 10 to particular foodstuffs,

mik

•

•

(6) laicbread/cake/cheese, breadlcake/Ch~, etc. el (6) a.a.stale b. fruit/eggs/vegelables, etc. el . rotten fruit/eggs/vegetables, b. rOllcn c. elC. c. sour milk/yoghurt, etc. d. eiC. rancid bUller/oil, butter/oil, etc. d. rancid

• •

In we see see that Ihallhe lexical concepts concepts associated associaled with wilh In lerm terms of of Ih the examples in (6) we the lexical Ihe vehides stair, rotten, sour, SOli., and "1/I(itl quile distinct dislincl selectional leclional exhibit quite rancid exhibil stale, rotten, the vehicles lendenci pallern associated a"",ialed with wilh each a hcan canthus Ihusbe besaid saidto10beberestricted. r lricled. tendencies.. The pattern A lendency for for any any given given lexical lexical concept, concepl, for for convenience, convenience, can can A selectional selectional tendency be semanli selectional eJeclional tendencies I pllt thlllg> put < b. f tENTllexical oncept ... Icct (or manlie arguments argument that that can be be The lexical concept selects for ... semantic PLACEMENT( The((PI.A' ng, and and a location. con trued as, J~. respectively, rC4illativciy. an an actor, allor, aa thi thillg. ItXdlion. In In other other words, word\. construed pa.t erning this lexical lexical concept involves involves knowing knowingwhat what parto( of our our knowledge knowledge con concerning

ki n ds of ~lIld, o(lexical lexi al concepts concepts itit can an co-occur CO·occurwith. with.In Interms termsofo(formal (ormalselectional Ie 1I0nai tendencies, tenden ies, part ~art of o( our our knowledge ~owledge of ofthe the same sam lexical lexical concept con ptisisknowing knowingthe the order •• rder in III which whICh the the vehicles vehld associated as iated with with the the actor, actor, thing, thing, and and location location lexical concepts occur, Ie i,,11 conc.epts occur, with respect r pecl to to the thevehicle vehide put pllt on. 011. That That is, i , part part of of k~nowledge no wledge involves IIlvolves knowing knowlllg where where the Ihe actor, actor, thing, thing, and and location location slots lot are are located h.... ted relative relative to the the vehicle. vehide. Together Together these these two two types types of ofknowledge knowledgeform formthe th lexical Ie 1(.1 profile prnfile for for the the [PLACEMENT] (PtAU MENTlle.ical concept.'4 lexical concept. In In addition, formal formal selection select!on tendencies lendend needn't needn'tbe berestricted restricted to toknowledge knowledge of 01 word word order. order. It It can can also also include IIldude knowledge knowledge concerning concernlllg the thenature natureofofthe the permissible vehicles that that can can co-occur co-occur with rcrnllwble vehicles with aa given gIVen lexical lexical concept. concept.For For instance, and .. again In,tanCe, and gain adapting adapting an example e.. mple from from Goldberg Goldberg (zoo6: (2006: 57), 57), the the [LOCATED) lexical concept I (l( AnDllexl al can cpt associated associated with wilh the the vehicle vehicle finind [OIl11d exhibits exhibil aa distinct distinct formal selectional tendency from the I REALIZED] lexical concept exhibited ">rIllal ...Icclional tendency from the (REAlIzEOllexical exhibited by by the same \Jme vehicle: vehicle: ( R) (8)

of Iheir selectional seleclionallendenci of their tendencies::

El

135 135

,I. Jane Jane found found the the cat cat a. h. b. Jane Jane found that thai the the cat cat was wa missing mi ing

[LOCATED] (LOUTEDI [REALIZED] (REAlIZEDI

The lexicalconcept concept selects fora I h~ (LOCATED) (I ()('ATfOllexical I t for a direct object, object, whilst whilstthe the IREALIZED) REAlIlEDI leXIcal ept selects lects for for a sentential ntential complement. complement. lexical con concept Thus J'hu far far II have have primarily primarily addressed addressed the the selectional lectional tendencies tenden irs associated a 'Iated with lexical lexical concepts on epts associated with wllh vehicles vehi I that that have have overt phonetic phoneti content. content. consider I now briefly con ider the the lexical lexical profile profile associated a iated with withlexical lexicalconcepts conceptsthat that are ~nternally internally open. open. Recall arc Recall that internally open open lexical lexical concepts concept are arepaired pairedwith with vehicles whICh which have have impliCIt implicit phonetic vehicles phonetic content, such su h as a the the lexical lexi 31 concept concept [THING THING Y TO llllNG Xx CAUSES CAUSE THING TO RECEIVE RECEIVE THING Z] zl conventionally paired paired with wilh the dltran ditransitive vehicle. Th The lexical the itive vehide. Ie .. al profile profile of of such u 'h lexical lexical concepts concept relates relates to to what I refer refer to to aas internal internal selectional whall lectional tendencies. tendencies.That 'J1latis, is,as a the Ihelexical lexicalconcept concept open, it can be integrated with other Iis Iinternally .nternally open, oth r less I abstract ab traet lexical lexical concepts concept paired With with vehldes vehicles that paired that do have have phonetically phonetically explicit explicit phonetic phonetICcontent. content.Yet, Yet, ,uch are constrained constrained in incertain certainways, way,as a specified specifiedby bythe Ihelexical lexical such lexical concept concepts are profile that form forms pari part of the pr file that the linguistic lingui tic content contenl encoded encoded by by the Ihe (TilING x [THING X CAUSESTIliNG THING Y (Al'"S Y TO RECEIVE Rf(flVE THING TIliNG7.1 lllexi<.11 In particular, partieular, part part of ofthe the lexical concept. concept. In knowledge capt~red captured by by I~xical lexical profiles ~n~wledge profiles for for internally internally open lexical lexi al concepts concepts involves whl which lexically closed IIlyolv h. kind kllld of oflexlCally dosed lexical lexical concepts con epl can canalign alignwith wilhparticuparti ular slots in the the IIlternallycomplex internally complex vehicle. lar lot III vehide. For For instance, in t.ln e, in in terms term of ofthe the((Till G THING: X CAUSES THING Y Y TO X <.~u~,s TiliNG TO RECEIVE RE(.[IV' THING TiliNG Z1 zl lexical ItS lexical lexical profile profile lexical concept, its specifiesthat that only animate entities speafies entities capable capabl of ofcausing cau ing transfer tran fer can can be be inteinte3 1 slot. grated with the the N1PI lot. Someo(the Icctoonal tendend",. sociated Some of the IIlternal internal selectional tendencies associated with thi this .Iexical lexical concept with concept are ar summarized ummari/ed in in'table 'Idble 5.2 III Chapter 5. 50 in Chapter 'There noww well-established empirical eviden evidencee for Th re Iisnow II-establi hed empirical (or the the notion nOlionofofaalexical lexical profile associated WIth with lexical profil lexieal concepts. (oncept>. Compelling Compelling evidence evidence comes como from fmm (

See GtIldberg (2°440 for (Iv, LI,sion *It how the item-based knowledge whit h lomprise. the lexkal profiles of lettscal toth erts Me Illrld

136

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

work in in corpus linguistics work linguistic, which whICh reveals rev ,1\ that that part part of ofthe th knowledge knowledgelanguage language users have have of of words, u"'r~ word, for instance, in tan e, includes indud what what IIam amreferring ..ferring to toasasaalexical lexic I profile. In In particular, particular, thi this notion notion has ha been OCen empirically empirically explored in in the th work work of of profile. Atkins (1987) (1987) who who uses the Atkin u the term term "ID "m Tag." Tag." Developing Developing ideas idea from from Hanks lIankl. (1996), Gries Gries and Divjak (2009) (2oo9) employ (1<}96), employthe theterm term"behavioural "behaviouralprofile." profile." Other Ot~er empirical work that that iis. con~nant consonant with lexical I empiri .1 work with the th theoretical theoreltcal construct constru I of ofthe the,}"tc profile is is represented represented In in the the work workof of D~browska Dlbrowska (way): (1~):her hernotion n~tlo~ofof"words word; profile constructions." Still till other work that that supports upports this thl perspective per pectlveisI discussed dl ussed aas construction." in Goldberg Goldberg (2006). (zoo6). In Finally, some concepts do not xical con, which which refer to, informally, as lexi al concepts—traditionally con epts-traditionallyreferred referred I refer as "clause-level" "clau -level" lexical to as "simple a, "independent "independent clauses," dau~," or or alternatively ahernatively" imple sentences"—such "'ntenc~"- uch as a, the the lexical concept, as observed [TIliNG x CAUSES CAUSE THING TilING YY TO TO RECEIVE RE flV. TilING I[ lexical concept, as obserwd (THING X THING ZI indeed have have aa lexical I xical profile. profile. IfIfthey they didn't, didn't, we wewouldn't wouldn'tknow knowhow how above, do indeed such lexical concepts ,uch lex I al con ept~ could be he combined combined with with other, other,more morespecific, specific, symbolic ymbolic in order order to to produce produce aawell-formed well formed utterance. utterance. units, in Finally, itit is is also also important to observe Finally, observe that that being beingexternally externally closed dosed does does not not imply, how however, that aa given lexical imply, 'er, that lexical concept cannot annot be be combined combinedwith withother other lexical concepts lexical concept above abov the the level le,'el ofofthe th utterance. utteranc.After Afterall, all,the th ditransitive d,tra""tive symbolic unit can be combined with other lexical concepts to make ymbolic unit be combined with other I ical con epts to make more more complex comple utterances: utterance;:

andshe hesmelled melled them. them. (9) Fred !'redgave gaveHolly Hollyflowers, flow rs,and Traditionally an utterance utteranceof of the the restricted restricted linguistic to its it use use potential potentia! that that isisspecific peeific to toaagiven given lingui tic knowledge knowledge relating relating to lexical It expresses expr ..... sets set of oftendencies: tendenci :patterns pallern ofofco-occurrence co-occurrence lexical concept. concept. It abstracted ab tracted from usage u~ge events. ,ent. Moreover, 1oroo,er, as a the th lexical lexicalprofile profileisi,apparent apparentinin language use, it language use, it provides provid aa "footprint" "footprint" that that can can serve serv ininidentifying id ntifyingthe the such, we As pcxifi lexkJI (oncept tholt \anltion!t oJ gi,'cn in tJm,:c of u . A \uch, we specific lexical concept that sanctions a given instance of use. might think think of ofthe thelexical lexicalprofile profileas a providing providingaadistinct di"onct"biometric" "blometric"identifier identifier for each lexical concept. parti ularly useful u ful in incases ca of ofpolysemy, poly my,where where forea an an analytical .malytical challenge challenge for for the the linguist, Ilngui begin be'Son (and (and end). end).later Laterininthe th chapter hapter alway clear wh

-

LEXICAL CONCEPTS

137 137

II will the lexical lexical profile profil can (an he he applied applied in In adducing addUCing distinct di tonct will illustrate illustrate.how how the polysemous a! concept. In the th next next chapter chapter II will, will, among among other other things, things, polysemous lexl lexical concepts. In A pply thl Jpply to aa case ca study tudy of ofpolysemy. poly, my. this methodology to

Lexical Lexical concepts conceptscan can be be combined combined One ~on'iC(juence oflexical Icxi al concepts concept, encoding encodingaalexical Ie italprofile profileas a,part part of oftheir their consequence of Ionguts.tlC i that that lexical lexical concepts oncept can can be be combined. ombined.While While linguistic knowledge bundle is the lexl .. i al con cpt combination combination lexicalI profile expresses expresses schemati schematic tendencie, tendencies, Ilexical concept Involv"" ontegralton of ofactual actual .on tan~ of ofspecific pe.:ili'lexical lexicalconcepts concept ininaaway way involves th the integration instances that rYes to hngul tl content content encoded en odedby bylexical lexical concepts concept that serves to combone combine both the linguistic ~ub ,t, of ofthe thecognitive cogoitive model modelprofiles profile that that each eachopen-class open-classlexical lexical and and a subset fa Illlat ,ace general process proc of combination combination of ofboth both lIUlcept concept facilitates access to. to. The general of linguistic lingui tic and con eptual content content isi referred ..ferred to, to, in inLCCM L 'CM Theory, Theory, as as fusion. fu ion. conceptual There are two mechanisms mechani m which which relate rclate to to the the different ditTerent sorts ~rts of ofcontent content xical concept: lingui>!ic of of I he mechanism The which g governs the combination combination of the IonguI~tl, oded by by lexical leXICal concepts conceph isistermed termedlexical lexicalconcept contept linguistic conte~t content en encoded II1tl'graltOn. onvolv aa process prtlC"" termed termed unpacking, unpa king. and r"uh, tn integration. Tho> This involves and results in aa ?ther linguistic lingui tic expression) expr ion) receiving r elving a semantic semantic value. value. The The mechmcch\\ord (or other word way in in which whi h conceptual conceptual content contentisI then th naccessed ace \ed antsm whl h relates rclat to the the way anism which 'Ia ope~ · da lexical lexi al concepts, (()~cept., following following lexical lexical concept concept integration, integration, isi via open-class by lexical lexical concept concept integration, integration, and and termed, interpretation. onterpretalto? Thl gUided by termed This Iis guided rc uhs on formatIon of ofan an informational informational characterization. haralteri1A1ltOn. The The combincombin . results in the formation of lexical lexical concepts concept~ resulting r~uhing in in the the formation formation ofofaasemantically \Cmantic.llywellwell . alton ation of lormed utterance ulleran gIves eption. The The two two types types of ofmechanism m hani mthat that formed gives n rise to a con conception. gIve rise n to fusion fu;.io~ are, are, in in LCCM lC M Theory, Theory. constraint-based, constraint-based, expressed expre, sed in interms term give "I \Ct of ofprinciples pnnctples that that facilitate faciIttate and and govern govern the th combination combinationofoflexical lexical of aa set concepts in in the th construction on truction of ofmeaning.% meaning.' Of course, ~ourse, lexical le.xi al concepts can cpt are arc components component of ofsymbolic ymbolicunits. unit.They Theycan canhe he Of lUmbtned precisely Pfl'CI\Cly because heeau symbolic ,ymlxllic units Ulltt, can l.n be he combined. wmbined. One One of of the the main main combined dalm of of LCCM LCCM Theory, Theory, in in keeping keeping with with the theconstructional con tructiona) approach approach toto claims grammar i that that symbolic ;ymboli units, units, and and hence hencelexical lexical grammar presented pr nted in in Chapter Chapter 5,50 is concepts, (oncept" are Me combined combined in nested nl... ted fashion. fa hion. In In Part P.rt II of ofthe the book bookI Ireferred referred to to ~hl as a nested nested integration. integratio? By way way of ofillustration, illu tration, consider consider the th following following this ba~ on one one similar , Imllar discussed d,scu sed ininthe theprevious previo",chapter: chapter: llerance, based utterance, Maxhid hIdthe themobile III biletelephone telephone ( 10) to) Max The I'he basic b.,ic insight i",ight is i, that that there there are arc (at (at least) lea") three three distinct di;ttnct levels levcl of nflexical Icxical conlcpt apparent apparent in in this thi particular particular utterance. Ulleranle. Proceeding Proceeding from from the the concept most 010\1 abstract ah\lract level, I('\'cl. there there is i\ a.1 lexical lex;(dl concept con(cpt that that specifies pcrific an an asymmetric a ymmctri • This I hi. is 11 the 1M suhieit su~tof nlPart p.. n III III of 411 the d~hook. lloc'Klk.

-

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION REPRE ENTATION

relationship holding belween between Iwo two related e1alionship holding relaled entities. nlllles. 'Ibis This corresponds correspond to 10 the Ih~ ~nluilion Ihal many many utterances ullerances in in English Engli h (and (and indeed ind~many manyother olherlanguages) languag ) intuition that , 'ocal enlily. rather ralher than Ihan another anolher in 10 aaprofiled profiled assign focal prominenc prominence 10 to one entity, ,. I I' " II as;ogn " . relationship Langacker 107). A profiled relalion hip ((Langa ker 1987). profIled relationship relal~o.nshlp involves IOVO v aa linguistically IOgUlsl1 a y encoded the trajector oded relationship relalion hip holding holding between belween two Iwoentities, enllll .Ih ..aJector(TR) (.TR)and andthe Ih en Ilandmark d lark (l.M). Thi correspond 10 Ih. inluillon thaI Ihere I a, subJecl} ( LM). This corresponds to the intuition that there is a subject/ :~':, Iry encoded ymbolic units unit (in (111 English). [nghsh). The Th object asym01 asymmetry encoded by senlence·levd sentence-level symbolic

b. lexical concept concepl h. lexical

VERB PHRASE NP2" ""N13 PI1 V[RB PI" IA PROFILED JA PROFILED RELATIONSHIP RELATION IIIP HOLDS 1I0LD BETWEEN BETWEEN AATR TR ANO LM} AND AN AN I.M]

Al Ie I. there is a lexical concepl whichestablishes lablish that thaIthe theperspecperspecAt Ih. the neXI next level, concept which live Ih profiled profiled relationship relationship is i viewed viewed isi that Ihal of o(the Ih.agent. agent.Hence, llence. tive from from which the Ihi lexical concepl encodes an an asymmetric a ymmctric relationship relallon,hip between ?<,ween an anagent agentand and this lexical concept encoties the patient, and and in so doing TR and aa patient. doing serves serves.to to align align the ~h. agent agent role rolewith W1~that th~tofo(TR and th. patient rol role with thaI that o(th. of the LM in the I.xlcal lexical concep.' concept provided patienl LM 111 provIded.in 10 (lib). (lib).That Thatis,I'>. the I=cal profil lexical concept 10 (lib) (lib) stipulates t.pul,ates that that the the the lexical profile encoded encoded by by the the lexical concept in internally i construed construed as a agentive a~enllve in 111aaprofiled profiled internallyclosed closed I.xical lexical concept concept that that is relationship is integraled integrated wilh with the Ih TR role. role. Hence, Hence.the Ihelexical Imealconcept con ,el'lprovided prOVIded in rclales to 10 what whal isis more more commonly commonlyreferred referred to 10as asactive acllve voice: VOl c: in (lib) (nb) relates

Pl't ""NP1 P, VIRB +T VERB+TN5 NP2" (11) a. vehicle vehi Ie 12) a. AGfNT AND A U PROFILED RELATIONSHIP RELATIONSHIP INVOLVING INVOLVING AGENT b. lexical concepl h. lexical concept I(PROfiLED PATI[NT VIEWED FROM FROM PERSPECTIVE PER PECTIVE OF OF AGENT] AGENT} PATIENT VIEWED The lexical profile (or in (12b) (12b) stipulates lipulal that Ihallhe agenl role role for the lexical coneepl concept in the agent aligns wilh with NPt align PI while whil. the tho patient palienl role role aligns align with wilh NP2. P2. . . finally. Ihe Ihird level oflexical concepls involves Iho whICh are II1lernally Finally, the third level of lexical concepts involves those which are internally c10scd are hence hence conventionally conventionally paired paired with wilh vehicles vehides that Ihal have have overt ovcrt closed, and are For the utterance ulleran« in in (to) (10) these Ihestrelate rclate to 10lexical lexi 01 concepts concepl phone;ic phonetic conltnl. content. For mobile telephone. .~ialed wllh the Ihe vehicles: vchid : Mlu, tile. and mO/II/e trlep/lolle. hill, the, Max, /1111. associated with While aasymmetric focal prominence, While ymmclric (ocal prominence. as a' captured caplured by the Ihe lexical Icxic~ concept co~cepl in in (Ilb) ~ alur< of o( all all linguistically lingui lically overt overt (i.e., (L•.• profiled) profiled)relationships. r
1139 39

k ".11 (on el" which whl{h determines delermin that Ihal the Ih lexical Ie lcal concept con cpt which which isi construed construed concept as J' being the the patient pau.nl receives r«.lVes focal (ocal prominence. Hence, lien •• the Ihe patient pali nl aligns aligns with with Ihe PI slot 101 associated associaled with with the Ihe symbolic symboli unit unil provided prOVIded inin(14). (14).I Iformalize formalize the NPt Ill<' "passive" symbolic ymboli unit unll as as follows: follow: the "passive"

II

(14 1.4 II

J . 'is symbolic unit in question in symbolic unil qu lion IS provided provl'ded'() 10 (tt): II : ve h'I Ie (ill) II ) a.a.vehicle

LEXICAL CONCEPTS

Iii

a. vehicle "NP, BE VERB, PPT by /Iy NP2" PI" "NP1 BE VERB+PPT con epl [PRoFtun b. lexical lexi al concept h. IPROFILED RELATIONSHIP RELA110NSIIIP INVOlVIN(J AGENT AND AND INVOLVING AGENT PATIENT VIEWED VIEWED FROM FROM PERSPECTIVE PER PECTIVE OF PATIENT} PATIENT OF PATIENT]

Full details o( of how lexical lull dClails lexical concepts concepl are are integrated, integraled. and and the the constraints on Iraim that Ihal art provided in hapter 12. apply. apply, arc provided in Chapter 12_

LeXIca/ relativistic consequences consequences for (or non-linguistic non-linguistic Lexical concepts concepts have relativistic representation The ['he integration IOlegrallon and IOlerprelation o( lexical concepts con epls serves, serves. in part, part. to 10 and interpretation of lexical

contribute mnlrib ule to 10 simulations. imulation. This Thi follows (ollow asa semantic semanlicrepresentation represtnlationinvolves involves Iingui lic and conceptual conceplual systems. sy tern. The The simusill1u represenlalion from representations from bolh both Ihe the linguistic lations which lallons which arise arise can, can. in in turn, lurn. serve ' rve to to dynamically dynall1i ally update updale conceptual con eplual "ruclure. Ih modification modification of o(conceptual conceplual structure. That That iis,• languag. language can can conlribul. contribute 10 to the ,'rullu re. A Icxi al con epts are are language-specific, language· pecifi •as a discussed discussedearlier, carli r. each ea h structure. As lexical concepts IJnguage iis likely affal the Ihc modification modification of o(conceptual on eplualstructure IruetureininlanIan language likely 10 to affect • on. o( the the consequences consequences of o(the thedisjunction di junetion guage-specific guage-specificwa)'5. ways.That Thatiis, one of I,..,wcen Iinguisti and conceptual conceplual systems sy Icms posited posiled in in LCCM LCCM Theory Theory isI betweenth.e the linguistic non-iingul ticrepresenrepresen Ihe prediction predlcllon that Ihal languages languages will will differentially differenlially affect affect non-linguistic the tation, i.e., Idllon. I.e .• conceptual con eptua! structure. lrueture. Hence, Hence. we w. should houldexpect expect to 10 see set relativistic relalivi tic ellalS n n lingui II cognition.' cognilion .• effects o(language of language on on non-linguistic Ihe various variou characteristics charalleristi associated associaled with wilh lexical lexical concepts con ep" isi A summary umll1ary o( of the prOVIded in in Table Table 7.2. 7.2. provided I "all 7·1. Sumrnuyof the characteristics ,h.J~(tt'ri II of of lexical IC'XK.u concepts l.OrKcpl 7.2. Summary of the

TAM IR

Property Pmr
Detail Details

Lui\.,)1 m n1al Lexical conlcpu concept%art areunll units of of mental

LtxlC~1 (onccpt of Lexical concepts art are UI1II units of linguistic lingui~lic knowledge: knowl«lgr: the the semantic manti

gram mar grammar

pol of ofaa symbolic ~Yll1bolll: unit, Uilli.abstracted ~lhlrat.ltd pole from across usage (rom.1I.. w.1gc events event (i.e., ull .... n ). They comprise compri aa bundle bundl. utterances). of lively ordifferent dltTcn....u knowledge knowledgetypes, I~collet colJ«1i\dy referred to 10 as lingui%tic IingUl.)tk. t:ontcnl content

-------------------~------(Conftnued)

lexical concept: closed lexi(al In tlw. utterance, utlcr.:lIu:e, the the internally internally dowd (OIRcpt:'MOBILE [MClBILl PHONE] 1'lIONtl Iis In this aligned with aligned wilh NPL PL This is i aa consequence consequenetof ofthe Ihclexical I xiealprofile prolil ofofthe Ihe"passive" " p IVe"

1++r 'pill urni irl trrllntrum whit h Address IN: notion of lmttutqk relativity we Ciumper, and I 4.- Ninm,n i issoo and t ivntner and troldin-Meadow /imp.

-

LEXICAL LeXI At REPRESENTATION REPRE ENTATION

140

'1 (:unlmuaJ) TTAR "au 7.2. / .. (Continued)

Property I'mrerty

Details I"'lail>

concepts sanction 1Lexical cxi... ~1 c.:.onu=pl n..:tion

mental knowledge qua mcntal Lc 11.:..11 UlOU:pt knowlt.-dge structures, trudur Lexical concepts,• qutJ don', ppcar 10 utteran •but but rather ratherarc art realized rcaliltd as don't appear in utterances, contextualized semantic contrihutlon contributions.. As such, (on Ie tu.. li/cd ~m.lOtk ulh , they Iilicense instances of 1.1Oguage language use ...en 10 lanl 01 u they

instances of language In la",:~ of 13ngu~gt use u

-

Lexical con concepts tC'xlul epl are vehicle-specific ~IX'lfk vchid ILexical exiul ...concepts on ...cpU are are language-specific I.nguase·
Lexicalconcept concepts arc are conventionally conventionally associated ltxical a iated with with a specific vehicle r«ifil \'Chide Each language. language,by by virtue virtue of of compri comprising ulh 109 languagelanguage.

Lexical (om:tpt concepts are l.txial ~associated 't(xiatcd with different ditlcrenl

Lexicalconc.:ept concepts arc are a5S(Xiatcd associated with vehicles uxical vehicl of of various kind, kinds, IOdudlOg including forms vanou form with overt ovcrt phonetic phondlt. those with implicit phonetic ulnlcnt .1~ well as a\ thmt impliul phonch ... content as content (onlent a "semantic Lexical t,.;011l.: concepts are aassociated 1.cxllo1l pt" ue ~ialcd with with .1" molntH. thus networkrel.ltr.J lexical Icxlt,.;al concepts, c.:ont,.;cpt •and and Ihu~ network** of related

types \vehicle hId lyre Vehicles uc are not \~chidc nOI lexical Icxu.:.t1 ...concept-specific OIl1.:tpl pa;ih ...

ILexical ,elil.al ...concepts onleph have h.1VC bipartite structure hlp
Lexical uxi..:~l

...concepts onu;ph have h.. \c an .In

function encapsulation cnap ulalioo fundion 1.Lexical i... .11 concepts con ... cpt have h,ne a lexical profile lexi,al

Lexical concepts can uxi(ll con'qtt ,an he be combined uunhtnc."ti

LEXf -At CONCEPTS CONC.EPT 141 LEXICAL 141 -----------------~~~~~~ Ic~iullOfk.ept nd the activation at.tlvoltKlO of ofaJ lexical concept infcwallonintegration—and ubsct of the th semantic manUl potential potenlial accessed ac,"~ via Viol the subset the optn·da, 10 the lh utterance—a ullerolntt"--a open class Ini lexicalI (Of){.;Cpt concepts in pnx:c I "iul concept lOfk.qlt process~ fermed termed interpretation. Lexical integration and interpretation—collixtively Interprct..1Iloll-i:oIlClll\elytermed termed fusio .lI"C go\"cmtd volri u (on~trall1ts fusion—are governed by various constraints moddleJ on terms Imn, of. prjnupl modelled in of a "'I set of principles A lt~xlt,.;o1l concepts (;onctpt arc art language-specific, languag . pt.~lti,. and and concepts have ILexical C'xlIo. ..1um..:cpt As lexical rdJI1\ i II( (on~uen cs ~imulalion which which can can.serve rve to 10 contrihute relativistic consequences contribute to simulations 1M hngui\lh,: modify conceptual «lOlCplUal structure, \lrulture, each eollh language language for non non-linguistic hoi rdativlMIl: tnc:d nnn·lingul,tit. ((.·prt.~nt.llion has relativistic effects on non-linguistic r epresentation repr entation representation

specific vehicles wh"h which populate pc
polysemy exhibit poly nhlbOl my Lc-Xi(oll ((mlent and and Lexicallonleptli concepts cnuk.le encode hngui~lk linguistic content facilitate .lb. access to conceptual LIOgUI'UIo. f.luhlolle ..:on(cptu,dstructure. Irudure.Lingua content represents conlent repr nt the Ihe form fom1 that thai conceptual conc.:cptual structure takes for for dlr«t direct cnuldi"g encoding in trut,.;turt Iolk.es in language. langu.1F-l'. Conceptual structure C(ln(;cplual trut.tur relates rclaln to non-linguistic mlO·lingui\tit,.; information to which IIlformation whRh lexical lexl(al concepts con(;cpt potentially pOlcnli.lIly afford access olC,"C By virtue 011 of lexical access By virtue xlul concepts U)olCPI facilitating f,)(IIII.11108,)( ...a to tn conceptual (ont,.;cptuaJ structure lru(turc they they serve n·t to 10encapsulate cnup Ul.lleoften often complex and informationally diffuse ideas complcx mformoluonally ditTu idea" A lexical ICAIt,.;oll profile profile constitutes u)O~titule a• body body of more mort or or less I use restricted linguistic til knowledge relating rel.1Im8 to 10 its it!i U\C r trktcd lingui potential pOlentlal that th .. t is I specific ~ific to toaagiven gh'enlexical. lexk.ll.ItIt tendencies: patterns of co-occurrence 'cxpre • ......-t~ of tcndcot,.;i . Jldllcrn U) ou.urn:nlo.C' 'expresses' sets of abstracted ab\lr.Illcd from tR)1l1 usage W3~ events. aenl\. Moreover, Morn)\er, as the the lexical profile;' profik is apparent lexIcal apramol in language l.lJ1gu;ose use, ~. itII in identifying pnwide a "footprint" ·foutprint" that tholt can un serve 'Id\ idenlltyll1~ provides the specific p«:dlt,.; lexical Icxiu.l ...concept Ufk.qll that thai sanctions \01",,"1101 a• given SI\Cf1 instance I""lan.:e of ofuse. u. As such, uch. we w might mlghl think thInk of ot the the lexical providing a distinct IOKoll profile pR)hle oJ.as pn"·ldlllg.1 dl'lI"'-t 'bionietrie 'btclmt1nt.:' identifier for each ksical concept tdcnuht."T h)r e-.K.h lexi....ll u'"'"-epl Lexical concepts t,.;,an can be lomblncd combined in uxical con(qtl in various variou service of activating %•ars in pn'Ia .... .Jhlc way III M:fVlt,.;(' 0' at,.;uvoiItlllg semantic \cf11anU ... predictable )l(,tenll .. I.Jnd thu facilitating '01. . 1111.111118 meaning Illc4lnlllg construction. UHl trudlun. potential and thus Combination Ie k:4I1 concepts ... om. pi involves IOvol\e the the CombllUlI(lO of lexical integration InlrgrolUoll of linguistic IinSUI tit,.; content—a Ulnfmt aprocess pn"k:..-: termed Icrnll"ti

0'

A methodology for for identifying identifying lexical lexical concepts concepts A methodology \\c relurn to 10 one one of Ihe key characlemlie Ih linguistic linguislic content (onlenl We now now return the key characteristicsof of the cn.:oded lexical concept: concep!: its itslexical I xiealprofile. profile.There Thereare arethree Ihr~reasons rea nsfor for encoded by aJ lexical I'rowiding uch a relatively relalively detailed delalled treatment Irealmenl of ofthis Ihis iissue lOe here. here. Firstly, FiNly. II providing such IIIU,lrale procedure by which distinct di lin(1 selectional seleclional tendencies lendeneie; can (an he be illustrate Ihe the procedure by which employed idenlify distinct di lincl lexical lexical concepts conceplsassociated a socialed with wilhparticular particular employed 10 to identify lexi(al a word forms form typically Iypically have have multiple mlOlliplelexical lexi alconcepts concepl lexical form. forms. Secondly. Secondly, as ,omcnlionallya ·ialed with wilh them, Ihem.identifying idenlifyingthe Ihelexical lexicalprofiles profile;associated J; ·ialed conventionally associated wllh instances inSlance:. of of aa given given vehicle vehideacross acro discrete discreleutterances ullerances serves rves to 10disamdisamwith ~iglO.lIe Ihe rang of lexical concepts concepl associated a xialed with wilh any any given given vehicle. vehi Ie.And And biguate the range of lexical Ihirdly. Jas Ihe lexical profile prnfile is i an an important imporlanl part part of ofthe Ih linguistic lingui. liccontent Om of ofselectional sele..lionallenden(iCl.! apply these Ih criteria enlena inon make tendencies.' IIlhen then apply ,)rder 10 idenlify a number of ofdistinct di linct lexical lexical concepts conceplsassociated associaledwith Wllhthe Iheopenopen· order to identify class vehicles: da vehid : time, IlIlIf. and firms.· \() based ha
present

u.ntnt I (l IhoIl I uw

.00 rrt'ttnl

rrhnc-mt'"fll

Ibnlty. me n.amrln

nn. context of (~I Lt -CM tTheo v. new 'nt~that I use the lht- same examples of (If //mix first introduced in In Chapter ( '• Note 2.L

fI,..,., flm mtmdu(;N

h.rtt't

r,'nn.al INt

142

nature and range of the lexical concepts with which a lexical concept can nalure and range of Ih I xical concepts wllh which a lexical concepl can co-occur or in which it can be embedded, or in the case of an internally co-occur or in which il can be embedded. or in Ihe CiS<' of an inlernally open lexical concept, which occur within it.

open I xical con epl. which Olcur wilhin it.

• The Formal Selectional Criterion:

• The Formal lexical Seleclional rilerion:definition encoded by a distinct lexical A distinct profile—by A di.lincl lexical profile- - by definilion en oded by a dl lin I lexi al concept—provides unique or highly distinct patterns in terms of the con epl_provides unique or highly di IIncl pallerns in ler~s of Ihe vehicles with which a lexical concept can co-occur or within which vehi Ie wilh which a lexical concepl can co-occur or wllhon whICh it can be embedded, or in the case of an internally open lexical il c.n be embedded. or in Ihe case of an inlernally 01' n lexical concept, the nature of the alignment between vehicles and the concepl. Ihe nalure of Ihe alignmenl belween vehides, and Ihe internally closed lexical concepts that lexically fill the internally inlernally closed Ie ieal con epls Ihal leXICally fill Ih onlernally

441

open lexical concept.

open lexical concepl.

While successful application of only one of the two criteria will normally

While u ce sful appli alion of only one of Ihe IWO crileria will nor.mally be sufficient to point to the likelihood of a distinct lexical concept, in the be .uflicienl 10 poinl 10 Ihe likelihood of a di,lincl lexical concepl. on .Ihe final analysis, identifying the existence of a given lexical concept requires final analy i • idenlifying Ihe e iSlence of a given lexical concepl requIre converging evidence employing a number of lines of support and deployconvergong evidence employing a number of lines of supporl and deploy· ing a complementary set of methodologies. Recent work in this regard, ing a complemenlary I of melhodologie.. Re enl work in Ihis regar~. which can be used to support the evidence from linguistic analysis whICh can be used 10 upporl Ih evidence from Iinguisti .nalr'" presented below, include techniques from psycholinguistic testing (see pre>cnled below. in Iud lechnique from psycholingui Ii Ie long ( ee al. 1997) as well as corpus-based tools and methodoloa al. e.g., Cuyckens e.g., Cuy,ken, ., t997) as w II as corpus-based 1001 and melhodologies (Gries 2006).

gie (Gries 2006). Lexical concepts for time

LexlCol concepts for lime

Before being able to apply the two selectional criteria just introduced, it is first IIefore being .ble 10 .pply Ihe IwO selecllonal crtleria ju I inlroduced, il is fir I necessary to develop a hypothesis as to the nature of the distinct lexical nec~ry 10 develop. hypolhesis. 10 Ihe nalure of Ihe d,slin I lexical concepts involved in particular utterances. That is, how many lexical concepts concepl involved in parlicular uller.nc . Thai is, how many lexi .1 oncepl' are involved across the utterances to be examined? To this end, consider the are involved aero Ih Ulleranc, 10 be examined? To Ihi end. consider the following examples which involve the form time:

following exam pi

which involve Ih form ""''''

(15) Time flies when you're having fun

(t5)

The lime for a deci ion i gelling do;cr

(17)

The old man' lime (

dealh(os fa I approaching

(t8) Time flows on (forever)

(IS)

Time flows on (forever)

These instances of the lexical form time all appear in the "subject" phrase Th""" in'l.nces of Ihe lexical form /lllIt .11 .ppear in the" ubjecl" phr. Moreover, the verb phrase which complements the subject phrase relates to a Morcov r,lh verb phrase which complemenl' Ihe ,ub,ecl phr.se rdal" 10 • motion event. Thus, motion is being ascribed to the entities that time motion event. Thu . molion is being ascribed to the cnlllies that ",,,t contributes in prompting for, in each example. In addition, the semantic (ontrihulC in prompting for. inappears c.l(h example. In addition, the semantiC to he distinct in each example. In time contribution associated with (ontribution a~iJted with appears tim£' appear, to he di\um:t in .u . h example. In to relate to an assessment of temporal the first example in 15), time

Ihe firsl example in (tS),

'm" appears 10 rel.te 10 an a

menl of lemporal

1 43

, I'tATRIXI. siATRIxj.

Indeed. Ihi preliminary anal is uggesl Ihal di linci lexical oncepl Indeed, this preliminary analysis suggests that distinct lexical concepts each of Ih examples (see Evan 2004")· In IInderpon underpin Ihe the usages usages of of time in in each of these examples (see Evans zoo4a). In ",der 10 lesl Ihi hypolh i. I apply the seleclional criteria. For a di linct order to test this hypothesis, I apply the selectional criteria. For a distinct Icm.lprofile (and hen e a di linct I xi al concepl) 10 be confirmed. allea I lexical profile (and hence a distinct lexical concept) to be confirmed, at least une of Ihese IwO crileria mUSI apply. In order 10 confirm whelher Ihe one of these two criteria must apply. In order to confirm whether the in,lances (tS) 10 (tS) inelu ive are sanctioned by di linct lexical time in instances of of '"lIt in (t5) to (i8) inclusive are sanctioned by distinct lexical "lIIccpls.1 begin by applying Ihe Fortnal Seleclional rilerion. To do Ihis.lel' concepts, I begin by applying the Formal Selectional Criterion. To do this, let's (on,ider Ihe kind of noun phr in whi h each u of /I/l/f appears. I Slarl by consider the kind of noun phrase in which each use of time appears. 1 start by n~long Ihallhe exa~ples on (IS) and (tS) appear, on Ihe face ofil.lo be similar. noting that the examples in (15) and (18) appear, on the face of it, to be similar. . ellher I~ pre- modIfied by a delermoner. Ilowev.r. furl her examples reveal Neither is pre-moddied by a determiner. However, further examples reveal thai wh?11 have hypolhesized 10 be a di lin I (OURATlON(lexi I onceplof that what I have hypothesized to be a distinct [DURATION) lexical concept of 'Illoe as as in on (15) (tS) can can be be determined delermined by bythe Ih definite definilearticle arlielewhen whenthe Iheassessment a menl time lit lemporal magnilude i peeifi ralher Ihan generic. while Ih u Ihal I of temporal magnitude is specific rather than generic, while the use that I hypolh iz, I? be san tioned by Ih (MATRIX I Ie i al concepl cannol be. To hypothesize to be sanctioned by the ImArRix1 lexical concept cannot be. To ".'c ,Ihal Ihl IS Ihe case, consider Ihe following in lances of ';/l/t, which are see that this is the case, consider the following instances of time, which are "mllar to 10those Iho;cinin(15) (IS)and and (18): (IS): similar

"'"t

(20)

(17) The old man's time 1= death1 is fast approaching

143

",.,gn,l we mlghl pmvi ionally glo the lexi al con epl which ude. Th.u,. ma gnitude. Thus, we might provisionally gloss the lexical concept which ....,anetions nlllon . Ihl, I,.n e ofof/1111 In (16) Ihe lexical oncepl thisoninstance timeasas(DIJRATION(. 1 ovakrioN1. In (16) the lexical concept ,.llIllloOlng 'mIt mlghl be glossed a ( 10MENT(. Thi follows, Ihe con epsa nctioning time might he glossed as [MOMENT]. This follows as the conceplIun e a a whol relal 10 a peeifi lemporal tion.,\OClaled associatedwith with Ihtheulleran utterance as a whole relates to a specific temporal III11menl when a partICular d i ion is 10 be laken. Thu • th conlrtbulion of moment when a particular decision is to be taken. Thus, the contribution of '11"" ininIhis example appears nOI 10 relale 10 a duralional elap • bUI rather a time this example appears not to relate to a durational elapse, but rather a d,,,-rcle nclion Ihi discreteon5lanl. instant.InIn(t7) (17)Ihe thelexical lexicalconcepl conceptwhich which sanctions this uuse of of "'" time JNlC.rs 10 relale 10 an evenl. whi h extra-lingul .. ic onleXI onform u ppears to relate to an event, which extra-linguistic context informs us Iis a dealh. Thu • Ihe lexi~1 con el'l inv Ived her mighl be glossed as (EVE T(. death. Thus, the lexical concept involved here might be glossed as (EVENT]. al concepl h sanclions 10 IIIIJlly, Finally,Inin(IS),lhe,leXI (18), the lexical conceptwhi which sanctionsIhi thisuse useof of ,,,,,tappear time appears to rdJle 10 an un ndong lemporal etap . In earlier work (Evan 2oo4 a• 2oo 4 b) relate to an unending temporal elapse. In earlier work (Evans woo, 2oo4b) IIde"-ribed Ihi as Ihe "malrix" lexical concepl a ialed wilh tIIIlt. in whieh described this as the "matrix" lexical concept associated with time, in which \\e under land lime 10 be tilt evenl wilhin which all olher even I occur. Thu • we understand time to he the event within which all other events occur. Thus, Ihe gloss w mighl apply 10 d ribe Ih lexi al con epl onvolved here i the gloss we might apply to describe the lexical concept involved here is

(19)

Time flies when you're having fun

(t6) The time for a decision is getting closer

(t6)

U: XICAl ONCEPTS LEXICAL CONCEPTS

-

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

During Ihe donner dale, Ih lime seemed 10 fly

During the dinner date, the time seemed to fly

'Thetime limeflows flow The

on(forever) (fo
(0 RATION (

[DURATION]

(MATRIX( [MATRIX)

Theasterisk ."eri kin (20)here hereindicates indicalesthat Ihala ausage usage thai I hypolhesize 10 be nctioned The in (20) that I hypothesize to be sanctioned by Ihe ( IATRlx(lexit:al concepl cannOI CO-OlCur wilh Ihe definile arlide In by the [sum' lexical concept cannot co-occur with the definite article. In aninstance inslanceofoftime lII"el hypolhesizeto10bebesanctioned , nctionedbyby contrast, an I hypothesize thethe 1 DURATION 10 lc.l1 con«pl can be. Indeed, Ih" formal pallemong appears consislenl with Ihe lexical concept can be. Indeed, this formal patterning appears consistent with the c ngll"ll(content conlenlencoded e~uxled IheINIATRixl (MATRIX(lexical concepl. The (MAlRIX(lexical linguistic byby the lexical concept. The (MATRIX) lexical oncepll hypotheslLed 10 relal 10 a uniqu ref< renl: Ih evenl which >ubsum concept is hypothesized to relate to a unique referent: the event which subsumes all others, and Ihus further I>«ificalion whilh Ihe lexical
~~x~trasl,

(OURAlI~N(

144 144

LEXICAL CONCEPTS

LEXICAL lEXI At REPRESENTATION REPRE ENTATION

exhibit unique unique patterns in terms The and (17) (17) also also exhibll pattern ttl tenm of of The examples examplesinin(16) 00 and formal selectional selectional tend tendencies: formal ncie : both from from each each other olher and and from from the theexamples exampl inIn hypothesized (IS) i,ed to tobe besanctioned <;;In tionedbybythe Ih 'MOMENT] IMOME NT) time hypolh (15) and and (18). (18). The The uuse of of "mt allowing lexical concept concept appears to pattern straightforwardly lexi",1 appe ,..10 traightforwardly as a count ounl noun, noun, allowing determination by the definite delermination definile article, article, as a in (16), (16), or or by by the theindefinite Indefinilearticle, arlicle,as in (21) (21) below: in to make (21) A time be forced forced to make aa decision ded ion [MOMENT I 10 E T) time wiU will come when we'll well be (n) A ,

in (IS), (t5), hypolh hypothesized time in In ized to to be be its behaviour behaviour Iis distinct distinct from from Ihe the usc use of lillie In thi this,,its lexical concepl, concept, which sanctioned DURATION I lexical whi h cannot be be pre-modified pre· modified sanctioned by by the the I[DURATION( by the indefinite by indefinile article: arti Ie:

(22) (22)

to fly *During the dinner date aa time seemed 'During seemed to fly

[DURATION] IDURATIO]

time in (17) concept, which I suggest sanctions Ihe the use of IIIlItin The uggest sanctions (17) The [l,vfNTllexical EVENT lexical con«pt, to require require aa pre-modifymg pre-modifying genitive appears 10 genitive noun nounphrase phrasefollowed followedby bythe theenclitic enclittc possessive or else else an an allributi"e attributive pronoun, pronoun, serving ".s", or !>ervingaasimilar similarfunction: function: po ,ivc "-s",

(23)

His time (I =death' Hi death I isi fast fasl approaching. approa hing.

all appear appear 10 to have time all Thu ubj I po ilion, these uses use> of of "me have quite quile distinct distind Thus,,in in subject position, formal formal selectional lcetional tendencies. tendencies. Let's now now lum turn 10 to the semantic selectional tendencies associated l.et' seleclionallendencies a sociated with wilh these Ihl..., uuses IIIlIt. by applying applying the Ihe Semantic manti Selectional Selectional Criterion. Criterion. The The point pOlnl time. I do so by here iis that here thaI the nature nature of of the Ihe motion mOlion event even Iencoded encodedby bythe thelexical Ie icalconcept concept associated with the vehicle is distinct Ie i, distlncl for for each each of ofthe th uses u ininaa J5S()(iated with Ihe verb-phrase verb· phrase vehi Moreover, the the choice choice of mOlion·evenl motion-event type significant way. way. Moreover, typeisi compatible compaliblewith wilh concepts hypothesized to the nature of the various lexical concepl to sanction san tionthe Ihedistinct dislinct time. uses of 'mIt. U\CS For instanc instance,,Ihe the (DURATION' lexicalconcepl concept which which I suggest InnATloN] lexical ugg I underpins underpin the Ihe (IS), and the particular parti ular variant—which variant-which in inprevious previou work work1Irefer refer use of time in (15), COMPRESSION[ lexical concept, as it relates to 10 as a the Ihe ITI MPO.AI COMPR. 10 I lexical concept, as it relales 10 an an [TEMPORAL to lemporal magnitude magnilude which which proceeds proceed,more more"quickly" "quilkly"than Ihan aassessment men I of temporal usual 2oo4a)—co-occurs with lexical u ual (Evans (Evans 2oo4a)-<0-occur lexi al concepts concept that that encode encode motion motton events evenl which which arc are rapid rapid in nature, nalure, as a evidenced evidenced by hy the the example example in in (t5). (IS)."9 In In contrast, lexical concept IMo II NTllexical concept appears appe.r toIn contrasl, what whal IIhypothesize hypothesi,etotobebetheIhI MOMENT[ possess a lexical which po lexical profile profil whi h allows allows a wider range rang of motion motion events events to tococo· it. including induding imperceptible imperceptible motion as .1\ in in (24), (14). rapid rJpid motion, motion •as .t in in occur with it, (25), and terminal lerminal motion, mOlion, as a, in in (26): (26):

t.111 Alui -di with JSM 1.dt Ilwtemporal tcntpur.al ♦,,(IITlf" lOIn v,ut
,.1

f""'rl

vanished, Where WJwrt has "'" the IItt nme 11trU'gone? The 'J"Mtime tIIn.-seemed I«fNJtotilhave Mw ,..nWttJ. d ....

145 145

(2-1) I he time time for has gone/vanished/disappeared gonc!vanishcdJdi ppeared for aa dl"Cision decision has (24 ) The

(2,) 'J hetime ttmefor fordecision deci ionisiracing racingtowards toward us/fast us/fa tapproaching approaching 05 ) The (Z~ 'J hetime timefor for. decisionis isapproaching/getting approaching/gellingcloser/has doser/ha arrived arriv<>d a decision ( 26)) The

I h,' ( IEVENT] VI Tllexi appear to possess po lexical profile profilewhich whi hrestricts reslricts lexicalI concept appears aa lexical The th,lexical concepts Cd on on the the time in in (15) n",nlt( Sele with wllh distinct di Ilnltlexical lexicalprofiles. profile..Table Tahle as IIif "'lnd")I1oo sanctioned by di distinct 7.3 formal selectional lcetional tendencies lend nci which comom7.3 ,ummarizes summarizes the the semantic semantic and and formal pri", Ihe lexical lexical concepts concepl considered. considered. prise the the lexical lexical profiles for the Lexlcol Lexical concepts concepts for flying associaled with withthe Ihevehicle vehide tinware tlllltare nominal nominal in in nature, nalure, While the Ihe lexical <01I
J . The The plane/bird plane/bird is flying flying (in (in a. ky) the sky) b. The The pilot pilot isi flying flying the the plane plane h. (in the the sky) ky) c. (. The child is i flying flying the the kite kile The child the breeze) hree7e) (in the d. flag is is flying flYing (in (in the the d . The flag breeze) breeze)

Lli 0 Al ROIlVNAMIC MOMO [(sfU.PROPI SELF-PROPELLED AERODYNAMIC

TION] TION] [OPERATION OF OF ENTITY ENTITY CAPABLE CAPABLE OF 01 [OPERATION AI ROIlYNAM IC MOTION] MOTION I AERODYNAMIC

ICONTROL OF L1GHTWEIGIIT ENTITY ENTITY]I [CONTROL OF LIGHTWEIGHT

ISUSPENSION SUSPENSION 01 IIGIITW[l(iIiT OBOB OF LIGHTWEIGHT I~CTI JECT'

I or d the the lexical lexical concepts (oneept,which whichIIhypothesize hypothe",eto10 For convenience II have provided sanction IICllon each each of ofthe Ihe uses u of offlying f/yillg alongside along,ide the Ihe examples. examples. These Thesedata, dala, and and the the glosses glo '":', suggest ugg.• t that that each ..(h instance in tanc is i sanctioned SJlIllioned by by aa distinct di tinct lexical lexical concept concepl associated J"(XI~led with wllh the the vehicle vehide flying. f/)"Illg. If '>(1, hould expect expe.! to to be beable able to toadduce adduce so, we should ad distinct d,,_ltnct lexical le~lCal profile profIle associated ..""idled with WIth each each use. use. Unlike Unlikemany many(English) (Lngli h) concep", for for which which aa salient salient grammatical grammatical feature feature is i how how nomlOal lexical I xlcal concepts, nominal they are Me determined, dctcnl1incd . a.1 salient \.Jlil·l1tgrammatical grolmm.ltic.:oll feature (colturefor forrelational rcldti0l1ol1lexical lexkJi they \:onc.:cpt\,.1\ XIJtcd with withverb verbforms, (orm" isi\transitivity. Irill1~itivity. concepts, associated

146

-

LEXICAL LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

lU.llcd with Ic K.o1l U)nf.;Clll nf.. llon the Iht uses U 01 Ir~ profiles associated lexical concepts whl(;h which sanction of 1. 7.).1.4:Xit:.11 l<xiul profil IA BU 1-1- 7.3. con Idcred c onsidered

Glo ('loss (DUaATION] [DURATION' two variants: \ananb ~ [ PROTRACTED PRO I R ACTED DURATION] VCR ATION I [TEMPORAL. (TEMPORAL

C::OMPRU\ION] COMPRESSION] !MOMENT' (MOMENT]

I EVENT]

Assessment of M""""ment magnitude of dUrition duration [)ultltion lower"I )oration ".. slower than uusual ual Duration "faster" "fil5ter" Ihan u u.1 than usual A dl rde .. mpora! discrete temporal "point"

(.

A boundary-.-.nl boundary-event

kind of som. some kind

tender*. Naturt mantit selectional 1C'Clionalltnd n of semantic Nature of Itctlonal tendtncies ci cies selectional tendencies

M Mass noun;

Slow Slow motion. motion, c.g .• drag) time drags e.g., t,mc Fast c.g.• Fast motion. motion, e.g., ,i",t fliN time flies

_n'"

(.In can

.ppear appear with with definite article definrtc artldt and &Orne some and qU.1nuficr quantifiers

(17) ( 27 )

noun~ can un Ego-ccntrro motion, Count noun; Ego centred motion, c.g .• ,lrt ,j",t IS appear with e.g., the time is ddiOltC' olnd definite and gipprikaching . 41pproochi"R·· indefinite articles

. ount noun: nt>un~ Count [go-ccntred motion, (' Ego-centred mOlion. cannot take take e.g .. Her fltr time isis e.g., artlel un articles,• but can approorhltlg •.• approaching... b
((z8) UI ) He lIeflew newthe thehoming homingpigeon pigeonacross a ro the theEnglish EnglishChannel hannel

',,,,t

on-terminal An unboundro elapse
m Ie new aero the the English English Channel hannel ??He flew the sparrow across

Nev ·c\wtheless ••entities ntitl which constru
-

In the the ease case of of the use.san use sanctioned In tioned by the 'CONTROL ICONTROI OF OF LIGHTWEIGHT UGIITWEIGIIT ENTITY] 'NTITY) lexical eoncept. concept, a. as eVidenced evidenced ~y. by the use of IexICJI of flying f/yi"g in (5c), (sc), this this lexical I "i al concept on ept entities that that are are capable capabl. of ofbecoming becomingairborne airborneby by appe.rs restncted to entities appears to to be restricted an agent agent on on the Iheground. ground. This Thi lexical lexical turbulence. and turbulence, and can can be he controlled controlled by an wneept appears appear. to be be specialized pecialized for for objects object like Iik. kites kites and and model/remotemodel/remoteconcept controlled aeroplanes. aeroplan . u ion of ofthe th lexical lexical concepts on eptsassociated a iated . Inlerestingly. Interestingly, aas I'.e we saw saw in in our our di discussion with the first 10 in ~xamples examples .(1) (i) to (3) earlier. :Uh Ihe vehicle vehl leftISt .. rlier, particular instances in tances of off/yl/lg flying appear multiple sanction. sanction. In the th. following following example: .xample: ppear to rely rely on multiple

phrases phr •.

(MATltIX) 'TvIlk

147

Entities that are arc not not self self-propelled, I 1111<' Ih.ll propelled. such u has a tennis tenm halls, balls. cannot ,annot be used in this thi the tennis I~..., lentlis ball ballisisflying f/YlIIginj"the '"~sky). sky). se ( • 'lit sen The concept which I he lexical bieJI con cpt whi h underlies the use u of of flying f/YI/Ig in (sb): (Sb): 10PERATION 'OPERATION ENTITY CAPABLEor OF AERODYNAMIC: AERODYNAMICMOTION MOTION' I"F 1'111 Y C:APABLE I isi restricted restricted 10 operation by to by In h can be construed con trued as a an an agent, agent, and and moreover, morea.. r, to to entities entitiesthat that entity whl which an
Notu", Nature off",", of formalI

Broer ripuon of Brief ddescription con qtluaJ content conltnt conceptual

LEXICAL CONCEPTS

Mass nOtll cannot Mass noun; c b<pr=dro be preceded by definate or definite or artik-le, indefinite .. d.lin"e milks

((2.9) 29) The Thekite kit< isI;flying flYlllg (in (in the the sky) ky)

H.nce. term of offormal r. rmal selectional lectional tendencies, t.ndencies. and and hence hencethe theFormal Formal Hence, in terms Selectional hallmark of the lexical lexi al concepts concepts which which license liccn'" Selectional Criterion. Criterion, the the hallmark of the the uses of flying f/YlIIg in (sa) and and (5d) (Sd) isis the thelack lack of ofaadirect directobject—what object-what isi, in (5a) the uses traditi nally referred intran itiv. verb. verb. This Thi contrasts contrasts with with the th.lex1..traditionally referred to to aas an intransitive exampl in (sb) and and (5c) (sc) which which both both ical ical wncepts concepts which which . and and the the Semantic Semanllc Selectional Sck'Ctional must rely (:rilcrion. Criterion. Th hallmark of.a h of th= lexical le"i al concepts con«pl. isi that Ihal they they stipulate IIpulatI ..... nction the use me of of flying f/YlIIg in (5a). (sa). stoTtosi] lexical concept. concept, which. which, I suggest, sanctions capable of self-propelled If propell
N'

MI

•

thi, use use appears appearstotobebepartly partlysanctioned sanctioned both I [LF· PKOPEllfn AFRO this byby both the the 'SELF-PROPELLED AERODYNAMIC MOTION] '-'YNA 11(: MOTION I and and the the [CONTROL ICONTROl OF or LIGHTWEIGHT UGIIl'WEIGIiT ENTITY] .NTITVI lexical lexical concepts. It exhibits the Lon ept . e>
.

148 14 8

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

lendencies, relat to to the the Formal l-ormJI and and Semantic SemanticSelectional SelectionJICriteria. Criteria.As tendencies, which relate of the the"chick vehidepatterns pattern inina amarkedly markedlydifferent different way wayacross aero the the each use of each use ba~ on application applic."on of ofthese th~ criteria, critena, we we can can conclude conclud utterJnces utterancesin in (5), (5), based that tinct lexical profile underpins underplll each ealh use u and and hence, hen e,each each use u isI indeed mdct:d that a di distinct sanctioned by a di tinct lexical lellical concept. concept. distinct

8

4

------.--.. ------------------

Polysemy

Summary This chapter has provided an overview Thl chapter h. provided an overview of of the the main main properties prop~rti~' of oflexical lexic.1 concepl~. argued that that lexical leXICal concepts, oncept, by by virtue virtue. of of constituting c~n~tltutlng units Ulllt, of uf concepts. I argued tructure--th semantic manti pole pole of ofaa symbolic symbohcunit—are ulllt-arethereby therebycencen >cmanti semantic structure—the u>cr'~ mental grammar. gramm.r. A, uch, lexical concepts con«pt tral tral element> elements of. of a language user's As such, sanction instances instan es of oflangualle and are are conventionally conventionallyassociated associatedwith withaalexkal language and lexical form. Accordingly, form. Accordingly. they are vehicle-specific. vehicle·~pe<:ific. A A corollary corollary of ofthis thi isi that thatlexical lexical concept> Jre necessarily ncee Jrily language·'pe<:ific. lexicdl concepts conceph may md.yencode enwde concepts arc language-specific. While lexical related imilar linguistic Iingui tic content cont nt across aero languages, languas ,they WIllalways alway related and and hence similar they will conceptualstructure: tructure: their theirsemantic semantic facilitate distinct body body ofofconceptual facilitate acc access to to a distinct Thi~ is i~ a consequence con quenc of oflexical lexicalconcepts concept,having havingbipartite bipartilestructure: trucl ure: potential. This encoding Iingui tic content content while while facilitating fa ilitating access access to the the contents content of ofthe Ihe encoding linguistic One consequence con~uen e of oflexical lexi al concepts con eptsfacilitating facilita ting human human conceptual system. One acee tru ture is i, that Ihal they provide provide an an access access site—consisting ite omi,ting access 10 to conceptual structure of multiple multiple association a iation areas, .rea~, to 10 he be discussed di~ in inChapter hap.'er to—for Io-foraadiffuse difI~"" body non.hnguistic knowledge. knowledge. As As such ~uch, they theyprovide provld an anencapsulation encap ~llat lon body of non-linguistic function. hall see ... later, iJl r, it It is i, by by virtue virlue of oflexical lexical concepts concept providing prtlVldlllg a function. As we shall conceptual.ystem thai words word~ give give rise ri", to to the the illusion illu,ion unique access ace site ite on the conceptual system that of semantic mantic unity. Anolher importanl aspect a pe<:t ofthe lingui ti content content encoded ncodl-d Another important of the linguistic by. I«icdl profile. Thi tIt ute. knowledge knowledge relating relating to In by a lexical lexical conlept concept "II is its lexical This con constitutes ",mantic and and formal fornlal tendencies: t ndencies: the th (types (typo of) of)lexical lexicalconcepts concepl'and J nd the the semantic CO·OCCUN.Moreover, 10reover,as asthe thelexical lexical vehid con ept co-occurs. vehicles with which aa given lexical concept profile" tracted from event>. itil can can be be applied applied to 10usage u\Jgedata ~d ta profile is ab abstracted from acro across, usage events, in order to provide evidence as a to whether whether aa given lexical I xical concept isi~ sanctionsanCllon vehide. The The procedure procedure for for employing employingthe thelexical lexi al ing a particular parlicular usage usage of aa vehicle. thi way way was w. formalized formali/ed in in terms term, of ofthe IheSemantic Semanlicand .ndFormal hmll.1 profile in profile in this Ihese was wa illustrated illu~trated by by virtue virtue of ofan an Selectional Selectional Criteria. Criteria. The The application application of these and time, nominal lexical leXICal concepts concepts associated associaled with with the the vehicle vehide rime, analy i of analysis of nominal fly",g. The The relalion.1 J""",idled with with the Ihe verbal verbal vehicle vehide flying. relational lexic.1 lexical concep!> concepts associated !>ed Ih proce~ that thai give gi~e rise rise to to chapter briefly addr chapter also also briefly addressed the compo~ilional compositional processes Ihe oflexical lexical concepts concept in in service ",rvice of ofmeaning me.ningconstruction. con lructlon.This Th" the combination of parlicular ,ue i, sed in detail del.ill.ler. P.rI III III of the Ihe book. book. Finally, I-in.lly, itil particular iissue is .ddr addressed later, in Part lexical COllt.:cpt concepts contribute. contribute, in in part, wa ted that tholt dS part, to to simulations ImuiJtiull\ was ,uggr suggested as lexical which 10 be be stored stored as a part pari of ofconceptual conceplual structure, lructure, they they thus thu have ha\e which can can come to relJtivj\tif.:" 110n lingui\tic knowledge knowledge representation. rcprc\Cnt.uion. relativistic (nn\C"ll1cnu~\ consequences for non-linguistic '

In this Ihi, chapter chapler I address i_ ue of of polysemy: poIY"'lllY: the th phenomenon ph nomen n whereby whereby aa In address the the issue vehicle has ha multiple mulliple related related sense-units nse·units associated a iated with with it.it.Polysemy Polysemy s iIIlltle ngle vehicle lexical semanseman· """lItUles important topic lopicininlanguage languagescience. science.Traditionally, Traditionally,lexical constitutes an important IKi'I' have that polysemy poly.emy isi aa" urface" phenomenon: phenomenon:aaconsecon ticists have taken taken th the view that "surface" relatively abstract mentlatiom manifestations in ,pccifi( specific contelCls contexts of li,e manli ,aa bran h of cognitiv linguistics, lingui ti with with" rkby byBrugman Brugman tive lexical lexical semantics, branch of cognitive work .nd IAlkoff (1988) r on eptuali1ed polysemy polysemy as as being being an an and Lakoff (198$) and and Lakoff Lakoff (1987). (tW), reconceptualized al word~ exhibit exhibil polysemy poly.emy as a aa consequence (onsequ Il( "underlying" Thai is, i words underlying" phenomenon. phenomenon. That nol of. ingle abstract abstract mental mental representation, representcmy. III Ih light light of ofLCCM ICCM Theory. Theory. Accordingly, Accordingly, this this chapter lh.pter can be be i.e. polysemy, in the vit'wed an application application of of some m of ofthe thetheoretical theorelicalmachinery machinery relating relating to to viewed as as an ",m.ntic de,-eloped in in the th last la Itwo twochapters. chaple.... semantic structure developed I'olyscmy, LCCM Theory, rel.les not to the Ihevariation variationevident evident in the Ihe Polysemy, in in LCCM Theory, relates not to situated semanli ,ltu.ted of aa word—which word-whi h arises arises due du to to the thecomposcompo semantic contribution of Ihe book. book. Rather, Rather, polysemy polysemy ininLCCM LC M ilional principles considered con idered later laler in the itional principles consequen« of of. mgle vehicle ..hide being beingassociated a sodatedwith withdistinct dislinlt -ITheory heory i,is •a consequence a single conccp~ which whi hare mantically related. related. Semantic mantic relatedness relaledness isi aa lexi,al concepts lexical are semantically m.tler degree and and isi determined determined by by the thebipartite bipartite structure lructur of oflexical lexical matter of of degree concepts. The way «>neep". way in in which open-class open ·dJ as a well well as a closed-class clo!>ed -cia polysemous poly_ mou ofshared hared or or overlapping overlapping linguistic lingui tic lexie.1 concept be related r laled is i by by virtue virtue of lexical concepts can he in tance in in terms terms of ofshared hared parameters. paramelers. The The second ,""ond way way concerns concern (Ontent. for instance content, for the the conceptual oflhe con
150

POI.YSEMY

LEXICAI. REPRESENTATION

The picture is over the sofa h. The ball landed over the wall The arrow flew over the target and landed in the woods

The main way in which I examine polysemy in this chapter is by way of . 1 detailcsuyofh"taelxicnpsoatedwihEngls prepositions in, on, and at. Hence, I will he concerned with the semantic relatedness in the linguistic content encoded by lexical concepts associated with the same vehicle. There is a significant tradition of employing prepositional analyses in cognitive linguistics, and in other areas of cognitive science—see many of the papers in Evans and Chilton ( forthcoming). One of the main reasons for employing prepositions is because they are presumably grounded in spatial interactions, and yet are highly polysemous in all languages that feature them. They also give rise to a wide range of non-spatial sense units from the temporal, to the aspectual, to the abstract. To illustrate, consider the divergence of the conventional semantic contributions associated with the English preposition on: t)

'ABOVE' ION THE OTHER SIDE' 'ABOVE AND BEYOND'

According to Tyler and Evans (zoos, 2003), each of these instances of over is associated with a slightly different lexical concept ( listed on the right ), but these are nevertheless relatively closely related. This illustrates that over exhibits polysemy. Polysemy contrasts with homonymy, which relates to two distinct lexical concepts that happen to share the same vehicle. For example, the vehicle bank relates to two different lexical concepts that are otherwise semantically unrelated: I FINANCIAL INSTITUTION I and (SI DE OF A RIVER). These two lexical concepts are 41. not only synchronically unrelated: unrelated in current usage, but also historically unrelated. The lexical concept I SIDE OF RIVER' has been in the English language for much longer, and is related to the Old Icelandic word for "hill", while the lexical concept (FINANCIAL INSTITUTION] was borrowed from Italian baiita (via French) originally with the sense: "money changer's table". While formal linguists have long recognized the existence of polysemy, it • has generally been viewed as a "surface" phenomenon, in the sense that lexical entries are underspecitied—abstract and lacking in detail—and are "filled in" either by context ( Ruhl WO, or by the application of certain kinds of lexical generative devices (Pustejovsky 1995). According to this view, polysemy is epiphenomenal, emerging from monosemy: a single relatively abstract semantic representation from which other senses—such as the range of semantic contributions associated with over—are derived on the basis of context, speaker intention, recognition of that intention by the hearer, and so on. A monosemy account is plausible in principle when accounting for semantic contributions such as those in the utterances in (2), which arc all spatial in nature and could therefore be accounted for in terms of a single abstract spatial semantic representation. However, over is also associated with a range of non-spatial lexical concepts. Consider example (3).

fl

a. The hook is on the table "spatial" b. I heard it on the radio "abstract" c. The house is on fire "state" d. She arrived on time "temporal"

One of the main points of interest for cognitive linguists in studying the polyscmy of prepositions, and the trajectory of the emergence of non-spatial semantic representations derived from historically earlier spatial ones, relates to the thesis of embodied cognition briefly discussed in Chapter 3. 2 In particular, evidence that spatial representations give rise to related but more abstract representations, as is evidenced by studying the polysemy of prepositions, provides compelling support for the foundational basis of embodiment in terms of representations that populate the conceptual system a' well as those that populate the linguistic system. In this spirit, this chapter builds towards and concludes with a detailed case study of the "state" lexical concepts of several English prepositions: lexical concepts which are nonspatial in nature.

iI

Polysemy in cognitive linguistics

(3)

While both polysemy and homonymy give rise to lexical ambiguity—two or more lexical concepts associated with a lexical item the nature of the ambiguity is different in each case. Polysemy is the phenomenon whereby a vehicle is associated with two or more lexical concepts that appear to be semantically related. Consider the following examples containing the English preposition over. I Sep FV411% and (irrrn I zoo6 int Jti mervicw: set- Au) 14 ► Immin (t07. 1007); 'LA1641'1107); 'nfki and Evans Lzoio3). For other views on embodiment •iee Cobb, 12oont: Varela et al. 0990; Clark (19951For useful reviews see Zaemke(ano3); Wilson

151

r.

lane has a strange power over him

While the semantic contribution associated with the use of over in (3) might be glossed as "control", it is difficult to see how a single abstract semantic unit could derive the three spatial lexical concepts in (2) as well as this non-spatial (CONTROL. I lexical concept. After all, the utterance in (3) does not describe a spatial scene—lapse is not located above him in space—but has an abstract sense relating to a power relationship between two people. One way of analysing the semantic contribution of over in (3) would be to treat it as a distinct and unrelated semantic unit associated with the form over. This would amount to the claim that over in (3) is a homonym: a symbolic

152

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

unit which is distinct and hence unrelated to the symbolic unit which is associated with the uses evident in (2). A second possible analysis, which preserves the monosemy position, might claim that a single abstract underlying semantic unit sanctions both the spatial and non-spatial senses, but that while the spatial senses arc literal, the non-spatial sense is metaphorical, and is interpreted by applying pragmatic principles to retrieve the speaker's intended meaning. In their work on cognitive lexical semantics Claudia Brugman (1988; Brugman and Lakoff 1988) and George Lakoff (1987) claimed that over is stored as a category of distinct polysemous sense units, rather than a single abstract monosemous sense. It follows from this position that polysemy reflects underlying distinctions stored in long-term semantic memory rather than being a purely surface effect. In this respect, this earliest work in cognitive lexical semantics diverged both from traditional and from more recent formal approaches to word meaning, in particular in developing the position that polysemy is a fundamentally conceptual phenomenon, and that !exit al organization at the mental level determines polysemy as it is manifested in language use. While the work of Brugman and Lakoff has been highly influential, it led to a perspective on lexical representation which, in Chapter z I referred to as the Sense Enumerative Lexicon perspective. That is, Lakoff and Brugman modelled word senses (i.e., lexical concepts) in terms of what are often referred to as semantic networks, making the assumption that such lexical concepts arc relatively stable knowledge structures deployed by language users in utterances. The difficulty with this perspective lies in the observable fact that, as we saw in Part I of the book, word meaning is protean: it shifts in context. The consequence of treating situated word meaning as being a function of stored word senses is that a huge number, perhaps an infinite range of distinct word senses are required, even for a single vehicle. Some recent cognitive linguistic accounts of lexical representation have reacted against some of the clear difficulties with the tack taken by Brugman and Lakoff. Such approaches (e.g., Allwood 2003; Croft and Cruse 2004; Zlatev 2003) argue that the semantic contribution associated with words is construed in context. That is, rather than words having pre-specified senses, qua Lakoff, they have what has been variously termed a "meaning potential" (Allwo(xi 2oo3), a "purport" (Croft and Cruse 2004), or a "use potential" (ZIatev 2003). While it is not entirely clear what semantic structures of this sort look like, the idea appears to be that semantic structures relate to the range of potential knowledge to which words relate, based in part, on the history of a word's use, as well as encompassing conceptual structure. Two important issues arise from this. Firstly, and in contrast to the Lakoff/ Brugman account of lexical representation, semantic structures are not stable and pre-defined in the way envisaged by Lakoff. Secondly, such approaches are thoroughgoingly usage-based in character. The semantic contribution of a

POLYSEMY

153

s i vcn word is always a function of a situated interpretation in a unique c ontext of use. Hence, a word's semantic contribution, what Croft and Cruse refer to as its "sense-boundary," is construed in context. A further co nsequence of such approaches is that the theoretical dichotomy between polysemy versus monosemy disappears. As llatev ( 2003) points out, from this perspective, wondering whether lexical representations should be modelled in terms of one or other of these two extremes is no longer a question worth as king. After all, semantic structures are not in and of themselves discrete entities, but come to have a particular semantic contribution as a function of their precise context of use. The difficulty with this more recent perspective, as pointed out by Harder •0 ► 9), is that it places all the responsibility for meaning construction on language output (comprehension), but ignores (or underplays) the role of the input (production). Hence, it runs the risk of what Harder refers to as usage fundamentalism: the risk of eliminating the role of words as instructions or prompts for meaning construction.' That is, language users must have preexisting mental representations of some sort in order to deploy words in the way they do. In essence, claiming that language provides "instructions," in Harder's (2009) terms does not logically exclude the position that linguistically mediated meaning construction involves the construal of sense boundaries in context. The two are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, LCCM Theory requires both stable units of semantic structure—lexical concepts—which encode stable bundles of linguistic content, and a meaning potential, which consists of dynamically evolving non-linguistic knowledge—a cognitive model profile--and posits integrative and interpretative processes which ensure that word "meanings" are always construed in context—the subject of the next part of the book.

The "state" lexical concepts of English prepositions The analytical focus in the remainder of the chapter is what we might loosely refer to as "state" lexical concepts. In particular, I examine the "state" lexical concepts associated with the prepositional vehicles in, at, and on. My overarching purpose is to provide a sense of the nature and status of polysemy, as a phenomenon, fmm the perspective of :CM Theory. I do this by way of a detailed illustration employing the "state" lexical concepts. Representative examples are provided below: ( 4) We arc in love/shock/pain cf. We are in a room

'

"state" sense "spatial" sense

the diu.u.suon in chapter L

-

IS4 ( S)

tate" sen"'C sense Weare areatatwar/vanan war/variance/one/daggers drawn/loggerheads ••"state" We lonc/dagger.. drawnJlOlJ8crhrads spatial" sense "spatial" n cf. We Wearc areat at the the bu bus stop top cf.

(6)

Wearc arc011 onalert/best alert/bestbehaviour/look·outlthe behaviour/look-out/the run We run cf. We Weare arcon on the the bu bus cf.

U~tJten "state"SCI1\C sense

.•"spatial" paliaJ" sense 'n~

•• aa revealing "state" them revealing descriptive dcscflptlve analysis analy" of ofthe the" we"lexical lexicalconcepts concept ofof the>e three prepositional vehicles, including the way in which the "state" lexical thrcc prepo.itional vehi I ,in luding th way in whi h the " tate" lexical concept( s) associated one prepositional prepo itional vehicle ..hi Ieare aredistinct di tin tfrom from concept(s) a iated with with one other prepositional the state lexical concept(s) associated with vehicles; the tate lexie.11 ","<eptC ) a "xidted with other prepo,itional vehide ; •• aa revealing "state" lexical concepts revealing account a countof ofthe therange rdogcof or"\talc"lexical (OnceplSwithin withina agiven given that is, some preposition prepo ilion showing , howll1l1how howthey theyare arcdistinct; ~islinct:.that so!"evehicles, vehi Ics,notably notably than one distinct "state" in ", and and on Oil exhibit C:\hlhlt more l110re thJl1 one cJl\l1m.1 tate lexical lexl(.ll concept; (ollf.:ept;

!,'

POLY EMY POLYSEMY

155 155

•• In count of the spatio-geometric patio geometric and and functional fun tional knowledge knowledge encoded en oded an aaccount of the by the core" patial" I xical concepts iated with m, aI, and on; by the core "spatial" lexical concepts associated with in, at, and o,r, •• and a revealing revealing aaccount count of ofhow howeach eo h of ofthe the" tate" lexical lexi al and in in view view of of this, this, a "state" by, and and related related to, to, the the core core" patial" concept motivated by, concepts involved involved iis motivated "spatial" lexical epts aassociated iated with prepo itional vehicle. vehi Ie. lexicalcon concepts with each each prepositional

"

and all on medIate mediate aa relation between human in, at, at, and In these these exampl~ examples, II~ In relation bct~ccn hU~lan experienexperien cer( s) and a particular state. While some of these expressions, for instance, to be cer( ) andaparti ular tat. While some oftheseexp .Ions,forms~~ e,t~be drawn"are areclearly clearlyidiomati idiomatic, thecontentIon contention of of cognitive , Tersdrawn" "at daggers (144, "at , the cognttl~e lexical le ..",1 semantics is that while such expressions may he highly conventionalized, semantics is that whIle such exprCMion may be hIghly onventlonahzed, and and thesource sourceof of the the idl idiom accessible contemporary language the m may may not not be beacc ible to to contemporary language users, users, the the employed, is, at iis employed, fact that at fact is, diachronically dia hronically at at least, I t, motivated. motivated. If th the perspective perspective ofTered offered by by cognitive cognitive lingui linguistics ti is is correct, correct, namely namely that that the the If and on on is is san sanctioned concept, then at, and use of of IrI, in, at, usc tioned by by aa""state" tate" Ilexical xi al concept, then there there isis one one important iissue of the the "state" ", t~te~ lexical I~xical concepts concep'\ Important ue that that awaits await explanation: explanation: each ea h of associated with the prepositional vehicles in (4)—(6) exhibit distinct patterns a~~iated with the prepo ition.1 vehicles in (4),-(6) exhIbIt dl tinct patte"" in III terms of their semantic selectional tendencies. For instance, the "state" lexical term of their sem.ntic selection.1 tendencies. For in tanee, the" tate" lexical concept co-occurring open-class con cpt aassociated iated with with in IrI selects select for for co-occurring open-cia lexical lexical concepts concept' which access conceptual structure concerning emotional or psychological which a (eM con eptual structure con ming emohon.1 or psychologICal "force" such as being being "in "in love", love","in "inpain", pain', and and so so on. on. In "force" uch as In contrast, contrast, the the openopcn~ class lexical lexical concept concepts which which co-occur co-occur with with at to do, class at have have to do, not not with with emotional emotional force but, but, rather, with mutual force rather, with mutual (or (or interpersonal) interpersonal) relations, relations, such uchasasbeing being"at "at selects for war". Meanwhile, Meanwhile, all on select ,var': for lexical lexical concepts concepts that that relate relate to to content cont ntthat thathas ha to do with time-restricted activities, as well as actions which involve being to do with tim -restri ted activities, a well a action whi h invol.. being currently active. These currently achve. These include in lude being being"on "onalert", alert", "on "on duty', duty",and andso soforth. forth.That That is, the types of co-occurring lexical concepts selected by each of the "state" I , the types of co-occurring lexi al concepts selected by ea h of th "tate" senses senses for for these these prepositions pr position is i of ofaaquite quitedifferent difTerent kind. kind.This Thi suggests, ugg t.,as.. predicted Theory, that that each each of of the predicted by by LCCM l ' .M Theory, the prepositional prepo~ition.1 vehicles vehi I isi associa\,\/,XI ated distinct lexical ated with with aa di tmct lexical lexical concept, concept, which whichaccordingly accordinglyexhibits exhibitsaadistinct di tin tl xical profile, profil ,aas manifested manifested in in usage u age patterns. pattern. Hence, Hence, although although IIhave hav hitherto hitherto applied to refer applied the th label label "state" " tate" to refer to to the th lexical lexi al concepts concept which whi h underpin underpinthe th.e specific in, at, pecific instance in tanee of of the th distinct di tinctprepositional prepo itional vehicles, ,ehicl ,IrI, at, and and on, all, itIt is" important recogniu that that the the so-called o;o-called"state" " tate" lexical lexi al concepts con cpt are ar distinct, di tinct, Important to to recognize as evidenced by their distinct selectional tendencies. ~ eVlden ed hy their di tm,t selectional tenden" . . In view of this, in what follows 1 employ linguistic data in order to provide In view ofthi , in what foil w I employ linguistic data in order to proVIdeaa reasonably detailed illustration reasonably detailed illu tration of of how how LCCM 1 _eM theory theory accounts a count for for the th comcom· suggest in, at, on. i and plexity of the closed-class "state" lexical concepts for plexlty of the dosed ,da " tate"lexic.1 concept. for ItI, aI, and all. I ugge,t that lCCM theory theory facilitates fa ilitates the thefollowing: following: that LCCM

I

-

I I XICAL REPRESENTATION _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ lEX) At REPRESEN::..T~A::..T~I~O::::N~

I here are presented that II make, There areaanumber number of of claIms claims that make, and and which which the the findonSS findings presented -cTVe serve to to substantiate:

■

•• I'olyscmy that holds holds at at the th level level of ofsemantic semanll structure: tru ture: Polysemy iis aa phenomenon phenomenon that uch it i not not aa "surface" "surface" phenom non: at at the the level level of of lexical lexical concepts. concepts. As As such it is phenomenon: aa matter xtual variation variation in in the the semanti ntributi n of of words. word. semantic ccontribution matter of of cont contextual We hall sec tate" lexi al concept described, both both within WIthin and and We shall see that that the" the "state" lexical concepts described, betwccn itional vehicles, vehicles, vary vary in in terms terms of of their their linguistic Iingui ti content: content: between prepo prepositional the parameters and their lexical profiles. Hence, Hen e, polysemy polysemy the nature nature of of their their parameters and their lexical profiles. relates the stable tabl linguistic lingui ti knowledge knowledge encoded en oded by bylexical Ie i al concepts con epts relates to to the prior language use. u , . prior to to language of new lexical con cpt arises from extant leXIcal •• The derivation concepts The derivation of new lexical concepts arises from extant lexical concepts by inferential processes, proc relatong to to situated ituated instances in tan es oflanguage of language virtue of of inferential relating by virtu use. Hopper and Traugott (2003) uch aa mechanism mechani m as a pragmatic pragmatic use. Hopper and Traugott ( 2003) refer refer to to such strmgthening: an inferential inferential process proc whereby new semantic semanti unit unit isi strengthening an whereby aa new abstracted from extant semantic manti unit, unit, arising ari ing in on a• bridging bridgingcontext context abstracted from an an extant (Evan and a context ofuse u in in which which the the new newlexical lexical concept concept (Evans and Wilkins Wilkins 1000): 2000): a context of emerg , as a aa situated ituated inference inferen e (or (oran an"invited "invitedinference," inferen e,"Traugott Traugott and and emerges Da her 2004). A polysemous polyvemou relationship relationshipthereby therebyholds holdsbetween betwccnthe theextant extant Dasher 2004). A and the the derived derived lexical lexical concept. concept.From Fromthe theperspective perspectiveofofLCCM LC MTheory, Theory,aa and new lexical lexi I concept concept arises arises for for one oftwo two reasons: reasons: (i) (i) due duetotoaareanalysis reanalysisof of new one of IInguisti content ontent and/or and/or (ii) (ii). hift in in the theaccess a ite to to aa cognitive cognitiv model model linguistic a shift site profile that that the the derived derived open-class open-cia lexical lexical concept conceptprovides. provid , profile In the the case case of of the the closed-class c1osed - ]a lexical lexi al concepts concept associated associated with withthe theprepprep •• In concepts osillonal vehicles vchi I addressed addressed in in this thi chapter, chapter, the the derived derived lexical lexi al concepts ositional arise from from aa change change in in the the nature nature of of the the linguistic Iingui tic content contentbeing beingencoded, encoded, arise rather than than aa shift shift in in access ac ite. Specifically, pecifi ally, II argue argu that that the thepolysemous polyscmou rather site. lexi.1 concepts on epts arise arise due due to tonew newparameters parameters being beingencoded, en oded,giving givingrise rise lexical duetotothe thefunctional functional to distinct di tinct lexical lexicalconcepts. concepts.These Theseparameters parametersarise arisedue to consequen es of ofspatio-typological patio-typologi alproperties propertiesininsituated situatedlanguage languageuse. u . consequences and asa we w shall hallsee, sec,functional funcllonalparameters parameter arise ari inferentially, inferentially,a a That is, is, and That antecedentspatial patiallexicaI concepts.Hence, Hen e,the thederivation derivation consequ neeofofantecedent consequence lexical concepts. of new new lexical lexi al concepts concepts isi motivated motivatedrather rather than thanarbitrary. arbItrary. of

The functional functional nature natureofofspatial spatialsemantics semantics The My purpose purpose in 111 this thi section ~tlon isi totobriefly hriefly make make the the case CJSC fur for aa functional fun
156

POLYSEMY

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

preposition.' By "spatial" I mean lexical concepts that encode a spatio-top os logical relation of some sort, as illustrated for over in the examples in (2), above. By "functional" I mean the following. To understand how language users employ the spatial lexical concept of a prepositional vehicle we must also allow for non-spatial parameters which form part of the linguistic content encoded by the lexical concept. The use of the term "functional" is motivated by the observation that such non-spatial parameters are a functional consequence of humanly relevant interactions with the spatio-topological properties in question. Moreover, the way spatial lexical concepts are ordinarily employed by language users would appear to require such a functional understanding if spatial lexical concepts arc to he correctly interpreted in context. Providing a functional account is of further importance as the derived lexical concepts—such as the "state" lexical concepts--which result from extant spatial lexical concepts, arise from humanly relevant spatial scenes (Tyler and Evans 2003), in which the functional consequences—what I refer to as functional categories—are more salient than the spatio-topological relation encoded by the linguistic content of the spatial lexical concept. Through the process of pragmatic strengthening, derived ( i.e., functionally motivated) lexical concepts arise. This involves new functional parameters becoming added to the linguistic content of the derived lexical concept(s). In her work, Annette I lerskovits (e.g., 1996, 1988) observes that, traditionally, work on spatial representation in language assumed that the "basic" function of the spatial lexical concepts associated with prepositional vehicles is to encode purely spatial relations.% The traditional view, which she terms the simple relations model, assumes that the semantic contribution of any given spatial use of a prepositional vehicle relates to spatio-geometric properties, typically designating a relation involving notions such as dimensions, axes, or proximity (e.g., Bennett 1975; Miller and Johnson-Laird 1976 for representative examples). However, the simple relations model is descriptively inadequate. That is, the "simple" spatial relations posited are unable to account for the range of spatial representations that prepositions ordinarily designate." A related, and influential, perspective has been presented by Vandeloise in his work. Vandeloise (1991, 1994 ) argues compellingly that any account of spatial semantics that leaves out the functional nature of prepositional lexical concepts fails to properly account for how they are actually employed. That is, patio-topological relations have functional consequences, consequences which arise from how we interact with objects and entities in our physical environment, and in our daily lives. To illustrate, take the mundane example of a cup of coffee. Imagine holding it in your hand. If you move the cup slowly

14,1 - 1(1

model.

bottle or a light bulb? (adapted from Vandeloise

1994I

up and down, or from side to side, the coffee moves along with the cup. This t011ows as the cup is a container with a bottom and sides and thus constrains the location of any entity within these boundaries. Tyler and I (2003) referred to this property of bounded landmarks as "location with surety." The force-dynamic properties associated with a cup as a container also show up in linguistic content, as illustrated by the semantic contribution of the preposition in. Consider the diagram in Figure 8.1, drawn from the work of Vandeloise (1994). Vandeloise observes that the image depicted in Figure 8.1 could either represent a bottle or a light bulb. As example (7) shows, we can use the Preposition in to describe the relation between the light bull' (Figure) and the socket (Reference Object ). (7) The bulb is in the socket In contrast however, we cannot use in to describe the relation between a bottle and its cap, as illustrated by (8). The hash sign indicates that the utterance is semantically odd. (8) isTh• bottle is in the cap

• • For more drtaikd arguments %0-C t vans I torthsoming ' See also CAtveritry and 4rrod 11004/, Ikanc 12000. Feist forthsoming). and I ■ ter and Fvans (20031 for a relined perspesieve. • See Herskovit%114M1 for a survey of some of the desstoptive inrdesphis rs of the simple relat ► ons

s i. A

1 57

Vandeloise points out that the spatial relation holding between the figure (F) and reference object (RO) in each of these utterances is identical, and yet while (7) is a perfectly acceptable sentence (8) is semantically odd. Vandeloise suggests that it is not the spatial relation holding between the F and RO that accounts for the acceptability or otherwise of in. lie argues that the relevant factor is one of force-dynamics: "I W I hile the socket exerts a force on the bulb and determines its position, the opposite occurs with the cap and the bottle" (Vandeloise 1994: 173). In other words, not only is the position and the successful function of the bulb contingent on being in (contained by) the

158

-

-

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION LEXI AL REPR ENTATION

as in.

01\ It'.

in Lexicalconcepts concepts associated associated with with In lexical

(9) (9)

II I!'
•

The kitten The killen is i in in the Ihe box box Parameter: Parameler:Enclosure Enclo ure

(to) (10) John Johnisi ininlove love

Parameter: Parameler: Psychosomatic Psychosomali state lale

That ENCLOSURE J lexical in in concept ThaI is, i , the Ihe (>NCTO l'R"lle,i al con epl which whi h sanctions nction the Ihe use u of of", in (9) (9) encodes n od aa schematic sehemali dimension dimen ionabstracted ab Ira led from from sensory-motor sensory·molorexperience experi neeinin which the relation which the Ihe Fr is is contained conlained by by the Ihe RO. RO. Notice 'oti ethat thallhe relalion encoded en odedisishighly highly schematic in nature; it says nothing about whether there is contact or hemali in nalure; il says nOlhing aboul whelher Ih re i conlaCI ornot nol between the F and RO as in ( u nor whether the F represents part of the RO bel ween Ihe I' and RO a In (II), nor whelher Ihe I represents part oflhe RO or or not nol as as in in(12): ('2): (11) (II) a.a.The Thflyflyis iininthe Ihejar jar(i.e., (i.e.,flying flyingaround) around) b. The fly is in the jar (i.e., stationary b. Th fly is in the jar (i.e., lalionaryon onone oneinterior Inleriorsurface) urface) (ti) a crack (12)There's There's a crackinInthe Ihevase v~ Indeed, the precise the F,r,RO, Indeed,lhe preci spatio-topological palio·lopologi.1nature nalur
159 159

Ihe "pen ·cla lexical con epls, and as medialed by Ihe compo ilional pro t h e o pen-class lexical concepts, and as mediated by the compositional pro,e 'C' u sed laler es di discussed laterin in Ihe the book. book. cess In (t,ntra I, Ih (p YCIIO MAT,e STATE TATEllexi al concepl Ihe parparI lexical concept encod encodes the In contrast, the I PSYCHOSOMATIC Jmmeter "ychosomalic laIc. This informallon i highly schemalIC in nalure. a eler Psychosomatic state. This information is highly schematic in nature. I'that hal i"is, Ihe oded does whi h sorts sorts of of psychop ychothe parameler parameteren encoded does nol not delermine determine which ".m.'li( i aa function funClion of ofthe Ihe somatic ,Iales statescan cancollocale collocate with with Ihi this lexical lexical concepl. concept. Thi This is Ielex".11 ,knowledge Ih semantic semanl' selectional seleclional ical profile: profile: for for In\lan instance, knowledge relaling relating 10 to the tendencies and hen e Ihe p ythe range range of of psyhence tendencies associaled associated wilh with Ihi this lexical lexical concepl, concept, and .hn,nmalic lales which can co-occur with Ih (p Y 1I00MATI STAHl c hosomatic states which can CO-OCCur with the 'PSYCHOSOMATIC STATE] Ielexical "JI (oncept. Ihe parameters para meIer encoded encoded by by aa lexical lexical concept concepl concept. Hen«, Hence, while while the determine ible range range of lexical concepts concepl (and (and hence hen«semantic semanlicarguargudetermine Ihe the po possible of lexical l11enl\) Ih lexical lexical profile profile provides provides information in~ rmalion relating relaling to 10 ments) Ihal that can can co-occur, co-occur, the Ihe ,bl states tal which co-occur with w,lh this Ihislexical lexical concept. concepl. the range range of of permi permissible which can can co-occur

of socket,bUllhe but the socket preventsIhe thebulb bulbfrom. from succumbing to Ihe the fl)fcc force of _kel, kel also Iso prevenl u«umblng 10 gravityand andfalling falling10 to Ihe the ground. ground. In In contrast, the position gravily conlrasl, Ihe po ilion and and successful succ fuI in functioning of the bottle is not contingent on being the cap. This funclioning of Ihe bollle i nol conllngenl on being ill Ihe cap. Thi suggests ugg Is that our knowledge of the functional consequences associated with what Ihal our knowledge of Ihe funclional consequenc~ associaled w,lh whal itil means10 tobe beenclosed enclosed affttl affects Ihe the conlexlual contextual acceptabilily acceptability of of aa prepo preposition mean ilion such uch

In th,~ this section In ion II present presenl an an LCCM LCCM analysis analy, of of the Ihe"state" "slale" lexical lexi al concept. concept associated with That is I argue that there is more than one distinct "state" in. a ialed wilh i'L ThaI i I argue Ihal Ihere i more Ihan one di tinct" lale" concept convenlionally conventionally as5()(ialed associated with in. IIabo also lexical concepl lexical w,th the Ihe prepositional prepo ilional vehicle vehi Ie ilL show how these lexical concepts how how Ihese "state" " lale" lexical concepl relate relale to, 10, and and are are motivated mOlivaled by, by, the lhe functional consequences attendant upon the range of spatial scenes which functional consequences allendanl upon Ihe range of patial seen which sanctioned by by Ihe the core lexical con concept in ~nctioned involve U5Jges usages of of ill involve core spatial paliallexical epl which which II gloss glt as 'ENCLOSURE!. a (EN L suul. The two two aaspects of linguistic that I will The pttI of Ii nguislic content, contenl, in in particular, particular,lhall wiU be be focusing focusing on on below, in adducing distinctions between lexical concepts, are the lexical profile below, In adducing di~IIn(liom between lexical con epl are Ih lexical protile and Ihe the parameters encoded and paramelers en oded by by aa given given lexical lexical concept. concept. In In terms lerm of ofparameters, paramele~ in, namely namely (E the prololypical prototypical spatial lexical conceplassocialed concept associated with [ENCLOSURE Ihe palial lexical with i,~ .LOSU RE),I. encodes the as eviden evidenced by the encodes Ihe parameter para meIer Enclosure, [nclo ure, a~ cd by Ihe ex.miple example in in (9), (9),for for instance.e.In the (PSCYHOSOMATIC STATE I lexical conccpl-()ne concept—one of instan Incontrast, contrasl,lhe (PSCYIIO MATI STATBllexical of the lhe "state" lexical concepts associated with in—encodes the parameter Psycho"slale" lexical conceplS associaled with i'l--
POLYSEMY POLYSEMY

f

.\, above,the (ENClO UREllexi ..I con epl encod palio-Iopological As noled noted above, the 'ENCLOSURE' lexical concept encodesaa spatio-topological relalion ween aa schematic hematic F, F, Ihe enlity enclosed, enclosed, and and aa bounded bounded relation holding holding bel between the entity IJndmark, Ihe RO. Bounded landmarks Ihem Iv consist con i of I of manytypes Iypeseven even landmark, the RO. Bounded landmarks themselves many in everyday everyday eexperience. perience. A bounded landmark landmark includes in Iud an an interior, inlerior, which whi h in A bounded further ub um an inleri r surface, surface, and Ihe volumetric volumelric interior inlerior bounded bounded further subsumes an interior and the by Ihe inlerior surface. surfa e. It It also subsume aa boundary, boundary, which whi hcan canbe berigid, rigid,as a inin by the interior also subsumes a metal melal safe, safe, or non-rigid, as a in inaaplastic pIa Ii carrier carrier hag. bag. The Th boundary boundaryalso alsohas ha a or non-rigid, olher physical ph ical characteristics characteri lics su h as a permeability perm bilily and and degrees degrees ofofopacity, opacily. other such I-inally, the landmark has, ha , by by definition, definilion, an an exterior: eXlerior: that Ihal region region Finally, the bounded bounded landmark which constitutes con tilul the th inverse inver of ofthe thevolumetric volumetricinterior. inlerior.Accordingly, Accordingly,part parIofof which Ihe exterior exlerior includes inelud the Ihe exterior exlerior surface. urface. The The spatio-topological palio-Iopologi alattributes allribul the Ju,1 described described relate relale 10 endo ur . They They are are encoded encoded in in linguistic linguisliccontent conlenlinIII just to enclosure. lerms of ofwhat whal IIrefer r fer to 10as asthe IheEnclosure Enclo ureparameter. parameler. terms A obearlier, rved earlier, duhuman 10 human inleraction involving en 10 ur ,the As observed due to interaction involving enclosures, the (,ENCLOSURE! (lOS u)lexi al con epl, as lIlani~ led in usage evenlS, i ialed wilh lexical concept, as manifested in usage events, is associated with number of offunctional functional consequences. consequences.That ThaIis,is,there thereare areaanumber numberof fidentifiidenlifiaa number ably distinct di lin I sorts sorl of offunctional fun lionalcategories calegoriesassociated a socialedwith withspatial palialscenes enes ably involving enclosure endo ure in in addition add ilion to 10the Ihespatio-topological spalio-Iopolog' .1relation relalionofofEnclosure En 10 ure involving JU I described. described. These These include in lude Location Localionwith withSurety, urely, Occlusion, elu ion,and andAffecting Affecting just Condilion,summarized ummarized ininFigure Figure 8.2. 8.2. Conditions, Bounded landmarks landmarks that Ihal are are specialized specialized for for providing providingaaLocation Local ionwith wilh Bounded Surely function funClion are are known known asas"containers." "conlainers." This This functional fun 1I0nal category calegory isi enen Surety coded in inlinguistic linguisliccontent conlenlininterms lermsofofwhat whalI Irefer referto10asasthe IheLocation Localionwith wilh coded Surely parameter. parameler. Conlainer n provide provide.l upporl function funcllon by byvirtue virtueofof Surety Containers ccan a support localingby byfixing fixing (i.e., (i.e.,holding holdingand andrestricting) reslricling)the Ih location localionofof IhF.LThis Thi was w. locating the illu lraled with wilh the Ihe discussion discu ionofofthe Ihelight Iighlbulb bulbininthe Ihesocket sockelexample examplearlier. carli r. illustrated Altem.lIlvcly, containers (;ont.1illcr"\can I..Jnrestrict r~lrict access olC(C (and (and escape). c. "aJ ), as 3\in in the thecase ca~ of of Alternatively, prisonsand andsafes. safes. prisons

1(10 160

POLY EMY POLYSEMY

lEXICAL RfPRESENTATIO. LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

161 161

1 1411Kt. ILinguistic r ,,,I f "-I, tngUI"lll content encoded rnU~ed by II.iNcI Nt Imum("l'a. jJ deriving tleri\ln& bruin from spatial p.lIl.)1 scenes rnn.JnO and functional fUr'i\. U(lOOII categories catrgon

Enclosure Enclooure

(colUl'\(. 'tlut,'nlcs flJi"al scene \(.cnr nsequent es of of spatial Occl usion QccIusoon

_ _ _ _ Spabalecenes Location Spatial scenes _ _ _ _ _ LocaIlOn Surety with Surely onvoMng Mill involving endoIur. enclosure

relevant interaction 411J hum.!n)y rdev.mt interactIOn A nd humanly scene: %soli aspects of \\It h J'p«1 of tne

lingubllC content conttnt Linguistic of [ENCLOSURE]: ofllN"o unl:

relation: Spgitio-toptilogical 'Pl lt". tof't-'/ogudl ,t'iallOtJ.'

P.mJ",rltr. Parameter. Enclo urt Enclosure

Enclosure Indo ure!

IFitactitmal un, II,'''''' categories: mlrgtmt~: Ilocation ,~ Jtiun with With Surety SUrtly llu.lu Ion Occlusion

Atteding Conritions ll(,l'llI 1. FIGURE 8.2,

en oded encoded

a: as:

rnlodt'tl 41as:: encoded encoded aas:: encoded as: encoded

\tfC\. llng Conditions \.(lnditions Affecting

Pdrtl",rtl'r: Parameter: I (X.lllon with With Surety Surety Location

Occlusion ffi tong C.ondlllon Affecting Conditions

Parametersderiving deriving (rdm from spatial scenes in\'olving involving the spatio-topologici Par.lllletrn r.ltial k:en P.JlIo-topolt>SK.11

rel.Jtion: Endo ure relation: Enclosure

The l>C(ond second functional fun tional category category mentioned mentIoned relates relates to to Occlusion. Ocelu ion.AAconse«1II'" due to the quen e of bounded landmarks, landmarks. due lh opacity opacity of ofthe thematerial material certain bounded quence of certain which form the boundary, boundary. is i. that that the the figure figure located located on onthe thevolumetric volumetri< which forms interior hidden from from view. view. This Thisfunctional functional category category interior iis occluded. occluded, and hence hidden ri to the Occlusion Ocelu ion parameter. parameter. gIves gives rise The third lhird functional category, category. that of of Affecting Affecting Conditions, Condition. relates relates to to the the fa environment which whichthereby therebyaffects affect tacttthat that an an endosur enclosure provides a delimited environment the volumetric volum tric interior. interior. For For instance, in Lan e. aa prisoner prisoner held held in in lhe located on the the F located solitary windowl sound~proofed room room isi thereby therebysub-ub· solitary confinement confinement in in a windowless sound-proofed jected direct consequence consequence of ofthe the environment that isi aa direct )ected to a• particular sensory envIronment nature landmark in which whi h sfhe slhe isi located. located. nature of of the bounded landmark In word. by virtue of of interacting interacting in in humanly humanlyrelevant relevant ways way with with the In other words, _•patio-topological pallo, topological relation relation Enclosure, [n losure. a number number of ofdistinct distinct functional functional consecon... • quenc ari • which II formalize formaliz as distinct di lin t and and identifiable identifiablecategories. categories.These Th . quences arise, functional -h mati parameters parameter which to be be functional categori categories give give rise rise to schematic which come to ENCLOS encoded as part th bundle of of linguistic lingui tic content tOntent encoded encoded by by the theI[lNn 0' part of the uRE)lexi al con ept. In In essence, nce.lhe lexi alconcept concept[ENCLOSURE] (~N LOSURE) encodes th concept. the lexical encodes the URE [ lexical patio. topologicalrelation relationEnclosure, tn lo,ure.aaschematic hematicunit unitofofknowledge knowledgeakin akintotoa a spatio-topological parameter. - an IIIg from ofdistinct distinct funcfune· parameter, and and the the parameter parameters—arising from the the encoding of Affecting Conditions.. This titional nal categories—Containment. catcgories-Containment. Occlusion, clusion. and Affi (ting Condiuon is ummarized in Table 8.1. 8.i. is summarized Polysemy emerges f(lHowing way. way. Due to the the multiplicity multIplicity of ofparamparamo emerges in in the following eter oded by a single ingl Ie i al con cpt. under certain ertain condition parameter eters en encoded lexical concept, conditions, •aa parameter (or parameters) that is i, particularly partICularly salient ... lielllln given context ontextof ofuse usecan c nbecome become in aa given rcanJly~ -unit. glvmg ri\C to a01 new new lexical lexi 011 concept concept in in its ih reanalysedJas Ja tli,linct distinct sen sense-unit, giving rise lexical [ENCLOSURE' own right. This not mean, mean. for for instance, in tane<. that that the th [lNUOSURE) own right. This does not 10..., the th Affecting Affecting Conditions Condition parameter par. meter from its it linguistic lingui ti< content. content. concept loses Rather. p.uametercan can become tJ..-..omeestablished establishedasa,the thecore lore Rather, the the Affecting Affecting Cond,tion, Conditions parameter parameter of aa new lexical concept.

Evidence for the the disjunction disjunction In in porometers parameters for E Vidence for for [I NUO ~RI) I ENCLOSUREI

. ■1

In this thi; section II present present lingui ti evidence upport of ofthe theposition po itionthat that In linguistic evidence in support N( I oS~R.1 encode1J of distinct di5tin t parameters. parameter. That That is,i • II provide (I 11-Nci.ostntEl encodes a number number of e\ Idence for. )unctlon in on the the nature nature of of this thi aspect • peet of ofthe the linguistic lingui ti content content evidence for a dl disjunction encoded by [ENCLOSURE]. cn~oded by (EN LO URE). As A my my claim claim relating relating to the th emergence emergen e of ofnew new Ie",al e polysemy, poly.emy. rests U h aa disjunction, di jun tion. itit isi lexical concepts. concepts, and and hen hence rests on on such t.o briefly briefly provide provide the th evidence evidencebefore beforeproceeding proceedingfurther. further. II illusillusoonportant important to trate below which whichreveal reveal the thedisjunction di junctionbetween betweenthe the trate thl this WIth with the examples below I-nclosure_ urety parameters p.rameter encoded en oded by by [([NCLml'Rr). Enclosure and and Location with Surety ENCLOSURE'. ACCllrdongly. con ider the following following examples: examples: Accordingly, consider ((13) 1.1) The Thetoy toyisi in in the the box box

a. The bulb is i; in in the th socket socket (14 )) a. b. b. The Th flower is i in in the th vase vase c. c. The Th umbrella is i; in his hi hand hand

Ro

'Ihee ' The example in( (13) is, I suggest, .ampI e III I)) ' I.I uggest. aa consequence consequence of of the thetwo twoparameters: parameter: In~lo,ure and Surety. That by virtue of of being being located located in in Enclosure and L",.ltoClIl Location with with Surety. That iis,• by the interior ~rtlon of of the ~he bounded bounded landmark, landmark. the the FFisi thereby therebyenclosed. endosed. the onteroor portion Moreover. en losed. the th FFisi located located with withsurety: urety: ififlhe boxisis Moreover, by vIrtue virtue ofbeong of being enclosed, the box moved, so also the toy—as on()Vl'C.!. .Iso is i the the Fr-the to That is, i •Location L",ation a direct consequence. That I entailed ntalled by by Enclosure. Fndo ure. with Surety is Evidence thinking that the Location hidence for thinking th.tthe Location with withSurety Suretyand and Enclosure Enclo ureparameters parameters are, nevertheless, distinct units knowledge encoded arc. n".nhel ", di\lincenes onvolvong partial enclosure. In th scenes involving partial In the examples in (14), the Fr is only partially enclosed by exampl {t4).the i only partiallyendosed by the th. bounded boundedlandmark: landmark:only only the of the bulb is enclosed the base b.", of bulb" cnd",,'C.! by by the socket ">eket as ., illustrated ill"'trat I in in Figure Ilgure 8.i 8.1 above; .hove; and only the stem, tem •• nd not not the the whole flower, Jl(lWer. is enclosed endo\Cd by the vase vase (see ("'"Figure hgure8.3); 8 3)' and only the the umbrella umbrella handle handle isi enclosed en losed by bythe thehand hand(see (seeFigure rigure8.4). 8.4).Indeed. Ind~: —

- J'

162

.62

POLYSEMY POLYSEMY

REPRESENTATION I LEXICAL EXI AL REPRESENTATION

.63 163

~\ although aaccess c to its contents con~ents are. are. bs, I",ong be i ng pa~iall~ partiallyendosed enclosed by by the the capcap—although to its Ikn , in a .tualoon whe .. part.al en 10 ure apphes, but locat.on w.lh urety Hence LC ,in a situation where partial enclosure applies, but location with surety ,,(lC' th. (ENCLO uRFI lellical associated with with", [ENCLOSURE] lexical concept concept associated in cannot cannot bc be not, the doe s not, al'l'lol..J rhi reveal that in th ab n e of th Location with ·urety param d. This reveals that in the absence of the Location with Surety paramapp lie etc<, /II cannot bc applird to patial en involving only parlial en 10 ure. eter, in cannot be applied to spatial scenes involving only partial enclosure. '" the Enclosure En 10 ure parameter parameter entails entail Location Location we have have discoverrd discovered that that the So rdr far we r, we patial seen h there there is i no no "oth with surety. Surety.Morcov Moreover, wehave haveseen seen that that in in spatial scenes in in whi which U", aas in th. spatial spatial scene ene to to h>eJtion urety, yet location with with surety, yet lhere there is is (partial) (partial) .nd enclosure, in the "h"h refers, the the uuse ofth. (EN .0suREllexical apply. of the (ENCLOSURE I lexicalconcept conceptcannot cannot apply. which (8) (8) refers, location with with Surety urety parameter parameter can can be be \\'e whether the the Location We llIust must next next examin examine whether employed th. Enclosure Endo u .. parameter. parame,"r. If If so, we can can posit po it that lhal employed independently independently of of the so, we tinct lexical lexi al concept, concept, which which we we can there there i
> 4

r.

FIGURE 8.3. FIGl'R &).

is i" in the The jlO-"'yr flower IS n,~ tilt vast ""1st'

(Is) Thepear pcarisi ininthe thebasket ba kel (is) The 06 0,° 1 ,

6 0

o

, 01 60 o0 6I _--,I J The umbrella FIGURE FIGURB 84. &4. nit ... mbrtlla is IS

in ", his lu.s hand Ilaml

the the vehicle th reason reason that lhatlhe v.hid in ill can can relate relale to to spatial patial scenes en involving involvingpartial, partial,as aswell well as full, enclosure is due to the parameter of Location with Surety. It is precisely as full, enclo ure i du to the parameter of location with urety. It i precisely because the LM that that partially part.ally encloses endo the TR TR serves serv... to toprovide p",vide becau the th bounded bounded I.N1 is sanctioned in these instances. in location with surety that the vehicle location with urety that the vehi I ill is sanctioned in th... instances. there to On On the the basis ha i of ofthe the examples .xamplesin in (13) ('3) and and (14), ('4),the .. is i no no reason, reason, however, however,to be be convinced convin ed that that Enclosure Endosure and and Location Location with withSurety Suretyconstitute con,t.tutedistinct di,tind parameters, and hence distinct units of knowledge encoded as part param
In thi example, ellJmpl., the the pear-in erntre of the image—is image-i not not.n losod by by In this pear—in lh. the centre of the enclosed ket, aas itit iis supported upported by by other other fruit; fruit; although tho supporting supportingfruit fruit arc arc the the ba basket, although the cndo<ed by the the basket. ba ket. Yet, form in 11/ can can be bc applied applied to to this thi spatial patia] scene, seene, as as enclosed by Yet, the the form i, evident in (15). ('5). II argue is due duo to to aa [LOCATION (LOCAT.ON WITH WITI. SURETY] UR£TVIIlexical xical is evident in argue that that thi this is lex","
FIGURE 8.5.

The pear is in the basket

-

REPRESENTATION I LEXICAL EXI .At RfPRF fNTATION

164

lexical con concept les ,ust idered. The I[ENCLOSURE) LNUO cu) le,i
POLYSEMY POLYSEMY

( I~ )

IpSYCIIOMlMATlC laiC) I PSYCHOSOMATICSTAll) STATE)(l.e., (i.e., ~ubjective/internal subjective/internal state) a. John is i in in shock/pain hock/pain (over (ov r the the break-up break-up of ofthe the relationship) relationship) a. John 11.h. John John iis in in love love (with (wilh himself/the himself/the girl) gir\)

( I~ )

[\OCIO-INTERPLRSONAL tate) SOCIO-INTERPERSONALSTAn) STATE)(i.e., (i.e., externally externally maintained maintained state) J. the authorities) aUlhorilies) a. The The girl girl iis in in trouble (with the 11. John is in debl (10 the Ihe tune lune of of Cl000) (1000) h. John is in debt (to

165 165

[PROFE 10NAL STATE] TATE) (i.e., pro~ iona! activity activity habitually habituaUyengaged in) (PROFESSIONAL (i.e., professional engaged in) J. He Heisi in in banking banking ( 20) a. b. insuran e b. She She iis in insurance

figurations of of p.rameters, parameters, and and hence, subtly subtly distinct di tin t linguistic lingui ticcontent.? content.' figuration in "State" lexical for in "State" lexical concepts concepts (or now turn turn to to the lexical concepts, the "state" ""ate" \exi al con cpt, in in order order to to see see how howthese th arise arisefrom from II now in. the spatiallexi spatial lexical concepts.. Consider Consider the the following examples al con<ept xamples involving involving "'. Ihe (16) a.a.He (16) lieisi_iningood goodhealth health The girl girl iis in in love b. The love John iis in in trouble/debt c. John troubl /debt He's in banking i.e., works works in in the th banking banking industry) indu try) d. lie' 111 hanking II i.e., While ea each of some kind, .. tate" of kind, these these examples campi in in fact fact relate relate to to Whil h relates relat to a "state" physical cause, as in (16a)—the slightly "states": different" tat ": those that that have have a phy_ ical cau ,a in (16a)- lhe lightly different state beong "in "in good good health', health", which which isi aaconsequence conscquen« ofofthe Ih physical phy "al tate of being condition of of an an organism's organism's body—those body-tho that that have have aa psychological p ychological or or emoemotional cause, as in (16b)—the state is a consequence of a subjective state, tIonal cause, as in (16b)- the late is a conscquen e of a ubjective ,tale, which whi h may (or may may not) not) have have physical, phy i ai, i.e., i... observable, ob rvable, manifestations—those mani~ -tations-th,,,e that have a social/interpersonal cause, as in (16c)—resulting that have a sociaUinterpcrsonal cau ,as in (Ioc)-resulting from from social/ SOClaU interpersonal onteraOrt semanllC selectional selectional tendencies tendencies in evidence, evidence, supporting upporting the the view view that that we weare aredealing deahng with four four distinct di linct lexical lexical profiles. protile .In Inessence, ..sen<e,I Iargue arguethat thatthese Iheseexamples example,are are sanctioned by four distinct "state" lexical concepts associated with the prepby four di,tinct " late" lexical con -el'l aSSO<.iated with the prepositional vehicle ill. This Thi isisillustrated iIIu trated more moreclearly clearlyininthe th examples e~mpl below: below: o itional vehicle in. (i.e., (i.e., bodily bodilystate) slale) 17) a.a.He's (17) He'sininpoor/good poor/goodhealth health h. h. The Thewoman woman isi.in II.labour lahour I[""Y"OLOG'CAI. PHYSIOLOGICAL STATE] TAT!)

toncept appears contexts in which I I 11 SI , The The-1(OVATION [ IU. 4TlltHWwiln ' RiTyl .. TT l tC"1.h•• llun.::t·rlilrrc: r to h'be be-restricted I'C'trktN to hluse U in In ,-,.nlul In whKh losure. as clepktecl in Figure A. $ for c 'he I~ keLaiiiiie lUluttun with Withsurety uretyisI an .Inindirect tnJll't'\.treside r uhofvfen endnum:·,.u ,it I'k tnt In Ilgu~ • ., fur instance. III 1.l1'k.(" In Inview v..-w of this. the parameter encoded by this lexical concept might he better seated as limation with Surety ,.1 th the r.&r.amrlt"t C'l'k.l,.J..J by Ihl tak.-i .. 1.,k.C1'1 ml~1 ~ ~Un 1.lIN.I 1"')I... I".n wtlh "'Iur(1y Alue to Fnd,~uft' Enclosure. It It remains an empirical due' III I'r'nYlfu.In nnr1nuJquestion q~tI'>nas Ii to I" whether .... hed"'tthis thlllexaal luh,..;a]concept Ulrk.C'J'1will WI"evolve ~ulvt'such u..h contexts. . hat it can he employed in a wider range ot gth.al It (.In be- nnr1uyN 1M • wlJI"T raneC' cll .. unl I 7

I

In ddition to selectional tendencies, tendencie ,the po ilion In ••addition to evidence evidence based based on on semanti semantic selectional the position Ih.1t be aa number number of ofdistinct distinct" late" lexical lexical concepts concep ..associated associated that there there mu mustI he "state" Wllh the lines lin captured caplured by by the the examples in (17) (17) to to (20) (20) inclusive, indu iv<,can can in, along %vith ill, along the examples in ... , be lrated by by virtue virtue of ambiguilic> associated associated with with an an utterance utteran e of of ,II also lw demon demonstrated of ambiguities Ihe followong kind: kind: the following (2 1) (21)

She' She\ in milk

(21) could potentially be be interpreted interpreted as as relating relating to to aa woman woman The The utterance utterance in in (21) could potentially who i nursing nur ing aa baby, baby, and and thus Ihu lactating, la tating, or a relating relaling to to aa woman woman who who who is or as works 111 the dairy dairy industry. II1dustry. That Thai is, i ,given givenananappropriate approprialeextra-linguistic eXIra linguist I works in the context, an .n example example such su h as a this thiscan can be beinterpreted interpretedininatatleast leasttwo twoways. way.The Th context, l"'lentlal for divergenl interpretations interpretation iis aa consequence, consequence, in in part, part, of ofour our potential for divergent knowledge that that in ill has has aa number number of ofdistinct di tin tlexical le"i alconcepts concept associated associaled knowledge WIth it: it: what what is is relevant relevant for for this thi example exampl isi the thedistinction di tinctionbetween betweenaaI IPHYPHYwith '''"o(;ICAL STATE) STATE) lexical lexical concept concept and and aaI raorEssioNAL 1,'ROF£SSlONAL STATE STATE)I lexical lexical SIOLOGICAL mn«pt. Moreover, Moreover, ambiguities ambiguilies can be generated generaled even even when when a arelatively relatively concept. can he well-entrenched e"ample is employed. employed. For For instance, in tance, even even examples e,,"mpl of ofthe the well-entrenched example is f()lIowing kind: kind: following ( 22 ) (22)

he is i in in labour lahour She

(23 ) (23)

lie" on love I()ve He is in

can he be interpreted interpreted in in alternate alternate ways. way. For For instance, in tance, (22) (22)could couldbebeinterpreted interpreted can relallng to 10 childbirth childbirth or or to to aa professional I'ro~ ional activity, a tlVily, e.g., e.g., the Ihe trade trade union union as relating movement. Similarly, SImilarly, (23) (23) could could be be interpreted interpreted as as relating relatong to toan anemotional emolional movement. 'late or or aaprofessional pro~ ionalactivity, activity,e.g., e.g.,marriage-guidance marriage-guidan counselling. coun \ling.The The state forn.er reading reading i\ pe."ihle by hy virtue virlue of of. uming something something akin akon to 10 former is only possible assuming a• I IP\y(1I0'OMAT!( TAT! J lexical I ,i al concept con«pt which which isisdistinct distll1ctfrom fromaaI (PROI [ PSYCHOSOMATIC STATE] PROFF.S~'ONAL STATE) STATE I lexical lexical concept. con cpt. That That is, i , both holh lexical lexical concepts concept must mu t exist e.. tifif SIONAL I(.ve" can C.1I1 be be interpreted interpreted in 111 these Ih •ways way'in111this Ihl example. eumple. "love"

J,

-

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

·M -Derivation of the "state" lexical concepts 166

"",,,it,"

(24) (24) a.a.in10the thedust du I in the sand b. b. in Ihe sand c. c. in in the the snow snow While "enclose," While dust, du I, sand, nd, and and snow noware arephysical phy i alentities enlili which whichcan can" ndo ...they they cannot normally fulfil the functions provided by, for instance, containers. cannol normally fulfil Ihe funclinn provided by, for in lance, (~nla llle .... That i~ they Ihey do donot nOitypically lypKallyserve rveto10locate local with wilhsurety, ur 'y,exceptional exeeptlllllalcirur· Thai is, cumstances such as quicksand and avalanches excepted. For instance, dust, cum Ian uch as qui ksand and , ..Ian h e cepled. For 10 lance, du I, sand, and snow, ;and, and nnw, by by virtue virlue of ofenclosing, en lo,ing, do donot nOlnormally normallyhave havethe Ihestructural IruclUral attributes that allow an entity to be supported and thus transported allribul Ihal allow an enllly III be UPP0rled and Ihu, Iran I'Oried(cf. (d.a • bucket), bu kel), nor nor do dothey Iheynormally normaUyrestrict r Iriel access acc in in the Iheway wayaaprison prisoncell celldoes, doc for for instance. III tJnt:~. Nevertheless, these examples 'everthcl ,Ih"'" exampl exhibit emib., some ,onle of 01 the Ihespatio-topological 'palio'lopologicJIpropproperties associated with the (ENCLOSURE! lexical concept. This is a consequence erli a ialed wilh Ihe (.N<:LO uu)1 xical concepl. Thi • a con""!uenee of ofthe Iheproperties properlie, associated a,~ial''(\ with wilh these Ihe "bounded" "bounded"landmarks: landm.rks: they Ih yprovide provid an an affecting condition, an environmental influence which affects our behaviour. .tfk'ding (undition, .:111 cnvlrnnm ntdl mnucm:c Whllh .dTat our ~havlUur. For they determine For instance, in lanc ,Ihey delermm the Ihekinds lund ofofapparel apparelwe \'oewear, \'0 3<,and andhow howwe webehave behave

167 167

h n we ,\<' are arc exposed xp<,'oCd to In the Ihe dust/sand/snow, du ,"and} now, and on, As A such, such. these Ih..., and '" so on. when '''nle " of ~ provide provide bridging bridging contexts: (Onl XI ; both bolh enclosure ndo urr and andaffecting affecling contexts of use 'conditions :,nn, are bolh) may may he be understood. underslood. While Whil are implicaled. implicated, and and eilher either (or (or both) uch aas ... nd, snow, now, and du I can Gin be be construed con Irued as enclosures ndo,ur with w.,h eexamples .""plc, such sand, and dust t><,undari,.", Iher are are other olher related relaled example whal we might mighl refer refer to 10 as a examples of what bo undaries, there I'rt'J,hng nalure of of PrevailingCond.,ions Conditions which which are are much much Iless dear,(ul clear-cut in lerm terms oflhe of the nature the t><,undariel boundaries involved: Ih~ .molvcd:

DerivatIon of t~ "state" lexical concepts InIhi this section II(On"der consider how how the lexical concepts for In Ihc""state" laic" Ie kal conlept for in //I exemplified , emplifiedin in(17) (,7) [ENCLOSURE] to (2o) inclusive may have been extended from the prototypical 10 (20) indu IV. may h.. Ix",n extended frum th pmlolypKaI (. Nt "hl"l concept. lexical concept. lexical 1 observed above Ihal that in in previous I ob'oCrved above previou work, work, Tyler Tier and and II (2003) (200~) argued arg~ed that Ihal polysemy derives from regular processes of semantic change, in which situpoly.emyd ri, from rrgular prtxe "', of ",mantic chang, In whICh IIU ated impli implicatures ated aturr aassociated sociated with w.,h aa particular part •.ular context conlext can can become becomereanalysed r anal .I as .Ii distinct lrr and "' IIncl sense-units—lexical 'n · uml Ie ical concepts concepl in 10 present pre nl terms. Icrm . That Thai is, '. ' TTyler and argued for for aa u<,;tge·ba'oCd usage-based approach approach III to language change, a position languag change, 1'O",.on adopted adupled II argued

by LCCM Theory. byl . MTheory. .. "I' of the the emergence In lerm terms of an LCCM In L( 1 account .ccounl of Ihe cmergence of th "state" laic lexical e .c.d the trajectory in Ih concepts for II', concept> Iraj lOry iis as a follows. follow,. Situated S,'ua,ed implicatures implic.lur arise an, in III bridging contexts, as briefly discussed earlier. These are contexts in which a bridging conlext ,a briefly di ~sed ~~~ier. Th are context 10 whllh ,a (EN usage sanctioned by the relevant "spatial" lexical concept, u;age ndinned by Ih relevanl p.3l1al I x"al concepl,' such u h as a the Ihc (." cLostrad concept also CLO "RE)Ilexical xicalconcepl aiM)gives giv rise n'oCto 10aasituated ,'ua,edimplicature, unplle.lure,such uC.hasa an dn affecting condition. If the prepositional vehicle is repeatedly used in such aff, ling condilion. If the prcpo il,ional vehicle, i r~pealedly used ~n ueh bridging conlexl contexts,,Ihc the situated give rise bridging ilUaled implicature impllcalUremay may.g.~ n to 10the theformation formal.onofofaa new parameter, or the Ihe detachment delaehmenl of of an an existing x. lingparameter parame!er as a the Ihecore corc new parameler, or parameterof of aa new new lexical I xical concept. con cpl. II argue arg~e below below that that bridging bndglOg contexts contexl parameter involving the of Affecting Aff, IIOg Conditions .~nd,"o~ may may have have given g"en involving Ihe functional funclional category cal(!lory of rise to the formation of a number of related but distinct "state" parameters, ri 10 Ihe formalion of a number of r lated bUI d. IIOli lale paramclcr and hence and hence lexical lexical concepts. con el" . , In order In ord r to 10 trace trace the the development d vclopmcnl of ofthe Ihefunctional functionalcategory cal(!loryAffecting Aff, ling Conditions, Condilion~ we \'0 need needto 10consider (on>lderspatial palialscenes en that thatmight mighlprovide provideappropriate approl,riale bridging bridging contexts. onl xl . To To illustrate, illu Irale, consider con iderthe thefollowing ~ Uowingexpressions: expr ion:

POl Y f.MY POLYSEMY

lSI

.'a., the Ihe flag nag in m the Ihe storm lorm h, Ihe flag nag in m the Ihe wind Wind h. the

I ".!\Se lanc of ill by virtue virtue of oflhere exi ling that these m instances in are suggestIlhallhe are 'l3nClioned sanctioned by there existing •a cd aas a core (ore component (omponenl of nf rarallldcr Affecling parameter AffectingCondil.on Umditions 10 to be re-analysed an independ nl lexical lexical con cpl. Clearly 'I r1y aa storm lorm and and wind wind are are much muchless I an independent concept. prn""ypically endo ur • and more saliently 'l3lienlly provide provide prevailing prevailingconditions (ondilion prototypically enclosures, and more "hllh Ihereby con ,,'u,e an envimnmenl which which affects .ffecl us. u. As As such, uth,spatial palial which thereby constitute an environment given rise ri to 10 the Ih funcfuncene involving prololypical enclosures en 10 ur have given scenes involving more prototypical lilln.11 category cal (!lory Affecting 10 the Ihe formation formal ion ofofa a tional Affecting Condilion Conditions,• which which ha has led to Affe ling Conditions Condil.on parameter parameler in in semantic manliememory. 01 mory.The Theexistence e i lenlC .1I,lInel Affecting distinct "' a• distinct di linct [PREVAILING (PREVAII.NG CONDITIONS] co, O.T'ON ) lexical I xical concept, concepl. as as evidenced evidenced by by of e ample in (25), (l5). provides provide suggestive suggellive evidence evidence that Ihal such uch aadistinct di\linct Affecting Affecling examples (nnditum parameter parameterexists. c i\1 . Conditions I argue argue that thai the Ihe distinct di lin I"state" • lale" lexical lexi al concepts concept>associated aialed with wilh in //I evi.denccd in in (17) ('7) to 10 (20) (lO)encode encodethe Iheparameter paramelerAffecting AffeclingConditions, Condilion rather ,ralherthan Ihan denced Ind,,,,d. these Ih lexical lexicalconcepts conccpl are arcwhat whalI Ihave havereferred referredto10asa "state" "we" I nd<> ure. Indeed, Enclosure. luical (on cpt , . Ih states lal invoked invoked allII provide, provide, ininsome mesense, n affecting • affecling lexical concepts, as the wndilion" Moreover, 10rrovcr, all all these Ihese"state" " lale" lexical lexical concepts conC that Ihal are are non-spatial non· pali.,1inmnature, nalUre.such uch. lal . affecting as states. Ihe development d 'elopmenl of ofnew n lexical lexicalconcepts. con epl . I hi, leads 10 Phis to the The first firs! such uch" laiC" lexical lexical concept con el" relates relale; to 10the Ihephysical phy icalcondition condilionofof The "state" anan urgani,m which whICh thus Ihu provides pmvid an an affecting aff,,,,'ing condition. mndllion .Such Such physical phy ical conditions cond.ti n organism indud good/ill goodJill health, heallh, pregnancy, pregnane),. and and any any salient sallenl physical ph .caI aspect asp<.'CI of ofthe th include organi 01' condition cond.,,,," which which affects affecl and andthus Ihu impacts imp.CI on onthe lheorganism's organi 01'funcfunc organism's 'I hi,lexical Ie ic.1 con cel"I gloas (PHYSIOLOGICAL a (PIIY\I('IO(,I( AI STATE]. STAn). In In addition addilion to 10 "oning,This tioning. concept I gloss envirunmenlal and and physical ph leal conditions, condillon.,affecting afl,-':Imgconditions mndilionscan CJJ1be becaused causedbyby environmental p,ychosomalicstates, lale<,such lIchas grief, llri f,happiness, happme and ,andsadness sadn which whichare areinternal inlemalinin psychosomatic n.lture. This Jlw~" laiC" gl\\: Ip\y( IIU'Ot.tAII( STATE! 'lAnl lexical k-xkal concept ~om:cpl nature. "state" gives ri...e rise In to aa psycuosomivric ol iated with WIth in. III. In In addition, adthtlon, social \Ol.I,JI interactions intera,uun.,which whll.h give gl\C rise ri totu social k.:1.t1 or or associated '

168 ~____l~"~X~I~A~l~R~£~P~R~ES~E~N~T~A~T!'(~IN~____________________________

-

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

168

Endoou .. Enclosure

OcclUSIOn Occlusion

POLYSEMY POLY [MY

169 169

being, supported prototypical \llpported or or upheld upheld by by it.il.I Igloss Slo the Ihe prolotypicalspatial patiallexical lexical conventionally associated associated with with on 011 as as [CONTACT'. [co TACT). This Thi serves serves toto conc ept conventionally ",.nl.e.: . , h S enco de Ie the Ihespatio-topological patio-lopologlCalrelation relJllllnContact Conlactand andthe I eparameter paramelerSupport, . upport, ,,"," from . functional - category. [ )I . I derived the corresponding lexical d"rO\<J frol11.'he curre pondmg funcllonal. calegory.The Th (coNTAcTI (ONTACT eXlCa sanctIon an an example exampleof ofthe thefollowing followmgsort: sort: c oncept I -" 1'1 sanctions

h<''''~'rt

Location Locabonwi;ri ...'" - - - - - -Spatial Spallal scenes scenes - - - - Surety Sorely Involving enclosure enclosure involving

l'" \.

6) the theapple appl on onthe thetable table (2;~) te that No ','1,' Ihat evidence evidence that that the theparameters parameters Contact Conta t and and Support Support are arcboth bothenen · on can only co " ..ded led by hy the thc lexical I.,ical concept conccpt IcoNTAcTI [<:UNTACT) comes CUIllC$from from the thefact ~actthat thai 011 an unly felicitously fdid tll usly be be employed employed to todescribe describespatial patialscenes en .ininwhich whIChboth bothparameters parameters are For inslan instance, ,Jr,' apparent. ,Ipparenl. I'ur e, if an apple is i held held against agam t aa wall wall by by someone, 5O~,eone,the the utterance the apple ullCmanticallyanomalous. anol11alous.However, 1I0wever,ifIflhe appleisISaffixed affixedtoto the th< wall, \\all, for instance in tan e by by glue, glue, then then(27) (27)isi entirely entirelyappropriate. appropriate.

Affecting Conditions

127) (271 the theapple appleon onthe Ihewall wall (PREVAIlNG [PREVAILING

CXlNOOTIClO<sl CONDITIONS)

(PHYSI(IUlGlCAl [PHYSIOLOGICAL

STATEI STATE)

(f'SYCHOSOOIATIC ISOCIO-INTERPERSONAL (socoo-wn:APERSONAI. (PROFESSIONAL (PAOf£ IONAI. (PSYCHOSOMATIC

STATEI STATE)

STATEI STATE)

f' IGl' Rt &6. 8.~. Puamch. " r\ and Ir relation hip with the""state" talC" FIGURE Parameter% andththeir relationship with the

STATE I STATE]

Itx:u.:al concepts conu."pli for In lexical for in

inlerpersonal hip lead condilion which whichmay mayaffect affrctthe Iheindividual. indi,iduaJ. interpersonal relation relationships lead 10 to conditions Suci1 Jff<'<Xially socially induced induced affecting conditions might or other ')(lrts of difficult ilualions which impo. condilions on Ihe behavillur other sorts of difficult situations which impose conditions on the behaviour of individual. This This set set of ofaffecting affrcting conditions condili n gives givesrise, rio;e,IIsuggest, sugs I,toIIIwhat wh,lI of an an individual. [so< I(HNTI ."R\ONAI STAT! lcal concepl >tl(iJled with wilh ilL II glo,s gloss aas the the (SM:10-INTERPERSONA1. STATE [ Ie in. lexical concept Jassociated Finally, one'. habilual profe;sional activily provide an affecling condition hy Finally, one's habitual professional activity provides an affecting condition by virtue the physical phy ieal and and social SlXial interactions interaction that that are are attendant attendant upon upon such uch virtue of of the activitie\. giving rise ri\e to 10 aa lexical Ie. ic.1 concept con«pl .ictivities.This This provide provides an an affc'ROIlS"O. Al STATI) hip between bel ween glossed STATE) a~ialed associated WIth with ilL in. The The relalion relationship category and and the the range range of ofnon-spatial non - paliallexical the function Jcategory theAffecting AffectingCondition Conditions functional lexical ill d,\(u
That while the i~ in III contact contact with with the th wall wall in in both bothscenarios, Stenario" ininthe th~first firsl Ihal is, I , while the apple apple is scenario it is "elwin it i; the the person, person, rather rather than than the the wall, wall, that that affords .ffllms support, support, while whIleitIt is .J!>the the wall, and and the glue, whi which employs the \\aII, h emplo the wall wall as a a means mean of ofaffixing ~ffixing the the apple, apple, in In the the second. Hence, ><xond. lIence, the example in in (27) (27) applies applies when when there there isI both bothphysical phy ICal contact ontact between the F and the ItO, and when the latter has a role in supporting the former. hrameler, folluwing examples: examples:

(2$) (lH)

'SUPPORTING BODY BODY PART' PART) [WPPORTlN(. a. on a. Iln one's one' feet/knees/legs/back fect/knec"'leg"back .. pt~ b. on tiptoe on all c. on all fours four

relatesto to that that part part of of the on relates In the theeumpl examplesinin(28), (a), the use u of Oil the body body which which In on all fours, provides support, rather than being concerned with contact. That is, provide upport, ralher than being concerned WIth conlact. That i 011 all [Oil'S, instance, does does nOI not mean 1
Lexical Lexicalconcepts concepts for for on on

OF U1NVIYAN([) CONVEYANCE' [[MEANS ... AN Of on foot/horseba foot/horseback a.a. on k b. on the Ihe bus hu~ b.

In lion Ii dcal, more briefly, briefly, WIth lexical concepts con epl associated associated InIhl this section deal, somewhat somewhat more with lexical with Ih prepositional vehid 011. with the prepositional vehicle on.

(19 ) ( 29)

[ttlNIACJj and its parameters [CONTACT] and its parameters

With rC$p<'C\ respectto to the the example example in in (29b), (29b), it it is worth pointing With pointing out, OUI, as a Herskovits He kovil' (1988) does, that if children were playing on a stationary bus, for instance, !J 988) doc... Ih,lt i( children w«e playing Iln a "allollarr bu." for installcc,that Ihal on the bus, had been abandoned, then it would not he appropriate to say but had h
The patial relatIon hy Oil ur on InvolH l'he spatial relation deSlgn,'led designated by involvesIhe the rclJloun relationof of cont,1l1 contact or proximity uriale of RO, and so the the functional (unclional consequence consequence o( proximitytuto the the surface of aa RO, and so of

170

POLY E tv POLYSEMY

LEXICAL REPRESENTATI REPRESENTATION LEXICAL N

lexical concept enc, ' CONVEYANCE oncept isis a distinct di,tonct •"support" upport" lexical oncept encoded lexical concept CONVEYANCE)I lexIcal

,uritact - - - Contact

Spatoalscenes Spatial scenes

InvolvIng involving contact contact

by orr. on. by

171 171

- - - Support

(SUPPORTING PIVOT' IWPPORTING PlvoTI The Earth turns on on its E.uth turn it axis axis (30) (30) The

Again, on in thi; this example, being 'on' an axis Agaon, .lXil. has halo to do with WIth being beingsupported upportedand and thus,,in in this ca case,,being being able to turn. Other thu Other examples examples of ofmore moreabstract ab tract support, upport, for chemical reliance, to rational upport are are illustrated illustrated below: below: ranging for rational support

Functional Actioning Actlonlng

[CHEMICAL ICHEMI AL RELIANCE] RELIAN £1 a. Are (31) Are you you on on heroin? heroin? (31) a. b. She's on the b. he' on the pill pill

[ACTIVE STATE) STATE]

[PSYCHOLOGICAL IpSY 1l0LOGIC.AL SUPPORT] PPoRTI You can can count/rely count/rely on my vote (31) (32) You

FiGuRE 8.7. l·u.ulF &7. Paramrtrrs hip with with "state" "state" lexical Irxi al concepts conapt.s associated associ.1ttd Parameters and and their their relation relationship With with (lit on

[ RATIONAL sUPPoRTI SUPPORT] IRATIONAL on account (33) on (33) a ount of/on ofIon purpose purpo

aassociated socialed with in irr relate relate to. Here, Here, the the notion notionofofbeing being'affected, 'affected',apparent apparent with with in, is III, " almost entirely entirely absent. ab;ent. Consider C.on ider some someexamples: exampl :

lexical concept ACTIVE STATE] The (ACTIVE The TATEl/txiral conupt

((34) \4 ) a. a.

'ACTIVE which I gloss on, which There JU t one on "state" ";late" lexical lexical concept con«pt for for orr, glo as a IA(.Tlv> There iis just lexical con concept not from STATEI. cpt derives d rives not from the the functional functional category ategory of of STATE). This This lexical Support. upport. Rather, Rather, itit pertains pertain to a functional functional category category concerning con eming"functional"functionality" or or "activily." "activity."Thai Thatiis,, inin many many spatial scenes, aa consequence of patial scene, ofcontact conlall isi ity" that the that the F, F, as a ititcomes com into intocontact contactwith witha particular a particularsurface, urfa e,becomes become; functional. This category fun tional. Thi calegory I refer refer to as a Functional Funchonal Actioning. Actioning. Removing Removing concontall precludes fun lional acti ning. Such -u h forms form of of contact, conlact, for forinstance, instance, tact precludes functional actioning. invoke scenarios involving physical as the the very very salient salienl invoke enario onvolving physical transmission, Iran mi ion, such uch as one of ofelectricity. electricilY. Many Many times tim aa day day we weplug-in plug-inororswitch swit h"on" "on"electrical electrical appliances.. It isi by facilitating falllitating contact COnlact between betweenthe theappliance applianceand andthe theelectrical eleclrical appllane circuit that an appliance applian e isi rendered rendered functional. fun tional.AA"switch" "switch"provides provid a means mean, of facilitating of facilitating this thi contact, conla t, which whi h isi; why why we we employ employthe theterm lem1"switch " witehon" on"inin English. olher words, word" II suggest uggest that thai the Ihe 'ACTIVE IAt.TOv, STATE] TAUI lexical lexical concept conlcpt Lngli h. In other aassociated ialed with on orr encodes aa Functional Fun tional Actioning Actioning parameter param ter as a; part part of ofits il> linguistic content. lexical content. ItIt isi this thi which whichmakes makesititdistinctive distin tiv from fromthe thespatial paliallexi,,1 concepts of on orr discussed di lI;lol'tl in inthe Iheprevious previo",examples. exampl . cone pt of The [ACTIVE Th IA TIn STATE] TATEI lexical lexical concept con epl associated a socialed with with on relates relales to to lexical lexical concepts concept which which concern concernaaparticular particularstate tate that thai can an be beconstrued con truedasas"active" "active" or or "functional," ol\ as (ontrJ\ted contrasted with with Ja perhaps "fum:tional," pcrhap\ normative scenario \4.:enJrio in in which which the the state does not hold. In other words, states described by instances of on tate does nol hold. In oth r words, tal de;cribed by in tances of orr anclion.'tI by this Ihi' lexical I xi,al concept concepl are are often oftentemporally lemporallycircumscribed circum ribed and and sanctioned thus endure for a prescribed or limited period of time. In this, the states Ih", cndure pr""ribed Iomlled pcriod of tllne. In Ihi', Ihe laic, referred to are referred to are quite quite distinct diMi"':t from from those tho_ that thatthe the"state" ". tate"lexical lexilalconcepts com:ept

b. h.

c. (. d. e. 1.f. g. g. h. h. i.I. J.)• k. 1.I.

m.

fire on fire on live live (i.e., (i.e., aa sports pori game) game) on tap tap (i.e., (i.e., beer beerisi available) available) leep (as (as in in an an alarm alarm clock clock on on aaparticular parti ular mode) mode) on sleep pau (as (a in in aa DVD ()V()player) player) on pause sale on sale on loan loan on alert alert best behaviour behaviour on best look-out on look-out Ihe move move on the Ihe wane wane on the the run run on the

Figure depicts I igure 8.7 depl t the the parameter associated a ;ociated with WIth this thi lexical I xi al concept. concept.

senses for for at at The "state" senses .160 Irm

This Thi section section briefly briefly C‘3111illeS examines the Ihe "state" "slatc" lexical leXICal concepts con eplsassociated a socialed with wilh at. at.

I: the tilt prototypical prototypicallexical kxicalconcept COlluptforforat at The lexical uses of lex.!l:.ll concept ~OI1(CP~ which w~it.:h. licenses h(;cn\C,.spatial pali.lI .u\C\ of at III affords affurd\ the the most mo\t general general expression expre Ion of oflocalization loealowllon in onspace paeeinonEnglish, I ngl"h, expressing c pre-. ons the Ih relation relalion between between ICO - LOCATIONI: [CO-LOCATIO

410

172

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

a F and a point of space that it is contiguous or proximal with. This lexical concept I gloss as lco-LOCATION). Consequently, it is one of the most polysemous of all English prepositions. Indeed, this lexical concept for at forms a contrast set (Tyler and Evans zoo3) with the 'place' identifying lexical concepts associated with other prepositions. The [co-Loc:A -rtoNI lexical concept encodes the Co-location parameter, designating a highly abstract spatial relation between the F and a place, when the relation is not more precisely expressed by spatial lexical concepts associated with the following prepositional vehicles: near, by, on, in, over, under, all of which, at times, can be paraphrased by the situated use of the ICO-WCATIONI lexical concept. Perhaps the most salient functional category associated with at constitutes what I will refer to as that of Practical Association. That is, a functional consequence of being co-located with a particular RO is that the F has some practical association with the reference object. This is evidenced in the following examples:

POLYSEMY

The "state" lexical concepts associated with at appear to he motivated by the functional consequence of close proximity between two point-like entities g iv ing rise to the formation of a parameter: Practical Association. The "state" lexical concepts appear to have arisen from specific contexts in which a practical association holds. In the case of the [STATE OF EXISTENCE' lexical concept, the practical association resulting from the co-location is the state of existence which holds. That is, there is a practical association which holds between a given entity and its state of existence. The second lexical concept I gloss as [STATE OF MUTUAL RELATIONS), as evidenced by (37). This lexical concept arises due to a salient practical association resulting from co-location of two entities involving mutual relations. For instance, while warfare often involves combatants who must he proximal to one another, the state of being "at war" need not, as evidenced by the so-called "phoney war" which held during 1939 when the United Kingdom, France, and Germany were officially "at war'', and yet no troops engaged. Thus, the use of at to designate a state of mutual relations, independent of spatio-topological co-location, is due to the parameter of Practical Association being invoked as part of the linguistic content encoded by this lexical concept. Put another way, this lexical concept encodes a state of a particular kind, rather than the spatial notion of proximity. Finally, states pertaining to external circumstances may relate to evaluations concerning circumstances associated with mutual relations. This is instantiated by the lexical concept which I gloss as [AFFECTING EXTERNAL STATED, as evidenced by the examples in (38). The relationship between the

■11

4

(35) a. the man at the desk h. the schoolboy at the bus stop In these examples, the relation that holds between the F and the RO is more specific than a spatio-topological relation. That is, the example in (34a) implies, and is understood to mean, that not only is the F in question, the man, in close proximity to his desk, but he is also working at his desk (or at least in a position to do so). Similarly, in (34b), in addition to the co-location relation, this expression implies that the schoolboy is "waiting" at the bus stop, presumably for a bus. In other words, part of the linguistic content associated with the (Co-LOCATION I lexical concept appears to be derived from functional consequences of spatial scenes.

IMO

Co-location

at There are three distinct lexical concepts associated with the prepositional vehicle git that might be described as relating to "states." These are illustrated below: The "state" lexical concepts for

Spatial scenes involving location

(STATE OF EXISTENCE) (36)

at rest/peace/ease/liberty (e.g., He stood at MC, or He is at peace (=dead') 'STATE OF MUTUAL RELATIONS)

(37)

at war/variance/strife/one/daggers drawn/l ► ggerheads

(38)

Practical Association 110

(e.g., The EU is at war with the US over the imposition of steel tariffs) 'AFFECTING EXTERNAL. STATE)

at peril/risk/ha7ard/expense/an advantage/a disadvantage (e.g., The company is at risk of going under)

173

[STATE OF EXISTENCE]

[STATE OF MUTUAL RELATIONS] [AFFECTING

I

FIGURE 8.8. Parameters and their relationship with "state" lexical concepts for at

174

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

pa, ameter of Practical Association and the "state" lexical concepts is dia.. grammed in Figure 8.8.

9

Summary In this chapter 1 have addressed the phenomenon of polysemy in the light of LCCM Theory. In LCCM Theory, polysemy relates not to the variation evident in the situated semantic contribution of a word. Rather, it is a consequence of a single vehicle being associated with distinct lexical concept ,. which are semantically related. Semantic relatedness is a matter of degree and is determined by the bipartite structure of lexical concepts. The way in which open-class as well as closed-class polysemous lexical concepts can be related is by virtue of shared or overlapping linguistic content, for instance in terms of shared parameters. The second way concerns the nature of the conceptual structure that open-class lexical concepts afford potential access to. I examined polysemy by way of a detailed case study of the spatial and "state" lexical concepts associated with the English prepositional vehicles in, on, and at. The main conclusions arising from this case study arc as follows. Firstly, the perspective offered here, particularly with respect to the construct of the lexical concept, allows us to establish in a reasonably precise way the nature of the distinction between the "state" lexical concepts associated with the vehicles in on, and at. That is given that lexical concepts are veh iclespecific and moreover have distinct lexical profiles—for instance they have distinct semantic selectional tendencies—we are able to quite clearly see that the "state" lexical concepts (within and between) prepositions are distinct. Secondly, by taking seriously the functional nature of spatial relations, and the formation of parameters: highly abstract knowledge structures specialized for being directly encoded in language, this allows us to understand the sorts of functional motivations, and thus distinctions, between the "state" lexical concepts across different prepositional vehicles. Thirdly, prepositional vehicles, particularly in and sir have more than one "state" lexical concept associated with them. We have seen that the prototypical spatial lexical concept associated with a given vehicle is associated, typically, with a number of parameters, derived from what I referred to as functional categories. Providing an LCCM analysis gives us a way of establishing the sorts of distinctions that exist between the "state" lexical concepts associated with the same vehicle. That is, we have a means of understanding how these lexical concepts are distinct—based on a distinction in parameters encoded. We also have a means of empirically verifying hypotheses as to distinctions in the underlying lexical concepts which are assumed to sanction instances of use. This is due to the construct of the lexical profile. In this chapter I employed the notion of semantic sclectional tendencies, on e of the two types of linguistic content which make up the lexical profile, in order to distinguish between putatively distinct lexical concepts.

Conceptual structure defining assumption of LCCM Theory is that knowledge representation in humans makes use of multiple forms of representation. In particular, I assume that there are (at least) two distinct core systems which are necessary both for knowledge representation and for linguistically mediated communication: a linguistic system and a conceptual system. Previous chapters in this part of the book have addressed the first of these systems, and have been concerned with linguistic knowledge, which takes the form of symbolic units, encompassing phonological vehicles and lexical concepts. In this chapter, and the next, I turn to the second core system: the conceptual system, the repository of human concepts. In this chapter I am concerned, in broad terms, with conceptual structure: the nature and organization of concepts. I am also concerned with the way in which language interfaces with the conceptual system in service of situated meaning construction. A key feature of knowledge representation in humans is that the linguistic system interacts with the conceptual system in order to facilitate access to conceptual knowledge. Indeed, as the philosopher of cognitive science Jesse Prinz (2oo2: 14) has observed: A

rW

concepts iiiii%t be capable of being shared by different individuals and by one individual at different times. This requirement ...must be satisfied if concepts are to play some of their most important explanatory roles...it is almost universally assumed that concepts play a pivotal role in linguistic communication. a

Indeed, a fundamental design feature of human cognition is that linguistic representations provide an indexing and control function, greatly increasing the range of uses and flexibility of the human conceptual system. However,

this does not mean that linguistic representations are equivalent to the concepts which populate the conceptual system. I assume that the human conceptual system is, en grander Iignes., continuous with the primate conceptual system. Recent findings suggest that such an assumption is not unreasonable (e.g., liarsalou 2oos; Hurford 2007). Given the relatively recent emergence of language, and the far greater antiquity of the conceptual system' I assume that linguistic representations evolved to of relevant hspi ► k length treatments trim various perspectives include akar...ion, A %Ann► ortall1is tzoo3). 1h ► nald 1 199ii, I iunhar 1199e0. Mithen I iswe.). Ilurfnrd troo7). and Renfrew 120071. See Jiso the (mamt collection of papers in Christainsen and Kirby tzoo3).

176

lEXI Al RfPRESENTA 110.

LEXICA! laPRESENTAT1ON

-

,omplementand and CI111.1114.1: enhance the the existing e i\tingform fo~mof ofrepresentations repr"",ntatiomthat thatinhere inhereinin complement the conceptual conceptual system, sy tern. rather rather than than duplicating duplocatmg them. them: The Th~ approach ~pproaentation • i.e., i.e.• concepts. concept. That That is, i •itit has ha often oftenbeen ~~assumed a umedthat -'hatseman<eman representations, tit structure tructure is I equivalent equivalent to, tn. or or atatleast, least.not notsignificantly IgOlfin alwoIY' hral the been unJulv unduly Ull'knnaJ concerned With with tM attounts (If of 'mlm linguistic representation. tlC'n...r. Hence, the) they h..-a\ have nut not always ".tI.hlt(\.lu~ (,f the tM conteptual (urkq'hl.aJsystem. tnn However. UUWC'\ r, such Mkh accounts ~1.(JUnl cannot c.tnnut achieve _hlt'W pcschologital f"" hC1I'~.l1 pLitisi rl..ua arthitetture of "lIltt ('nl h'l
-

CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURE ONC~PTUALSTRUCT~Rh

177

177

ttln' he brain an amodal hralO isi, more moreplausible plau\lbl than th.n.n amodalaccount. aC(Qunt.Secondly, Secondly.simulation "mulatlon counts, such as Barsalou's, explicitly assume, and posit, that representations ac a,-Luunt , u h ~ BarsaJou' ,txplicitly sume, and po it, that repr ntalion are a finding .If< componential. ,o01ponentia!. This Thl isi also al
Embodied cognition cognition thwries I h""ie ofofknowledge knowl<'tlgcrepresentation, rep"....,ntation. dominant dominant for formuch muchofofthe thetwentieth twentieth century, possess what Barsalou (e.g., 1999) refers to as an amodal character. , to 3 an amodal character. Such Such theories theories assume 3 ume that that knowledge knowledge representation representation involves involvesthe themanipulamanipulation ofabstract .b,tract symbols ymbol, which which are arc purely purely propositional pmpo itional in in nature, nature. and and hence hence tllm of are not grounded tate.'4 Recent Recent accounts ",count of ofknowledge knowledgerepresenrepresenarc not grounded in in bodily bodily states. tation tation are arc modal modal or or embodied, embodied. because because they they treat treat knowledge knowledge as as being being grounded in the perceptual experiences and mechanisms that result from the perceptual experiences and mechani ms that result from grounded having the lund kinds of of bodies we, humans, have. Hence, w • as a humans. Hence. conceptual conceptual knowledge knowledge arises from the modal systems that give rise to specific sorts of information. ari'CS from the y tem that give ri to pecific sorts of information. Barsalou (2oo8), in a recent II... alou (2008). recent review, revilw. refers refe" to this thi, perspective JlCr>pective on on knowledge knowledge representation as as grounded grounded cognition cognition (as representation (as II noted noted in in Chapter Chapter 2). 2). Work Work on on the th embodied (or (or grounded) grounded) basis ba i of of cognition cognition in in cognitive cognitivelinguistics, lingui ti •especially especially as a,,,,dated associated with the Lakoff and ., the work work of ofGeorge GeorgeLakoff l.lkoffand and Mark Mark Johnson John"'n( (l.JkofT and Johnson1980. too, 1999; 1999; lakofll987; Lakoff 1987;John Johnson 1987,2007) 2007) has has emphasized emphasized the n 1987. the role role Johnson of sensory-motor experience, and hence perception—the processing of exterof .. nsary· motor experience. and hence perception-the processing of external ,timuli stimuli via via ",n sensory (or modal) n.1i lry (or modal) systems 'y.tem (vision, (vi\ion. audition, audition. olfaction, olf.1(tion. haphap tics, and gustation )—action—which provides motor information relating II". and gu,tatlon)-action-which provides information relating to to bodily states via proprioception—information about movements involving llOdily tates via proprioception-information about movement involving joints and and mu",I< muscles—as ... -a well well as a the vestibular vesllbular system—which yst m- which provides provides inforinforjoint. mation as to position in space and motion trajectories.% m.lIion a po,ition in pace and motion trajectories.' However, other other cognitive cognitive scientists in addition, addition.subjective subjective Howcver. ientists have have argued that, that. in (or introspective) experiences are are ju" just a, as impo"ant important for for grounding grounding cognition. cognition. h" For (ur iotro,,,,,,t "e) «periencc instance, D.m.,io Damasio (1994) (1994) in his of some IINance. hi, review of some of ofhis hi, groundbreaking groundbreaking work work on on emotion has emotion ha emphasized mphasized aa number number of ofcategories categories of offeelings feel inS' that that arise ari from from internal body For in"an instance, body 'tate, states «n1<>IIOl1\) (emotions) th.t that wc we lahel label as as IOtemal body states. tat"'. I'or ••• body Happiness, Sadness, Anger, Fear, and Oi'S"'t. Disgust, give give rise rise to to phenomenologically Ilapl'ine,,, Sadness. Anger. I·c.r. and See lLAkOti 1141471lur bur.Ia dl.-t..taJc..l detailedHltl'llK' . whine tit of IUl.h slit hdllC'mlluJIhIIh:(nunl disembodied accounts. • \no ... ~ulrI11'lA7) review of the operation 01t~ thettn sensory See Fyans itorthtoming ii) for a niethanitnis responsible t ~ (VOlns Cfl.r1fk: •• mtnI b) I•• rol rn'k"W (.1 the (lper"hclJl (.1 .ry nw...h.ulUln feo.r'ltlJlhk for sense perception. lur n~ rc"n.C'phun

178

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

real, in the sense of directly experienced feelings. I)amasio identities a further category of feeling, what he terms background feelings, which derive from internal body states. Background feelings arise from, among other things, interoceptive experience, which is to say the visceral sense—our felt sense of the internal organs and other internal bodily states. Other subjective experiences, which arc directly felt, include various aspects of temporal experience which arise from bodily states (circadian rhythms such as the wake-sleep cycle ), as well as perceptual processing, which is subserved by a wide range of neurologically instantiated temporal mechanisms ( see Evans zooagi, 2(x)41) and references therein), and consciousness (Chafe 1994; Grady 1997). Hence, and as we shall see later when I discuss abstract concepts, cognition is grounded in both sensory-motor experience and subjective experience: experience of internal bodily and cognitive states, including emotion, nuxid, and affect. In sum, contemporary accounts of embodied (or grounded) cognition assume that recordings of perceptual states form the basis of the representations that populate the conceptual system. Further, as the conceptual system has, on this view, evolved in order to facilitate perception, as well as situated action (including social interaction), and provides the necessary platform for higher-order cognitive operations such as categorization, inferencing, and conceptualization (Barsalou et aL forthcoming), perceptual states must be recoverable. Many recent accounts of embodied cognition postulate that recorded perceptual states are activated in service of the various functions the conceptual system supports. As already noted earlier in the book, these activations are referred to as simulations (e.g., Barsalou 1999, 2003; Gallese and Lakoff 2005; Kaschak and Glenberg 2000; Prinz 2002; Glenberg and Kaschak 2002; Zwaan 1999, 2004). Simulation represents, on this view, a generalpurpose computation performed by the brain in order to recover bodily states and to perform operations deploying such multimodal states. As we shall see below, multimodal states can be manipulated in simulations in order to provide conceptualizations that are not present in the recorded perceptual states themselves. For instance, phenomena such as analogical counterfactuals are a case in point, as when we say: in France, Bill Clinton would never have been harmed by his affair with Monica Lewinsky." 6 The account of Conceptual Blending Theory (Fauconnier 1997; Fauconnier and 'turner 2002) represents one attempt to show how simulations deploy a range of existing knowledge representations in order to produce novel scenarios, categories, and inferences.

Perceptual Symbol Systems The theory of Perceptual Symbol Systems (PSS Theory), as presented in Barsalou (1999), is a theory of grounded cognition which aims to account for how

CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURE

I

hl

perceptual and other lxxly-based states come to be captured in memory, and to he A vailable for (re)activation as simulations. It is well known from research on attention that during perceptual experience, the cognitive system can focus attention on individual components of the stimulus array. For instance, attention can selectively focus on the colour of an object, filtering out, for instance, its Jive, or texture, and even the surrounding objects (Garner 1974, 1978). The essential insight of PSS Theory is that, through selective attention, i n dividual perceptual components derived from modality-specific experience are recorded, in bottom-up fashion, in sensory-motor areas of the brain.? The c omponents are stored in schematic fashion. This means that it is not individual perceptual states that are stored, but rather commonalities arc abstracted across specific instances of perceptual states providing individual memories (e.g., individual memories for red, hot, and purr). In addition, knowledge is captured from other types of perceptual state, including proprioception (e.g., lift, run) and subjective experience (e.g., compare, similar, hungry). Accordingly, Barsalou uses the term "perceptual" more widely than has traditionally been the case.' These schematic memories Barsalou refers to as perceptual symbols. They are symbols in the sense that, later, in top-down fashion, they can he reactivated, or simulated, and can he used to support the range of symbolic behaviours that subserve a fully functional conceptual system. Perceptual symbols implement a conceptual system as follows. Barsalou argues that memories of similar and related components become organized into a system of perceptual symbols which exhibit coherence. This perceptual symbol system he refers to as a frame. A frame is an information structure consisting of large collections of perceptual symbols, encoding information which is stable over time as well as incorporating variability. Hence, a frame provides a unified, and hence coherent, representation of a particular entity. For instance, a frame involves numerous components that have a perceptual basis, that are related in various ways. In addition, the perceptual symbols that collectively comprise the frame can be combined in a range of ways, giving rise to an infinite variety of simulations. Hence, a system of perceptual symbols gives rise to both a frame: a relatively stable knowledge matrix and dynamic simulations. 9 Together, the frame and simulations arc referred to as a simulator (a term I first introduced in Chapter 4).

' There is compelling neuropsycholivical and neumimaging evidence which supports the view that human conciptual representations arc grounded in the modalities, and hence are perceptual in nature. For instance. categorical knowledge is grounded in sensory-motor regions of the brain (for reviews we Datitasi ► Joy; e,atnuni earl. 199s; Pulvermullet 1493 loo3). 1)ainagje to a particular sensory motor regh in serves to impair the processing of categories that use the region in question to perceive physical -

exemplars. 1 will hem (-forth use "perkeptual" in Ikitsaloti's more ink !mixt. sense, while 6

• Sit Evans and Green (2006: ch. 12) fora discussion of this atialogiLal . ► untertaktual tram the perspective 01 t Antteptu.ti Blending Theory.

1 79

At the outset of the 4. Ihipler 6

I kthiled examples Or frames are prOlo' 'Jed III the nett

pointing

the reada to

theprovisulnd

180

-

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

Properties symbols Properties of perceptual symbols Perceptual ymbol are ar~ characterized charact~rized by by six six key kqproperties: pro~rti~: Perceptual symbols perceptual symbols • ~rceptual ymbol are ar neural neural representations r pr ntations in in the thebrain's brain'

Il'o('ryySeth%

motor areas areas

• • • • •

perceptual symbol symbols are ~rceptual ar schematic ·hematic perceptual symbols are dynamic. dynamic, not rigid ~r
h of properti~ below. below. I briefly ·u ea briefly di discuss each of these properties

Perceptual symbols representatIons in in the thebrain's braIn's symbols are are neural representations sensory-motor areas areas In ymbols constitute the records records of ofthe the neural neuralstates tate, In P PSS Theory. Theory, ~rceptual perceptual symbols constitute the that underlie perceptual perceptual experience experience (i.e., (i .. , perception, perception. proprioception, proprioception. and and that underlie . Following I-ollowing Damasio Dama io (1989), (1989), Barsalou Bar.alou argues argues that that ub/eltlVe ex~rien(C) subjective experience). convergen e zones zones serve serve to to integrate integrate information information from from outside outsid sense sen percep~rcep convergence tion for example, example, perceptual ~rceptuaJ states tat .. relating rdating totosubjective ub)eltiveexperience—in experienc III tion—for sensory-motor maps. map. lien e, subjective ubjective ex~rien e also gives giv~ rise ri to to percep~ rcep Hence, experience tual represented in in the the brain's brain's sensory-motor sensory-motorsystems. ystem . tual symbol symbols represented

Perceptual symbols symbols are schematic schematic Perceptual frolll abstracting alNracting across auo" instances in tanc ..ofofparticular particularperper Perceptual symbol; symbols arise from provide memories m mori~ of ofpoints point of01similarity. imilarity_Hence, lienee,perceptual ~rceptual tat .. to provide ceptual states symbol ar~ not exactly xactly the the same ~me as a perceptual perceptualstates, . tate, but butare arerather rather somewhat 'IOmewhat symbols are ·hematic memori .. of of them. them. schematic memories

CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURE

181

the visual IICU", ·.lIl.lomyofoflhe vi ualsystem, sy,lcm,for forinstance. in\lancc.As A isISwell wellestablished e labli hedthe Ihevisual VI"lal no w-anatomy ,\ separa l~ differenl vi ual information inforn>ation into 1Il10 distinct di tinct types type> of of jem separates different kinds kinds of of visual ws,l
Perceptual need not notrepresent representspecific specificentities entities perceptual symbols need \, perceptual hemati representations, represenlations, the th same sameperceptual ~rceplual symbol symbol As perceptual symbols symbols are schematic ,.111 r<pre.ent a variety of of referents, referents, for instance, instan e. multiple muhipl instances in tan ofofpurr p"rror rrd. can represent or red.

Perceptual and generic generic Perceptual symbols symbolscan can be be indeterminate indeterminate and !'a."plual ode qualitative qualttallVe af> informalion.This Thi Perceptual symbol, symbols en encode as well a as quantilative quantitative information. lullow. aas some neurons ncuron are are specialized pecialized for for encoding encodingqualitative qualilalive information. informallon. follows nr e
• • • • •

simulators consist simulalors consi I of offrames fram frames are representalions are multimodal, multimodal, analogue representations frames arc structured fram . are Mructured simulalors fa ilitale simulations imu)alion simulators facilitate ,simulators imulalors implement implemenl fully fully functional funclional conceptual coneeplualproccsscs processes

h of of these Ihese properties pro~rli~below: below: bri fl y addr I briefly address co each

Perceptual ngid Perceptual symbols symbolsare are dynamic, dynamic, not rigid Perceptual tltute associative a~l<.iative patterns pattern, of of neurons. neuron,. The 1 hesubse,ub.. Perceptual symbol symbols con constitute quent amendment of aa perceptual ~rceptual symbol, symbol. by by virtue virtue of ofupdating, updating. means meam quent amendment that between neuron not be be reinstated rCin\IJICd in the the same \JOle way wav that (onnCt.tion\ connections between neurons may may not thann prior to updating. Hence, II nce, perceptual ~rceptual symbols ymbo" con,titute dynamic. rather rather tha constitute dynamic, character chang ongoing perceptual perceptual states tate, rigid repr ntation. who rigid representations, whose character changes as ongoing are th perceptual perceptu •• 1symbol. ,ymbol . are in
Perceptual symbols notholistic holistic symbols are are componential, not Perceptual \ymool, symbols rcprC\c1l1 represent (,;umponcnl\ components of Pcrc.cptu.ll ofaJ given 81\'cnmodal modalstream, MrcolOl.rather rJtherthan than a holistic representation. rep,","nlalion. This Ilion is i supported . upported by by findings findings relating relaling to 10the Ihe This po position

Simulatof3 consist of of frames Simulators consist SlIllUlalors are comprised of of coherent coherenl constellations con lellalion of ofperceptual ~rceplual.ymbol Simulators are symbols, ,in in Ihe sense described dcscnbed above, above, which whi,h are arc organized organlled into inlOframes. frame .Frames ham ..are are largelarge· the scale coherent 'Calc coherenl knowledge knowledg structures Iructur of differenl types, t~, as a described de.cribed in in more more of different delail Ihe next nexI chapter. chapler. detail in the Frames are multimodal, analogue Frames are analoguerepresentations representations htllllC'\ in(o'll(lr.lIC ymhol captured (Jpluret.l from fmlll across Jun !. the the sensory \Cn\Ory momo Frames incorporate pen.crILIJI perceptual symbols dalilies, \\-ell as d~ introspection inlm\pcdion and Jno subjective \ubj«:tivc experience. experience. Hence, Ilem:e, they they arc are dalities, a\ as well

LE.XI Al REPRESENTATION RePRESENTATIO. LEXICAL

t82

ON EPTUAl STRUCTURE TRUCTURE CONCEPTUAL

mulllmodal in in nature. nature. In In addition, addition, as asthe th perceptual perceptualsymbols yrnbol are arerecordings rccord i ~&, of of multimodal th~ constitute constituteanalogue analoguerepresentations: represent~tl n :they th~are ~redirectl directlyy perceptual aperience, experience, they grounded in embodied experien e (both sensory and ub,ectIVe expcnence), and groundeimbxprnce(othsyadubjecivxprn1,ad of. hence have the th same form foml as as the the experiences expen neesthey theyarc arc records r orm of.

Frames Frames are are structured Frames unstructured bodi of perceptual perceptual knowledge. knowledge. On On the the concon Frames are are not not unstructured bodies of trary, they they are are highly highly structured structured and and exhibit diverse trary, diver types, types, as a discussed di ussed ininthe th next chapter. SImulators simulations Simulators facilitate simulations A simulator imulator provides provides aa means mean of ofreactivating reactivatingthe therecorded recordedperceptual perceptualstates. tate . rea tivation arc a simulations. . imulation. Simulations imulations serve serve to to impleimpl. These These reactivations are known known as ment onceptual processes, proce ,a di>cussed next. next. ment conceptual as discussed implement fully Simulators Implement fully functional functIonalconceptual conceptualprocesses processes

A simulator imulator is not not just just aarecord record ofofvarious variou perceptual per eptual states. tat .AAsimulator simulator implements fully implement. fully functional conceptual conceptual abilities. abilities. This Thi isi achieved achieved via viasimulaimula tion serv to combine combine perceptual perceptual symbols symbol in in order order to toproduce producenovel nm el tions,, which serve activation h subserve sub rv a complex complex range range of ofconceptual con ptualprocesses. proccsso.These Th,,,,, activations whi which include the following: following:

•• •

• • ••

(token ) can can be be matched matchedwith withframes fra m,,,, Categorization: individual entiti entities (tokens) tegorization: individual (types). Productivity: complex complex concept' concepts can be Productivity: he constructed cOn\tructed from from simpler impler ones via imulations which whi h combine combinesets setsof ofperceptual per eptual symbols symbolsininnovel novelways. way. via simulations That ymbol are itional in that that they they can can combine (()m~ine That iis,,perceptual perceptual symbols are compo compositional to produce produce larger larger wholes. To To illustrate illustrate thIS, cord. Now ow im,m this, imagine imagine a circle. agIO red circle. circle. Now 'ow imagine imagin aa dotted dottedred red circle. circle. PSS PSS Theory Theory posits )X,,, h agine a red that perceptual symbols yrnbols for for circle cirde and and that to form a red circle you combined combined perceptual 10 form red circle, corcle, you you added, added, ininaddition, addition,aaperceptual perceptual red. red. To form a dotted red ymbol for for dots. dots. That That is, i , these these "additions" "addition " are arc transformations tran formations on on the the symbol perceptual ymbol for Ie, akin the kind kind of oftransformations tramformation obobperceptual symbol for cir circle, akin to the imagery (e.g., (e.g., Finke hnke 1989; 1989; Shepard and Cooper rved 10 served in the literature on imagery Cooper 1982). Inferencing: can be be deployed Inferen ing: simulations imulations can deployed in in order order totodraw drawinferences inference. reg.uding \O(ialions of variou\ sorts. \tnts. regarding aassociations of various Reason: ~imulatiom~ simulations can can be be emph.»'ed employed in order Reason: order to to reason rea\On about about various volrioU!'t stat affairs on the the basis ba i of ofaa particular particular premise. premise. states of affairs Choice: simulations can be deployed in order Chuke: imulation\ can he deployoo in order to to create crea te imagined imagined or or M:cnario in order to radlilatc hokc. counterfactual counterfactual scenarios facilitate choice.

0"'"

183

semantics revisited revisited EEncyclopaedic n cyclopaedic semantics previou sections section in in this thi chapter chapter have hav been been concerned concerned with withproviding providingaa hc previous •I It, the nature nature and and organization organildtion of ofconceptual onceptualstructure tructurein10the the overview of of the b rief ",ervlew hg!tt of recent recent work w rk in in cognitive cognitiv linguistics Iingui ti and, and,ininparticular, parti ular,cognitive cognitive light In this I""hology. thi . section, sectIon, 1I briefly brie~y review r~view the the key key aspects a peel associated associated with with ps ychology. In 111, eneydopaedl semantics .. mantI first It"t presented in 10 Chapter Chapt r 2. 1. I do so so in 10 the' the,,, thesis of encyclopaedic ",der prepare the revi ion of of this thi approach approach later later in in the the order to to prepare the ground ground for for a revision what we we now now know knowabout aboutthe thenature natur ofofconceptual con eptual ,h.lpter, in the the light light of of what c hapter,in ..structure. trUl..turc.

""d

The semantICs The thesis thesis of of encyclopaedic semantics I he th,,,is eneydopaedi semanti of the the central central assumptions a umption of of The thesis of encyclopaedic semantics iis on one of '''t:nitivc ti ,and i. fundamental fundamental for for much muchresearch research that that isi conducted conducted cognitive lingui linguistics, and is ,\Othon ub·branches of of cognitive ognitiv linguistics: linguiMi .: cognitive cognitive semantics semanti . and and within the two sub-branches Evan and and Green Green 2006 review). ulgnitive approaches to to grammar grammar (see (seeEvans cognitive 2oo6 for a review). ~lore than any any other other researcher researcher in in cognitive cognitivelinguistics, linguistics,Langacker Langacker(1987, (1987, More 19911, 2(XI8) 2008) has IWIII, ha been responsible respon ible forr developing developing the the thesis the isof ofencyclopaedic neydopaedic semantics. He ",mJntics. H~ does docs this thi in in adducing adducingaa "conceptual" "con eptual" semantics semantics that that underpins underpins of Cognitive ognitiveGrammar. ,rammar. Langacker's Langacker's view of ofencyclopaedic eneyclopaedi semanseman hi, his thc(lrY theory of to" " based bJ\cd on two two assumptions: a umption: ((i) thatthe thesemantic semanticstructure truuureassociated a sociated tics is ) that with words ,\Oth words directly dir tJy aaccesses con eptual structure, tructure, and word and and other other conceptual and (ii) words wmboli unit cannot be be understood under tood independently independentlyof ofthe thelarger larger knowledge knowledg symbolic units conceptual knowledge, knowledge, to to which which ,trlllture" lopaedi domain structures, th the eney encyclopaedic domains of conceptual words serv ofaccess." acc ." In In essence, essence,Langacker's Langaeker's claim claim isi that that word, a "points "point of serve as ",mant" tructure iis equivalent rquivalent to conceptual con eptual structure; tructure; that that is, i , the the semantic . manltc semantic structure structure associJted associated with with a lexical tru ure. In In the the next next 'tructure lexical form form i. is conceptual structure. 'cllton, explor~ the Ih details details of ofthis this claim. claIm. section, I explore

r.

Profile/bose Profile/base organization organization in cognitive cognitive grammar grammar As we briefly saw in Chapter A hapter 2, in Cognitive ognitive Grammar Grammar the semantic semantic structure tructure conventionally ymbolic unit. unot, such such as a aaword, word,isI equated rquated conventionally aSMlliated associated with with aa symbolic of conceptual conceptual structure. structur .For For Langacker, Langa ker, con eptual knowledge knowledgeisi with a subset of conceptual domain: conceptual entities entities of ofvarying varying levels levels of ofcomplexity complex.ity organized organized into domains: .lIld which are are organized organiled in in terms term of ofaahierarchical hierarchi al network network of of and organization, organization. which knowledge. The Th set of of domains domain to towhich whi haaword wordprovides proVidesaccess a cessisi referred r r. rred to to

as as aa domain domain matrix.1o matrix.° For example,, consider For exampl (onsider the the concept lOnccpt with wilh which wh"h the the word word form form knuckle kIll/die is equated. Thi This concept is eqUJled. is understood under tood with with respect re Pl'Ct to to the thedomain domain HAND, llANO, which which to say say all all the the knowledge knowledge we have concemong concerning what IIs to what aa hand hand is: for for instance, in tan e, its its ,hJ}le. part\. how it it functions, function. and and so M> on. on.In Inturn, turn,the Ih domain domain shape, itits component component parts, Retail ihr div.ussion in h.iptrr

18 ,1

C

N EPTUALSTRUCTURE CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURE

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION LEXICAL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ REPRES£NTA~T.:: ' O~N

tSS

185

\ Illore (omple example of profile/ba organi/.3hOn i. iliuM rated by Ihe A more complex example of profile/base organization is illustrated by the ,d.llional Gramrelationallexical lexicalconcept conceptassociated associatedwith withthe the form form ""clf. uncle.InInCognitive Cognitive Gramnl"'. tru turt aSMXiatoo .n enlily with a mar,Ih< thevemanlic semantic structure associated with with Imclf uncleprofiJ profiles an entity with a ,,"11),1« hi includes Ihe following following abstract ab lract dodooulip iexdomain domain matrix. matrix.1This includes at at lca\1 least the

which, in turn is HAND understoodwith withrerespect the domain domain ARM. which. llANO i isunderstood peet totothe in turn i understood with the r pcct to the domain BODY. Thi domain i under tood. understowihpctedomainy.Ths underto, ultimately, with respect to the domain of SPACE. In this way, the relationship ultimately. wIth r""ped to the domain of '"AU. In thi way. the rdation hlp between domains reflectsmeronymic meronymic(part·wh (part-whole) relations,wi with one doI ) relation. th one do between domain reflect main being part of a larger more inclusive domain. The most inclusive main being part of a larger more in lu ive domain. The mo t in lu lVe domains are what Langacker refers to as basic domains. Basic domains are domain\ are what langaLker refer to a basic do main . 8a ic do n1.li", arc directly grounded embodied expcrien experience, and thus directly grounded inin embodied e. and thus have have aa pre-conceptual pre'Lonl eptual basis, as illustrated in Table 9.1. ba i • a illustrated in Table 9·1.Langacker argues that the semantic structure we l>dW saw in in Chapter AAs we Chapter 2.,2, langacker argues that the scmanti trulturr conventionally associated with a given vehicle, such as knuckle, consists of conventionally iated with a gIVen vehi Ie. uch '" kllIlCk/f. con i't of profile/base organization. The profile profile for for knuckle. knuckle, for for in instance, what is profile/base organization. The tance. what i\ desde ignated, consists of the various joints in one's fingers, thumb, or hand. ignated. on i t of the variou Joints III one\ fingers. Ihumb. (lr hand . human hand hand contains AA human contains fourteen fourteen knuckles. knu kI . The The base base constitutes con ti t utes aa larger larger structure, within the domain matrix, which is essential for understanding \lruClure. within Ih domain matrix. which i essential for u nderstanding what th the knu knuckle Put another .nother way, way. the the conventional conventional semantic ",manh. whal kle designates. dC\ignates. Put consists of a substructure knuckle representation associated with the form representation associated with the form klll/ckit consi t of a ub~truLlure (the profile) of a larger conceptual structure (the base), within a domain (the profile) of a larger conceptual trueture (the base). wilhin a domain matrix (a series of hierarchically linked domains of knowledge). langacker matrix (a series of hierarchICally linked domain of knowledge). L.1 ngalker suggests that eviden evidence that the the base to the uss ts that e that base relates relates 10 Ih hand, hand. rather rather than than some '>Ome other structure, e.g., the arm, comes from examples such as the following: other SIrU ture. e.g.• the arm. com from examples such a th following: ARM,

I11JIIl"": CifNEALOGY, PERSON, GENDER, lXl,;AL I TERCOURSE, BIRTH, LIFE mains: GENEALOGY, PERSON, GENDER, SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, BIRTH, LIFE Lc\'ycLE, I •• I'ARE. T/C:III1D RELATIONSHIP, Rll.ATIOS IIIP, SIBLING SI8L1NC, RELATIONSHIP, RIIATIOS'illlP, EGO. f(iO. The PARENT/CHILD

The

~.,,< baselor forIhe the~manlic semantic repr"",ntation representation for for Imclf uncleisisdrawn drawnfrom fromaero acrossaanumber number "Iofthe" domains to provide the conceived network of FAMILIAL RELATION these domains to provide the conceived network of FAMILIAL RELATIONS

Il'),f<,enll-d in Figure 9.t. Again I Ihis base. I/Ilcle profiles an enlity related to r epresented in Figure 9.1. Against this base, uncle profiles an entity related to Ihe (.u bybyvirtue IAL~ "BIIN(. [(;o·s mother father. theI1-Go virtueof of being being aa MALE SIBLING of of EGO'S mother or or father.

(1) a. My hand has 14 knuckles • . My hand ha 14 knuckl b. *My arm has 14 knuckles b. 'My arm has 14 knu kles

(I)

While a ceptabl to to provide provide the the utterance utterance in in (1a), (Ia).the the While it it isi semantically semantl lIy acceptable utterance in (ib) is decidedly odd, as represented by the hash sign. In sum, utteran e III (Ib) i decidedly odd. a represented by the hash ign. In sum. the position adopted by Langacker is that semantic structure directly relates to Ihe pmitlon adopted by langa ker i that manti tructure directly relate It> conceptual knowledge.

conceptual knowledge.

[AMIE 9 t. Partial inventory of bask domains (after Langacker *987) TAil [ 9-1. P~ni;alln"'tnlory of l» It dom;ain ( .. fler u,npl.ktr 1917)

Basic Domain

Pre-conceptual Basis

SPACE ItPAt t;

in Visual VI ual system; y trm; motion motionand nd position ro~lllon(proprioceptive) (proprit.xqlllvC)sensors \('O\(ln In skin, kin. muscles, mwd •and andjoints; jomls;vestibular v lIbul"system y lem(located (Io
&si4i: Domain

COLOUR

UllOUR

PITCH

PIT<:H

TEMPI-RA !URI'

Tl MPfRATl'R I

PRESSURE

PRI\ l'Rt

PAIN

PAIN OOOl:.

ODOUR TIME

TIll

EMOTION

l.M01ION

P",·conceplual 8a>i

UNCLE

UNCLE

auditory canal; detects motion and balance) auditory f.:anal; dctat\ motion lind ~I.lm.:r) Visual system

Vi ual y I m Auditory system

AuditOry y t

"'

Tactile (touch) system Tactile (touth ) y.,tclll Pressure sensors in the skin, muscles and joints Pre ,ure n\.Or In the kin. I1lU I .Inti Joint Detection of tissue damage by nerves under the skin [)elation of w. ur ,J.Jlnas by n n. under the kin Olfactory (smell) system Olf.
\y

h:m

Or

EGO EGO h.1 against ag.un Iwhich whkhthe Iheentity entity h"u_11 9.1. The Th familial folmlh.1Inetwork netwtukwhich wh1l..hforms 10011\the Ih have (Jr n 2006: 239) cJt IgnOitedbybyuncle utl(l~isiiprofiled profiled(Adapted (Adolph.-dfrom fromEvans I·... olnandndGreen designated bob: 239) EIGURE 9.1.

186

CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURE

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

Accordingly, in this section I deploy a recent theory relating to the inter,k jion between the linguistic and conceptual systems—the Theory of Lang uage and Situated Simulation ( Barsalou et aL forthcoming). This theory is, in fact, a reformulation of, and based upon, PSS Theory presented above. Its distinctiveness lies in the way it seeks to account for the interaction between the conceptual and linguistic systems. I introduce this account here in order to provide a basis for developing in detail the LCCM perspective on the nature and distinctiveness of the conceptual system, vis-à-vis the linguistic system. As such, I seek to evaluate and revise the thesis of encyclopaedic semantics presented in the previous section.

The distinctiveness of the linguistic and conceptual systems

In certain respects, the thesis of encyclopaedic semantics developed by langacker and others in cognitive linguistics provides an extremely useful way of thinking about linguistic semantics and its relationship with conceptual structure. The claim that words directly encode conceptual structure serves to distinguish Cognitive Grammar and other cognitive linguistic accounts of linguistic semantics and grammar from formal approaches which assume, lilt.. literalism," that words pattern after reference to an objective reality "Out there." In this then, Cognitive Grammar, and cognitive linguistic theories more generally take a representational rather than a denotational perspective on semantic representation. Moreover, by virtue of assuming that semantic structure encoded by language directly activates conceptual knowledge, cognitive linguistic theories can get on with the business of conducting linguistic semantic analyses that are claimed to be cognitively realistic, without being unduly concerned about possible distinctions between the representational format of language and other representational systems. 12 Yet while such an approach is reasonable, there exists evidence that the representational formats in the linguistic and conceptual systems significantly diverge. In Chapter 6, for instance, I reviewed linguistic evidence which points to a bifurcation in the nature of the content associated with linguistic expressions: the distinction between schematic and rich content. This distinction, and moreover, the existence of lexical patterns that are variously termed "grammatical;' "functional," or "closed-class," points to the view that there is something distinct about the representational format that language affords, vis-i-vis the way in which concepts are represented." The thrust of my argument is that it is now apposite to confront the possibility—I would argue, the reality- that linguistic and conceptual representations diverge, precisely in order to achieve a (genuinely) cognitively realistic account of language. Moreover, such an account provides the means for investigating the way in which semantic structure and conceptual structure interface, in order to provide a joined-up theory of semantic representation: an account of the interface between the linguistic and conceptual systems. Such an account will, I suggest, additionally facilitate the development of theories of backstage cognition—for example Conceptual Blending Theory—which can thus be stated with greater precision than is possible presently. " Recall the discussion in t.haptet I. our.c. Recent work under the rubric of the Neural Theory 01 13 There are exception% to this of ► Language (NTL1 has begun attempting to model language in a framework that takes seriously the various representational systems that the brain appears to make use of. For a general statement on the NTI.proiect tee N4(1111.1[11.1[0 Narigranan I. 21104). For one attempt to sketch the hornialstm necessary to

187

41,

.41111 Language and Situated Simulation Theory

.to

Language and Situated Simulation Theory (LASS Theory for short), as developed in Barsalou et ul. forthcoming) is based on, and in certain respects revises, Barsalou's theory of Perceptual Symbol Systems ( PSS Theory), discussed above. LASS Theory holds that knowledge is made up of distinct types, notably representations which inhere in a simulation system—that is a conceptual system /4 —and representations which inhere in a linguistic system. Crucially, the representations which make up each of these two systems are of a wholly different format, and hence the systems constitute distinct forms of knowledge available to the human organism. As with PSS Theory, LASS Theory assumes that the conceptual system is made up of representations which are grounded in the modal systems of the brain. These representations are derived from perceiving, from action and from subjective experience. To illustrate, take the example of perceiving a cat. The brain records perceptual information derived from modalities relating to vision, audition, and the somatosensory system. This provides information relating to how cats look, sound, and feel. In addition, as the human experiencer interacts with cats, for example, stroking or feeding, information relating to appropriate and relevant actions is captured from motor actions and proprioception. The brain additionally records information relating to subjective states such as the experiencer's affective response to the interaction with the cat. On later occasions, the experience, or experiences, which gave rise to one (or more) of the perceptual states, can be simulated in the sense described earlier. Hence, the conceptual system is analogue in nature, as the representations that populate it are captured directly from perceptual experience and therefore have a perceptual character." One reason for thinking that the conceptual and linguistic systems are distinct derives from the fact that while other organisms must have conceptual 14

I %ball t

t folic to trig the term "conceptual %scum)

rather !kin"simulation system," and treat

model linguistic representations in the light of how they interface with non linguistic representations

the two as •iroons-inoti..

see Bergen and (:hang t 2005 11 This is an issue we shall revisit below.

" It is precisely because the conceptual system gives rise 10 featUvatttms of perceptual stales. namely simulations, that it is referred to. in I ASS Theory, as a simulation cv.teni.

188

CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURE

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

representations, only humans possess language. Recent research in pri mal. nolgyrevascntiuopes,bthumandoerpits weltertermsofhcnpualytem.Hrfod(z7),instacervw of evidence which suggests that other species, and particularly primates, construct rich representations of the world around them, including the ability to refer to objects, to represent entities in their absence, to remember p ast events, and also appear to have elements o f propositional thought. Rarsalou (zoos) also reports on recent findings in which evidence has emerged that Macaque monkeys have a modality-specific circuit in their brains for representing conceptual knowledge associated with social knowledge. Rarsalou argues that this finding shows striking parallels with human conceptual representations: macaques appear to represent conceptual knowledge in m o -dalityspecfw, arstohecfumans.Iotherwd, is good evidence supporting the view that there is continuity between the conceptual systems exhibited by humans and other primates. Rarsalou et al. (forthcoming) argue that the conceptual system that evolved in humans and other primates did so in order to process non-linguistic stimuli, notably perceptual, motor, and introspective dimensions of experience. This being the case, it makes sense that the relatively recent emergence of language in modern humans—full-blown language is likely to only have emerged in the last 100,00o years"—relates to a system which is distinct from that of the evolutionarily more ancient conceptual system. According to LASS Theory, the linguistic system evolved in order to provide an executive control function with respect to the conceptual system. That is, the representations which populate the linguistic system involve linguistic vehicles—which might be auditory, orthographic, or signed—and encode selectional tendencies, in the sense of the theoretical construct of the lexical profile developed in Chapter 6. 17 In addition, linguistic representations serve to index representations in the conceptual system with which they are associated. LASS Theory makes two specific proposals with respect to lexical processing and knowledge representation which are noteworthy. Firstly, LASS Theory claims that the time course in terms of activation of the linguistic versus conceptual representations exhibit distinct and non-simultaneous patterns. This follows, as argued by Rarsalou et A, precisely because there are two distinct systems: while they interface, the two systems involve distinct trajectories of activation. In particular, LASS Theory assumes that when a word is perceived, the linguistic system (LS) becomes engaged immediately in order to categorize the linguistic representation. An associated simulation in the conceptual system (CS) becomes engaged slightly later, with the activation of the linguistic system 116

Set. I he following for ch.. ussion: Hurling 1 zoo;I. lohansson I20051. Moduli I1996I, Renfrew

(24)07). 17 On this account. semantic structure is .04 in1CWhJi mote impoverished than is claimed by LCCM Theorr—about which I will have more to say later in the chapter.

A

Time The respective activation of linguistic and conceptual knowledge associme d with the linguistic and conceptual systems in the processing of a word (adapted (tom Rarsalou et aL forthcoming) 1: 14 ,t , RE (}2.

peaking before the associated simulation. This is illustrated in Figure 9.2, where the respective peaks, labelled LS ( Linguistic System) and CS (= Conceptual System) are depicted as being non-simultaneous. Secondly, Rarsalou et al. argue that lexical processing involves a shallow, or superficial, level of processing. That is, for many lexical processing tasks, such as lexical association tasks, processing takes place solely in the linguistic system. For instance, the prime cat will generate the vehicles fur, purr, and pet. LASS Theory predicts that such lexical associations are due to statistical relations which are encoded as part of linguistic representations." That is, part of the knowledge we have regarding words has to do with the other words with which a vehicle commonly co-occurs--the lexical profile. Put another way, the claim made by LASS Theory is that lexical associations of this kind are not due to "deep" conceptual processing, which retrieves conceptual information. 19 In sum, LASS Theory claims that there are two basic representational systems (among others), the linguistic system, and the conceptual system, the latter grounded in the modalities. These systems underpin knowledge processing in service of linguistically facilitated meaning construction.

The relationship between sematic structure and conceptual structure in LCCM theory The proposals developed by Rarsalou et at, described above, diverge from the thesis of encyclopaedic semantics assumed in cognitive linguistics. After all, LASS Theory argues that the linguistic and conceptual systems, while they interact, involve different types of representation and different types (and levels) of processing. ' I See also flor ► ditsky And Prim (forthcoming) for discussion of related issues. '• The position that situated communication relies on distinct types of knowledge inhering in distinct representational systems: the linguistic and conceptual system, is consistent with other approaches in the cognitive psychology literature, tor which there is empirical support. For instance. LASS Theory is consistent with some of the key claim. of Paiviti% MIA Coding Theory Iii971. i9116).

190

-

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

Ilowev r. one of of the th consequences con~uenc of ofLASS LASS Theory Thoory isi that lhat much much01ofwhat what However, normallythinkofa mantic structure tructurriis removed rrmovrd from from the lhdingui tic Iingui t normally linguists think of as semantic linguistic 'y,tem. In the linguistic Iingui tic system y tern we w are ar left left with with vehicles vehid stripped tripprd of ofsemantic mantic system. y" for for the the statistically tati tIC.tIly established tabll hl-d associations 'iation between between vehicles— vehides(ontent. content, save the lexical le"i al profile in present n this thi account, a count. the thelingui tic system tern has ha present term. terms. On linguistic hrd representations, representation,. which whichare arc pale pal reflections retl ,tion of oflhe bipolarassema m Iml\Overi impoverished the bipolar III bli involving a phonological phonologi(al vehicle vehid and and semantic manti structure tructure developed developrd in blies involving argue, correctly. correctly, II submit, that simulations— previou chapters. Barsalou Barsal u (I ubmit. that imulationset al. argue. previous chapters. the br ad and butter. !>O to speak, peak. of ofmeaning meaningconstruction—constitute con truction on titute aa the bread and butter, so to wmputation which arises ari from a different different repre:.entational than that that representational type than computation which from found language. Language, Language. they uggest. serves rYes to index index and and prompt prompt for for found in language. they suggest, II1lUlation • but bUI does docs not not directly dir t1yencode n odethe theperceptual perceptualrecords, records. the theperceppercepsimulations, tual ymbol. upon which whi h simulations imulation arc re based. based. In so doing, ding. they they place plac what what tual symbols, h content" iatrd with wilhlanguage language I referrrd referred to. to, in in earlier earlier chapters. chapters, as as the"ri the "rich content" associated in (one ptual system. y tern. So So far far so SO good. good.However, Ilowever. semantic manticrepresentation reprC>entatlon in the conceptual hematIC content." ont nt." A have argued, .rgurd. one of ofthe theimportant important .Iso Involves""schematic also involves As I have finding emerge from from empirical empirical work work on on linguistic linguisti semantics manti by byscholars h lars findings to emerge u h as Talmy ningful in such Talmy and and Langackerl Langacker islhat thatgrammar grammari ism meaningful in Itits own own right.'"' right." Thal to the th "rich "rich content" conlent"that that language languageprompts promptsfor, ~ r.languag That is. is, III in addition to language hemallc content—recall content-recall the the discussion discu ion of ofTalmy' nOlion encod • level of encodes a of schematic Talmy's notion of the bifurcation bifurcation in III the th way way the theCognitive og"'tiv Representation Repr nlatlonisi represented r pr ntedvia vi. language. my claim claim isi that lhat while while LASS LAS . Thoory i correct orrect to language, in Chapter 6. Hence, my Theory is 6. Ilence. e the ontenl" in lem. and identify it in in terms lerm of of pia place the "rich "rich content" in th the conceptual conceptual system, record tates-for example, eumpl •the thesituated Ituatrdperceptual perceptualexperience e peri nlC records of perceptual states—for aiated the vehicle v hide red reJ arises ar not not from fr m linguistic IIngul tICrepresentation, represenlallon. but but associated with the representation-thi isi not not the thewhole wholestory. lory. rather rather is is based based on on conceptual representation—this A 'u.,w in previous previou chapters, chapters. there there is I an an additional additional level I el of ofrelatively relatively As di discussed ofmultifaceted, multifacetrd. knowledge knowledg directly directly encoded encodrd by bylanguage. languag . nrich, h. in the th sense nsc of truct represents rrp"""n an attempt auempt to to charcharThe lexical concept qua lheoretical theoretical con construct aeterile knowledg . The Th linguistic lingui tic content cont nt that thal makes mak up up the the acterize thi this level level of knowledge. lexi al concept 'h malic. and h n e is i non-analogue, non-analogue. in in the the sense sen lexical concept Iis highly highly schematic, and hence ized not to lO directly directly prompt prompl for ~ r simulations. imulalion .Another Anotherway wayof of that that il it iis hYPOlh hypothesized

IE

en"""" In c(]writ., 6 I isblvd ..un-. on (tn lexical 1nh:aJclasses d.aun. . ■ ncepts in hapter e% bawdun on l.anJ*.NT·, lAngacker's J>tOftC""'1nJ pioneering work

191 191

■ ing this .... thi isI that thai the Ihe level level of of knowledge knowledge II have have been been referring referring to to as a linguistic lingu"tic ,a ying bylanguage, languag •and and content assumes a urn a format formal that that can can be be encoded encoded directly dir t1y by content Ihe conceptual conceptual system, y tern. but hut rather rather the the linguistic lingui ticsystem. tern. hence. inhere hence, inheres not in the On my my account ."ount then, then. the thethesis lh.,i ofofencyclopaedic encydopal',h semantics, 'mantiu,discussed dl 'u;cd On al>ove.oversimplifi matters. It It blurs blurs the boundaries boundari between between linguistic lingui tic and and above, oversimplifies matters. ","ceptual knowledge. knowledge. While marking m.uklng such uch boundaries boundari., may may not not be benecessary neces .... ry conceptual in Cognitive for instance, III Cognilive Grammar, Grammar. for in".nce. which which isi ultimately ultimately concerned concerned with with IingUi li organization, organizallon. such uch aa situation Ituation a(Counling formal properties properti of linguistic accounting for formal i, unyti factory when .(((lunt for for the the role role ofoflanguage languageinin is unsatisfactory when attempting attempting to to account meaning (on truction. and peeifically. the the apparent apparent variation vuiation in in word word meaning construction, and specifically, la aero contexl of use. u . " meanings" meanll1g .. across contexts of claim at the heart of LCCM Theory, and and one one enshrined in the distinction The c!.Jim allhe heart ofleC 1 Thoory. d~tinclion h.:tween it two lWO foundational foundational theoretical theoretical constructs—the con truct the lexical I xical concept conceptand and between its cognitive linguistics, cognitiv model—is mod I-i that that what what has, ha in in cognitive cognitivelingui ti been beentreated trratrd as 3!> two lwo qualitatively distinct, That is, whil ub~l of oflexical lexical concepts concept facilitate facilitate access ace to tocognitive cognitivemodels—an model an while a subset in ighl is is drawn drawn from from LASS LA Theory. Theory. In In the the next next indirecl ialion. Thi indirect aassociation. This insight chapter I lurn turn to to aa con\id consideration of th the cognitiv cognitive model—based mod I based on on proposals propo!>J1 (hapter ration of by Barsalou (e.g., construct that by 8ar!>Jlou <e.g .• 1999)—which 1999)- wh"h iis the Ih theoretical thet"eti al construct that is i held held to to populate the conceptual system, y lem. and and to 10 which which open-class open·c1 lexical lexicalconcepts con ept are are 2' hypothesized hypolh i1ed to 10 facilitate fd,ilitat access. a c ."

=

•" Indeed. IndtN.the tiwperspective J'ln'J."n.1Ivtthat lhAlLanguage LanJ~ directly dually encodes tfk.oda schematic tt..htm.Ilk meaning me...,u,.of(IIthe thekind .... ndI Ihave .... ¥t'been h«n dtknhma. contest of of much mlkh ofoftwentieth-century twmlJdh-«nIUry linguistics, tmcuutk has hAt been b«n aIrelatively tn.tlmy minor nullur describing, In in 1M the context rtnrn:tn~. y f(my). Ion,). with ,,"llh his hi,influential mflumtwarguments aIJUmtnl for furthe thedissociation dJ -.a.hun perspective, unh] until r~rndy. recently. \Uk.(, Since (hum I ihoinsky hc1W«n h.u been h«n common u'mm(1H to10assume UlUmtthat Ihltgraniniatkal .,.'n1nulk.llIstructure, lflk.tUR'. between l1&mnw grammar.nJ and wnunl.... semantics. Itil has lnuwlc:J "t linguistic hn,ul~lk.lurm d, llrkl—inInthe thesense 11m of 01being Martiseparable K'l"r.hkfrom '",m- • semantic I1\lnll ...knowledge. k",}wIN~ knowledge of forms, is..distinct Ont tht outstanding (lutlMkllRlcontributions contnbuhuruofofLangac.ker's I...anp4.kr' wurlr.. 10 show show that tlul such Lk.h" One of of the work, fur for UUUrk.r, instance, h.u has bttn been to a view .. vW'W (nnsidn' the dw vehicles vdlli &necplolle opIcWand andexploocm. a~ While Whl the Ihtformer lurmt1isb" vnbthe Ihtlatter LtItI'TisIt" is UWnt'l'tUl.. erroneous. Consider a verb a noun llw traditional tr.tlhOl".) view VtrW has h been hftn to hi assume assumr that ltwl both "'Ih forms lorn encode "" ... t..the t same unwsemantic WInUItKstructure Ir\ktUll' noun. The two forms. Langacker, in .00 I'T only ltw syntactic vnt&lk information Inf""",,,hun encoded t!k.,J,N by tty the Itw Iwu I..rm l.anpktr. In u.nl~l, rJUO and 1.11 differ only In in the 01)ntrAst, argues du, vdu~.kI do I:ont.... in In terms trrnu of (Iftheir tt~r semantics. IImYnl This Th .. follows f..'lonn. htassumes rnagrammatical P-aJnrNtK.al that thnt these vehicles do contrast as he semantic N basis. For vehicles, such as ~,,~Jt'. Ultlhr1n nk .... class t..I have n..vt'"a M"flWntK I«.r Lingacker, I .. n ..... ~. verbal vnNl vduda. lk-h" categories Itkh" such as lexical evl, k. and landmark fin his terms). As such they encode " ('~I,J.· .. h"n .nJ hc-",,(' , ... h.-nwlk. tr''''"tnt .nJ t..OO"ur" 1m hi Irnn). At tkh d"" '1'(' a rd SthrIllatic trapectin arc relation and hence a wnctptu.uy "nlr I n .. minaI vehicks wt\kks IIIi.e., ('. nnun I..rm,) encode nkoJ( things-Iht rn.lutypk.conceptually dt"J"tI'kI~1 dependent. In In ..contrast, nominal noun forms) prototypk all,. hnkr are aft non-relational. nun ""lIonal The Ilw discussion d.... "_,,n of ul nominal n"mawand andrelational rd.aoonal lexical k"k" ally phyUcai physical mtll entities -~ and hence

('O~CfPT At STRUCTURE STRUCTURE CONCEPTUAL

•

1 Thal '1 Thollsaid, .. kJa.•caveat c.v is t. inInorder. (mkrTo Tilclaim ~wmthat duethere Ihr«are ilrttwo twodistinct dl ll1klforms fnrm of(l(representation rqnutnt.lttonthat I"'-t love nw rise Illlm,ul to linguistically Jlw II .. ally mediated mnll.UN conceptions wn..rl'hon isI not nuttotuclaim d.-urnthat lJutwe '"have n..wmodular m",duLirsystems I tt'm which wt",..hfail 1.. 1 output of one system to interact. wtn-okt That l'h .. I is. ... I1 am not nnt claiming ,-Lumint that Itut the Ill.- ()\Itrut I" UIM' ~ Irm serves wn .. tht as'"rul input hi to &00100. another, ano..I and the not visible 10 ltut that .. are nul oft throttler. Inl(TRoII Inn arc yt IhW Il, the (.IM Rather, tt.lhrr...and nd as '" w.:..n...u 1ft' In I'." each system internal ('J'f'htt&ttu operations I,f of n...h, we shall WC in Part composition. two systems in U-ntIRUc'U continuous and III tftIUfltk c:(tmrhnn. the t..... Inn interact Inln..:t In .nd dynamic d,-Nl1\k fashion t.utunn III wbm when II MJdras address semantic

in 1rTVt(( service •• of, producing In rruduu"I simulations mul.. hOlU and aOO hence hnkt situated litwln) meaning mcamn, construction. co.... ""'ltonn

191 142

LEXICAL. REPRE REPRESFNTATRIN LEXICAL ENTATION

Summary Summary In ,hapler 1I have been hccn concerned concerned wilh in general general terms, lerm , the Ihe with outlining, in this chapter In Ihi' nJIUre "rulture as a assumed a' umed by byLCCM le .M Theory. lbeory. I1 have also been hccn nature of of conccplUal conceptual structure concern«l th way way in in which whichlanguage languag interfaces interfa with wilh the th conceptual con cptua! concerned with with the system in service 'y,tem ~rvi, of of.situated ituated meaning meanmg construction. construction. IIargued argued that Ihat aafundafundahuman cognition ognition isisthat thatlinguistic linguisticrepresentations repr"",nl.tilln mentJI feature of human mental de>'gn design feature provide an an indexing provide indexing and and control control function function with with respect r pect to 10 the th conceptual conceptual of the the human human .system, y,tem, greatly f uses u and flexibility flexibility of greatly increasing increasingthe the range range of and conceptual system. con«!'tual sy,tem. However, 1I0wever, this thi does d(~ mean meanthat thatlinguistic lingui"i representations reprc>cntation, equivalent to to the concepts art concepts which which populate populate the the conceptual con eptual system. y tem. In In are equivalent namely symbolic ymholic particular, uggested that that linguistic lingui tic representations, repre>entation ,namely particular, 1I have suggested Ul1lt and enhance nhan,e the the existing exi tingform fornl ofofrepresentarepre Illaunits,, evolved evolved to complement and tion that inhere in the conceptual system, sy tem, rather rath r than duplicating dupli ating them. them. One One tions that of the the consequences conscquenu." of of assuming a uming two two distinct distin'l systems: lem : aa linguistic lingui ti and and aa conceplual Ihe need need to to revise revi the Ih thesis Ihesisofofencyclopaedic encyclopaedic conceptual sy,lem, system, ha has been been the s. In built on the Ihe semanti semantics widely widely assumed assumed in in cognitive cognitive linguisli linguistics. In doing so, II built Theory Perceplual Symbol ymhol.Systems y,lems (P55 (PSS Theory), Theory), developed developed by byBarsalou BM lou Theory of Perceptual 1999, 2003), wilh respect r peel to 10 language languag in inlh Theory of 01 (e.g., 1999, 2003), and and \I its applical,on application with the Theory languag ilualed Simulation imulalion (LASS (LA Theory), developed developed by byBarsalou Barsalou Language and and Situated rlr ail. al. (forlhconllng). (forthcoming).

10 Cognitive models models I hi chapter erned with Ihe construct of ofth cognitiv model. model. This chapter icon is concerned with outlining the the cognitive ofthe the perspective perspective on on conceptual conceptualstructure tru ture developed de"elopedininthe the I do thi in light light of do this i , in in broad broad terms, ternlS. preVIous previous lhapter. chapter. In In leeM LCCMThct)ry Theoryaa cognitive cognitive model model is, ,imilar to Barsalou's Barsalou' (1999) notion of ofaa simulator, simulator. which which encompasses en omp frame similar (t999) notion aaframe ,lIlll detail below. below. The use u of ofaa novel novel term, term. and simulation. simulations, di'iCussed discussed on in more detail done for for three thrcc reasons. reason. ·"cognitive ,ngniltve model," model," is done hr..tly. at lage in i not clear clear to what what extent extent units Untts Firstly, atthi this stage inour our understanding. understanding, it is of .. (If manti structure—lexical tructure-Iexical con cpt -facilitate access a cess to the the conceptual conceptual semantic concepts—facilitate 'y,tem. tance. the experience of "n t being being able abl to to put put system. For For in instance, the common common experience of "not thoughts into into words," words." particularly particularly as a applied applied to tosubjective ub/cctiveexperiences, expenences.sugsugto certain certain types type> of of gl'\t that the lingui tic system tem may may Ixbe les gests linguistic less well well connected to ",neeptual point made made by by conceptual repr=ntations representationsthan thanothers. others.Indeed. Indeed,thi this is is a point 'ackendolT .• 1992). i conceivable conceivabl that that some some aspects aspect ofofconceptual conceptual Iackendoff (e.g (e.g., 1992). It It is structure may only be partially ,truclme partially accessible ace . ible or even inaccessible inaccessible to to the the linguistic lingui tic 'y'lem. I introduce the theoretical theoretical construct con trull of of the th cognitive cognttive model, model.then, then.toto system. Cd Systems. Barsalou focused on on the wider .. sense n as described described in in the previous previous chapter—of chapter--ofconceptual conceptual structure. structure. wider ofinformation information are art likely likdy to to feed feed into into acknowl«lges that Ihat other oth r forms form of While he acknowledges primarily exercised exerci>Cd by accounting accounting for for the the conceptual represenlations, he is primarily conceptual representations, perceptual grounding of cognition. In In my my account, a count, I explicitly acknowledge acknowledge perccplUal grounding that propositional propo itional (i.e., (j.t., non-perceptual) non-perceptual) information information may may also also become becomeininthat inform. c()rporated in cognitive models, model" which which supplements upplement the theperceptual perceptualinformacorporated tion already lion already present. prc\c1l1. Such Sw.:. h propositional propo itional information inrorm.llion is i't likely likely totoaccrue a f..ruevia VIJ Iingui ti ally mediated routes, including including narrative, narraltv~, exchange e",hange of ofnews, new ,and and linguistically mediated routes, gossip. go. ip. For For these the.. reasons, re,lsons, it is i. useful u..ful to to distinguish di\lingui h the the theoretical theoretical construct (on truet under here. by hy applying .lpplying the novel term ternl cognitive cognitive model. model. under dc\dnpmcnt development here, Finally, whtl while I ~J11ploycd Finallr, PSS Thl'Ory the previous previou. chapter (h.pter to to illustrate ,IIU>lrate employed PSS Theory in the what a simulation-style imulatlon lyle account of orconceptual com:eptuJI structure Irm:ture coultllook like. much much what could look like,

OGNITIVE MODEL COGNITIVE MODELS

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION lEXI(:AI RfPRf ENTATIO.

194 194

-work workremain remains10tobe be don done. PSS Theory Theory af() arose in in Ihe the context . PSS conlexl of of behavioural behavioural

are

Knowledge representation representation in in the the conceptual Knowledge conceptual system system

The world model

The world model

Barsalou provides an an ontology Bar lou (1991) (1991) providcs onlology for for aatheory Iheoryofofknowledge knowledgerepresentarepresenlaThis comprises a person's model. tion based on what he refers to as the world lion based on whal h r fers 10 as Ih world model. This compri a person\ beliefs the current beltefs about aboullhe urrenl.state laleof ofthe Iheworld. world.These Th"'"beliefs belief relate relaleto10individuals, individual, their current states and where they are located. Barsalou suggests that people Iheir currenl lal and where Ihey ar< Io
, WA% Barsalou's SuYluu I work "''-Irkon "n frame fn,f1\d "',)

()nip, t ihIc with it. '-4'm~h'-'k With 11

lkw:lurrJ rnur to thor tkvdup~t uf ....., 'Tbn'ry. but ••

developed prior to the development of PSS Theory. 1•

195

,,-ununent., ou~tri_~1 (iti ,n~ighbourhood, room, continents, countries, cities, neighbourhoods, mdividual individual building, buildings, rooms,

workon onhow how people people reproenl representcon concrete objects and and aClions actions -– Ihings things that work relc ohjects Ihal arc perceptible. Other sorts of subjective and cognitive states arc still not I'ef(eplible. Iher Mlrt; of suhjeclive and cognillve lales are. lill nol well well what he understood—a point acknowledged by Barsalou (1999) in referring to underslood-a poinl acknowledged by Bar.. lou (1999) 10 refemng 10 whal he terms"inlrospective "introspective.. experience." workproceeds, proceeds,Ihe the state of our lerms perience." AAswork lale of our knowknowto require ledge, particularly relating to non-perceptual knowledge, is likely ledge, particularly relaling 10 non pcf(cplual ~nowledgc, i Itkely 10 requi re significant of our our accounl( account(s)) of of how ignificanl rrevisions ision of how simulation Imulallon takes lake. place, place, and and the Ihe nature of other cognitive states. Accordingly, an additional reason for using nalure of olher cognilive lales. Accordingly, an addilional reason for usi ng the novel novel lerm term cognilive cognitive model model is Ih i to 10 dissociate dissociale LCCM I C OM Theory Theory from from PSS PSS Theory. While I have employed PSS Theory for purposes of illustration. Theory. Whil I have employed P' Theory for purposes of iIIuslralion, Theoryi isnol notconlingenl contingent upon upon it. \.LCCM . M Theory il.

In Ihi this seclion, section, II consider in more the way In on ider 10 tnor detail delaillhe way in in which whi h perceptual perceptual symbols ymbtl" areorganized organized within within Ihe the conceplual conceptual system are yslem to 10 provide prOVIdelarger-scale larger-scale knowledge knowledge distinct kinds of of I argue that there are a number short, structures. In hort, I argue Ihal Iher arc a number of di lincI kind of Iruclurcs. In c iated cognitive models—frames and the possible set of simulations asso cogl1llive model fram and Ihe po Ible sel of imulalion a ialed with the frame—that populate the conceptual system. Distinctions in types with the framl'--Ihal populal Ihe conceplual yslem. Di tinctions in I~ of cognitive of cogniliv models model arise arise due due to 10 distinctions di linction in in the Iheframes fram that Ihalprovide provide the cognitive model with its organizational structure. Hence, in this section Ih cognitive model WIth il organizalional Iru lure. lien e, in Ihi seclion II idenlify identify a a number number of frame types. offram Iypes. II do do so so based based on onBarsalou's Barsalou's work workon onframes frames 1993).' In general terms, frames ((e.g., .g., Barsalou Barsalou 1991, 1991, 1992a; 199111; Musalou Barsalou et rt al. al. 1993).1 In generalleml ,fram can can be to things Ihing and and to 10 situations. silualion .Further, I'urther, within wllhin each each of of be identified idenlified which which relate relale 10 these relating to 10specific specific Ihese broad broad divisions divi ions there Ihere are arc frames frames which which are arc episodic, episodi ,relaling types of experience and/or knowledge, and frames which are generic, relating Iypes of e perien( andlor knowledg ,and framcs which arc generic, relaling to 10 schematizations schemalizallon over ov r broadly broadly similar imilar aspects a pect of ofexperience experien e and/or andlor knowknowledge. The distinct frames (and hence cognitive models) identified below ledge. The di linct frames (and hence cognilive model) id nlified beloware arc epiindividuals (episodic) and types (generic), which relate to things, and individual (episodic) and types (generi ), whi h relale 10 Ihings, and episodic sodic situations ilualion and and generic generi situations, iluation,which whichrelate, relal ,self-evidently, self'evidenlly, to 10situ,ituations. I begin by focusing on the frames for things: individuals and types, alion . I begm by focu ing on Ihe fram for Ihings: individuals and Iypes, before ofthe Iheframes fram for for situations. ilualion. before proceeding proceedIng with wilh aa discussion di u ion of

195

•

a.nd hey further further locale withm these Ih loea andloealton locations wllhm within rooms. rooms. 1 They locate enlilies entities within locaIIl1n, palial framcs mporal knowledge, for instance, inslance, tions,and and mtegrale integrate the. the spatial frames with with Itemporal knowledge, for Ihe rddllng relating10tocydes cyclesand andlIme time fram framesof of vanOll various sorl sorts including including Ihe the season, seasons, the weeks, and and days, day, as a ealendar, uch as calendar,and andlemporal temporal tnlervals intervals such as year, years, monlh months,, weeks, well based lem,,?ral Iructures su h as a knowledge knowledg relating relatms to 10 one's one' wellaasconlcn~ content-based temporal structures such IIwn famIly members' member. daily rouline, development developmenl over Ihe life life span, pan, own and and family daily routine, over the 10 ,Iages. lon, and on. Temporal Temporal information information serves serv to stages m in career career progr progression, and so so on. IIrgatlllC t, presenl, ion inin Ihe world model mod I and, and, organizepa past, present,and and fulure future informal information the world Ilar .... lou argue., palial (ore. Ihi Barsalou argues,docs doesso so orthogonally orthogonally 10 to Ihe the spatial core. Moreover, Moreover, in in this people represent represenl other olher people's people' interactions interactions and and movements, movements, world. world modd, model, people updallng For instance, inslan e, while while at al work, work, aa person person might mlghl updating Ih the model model CO~ltnuously. continuously. For represenl hops, returning relurning home, hom, or or representIhel~ theirparln~r. partner'smovemenlS: movements:going going10 to Ihe the shops, Ihm and so on. on.People Peopl~also alsorepresent repr<senl their chlldr~n children'sa~I~'lles activitieswhile while at at school, school, and olher actIVItIes taking ~aking place pIa ~ in in the Ihe various variou regions region represented reproenled in in other ongotng ongoing activities Ihel~ mlghl know know about aboul aa meeting meeling of ofaa their w~rld world model. model. I'or For tnlance, instance, o~e one might Un". er Ily Exam commillee room roomnear nearone's one' office, offic~, University Exam Board Board taktns taking plac~ place tn in aa committee IIit belllg Tuesday afternoon, Prim Minister's Mini ler' Qu tion Time Tim~ taking laking place pIa e at al being Tuesday afternoon, Prime Question Ihe 1I0u of of Commons, Common.' knowing—based knowtns.. · ba~ on on having having read read today's loday'; newsnew . the House paper-thaI I currently currently staying ta)'lng at al Windsor Windsor Castle tie rather rather than than paper—that th~ the Queen Queen is e, Ihal in London London isis currently currently undergoing undergoingrepairs repairs Butktngham Buckingham Pala Palace, that Big Big Ben Ben in and hence nol presently chiming, himing, and and so on. not presently so on. , In In the distincI kinds kind of oHrames can he be distinguished di lingui hed which which the world world mod~I.lwO model two distinct frames can rclale 10 Ihtngs: tndlvldual and Iypes (Barsalou et al. 1993).' Individual arc relate to things: individuals and types (Barsalou et al. 1993). 2 Individuals are fram.es Ihal rclal~ 10 ani~13le and and inanimate inanimale entities enlilies that thaI are ar~ held held to10persist persi I frames that relate to animate COnltnuou Iy in tn the the environment. ~nvlronmenl. As As such, such, individuals individual are are central central to 10the the continuously ofthe Ihe world world model. model.Individuals IndiVIdual pr provide relatively stable labl informainforma onlology of ontology o vide relatively lIon about aboul aa given gIven entity: enllly: information tnfOrmalion that thaIisisboth bolhstable labl over overtime, limeasa well well tion as incorporating tncorporaling episodic episodic information. informalion. Hence, Henc~, the Ihe new new information informali~n for for aa as given !\"~n individual tndi~idual. is i~ added added to 10 the Iheframe fram thereby Ihereby updating updaling itlIon anongoing ongoing on an ha\l . An An individual tndlvldual is is updated updaled based ba d on on encounters en ounler with wilh the Ih entity enlilyitil basis. represenl '. For For instance, tn lanc~, the Ihe frame frame for for "my "mycar" car" might mighl include includethe Ih~ petrol represents. petrol ~eadtng.lhe la Itime limeIIinteracted tnlera led with wilhit,iI,and andthe Ihefact factthat thaIIIhave hav noticed nOli ed gauge reading gauge the last Ihere is I; an .an oil OIlleak, leak,and andthat Ihalthe Ihecararneeds need cleaning. cleaning.This Thisinformation ",formaltonisI there merg~dinto tnlO the th~frame fram~to 10provide provid~an anupdated updaledrepresentation. represenlalion. merged ( rUClally, although although the Ihe same me individual individualmay maybe beencountered encounleredinin the Ihe world world Crucially, ~nmany ma~y.o
the cognitive model. Hence. I do not use the term "model."

196

196

l EXI AL REPRES[NTA liON

COGNITIVE MODELS COGNITIVE MODELS

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

reiates to toaaparticular particularindividual indi~idualisi merged mergedinto intothe theframe (ran~efor (orthat thatentity. entity. relates A s

such, th frame (or a partIcular coUeague at work may 10 lude m(Ormati" such,teframopiculeagtworkmyincludefato relating to to his hi or orher herlocation locationthe thelast la ttim intera tedwith withthem, them,and andso'" on. o~ relating time I Iinteracted In addition additiontotoindividuals, mdlvidual Barsalou , Bar!>3louetet11!. III. (1993) (t9\l3)argue arguethat thatthere th reisI another anoth In frametype typewhich whichinheres inher in . inthe theworld worldmodel. model.This Thitype type which I ref~ frame ofo(frame, frame, which I refer toas a type, type,isI an anabstraction ab tra tlonacross aero frames (ram for forindividuals, individual,providing providinga aframe fram to for a.1 type typeofofindividual. individual.As A such, ulh,types type are arenot notconceptualized conceptuali7edasa,havin haVln for g corresponding entities in the world. For example, whil the individual fo~corespndigthworld.Fexamp,hitndvualfor "my car" car" in in the the world world model model corresponds corr pond totomy mycar carininthe th world, world,the theframe frame "my (or" ar" is i aa type, type, and and relates re/ates to to aJ type typeof ofindividual, individual,abstracted ab,tl'llctedfrom fromacri, alTO for "car" range of ofindividuals. indIvidual. Hence, Hence, people peopleunderstand und r tand their theirframes fram for for types type.toto aa range inhere only in the world model, but not, cruciaUy, in the world it If. inhere only in the world model, but not, crucially, in the world itself. Oneof ofthe thefeatures featuR'S of ofindividuah inthe theworld worldisI that thatthey theychange changelocation. l'l<:allon.InIn One individuals in the world world model, model,thi feature isis captured captured in in terms terms of o(the phenomenonreferred referredtoto the this feature the phenomenon a transcendence tran endence (Rarsalou (BaNlou et el of al. 1993). 19113). Tran enden e ha do with with the the as Transcendence has to to do number and and range range of oflocations Io.:ation,at at which whichindividuals indIvidual and andtypes typesare arerepresented. repR'SCntloJ. number For instance, in tan ,aa colleague coUeague from from work work will willbe berepresented representedatatwork. work.However, However, For a chance chance meeting meeting at at the thelocal localsupermarket upermarket will ,viII ensure n ure that thatthe th individual individual a ~rame for bewmes additionally addllionaUystored tored at at the the supermarket uperolarketl(l(atitln frame for the the coUeague colleague becomes location In the w rid model. When the colleague goes on vacallon to Paris, and nd aa in the world model. When the colleague goes on vacation to Paris, and sends po tcard in the office office to to report report on on the thevacation, va ation,the theindividual individualisi additionally addllionally postcard in to to the tOfl'tf a, part of th Pari, location in the world model. stored as part of the Paris location in the world model. .. lou ft al. (J9\lj) tran endent frames frames for (or individuals individual and and Bar Barsalou a al. (1993) argu argue that that transcendent types, muhipl sites it in in the the world world model, model become be'.:tlmc types, while while being being located located at at multiple funClion.lly deta hed from the world model. That I , they give'ri e to a functionally detached from the world model. That is, they give rise to a level mfomlatlon about nature of of individuals individuals and and types, types, and and the the level of of information about th the nature mteraCllon 10 which become ab tralted from the 'patlal interactions they they can can engage engage in which become abstracted from the spatial frames that form thc core of the world model. In In other otherwords, word ,transcendence frames that form the core of the world model. transcendence glv me to de·contextuali7ed representation which form transcendent gives rise to de-contextualized representations which form transcendent taxonomi For example, the type type for for "heart" "heart" is is aa feature featur of ofall all mammals. mammal. taxonomies.. For example, the Ilencc, rous individuals individuals and and types t}1'" Hence, il\ its p,,'>Cnce presence aas part part of of the the frame frame for for num numerous gIves nse to tranMOenden e. gives rise to transcendence. function. Firstly, Fir tly, transcendence transcendenc propro . Thi rv.. two This property property serves two important important functions. vld th nature nature of cntitic." in 10 videsan an Important important mean, means of of organiling organizing belief, beliefs about about the of entities the it serves serves to to capture capture similarities imilariti between between individuals individual theworld. world. ItIt ddoes so so aas it and uch, itit facilitates facilitates inferen es. For tance, we can infer infer that that andmodel. models. As As such, inferences. For in instance, we can hon I of knowing that that all all mammals mammal, possess po""" hearts. he.ut'. lions have havehear" heartson on th the ba basis of knowing . Secondly, 'ondly,tran endenttaxonomies titute Important transcendent taxonomies may maycon constitute important building building block.. blocks 10 the con tructlon of the world model. Thi, follows "' tr,1O endent inforin the construction of the world model. This follows as transcendent informoll~on firsl ent:ount r. mationcan canbe hei"\Crled insertedinto into(r.lm framesfor fornew new IndividllJI~ individuals upon upon first encounter.

I·or e, on ForInstan instance, onencountering encounteringan anunfamiliar unfamiliarcat, cat,information information from from th the model model for ca t i retrieved and copied, in order to (om. the basis (or the new for cats is retrieved and copied, in order to form the basis for the new individual individualininthe theworld worldmodel. model.Thi\ Thispr()u.~\ process-.en:c: serves10 tominimi,e minimize the the .:amount amount o( learning .be,ut new entiti"" belore they C,IO be adequately represented. of learning about new entities before they can be adequately represented.

197

197

SItuations ing briefly mo ".I\lng hriefly described dcsuibed the the ontology ontology for (orindividuals individu.ls and and types, types, I Inow now nsider how situations are modelled from the perspective of Rarsalou's ,,,Iln"dcr i how Ituation are modelled from the per pediv of BaNlou' frames. n s ra k t io )n :lu ,,,,rk on frames. The The basic basic insight insight isi that thatin10addition additiontotoindividuals indiVIdual and and es, humans additionally represent situations, there being two kinds ivr t,I"". human additionally repre nt ituations, there bemg two kind e lf"I ..ituation: "to.lt IOl!: episodic epi\t>dic situations ,ituation and and generic generi situations. situation.The Thedistinction diMinctionbebetween episodic and generic situations is orthogonal to the distinction between t,,«n episodi and generi ituation i orthogonal to the distinction between he t() this s. individuals ""I" Idual and types. is approach, According \Lltu .• t"IO\, events event and and images—as imag asI Ideploy deploythese theseterms—are term, ·aremental mentalrepresenrepr n tations. The notions of event, situation, and image are somewhat akin t.lI1<m . The nOllon of event, ituation. and Image ar \Omewhat akintotothe the (1975, 1982) and notions of scripts, scenes, and states developed in Schank notion of ripts, scenes, and tates developed in hank (1975, 1982) and Schank xhank and and Abelson Abelson (1977), (1977), with with the the difference difference being being that that events, event,situations, situation\, perceptual and are and images are made up of perceptual symbols, and henc• and II1ldges are made up of perceptual ymbol ,and hen e are per eplUaland thus thu\ embodied embodied in in nature. nature. One of the key insights it takes aa situated ofthis this approach approach isI that thatlttak ituated cognition cognition One of the key in ights of perspective. That iis,,people's people's frames per'ped lve. That fram for (or individuals individuals and and types type. are are situated situatedand and local than being being de-contextuali7ed de-contextualized and 10 al rather rather than and universal. universal. An An individual individual or or type type is in the i, situated ,ituated in the sense sen that that itit isisrepresented represented in in the the situations ituation in in which which itIt occurs. For (I"ur\. For instance, instan e, the the individual mdividual frame frame for for "my "mysofa" sofa" isi represented represented asa being located located in in my being my living living room. room. Hence, Hen e,the theframe frame for for my mysofa sofa isi related related to to the th situation frame for "my living room". Similarly, individuals and types are local ,iluation frame r "my living room". Similarly, individual and types ar local in the sense that ill thc;en that they they relate relate only onlytotoexemplars exemplar.actually a lUallyencountered, en ountered,rather rather than being generalized to entities universally. For instance, the type for "sofa" than being generalized to entities universally. For instance, the type for "sofa" incorporates information information relating only to IIlcorporat relating only to sofas sofas that that have have been been encountered. encountered. In thIS this way, In way, this this approach approach to to knowledge knowledge representation repre:.entation assumes a urn"" that that the the conceptual system system iis direC1ly directly grounded grounded in conceptual in situated ituated action aClion and and interaction. interaClion. Barsalou (1993) propose that the mental representations et al. BJrsalou rt al. (1911)) propo. that the mental representation they they refer refer to to as images are static spatial scenes (cf. Tyler and Evans 2003). These may J, imag . are tatic patial en (cf. Tyler and Lvan 200j). These may consist of frames con I t of fram for for individuals individual and/or and/or types, types, viewed viewed from from aaparticular particular viewpoint, with a particular geometric, topological, and functional viewpoint, with a particular geometric, topological, and functional relationrelation . ship holding between them. Crucially, an image is composed of numerous ,hip holdmg between them. (ru ially, an imag i compo'lC(/ of numerous perceptual symbols. Forinstan instance, person may represent represent aa pi picture perceptual ymbol . For e, aa per n may ture hanging hanging on the wall above the sofa in their living room. un the wall above the sofa in their living room. comprised ora of a series series o(imag of images.. Hence, and as AA situation ituation iiscompri'lC(/ f1en e,and a with with an an image, image, a situation may consist of a relatively stable set of individuals and types. a ."tuation may con i t o( a relatively table set of individuals and types. The The difference is that a situation, while occupying a relatively constant region of dIfference i\ that a situation, while ouupyll1g a relatively comlant region o( space,i isdynamic, dynamic,inin Ihe the M!n sense that that ellliliC'\ entities may may interact interact and and move move around, around, 'pJCC, andthere therei ischange changeover overtime. time.I'or Forininstance, situationmight might involv involve aa person person and tance, aa ituation approachingthe theso(a, sofa, sitting down, turning turning their their head head to to look look at approaching illing duwn, at the the picture picture on the wall, turning their head away again, sitting for a while before getting up On the wall, turning their hc.d away again, 'illing (ur a while be(ore gelling up andmoving movingaway awayfrom fromthe the sofa. and fa.

r.

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

198

~~ --~~~~~~~~~---------------------Anevenl eventcompri comprisesaaserie~ seriesofofIwO twoor or more more situations which are arc relaled related in in An ilualion which coherentfafashion. Thekey keydiffi difference between an an evenl event and and aa silualion situation is (oherenl hion. The ren e belween i that Ihal an event involves a significant outcome, often involving a change in regions of In evenl involves a significanl oulcome. often involving a change in region or spaceandlor and/orIhe theindividual individualsandlor and/or Iype types involved involved in space m the Ihe event. evenl. For I'or instance, inslan"e. purchasing an event might involve a person going to a department store and an evenl mighl involve a per.on going 10 a d partmenl lore and purcha ing aa picture,bnnging bringingilithome home in in Iheir their car. car, felching fetching aa hammer hammer and and nail piclure. nail from from the Ihe garage, selecting a spot on the wall above the sofa to hang the picture, garage. selecling a pol on Ihe wall above Ih sofa 10 hang Ihe piclure. nailinin Ihe the wall wall alat Ihe the desired desired local location, and hanging knocking aa nail knocking ion. and hanging the Ihe picture pi lure table summarizing the differences between image, situation, A above the sofa. above Ihe sofa. A lable ummarizing Ihe ditTerence:. bel ween image. ilualion. mental represenlalion representationsiisprovided provided in in Tabl Table10.1. io.i. qua menial and evenl event qua and observed above, Ihere there are are di distinct sorts of AAs ob "ed above. linCl sorts of frames frames relating relaling to 10 both bolh episodic and generic situations, which parallels the distinction between indiepisodic and generic ilUaliom. which parallel Ihe dislinction belween indi vidualsand and Iypes. types. An An episodi episodic silualion situation arises from situation in ari from perceiving per eiving aa sllualion in vidual frame constituting a mental representation of the qua the world. world, Ihe the situation Ihe ilualion 'Iua frame consliluling a menial represenlalion of Ihe perceived situation. Moreover, human humans represenl represent situations at the IOCalitl"' perceived . ilualion. Moreover. ilualion al Ihe locations in their world model where the situation occurs. For instance, in the in th ir world model where the iluallon occurs. For in lance. in Ihe example eumple of the situation involving the hanging of a picture above the sofa, the of Ih ilualion involving the hanging of a piclure above Ihe sofa. theframe frame for the episodic situation is linked to the frame for the conceptualizer's living for Ihe episodic ilualion i linked 10 Ihe frJme for the etln epilializer's living room. On room. On this thi account, a counl. and and just ju Ias a we we saw w with wilh frames frames for ~ r individuals individual above, above. episodic situations are not wholly episodic. They also include a potentially episodi ilualion are nol wholly episodic. They also include a polenlially large amounl amount of of generic This is large generic information. mformallon. Thi~ i~ due due to 10 the Ihephenomenon phenomenonofof transcendence, which tran endence. whi h facilitates facililate cognitive ogoilive economy: economy: generic generi knowledge knowledgecan (an be shared between related frames. As with frames for things—individuals and be hared belween relaled frames. As wilh frames for things-individuals and types, discussed 1ypc5. di u.sed above—frames above-frames for for situations iluallonsarc areassociated as ialedwith wilhtemporal lemporal knowledge structures such as those relating to daily routines, life periods, knowledge struClur u h as those relatmg 10 daily routines. life period,. hours of the day, and so on. hour of Ihe day. and so on. to There Thereare are two Iwo special peeial cases ca of ofepisodic episodic situations. ilualion .The Thefirst firsl example example relates rdale 10 counterfactual counlerfaClua! situations. ilualion .AAcounterfactual counlerfaClual situation ilualionisi aasituation ilualionthat Ihalhasn't ha n' l and/or won't occur. These are often alternatives to episodic situations Ihal and/or won'l occur. These are oflen ahemaliv 10 episodic ilualionsthat have occurred or are likely to occur. The difference is that in the counterfactual have occurred or are likely 10 occur. The diffi r nce is thai in the counlerfJelUal TABLE 10.1. TAill 10.1 .

Features of images, situations, and events (-(a,urcs 01 inug~. l1uJilion. and nC'"I~

Features of Images f.llures ---- of lOllS (i) a set of perceptual (ija 1of J'Cr<eplual symbols ymbol (ii) represents individuals (ii) repr nlS Individuals and/or types Incllor IYJ'C> (iii) a

static spatial

(iii). IOtoe palial configuration <.:c:mfiguralion viewed from a (iv) (iv) viC'Wt."li from.

particular perspective

PolrtU.;UI.U penl"«II\1e

Features FC'.uures of ofsituations ituation

Features of events

a series (i) (i). 'ri of ofimages ,mag

(I) (i)aaseries ri of oftwo twoor ormore morC'

situations iluallon the situations (ii) depicts a relatively (ii) (ii) the ituation are oUrrelated rcl.1tcd (i,) depicl • relalively in a coherent manner constant in a coherent manner \.on l.Jnlset \('1of ofindiindi · viduals and/or types vidual and/or')'IX" a ( (IIi) depicts (ill)the Ihesituations Itu.uion lead leadto10" depict some SOIllCsignifiIgnih (iii) significant cant ignificantoutcome outcome canlchange dlOlngeover OVCTtime time in a relatively (iv) occurs (IV) C)l.:l.un In II rdau\dy 01 constant com'']"!region r<Sltm of space pa<..

------~

-

C()(,NITIVE MODlLS

COGNITIVE MODELS

199

199

f ,III' IIUOI"OIl 11111<1.1. 10.2.Idmlltiullon Identificationofof(ommnn.alni commonalities In in Ih~ theformOillon tOrtnationofof.11 an OI~lr.u.1 abstratt situation ‘

Jflcr BarsalourletuL 1991) 1993) (AO'~l'Qlou

-~-~--~~~--------------

I\$,IoIIU.1l1on n the Two situationsare arerelaltd relatedwh when the foll(lwm8 following ('t\;(ur: occur:

1 hqr share share ;Iia (ommon number of Imag . They common number of images. (II) Thqr share hJre common individuoll and/or in) They common individuals and/or types. types. 1111 IThe he (onfigural1on of mdivu.luollvtypo in Imiln Image configuration of individuals/types in C'.1c.:.h each similar image .1,-ro iluoltion isis qualitatively mC'. across situations qualitatively the the same. 1$ fonnation of imilar images imag across aero situitu· is )The Thetran transformations of individual~typn individuals/types bet'" betweenn similar ollion me. ations isis qU.1lit.1u\dy qualitatively thC' the same. \., I he two two situations llU.1lion culminate lulminale in in aol common common end end state. lolte. vl The (IIi) (

,illlallon, tales. and perform the individual situation, Ihe individuals andllypo.lheir and/types, their states, and Ihe the acl,ons actions Ihey they perform 'Jry ilualion. which which isi to 10say, say. the Ihemental menialrepresenrepr nvaryWith with respecllO respect to Ih the reali realis situation, l.tI'On Ihe situation ,Iuallon wh"h i likely likely to 10 occur.' ()(cur.' As As with wilh other olher tation of of the which did did occllr occur or or is Irames. . are pa.rti ular location localion in model. typically Iypically frames, Ih these are I!nked linked 10 to aa particular in Ih the world world model, IhJI Ihe location locallon associated assoclaled with wilh the Iherealis reali situation. illlalion.The The that assoc,aled associated wuh with the Ihal of ofprospective pro peeliv situations. ilualion .like I ikecounterfactual cOllnlerfaclual "".ond second .peeial special ca..." case is that Ih are situations silualions that Ihal haven't haven' I occurred, oc urred. however, however. they Ihey are are fufu\lluallon situations these are IlIre,orlenled. and hence hence are are predicted predi led to 10occur. occur. ture-oriented, and , In In lOnlra ... frame Ilualion do do not nOl include includ episodic epi'Kxlicinformainforma ' contrast, frames for for generic generic situations ofabstracting ab lraClingaway awaypoints poinl ofofdifference, ditTerenc in • in I,on. Rather Ralher they !hey develop develop by byvirtue virtueof tion. order to 10 distill dl IIl1lh commonaliliesthat Ihalpersist persi Iinindifferent diffi renlframes fram for forepisodic episodic order the commonalities 1ypc5. discussed di u.sed above, above. generic generi situations iluation do donot nol "Iuallon . Like lIke frames frames for for types, situations. Bar 10u.1 al. (1993) (1993) propose propose that thai \,av. direct dlrecl counterparts counl rparts in in the th world. world.Barsalou have et al. frames for for aa generic generi situation ilualion are are formed formed when when two Iwoor ormore moreepisodic episodicsitusilu, frames allIIn share har aa number number of ofcommonalities. commonalilies.These Theseare ar presented presenledininTable Tableio.2. 10.2. ations ,Ih<"" commonalties com~lona!lie serve serveto 10indicate indicalethat Ihallwo episodi situations ilualionsare arerelated. relaled. These two episodic I he episodic eplsodl situations ,iluation in in question que lion are are then Ihen abstracted ab Iracled in in order order to 10form form aa The I\cncric situation ,ilualion for for this thi'type Iypeofofsituation. ,iluallon. generic Cogmtivemodels models Cognitive A, noted nOled above, above. II use use the Ihe term lerm cognitive cosnilivemodel modelto10refer referto 10aacoherent coherentbody bodyofof As knowiedge-co~si'lingofofa aframe frameororrelated relaledframes—and frames-andthe Ihepotential polelllialforfor knowledge--consisting "mulalllln,arising amlllgfrom from this Ihisbody bodyofofknowledge. knowledge.AAnumber numberofofdistinct di lin Ikinds kind simulations fram can canbe beidentified, idenlified.as3 discussed di~u.sedabove. above.There Thereare aretwo IwOtypes Iypoofof fram ofotframes frames :hal II have havedistinguished, dislingui hed. those Ih()sethat Ihalrepresent represenl things Ihing'and andthose Iho for for events. evenl . that ha"identified ,denl,fied two Iwokinds kllld ofofframes framesfor forthings: IhlllS individuals : individllal and andtypes. Iype .The The I have In ho work on menial %p.a.c%, Eauconnitt (e.g.. 1997) of CounIerf.ktu.11 .44.rn.mo , .11%.ays emerge by

virtue

makes the point that mental reprewntrtions constructing representations for .1 te.alls

of

kirturto. That is. tountrtt.ettuAl scenarios an always rtiativizod to raTersclilAiitins 411 what is taken as reality.

-

LEXI At REPRESENTATION RlPRP. ENTATION LEXICAL

200 00

-

-

1

Cogn~ove Models Models Cognitive

COGNITIVE ____----- -----______________________~~OG~N ~ 'T !! 'VFMODELS MOOFLS ____~201 2 ~ 0 ~ 1

SU8

petrol

fuel

-

EVENTS EVENTS

THNGS THINGS

diesel

4 cytlflder

8nglO8

INDIVIDUALS INDIVIDUALS

TYPES TYPES

EPtSOOIC EPISODIC

SIlUAT10NS SITUATIONS

GENERIC GENERIC

SIlUAT10NS SITUATIONS

6 cytIfIder 6 cytlflder

manual

transmission T~ of ofcognitive cognitive model model o.i. Types 1.FIGl'" n.cRE I10.1.

automatIC

relation~hip individual and and types types isi; captured captured in in terms term ofofrepresenrepre-.enrelationship between between individuals

of events. event. Events fvent are are comprised of situations, ituation ,th rr being being two twotypes type ofof tations tations of comprised of there frame: epi\Odi( ;ttuations and and generic genericsituations. ituations.Figure hgure10.1 10.1summarizes ;ummari/e frame: episodic situations th proposals. these proposals.

The frames The structure structure of of frames

steet wheels F 1r,URE HU. fI',l' " 10.>'

,.,..

Frame Ffilme for CAR (adapted from from Barsalou B.lf\Jlou 1992a: 1992'" 3o). 301.

Before to.a di u ion ofth way in in which whi h lexical lexical concepts concepts interact intcrall of the way before moving moving on on to discussion with we first first need need to to establish establi;h the the nature nature and rc 01 and ,truelu structure of models, we with (ogl1ltlve cognitive model;, fram of perceptual perceptual symbols ymbols and comprise the and images images which compri~ frames:: the the collections collections of frame identified above: above: individuals individual and type. versus ver us episodic episodic and and frame types types identified and types ric ;ituatlon~. I·ram have h.,. three three basic ba;1C constituents: con;lituent :attribute-value attribute- value sen generic situations. Frames t, structural lructural invariants, traints. In In this this section, section, which whi h draws draw, on on sets, invariants, and and con constraints. 1992(/) II examine in turn. turn. Sarsalou examine each each of of th these in Harsalou ((1992a)

also have subtypes. PETROL IS al\O ubtypes. For For instance, instance, PfTROL i an attribute attribut to the the more more specific pecifi concepts UNLEADED PETROL LEADED PETROL, (oncepts lJNlFAD[O PETROl and LEAmD P£TROL, which whi h are are values value Of of PETROL. Attributes and and.. values therefore supcmrdinate superordinate and subordinate Attributl'> alues are are therefore ;ubordinate concepts concepts within an attribute taxonomy: subordinate concepts, or values, which ", thm allrlbute taxonomy: ubordinate concept, or values, whichare are more specific, inherit properties from the superordinate concepts, or attrimore pecific, Inherit prope"i from the superordinate concepts, or attri butes, whllh which are hute" arc more more general. general. In addition, addition, attributes within a frame In attribute within fram can can be be associated so<:iated with withtheir theirown own attribute fra frame, providing an an embedded attribute me, providing emh<'
Allribule-value Attribute value set.! sets

"clean" or not not), NUMBER or OF YEARS and 10() so on. on. d ean" or ), NlJM8fR YEARS' EXPERIENCE, EXPERIEN( [, and

-

ham . «111"" ;ome attributes dnd and valu values.. An An attribute attribute concern concerns some of attributes Frames consist of;et; of sets of aaspect peel of frame, while valu is i the the specification pecification of ofthat that aspect. aspect. For ('or of aa given given frame, while aa value of the the vastly vastly simplified implified frame frame for for l:AR in Figur'. (·igure exampl depicted in CAR depicted example,, in in term terms of 10.2, N(JINI represent. the CAR,.l R, FUEL, J.l.'l:l, 1 RANS DRIVER, TRANS do ORIVI CAR, as do 10.2, IENGINE representsone oneJSped aspect of of the ... ION, and ne and WlIllLS. WHEELS.AnAnattribute attributei istherefore thereforeaaconcept concept that that represent represents oone MISSION, aspect larger whole. whole. Attributes Attribute arc dre represented repre... nted in in Figure !'igur 10.2 ovals.. 10.2 aas oval aspect of of aa larger Value; ubordinate «In
As frframes .1m are ar dynamic entili entities,,undergoing undergoing continuous dynami continuou updating, Updating, attributes attribut can can be beadded added to frames based on new encounters, or in order to achieve a particular to f~am based on ~ew en ounter , in order to achi~e a particular goal. ForIninstance, in the the light light of the recent I.·or tance, In recent introduction of ofaa new newhanding bandingscheme hem for road tax—an annual tax paid on all vehicles in the UK to use the public h~ r road tax - .~ annual tax p.lid on all vchid In UK u~ the public highway which is based on petrol consumption and emissions highway whICh .. based on petrol con umplion emi ion ratings—UK ratin~UK car owners are likely to have added a new attribute to their frame type for CAR ca r owner are likely to have added. new attnbute for CAR relating to CAR-TAX LEVEL. It is also worth worth ernpha\i/ing emphasizing that relJtmg to ( 'AR 'TAX II Vll . It I .11\.(') thJI attribute-value O1unhute YJlue sets, as with other aspects of knowledge representation, arc ~t , "' with other .'pect; of knowledge repre~ntation, are likely likely to to be be idiosyncratic, and hen hence to vary vary from from pc person Id,O ynerati • and e to ....on to person. pcr;on. final property property of of attribute-value relates to to what AA findl durihute ".lIne sets ., that that II mention mentu.m rcidle whJt Barsalou and and Ililiman Hillman(1989) (1989) have have reierred referred10. to as attribul attribute oy systematicity. Ilarsalou temati ily. This '1his

202

COGNITIVE MODELS

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

concerns the idea that certain attributes are core, in the sense that they frequently recur across contexts.' This can facilitate frame formation. For instance, if a particular value for an attribute is not known when setting up a new frame of the type individual, a value for a core attribute can be ascribed based on the core attribute set retrieved from memory. For instance, imagine your friend is proudly showing off his new bright red sports car to you. A core attribute of the type frame SPORTS CAR iS FUEL with the value PETROL. Hence, even though there may be no direct evidence that the car takes fuel, for instance, because you haven't noticed a petrol cap, or seen evidence of a fuel tank, this is something that will be added to the frame for this individual, and the value PETROL will be added as a consequence. Structural invariants

.According to Barsalou, "( Ai ttributes in a frame are not independent slots but are often related correlationally and conceptually" (Barsalou i992a: 35). In other words, attributes within a frame are related to one another in consistent ways across exemplars: instances of a given frame in the world. For example, in most exemplars of the frame CAR it is the driver who controls the speed of the ENGINE. This relation holds across most instances of cars, irrespective of the values involved, and is therefore represented in the frame as a structural invariant: a more or less invariant relation between attributes DRIVER and ENGINE. In Figure 10.2 structural invariants are indicated by bold arrows. Hence, a structural invariant constitutes what Barsalou (1992a) terms "a normative truth" holding between attributes within a frame. Constraints and factors

Like structural invariants, constraints and factors are relations that hold between attributes, or more specifically, between attribute values. I lowever, rather than capturing normative relations, constraints and factors give rise to variability in the values associated with attributes. This follows as values in a given frame are interdependent on the values associated with other attributes. There are two kinds of constraints, which I briefly review below, and two factors. The constraints are global constraints and local constraints. The two factors are contextual factors and goal factors. I deal with each of these below.

value. For instance, consider the example of a TRANSPORTATION frame involving a journey involving a passenger in a taxi, for instance, being transported from one location to another. In this frame there is a negative attribute constraint which holds between the attributes SPEED and DURATION. That is, as the value for the attribute SPEED increases (and transportation becomes faster), so the value for the attribute DURATION decreases. local constraints These constrain sets of values locally, rather than globally. That is, the presence of a given value entails the presence of a related value, while the absence of one entails the absence of another. For instance, consider a frame for VACATION. If the attribute ACTIVITY has the value SKIING, then this requires that the attribute HOLIDAY DESTINATION has the value SKI RESORT. Similarly, if the attribute ACTIVITY has the value SURFING, then the destination attribute must have the value OCEAN BEACH. Contextual factors Contextual factors relate to aspects of context which serve to influence attribute values. For instance, the activity of SKIING requires a SKI RESORT, while increasing SPEED of travel reduces the DURATION of the journey. As aspects of situations are related rather than being independent, context constitutes a factor which can influence both global and local constraints. ( ;cal factors In addition to context, an agent's goal(s) also provides a factor that influences the interaction between values associated with related attributes. For instance, in a PHYSICAL WORKOUT frame, the agent's goal, to get fit, serves to ensure that the attribute FXERTION forms part of the frame. Chaining within the conceptual system

In this section I briefly consider the phenomenon of chaining (Barsalou et al. sec also lakoff 19$7). The conceptual system is not a haphazard collection of cognitive models. Rather, cognitive models exhibit a range of often complex interconnections. As such, cognitive models are linked in a web of interconnections, of diverse sorts: hence, chaining. The consequence of this, in terms of linguistic interaction, is that access sites established by lexical concepts provide a deep semantic potential for purposes of linguistically mediated communication. Chaining is a consequence of a number of different types of interconnections and relationships holding between frames. One such interconnection 1 993;

Global constraints Global constraints serve to constrain attribute values globally. This means that a modification in one value entails a proportional modification in a related As is well known, Li ► rrelAtions in experirnse give 11 • to .1%%4 k 'Alive strength in nternory: iksurrrnse gives Mt to a COM set of attributes. which thus exhibit sssterriaticity. See reterri, 11993) fir instant_ Kirsalou et

203

204 204

LEXI At REPRESENTATION REPRESENTATIO. LEXICAL

ari..e; due du to to the the phenomenon phenomenonofofattribute attnbuteframes, framc>,discussed di 'U' dabove. above .. 1hat i arises That fram are are embedded embedded within withonlarger largerframes. fram .Take Take the theframe frame CAR, CAR, disc d ,,,,u, i!d frames above. A salient attribu\< a sodated with thl' t)'P<' i ENGINE. fNGINE. The The knowled knowled a bove. A salient attribute associated with this type is of engines engln possessed posse sed by byone on group groupofofconceptualizers, conceptualiler,namely namely.car mec hanl, of car mechanics, is highly highly complex, complex, and and this thi attribute attribu! includes includesmany manysubordinate subordl,nateattributes att r~ but is ealh with with corresponding correspondingvalues, valu ,whICh arethemselves themselv subordinate , ubordonateattributes attn butes each which arc with further further values, valu ,and \0 on. on.In Inthis thisway, way, aa frame frame subsumes ub ume,multiple multipleframes Irame with and so whi h arc are embedded, embedded, capturing capturing aspects aspects of ofthe the larger larger units unit of ofwhich whichthey theyare are which ubpart . , subparts. Another way way in in which which chaining chaining occurs o,curs arises anse'> from from the the phenomenon phenomenon III Another transcenden e. Thi natur of cognlllve models mooels ffllr transcendence. This relat relatesto to the the situated situated nature of cognitive types. Recall Recall that that cognitive cognitive models models of ofthis thi kind kindare are things: individuals individual and things: and types. "llxated" , ituation . In In other other words, words, cognitive cogmllve models model, for forthings thlllS'arc arc "located" in in situations. located in in the the world world model mooel at at the thepoints point atatwhich whichthey theyare areencountered. ncountered. located lienee, cognitive cognitive models mod I for for episodic episodicand andgeneric senerksituations iluationsinclude include.'epre Hence, repr scntalillns for ondividual and types. The greater the number of Ituallo", III serrations for individuals and types. The greater the number of situations to which individual and andtypes typesare arclinked, linked,the th greater great rtheir theirtranscendence transcendenceisi held held which individuals to be. be. Hence, Ilence, transcendence Iran 'endence is i, aa function function of ofhow howinterconnected interconnectedcognitive cogniti,e to models lor things thins' are arc with with those tho for for situations, situalion , and and hence hence the the events even" with with models for which they are are connected. connected. which they due to the the componential componentialnature na ture of 01 Another for chaining chaining arises ari Another molivallon motivation for due to the onthat thatexist eXl\! Another way way in in which betwl..,n •• due due to, tIl, broadly, bnlJdly. the the distinction distinction between betweenepisodic l1'i,,\dil between (ognitive cognitive model models, \'CI"'\U\ lance, in (ognilhe models l1loJcI~ for tur versusgcneric genericcognitive cognitive model\. models. 11.lr For in instance, in teml terms ot of cognitive thing>, types. While While individuals individuals may may be be we have have the the distinctIon distinction individuals individuals and and types. things, we related 'haining mentioned mentillned in in the the other ba;cd based on on Ihe the dinlen"on dimensions of chaining each other related to to each precl-dong It is" preceding paragraph,. paragraphs,a atype typei is relatl'll relatedto to .111 all Ihe the indIVIdual individuals fmm from which which it r.formed. rmed. Similarly, ituation iis relaled itualionsthat that IIit Similarly, aageneric generic situation related to to all all the the episodic episodic situations ,,-,emble;, it has ha abstracted ab.. lracted aero" provid aa generic itu.ltinn, generic situation. resembles, and and fmm from which which it across It) to provide

COGNITIVE COGNITIVPMODELS MOOl LS

tth~ he interaction interaction between bet"cen aa subset Ub~l,ofoflexical le"l.1concepts,
sites way

I he primary primary way in which whICh the th linguistic linguistic and and conceptual conceptualsystems y tem interact interactisisby by virtue Of access sites—introduced informally earlier in the hook. An access ,orlue of a c , It ontrodu(ed onformally earlier in the book. An ace s ite, 11<. as J' II use the the term, term, isis a~ theoretical theoretical construct con\lnllitut the theset set of association areas for a given lexical concept. For example, and as we shall "I a 'Iatlon are~ for a giv n I icaJ con cpt. For example, and a w hall see lon 'tlVe hue hu throughout throughoutthe the conceptual "lIllC~tUaJ. system. y t m. All All the the association a soclatlon areas areas collectively collectively form form the the access acc site ite for this lexical concept. lor thl leXICal con ept. Yet Vet this thi gives rise ri to to considerable considerablecomplexity, complexity.providprovid . ing access, as we shall shall see, to aa large IIlg ace .... as large semantic potential. potential. The of an site J he purpose purpo of a? access a ite isi to tofacilitate facilitate integration integration of oflinguistic lingui ti and and conceptual content in order to provide an integrated simulation. An intelIlnccpwal co~ten~ ,n to proVIde an integrated im ulatio n. An integrated simulation is what I have grJ ted slmulallon I what I hav referred referred to toearlier earlier in th book book as a aa concepcon ep' in the tion. Hence, lIon. Hen e. the evolutionary evolutIonary motivation, motivation. on on this this account, account, for for the th linguistic lingui ti and conceptual conceptual systems to interact order to to make make use u ofofconceptual (onceptual and tem to intera t iis in order structure inhering in the conceptual system in service ,truclure inh ring in the conceptual sy.tem linguistICally medimedi . service of linguistically ated communi communication. aled ation. The mechanism meehani, m whereby whereby composite compo ite semantic semantic structru. IlIre;~ hi'linguistic " . tures from the y,tem interact onteract with WIth conceptual ,"nceptual structure trucd in the Ih context of perceived things and situations. Rased on such patterns of use, con~e~1 01 perceIVed Ihing and ituation,. Based .uch pallern of usc ,tatlstl al frequen I' a e t ted h' h '. statistical frequencies are extracted which serve to to associate lexical , re x ra w IC serve a SOClate leXICal concepts concept • with Ih the regions with region of of the Ihe conceptual conceptual system y,tem where where the therelevant relevant things Ihing, and .lIld situations are represented,giving giving ri\C rise 10 to association ~~tuJtlon'i J~e. r~pr~\Cnled. 3\Mk:iation areas. JrCJ~. Access Ace. sites iles are arc thus probabilistic, in the that the greater with which I.: probablh tIC. I.n the sense n that gr~ter the frequency frequ ney with whi h aa language experiencesaasanenenc as co-occurring, the greater the strength of the association area.% J\ lO-O\:e,:urnng. the greater the \trenglh ofth .1\\OC.:ialion area.'

Inte raction between the linguistic linguistic and and conceptual conceptual systems systems Interaction between the IInow IUrn 10 a (on\iderJtion uf W.ly in whi,h Iingui\lu; and .lnd concep«m~cp which the linguistic now turn to a consideration of the way tual ystem interact. per pective of of LCCM LCCM Theory, Theory. this thi. concerns concern> tual systems interact. !rom From the perspective

205 20S

Sec ftarsalou 1 al. (forthcoming) for discussion of a rclated proposal. Sce also Horoditsks Prinz (forthcoming).

1

416

-

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION L RfPRESENTATION

IE I

I xic.I concept~. by being a~iated with ace it. fadhtate a c ,to largesmnticpo.Ide,nfthmairso eptan large semantic potential. Indeed. on of th~ main rea~n for the p.rot •• n n nature of word meanings, the starting point for the present enquiry (i nature of word meanin~. the start 109 pomt for the present enqUiry (10 Chapter1),isduolgbyfcneptualkowdg,h"tenial Chapter I). i due to the large body of con eptual knowledge. the "potential" which they facilitate access to.

which facihtate . chapter, the To they illustrate, let'sacee brieflyto. consider an example from an earlier To illustrate. let', brieny con ider an example from To an do earher chapter. the so, reconsider the lexical concept I RFD) associated with the vehicle red. lex teal concept IREO I a sa<:iated with the vehide mi. To do .0. recon idcr the following utterances:

following Ullerances: It ) a. The teacher scrawled in red ink all over the pupil's homework exercise a. The teacher scrawled in red ink allover the pupil' homework exeRi", b. The red squirrel is in danger of becoming extinct in the British Isles

b. The red squirrel i in danger of becoming extinct in the Brill h hlc

The lexical concept [RFD' facilitates access to a bewildering number of distinct

The lexical conceptlRf 01 fa ihtat.,; a,,<» to a bewlldenng number of di'tl\ltt perceptual symbols which contribute to a vast number of cognitive models in perceptual ymbols which contribute to a va t number of cognitive model 10 the conceptual system of any language user of English. To get a sense of the the con eptual tem of any language user of Engh h. To get a sen of the semantic potential involved, consider all the individuals and types that a ~mantic potential involved. con;ider all the individual and type' that • single person will represent in their world model that feature the perceptual single person will represent in thetr world model that feature the perceptual loil po t

box~.

red

trawberri~.

context in whi h we would apply the vehide wi in ord r to evoke the colour

associated with these types. a""",iated withwe th~ types. In addition, have further situations, both episodic and generic, that In addition. we have further ituations. both epi.o<\ic and generic. that involve the individuals and types which include a perceptual symbol that inv Ive the individuals and types whi h in Iud a perceptual ymbol that I gloss as red. However, each of these perceptual symbols is unique to the I as mi. However. each of th perceptual symbol i unique to the individual and/or type and hence the situation of which it forms part. After individual and/or type and hence the , ituation of which it p.rt. Aftc.r all, it is the generic situation in which a teacher scrawls red ink on a pupil's all. it i th generic situation in whi h a teach r scrawls red mk on a pupIl, exercise book, evoking a different perceptual symbol than the one evoked exercise book. evoking a different perceptual ymbol than the one evoked when we simulate a red squirrel scurrying up a tree. Nevertheless, the lexical when we ,imulate a red squirrel \Curryll1g up a tree. everthel<». the lexteal is associated with, and hence facilitates access to, both. Put concept concept[RED] IREO\ i a iated with. and hence facilitates a"C;; to. both. Put another way, the semantic potential for the lexical concept [RED) comes from another way. the mantic potential for the lexical con eptlREo\ comes from the diverse range of perceptual symbols that are encoded by these cognitivt . the dIve"" range of perceptual, ymhoh Ihat Jr" encoded by these cognlllY< [RED] facilitatesmodels,an ythr.Moev,ispclybaue model. and many other . Moreo"r. II i, preci~ly beeau (awl facililal~ access to such a diverse potential that the vehicle red exhibits such variation in ace to uch a diver polenliallhal Ihe vehide red exhibit uch varialion 10 be used, as exhibited by the very different simulations we can the way it Ihe way II can be u ....-d. a exhlblled hy Ihe very different ,imulallon we achieve for "red" in the examples in (1).

glos~

achieve for "red" in Ihe example, in (I).

f~rn1\

207

illusion of semantic unity.

state I gloss as red. ~tate I glo aourselves wi. Limiting to types we might list Royal Mail post boxes, red

squirrels, foxes, roses, blood, lipstick, Santa Claus's clothes, a robin's throat, squirrel•• foxe • ro • blood. hp ti k. Santa lau' dothes. a robm's thn... t. strawberries, the red stop sign, tomatoes, red traffic lights, the Red Cross, red the red stop, ign. tomatoes. red traffic light. the Red ro • red ink, the flag of St George, celebrity carpets, Babybel cheese wax, chilli peppers, ink. the nag of St George. celebrity .rpets. B.bybel ch~ wax. chilli pePI'''''' fire engines, the Chinese flag, red wine, fire, henna, and so on. Notice that the fire engines. th 'hin nag. red wine. fire. henna. and so on. otice th.tthe represented hue associated with these types may vary from person to person, repr~nted hue associated with these types may vary from per.on to.per,?n. based on cultural experience, and so on. Nevertheless, we can imagine ba;OO on cultural experience. antI '>(1 on. everth Ie>.'. we can Imagm" contexts in which we would apply the vehicle red in order to evoke the colour

207

The ,lIusion ofof semant,c The illusion semanticunity unity InInChapler 7 I d,scussed the notion of encap ulation: a property of lexical Chapter 7 1 discussed the notion of encapsulation: a property of lexical concept . From the perspective ofth body of cognilive models--the semantic concepts. From the perspective of the body of cognitive models—the semantic r"tenllalt." which a I. xicalconeept potentially afford aces;. Ihe en '1' u potential—to which a lexical concept potentially affords access, the encapsulall on f~nct,on of a lex',:,1 concept provid th iIlu ion of ;emanti unity.· lation function of a lexical concept provides the illusion of semantic unity. 6 I'or IOst.n e. the leXICal concept ICARI a sociated wilh the vehide car For instance, the lexical concept [CAR] associated with the vehicle car provides acee to a wide array of different types. in luding cognitiv model provides access to a wide array of different types, including cognitive models (or makes (e.g.• Land Rover). models (e.g.• Land Rover Defender). and mod I for makes (e.g., Land Rover), models (e.g., Land Rover Defender), and model types .• standard versu deluxe versi n • and so on). as well a individual types(e.g (e.g., standard versus deluxe versions, and so on), as well as individuals (e.g .• "my car". ne'ghbour', ar'·. "the DBS A ton Martin" used by'ame (e.g., "my car","my "my neighbour's car", "the 1)B5 Aston Martin" used by James Ilon~ ~e film the range of situations relevant to the types BondIn in..the film Goldjillger). Goldfinger),and and the range of situations relevant to the types and Ind,vldual represenled. That is. the lexical concept Ic..a\ serves a an and individuals represented. That is, the lexical concept [c:AR] serves as an .Ittes; ite to all the spetiah1ed cognilive model associated with car . access site to all the specialized cognitive models associated with cars. I refer to thi phenomenon as encap ulation. as a lexical con ept serves to I refer to this phenomenon as encapsulation, as a lexical concept serves to rel.te a div.erse range of cognitive model. tabh hing a degree of unity aero relate a diverse range of cognitive models, establishing a degree of unity across Ihe cognlllve mod I. on qu tion. It i by virtue of hnguisti ally med,ated the cognitive models in question. It is by virtue of linguistically mediated encapsulation that cognitive model appear to exhibit greater similanty than encapsulation that cognitive models appear to exhibit greater similarity than Ihey would othenyi . This is what I refer to a the ,/Il1sioll of semanti unity. they would otherwise. This is what I refer to as the

Semantic potential Semantic potential of the chaining exhibited by the conceptual system is that consequence One One consequence of th chaining exhibited by the conceptual system i that lexical concepts, by being associated with access sites, facilitate access t o a

Limillng our Ive to type> we might list Royal

O(.NITIVL 10DELS COGNITIVE MODELS

r.

Primary versus secondary cognitive models models Primary versus secondary cognitive The rang of agnitive model th semantl potential-to whi h a Ie i al The range of cognitive models—the semantic potential—to which a lexical con ept facilitat a c I refer to as it cognitive model profil~ term I fir t concept facilitates access I refer to as its cognitive model profile—a term I first introduced in hapter 4 we saw earher in thi chapter. in di u ing the introduced in Chapter 4. As we saw earlier in this chapter, in discussing the nature of haining within the con eptual y.tem. th cognitive model profile nature of chaining within the conceptual system, the cognitive model profile I not an unstr~ tur~ inventory of knowledge: conc ptual tructur i highly is not an unstructured inventory of knowledge: conceptual structure is highly ,tructured. I dlStlngu, h between two a pect of a lexical concept' cognitive structured. I distinguish between two aspects of a lexical concept's cognitive model profile: th primary cognitive model profile. and the secondary cog' model profile: the primary cognitive model profile, and the secondary cognltlve model modelprofile—terms profile-t rrn also alsointroduced introdu dininChapter Chapter 4 nitive 4. ,The primary cognitive model profile consists of all tho cognitive models The primary cognitive model profile consists of all those cognitive models with which a le,ical con ept i directly a socialed: the association areas which with which a lexical concept is directly associated: the association areas which make. up its a c~ ite. Hen .e~ the primary ognitive model profile may make up its access site. Hence, the primary cognitive model profile may con t,tute many d,screte cogOltlve model an ace ite may be made constitute many discrete cognitive models—as an access site may be made lip of many di tlllct a ',allon area ispersed aero variou region up of many distinct association areas—dispersed across various regions w,thlll the cO.n. eptual ystem! The cognitive model which mak up the within the conceptual system.' The cognitive models which make up the primary cogOltlve model profile I refer to a primary cognitive models. as primary cognitive model profile I refer to as primary cognitive models, as wealso al~sawwinIIIChapter Chapter4.4 we In contrast. th secondary cognitive model profile consi t. of all Iho In contrast, the secondary cognitive model profile consists of all those cognitive ".'odel what I refer to • ondary cogOltive models--with cognitive models—what I refer to as secondary cognitive models—with whICh a lexlC.1 cone pt i< not 3S'>(luated. Ilence. secondary (agnitive model which a lexical concept is not associated. Hence, secondary cognitive models do not ompri part of the alle ite of a cognitive mod I. Put another way. do not comprise part of the access site of a cognitive model. Put another way, • Soft ill'
1"1. lur dlkU ,un.

• See also listrsalou et at (lorthscorning) tor discussion. , As w(' w nrhn In 1M dl u .n uf lhe rM.l,un (It.1n"''''

J

111~.lhc U'tt01tl"'C' mOI.k1 With whll.h ' As we saw e.uher in ihe .11,4ussion of the notion of an access sale. the cognitive models with whit h " k~~ u..1Kt'f'1 II .... Wln),uC' t .. NI!~hcJ rnoh.ah,h~ .... ~Uy.

lexical I;oncept is associated Arc estaNished

206

COGNITIVE MODELS

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

207

Semantic potential

The illusion of semantic unity

One consequence of the chaining exhibited by the conceptual system is that lexical concepts, by being associated with access sites, facilitate access to a large semantic potential. Indeed, one of the main reasons for the protean nature of word meanings, the starting point for the present enquiry (in Chapter 1), is due to the large body of conceptual knowledge, the "potential" which they facilitate access to. To illustrate, let's briefly consider an example from an earlier chapter, t lexical concept [RED' associated with the vehicle red. To do so, reconsider t following utterances:

In Chapter 7 I discussed the notion of encapsulation: a property of lexical concepts. From the perspective of the body of cognitive models—the semantic potential—to which a lexical concept potentially affords access, the encapsulation function of a lexical concept provides the illusion of semantic unity!. For instance, the lexical concept ICARI associated with the vehicle air provides access to a wide array of different types, including cognitive models for makes (e.g., Land Rover), models (e.g., Land Rover Defender), and model types (e.g., standard versus deluxe versions, and so on), as well as individuals (e.g., "my car", "my neighbour's car", "the I)B5 Aston Martin" used by lames Bond in the film Goldfinger), and the range of situations relevant to the types and individuals represented. That is, the lexical concept IcArti serves as an access site to all the specialised cognitive models associated with cars. I refer to this phenomenon as encapsulation, as a lexical concept serves to relate a diverse range of cognitive models, establishing a degree of unity across the cognitive models in question. It is by virtue of linguistically mediated encapsulation that cognitive models appear to exhibit greater similarity than they would otherwise. This is what I refer to as the illusion of semantic unity.

) a. The teacher scrawled in red ink all over the pupil's homework exercise b. The red squirrel is in danger of becoming extinct in the British Isles The lexical concept R E DI facilitates access to a bewildering number of distinct perceptual symbols which contribute to a vast number of cognitive models in the conceptual system of any language user of English. To get a sense of the semantic potential involved, consider all the individuals and types that a single person will represent in their world model that feature the perceptual state I gloss as red. limiting ourselves to types we might list Royal Mail post boxes, red squirrels, foxes, roses, blood, lipstick, Santa Claus's clothes, a robin's throat, strawberries, the red stop sign, tomatoes, red traffic lights, the Red Cross, red ink, the flag of St George, celebrity carpets, Babybel cheese wax, chilli peppers, tire engines, the Chinese flag, red wine, fire, henna, and so on. Notice that the represented hue associated with these types may vary from person to person, based on cultural experience, and so on. Nevertheless, we can imagine contexts in which we would apply the vehicle red in order to evoke the colour associated with these types. In addition, we have further situations, both episodic and generic, that involve the individuals and types which include a perceptual synibol that I gloss as red. However, each of these perceptual symbols is unique to the individual and/or type and hence the situation of which it forms part. After all, it is the generic situation in which a teacher scrawls red ink on a pupil's exercise book, evoking a different perceptual symbol than the one evoked when we simulate a red squirrel scurrying up a tree. Nevertheless, the lexical concept [ RED] is associated with, and hence facilitates access to, both. Put another way, the semantic potential for the lexical concept [ RED] comes from the diverse range of perceptual symbols that arc encoded by these cognitive models, and many others. Moreover, it is precisely because IREo1 facilitates access to such a diverse potential that the vehicle red exhibits such variation in the way it can be used, as exhibited by the very different simulations we achieve for "red" in the examples in

Primary versus secondary cognitive models The range of cognitive models—the semantic potential—to which a lexical concept facilitates access I refer to as its cognitive model profile—a term I first introduced in Chapter 4. As we saw earlier in this chapter, in discussing the nature of chaining within the conceptual system, the cognitive model profile is not an unstructured inventory of knowledge: conceptual structure is highly structured. I distinguish between two aspects of a lexical concept's cognitive model profile: the primary cognitive model profile, and the secondary cognitive model profile—terms also introduced in Chapter 4. The primary cognitive model profile consists of all those cognitive models with which a lexical concept is directly associated: the association areas which make up its access site. Hence, the primary cognitive model profile may constitute many discrete cognitive models—as an access site may be made up of many distinct association areas—dispersed across various regions within the conceptual system.' The cognitive models which make up the primary cognitive model profile I refer to as primary cognitive models, as we also saw in Chapter 4. In contrast, the secondary cognitive model profile consists of all those cognitive models—what I refer to as secondary cognitive models—with which a lexical concept is not associated. Hence, secondary cognitive models do not comprise part of the access site of a cognitive model. Put another way, See also Itarsalou et at fortlxi win%) tot discussion. As we saw earlier in the disc ussion Of thy notion Ill .in access site. the Lot:Anti ► •1: models with whim. h lexical concept is associated are established probabilistically. •

I

2 ►8

COGNITIVE MODELS

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM

ELECTORATE

Each of these cognitive models provides access to further cognitive models as

HEAD OF STATE

POLITICAL SYSTEM

CUISINE

•

GEOGRAPHICAL LANDMASS

NATION STATE

HOLIDAY DESTINATION

(FRANCE)

FiGuRE 113. Partial cognitive model profile for !FRANCO secondary cognitive models are those that are chained, with respect to the primary cognitive models. Hence, they form part of the semantic potential to which a given lexical concept potentially affords access, although there is not an established association between the lexical concept and secondary cognitive models. By way of illustration, let's reconsider the cognitive model profile for (FRANCE( first presented in Chapter 4. The diagram for the very partial cognitive model is provided in Figure 10.3. The access site for the lexical concept I FRANCE' consists of (at the very least) the following cognitive models: GEOGRAPHICAL LANDMASS, NATION STATE, and HOLIDAY DESTINATION. That is, the linguistic system is associated with each of these sites in the conceptual system: the lexical concept (FRANCE) facilitating access to conceptual structure via these cognitive models.* Moreover, each of the three primary cognitive models to which (FRANCE] facilitates direct access is an individual. That is, the cognitive model GEOGRAPHICAL LANDMASS relates to knowledge about the specific geographic region coincident with the borders of the political entity France. Similarly, NATION STATE relates to knowledge of the nation state France, while tioLiomr DESTINATION relates to knowledge about what it means to holiday in France. • ognitise mood rs ItTle•ented in IfCM Theory in highly abbreviated barite! rectangular hen; with .1 gloss in small capitals. flowerer, this gloss, e.g., tilMRAP ► ICAL fashion: a LANIIMAss friatcs to a mrilillattor: a trans which gives rise to limitless simulations. • As roActi

result of chaining within the conceptual system. The chained cognitive models arise for the reasons described above, and constitute the secondary cognitive models. While the primary cognitive models are represented diagrammatically as adjacent to one another in Figure to.3, this in no way constitutes a commitment to their actual location in the conceptual system; after all, the location of primary cognitive models may be distributed throughout the conceptual system, as in the case of (RED), for example. Equally, while secondary cognitive models are diagrammed as being organized hierarchically, with respect to the primary cognitive models in a given cognitive model profile, this mode of representation serves to distinguish secondary from primary cognitive models, rather than constituting a commitment to how primary and secondary cognitive models are actually represented within the conceptual system.'' in Figure to.3, a flavour of some of the secondary cognitive models in the cognitive model profile for [FRANCE' is given by virtue of the various secondary cognitive models which are accessed via the NATION STATE cognitive model. These include NATIONAL SPORTS, POLITICAL SYSTEM, and CUISINE. For instance, we may know that in France, the French engage in national sports of particular types, for instance, football, rugby, athletics, and so on, rather than others. As I observed in Chapter 4, we may also know that as a sporting nation the French take part in international sports competitions of various kinds. That is, we may have access to a large body of knowledge concerning the sorts of sports French people engage in. We may also have some knowledge of the funding structures and social and economic conditions and constraints that apply to these sports in France, France's international standing with respect to these particular sports, and further knowledge about the sports themselves including the rules that govern their practice, and so on."' 3

FM

NAT IONAL SPORTS

209

The uniqueness of the access site While lexical concepts are typically associated with a number of primary cognitive models—often many—which thereby make up the access site, the exact nature of the access site with which a lexical concept is associated is unique. Put another way, no two lexical concepts share the same access site. While the range of primary cognitive models to which lexical concepts facilitate access may he similar, they will never be exactly the same. The consequence of this is that

tognitiw models arc interconnected in a range ot ways, and hence, it is not always clear where tognitive model begins and ends. Fur instance. knowledge representations are typically embedded structures. with an attribute serving as a value for another attribute. and giving rise to its own attribute tr.ime, with connection. to other cognitive models. Matters are Wither complicated by conceptual metaphors, which serve to establish long-term stable connections between t yititive models, as tlis,ussed in Chapter is. "' While the basis for much of this knowledge is perceptual in nature, in the sense assumed lis the I henry tit Perceptual Symbol s..ystems, much of this entormaiu addit l ll ► has a priv ► 41.111•111.s1 kosts. in the sense that it derives from linguistically mediated communication.

210

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

each lexical concept has a unique cognitive model profile, as the exact make-up of primary cognitive models determines which chained cognitive models make up the secondary cognitive model profile of a given lexical concept. From the perspective of the linguistic system, this means that there can be no true synonymy between lexical concepts. lb illustrate, consider the lexical concepts which I gloss as !SHORE] and (coAs-r1 associated with the vehicles shore and coast, respectively. As observed by Fillmore (1982), while the semantic representation for these two words is very similar, it is not the same. This follows, in present terms, as while each of these lexical concepts exhibits partial overlap in the primary cognitive models, there are also distinctions. For instance, both lexical concepts facilitate access to a cognitive model profile relating to the strip of land that borders land and sea. However, each lexical concept accesses a cognitive model relating to a generic situation from which this land region is viewed. In the case of (SHORE' this concerns a sea-based perspective, which is to say, on hoard a ship. In contrast, (COAST I does so from the perspective of a landbased location. For this reasn, a shore-to-shore trip is across water while a coast-to-coast trip is over land. The development of cognitive models

Cognitive models, as we have seen, are simulators in the sense of Barsalou (e.g., 1999). That is, they are located in the sensory-motor regions of the brain, and they consist of perceptual symbols: records of perceptual states. However, cognitive models also involve information from other sources (Barsaluu 1999), which is incorporated into sensory-motor representations by virtue of convergence zones ( Damasio 1989). In LCCM Theory I assume that the output of the interaction between the linguistic and conceptual systems, namely conceptions—linguistically mediated simulations—can be integrated with existing cognitive models in order to provide an additional source of information which serves to update relevant cognitive models. That is, simulations are perceptual in nature, albeit internally generated perceptual states. In essence, linguistic interactions with the conceptual system can modify the representations held in the conceptual system, by virtue of the products, simulations, serving to modify the representational states which generated them in the first place. Simply put, linguistically mediated simulations can serve to modify the conceptual system, by updating existing cognitive models. I refer to non-modal modification of this sort as propositional modification."

Relativistic effects of language on the conceptual system One of the consequences of linguistic indexing of the conceptual system, and the modification of the conceptual system as a consequence, is the prediction that we should expect relativistic effects. That is, linguistic relativity is 11

See Boroditskv and Prinz (forthcoming/ fora related proposal.

COGNITIVE MODELS

211

predicted by LLCM Theory. Recall that lexical concepts are language-specific.

Hence, each language consists of a unique set of linguistically encoded (incepts. As lexical concepts have unique access sites, this means that each language interacts with the conceptual system in a language-specific way. As the conceptual system can be modified as a result of the simulations arising from the interaction between language and conceptual structure, LCCM Theory predicts that speakers of different languages should have distinct conceptual representations. The thesis that language can influence non-linguistic aspects of cognitive function and representation, the linguistic relativity principle, is also commonly referred to as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis after the two twentiethcentury linguists, Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorl, who advanced versions of this principle. Classic work which has sought to empirically test a version of the Sapir-Whorl hypothesis has been conducted by Lucy (1992). More recent empirical work has been conducted in the domains of Space (e.g., Levinson 2003) and Time (e.g., Boroditsky woi). Their findings are suggestive that language does indeed influence aspects of non-linguistic cognition." LCCM Theory makes a proposal which might form part of an account as to why this is so. The emergence of non-interacting lexical concepts

In this section, I briefly consider why there is a bifurcation in lexical concept types, i.e., between open-class versus closed-class lexical concepts. Language as a system comprising symbolic units, with lexical concepts as the interacting elements with the conceptual system, evolved in order to facilitate access to the conceptual system. Two questions emerge from this: • Why is it that non-interacting lexical concepts emerged? • !low did non-interacting lexical concepts emerge? That is, what is the trajectory of the emergence of closed-class lexical concepts?" Recent work on grammaticalization—the study of the evolution of closedclass symbolic units—suggests that in their initial form linguistic representations did indeed take the form of open-class lexical concepts (Heine and Kuteva 2007). Heine and Kuteva argue that evidence from grammaticalization points to a number of stages in the emergence of closed-class symbolic units, and hence grammar. which suggest that such units developed out of open-class elements. Indeed, given the contention provided here, that the linguistic Recent work by January and halm 120071 has called into question the findings reported on by li ► roditsky (20011. Needless to say, further work is required to empirically insystigaty the print iply of 1114411.t h. relativity. " In slightly different terms. thew are also the Lentral qoystions asked by Leonard filmy (1000) in his work.

212

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

COGNITIVE MODELS

system emerged in order to provide access to the conceptual system, it is to I expected that open-class lexical concepts should have emerged first. But wh at then motivates the development of closed-class lexical concepts? In other words, what drives the process of grammaticalization? A plausible solution seems to be that as language developed into a fully fledged system, independent of the conceptual system, its specialization lexical concepts, which encode schematic linguistic content and are borne by physical vehicles, whether signed or oral—allowed it to fulfil a function that better facilitated the linguistic system's primary function: to interact with the conceptual system. In other words, some lexical concepts specialized for encoding solely linguistic content, and hence lost the ability to serve as access sites and hence interact with the conceptual system. Yet, by developing in this way, the linguistic system was able to develop greater precision in the way it interacted with the conceptual system and thereby develop greater control over the integrated simulations, the conceptions, it was able to give rise to. This came about, as I shall argue in Chapter 12, by providing a skeletal framework, through the process of lexical concept integration, thereby providing more precise guidance and hence more finely nuanced simulations. That is, the development of grammar—closed-class symbolic units—facilitated the exercise of greater control over the conceptual system. This is achieved by providing integrated lexical concepts, with unit-like status, 14 whicformtenpuhocsfinterpa:hdvlomentf linguistically mediated simulations, as described in Chapter 13.

duration and simultaneity feel like (Evans 2oo4ir, see also Moore zoo6). i ndeed, as Barsalou (1999) has argued," abstract concepts are likely to be co nstituted, in part, in terms of inherent content. I will provide an LCCM a ccount of lexical concepts for time in Chapter is.

Summary

if*

[his chapter has developed, in some detail, the theoretical construct of the c ognitive model. The cognitive model is a unit of conceptual structure which consists of a frame—or related and/or embedded frames—and gives rise to a potentially limitless set of simulations. Frames have complex structure. This hapter has examined in detail the nature of two types of frames: frames for things and situations. A subset of lexical concepts—open-class lexical concepts—facilitate access to cognitive models, what is referred to as a cognitive model profile. A cognitive model profile consists of primary cognitive models: the cognitive models with which a lexical concept is associated, established through usage. Cognitive models of this sort constitute what is referred to, in LCCM Theory, as the access site of a lexical concept. In addition, the cognitive model profile consists of secondary cognitive models. These are all those cognitive models which are related to the primary cognitive models by virtue of chaining. Cognitive models constitute units of conceptual structure which are accessible to the linguistic system. Hence, lexical concepts, and as a consequence the linguistic system, provide an indirect means of giving rise to simulations.

Abstract concepts Before concluding this chapter, it is important to very briefly address the issuk of abstract concepts. Abstract concepts relate to cognitive models for notions such as JUSTICE, TRUTH, LOVE, and, of course, TIME. Notions such as these have been labelled abstract by scholars such as Lakoff and Johnson (1980, 1999) and by other scholars in other traditions (e.g., Barsalou 1999), as they are held not to be directly grounded in sensory motor experience. In Conceptual Metaphor Theory, for instance, such concepts are often assumed to be structured largely in terms of content derived from sensory-motor experience, rather than in their own terms. However, a number of scholars have emphasized that part of the content of so-called abstract concepts is likely to include what we might refer to, informally, as inherent content, arising from what Barsalou refers to as introspective experience, and I have referred to as subjective experience. After all, while temporal concepts such as DURATION, SIMULTANEITY, and so on are structured in terms of perceptual information derived from sensorymotor experience, their essence derives from our direct experience of what "4 A. ois ,,AL tweed on Chapter

II-

213

Sec .oIs4 ► liaruoloto .ork11Ar sentm• flaming.

200i).

I

Part Part III III Semantic Semantic Compositionality Compositionality .\This hI part book. which whl h consists con i ts of ofthree three chapters, chapters. is icon erned with with part of of the the book, concerned exploring the role role of orIanguage in facilitating facilitating simulations. imulation. This Thi exploring in in more more detail detail the language in in,olv well as a interaction interaction between tic between Iingui involves purely purely Iinguisti linguistic proc processes aas well linguistic on · ,structures tructures and eptual structures. tructures. The processes involved IIlvolved are are lexical lexical conand con conceptual The processes (Cpt Lexical con ept selection selection isi the the process, proc •in in language languag cept selection selection and and fusion. fusion. Lexical concept the most 1110 t appropriate appropriate lexical lexical concepts concept associassoci understanding. understanding, of of identifying identifying the Jted vehi les which which populate populate aa given given utterance. utterance. This Thi isi ated WIth with the the phonological phonological vehicles the subject of hapter it. II. Once Once selection selection has hasoccurred, occurred. the thelexical lexicalconcepts concept the subject of Chapter \11U\t be integrated: integrated: the proc of fu ion. Fusion Fu ion manifests manifest itself itself in in two two must be the process of fusion. distinct form . The The first, first. lexical lexical concept con ept integration, integration. involves involv the theintegration integration distinct forms. of linguistic content content associated associated with with the the selected selected lexical lexical concepts. concepts. This Thisisi the the of linguistic uhjcct of hapter 12. 11. Once nce thi urred. the th open-class open la lexical lexi al concepts con epts subject of Chapter this ha has oc occurred, \Crve to ubset of the.. semantic mantic potential, potential. guided guided by by the the output output of of serve to activate activate aa subset of their lexical concept integration. This Thi process, proc •referred referred to to as a interpretation, interpretation.isisthe the lexical concept integration. of Chapter hapter 13. IJ. ,ubjcct of subject

11 Lexical concept selection As we saw in the previous part of the book, the linguistic system consists of symbolic units: conventional pairings between phonological vehicles and lexical concepts. As a vehicle may potentially be associated with a large number of distinct lexical concepts, for instance, as seen with the prepositional vehicles in, on, and at in Chapter 8, language understanding involves a process whereby an appropriate lexical concept is identified. This process of lexical concept identification I refer to as lexical concept selection, or selection for short.' Of all the lexical concepts associated with a given vehicle, what makes one appropriate, rather than another, can be attributed loosely to the notion of context, although this subsumes a number of more specific factors that influence lexical concept selection, as we shall see in later sections. Selection proceeds by identifying the lexical concepts associated with each vehicle in a given utterance. Once this has taken place, the output of selection, which is to say the range of lexical concepts identified, are subject to fusion, a compositional process of semantic integration. Fusion involves a further two processes: a compositional process that applies to semantic structure, which is to say linguistic content. This I refer to as lexical concept integration (Chapter ti), and results in each lexical concept receiving a semantic value. The next step is for the semantic values of all open-class lexical concepts to undergo a further process of semantic composition which I refer to as interpretation. This results in interaction between these lexical concepts and conceptual structure via access sites, in order to derive an informational characterization of each relevant lexical concept. Crucially, the nature of the interpretations achieved, and hence which aspects of an open-class lexical concept's cognitive model profile becomes activated, is a consequence of the output of lexical concept integration. The and result is a conception: a simulation achieved by virtue of selection and the subsequent compositional processes./ ' The notion of selection discussed in the present chapter is onhogonal to the notion of unction in Chapter i. Selection relates to identification of an appropriate letkal concept from the prrspc,tisc of language understanding. comprehension. sanction relates to the way in which a Partic kdrr of use i. motivated by the existence of alCILIt.11 4.0111kr1 1 1. !fence the use of the term sanction suis.ors things from the perspective of the producer. For the nu.! part. I ant concerned with

thSt tiVol •li

tind•t.tanilins. NItimitigh the oinipisitioti.il pr•te.ws destrified in this and suhx.luent chapters art. 'Mooned by hoithlig, 'rum ps ► ■ holinguistii.‘,

Theory is not a psycholinguisik theory. That is. it does not make I( spr.111. claims about the details of Language procecsing issues. Rather. it is an attempt to develop a

LEXICAL CONCEPT SELECTION

si MANTIC CoM POSITIONAI ITY

219

Selection in meaning construction Recall that the motivation for the development of LCCM Theory is to account for the inherent semantic variation exhibited by words in contexts of use. The specific problem that I seek to account for is how words take on a specific reading in any given context of use. That is, in this book we are ultimatel) concerned with how words obtain their specific context-bound interpretation. Selection is the first step in serving to narrow down, so to speak, th•

IIn

lexical concept potential

reading associated with a context-bound word. One way of thinking about the process involved in arriving at the specific reading a word achieves in any given utterance, and about the perspective adopted here, is as follows. A word form has a range of distinct lexical concepts associated with it. For instance, in exhibits extensive polysemy, as described in Chapter 8. • This lexical concept potential must be narrowed to (typically) a single lexical concept. This process of narrowing is a consequence of lexical concept selection. To illustrate, consider the following examples involving the prepositional vehicle in: (1)

FIGURE 11.1. Narrowing in the situated interpretation of words

Semantic composition

Lexical concept selection

a. The kitten is in the box b. The flag is flapping in the wind c. John is in love

In each of these examples, a distinct lexical concept is selected for. The lexical concepts for in selected are !ENCLOSURE! for (la), !PREVAILING CONDITIONS! for (lb), and f PSYCHOSOMATIC STATE( for (lc). Selection relies on a number of constraining factors to determine the appropriate lexical concept: the lexical concept which hest fits the conception tinder construction, discussed later in the chapter. Once a lexical concept has been selected, it must be integrated with other selected lexical concepts of the utterance, and, if it is an open-class lexical concept, interpreted in the light of conceptual structure to which it affords access, and the other open-class lexical concept(s) with which it has been integrated. That is, the selected lexical concept undergoes the second compositional process: namely fusion. Once this has occurred, the word achieves what we might informally refer to as a reading: a situated interpretation, specific to the context in which it is embedded. We might think of the stages involved as involving passage through an ever narrowing cone, as illustrated in Figure it.t, in which compositional processes serve to restrict the potential of the word in order to specify the semantic contribution it makes to the utterance. psykhol4qty Ali' plausible &cc omit Of kxk.,l representat ► o ► .and meaning coristruc ikon that. in print wk. is Lomp.itibir with whet is known about the processes insolved in seniority t ■ filipos01011. For excellent reviews that .foal with pwcholinguistk processing see Iloilo( loos) and Whit my loss hie oI the goals of It AIM Thei wy is In anvil ► IV a ognituontly robust theoretical aft hitecturr which will give rise tote , ' ' predictions that an b' t to empirical investigation by psyt

see also Tyler and I van.

211 ► %: Ch.

7/•

Fusion

sib

Lexical concept integration FIGURE 1L2. Processes of semantic composition

Interpretation

in LCCM Theory

The relationship between selection and the other processes of meaning construction in LCCM Theory are diagrammed in Figure 11.2. Having provided a preliminary notion of what is involved in selection, it is important to briefly say what selection is not. Selection applies in order to distinguish between lexical concepts. However, once a lexical concept has been identified, the processes which apply in order to further narrow the reading arc lexical concept integration and interpretation. Hence, while selection serves to identify distinct lexical concepts associated with it:, in

118

LEXICAL CONCEPT SELECTION

•-•I \I ANTICCOMPOSlTlONAlITY COMPOSITIONAIITY SEMANTI

Ir----~_

Selection in in meaning meaning construction Selection Recallthat thatthe themotivation motivation for the development development of LCCM R""all ofL _ M Theory Theory isis to to account accou nt for the the mherent inherent semanti semantic variation exhibited by for by words in in contexts context of ofuse. u .The The specific problem problem that that II seek seek to to account specifi a count for for is i how how words word take take on onaaspecific pe
ieXlC8I lexical concept concept potenllal potential

\ \

•

fU.il1 II.'. Narrowing ituattd interpretation Interpretation of ofwords word 1 it.t RE RI 11.1. Narrowing in in the situated

Semantic Semantic composition composition

Lexical concept concept selecbon selection

(1) a.a.The (I) Thekitten kittenisi in in the the box box h. The b. The flag nag is is flapping napping in in the the wind wind c. c John John is i in in love love In each each of of these examples, a distinct In exam 1'1 ,a di tinct lexical lexi al concept conceptisi selected selectedfor. for.The Thelexical lexical CONDITIONS] concepts for in selected are [PREVAILING C NOlTloN\1 on cpt for //I selected are[ENCLOSURE] (tN ' LO UREI for for (ia), (la),(PREVAILING for (1b), [PSYCHOSOMATIC (Ib), and (PSYCHO OMATI STATE] TATEI for for (tc). (IC). Selection relies relies on on a Selection a number number of ofconstraining con trai ning factors factors to todetermine determine the the appropriate concept: appropria te lexical lexi al con cpt: the lexical lexi al concept which whl h hest best fits fit the the conception con eption construction, under con truction, discussed discussed later later in in the the chapter. chapter. Once Once aa lexical lexical concept con cpthas ha been ~Iected, selected, it must mu t be be integrated integrated with with other other selected lected lexical I xi al concepts concept of ofthe the utterance, and, if if itit iis an an open-da open lass lexical utterance, and, lexicalconcept, con cpt,interpreted interpreted in inthe thelight lightof of conceptual to which and the conceptual structure tru ture to which itit affords afford access, acc ,and theother otheropen-class open-class lexical concept(s) with lexical concept(s) with which whi h itit has hJS been beenintegrated. integrated. That That is, is,the theselected I""ted lexical concept undergoes the second compositional process: namely fusion. lexi al undergoes the "",ond compo itional proc : namely fusio n. Once this has occurred, nce thi ha occurred, the the word word achieves achieves what what we w might might informally informallyrefer refer to to as a reading: a situated interpretation, specific to the context in which it is a a reading: ituated interpretation, peCifie to context in which It i embedded. We might embedded. We might think think of ofthe thestages tag""involved involved asa involving involvingpassage pa \;Ige through through an ever er narrowing narrowing cone, cone, as a illustrated illu trated ininFigure Figur 11.1, 11.1, in inwhich whi h compositional processes serve to restrict the potential of the word in order compo itional proce<~ restrict potential of the word in order to specify p""ify the the semantic semantic contribution (ontributlon itIt makes make,to tothe Ih utterance. utteran
rw ...

rnfk1rlc-.

psychologically account lexical and meaning tomtits. train that. J""V'.tNl~Y pl.m.ihk Illkk (JUniof(.(kx ... AIrepresentation ~nt .. lllIn.and meuunl(Or»lr\kbon tNt.inan principle, istt t Ion .. For .umpatihle with u.mr-thl* With what whit ISI known kll(lWn about he.ut the Itwo processes rn",1ttIft involved IIMltvni In In leniantk lftNntll.; o .mr.:t'-Ilkon hlr "ruellirot ...('Dent hie o f the goals reviews that daJ dealWith with(") mi. ht-l.nJU'lICk. holinguisik rots-sung f'f'\IlIt'W\ th.lt rnkntl"lsee t«Harley II .. rky lona) (: ....and , .. 00Whitney ",1utrwyt ( 1991). ()oc olthr 1·...1' of11:CM a sigmlicantly of 11.L'1Theory TIworyisI to10develop dn-dup. '91.tk..&nti1robust nlbu.ttheoretical lhrcwt~architecture .n.h.JtatuR'which ....hk.hwill .... LDgive I'\C:rise nittoIt>testable ttsl.lNt predictions rrNa,-"'h nni that tNt can 'iUl he bt subject ",uh,n., to 10 empirical nnrlflo..aJ investigation ,f1\ tgilhun by try PsYchtilinguots. ~tw"'naul

l.

• See also and 1 1vans (loot: ch. .. I"" 1)4er lyln.mJ \' •.,u hooJ. t..h 7). "

119 219

Fusion

~

LexlC8l Lexical concept concept Integration integration

Interpretation Interpretation

mantit composition compo ill nin10LCCM LC 1Theory ThtOry FIGURE ILL Processes of of semantic

The relationship relationship between between selection and and the the other otherprocesses processes of ofmeaning meaning construction in inLCCM LC M Theory Theoryare arediagrammed diagrammedininFigure Figure 11.2. 11.1_ construction I laving provided provided aa preliminary preliminary notion notion of ofwhat what is is involved involved in in selection, selection,itit isi Having Import"nt to to briefly briefly sayy what what selection \<1 tion isis not. not. Selection Sel""tionapplies applie ininorder ordertoto important distinguish between between lexical lexical concepts. con el'l . However, Ilowever, once on e aa lexical lexical concept concept has ha distinguish been identified, id ntified, the Ihe processes processes which which apply apply in in order order totofurther furthernarrow narrow the the reading are are lexical lexical concept con ept integration integration and and interpretation. interpretation. Hence, lienee, while while reading selection serves serves to to identify identify distinct di\tint:1 lexical lexi 31 concepts con ept.sassociated a~iJtcdwith with in, in in selection

,t.,

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY EMANTI(: COMPO ITIONALITY

220 220

-

Francein in the theexamples examplesinin(1). (aro not apply apply to to f"'"ef (1), selection the.. examples in (I). the ample:. in lectlOn ddoes not which we we fi",t first met met in in Chapter whi.h hapter I:I: (2) (1)

is aa country a.a. France France" country of of outstanding outstanding natural natur.1 beauty he.uty France is one of the leading nations in the European b. b. France is one of the le.ding nation, in the European Union nion 2007 Rugby World Cup France beat New Zealand in the c. c. hance heat ew Zealand in the 2007 Rugby World Cup 2005 referendum referendum Francevoted votedagainst againstthe thelU EUconstItution constitution in in the the 1005 d. I'rance d.

sanctioned by the the ;ame same le.ical lexical concept concept in This follows follows aas the the vehide vehicle FrallCf France iis ... Thi; nctioned by in France provides a different semantic each of these examples. Hence, while each of these exampl . Ilence. while f"rdll t provides a different seman II. this iis not not aa consequence of (2), this utterances in (1). contribution In in each each of of the contribution the utteran es in consequence of selection, but but the associated sclection. the two two constituent con;titu nt compositional compositional processes pr()( awxiated with wIth fusion, discussed in the fu ion. di usscd In the next next two two chapters. chapter. Accordingly, Accordingly. my my claim daim is is that that these exam examples, is associated a France, In in th frall(f. 1'1 • is a iated with with aa single ingle lexical lexical concept, concept.with with. single aCtess access site and aa single single coherent coherent cognitive single ite and cogni",e model modelprofile. profile.In Incontrast, contra t.the th., are associated with distinct lexical (t), the examples in in, in instances of instan es of III. the exampl in (,). are asso
Selection can can he be divided divided into Selecllon into two two distinct di IInct types: type : broad broad selection election and and narrow narrow selection. Broad selection. Broad selection selection involves involv the the identification identifi ation of ofaalexical lexi .1concept. concept.For For instance, ha) above, above.reproduced reproduced below: helow: in tance. in in an an utterance utteran e such uch as a (la) (ia) (Ia) The Thekitten kitten isI in in the thebox box the has to to select select the concept for for in ill from from amongst among." the the the hearer hearer ha the appropriate appropriate lexical I ical ",nlept range of available lexical concepts—as we have seen, in is highly polysemous range of availabl lexical concepts-as we have n. in i highly polysemous with a large number of distinct lexical concepts stored with a large numher of di tinct lexical concepts toredininsemantic manticmemory. memor)". Typically, the language user will select a single lexical concept in order to buildaa ·lyPic3lIy. the langu.ge user will select a "ngl le.ical concept in order tobuild conception. canonical31situation, to as conception.This Thi isi the thecanoni ituation.which whichI Irefer ref, rto as single ingle selection. selection.In In the example the [ENCLOSUREI lexical concept the example in in (la) (Ia) the th hearer hearer selects I "thd' NU 0 uREllexical concept from from the the lexical lexical concept concept potential potenllal associated a~iated with with the thevehicle vchidein.Ill.However, Ilowever.inincertain certain contexts contextsmore morethan thanone onelexical lexicalconcept conceptcan canheheselected. selected.This Thi I Irefer ref, rtotoas asmultiple multipl selection: the a single ofmore morethan thanone onelexical lexicalconcept con eptfor for. Singlevehicle. vehlde. lection: th selection I ·tion of There lea" two two distinct di tinct types types of ofmultiple multIpleselection. I... tion.This Thiswe wefirst fiNmet metinIn There are are at at least an an earlier earlier chapter. chapter. Reconsider Recon ider the the following followingexamples examplesinvolving involvingthe th vehicle vehidefast fiur. (3) (J) aa fast fa t car car (4) (4) aa fast fast typist typi t

[RAPID IRAPIOPERFORMANCE PFRIOR tANCl OF Of ACTIVITY' ACIIVITVI

(5) (5) aos fast (J\I decision dl*t.i\iOIl

I(RfQl'IRI' RuguIRES LITTLE. lIllll TIME n tI FOR fOR COMPI.FTIoNI (OM11111lONI

IRAPID RAPIIl LOCOMOTION' l()( OMOTION I

■ 41 4,01r1tri•ls All that AS ICX1 • Krt. R«,II thlth ,,"kill U'nar' ..

the 1.41114ertMil "1(' hi the LunCt-phul

All .14,...C1.■ 141C to

an

oK,

AFC dosed-class lexical concepts thcv do lint hive kited with k..,lnJ whh in,".r~ d ..M"!.I..... tnKaJ UHk.qtl Ihc-y d-I 0011 h.1~

nn

LEXICAL EPT SELECTION LEXICAL (:ON CONCEPT SELECTION

121

221

I" each xamples. aa di tinct lexical for fast selected, aas eachof of these these examples, distinct lexical concept concept for fast Iis selected. ""licated lexical concept glo next to toeach ea hutterance. utterance.However, Howev r. indicatedby by th the lexical concept glosses next .1' ky (1995) u ion of of fast. indicatedby by Pustejov Pustejovsky (1995)inin his his di discussion fast, the the follOwing following ,is Indicated eexample ample appear to he a blend of the I RAPIIl PLR'ORMAN :ti or A ,"vITVI appears to be a blend of 'RAPID PERFORMANCE OF ACTIVITY Iand and I[REQUIRE ~I QUIRE LITTLE FOR COMPLETION] COMPLETIONlle"i al concepts: LITTLE TIMe TIME FOR lexical concepts: (((,) M

We need need aa fast garage for for our our car. car, as we we leave leave th the day day after after tomorrow tomorrow fast garage We

I h.lt iis• to tru t the that most mo t native native speakers peaker will WIU ordinarily ordinarily construct the conceptIon conception that to con That Jerive. utterance. thi use of of fast m to involve involve two lexi",1 fast seems lexical derive, based basedon on this this utterance, this use ","cepts. That is, the reading d rived relates to a garage who m hani concepts. That is, the reading derived relates to garage whose mechanics are able the repairs repairs rapidly, rapIdly. and that takes takes little Iittl time tim to to do doso. so.After After able to to carry carry out out the and that all. t would no purpose purpose ifif the the all, aa garage garage whose whose mechanics mechanics worked worked~fast wouldhe be to to no garage mechanics in in question qu tioncouldn't couldn't garagealso also had had aa backlog backlog of of work work SO so that that the the mechanics !lei the repairs repairs without delay. Multiple Multipl selection this kind kind II refer refer to to as as get to to the without delay. selection of of this ;ingl tan e multipl lection. That there iis aa single ingle instance onstance of of aa single in instance multiple selection. That iis,• there vehicle. i.e.• fast. in (6) h requires requir selection lection of multiple lexical lexical concepts. concepts. which of multiple fast, in (6) whi vehicle, i.e., The ...:ond type type of of multiple multiple selection selection II refer rcrer to to as a multiple multipleinstance instance The second multiple when aa single single vehicle vehide occurs ()( urs or or is I implicated Impli ated This occurs occurs when multiple selection. selection. Thi multIple tim in in aa single ingle utterance utterance giving giving rise ri to to distinct di tinct lexical lexical concepts concept on on multiple times edch instance of use. An An example example of ofthis thisarises ari ininelliptical ellipticalutterances utteran as a each instance of use. foUowong: the following: exemplified by the (,) Onthe th day daymy myoId dadexpired, e pired.sosodid didmy mydriving drivinglicence Ii en e (7) On old dad In tthis utterance. there there are tinct instances instances of of (-wired: ""Plrtd: an anactual actual occurrence occurr nce his utterance, are two two di distinct of the the vehicle vehicle in in the the first first clause, clause. and and an an implied impliedinstance instance ininthe thesecond secondoror of eUiptlcal dause: but understood, uoder tood. instance instance of ofexpired. ""P",d. elliptical clause: the the clause clause with with the the omitted. omitted, but Moreover. each associated with a distinct di tinct reading, reading. giving giving rise rise to to aa Moreover, each instance instance iis associated wherethe thetwo twoclauses clau are arerelated r laledbyby humorouseffect. eff... t.lndeed. theexample exampl inin( (7) humorous I ndeed. the 7) where virtu of of employing employing (or (or implying) implying) the thesame meverb verbinineach eachisi an aninstance in tanceofofthe the virtue ofspeech speech known knownas a zeugma—I zeugma-Ishall hall have have more more to tosay sayabout aboutzeugma zeugmalater figure of figure later 111 the th chapter chapter by hy way way of ofaadetailed detailedcase c study tudyillustrating iUustratingthe th mechanics m hani ofof in selection.In Inthe th first fir tclause clause expired ""Plrtll relates relates to to an an event event involving involvingdeath, death.while whileinin selection. the second, second. expired ""P",drelat to expiry expiryofthe termfor forwhi individual'sright righttoto the relates to of the term whichhan an individual's on the thepublic publi highway highwaywas wassanctioned sanctionedoror"licensed." "Ii<ensed."'That That isis,there ther are are drive on drive inst.n es of ofexpired, explretl.each each instance instance selecting selectingdistinct dl tinctlexical lexicalconcepts. concept . multiple instances multiple Having addressed addressed broad broad selection lection IInow nowconsider con idernarrow narrowselection. selection.While Whil Having hroad selection scil'Ction concerns concern selection sel ... tion of of. distinctlexical lexicalconcept conceptfrom fromamong amonga a broad a distinct ofpossible possiblelexical lexicalconcepts concept conventionally conventionallyassociated associatedwith witha Jparticuparticu numher of number lar vehicle, vehi I •narrow narrow selection selection involves involv selection selection within witl""aa single inglelexical lexicalconcept. oncept. lar ofthe thehook, book.while whileitItisi convenient convenienttotospeak 'peakofof A we we saw .,,'w in in the th previous preVlou part part of As lexical concepts C(}lKeptsasa ififthcy werediscrete di -reteentities, entlli .•and andtotogloss glo them ,thelll wlIh a lahel. lexical they were with a label, diffi r ntsorts sorts crucialto toremember rememberthat thatthey theyconstitute constitutea acomplex compl array x arrayofofdifferent itit isi crucial

llJ 222

III

LEXICAL CONCEPT SELECTION

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONAL ITY EMANTI<" CO tP ITI(lNALlTY

of linguistic content.Thall, That is,aalexi lexical conceptcompri comprisesaabundle bundleof ofdifferenl different oflingui lic conlenl. al concepl typesofof knowledg knowledge. For ininstance, lexical concepts often encode encode multiple Iypes . ror Ian e, lexi al con epl often multiple when discussing the 8 parameters. We saw an instance of this in Chapter paramelers. We w an In lance of Ihi in. ·hapler 8 when di u i.ng Ihe lexicalconcepl conceptaassociated with the prepositional vehicle in. [ENCLOSURE] lexical I ENCLOSURE) SOClaled with Ihe prepo Illonal vehKle m. This lexical concept, I argued, encodes (at least) two distinct parameters: Thi' lexical concepl, I argued, encod (al Ie I) IwO di linct parameler.: Enclosure and Location with Surety. Which parameter is selected is a function Enclosure and local ion wilh urely. vv'luch para meIer is lceled I a funcllon of context. For instance, contexts involving full enclosure, such as that in (8) of conlext. For in lance, conlexts involving full enclosure, u h a Ihal in (8) select theEnclo Enclosure parameter, whileconlexl contexts involving involving only only partial selecllhe ure para meIer, while partial enclosure, enclo ure, as exhibited by the examples in (9), select the Location with Surety parameter. a exhibiled by Ihe examples in (9), selcellhe location wilh urelY parameter. (8)

(8)

The toy is in the box

The lOY i in Ihe box

(y) a. The bulb is in the socket a.h. The i is in in Ihthe sockel The bulb flower vase b. The flower i in Ihe vase c. The umbrella is in his hand

(9)

(. The umbrella i in hi hand

In fact, fact, ilit iis likdy likely Ihal that narrow narrow seleclion selection relales relates 10 to aa gradienl gradient of In of activation; activation; for example, instances of full enclosure may in fact activate both parameters, for exampl ,in lane of full enclosure may in facl a livale bolh para meIer , with the the Enclosure achieving grealer greater (or (or primary) primary) activation. En 10 ure parameter para meIer achieving a livalion. This Thi\ with serves to foreground the Enclosure parameter. Analogously, contexts involvrves 10 foreground Ihe Enclo ure parameter. Analogou Iy, conlexts involving enclosure in the Ihe foregrounding ~ regrounding of of the Ihe Location localion ing partial parlial en losure rresult, ult, II suggest, ugg I, in with Surety parameter.' with urelY parameler.> Selection types

Broad selection

Narrow selection

Multiple selection

Single selection

Single

SIngle enatance

instance

Foregrounding

Foregrounding

Multiple MuI\lpIe instance

instance

FIGURE 11.3. Selection types ht.liRL ILl. SeIt(lion IYJlCS T itim.ately.

rhe lcellon Iypes u....! in Ihi section secllon isI represented represenled Thedisllnclion distinctionInin selection types di discussed in this diJgrammalically diagrammaticallyininFigure FigureII. t1.J.3. Before usaa further further phenomenon: phenomenon: Relineconcluding concludingIhi this~Iion section I1 briefly briefly di discuss lC M Theory Ihal meaning meaning ,e1eclion selectionrevision. revision.AA key key claim claim made made by by LCCM Theory Iis that ,onslruction-which of utterance-level unerance-Ievel meaning: meaning: aa construction—whichi is10 to say, say, the the formallon formation of ,nnceplion-Illvolves rang of distinct conception—involvesIhe the recruilmenl recruitment and and inlegralion integration of of aa range of distinct IYI"'" Iingui IIc typesofof infonnalion information drawn drawn from from differenl different ;our< sources.. Th These include include linguistic (onlenl al conerpl selected for for in in an an utterance, uneran e, contentencoded encoded by by Ihe the variou various lexi lexical concepts selected ,onceplual gnilive model model profiles profiles to 10 which the conceptualconlenl content associaled associated wilh with Ih the ccognitive which the lexi al concept; polenllally afford at< ,a well a; variou ..elecled open-class selected open-class lexical concepts potentially afford access, as well as various aspect of conlexl including Ih di ourse conlexl, extra-lingui lie conlexl, aspects of context including the discourse context, extra-linguistic context, and refer 10 a background background knowledge—discussed kn wledge-discu....! in in greater greater and whal what we we mighl might refer to as ail below." Indeed, and and as as we weshall hall see seeinIIIlater lalerchapters, chaplers,LCCM l.C -M Theory Theory del detail below' Indeed, claims ilion occur landem, MaimsIhal thatIhe thevariou variousproc processesofofsemanlic semanticcompo composition occur in in tandem, and il is i to 10 be expecled Ihal a and recursively, recursively,ininbuilding buildingIhe theconceplion. conception. lienee, Hence, it be expected that a (on«pllon is revised, as further information i incorporated. conception is revised, as further information is incorporated. One which aa conception conceplion can can be be revised revised isi due dueto10revising revi ingwhich whi h One way way in in which lexical lecled: seleclion revi ion. To To illustrate iIIu lrale this Ihis process proc conconlexical conerpl concept is is selected: selection revision. "der following attested anesled exchange: exchange: sider Ihe the following (10) (to)

I. Let's A. leI'make make a MARGARITA. i. A. a MARGARITA. l. B. B. What? Whal? 2. J. A. A. For For lunch lunch ... ...for forIsabella. Isabella. 3. I . 4. B. plZL1. h, pizza! B. Oh, 4.

In this Ihi attested anesled exchange, exchange, two lwospeakers peaker were werediscussing discu inglunch luncharrangements arrangem nts In Jnd specifically pecifically what whal each each person person should hould have: have: two Iwoadults adultsand andtwo twochildren children and The previous previous day day speaker peaker AAhad hadbeen beentalking lalkingabout aboulmaking making aged 66 and and 2.2. The aged In the Ihe exchange exchange in in (to), (10),upon uponhearing hearing margarila : Ihe cocklail drink. drink. In margaritas: the alcoholic alcoholic cocktail Ihe vehicle vehicletranscribed Iran ribedas a "MARGARITA" "MARGARITA" person lookthis Ihi to10relate relaleto10the Ihe the person BB took drink: margarita. margarita. However, Iiowever, person person AAininfact facIintended inlended margherita, margl,trita, aa type Iype of of drink: piZL1.While While"margherita" "margherila"and and"margarita" "margarila" have havedistinct di linctorthographic orthographi reprereprepizza. vehi Ie.Hence, lienee,lexical lexi alconcept concepl \enlallon ,they Iheyshare share the Ihesame sam phonological phonologi alvehicle. sentations, ",Icellonisisrequired. required. selection (10.1) person B selected the lexical con epl Upon hearing Iheutterance uneran einin(io.i) Upon hearing the person B selected the lexical concept ITVP. OF ALCOHOLIC ORINK). Th uneran e in line 2 seeks c1arificalion, given !TYPE OF ALCOHOLIC DRINK]. The utterance in line 2 seeks clarification, given makingcocktails cocklail for forlunch. lunch.InInline line3 Jperson personAAclarifies clarifi Iheunusual unu;ualnature nalureofofmaking the Ihal the Ihe"margherita" "margherila" isisintended inlendedfor forIsabella, Isabella,a a2-year-old 2-year-oldchild, child,whose who that favourile food i margherila pizzas, a fa I known by bolh A and B. Person favourite food is margherita pizzas, a fact known by both A and Ii. Person B B revi the Ihelexical lexicalconcept con eplthat Ihallh vehideselects selectsfor, for,and andinstead In,leadselects sel I Ihenrevises then the vehicle ITVP OF PIZZA]. This is onfirmed in line 4.7 Ihelexical lexicalconcept concept (TYPE OF PIZZA). This is confirmed in line 4. 7 the • ~ ttk dl u .n tlf ,omt ~tlHI~ .tnJ th.. ..... umuLl1 ...n «,I \.ommnn Jrtlund " 'wt.- the discussion of 'tomt activities and the MA. tirmil.ilittli of onumn ground, .U""tr.lIn tt'uil k.s.kill Uln..q't tc'~U'ln .rrl~ 10 Utft tlf , It I wt.rth uhln·.... thill thll • It is worth observing that this example illustrates that lexical kon.c-pt selection applies to cr." of hnrnonymy,;u n-Kkrkrd by ..... mel trW,..n,...as well ~II to I~n mvolvlnl pol)'M'my, m as '" homonymy, as evidenced by margherita and margarita. to instances invoking polysemy. as in 1M l. (,f I~ dL"hn..1 k:u,",,1 u.n..rrtAVM N. hilted M.WINwith wllhthe 1M r~ltt<.~1 vdu..lc In prepositional vehicle in.

na

this remains an empirical question, of course.

223

the case

tUmrlt

,,"".,11

of the distinct lexical concepts

AI

b

224

11 XICA l «(l~( l PI

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY

EtA TIC CO.tP

ITIO AlIIY

The nature of linguistically mediatedcom communication mun icati on

The natu re of lingu istlc ally med iated

LCCM Theory constitutes an attempt to account for meaning construction Irutll nn tat I U M Tht'tl ry (on lilul an allem pl 10 acC languesr,whovpaticulmnvetios.Ihwrd who have partic ular comm unica liv inlen lion\. In Ihe wurd . ". u age langu of Herbert Clark: "Language is used by individuals; al at particular and lime and partic ular times ; "Lang uage i u'Cd by indiv idual Clar\. rt Herbe of places for particular purposes" (ibid. 1996: xi). In short, uusage and the e 'ents, andlh gc events, • (ibId. 1996: xi). In hort. C\ for partic ular purpo pia words which populate them, arc not plucked out of thin air. The conception lale Ihem . arc nol plu ked oul of thin air. The conce ptu," popu 'h whi word associated with a particular usage event is a function of of the the comm communicative UIllCdll,. wllh a parti< ular u g event i a fUntllOn ""iol edexpressed aintention by a speaker and understood by aa hearer. Put another way, by a peake r and unde r lood by hearer. PUI anoth er way. expr tion mlen a conception is always situated and hence unique, ari arising in service the rvicc ooff Ihe ing in i alway Ituale d and h nce uniqu e. con<e plion aexpression of a communicative intention, mediated, in part, by the resources of a comm unica lIVe inten lion. media ted. in part. by the re lurl< ion expr made available by language. But we cannot hope 10 to fully get to grips with the ble by language. But we cannOI hope fully get 10 grips with the availa made nature of the linguistic resources available, and how they contribute to lingui lic rC\Our< avail abl. and how they ontri bule til the of e nalur meaning-construction processes without, if only briefly, considering usage wilho ul. if only briefly. con iderin g u g ·con lrull; on proc anmg m events as an outcome of situated linguistically mediated communication, n oulco me of iluale d lingu i Ii lIy medi aled comm unica tIon. as 'enl namely, communicative events. The compositionall processes at of hearl of Ihe heart al the unica tive event . The comp o illona proc comm ly. name LCCM Theory, including lexical concept selection, assume a particular view ume a partic ular " w ding lexical conce pt leell n. Theor y.ofinclu 'M nature of the language and its role in communication. In this section, ,tion. and il role in comm unica tion. In thi age langu of e nalur the of which represents an excursis of sorts, I spell out this perspective. In soI doing, dOIng. \Cnt an excul"ii of'lOrt • I pell OUI Ihl pel"i pclliv . In which I draw reprC in particular on the seminal work of HerbertrtClark (e.g., 1996). . I draw in parti ular on th semin al work of Ilerbe Clark (e.g .• 1996)

u:

Joint activities

/o;nl OC/;\IIIIe$

(lark argues that language users deploy language ininorder . Thatis,t>, thing>That dothings. orderto10do t1u1 language users deploy languag argu lark language is primarily used for social purposes. For instance, we use language to to i primarily u;cd for ",xial pUI'J'O'CS. r-ur instance. we u language age langu engage in gossip, to get to know someone, to conduct business, to make a ip. 10 get 10 know ;omc one. to condu ct bu me \, 10 make a CIlgilge inin ga shop, purchase to declare love, to propose marriage, to get married, to quarrel, d. in a shop. 10 d lare love. to pro~ marriage. 10 gcl married. to quarr ase purch to make up afterwards, to get divorced, and so on and so forth. Clark argues up afterward 10 gcl di""« 'Il. and S
following:

• Scriptedn•ss: while sonic activity types arc highly scripted, such as a a npled . ulh " while 1m adl\i ly Iype ar highly .""n{,I et/II', • marriage ceremony, others, such as a chance meeting in a supermarket a uperm arkct meeti ng in

marri age c~rt'monYt other t ~u h.l .l ch.lI1LC

.1 H.TIO N

LEXICAL CONCEPT SELECTION

us

225

•

li which Ii hclw<'C'n IhNe I,WO pled . There arc areunri unscripted. Thereare areother otheralllvi activities which lie between these two il mean 10 ~y Ihal SOIly by langu age. one callI lance. aateleph en. For btl\'ie between. Forin instance, telephone call is constituted solely by language, ngui lic in nalur e. The degree 10 rily nOlli all malch while whileaafoolb football match iis prima primarily not linguistic in nature. The degree to i referred 10 a a d i o ur e langu Jg is Clivily reli which whichaa joint joint activity relies on on language referred to as a discourse Table 11.1. in traled iIIu i nuum (onti Thi . nuum conli continuum. This continuum is illustrated in Table mi. thai are wh~lIy coope rati, •• lie. range cr.IIIV fll.'. dllivi •• Co"p activities range from from Iho those that are wholly cooperative, Cooperativeness: In in lance. makm g. pu«h c. lor ..... rial in lolho to those Ihat that are are adve adversarial in nalu< nature. For instance, making a purchase in both Ihe cu tome r and the hop reli on coope rative as i cooperative hop is aa shop as il it relies on both the customer and the shop III ell I Ihe pu«h d . In con ralive ly in ing coope \i lanl work aassistant working cooperatively in order order to effect the purchase. In con.dve..... rial. ralhe r Ihan n.isi adversarial, on sense, in one leo;l in al least malch . at nni match, trasl. rather than trast, aa ttennis 10 10 . . ) nent( oppo Iheir ,au 10 k > player seek to cause their opponent( s) to ralive . aas Ihe coope cooperative, the players lose. III Ihe re.pe ct" rclat ion varial of mion dime final Ihe : ",""ft •• (;'lI'f Governance-. the final dimension of variation relates to the respective in Ih joml a(\lvl ly. Ill. pa.rti lular involved in partic ipanl involved Ih participants rol roles of of the the joint activity, in particular or not in term f Igmficancc ced balan ly equal ar rol Iheir r whelh whether their roles are equally balanced or not in terms of significance I'or in lance. th gll.1 of Ih actiVlly, For rcali1ing the lowar d realizing contr ibullo n towards Jnd contribution instance, and goal of the activity. bolh ance: n gover n ari. egalil el> mvolv hop in" a purlh a maki ng a purchase in a shop involves egalitarian governance: both making mul work equally I.n hopke eper. must Ihe shopkeeper, Cll 10m rand partiC lp.nl • Ihe participants, the customer and the work equally in aul ocrat lC mvolv llle. aCllv \Ome I. a contr In . I .. Ihe effl'll the sale. In contrast, some activities involve autocratic 10 effect ()td r to order ma gover nance . whereby on partic ipanl i el>pclially domm ant. uch governance, whereby one participant is especially dominant, such as in a ledur c. univel"iilylecture. university

nl whllh M:rve 10

clcm o n tituen telements exhib it constituent abo exhibit a liviti also jomlactivities addil ion. joint In addition, which serve to In ing: follow Ih d inclu Th re. truclu wilh themwith structure. These include the following: prtlvide them provide

who carry

more parllClpanl IWOorormore involv two actlVllyinvolves )Oinlactivity PaNlopam"AAjoint participants who carry • • Participants: Ihe partic ipant con i t • . purch hop In. . lance m fllr ly. dcti" For instance, in a shop purchase, the oullh out the activity. participants consist lanl. i a ... ,I< e andlh cu;to merand Ihecustomer ofthe of the sales assistant.

uum (Aft('f' ( !.Irk 1W6: 'SOl . ~~~~ 4.:0m erwtu lO. n('v. 1'3rer ;)rude r.dlO r('POrl • ,lO Idcph Telephone conversations, newspaper artikles, radio reports,

umlln (After Clark 1996: 50). dl (IUne'continuum "l"h('discourse I "at fiLl. TABLE ILI. The --~~--~ .

ilngul'lI \1u~tlylinguistic Mostly •

•• •

so on.

andso on. and

f ~4.: to f.,l,u' (elO\ rwtill " tcl("V1 Ie')n rcr
Itl:m items l 8U'lo., ' lr.. o 1.1100 . pl.1Y ,film . ul.I4.h lng dCOlun tr.JluH Business transactions, plays, films, coaching demonstrations tcnni m.ltl.h • tv. ') peaplC' moving m.lt4.h F(lutNIImatches, Football tennis matches, two people moving g 10\:': mJkm love lurOilure.making furniture, • duet. Yo' "/mg. (".YIO l..Jh.h 'lluiloinIna duet, PI"~lng. nof, hngul til. Playing In tlynon-linguistic a violin waltting, playing catch Mostly -=. --~

:

t

121, ,

~

____

s1 MANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _______

LEXICAL CONCEPT SI.1 I CTION

Y T~ II~ ~ ~A lN I(~ O~_I~T~ P= ~ ~M 'C~C=-O ~~ ~NT 'A ~ ~f

In a joint activity, each participant takes on Activity 'Tiler part icuI. r on particula ro/~s: In a joint a tivity. ea h parllClpant tak d termm how each parti ipant proceeds in rvlc' publicroes.Thdtmnweachpritodsnevic pubIi roI . Th of facilitating the joint activity. For instance, in a commercial ev '"~ ent of fa ilitatmg th joint aclivity. I-or in .. nce. 10 a comm er iaI cv assumes thetransciouhpaseno,prtica ume th transaction u h a a purcha in a h p. one partl ipant role of seller, the other of customer. role of lIer. th other of cu tom r. Public goals: These are the mutually known goals which result from the •• Public goal_. Th are the mutually known goal whi h r uft from the joint activity, such as effecting a purchase. jomt activity. u h a effecting a purc h=. In addit addition, participants in aa joint Private harbo ur may harbour activity may joint activity ipant in ion. partic g<.,/s: In ,'. goals: •• Pr;,·, which are unknown to the other participants(s). goals, private te goal. which arc unknown to the other parti "pant \(. ). priva through, joint • Joint actions: Joint activities are comprised of, and advance throu gh. l0lnt • /01111 nct/ollS: /omt activiti arc c mpriscd of. and advance actions. These are the discrete action components that make up a joint a tion . These are the di rete action comp onent that make up a jOint activity. For instance, in making a purchase in a shop, the sales assistantt activity. I'or in tance. in making a purcha in a hop. the sales a "'tan or customer may initiate the activity by enquiring as to whether assistIt or cu tome r may initiate the actiVity by enquiring to whether a ance is required, or can be provided, deciding on the items wanted, 'd. an c i reqUired. or can be provided. decidmg on the items wantl confirming the price, exchanging payment in return for goods, produconfirming th price. ex hanging payment in return for gooru. produ cing and receiving a receipt and finally closing the transaction. Each of ong and receiving a receipt and finally do ing th tran lion. Each these di discrete components a tion. joint action. con Iitut aa joint onen ts constitutes -rete comp th • Hierarchies: A joint activity involves a hierarchy of joint actions (and • Hi r"rcl,ies: A joint activity invoIvcs a hierarchy of lomt allion (and indeed other joint activities). That is, as we have seen in the example of aa indtt d other joint activiti ). That is, we hav seen in the example of shop purchase, joint actions naturally lead to others, in a hierarchical I hop purchase. joint action naturally lead to others. in a hierarchic sequence: one cannot proceed to the next activity until another is first sequence; one cannot proct td to the ne t allivi ty until anoth er i tiN completed. Equally, extended event sequences involve lomt hierarchicsofofjoint mvoIv hierarchies completed. Equally. extended cyent scqu n activities. activiti . • Procedures: Participants in a joint activity achieve their public and • Procedures: Parti ipant in a joint a IIV/ty a hi 'e their public and private goals by deploying procedures of various sorts. These include indud e private goal by deploying proce dur of various sorts. Th using language as well as other non-linguistic procedures specialized for, u lOS lansuag a well a other non -Iingui ti procedurtS pteia liled for. or adapted to, the joint activity in question. For instance, in footballall or adapted to. the joint activity in qu tlon. I'or 10 tan e. in footh non-linguistic procedures may include those which are recognized by the the non-Iingui ti procedur may include tho whi h arc recognized by laws of the game, such as kicking the hall in various ways, passing the ball law ofthe game. u -h ki -king th hall in variou wa • pa ing the hall to team-mates, dribbling past opposing players, and those which are not, to team mate>. dribbling pa t oppo ing pla)'e~ and tho which arc not. such as attempting to win free kicks in goal-scoring position by virtue ofof such asattemp~ing.'o win fret ki ks in g aJ scoring po ition by virtu simulation, which is to say, pretending to have been fouled. Imulallon. whICh I to \JY. pr t nding to have betn fouled. • Muses: A joint activity involves a number of distinct phases. . Clark (lark • PI,"- " A loint a Iivity invol , a numb er of di tmct pha identifies three: identifi three: i. an entry the participants go from not being in the joint activity to I. an mIry: the participant go from not being in the joint a tivity to being inin it, as when a customer approaches a shopkeeper ask for help forhelp hopkeepertoto.."k ?ting .'t. a when a cu to mer approach in selecting an item for purchase; lectmg an Item for purchase; 10 ii. the body the participants are engaged in the joint activity: the I~-.dy: the parti "pan t are ngaged 10 th joint activity; !!. _ iii. an mit: the participants go from being in the joint activity it. beingin11111. notbeing activityto10not III. an exit: the participant> go from being 111 the I"int • Dynamics: joint activities are dynamic in the sense occur mayoccur theymay that they n that • 1>yrIlItIllC<: joint aCllviti are dynamic in the simultaneously with, or overlap, other joint activities. In addition they Slmuft.neou Iy With. or o,erla p. olher loint aclivill"'. In addition they may also feature a varying number of participants at different points in in may al _ ~ ature a varying numb er of I' rtl(lp ant at different poinl achievement of the activity's goal(s). the the achlcv m nt of Ihe aClivily' g""I( .).

•• Actlvlly

227 227

d Common grou nd on groun Comm lati, inin nature incremental step. in incremental tdin :oceed steps which nature.. Th These whichare arecumu cumulative 1<>1111 activi ties proct d. groun on comm 10 refers (lark what l a umula what ( :lark refers to as common ground, tep. \Crv serve to accumulate inacmental ental steps lI"rcm gm on grolark. comm . I'or Sialnaker (19]8) Richard Stalnaker from Richard wrowing term from (1978). For Clark, common wing aa lenn )'orn1 up bUilt up ipants Ihat m partic ledge betwe d know und ,on constitutes the share shared knowledge between participants that ISis built tilut ~he UI1.! activlll jOll1t activities that joint argu that y_ Clark g lhe incrementally during the cours coursee of of a )Oint joint actlvit activity. (lark argues 1-otally dunn ,n,rel11 gmund. on ground. cumulali n of aredmen drivenby bythe theaaccumulation ofcomm common Jre ground: comm onground: of common ulation of ed in tag can canbe beaddu adduced in the the accum accumulation hre< stages IThree bring participanl bring that participants lcdg that es the d: Thi the know knowledge on groun ground: This involv involves Initialcomm common •• Inilial mtry ofentry point of allhe activity. and ing in a joint activity, with them them before engag engaging and hold hold at the point With umption hackground assumptions of background set of the set ledge indud ty. Thi to tbe the actiVi activity. This know knowledge includes the 1o their and their other. and tach other, parti ipants have that participants facts that and presumed have about about each prtSumed facts and a hi ·ed Winbebeachieved th will how these ptctive goals, their respective mptions about presumptions about their goals, how prC>u rol activityroles. joll1tactivity theirjoint about their ,ump lions about ledge and aassumptions ding know knowledge II1du including activity. j(11l11activity, point ininaajoint givm point any given At any a tivity: At jomt activity: laic of Current of the joint nt state •• Curre knowto knowrdat to Thi relates activity. This Ihe activity. of the tate of current state th current represmt the lpant represent participants partl al. tageititisi at. whatstage andwhat progr ingand a llvityisi progressing theactivity how the rning how concerning ledge conce that tv nl that variou events th various repr nt the Iso represent Partl ipanl also far: Participants 'ents so tar: Public events • Publi activity. joint activity. the joint realizing the in realizing pIa e in thu far taken place have thus

4

Imagll1 and imagine ev nt. and purcha event, hop purchase the shop recon ider the let' reconsider illustration. let's By way way of illustration, the Atthe boots.At ofboots. pair of buyaapair tobuy order to in order h p in hot shop enters a shoe cu 10m r enters Ihe customer that Ihal the enquire ordertotoenquire ustomer. ininorder th customer, approach the a i tant approaches _hopassistant th shop moment moment the cu lome r thecustomer both the pur hase. both h r purchase, effecting her in effecting a i tance in requir assistance sh requires whether whether she knowledge involv knowledge Thi involves knowledge.This ofknowledge. bodyof large body hold aa large a i tant hold ..1 assistant and sales about andabout footw ar.and purcha ofoffootwear, makingaapurchase inmaking involved in procedur involved Ihe procedures about aboui the a um assl tantassumes I assistant Ihesales in tance.the I-orinstance, a umpt ion.For II1duding assumptions. oth r. including each each other, the andthe footwear.and itemsofoffootwear, oritems item or an item purchase an 10purchase wishes to cu tome r wishes the customer that Ihal the a I Ian e off< rlo m~r indicating Ihem r trying cu lometrying th customer andthe bool and felchingboots feet.fetching ,~tomer' feet, thecustomer's measuring them meas u"?g the for paymentfor pri e.payment onprice, confirmingon required.confirming boot required, theboots onthe decl Ionon on, makll1gaadecision on.making the:.e _ Fa hofof tran-'JclionEach Ih transaction. do,in gthe andclosing pURha •and thepurchase, wrappingthe the these boot •wrapping !heboots, hicrar,hi .11 (on lItut a hierarchical and constitutes way,and rangeoforways, proct tdinina..range canproceed joint athon scan JO int actions groun d comm onground th common lal ofofthe curre nt state Thecurrent above. The d rihtd above. sequence, ~uen e. as described participant whileparticipants ,,:ached.while htcnreached, hasbeen \lag has whichstage a totowhich kn()wledge as II1dud knowledge includes

226

226

LEXICAL CONCEPT SELECTION

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY

•

AalYllyroles rolN: In In aa joint jOintactivity, .ctivny.each ~achparticipant partk'panttakes tak on onparticular partkul •o Activity publi roles. rol . These Th determine d~t~rmin how howeach ~ hparticipant parti ipantproceeds proc~ininservice rvt' public offacilitating facih~ahng the th~ joint jointactivity. actIVity. For I'orinstance, in tJnc~. inina acommercial commer"alevent~~ of tranSOlctlOn such uch as aa purchase purcha in 10 aJ shop, hop.one oneparticipant partiCipantassumes a um the the transaction rol~ of ofseller, lIer. the th~ other otherofofcustomer. eu tom r. role Publicgoals: go,./" These Th are r~ the the mutually mutually known known goals goal which whichresult r ultfrom fro mthe th •o Public joint activity, a tlVlty. such uth as effecting tTeetingaJpurchase. purch.;e. • joint Pri,·atrgoals: goals: In In addition, addition. participants participant in in aajoint jointactivity aClivitymay mayharbou ha rbourr •o Private prlvat goals. whl h Jre unknown to th oth r participants( ). privategols,whcunktoehrpaicns(). /01111 actions: aaiollS: 'flint /Oint activities achviti are are comprised comprised of, of.and andadvance advanc~through, through.joint JOIOt •o Joint achon . These These are a .. the Ihe.discrete di rct~ action action components component that tha tmake makeup upaajoint joint actions. 10 tance. in 10 making makIOg aa purchase purch in in aashop, hop.the thesales
actlvltl activities.. o• I'rocedurN: ipants inin aa joint JOIOt activity a tlVity achieve a hi ve their their public pubhc and and Procedures Parti Participants of various various sorts. MS. These Th include includ private ploying procedures procedur of private goals goals by by d deploying uusing 109 languag~ non·lingui h procedures procedur specialized specialiledfor, for. language as as well well as as other other non-linguistic or adapted to. the joint 10IOt activity achVlty in 10 question. qu tion. For Forinstance, in tan e ininfootball football or adapted to, the reco~nized by by the th non lingui hc procedures procedur may may include include those tho which whi hare a ..recognized non-linguistic laws a kicking ki king the th~ hall ball in in various variou ways. ways. passing pa ingthe theball ball laws ofthe of the gam~. game, such such as to mat dribbling dribbling past pa t opposing opro ingplayers, playen. and and those thosewhich whi hare re not, no t. to t~am team-mates, ~uch ks in 'oring po Ition by by virtu such aas.allemp~IOg.to attempting to win win free free ki kicks in goal· goal-scoring position virtue o off :mulatlon •. whl h Iis to to say, y. pretending p .. tending to to have hav~ been bttn fouled. fouled. simulation, which o• IPhases: /10 ~s: A activity involves involves aa number number of ofdistinct di tinct phases. pha"",. Clark Clark A JOint joint activity Identlfi Ihr identities three:

I.i. an joint aactivity tlVity to to an emry., entry: th the participant participantsgo go from from nOI not bring being in in the the joint beIOg n Ja cu tomer approaches approaches aa shopkeeper hupkeeper to to ask ask for for help help being 10 in n. it, Jas wh when customer 10 leehng an n m for purchase; in selecting an item for purchase; II.ii. th ipant ar~ loint activity; activity; the bo.ly. body: th the parti participants are engaged engaged 10 in th the joint III. iii. an an 001: exit:th~ the partilipant. participantsgo go from from being being on in the theJoont joint Oktivny activity to to not not being being in in It. it. o•

I?rrtallllC" n that Dynamics ;olOt joint activiti in.th~ the sense activities are are dynamic dynamic i~ that th~ they may may occur occur

. In they Imuhancou Iy wnh. simultaneously with, or or overlap. overlap,olh« other IOlnt joint alltvlh activities. In addition addition they al", feature a varylOg number of parllclpant at dift; rent POInI 10 may may also feature a varying number of participants at different points in Ihe nt of IIvny' goal(s). theachlevem achievement of Ih~. the activity's goal(s).

227

227

Common commonground ground xeed ininincremental I,unlactivities Jctiviti proceed incrementalsteps ,tcpswhich whichare are cumulative cumulahv~in innature. nature.These Th lo^int serve to accumulate what Clark refers to as common ground, increriuntal InCr\' to accumulat what Clark refers to. almmon ground. rrowing a term (1978). For F-or Clark, aark. common commongrogro horrowmg a t built up incrementally during the course of a joint activity. Clark argues that joint activities Ifl
event, By way of illustration, By way tUustration. let's I t' reconsider r on id r the th~ shop hoppurchase pur h ev nt, and and imagine Imagin~ hoots. that the eust customer enters aa shoe thJt th~ mer ~nt~rs hoe shop hop in in order order to to buy buy aa pair pair of of boot . At At the the the shop moment th~ hop assistant a i~tant approaches approach the th customer, u tomer. in in order order to toenquire enqui .. whether in effecting wheth r she h~ requires r~uir assistance i tan ~ 10 ~a ting her h r purchase, purch • both both the the customer customer and sales sales aassistant hold a large of knowledge. knowledge. This Thi involves involves knowledge knowledg dnd i tant hold larg body of about the procedures involved in making a purchase of footwear, and about th prOledures IOvolved in making a purcha of footwear. and about about instance, the sales assistant assumes For each other, including eJ h other. in luding assumptions. assumptions. I'or in tan ~. the I a I tant a urn that the customer wishes to purchase an item purch an it~m or or items item of offootwear, footwear. and nd the Ih that th u lomer wi h , 10 customer assumes that the sales assistant is available for, and offers, assistance cu'tomer a ~umes thatth I a i tanl i av.il.bl for. nd otTen. J i tance in ~ft; effecting the selection assumptions ting th~ lection and purchase purcha of of footwear. footwear. These Th umption made mad in by Ihe the particip.nls participants repre represent the intti.1 initial state of the common common ground. nlthe tale ofth ground. The Th~joint joint by activity progr progresses by by virtu virtue of J
Ll XICAL <.:ONt l- P I St LEGflON 228

-

228

SEMANTIC CONIPOSITIONALITY f 'ANTIC (·OMPOSITlON!A::.I~I:..:T.!Y______________

Common Ground Discourse Representation Textual Representation

Taxtual Repr......toon

Situational Representation

SfualJo"al Repr"""lloon

FIGURE 114. Common ground and the discourse representation fl(.l'RI lL4- Common ground and the til OUI"\C rcpr~n',)tion

also represent knowledge relating to all the joint actions that have thus fat

aho rcpr"",nt knowledge relating to all the joint action that have thu, far occurred. occurred. According to Clark, common ground accumulates by virtue of participants According to Clark. common ground accumulates by virtue of participant maintaining a discourse representation. This consists of two other sorts of mainlaining a diTheourse representation. Thi con iDuring t of two otheractivity. >;ort, of representation. first is a textual representation. the joint representation. Thetrack first of i aalltextual representation. During ;Olllt attivll),. participants keep the utterances issued and otherthe signals, such as participanto; keep track of all th utteran i ued and other ignal. uch a accompanying gestures, prosody, and so on, during the various joint actions. gethe turutterances ... proo;ody. andconstitutes 0;0 on. during the variou joint 'CtUIII'. aThe companying record of all made the textual representation. In The record of all the utteran es mad conslItut the textual repr"",ntatinn. In addition, participants maintain a situational representation." This comprises addition. participan maintain a and ituational representation.' Thireferents compri of the participants. the time, venue, physical environment, the the partiClp.nt,. the time. venue. and phy "al environment. the referent, of the linguistic expressions deployed, the social commitments implied by the the lingui tic expre Ions deployed. th social commitments implied by the participants' utterances—for example, the offer to help made by the sales participant • utterancc<-for example. th offer to help made by the sal assistant—and the relationship between the various joint actions in accom "' i tant-theand theactivity. relatinn,hlp between thebetween variou the ;OIntcomponents ott ion in a«om plishing joint The relationship of the pll hing th joint .ctivity. Th relation hip between the component of the discourse representation arc captured in Figure 11.4. di\(ourse representation ar captured in Figure 11·4·

LEXICAL CONCEPT SELECTION

229 229

"dlnating theor action. In Joint acllon the coordination problem is rco;olved i)ortiiiiating their actions. In ioint actions the coordination problem is resolved ~~M, Irtue of employing coordination devices. On kind of oordination d vice• (iv virtue of employing coordination devices. One kind of coordination device, .11,,1 the ononeempl yed bybylanguage. is isconv ntion. .. , employed language, convention. and the \ hngui tic 'y tem (e.g.• lngli,h) represenh a conventIonal Ignalhng A linguistic system (e.g., English) represents a conventional signalling ,,,tcm that fa ilitates coordination in joint action,. Thi~ Y tem i comprised that facilitates coordination in joint actions. This system is comprised "~Isystem ,ymbolic units-bipolar a semblies c~mpri ing vehicles .a~d lexical c~n units—bipolar assemblies comprising vehicles and lexical cono f symbolic ,cl't, _ whICh arc establi hed by cOlwentlon III a gIven hnglll't" eommuOlty. cepts—which are established by convention in a given linguistic community. lIowever. and as ob rved in hapter '" the range of symboh UOlt .avallable and as observed in Chapter 4, the range of symbolic units available t"However, the participants in joint actions underdetermine the range of sltuallon • to the participants in joint actions underdetermine the range of situations, "cnt;. \tat • relallon,hips. and other interper:.onal fun lion that partlCl events, states, relationships, and other interpersonal functions that particirant. may potentially seck to u language to expr , and fulfi~. language pants may potentially seek to use language to express and fulfil. Language u,c" are continually using language to expr uOlque meaOlng. about users are continually using language to express unique meanings, about unique tate> of .ffair and relation hip. in unique W.y>. WhIle ea h langu·1I unique states of affairs and relationships, in unique ways. While each language ha, a range of "ready-made" schem ymbohc UOl" whICh cal~ be com has a range of "ready-made" schemas--symbolic units which can he comhined to facilitate coordination in ; int actions-these necessanly underbined to facilitate coordination in joint actions—these necessarily underdctemline the mutability of human experience. As lang.eker put it. determine the mutability of human experience. As Langacker puts it, .. Linguisti convention cannot provid~ a fi"~. unitary :x~r '. ion for 'ery 8 "Linguistic convention cannot provide a fixed, unitary expression for every (onceivable situation that. peaker mIght WI h to descnbe (IbId. 1987: 17 ). conceivable situation that a speaker might wish to describe" (ibid. 1987: 278). \, ( lark argues. in order to overcome this. language use involv.es employing As Clark argues, in order to overcome this, language use involves employing the conventional repertoire of ymbolic unit in non- onventlona! way ~n the conventional repertoire of symbolic units in non-conventional ways in order to overtom coordination problem (see also Croft 1000). That I • order to overcome coordination problems (see also Croft i000). That is, words do not have table and fixed semantic representation whi h \urfa e words do not have stable and fixed semantic representations which surface each time they are used. Rather. word exhibit mantic variation. a function each time they are used. Rather, words exhibit semantic variation, a function rvi e of ofjoint jointactions. acti ns. . ,f situated ,ituated language language use u in in service I rom the perspective nf lCCM Theory. the protean nature of semanll From the perspective of LCCM Theory, the protean nature of semantic represent.ti n i • in part. a fun tion of (i) selecting the appropnate lelll al representation is, in part, a function of (i) selecting the appropriate lexical (oncept. and (ii) deriving a cont xt- pecific reading ~ue to the pro< .. of concept, and (ii) deriving a context-specific reading due to the processes of lexical concept integration and ",terpretation; a leXICal concept faClhtate lexical concept integration and interpretation; as lexical concepts facilitate access to the con eptual y tern. and hen e po a vast semanti potential. access to the conceptual system, and hence possess a vast semantic potential, thi, potential mu t be narrowed in service of the formation of a conception. this potential must be narrowed in service of the formation of a conception.

Joint actions JOintactivities actions proceed by virtue of the joint actions which make them up, as we Joint JOInt a(tiviti proceed by virtue of the Jt,int .etion which make them up. a., we have seen. The hallmark of joint actions is that they require coordination between have secn. hallmark of joint i, that they requIre (oordination bet,,< 'n the two (or The more) participants. Inaction this they are participatory: they involve two or (or more)who participants. In thisa part they.re participatory: they involv or the two more participants each perform in order to achieve the joint action. moreactions parti"p.nt who ealh perform p.rt in order tn achIeve the joint action. Joint can he contrasted with a autonomous actions which are nonjoint actions can be contrasted with autonomou action whichbyarc onn participatory, such as playing a flute solo. Joint actions progress virtue •. uch ofasactions playingbetween a flute participants solo. joint actIon by virtu ofparticipatory the coordination in orderprogr to overcome a of the coordination of actions between particIpants in order to overcome coordination problem. A coordination problem arises when two or more people a coordination problem. and/or A (oordination problem Jri hewhen two orbymore I"',,'ple have common interests goals which can only achieved virtue of

,,,0

have common interests and/or goals which can only be achieved by virtu of

See the related notions 411 the situation model (van Ihik and Kintsch KAI) and mental model • ~ IN- reLunt nuUnn, 01int~ n)....ki h.n PII" and "'1111 h l.,al)in.00 R)('nl.&J m".leI lohnson-Laird IstSti developed the111u.lhun psycholinguistit: literature, and Addressed slightly more detail in (:hapter t It"'mun IA,n)n. dndnrcd in Ih.:- I"'".hohntt\.l~h' hltnlIUfC'... nJ okWrnk'\! an wltf,hlly muK

,,*,,,

delolll in (hotrt«

t\.

Factors in in selection selection Factors In lhl tion I provide a brief overview of some of the main fa tors in In this section I provide a brief overview of some of the main factors in \election. Selection. like the other compo itional pro< in LCCM Theory. selection. Selection, like the other compositional processes in LCCM Theory, i, guided by context. In order to identify o;om of the main contextual factors is guided by context. In order to identify some of the main contextual factors di>cu ion follow: involved.I divide I dividethe thediscussion involved, as afollows: • fa tor\ .s>
• factors associated with linguistic context, and • factors ol MKiatrd with extra linguistic: (on text. • factors associated with extra-linguistic context.

Sci tion i, influenced by both these di tinct type of context.

Selection is influenced by both these distinct types of context.

2 io 0 23

- lowevcr, the second part of the

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY

coli/ex, (aka ground): The Thc discourse di ou~ context context can can be be ii. Discourse context (aka common ground): equated with the construct con troll of ofcommon commonground, ground,developed developedbybyStalnaker Slainaker(1978) (1978) and (19'}6).. ummariled above. .bove. This Th,. includes on Iud knowledge knowledg and especially Clark (1996), as summarized el of the Ihc utterance, uttcranec, and and relates relat to to the theaccumulated a cumulaledknowledge, knowledge, "above" "above" th the Ilevel and situational, Ituallon31. that thaI isi shared . hJred by by interlocutors interlocutors du 10 the the .,,>th textual lextual and both due to di 'our context rv 10 guid the the process pr<xcs of of ongoing di -ou<'<. The ongoing discourse. The discourse context serves to guide lexical con pt selection. Iccti n. lexical concept ..change in in (to) (10)reproduced reproducedbelow: below: Ii, illustrate, illu trate. reconsider recon ider the th exchange To II.

The utterance Utterance V"crancecontext: roll/txt: Thc utteran e itself il If provides pr vid aa linguistic lingui Ii context conlcxlwhich which guides selection. gUld seleclion. This Thi linguistic lingui"i context conI xl includes includes all all aspects aspecl ofoflinguistic li ngui'lic information that informalion thaI appear appear in aa given given utterance. utt rancc. These Th include includ all allthe Ihelexical lexIcal concepts implicated impli aled in in the Iheutterance, utteran e. as a well well as a features fealur of ofprosody—rhythm, prosody-rhythm. stress, and inlonalion. intonation. To Ir • and To illustrate illu oral the Ihe way w y in in which which utterance utterance context conlexlserves 'rv to guide 10 guid selection, selection. consider can iderthe Ihcfollowing followingattested att ledexample: txample: i. I.

(10) 1.I.A.A.Let's Lct' make make aa MARGARITA. MARGARITA. (to) 2. B. What? Whal? 2. 3. A. For lun h ...for forIsabella. Isabella. 3. lunch... 4. B. Oh, Oh. pizza! pizza! 4.

(n) Send (11) ndyour yourgirlfriend girlfriendsomewhere somewhercreally really cool, cool.the thcfridge fridge for for aa pork porkpie. pic.

addressee's girlfriend to an exciting addr . girlfriend cxdling location, 1(k.:atiol1,perhaps perhal' on onvacation. vacJtion. • Indeed, a perch to the Indn:d. the the- degree dl"lfC't" to 10 which .....hl'-h. ,~hevent n't'nlislJintegral 1n1qt".I110 ltvevent f'Wnlwith Withwhich WhkhitIIisl co-extensive CC)-ftirn IW' i99('): %et' correspond u.rrnp'n.J to Id the dw diw dl nurse tUnt continuum ~lInhnuum :lark j( I.. r~ .'IY6i. wr Lillie T~ II I

231

IInw ·er. Ihe ond part of the utteranc rdal to 10. fridg •aaspecific peeific I utterance relates a fridge, I,,,,ation i designed d igned for for refrigerating refrig ratong foodstuffs. food tuff. Hence, II nc • by ddefinition finition location which is prompt for for selection I tion revi ion. in which whi h the the )Ow LOW •a fridge fridge is i cold. cold. This Thi prompts revision, ,,"PI RATlIR') lexical lecled. This Tho. then Ihen gives gov ro readong lexical concept concept isi selected. rise to a reading 4111 FRATUREI Tv11 ,n which it it is i not nOI an an exciting x iling location lOCI lion to 10 which which the Ihe addr addressee's• girlfriend in which hnuld be senl. ralh r aa cold namely the the fridge, fridg •in in order ord r to to fetch fCICh should sent, but rather cold location. location, namely .1 pork advert"ong campaign campaign for for WKI) WKD Vodka Vodkd typically typICally concludes conclude pork pie. pie. The advertising '\lth logan: "liave WKD (pronounced (pronounced'wicked') 'wicked')side?" ide?"In Inthe the the slogan: "Have yyouu got aa WKI) with Ihe ll'K ' '': where WKD Original Vodka Vodka has ha been been heavily heavily promoted, promoted,this thi particular p rtieular where WKI) .Ii< Original Original Vodka. Vodka. The The presumably aa pork pie goc goes nicely humour play in part, on the the selection I ·tion for for the the 'LOW (LOW TEMPERATURE' TEMPFRATl'RF) humour alo;o also plays, in part, Ie,icdl evokin g the Ihe (POSITIVE )po ITIVI EVALUATION' 'VAlUATlO") lexical lexi al concept. (On cpt. lexical conlepl, concept, while evoking I hat iis,, in far as the utterance uttcranct is amusing, this thi is i so because bee.u itIt evokes .,ok one one That in so far lexical on epl-advanlagenu to 10 the th addressee's addr • girlfriend—only girlfriend--ilnly to torevise revi itil lexical concept—advantageous WIth notadvantageous—thereby advdntageou Ih rebyrevealing rev linga a"wicked "wickedside". ~id ': with another-which another—which isi not

Linguistic context context linguIstic can Ihonk think of of linguistic as involving We can lingui Ik context conlexl. involvingthree Ihreelevels. level. The Thefirst fir Ilevel le\ ·1 isI that of the Ih utterance, utt rance. the Ih primary concern (tlncern of ofLCCM I.C( 1 Theory. Above this th,s is" the Ihe Ihal discourse level, which involves an arrangement of more than one, typically arrangement more than on • Iyplcally di our level. which onvolv many, utteranc utterances.. Above the di-,,:ouN discourse level many. bove Ihe lev I is the Ihe speech pcc<:h event. A speech pcech event enl he Ihoughl thought of linguistic of as a the Ihc highest high""l level level of oflingui III context, conleXI.in inwhich whichmore morethan Ihan can be one, sometimes ofdiscourse di ou~ are are embedded. mbedded. While WhIle one. somctim many many distinct di linct episodes episod of speech events mighl might be co-extensive ptc'Ch evenl co exlen lVe with Wllh events event. of ofother olher sorts, rt. such suchasa a• sometimes dinner party, party. >om lim an event evenl is I entirely enmely constituted con liluled by by the Ihespeech pee.hevent, e\cnl. terms oflhc of the example last Ifor aas in a Ilecture. clure.'9 In lerms cxampl of ofaa dinner dinnerparty, party. which whl hmight mighlla fur several houri, hours, Ihi this may ,"",eral may consist on i I of ofaalarge large number numberofofseparate paralediscourses, di-..:our involving different differenl configurations configuralions of ofparticipants parliClpanl as as they Iheyrange rang over overdifferent difkrenl topics, in different locations in the house or other venue of the dinner 10pl • local ions in thc house or other venue of thc dinnc rparty. parly. is nOI not simply a monologue Similarly. lur is imply. monologue involving involvingaasingle inglcunbroken unbroken Similarly, a Ilecture discursive unit. unit. Lectures discursive Leclur often oflcn involve invol.. questions, qu lion. and andinteractions inl raclion between belween members of of the lecturer, the mcmbers Ihc audience audiencc and and the Ihcltcturcr. thc lecturer Itcturcr may may indulge indulg in in asides, a"d . anecdotes, onlOseparate separaleparts parI with withdistinct d i\lincl anecdol .... and aa lecture leclure isi typically Iypically organized organized into event, qua speck organozational structures. Iruclur .Hence, lIenc.even 'cnaallecture, lure. 'Ilia pcc<:hh e\Cnl. themes and organizational can be thought ofas as involving involvingdistinct di tinctdiscourse di ou~episodes. cplsod .Each Ea h level, level.the Ihe can Ihoughl of utterancecllevel, the dl discourse of the speech utteran . 1.lh 'OU~ level, level. and the thcllevel . loflhe peech event, evenl. provides provide a contexl context which facilitates, in slightly different ways, lexical concept selection. faeililal • on lighlly differ nl way .Ie ieal oncepl. leclllln.

The utterance utterancc in (it) (11) derives d riv from from aa billboard billboard advertisement adv rtl menl for for the Ihc alcopop 31 opop WKI) Original Vodka.The The poinl point of interest WKI> Original Vodka. inler I in this Ihi' example example relates r 1.11"" to 10 the Ihe of the utterance concept the.vehicle Cpl selected Itcted for forth . hi Ie cooL cool. The Th first firsl part parI oflh utt ran« leads lead Ilexical I al con the to select the 'POSITIVE Ihe language languag user u rIo Itctlh Ipo ITIVE EVALUATION) EVAlUATION) lexical Ie ical concept. One O nc rreason a In for this Ihi follows follow from from the th lexical Ie kal profile profilefor forthis Ihi lexical lexicalconcept. concept.That ThaIis,i • lexical concept part of the knowledg knowledge we of the PosrriVE IPOslTlve EVALUATION I VALUATION IIlexi al conc pI is i parI Oflhc w have hay oflhe that there formal selectional tendency for Ihallh re is i a formal Itctionallendency for cool to be pre-modified pre· modified by by really, rrall,; This leads as in on the Ih expression e pr ion really rrally cooL ""01. Thi lead, to selection selectoon of of the thc (POSITIVE I PO\lTIV I EVALUATION' EVAlUATI 1') lexical lexi al concept. on ept. Hence, lIen«. the Ih first first part of of the the utterance utterance gives gives rise ri to a• reading reading in on which whi hthe Iheadvert adv rtisi interpreted interpreledas suggesting ugg tongsending ndingthe Ihc

LEXICAL CONCEPT SELECTION

IS evident evident in on this thi exchange, exchange, as the thecommon commonground groundaccumulates, aceumulal •itIt A As is bccom clear clear to to speaker peaker BBthat that person personAAir r. rringtoto (TYPE (TYPE OF OF PIZZA] PIZZA) in becomes is referring rather than than 'CITRUS-FLAVOURED (e ITRl'S IIAvm'RI n TEQUILA 1 'Ql·ll.A COCKTAIL]. e:oc kTAII). Crucially, .rucially, the the line 1I rather ell 'OUrS< itself Itself provides pr
001

III. Speech S/",C(" event. ....,."t Moving Movlllg "above" "above" the discourse dis
242

LEXICAL CONCEPT SELECTION

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY

lecture on human anatomy will select the lexical concept I THE STUDY OF Bo PARTS] when exposed to the same vehicle. In other words, the nature of speech event can provide a context which facilitates lexical concept sel eRi regardless of the utterance or discourse contexts.

Extralinguistic context Extra-linguistic context is a complex construct which plays a significant role in the compositional process of interpretation. However, for our purposes here two examples will suffice to illustrate its more limited function in lexical concept selection. Firstly, consider the following example:

consider the following example, attributed to Oscar Wilde, the Irish playwright, novelist, and poet, when questioned at US customs in 1$82: ( 1 4 l "I have nothing to declare but my genius."'

The vehicle declare has a number of distinct lexical concepts associated with it. To illustrate consider just a few of these: ! FORTHRIGHT INFORMATIONAL ASSERTION] ( )

116)

(13) Satisfaction with every erection! The lexical vehicle erection has a number of lexical concepts associated with it. However, this attested phrase represents the slogan of a scaffolding contractor, and was seen on a company vehicle belonging to the contractor. Here, then, the setting provides the extra-linguistic context which is sufficient to identify the lexical concept in question: I ACT OF ASSEMBLING A MAN-MADE VERTICAL STRUCTURE).

An illustration:

declare

In this section I illustrate some of the issues relating to selection by examining an example of single-instance multiple selection involving the vehicle (War•."' '° Note 11141 Js Wrilltle %ph itit. in this ► estion I will only he addressing the tone dedare. rather than tither related tomb. such as Jct . /welt Lexical concepts associated with detiare as opposed to dedared differ in terms of tat kast) their linguistic content. as they encode different parainctrr• for the category Time reference.

I

a. He wanted to declare his undying love for her h. The convict wishes to declare his innocence [ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW LEGAL STATUS)

(t2) "The woman approached the bar." 1 he phonological vehicle of interest in this utterance is bar. Crucially, this vehicle has a number of distinct lexical concepts associated with it, including [VENUE OF PURCHASE IN PUBLIC HOUSE] and [DEMARCATION OF AREA RE SERVED FOR JUDGE IN COURT OF 1.Awl. Hence, this utterance could relate to a woman approaching a "bar" in a public house, presumably in order to purchase alcohol, or to a woman approaching the area where the judge is seated in a court of law. In an utterance such as this, the venue in which the utterance is made, which is to say the setting, provides the extra-linguistic context which facilitates lexical concept selection. If uttered in a pub, the lexical concept selected will be that of [VENUE OF PURCHASE IN PUBLIC HOUSE). If uttered in or near a court of law, the lexical concept selected will he [DEMARCATION OF AREA RESERVED FOR JUDGE IN COURT OF LAW ]. Now consider this second example:

233

a. Neville Chamberlain was forced to declare war on Germany on September 3rd 1939 h. The Junta is set to declare martial law [PROVISION OF AN OFFICIAL RULING]

(v) a. The referee will declare him the winner h. The judge decided to declare the inmate legally insane c. The building inspector won't declare the building tit for habitation [ANNOUNCEMENT OF DUTIABLE GOODS AT CUSTOMS]

have nothing to declare' b. The traveller was forced to declare having more than his allocated cigarette allowance

(Is) a. 'I

Each of the examples above are licensed by distinct lexical concepts associated with the vehicle declare. That is, as a lexical concept has bipartite organization, encoding linguistic content and facilitating access to conceptual content—collectively its semantic representation—each lexical concept associated with deciare—being an open-class lexical concept—involves distinct linguistic content and a unique access site to conceptual content, as described in Part II of the book. In terms of linguistic content, one obvious difference between the lexical concepts for declare relates to their pragmatic point (recall the discussion in Chapter 6), in particular the social consequences associated with each lexical concept, the settings in which they can occur and the participants involved. In terms of conceptual content, each of these lexical concepts has a unique access site. That is, each lexical concept has a unique semantic potential, facilitating access, potentially, to a large body of non-linguistic knowledge. For instance, part of the knowledge of the ( ANNOUNCEMENT OF

discussion in this section is based on suggestions for analysing the Oscar Wilde quotation. " ens olving declare, by my graduate student Kyle lasmin. These were presented in an unpublished term paper which I refer to as lasmin (loo81. I am grateful to Kyle for bringing this quotation to my attention.

234

-

SEMANTIC COM PoSITIoNALITY

1J4~__~~ E.=t~A~N~T~IC~C~ 0~M~P~0~IT~I~0~N~A~L~IT~Y__________-----------------

cognitive models, which I refer NEW TATU jlexical concepl Ihecogmlive model. whith I rda to LEGAL as individuals and types, with involv which this lexical concept is associated. For 10 instance, as individual and Iypes. wilh whi h Ihi lexi al concepl i associaled. ~or many people, particularly in the United Kingdom, will know that the in,lance. many people. in Ihe Kingdom. know is ableparticularly to bring about a stateniled of war between will the UK andIhallh. anoth er Prime Minister prime Minisler is abl 10 bringaboul a slaleofwarbeleclion (If the lexical lexicalway. concept facilitated FORTHRIGHT ASSERTION] Ihe (fORTHRIGHT INFORMATIONAL ASSERTloNjle"ical can epl i fa( ihlalc-d by linguistic context. This follows as "my genius" is a property being ascribed by linguislic conI namely xl. Thi Oscar followsWilde, as "myby geniu .. i Wilde. a property hcing ascribc'(\ to an individual, Oscar Accordingly, this 10 an individual. namely OSCIr Wilde. by a ar Wilde. Accordingly. counts as an informational assertion, and therefore guides the selectionIhl of counts a an infonnalional assertion. and Iher fore guides Ihe selection the (FORTHRIGHT INFORMATIONAL ASSERTION J lexical concept associatedof Ihe (IORTIIRIGIIT INfOR tATIONAL ERTIONj lexi al concepl with declare. However, both linguisticASand extra-linguistic contextassociated serve to hngu"ti, and extra hngui. li( (onlexl \CrveAT10 wilh dedart. lIowever. bolh select for the lexical concept: (ANNOUNCEMENT OF DUTIABLE GOODS selecl for In Iheterms lexical con epl: context, (ANNOUNCl tENT Of DUTIABLE GOO'" AI CUSTOMS!. of linguistic the (ANNOUNCEMENT OF DUTIABLE CUSTOMS(. In lenll ofhnguisti ,onlexl. Ihe (ANNOUN(:£ tENT Of DUTIABLf I have GOODS AT CUSTOMS( lexical concept collocates with the expression (;()()l" AT (.U'TOM,j le"iwl concepl (ollocal~ wilh Ihe expr~ ion I nothing to, which forms part of the lexical profile associated with this lexical not/,,"g In 10,addition, which forms part of the lexical proftla US a socialed \exical concept. the extra-linguistic context, customs wilh post, Ihi, serves to e'lralingui lie conleXI. a U cu loms po. I. rv~ concepl. In add ilion, Ihe facilitate selection of this lexical concept. The humour that derives from this10 faeihlale sel«lion Ihi'onlexical conlep\. Theofhumour Ihal lexical derin><;concepts from Ih" expression relies, in of part, the dual selection two distinct expra single i n reli ,in parI. on the dual oflwo distinCllexical conlepls from instance. Moreover, thisselection usage provides evidence for Wilde's from a regarding ingle inslan Moreover, usage evidence assertion his•.genius. OscarIhi Wilde wasprovides well known for hisfor witWilde's and ... rtion regarding hi' geniu~. Oscar Wilde was well known for his wil and a clever wordplay. in asserting his genius he also provides evidence of it. NEW LEGAL STATUS' lexical concept involves the

'"II'r

clever wordplay. In a

rting hi geniu h. abo provide evidence of il.

Summary

Summary This chapter has been concerned with lexical concept selection, or selection Thl chapler ha heen concerned wilh lexical el'l >eleclion, seleclion for short. Selection involves the identification of con the lexical conceptsorassocifor with hurt.each Scll~tion involvc~ the idcntifit..Jtion of the Icxit:al COl1(('pt ated vehicle in a given utterance. Selection is thus one of J~\()ll the aled wilh each vehidecentral in a given ult ranconstruction e. Seleclioninb LCCM Ihu~ one or compositional processes to meaning Theory.Ihe u)mll() itiono1t pnx

c,c\

c('ntrat to

01

aning constru tion in LC M Th('()ry·

t

llX1CAL (:ON( 1 vT SU I ( "TION LEXICAL CONCEPT SELECTION

135 235

Indeed. Ihe oulpul of selection, whi h I 10 conv nlionallya ,daled wllh rathervehicle. than the range others conventionally associated with Ihelexical ameconcept, phonological arrow of leclion involves scI lion "wilhin" a the same phonological vehicle. Narrow selection involves selection "within" a ,Ingle le"ical ,oncepl, for exampl • Ihe seleclion of di linct parameler from single lexical concept, example,encoded the selection distinct parameters of for paramelel'> by aofgiven lexic.l ,on epl.from In .,,,,ongs the rang l mongst the range of parameters encoded by a given lexical concept. In a .le\ecl a ingle lexi al concepl in order 10 buildTypically, a conceplion. This i user Ihe will select a single lexical concept in order to build a conception. This is the ",.,oni al ilualion. and b referred 10 a ingle >eleclion. \Iowever, in certain canonical situation, and is referred to as single selection. However, in certain ,,,,,Iexl mor< Ihan one le"ical concepl can hc lected. Thi i re~ rred 10 as contexts more than one lexical concept can be selected. This is referred to as multiple selecllon: Ihe \Cl«lion of more Ihan one lexical (oncepl for a ingl multipleFinally. selection: the selection of moreand than one lexical conceptInfor a single \Chide. seleclion i influenced guided by conlexl. parti ular, vehicle. Finally, selection is influenced and guided by context. In particular, fJLlors a ialed wilh bolh lingui lie and extra·lingui lie conlexl were d factors associated with both linguistic and extra-linguistic context were de"bed which serv 10 con Irain Ihe applicalion of selection.

scribed which serve to constrain the application of selection.

LEXICAL CONCEPT INTEGRATION

237

previous approaches to compositionality in cognitive

12

Ii n guiStia

Lexical concept integration This chapter is concerned with the first of the two constituent processes associated with fusion, namely lexical concept integration. Lexical concept integration, or integration For shun, involves the integration of the linguistic content encoded by the full range of lexical concepts in a particular utterance. Hence, integration is concerned solely with the integration of linguistic content, and as such is guided by the linguistic context of the utterance rather than any other sort of context, for instance extra-linguistic context. Integration applies once the lexical concepts in a given utterance have been selected, based on the mechanism described in the previous chapter. Integration involves what I refer to as the unpacking' of the linguistic content associated with the lexical concepts being integrated in order for integration to take place. Integration gives rise to the formation of lexical conceptual units: integrated units of linguistic content. Once lexical concepts have been integrated, those lexical concepts which afford access to cognitive model profiles, open-class lexical concepts, are then subject to the process of interpretation. However, and as we shall see in greater detail in the next chapter, the relationship between the mechanisms of lexical concept integration and interpretation is best characterized as constituting a dynamic interplay, rather than two discrete processes that are "blind" to the workings of each other. In part, this is a consequence of the way fusion proceeds: lexical conceptual units in different parts of the utterance may undergo interpretation prior to undergoing lexical concept integration with other lexical conceptual units that make up the utterance. As we saw in Chapters 6 and 7, the linguistic content encoded by a lexical concept constitutes a bundle of distinct types of knowledge which is highly schematic in nature. The unpacking and integration of this schematic knowledge serves to provide scaffolding, so to speak, for structuring the rich conceptual content to which the open-class lexical concepts afford access. In short, the linguistic content ("grammatical" knowledge) which arises from lexical concept integration is essential for providing conceptual content with structure, thereby informing the nature of the informational characterizations which arise during interpretation, as we shall see in the next chapter.

i n cognitive linguistics, semantic compositionality has been addressed head „n by approaches which model grammar. 2 This follows as cognitive ap' ,roaches to grammar assume the symbolic thesis.' Consequently, as units of grammar consist of pairings of a phonological vehicle for form) with units of semantic structure then an account of grammar which is concerned with a ddressing the combinatorial potential of language, by necessity, also addresses the issue of semantic compositionality. The accounts of compositionality that have been most influential in the development of LCCM Theory are those associated with the theory of Cognitive Grammar (Langacker WV, 1991a, tomb, 1999, 2008) and Cognitive Construction Grammar (Goldberg 1995, 2006). Roth theories include accounts of constituency structure—the combinatorial property of grammar which facilitates the building of grammatical constituents, such as noun phrases from nouns and determiners, and clauses and sentences from noun, preposition, and verb phrases, and so on. Crucially, as both these theories of grammar assume the symbolic thesis, by virtue of dealing with constituency and combinatorality, these theories also directly address compositionality. In Cognitive Grammar semantic compositionality arises due to a distinction between conceptually independent and conceptually dependent lexical structures. Conceptually dependent lexical structures are relational in the sense that they have schematic trajectors (TRs) and landmarks (LMs) which form part of their semantic representation. The distinction between a TR and an LM relates to a distinction in focal prominence in what Langacker refers to as a profiled relationship—as discussed earlier in the book. Profiling concerns the attribution of attention to a particular entity or relationship by virtue of encoding in language. To illustrate, consider the utterance in (t): (I) The boy smashed the vase The TR relates to the participant in the relationship being profiled which receives focal prominence. That is, in (i) the - FR is the participant designated by the boy. In contrast, the LM is the participant in the profiled relationship which receives secondary prominence. In (1) the LM corresponds to the entity designated by the vase. One consequence of this is that what counts as a TR or an LM is encoded as part of linguistic content by the relational or conceptually dependent lexical concept (e.g., smashed), rather than the

2

I I fint introduLed the term - unpacking" in Chapter 7.

This situation %hind% in %tark

tO the twisit kin in tormal approakhes to linguistics. For A

and airrrrt :IN*). See ICry and hin.harlistIorthLomingt Fora review of compost review sec tionrhis. in 4. liflOftk I Hinal a ► proAthr% to grammar. the discusoon in t hapters 3 and s.

238

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONAL

",1<,').'

conceptually independent or nominal lexicalconce concepts (e.g., boy, boy, vase) .4 In pt (e.g., ptually mdep enden t or nomm al Ie ical conce illustrate consider (2).

illu trate con ider (2). (2) The vase fell fell (2) Thev

,II. ,. .

to the TR. This follows as it occupies the In this example the vase corresponds corr pond s to the TR. This follow a it ()(c upi. th In thi camp i slot encoded by the relational lexical concept associated with schematic 'FR encod ed by the relational I xlCal conce pt olSMKiated with M:hematlC TRfell.lotLangacker refers to the schematic TRs and LMs encoded the vehicle by ed by "ehid [fll. langa cker refer to the h matic TRs and LM encod the conceptually dependent lexical concepts aselabo elaboration (or e-sites f"r e- ite for it (or ra tion sites ptually depen dent lexical conce pt a conce short ). and the tilling of these c-sites as elaboration. From the perspective of e- ,t • labor atio n. I rom the pe .... l>e( tll~ of , and the filling ofth hort) Cognitive Grammar, then, compositionality is a consequence of conceptually y itive Gram mar, then, comp o illonality is a conse quenc e of conceptuall Cogn dependent lexical concepts becoming elaborated by nominal lexical concepts pt d nt I xi al concept bcxoming elabo rated by nomi nal lexi I con« depen which are conceptually autonomous. which are conceptually auton omou . This is not the whole story, of course. Any cognitively realistic account unt of Thi i n t the whole tory, of course. Any cognitively reali ti acco compositionality must provide an account of how the level of semantic ic o itiona lity mu\t provi d an accou nt of how th level of 'mant comp structure that is encoded by language, or or that of integratio n of the integration from the r ult from that results tru ·ture that i encod ed by language, grammatical structures, as in the case of of elaboration in the sense Langacker, gacker, n ofoflan mati al tructures, a in the case elabo ration in th gram interfaces with what I am referring to to as Cogm tlle In Cognitive conte nt. In conceptual content. a conceptual ac with what I am referring interf Grammar, this latter level of semantic representation is broadly referred to to mar, thi laller level of .. manti c repre senta tion i broad ly referrl'tl Gram as encyclopaedic knowledge. Langacker argues that words directly encode ncode eneyd oparo i knowlroge. langa cker argu that word directly what I operationalize in terms of conceptual content. As we have seen, \Cen,5' what I operationali7e 10 teml of conce ptual conte nt. A we hav in Cognitive Grammar in terms of domains, doma in ,coneptual ismd conce ptual ont nt i modelled in Cognitive Gram mar in term of with a word encoding a profile againstt some base, which relates to a subset of ub t of with a word encod ing a profile again some ba ,whic h relat to a some domain or domains. Yet, not only is the notion of a domain not worked ",,,k ed ..ome doma in or doma in. Yet, not only i\ the notio n of a doma in not out in any great detail, it is not clear how the result of integration at the at the out in any great deta,l, it i not d ar ho th r ult of integ ration linguistic (or grammatical) level then interfaces with this encyclopaedic dopa edil lingui ti (or gram matic al) lev I then inten ac with thi en knowledge at the level of an utterance in order to produce an utterancelevel of an ullera nc 10 order to produ ce an ullera nc. ledge at the knowmeaning: level a conception. k.. eI meamng: a conce ption . With respect to Cognitive Construction Grammar, as exemplified in Goldberg erg With re, for =mp le v, and ntnlc e structions: verb-argument constructions. Goldberg distinguishes between what argument con tructions. Gold bng distinguish between what : verbn to tructlO she refers as argument roles--the schematic slots encoded by the phonl'licall y the hematic lot encoded by thephonetically h ref,· to J: argumc'llt rol implicit verb-argument constructions6—and participant roles—the hema ti theschematic Implicit verb·argument Ulmt ructi om"- and participant rol slots encoded by the schematic verb-argument constructions. Compositionality encoded by the hematic v rb-argument const ructIo n. Compo;itionality lot arises from the integration—( ;01(11)cl-it uS\! uses the the term theeargumentrgumentfu ion"- (lfth term""fusion"—of ari from the integration (;'lldb erg level and participant-level roles. While this level of integration accounts>for for level and parti opmt · level role'>. While thi 1",,1 of integratl(ln count linguistic or grammatical information, this doesn't account for the rich level ofof tic or grammatical mformatlon, thi d n't account for the rich level Iingui multimodal information which I refer totoasa\conceptual content. ((lncCl'lUaJcontent. multml,ldal infon nallo n which I refer ' Recall the discussion of the distinction between nominal and relational lexical

•

k omrpts

in

hvlet

.. ,luptn notion of domains WA.. discussed in Chapten 3 and Ho. See also h..i os and • Lanitacker's I I• dUc:lbWd In n"'rlCTI J .n..t IQ U ..n ,.1 do.m.J'f • noCt ' I...anc;u. I006: 4. h. -1 tor an introductory livers sew. ,'V('ntn W Inln .... 7) 1uI.an dt the ( 1006 • Recall discussion oflokl the..ry ditransilive construction in Chapter 3.

• RtuIlItw- d","usunn tlllh.: dltr..wflVC' wndru ctJon

In

Uurtn ,.

6 mm

-

239 LEXICAL CONCEPT INTEGRATION

239

thi ,appe al coun t for dopa edi aaccount erg hahasananenencyclopaedic ,ker, (;oldb ,\AsWIth for this, appealwithwngJ Langacker, Goldberg ordin g to Gold mant i' . Ac. n of , 191\5) or" (191\1 1I1g ingtotorillm Fillmore's (1982, 1985)notio notion offram frame semantics. According to Goldtructl on I relallYlzed argum ent con rb that berg, berg,each eachvverb thatfu fuseswith with aa verb· verb-argument construction is relativized conce ptual knowledge a body fram mant ic frame—a rich semantic peet toto aa rich '\lth withrrespect body of of conceptual knowledge varlou yerb in qu lion. latro with ptual detail g totothe rdatin relating theperce perceptual detailsaassociated with th the various verbs in question. dear how thi I ,I of nt, it iti isnot ker's accou ver, a aswith IInwc However, withlanga Langacker's account, not clear how this level of level, gram matic al level, or grammatical lingui ti or WIth a ntatio n inten ledg repr knnw knowledge representation interfaces with the the linguistic the perceptually rich trultu r from by structure am 01 are and andwhat whatth the mech mechanisms are where whereby from the perceptually rich tructu r . gram mati al structures. fused grammatical with fused orpor atro with ti fram ,eman semantic frames bcxom becomes in incorporated ,oldb erg, th mode l langa ker and oped hy count devel ro Tobe hefair fairtototh theaaccounts developed by Langacker and ( ;oldbcrg, the models the d tail of mant I( emro with rily eon I ped wer a h deY theye they each developed were not not prima primarily concerned with the details of semantic isrti by all mplin g to d . lop a rily exerc w re prima they were Rather, they o ition. Rather, cllmp composition. primarily exercised by attempting to develop a (a "gram tructu re(a and structure organ izatIo n and gui tie organization nt oflin ntieally ba'ird 'Cllla semantically based accou account of linguistic "gramey, and the comb ina tituen con uch u i for nt accou could which , mJr) mar"), which could account for issues such as constituency, and the combinacan th n be Theo ry can LC M Theory guag .LCCM oflan a peet of formal aspects rli of tllrtal torial prope properties of the the formal language. then be co; pro pcctiv per ch rescar the Illing lem comp ,a ct re:.pc certam in d, in certain respects, as complementing the research perspectives "CWe viewed, proLee on. iTAtl organ al matic gram of count a onal tructi con u'h constructional accounts of grammatical organization. LCCM1 by such ,ided vided by itiv Con tructi on Gram ,ramm ar and itiye Grammar s from I heory differ Theory differs from Cogn Cognitive and Cogn Cognitive Construction Grammant i repr ntatio n tureo thena ith the pr isclyw nlern ed precisely that ititlSlo Illar with nature offsemantic representation is concerned mar in in that given it found ation al Moreover, given o ition.Moreover, mant I( comp hani of and and th the 01 mechanics of semantic composition. its foundational con titute di tru ture constitute con cptua l structure and conceptual struc ture and mant i structure that semantic ~umpllon that Jassumption disof di tinlt proces two it po I that follow it n, ntallo repr of kind tinct tinct kinds of representation, it follows that I posit two distinct processes of fu. ion of lingO! IIc to fusion relates to which relates integ ration , which conc pt integration, lexical concept comp o ition: lexical composition: of linguistic conte nt. l eptua con of ion fu rn conce h whi on, retati interp and (lInte nt, and interpretation, which concerns fusion of conceptual content. content,

Fusio n Fusion an ov rview of fu ion, and the

proyi d an overview of fusion, and the section isi totoprovide thi section in this purpo in My purpose My peeitic interp r tallonasa~specific andinterpretation integ rationand con cptintegration I xical concept oflexical rol of r peetive roles respective rema inder of the chapter, theremainder prO<"tofof Bothsorts (ont nt,Both content. information, both types of processes, are necessary for com.:_c pllon . forma l ionofof.l theformation JIuilh mCJOIng.and (;on truc.tiunofofmeaning, theconstruction the thusu the a conception. lexical conc PlS 10 mteg rallonofoflexical theintegration mvol , the tnteg rationinvolves conccptintegration Lexical concept Lexical concepts in Th. lexical unit. tual oncep l lexica a unit: Ite o comp a ce produ to orderto produce a composite unit: a lexical conceptual unit. The order lexical the other proses is lexical concept selection discussed in the pies sous c hapter.

240

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY

LEXICAL CONCEPT 1

LEXICAL CONCEPT INTEGRATION

LEXICAL CONCEPT 2

LEXICAL CONCEPT INTEGRATION

LEXICAL CONCEPTUAL UNIT

INTERPRETATION if applicable

intOrmational characterization for the utterance represents a conception. Crucially, the process of lexical concept integration relates to the unpacking of linguistic content. Once linguistic content has been unpacked, and hence integrated, this results in the lexical conceptual unit achieving what 1 term a semantic value. Once a lexical concept and/or lexical conceptual unit has achieved a semantic value it is subject to interpretation. Only open-class lexical concepts in a lexical conceptual unit undergo interpretation. The outcome of interpretation is that the lexical concept or lexical conceptual unit achieves an informational characterization. This takes place by virtue of the cognitive model profile of a given lexical concept being matched with that of another, and hence undergoing matching." See

Figure

LEXICAL CONCEPTUAL UNIT WITH INFORMATIONAL CHARACTERIZATION

LEXICAL CONCEPT 3

REPEAT PROCESS UNTIL THE ENTIRE UTTERANCE HAS UNDERGONE FUSION

INTERPRETATION if applicable

COMPLEX LEXICAL CONCEPTUAL UNIT WITH INFORMATIONAL CHARACTERIZATION

1 CONCEPTION

FIGURE 12.1. Stages in the

12.1

for a diagrammatic representation of fusion.

Internally open and internally closed lexical concepts

LEXICAL CONCEPTUAL INTEGRATION

COMPLEX LEXICAL CONCEPTUAL UNIT

24 1

The essential insight of lexical concept integration, and one drawn from the work on compositionality associated with Cognitive Grammar and Cognitive Construction Grammar, is the following. Some lexical concepts arc more schematic than others, and hence have "slots" that can be, informally, "filled in" by less schematic lexical concepts. Schematic lexical concepts of this sort are those that I refer to as internally open lexical concepts. Integration, then, takes place by virtue of an internally open lexical concept being "tilled-in" by a less schematic lexical concept—what 1 term an internally closed lexical concept—terms introduced in Chapter s. Once all the slots available in an internally open lexical concept have been "filled-in," the lexical concept becomes internally closed, and integration is complete. Before illustrating this process, it is first necessary to rehearse some key notions introduced earlier in the book, and introduce some others. Lexical concepts are conventionally paired with vehicles, a consequence of their status as the semantic pole of symbolic units. As the vehicles can be complex, made up from simpler vehicles, lexical concepts can lx• simpler or more complex. Moreover, just as a vehicle can be construed as having part-whole organization' so too lexical concepts have part-whole organization. To illustrate, consider the following examples of symbolic units: (3)

"France." a. vehicle b. lexical concept I uitANcEi

(4)

a. vehicle h. lexical concept

process of fusion

conceptual unit then undergoes interpretation in order to produce a situated reading: an informational characterization. Once this has occurred, the lexical conceptual unit is integrated with other lexical concepts or lexical conceptual units in the utterance, which, in turn, undergo interpretation. This process is repeated until the entire utterance has undergone fusion. The complete

"NP kick( FINITE) the bucket" IAN ANIMATE ENTITY I)IESj

• 11te nu% limustn. ni ■ I•hrrt1 on intrrpirtation ire casiaicred in detail in thr next thaptcr. • Set Cr ► h 12rw21 for dp.ku..non ut tin+ point.

242

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY

(5) a. vehicle h. lexical concept

"NP1 VERB(FINITE) N1 1 2 NP3" 'THING X CAUSES THING Y TO RECEIVE THING 2110

In the example in (3), the vehicle relates to the lexical item France which i s (FRANCE]. The linguistic con- convetialyprdwhexicalonpt tent is relatively impoverished, relating to a nominal entity. It is, in part, this linguistic content, in conjunction with its lexical profile, which determines the ways in which this lexical concept can be combined with other lexical concepts. That is, this lexical concept. by virtue of being lexically filled, i s interalycosd:hinteralpcfoheintgrafu lexical concepts. However, by virtue of having a lexical profile associated with it, it is externally open." A class of lexical concepts which don't exhibit lexical profiles, and hence are externally closed—as discussed in Chapter 7—are greetings, such as hello. That is, expressions such as these, among others, constitute fully formed utterances in their own right. A similar although slightly distinct pattern is exhibited by lexical concepts which require a response of a certain kind. Such lexical concepts which require an adjacent response of a specified kind arc often referred to as adjacency pairs. For instance, a question/answer sequence constitutes an adjacency pair. The interrogative vehicle is conventionally paired with an [INTERROGATIVE] lexical concept, which encodes linguistic content." In so far then as the interrogative lexical concept signals to the interlocutor that a response is required, it can be thought of as having a lexical profile: one that it, itself, stipulates as part of its linguistic content. The example in (4) involves the vehicle "NP kickFINITE the bucket", which relates to the [AN ANIMATE ENTITY DIES) lexical concept. Unlike the lexical concept in (3b), this lexical concept is internally open: lexical concept integration can occur internally as the lexical concept is not fully specified. The diagnostic as to whether a lexical concept is fully specified or not relates to whether the lexical concept is completely filled with phonetically overt vehicles: the situation I refer to as being lexically tilled.'' In terms of the lexical concept in (4h). the lexically filled components are restricted to the vehicles kick, the, and bucket. As such, this lexical concept remains internally Open as its vehicle is only partially lexically tilled. That is, and more precisely, the lexical concept is partially internally open. This actually leaves a good deal of

Itecall the lormatting convention% first introduced in Chapter S. I use italics to represent a phonentally overt form, such as Frame, the huiket, or kick. I use capitals to represent phonetically vehitles. such as I' INITF to indicat e the finite vehitle, e.g. the naturr of the tense invoked. or

NP, which stands for - noun phrase II The kxital concept !FRAM Wick is for relational kxical tontepts, as evidenced by the examples in (1) in Chapter I. and elsewhere in the book. II Although the linguistsc content encoded by the IINTtammari•i 1 let', concept is highly ...hermitic. it nevertheless does consist of semantic structure. requiring, as it dock, an informational tesperme.

" As discussed in t hapter S.

LEXICAL CONCEPT INTEGRATION

243

flexibility in terms of other lexical concepts which can he integrated. For instance, some of the possibilities are presented below: ( 6)

a. S/he kick/s/ed the bucket b. S/he will kick the bucket

some lexical concepts, such as that in (5b), are fully internally open: all the vehicles that make up the lexical concept are phonetically implicit. The example in (5) relates to the ditransitive symbolic unit. The "ditransitive" lexical concept in (5b) is fully internally open as it is made up of simpler lexical concepts all of which are associated with vehicles which are phonetically implicit. Hence, the larger "ditransitive" lexical concept is fully internally open. A further distinction relates to those lexical concepts that can be described as internally simple versus those that are internally complex. 14 An internally simple lexical concept is one that has no part-whole structure and hence cannot he analysed's in terms of more than one lexical concept. An example of such a lexical concept is IFRANCEI associated with the form France. However, being internally simple is not the same as being internally closed (or open). For instance, the lexical concept !THING' is internally open being an abstract lexical concept and hence one that is associated with a vehicle which is phonetically implicit, namely the vehicle NOUN. Yet this lexical concept is internally simple. An example of an internally complex lexical concept is of course [THING X CAUSES THING Y TO RECEIVE THING 7.1 as in (5b). This follows as this lexical concept is made up of abstract lexical concepts: lexical concepts which are associated with phonetically implicit vehicles, specifically the vehicles NP, VERB, and FINITE. Finally, while both complex vehicles and their associated internally complex lexical concepts each have part-whole structure, it doesn't always follow t hat there is an isomorphic relationship between the part-whole organization of complex vehicles and internally complex lexical concepts. A case in point is the internally complex vehicle in (4b). The obligatory lexically filled components that form the vehicle associated with this lexical concept, namely kick, the, and bucket do not have corresponding lexical concepts associated with them. Put another way, the vehicles kick and the bucket are not, in the context of the lexical concept IAN ANIMATE ENTITY DIES] associated with independent lexical concepts. " This distinction was first introduced in l .hapter

1987, 2000i, is that lexical contepts exhibit categorical " My claim. lulluwrng langacker relations. Hence. kikal concepts (and the symbolic units of which they arc components) are modelled in terms of a network of related kxical concepts. While one type of categorical relation is semantic relatedness (whit h gives rise to the phenomenon of polyseniv), another controls the part whole structure exhibited by symb ► l,. units and 'Witte lethal concepts. libe - ditransitive - kxical concept is stored as an entrenched mental routine in the grammar. along with the categorical relations that hold between it and its component kxical concepts

.

244

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY

This Iis not to say concepts (KI( ktcRK(.'THE', Thi nOI.lo ay that thai there .'here aren't .ren·1 lexical lexical conc~pls (TIll I. 'nd sucRETI which are associated with the vehicles (BUCKETI whl h are associated Wllh Ihe vehl les kIck. tlof. and buck.t. ,. kick, the, bucker. For .lO\tdn .( ) Or C, con I' d er h t e utterance Ullerance in In 7: instance, consider the (7): (7) Ihe bucket buckel (7) lie He kicked the

literal Inlerprelahon interpretation of 01(7) The Illeral (7) involves involv aa male maleindividual indIvidualwho whokicks kicksaabucket, bucl<.;'1 perhap fru lration. My i that Ihal this this reading reading isi sanctioned sanctioned by bythe Ih' perhaps in in frustration. My claim claim is independently existing independenllyexi ling"active" "a live" lexical lexical concept: concept:" e 16 (8) (8)

[PROFILEO IIIP INVOLVING PATIENT VIEWED VllWUl [PROFILED RELATION RELATIONSHIP INVOLVING AGENT AGENT AND AND PATIENT FRO I PERSPECTIVE PERSPECTIVE OF FROM OF AGENTI AGENT!

The lexical lexical concepl concept in in (8), The (8). like like the the lexical lexical concepts con ept in In (4b) (4b) and and(5b), (5b).isisalso al;o internally complex. complex. The difference difference is Ihallhe ieal con epl in (8), (8). but bUI not nOl in In inlernally that the Ie lexical concept b (4h),). for (4 for instance, in lance. has has part-whole part-whol structure Iruclureininwhich wbicbthere thereare arcdiscrete di~rclelexical lexical concepts con epls associated associaled with wilh the Ih vehicles vehicles kick, the, tloe. and bllcket. anolher way, wal'. bucket. PUI Put another the "obligatory" vehi I kick and tlor bllcKrt have no semantic scmanli structure Irullu;e the "obligal ry" vehicles the bucket have no associated wllh with them assoclaled Ihem independently independently of ofthe Ihe [AN ENTITY DIES] llIl Ile.ildl AN ANIMATE ANIMATE ENTITY lexical concept. Hen e. the lexical lexical concepl In (8), (8). which whi h licenses Ii eoses the Ihe example example (with (wilh concept. Hence, concept in Ihe ha a complelely differenlle"i,al profilefrom from that Ibdl the "lileral" "literal" reading) reading) in in (7). (7), has completely different lexical profile a;w(iall'tl Ihe lexical lelUcal concept concepl in (4b). (4b). This Thi determines d lermlnesthe Ihenature nalureofofthe the associated wilh with the lexical epls (and hence h nce vehicles) vehicl ) which which can canbe beintegrated inlegraledwith wilheach. each. lexical con concepts Principles integration Principles of of lexical lexical concept concept integration I.c ,11 concept Lexical concepl inlegralion governed by by a number numberof ofpri principle. wblCh II now now integration isIS governed nciples, which address. ~ddrcs; .. Inlegralion Inlo two Iwo types: Iypes: internal inlernal lexical lexical concept concepl Integration can can be he divided divided into integratIon. whICh applies apploes to 10 internally inlernally open openlexical lexiealconcepts, concepl •and andisisthe Iheresult re ult integration, which of aa lexical lexi .1 concept's con epl\ internal inlernal selectional ",leclion.1 tendencies. lendencil.... '· The other olher concerns conccrn' 17 The exlernallexi al concept concepl integration, inlegralion.which whKhinvolves involve the Iheintegration Inlegrallonofofaalexical lexical external lexical concept with its lexical il external selectional sclectional tendenlenden. concepl wllh II lexical concepl concepts specified by its cie ." Both BOlh sorts \Oris are drc governed s,overned by by the Ihethree IhrccPrinciples Pronciple ofofLexical l.exl(.1Concept Concepl cies." Inlegr.l~on. \eel ion. For I'or expository xpo Ilory purposes purpoM$ IIillustrate illuslrale Integration, dc\Crobed. describedIn. in Ihis this section. applocahon Ih Principles PronClples of ofIntegration Inlegralion with withinternal inlernallexical lexicalconcept concepl application of the integration. I then deal. deal, more more briefly, briefly. with wilh cXlcrnallcxic.1 conccpl inlegralion. Inlegrallon. Ilhen external lexical concept integration.

Internal lexical concept concept integration integratIon Lexicalconcepl concept Inlegrdlion integration is governed by the l.cxilal Ihe Principle Prin iple of Lingui Ii Coherh r. Linguistic enc I hi is I stated . taled as a follows: follow: ence.. This .. Rn..lI1J "", u ,n "I ..mrl~ I 1.1)I in In 4( litipter h..lrh-, ., Recall IIIi' the i1lw tpAtilin ofcexampk As 1..11 discuUitJ uswtiIn In (hal"" l hapter '" ., A $ 1 Recall of tune flying In ,. ~the lh
LEXICAL CONCEPT INTEGRATION

( I" )

145 245

Principle Pron Iple of of Linguistic Lingui lic Coherence: Coherence: . WIth aa lexical con epl that thai is i internally inlernally open may may only only be be integrated inlegrated with A lexical concept lexical concept concepl wilh h it il shares har schematic hemali coheren e in lerm of of which coherence in terms with whi lexical conlent. linguistic content.

hI principle prin iple in (pi) (pI)relies relieson onaasecond secondprinciple, prin iple.the IhePrinciple Principl ofofSchematic hemati I[his Coherence: ofSchematic hemali Coherence: heren e: . . • Principl of 112] Principle The conlenl associated associaled with wllh entities, nllh •participants, parllClpanls. and and the Ih relations relallon The content Ihem must must exhibit exhibil coherence coherence in in fusion fu ion operations. operalion . holding between them

The on (p2) (p2) entails enlails the Ih following. following.Any Anyfusion fusionoperation—namely o"."ratio~l name!y I'he principle pronciple in lexical inlegralion. and and interpretation—must interpretalion-must exhibit exhIbIt alignment a"gnmentinIn lexical concepl concept integration, lerm Ihe schematic hemalic aspects a peel associated associaled with wllh the Ihelexical lexi alconcepts con eplsundergoundergo· terms of of the ing ong the Ihe fusion fu ion operation. operatoon. .. . . To iIIustrale how these th principl serve scrve to 10 constrain conslraln integration, Inlegrallon.consider consIder To illustrate principles [RELATION EVOLVING Ihe lexical concept c ncepl (RELATIO rvoo VING THROUGH TIIROU(.II TIPAEI TIME) internally open lexical the onlernally a~socialed wilh the Ihe vehicle vehicle VERB, VLRB. represented, represenled. for for convenience, convenoen e.inin(9): (9): associated with "VERB" (9) vehi Ie (9) a.a.vehicle (RELATION EVOLVING EVOLVING TIIROUGII THROUGH TIME( TIME] b. lexical lexical concept concepl'RELATION h.

integration proceeds Recalllb.1 prtXecd by virtue virtu of ofan an internally inlernally open pen lexical lexi Iconcept, con elll. Re4:.111 that inlegralion for Instance Ihe lexical concepl in (9b) (9b) being beingtilled filledby byan aninternally Inlernallyclosed closedlexical I X1cal instance the concept in concept. Nevertheless, 'e\oertheless. not not just jusl any any internally inlernally closed closedlexical lexicalconcept conceplcan canfill filljust j.usl any internally dny inlemally open lexical lexical concept. con Cpl. For For instance, instance.the Iheinternally inlernallyclosed . lasedlexical leXIcal the lexical with th concept (I UNU( from be integrated onlegraled WIth I X1cal concept IFRANC:E1 from(3b). (3b),for furinslance. instance, cannOI cannot be concepl (9b). This Thi follows followsgiven giventhe thePrinciple PrincipleofofLinguistic Lingui ticCoherence herence inin concept in (9b). con)unction WIththe IhePrinciple PrincipleofofSchematic -hemali Coherence. .oherene.RecallthatlhPronlple conjunction with Recall that the Principle ofLingui lic Coherence Coherencerequires reqUITe that Iballhe lexicalconcepts concepl~being beingintegrated Integral.edshare ~are of Linguistic the lexical hemati coherence Ihe level le\oel of oflinguistic Iingui lie content. content. In Interms term ofoflinguistic IongulSllc schematic coherence al at the conlent. Ihe lexical lexical concept (Oncepl 1(ruNn) con epl and and as a such u h content, the i.asNcE1 iis aa nominal lexical concept to aJ thing, through lIme. time. In terms relalo Ihing. rather rather than Ihan a relation that Ihal evolves 'olves Ihrough ICrm~ of of relates 10 FRANCE ] and lingui lic content, conlenl.lhere no schematic schematiccoherence coherencethen Ihenbetween between (FU '. E)a.nd linguistic there isis no [FRANCE] encodes (RILATIO. [VOIVE' TIIROl'(;1I a (FuNul encod thing-like Ihlng Ioke [RELATION TIIAT THAT EVOLVES THROUGH TIM.) TIME] as contenl rather than Iban content coni nl which which isi relation-like. relallon like. As A such, such. the th principle principle inin content rather (pI) prohibilsintegration inlegralion between (FRA . Eland (RELATIONI. (pi) prohibits between 'FRANCE] and 'RELATION]. conlra I. however, howescr. [FRANCE.] (I RAN( I ( can Ihe internally inlernally open open In contrast, canbebeinlegraled integrated wilh with the [THING] encoded by Ilexical Olal concept conccpl ['"IN(;! by the Ihe vehicle vchld NOUN: au: [

vehi Ie ((10) to) a.a. vehicle h. Icxil.lilonlcpl b. lexical concept

" 0 "NOUN" 'THING]

of the level Thi a' both lexical lexi al concepts (on«I''' share ,hare schematic "hematic coherence (oheren(e at allh I 'elof This follows as Iingui\tk (ontcnl. linguistic content.

246

LEXICAL CONCEPT INTEGRATION

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY

Now let's consider contexts in which FRANCI- 1 and (THING! might undergo such lexical concept integration. Such a context might involve the fully internally open lexical concept (THING X CAUSES THING Y TO RECEIVE THING zJ, which relates to the semantic pole of the ditransitive vehicle, as represented in (5) above. In the "ditransitive" lexical concept in (5b), FRANCE' can potentially he integrated with any of the 1 T IIING I lexical concepts which make up the larger lexical concept. That is, the lexical concept in (5h) is internally complex and is comprised of three distinct (THING] lexical concepts: [THING X I, [THING v 1. and (THING Z1. To better illustrate how integration occurs, consider the utterance below which relates to abstract transfer: (i1) The 1940 armistice gave Germany France In the example in ( 11 ), [FRANCO is integrated with THING zJ. By virtue of being integrated with this lexical concept, [FRANCO receives a particular semantic value: namely, an entity which is subject to being transferred to (THING Y1. In other words, while interpretation—discussed in the next chapter—is necessary in order to understand that the entity designated by the vehicle France relates to a European nation state with all the complex knowledge a language user may he able to draw upon relating to this particular nation, in the context of the utterance in (ii), the semantic value associated with the use of France relates to an entity which is the object of abstract transfer. It is also important to note that the Principle of Linguistic Coherence can occur recursively. This principle applies until all internally open lexical concepts have undergone lexical concept integration such that they have achieved integration with a lexical concept associated with a phonetically overt vehicle. As such they become internally closed, and thus cannot, by definition, undergo further internal lexical concept integration. The Principle of Linguistic Coherence does not proceed in a random fashion. Rather it proceeds in an ordered way, occurring in internally simpler lexical concepts prior to taking place in more internally complex lexical concepts. This is guaranteed by the Principle of Ordered Integration in Internally Open Lexical Concepts: fp3) Principle of Ordered Integration in Internally Open Lexical Concepts: Lexical concept integration takes place by applying to internally simpler lexical concepts before applying to internally more complex lexical concepts. What this principle does is ensure that linguistic content is integrated and hence unpacked "outwards," applying to internally simpler lexical concepts first. For instance, in the utterance in (ii), the principle in (p3) ensures that individual lexical concepts are integrated in a way that preserves the partwhole structure of internally complex lexical concepts. That is, the lexical

247

concepts which collectively comprise the "ditransitive" lexical concept in (5b) are integrated as follows. The simplest internally open lexical concepts undergo integration first until they become closed. For instance, the vehicle in (5a) consists of three NPs, associated with the highly abstract lexical concept [SPECIFIED THING]: (ii) a. vehicle "NP" h. lexical concept (SPECIFIED

THING!

Vet the lexical concept in (12) is itself extremely abstract, and can be filled by a range of more specific lexical concepts. One such lexical concept is provided, together with its vehicle, in (13): (13)

a. vehicle b. lexical concept

"DETERMINER MODIFIER NOUN" [SPECIFIED THING WITH A PARTICULAR ATTRIBUTE]

The lexical concept in (13) is itself internally complex, consisting of three more specific lexical concepts associated with distinct vehicles. Hence, the internally complex and abstract lexical concept in (13b) is associated with internally simpler but still abstract lexical concepts given in (14): i. ii. i. ii. i. ii.

vehicle lexical concept vehicle lexical concept vehicle lexical concept

DETERMINER SPECIFICATION 1

MODIFIER [ATTRIBUTE]

NOUN 'THING]

In turn, each of these lexical concepts, and symbolic units, can he integrated with a range of other lexical concepts. For instance, given the utterance in (it) the lexical concepts associated with the vehicles: the, :sm and armistice are integrated, respectively, with the lexical concepts (SPECIFICATION], IATTRInuTEI, and (TitING1. 19 Once this has taken place, the principle in ( p3) stipulates that the linguistic content associated with each of these now internally closed lexical concepts can be integrated with the more complex lexical concept of which these are constituents, namely the lexical concept given in (12), (SPECIFIED THING', which has the form NP. The consequence of this is that once the linguistic content associated with each of these lexical concepts has been unpacked, the result of the principle in (p1), the individual lexical concepts are related to one fated with tlw %Thick two typically relates to a tamp orAl entity. i• Note that the lexical corkro lowever, by virtue 4111Ulldentiving • InegrAIHM With the internally open ATTRIllt ► TP I km al concept whit h forms part of the larger kmal concept given in 113). the semantic value that results In rill 1111111416; king is of an entity which is an attnbutc of some sort. Put another way, an attribute semantic vallic is.oerced for the lexical concept associated with mu 4 we Michaelis 21roa tor related discussion iii (ix-noon).

248

SEMAN ...:T.:.I=======:.:.. SEMANTIC COMPOS1TIONALITY _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __

anolher Ihalthcy form aa coherent coh renl unit. UOiI.Put Pulanother anotherway, way,lhe p[('Imll another ,uch such that they form the I I SPECIFIED lexical concept TiliNG .1 con epl ensures en ur that Ihal the th lexical I xical concepts con epts associated associated with withthe the THING]I leu vehid.", 1940, and amliSliet servrng to 10 provide provid the the function aas a whole, serving armistice function the 1940, vehicles lire, there is "h mall content: eonlenl: that Ihalthere is a specific pccific thing in rn question, question, and and that thai following schematic itit has aa particular the details details of ofthe thething thing particular qualily quality associated associated with it-although it—although the and the Ihe nature of parti ular quality are pccified until unlillhe applicallon of the particular are not specified the application of interpretalion. of interpretation. ofthe the lexical le"i al concepts con eptsthat that make n e this thi process proc has has taken taken place place for for each of Once up the internally internally complex ITIiING x CAUSES CAU [ TiliNG Y To TO RECEIVE REeElv. THING TIIIN(i Z] II [THING X THING Y lexical (sb), then then the the lexical lexi I concepts concept which which make make up up the the lexical concept concept given given in in (5b), larger way determined determined by by the thelinguistic lingui lie larger le"ical lexical concept concept are are int
LEXICAL CON £PT INTEGRATION INTE.GRATION LEXICAL CONCEPT

249

and flying dnd jlylllg discussed in Chapter Chapler 7. Specifically, Specilically, eXiernallexieal concepl integrarnlegra external lexical concept lion inv Iv integration inlegration of of the the following: r. 1I0wing: tion involves

• an internally inl rnally cI sed lexical lexical concept, concepl, or or closed •■ an internally inlernally open lexical I xical concept that thai has has become become closed, closed, due dueto tointernal inlern.1 lexi al concept concepl int
"

Extemallexical External lexical concept concept integration External lexical Exlernalle ieal concept oneepl integration inlegralion relates relales to 10 the lhe role role of inlernally closed I sed lexlexof internally ical (Om.cpb in lexical Icxit:al cont::ept integration,.1 they are are integrated integrated with \Vithlexical IcxiuJ concept integration, as they concepts in concepts sanctioned profile, for for instance instance the examples of coneepl nClioned by their lexical le~ .1 profile, of lillie time to rhvutal bill .11htratt • 01 CUUnt', ihr lhrnature JUtutt01 vI the ltvtransfer trolnJtoreclairs rewt riot .... >t hI l'tty'lk:,,1tr.stiOcr. Iran kr. hut t.trikl tr~o'\kr · . · "trance" troln ki' t)f uourse. transfer:a iii ■ 1,), J'I>Wt'I nt u.nlrol 11m I.u""rrc ... n I i . u>n 1t1",," t>f m1rrrrrt.lbun. d .... u'OlC'\lm lhenut ,twrtt'T of power or controltotkepillIM i1 4 olnUrqUerke 1111 "PrriAllun. m the next ch.tilic-r. II for detailed dttatlN presentation rrnmLUlon of o(arguments ulummhfor lurthe thtindependent uk.l~mlexistence "XI I~~ theditransilore dllrallNliVC-Lim"on ig For pitofthe 11995. otrlk.ll<>n hon, see Goldberg 1ft' lioklbrrt flt9't).

(17) a. vehicle vehicle (17) a. b. b. lexical lexical concept concept

"DEli Ill, NP, beFINITE bdl ITE INDEFINITE-NP" INDlH ITE-NP" "DEFINITE-NP, [ATTRIBUTION IATTRIBUTION OF OF A AQUALITY QUALITY TO TO AN AN ENTITY] ENTITY)

In lerm of of deriving deroving a conception conceplion for for (16), (16), [FRANCE] IfRAN('EI is integrated iOlegraled with wilh the Ihe In terms lexical lexi .1 concept: concept: IUNIQUE PE IflEO THING], THINGI, which which is associated a ialed with wilh the the UNIQUE SPECIFIED vehi I provided (18a) rather ralher than than the Ihe entire enlir [ATTRIBUTION IATTRIBUTION OF OF AAQUALITY QUALITY vehicle provided in in OW TO AN ENTITY] TO I NTilYI lexicdl in (17b). (17b). lexical c"neepl concept in (18) a. vehicle vehi Ie (18) a.

b. icxildl concept uuu:ept h. lexical

"DIll ITI' P" "DEFINITE-NP"

I

[UNIQUE (l INIQl'I SPECIFIED \PFUIIl 0 1THINC] II INc.t

:.25~0:..._-';.: "::..':;.A:;.N,-,TI SEMANTIC 2510

OM POSITIO.:::N:::A:,:l;:.IT:,.Y= -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ COMPOSITIONALITY

LEXI AL CON EPT INTEGRATION LEXICAL CONCEPT

integration of of IFMANC,I FRANCE] wilh It virlOe of of the Ihe Inlegrallon Ihe IspEciFiE I P£(:IFI>O .,) with the ❑ '1111 is by virtue It i, rIIINGI part of Ihe "predicate "prodic.le nominalive" lexicalco COn. lexl al concepl h forms part lexical concept whi which of the nominative lexical n_ ceps, that receivesilits status Theme or Subject cepl, Ihal ]FRANCE] I.MAN FI receives latu aas Them Subjecl of ofaapredicatin prodicallngg (THING] lexical concepts that al concepl Ihal form form exprsion.Putahwy,js e expressIon. PUI anolher way, jusl as Ih ITlIlNGllexi part the larger larger "ditransitive" "ditran ilive" lexical Ie ical concept concept in in(5b) (Sb)encode encodedifferential differenlial part of of the conlenl,ensuring en uringthat Ihaleach ea h[THING] ITIIING] slot 101 iis di linct, so too, 100, by by virtue virtue lingul lie content, linguistic distinct, of II RANCEI occupying P slot 101 it il does does in in (16), (16), itilachieves a hieves aadistinct dlsllncl occupying Ihe the NP [FRANCE] vi -a-vis the Ihe semantic semanticvalue valueachieved achievodby bythe thelexical lexicalconcept concepi semanlic semantic value, vis-à-vis IGfOGRAPlIlCAL UGION] in the same same utterance. ullerance. (GEOGRAPHICAL REGION] ow let's lei' consider con ider aa slightly lighlly more more complex compl..example exampleofofexternal eXlemalle .. cal Now lexical concerns the integration inlegralion of of an an internally inlernally open open concepl inlegralion. Thi concept integration. This concerns lexi al con ept which. which, via internal inlernal lexical lexical concept con epl integration, inlegralion, has ha becom becomee lexical concept "dilran ilive" lexical lexical concept concepl interalycosd.Thxmpe inlernally closed. Th example involves Ihe the "ditransitive" given in (5b) (Sb) above. abov . To ider the Ihe following following utterance: ulleran e: To illuslrale, illustrate, con consider

distinguished. e1islingul hed. Th Thee first, fir I, internal inlernal lexical leXICal concept con epl integration, inlegrallon, applies appli to 10 Inlernally open lexical concepts. con pts, while while the the second, ond, external external lexical lexical concept con cpl internally open lexical ofan an internally inlernally closed closed lexical lexi al concept. on epl. Inlegralion, involves involves the Ihe integration inlegralion of integration, inOuenced by by the the lexical lexical profile profile of oflhe lexi alprofile profileassociated associalod Inlegralion is influenced Integration the lexical inlernally open and closed closed lexical lexical concepts. con epl .Both Bothsorts sortsofofintegration inlegralionare are with internally governed by Principles of of Lexical Lexical Concept Concepl Integration, Inlegralion, of ofwhich whi hthree Ihreewere were governed oncepl integration inlegralioninvolves involv inteinle presenlod in the Ihe chapter. hapler. Finally, Finally, as a lexical concept presented of linguistic lingui lie content, conlenl, itil isi primarily primarily concerned con ernod with wilh utterance ullerancecontext. conlext. gralion gration of

(19) John gave Marya abracelet braceleland andhehegave gaveJane Janeaanecklace. neeldace. (19) John gave Mary In xampl two IWO "ditransitive" "duran iti,e" lexical concepts concepts arc are being being coordinated coordinaledby by In Ihi this example ONJUNCTION WITH ZZ BY BY ADDITION OF OF Y] Y] lexical ept associated associatod with wilh the [[CONJUNCTION lexical con concept the vehicle atilt. and: (20) (2o)

a. vehi Ie "aud" a. vehicle "and" b. lexical Ie .. al concept concepl[CONJUNCTION [
The utterance in 09) The ullerance in (19)illustrates iIIuslrales what whal II rrefer fer to 10 as a aa complex conceptual conceplU.I 81 unit. unil. Internal Inlernal lexical lexical concept con epl integration integralion gives gives rise rise to 10two Iwointernally inlernally lexi lexical closed "ditran dosed ilive" lexi on cpt. By By virtue virtll of of having underg ne internal internal "ditransitive" lexicalI concepts. undergone lexical inlegralion this Ihi gives gives rise ri to 10two twoconceptual concepluallexical units.Each E.cch lexical concepl concept integration lexical units. of these Ihese lexical lexical conceptual conceplual units units is i further further integrated inlegralod by virtue virille of ofbeing being on epl in (iob). (20b).This Thisgives givesrise riseto 10aamore morecomplex complex inlegralod integrated wllh with Ihe the lexical lexical concept integrated unit. Inlegralod unil.

Summary Thi chapler has ha presented presenlod an an overview overview of oflexical lexical concept con cplintegration, inlegralion,or or Ibis chapter inlegrallon horl, which i one of of the Ihe two Iwo constituent consliluenlprocesses processesof offusion. fusion. integration for for short, which is Ih linguistic linguisti content conlenl encoded en ododby bythe the Integralion integralion of Integration Involv involves Ihe the integration of the (oncep" that Ihalmake 1Il1erance. Integration Inlegralion takes I.lk place placeby by variou various lexical concepts make up an utterance. unpacking Ih the linguistic conlenl associated a soclaled with wilh each each lexical lexical concept concepl and anel unpacking lingui lie content Inlegraling inlernally open—informally, open- informally, more more abstract—lexical abSlra I- lexical concepts concepl integrating internally informally, more concrete wuh inlernall closed closed Informally, con rei — lexi 31 concepts. con epl . The The with internally lexical diolgnu IiI.. for fur an abstract abc,lfo1ll lexical lexi(.ll concept (ont: pi isi that that ititisisconventionally conventiondJlypaired paired diagnostic w.lh vehid that Ihal isis phonetically phonetically implicit. impli il. Two Two types Iypesofofintegration inlegralionwere were with a vehicle

251

—

1

INTERPRETATION INTERPRE1 A 1 ION

13 13

-

-

Interpretation Interpretation This chapler chapter addresses addressesIhthe mechani mechanism of interpretation, the la last of Ihe the Thi m of inlerprelallon. Ihe I of compositional operations (ompo\llional operalion at al the Ih heart heart of ofLCCM L ' ,M Theory. Theory. Interpretation Inlerprelalion propro· vides Ih the compo compositional Ilional interface inlerfa e between bel ween semantic manllc structure Iruelur and and conceptual conceplual vide structure, facilitatingIhe thedeploym deployment of con conceptual content in lruclure. facililaling nl of eplual conlenl in service service of of linguistically mediated meaning construction. The essential insight is that lingui lically medialed meaning con Iruction. The c.senlial in iShl is Ihal involves aa proc process II refer refer10 to aas malching matching—brictly i nterpretation IIlvolves inlerprelallon -briefly introduced inlroduced in III the previous chapter. Matching takes place between the cognitive model Ih previou chapler. Matching lak place belwccn Ihe cognilive model profiles of of Ihe the open open-class lexical con concepts -da lexical el'l which whi h have have undergone undergone integration, inlegralion. profil and hence which result in a lexical conceptual unit. That is. interpretation and hence whllh result in a lexical conceplual unil. ThaI is. inlerprelalmn involves lexical lexical con concepts within Ihe the same involve. eplS within sam lexical lexical conceptual conceplual unit. unil. Ass the Ihe formation of lexical lexi al conceptual con eplual units unil takes lakcs place pIa erecursively, recur-ively. serving serving to 10 inteIIlle formal ion of grate internally simpler lexical concepts first, so too interpretation takes place grale IIllernally \impler lexi aI onccpt. firsl. \0 11K' inlerpr lalion lake. place applying10to ea each lexical conceptual unil unit once ur ively. applying h lexi al conceplual on e itil has hasundergone undergone rrecursively, integration. Hence, interpretation is guided by linguistic context—the oulIIllegralion. lien e. inlerprelalion i guided by lingui ti conlext-Ihe outcome of lexical concept integration. In addition, interpretation is guided come of lexical concepl inlegralion. In addilion. inlerprelation i guidedbyby inferential proc processes relaling relating 10 to extra-linguistic eXlra-linguisli context. conlexl. Moreover, Moreover. as a with wilh inferenlial integration, interpretation is constrained by various principles, which will IIllegralion. inl rprelalion icon Irained by variou prin iples. whi h will also abo he be introduced inlroduced and and discussed. discuS\Cd. In terms, the mechanism interpretation represents In more more general generallenns.lhe mechanismofofinlerprelalion represenlsananattempt atlempl to 10 formalize formali1e the Ihe way wayininwhich whichwhat whalprevious previou researchers resear.The Theoutoul come, then, of language understanding, involves the activation of non-linguistic com .Ihen. oflanguage under landing. involv the actIValion of non -lingui lie representations, which arise due to represenlation which arise du 10 prompts prompls of ofthe Ih kind kindprovided providedbybylexical lexical concept selection and integration, as described in the previous two chapters. coneepl seleclion and inlegrall(lIl. as de",ribt.-d in Ihe previous Iwo chaplers. Before I reiterate Befor proceeding proceedingwith wilhthe Ih description d riplionofofinterpretation inlerpr lalionbelow, below. I reilerale the following. Once lexical concept integration has taken place, each Ihe following. Once le.ic.ll concepl inlegration ha laken place. eachlexical lexical concept receives a semantic value as part of an integrated lexical conceptual concept rC\:civt..~ J \emanlic v.lluc 0'1\ p.ut of .In inlcgratl-d lexilJI (om:eptu.ll unit. Ullll. Interpretation InlerpretJIIOn proceeds proceed by bysubjecting subjecllllgeach eachopen-class open -da lexical lexiealconcept conccpl

in in aagiven gi\'cnlexical Ie kJIconceptual (om:cptual unit unittotothe theoperation operationknown knownas amatching: matching: the cognitive model profiles of two (or more) open-class lexical concepts Ihe <"!lOlll\c model profiles of Iwo (or more) open da , lexkal con epl undergo Ihaleach eachlexical lexiealconceptual (oneeplualunit unilreceives rec ivesan an und rgo matching. mal,hlllg.The Theresult r ultisi>that

15J 253

Informalional an intOrmationalcharacleri1.dtion. characterization.Once OnceallallIhe thelexieal lexicalconceplual conceptual UOlIS units in in an utterance hieved an lerizalion Ihe utleranc as a aa utterancehave haveaachieved an informalional informational chara characterization the utterance il utterance-level utterance-level informational infornlalional characterization: characterizalion: aa whole whole Ihereby thereby receives receives its
An illustration An illustration Inlerprelallon di Interpretationinvolves involvesIhe theactlvalion activationof of cognilive cognitive models models belonging belonging 10 to dis11IlL! profiles which which are are matched. mal hing process proc _ gives gives tinct cognitive cognitive model model profiles matched. The The matching an informational informalional characterization. characteriz.llion. In Ihis way, way. the Ihe lexical lexical concepts concepls rise rise 10 to an In this subject result in in aa "unified" "unified" interpretation: inlerprelalion: aa linguistically linguisticallymemesubject 10 to matching matching result dialed imulalion. Thi lically medialed imulalion (the (Ihe informational infornlalional diated simulation. This lingui linguistically mediated simulation characlerizalion) be matched malched with wilh other olher lexical lexical concepts can epl that Ihalfacilifacili characterization) can can Ihen then be lale Ih';r unique unique cognitive cognilive model model profile, profile. until unlil each each open-class open-dass tate acc access 10 to their in an an utterance ulleranee has ha undergone undergoneinterpretation. inlerprelallon. lexical lexical concepl concept in 10 immediale illustration iIIuslration of ofhow howinterpretation inlerprelalionproceeds, proceeds,let's I I'S To provide provide an an immediate consider lraighlforward example. n iderthe ion in in (1) (I) and and (2) (1) in in consider aa straightforward example. Consider the apr expressions Ihe lighl of of the Ihe partial partial primary primary cognitive cognllive model model profiles profiles for for [rRANce[ the light f FRANCE] III in hgure IJ.I. for [UGION] in I-igure IJ.l. and for [NATION] in hgure IJ.J. Figure 13.1, for !REGION] in Figure 13.2, and for (NATION] in Figure 13.3. ((1) I) France, Fran e.lhelandma the landmass (1) France, France. Ihe nalion (2) the nation of these Ihese examples examples France rrtlrlCf receives r eives aa distinct di;lincl informational IOformalionalcharacterharaclcrIn each each of In geographi alarea, area.while whilein10(2) (2)it ilrelates relalesto10a a izalion. In In (0 (I)France Francerelates rclal to10aageographical ization. polili al entity. entily. My My purpose purpose here here is i to 10illustrate iIIu Iral how how itilisisthat Ihaleach eachofofthese Ihese political of France Frail f receives distinct di lin Iinterpretations. inlerprelations. instances of As we we have hav seen seen in inprevious previouschapters, chaplers.the Ihelexical lexicalconcept oncepl [FRANCE [FRAN e]-see As ]—see Figure IJ.Iafford access 10 con eplual conlenl relaling. allhe very leasl. Figure 13.1—affords access to conceptual content relating, at the very least, to10 !'ranee aas aa geographical geographical region, region. as as aa political polilicalentity—including enlily-in ludingknowledge knowledge France relaling to 10 the Ihe French French political polilical system, y lem. the theFrench Frenchpeople peapl and andtheir Iheirsocial social relating and practices, practi es. their Iheir history hi lOryand andlanguage languageand andthe Ihenational nalionalsports port cu 10m and customs !'ran eas .saaholiday holidaydestination, desllllalion.with, wilh. engaged in, in. and and so soforth—and forlh , and to10France engaged GEOGRAPHICAL GEOGRAPHICAL REGION REGION

NATION NATION STATE STATE

HOliDAY HOLIDAY DESTINATION DESTINATION

[FRANCE) (FRANCE] FIGt:RI 13.1. 13." Partial Pilrtl.lIprimary pnm.1rycognitive I.:ognltl\l('model modelprofile profile.'forfor(FRANCE' (FRAN( hJ FIGURE

INT[RPRBTATION INTERPRETATION

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY

254

GEOGRAPHICAL GEOGRAPHICAl REGION

PHYSICAL TERRAIN

"LANDMASS] [LANDMASS)

Partial primary (ogniliYc Lognitive model profile l-n.t" RI 13.1. 13.L Polnial profile for for FIGURE

POLITICAL POUTICAI. SYSTEM

PEOPLE PEOPlE

CUlTURE CULTURE

~

LANDMASS] ILANllMA ~I

lANGUAGE LANGUAGE

HISTORY

profile for [[NATION' primary ATlON) primary Cogrtilive cognitive model prom.

perhap i .po ibl. (or (o r perhaps,• knowledge knowledge relating relating to to the the sort sorts of of holiday activities it is possible typical) in. in inFrance, rran e. such u has kiing (in (in the theAlps), Alp ).seaside sea Ide holidays holoday. typical) to engage in as skiing (on the Mediterranean Mediterranean coast). coast), and so on. at the The lexi al concept [I LANDMA 13.2- facilitates aaccess, cess. at Figure 13.2—facilitates LANDMASS]I-see —SCC rigure lexical relate to aa physical very t. to primary pnmary cognitive models models that that relate phy teal terrain—a terratn-. very lea least, landma of plains, plain • woodland, woodland. and and so so landmass can can be he hilly. hilly, mountainou mountainous,• may consi consistt of on-or to aageographical geographical area. area. on—or to very partial part tal primary primary cognitive profile for ~or rigure Figure 13.3 13.3relat relatestoto aa very cognitive model profile INATIoNI. lex.ical concept. the very very least, lea t. facilitates facilitates access acc to cognitive cogmtlve This lexical concept, at the NATION]. Thi models having to do with with aa political political entity entityand andnation nationstate, tate.and andhence hence aa models having people ((with with common customs, cu tom. traditions, traditIOn,. partICular political system, y tem. a people particular political cui inc. and on).and andlanguage language( (andlor languages). and and aa common common cuisine, and so on), and/or languages), (often complex) history. history. mat hing. which which take tak Interpretation Interpretationworks worksby byvirtue virtueof of the the proc process of matching, place between cognitive model model profiles profi] accessed a c sed by by the therelevant relevant lexical leJOcal place between the cognitive con epts which whi h are are subject to matching. mat hing. As A we we have have seen seen in inthe theprevious previouspart part concepts of the book, book. the the"relevant" "relevant" lexical lex.ical concepts oneept are are those tho that that are arcspecialized pedalized for for and hence, hence. those thosewhich whichhave haveaa semanseman· affording aaccess c to conceptual content, content. and concept.. ' ttc a >dated with them, them. namely namely open-class open -clas lexical lexi alconcepts.' tic potential associated in (I) and tenm of the exampl and (2), (2).the therelevant relevant lexical Ie ical concepts oncept are arc In examples in In terms IFRANCEI.ILANDMAS ). and [NATION). involv establishing tablishing aa [NATION]. Interpretation involves [FRANCE], [LANDMASS], match bctwccn between one one (or more) mor ) cognitive cognitive models mod I intnthe thecognitive cognitivemodel model match

I ()nr

profiles associated with profiles a-'5OCi.ted with the the relevant relevant lexical I Xlcal concept. This process proc serves serves to to concepts. This mod I . For ror instance, instiln e. in in the the example example in in (1), (I). aa activate the matched cognitive models. match is i established tabli hed between between the the primary primary cognitive cognitive model modelprofile profileassociated a iated andone oneofofthe thecognitive cognitive model models to with [LANDMASS], I LANOMAS I. and to which whi h IFRANCE] rRANCEI affords afford of course aaccess. c . This of course is i the cognitive cognitive model model GEOGRAPHICAL GEOGRAPlllCAl REGION REGION which ond example, e ample. the thematch matchtakes takesplace placebetween between beeom activated. lx-comes activated. In In the second cognitive model the primary cognittve model profile profiletotowhich whi hI INATIoNI afford access a cess and the the NATION I affords NATION STATE NATION TATE cognitive model model totowhich whi h[FRANCE] IFRANce) affords aff< rd access. access. Hence, Hen • the reason reason for for different different readings readings of of IFRANUI (I) and and (2) (2) isisbecause becau the the 'FRANCE] in (1) lexical con concept lexical cpt in in each ea h utterance utteran e receives receives aa distinct distinct informational tnfOml.tlonalcharacterchara ter· ization. In In (1) (I) interpretation interpretation results result in in an aninformational tnformationalcharacterization characterizationfor for [FRANCE] IFRAN EI relating relating to France rran e as a geographical gcographicallandma In (z) (2)interpretation interpretation landmass.. In rresults ul in informational characterization characterizatIOn of ofaa political politicalentity: entity:France Fran ethe the in an informational nation state. tate.

~

[NATION) "NATION' "'GCR. I).). Parll.1 Partial FIGURE 13.3.

255

hit sequence«11th of this that11 1l:Ch4 Theory predicts that the I ('hw \.{lR5C'qunKC .. Itistholt ( 1 Thc .. ry J'l'nh .. t tNt the- process pn'fll..& of tlf%mural,. kfn.lnlk. bleaching blc.kh1na (or (,r access to. to a cognitive model profile tttTI\UlII~ll\ ~ in In grarnmaticalitation lVamnlA1Ik:aJJD1Iun involves InH,h 1M" tl, k.. U,,"IIIW modd proli~. Jitenuation/ the loss of

Governing Principles Principles of of Interpretation Interpretation

The analysis The analy is presented presented for the the interpretation interpretation of of 'FRANC:El I. RANn) in the the previous previou section exhibited an asymmetry asymmetry in in the th process proc s of ofmatching: matching: While Whileall allthe the section exhibited cognitivemodels model listed Ii tedforfor ILANDMAS Iand and[NATION] INATION) are are activated activated primary cognitive 'LANDMASS] in the interpretations interpretation presented to account account for for the thesemantic semanticvariation variationexhibexhlb ited by Frallce. France, the primary cognitive models Ited model to to which whichIIrRAN "I affords access a ess ERANCEI undergo selective activation—although activation-although as as we we will willsee seebelow below the situation ituation isi undergo lightly more more complex complexthan thanthis. this.That That is, is.the theclaim claimmade madeby byLCCM L eM Theory Theory isI lightly that interpretati n of of[FRANCE] IrRANcelon the GEOGRAPHICAL GEOGRAPlIlCAl REGION REGION that interpretation in (I) (1) results in the cognitive modd being activated activated while (2) aadifferent different cognitive cognitive model model cognitive model while in (2) receives what II refer receives refer to as primary primary activation, activation. namely namely the th NATION NATION STATE STA1£ to as cognitive model. Simply Simplyput, put.not notall all of ofthe the primary primary cognitive ogmtive models model presented presented cognitive model. 13.1 which by 'FRANCE] IFRAN el receive In in Figure 13.1 which are accessed by receive primary primary activation. In informal terms, term. this thi follows follow as a the thereferent referentidentified id.ntifiedby by France rmllceis is the Theme or ubject of expr ion: the th purpose purpo of ofthe th expression, expr ion.which, whi h.more moretechtech Subject of the expression: nieally. itive in nature, nature. is to to identify identify which whi h aspect a peet of ofthe thereferent referent of of nically, iis appo appositive France Frallce we are concerned concerned with. But how then then does doc> the the process pro<: of ofmatching matchong with. But subject of ofthe theexpression, expr ion.and and hence hen e which ""know" know" which referent i~ which referent is the subject cognitive profile isi to toreceive receive selective selectiveactivation? activation? The The answer an wer isis due due cognitive model profile to the th. output output of oflexical I.xicalconcept conceptintegration: integration: the thelexical lexicalconceptual con ptualunit. unit.InIn other words. by virtue virtue of ofthe th lexical lexi aJ concepts concep"undergoing undergoingintegration, integration. the other words, in truction to to derive derive an aninterpretation interpretation which whichtreats treats <xpr ion serves expression serves as as an instruction France a~ as the th Subject the expression: expre ion: the the entity entity that that the the the referent referent of r""'ff Subject of the expression is i about. .1ooUI. LCCM Theory ofmatching, matching. in inkeeping keeping with with In LCCM Theory Ihl this asymmetric asymmetric application of the output of ofintegration, integration. is i governed by by the overarching overarehing principle of ofinteronter. pretation referred to as the Prin ipl of of Guided uided Matching. Matching. This Thiscan can he be stated pretatlon referred ., Ihe Principle as follows: follow: ,

256

IINTERPRETATION TFRPRfTATION

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY

( P4) Principle Printiple of ofGuided Guided Matching lalchlng Matching of cognitive model in in interpretation Inlerpretallon proceeds proceeds in in aa way way thai MalChing of cognillv~ models that compatible wilh with the iis compallbl~ Ihe output oulpul of oflexical lexical concept conceplintegration. inlegralion. This principle Thi principle has ha two IWO implications. implicalions. Firstly, hr tly. interpretation inlerpr in in the order del determined by the order ermined by the order order in in which which lexical lexi al concepts con ept; undergo und rgolexical lexical concept integration, determined, in by the tOntepl inlegralion...as delermlOed. 10 particular, partitular. by Ihe principle principl given gi,en in 10 (p3) 10 in the That is, (1'3) Ihe previous previo~ chapter. chapl r. Thai i • lexical concept on cpl integration inlegralion proceeds proceed by by integrating Ilexical concepts in "bottom-up" inlegraling xkal concepl "bollom-up" fashion, fa hion, applying applying to 10internally inlernally simpler lexical ((Jncel'l concepts before impler lexital before integrating inlegraling more more internally inlemally complex complex lexical lexical concepts. The Principle of Guided Matching ensures, accordingly, that con cpl. Principle of Guided Malching en ur ,accordingly, Ihal the the matching process central to interpretation cenlrallo inlerprelalion proceeds by virtue virtue of ofinterpreting inlerpreting malChing proc relevant lexical lexical(Oncepl concepts in in Ihe the ord orderr in relevanl 10 which whlth they Ihey undergo undergo lexical I xical concept (Onterl integration. To make make Ihi this poml point clear, inlegrali n. To clear. consider onsider the the following (. II wingexample: example:

NON-VISUAl NON-VISUAL PHYSICAl PHYSICAL PlEASURE PLEASURE

VISUAL VISUAl PLEASURE

lS7 257

AESTHETIC PLEASURE

[BEAUTIFUL) [BEAUTIFUL] Partial primary cognitive model forfor ! BEAUTIFUL] l'I(,tO£ 1].4 Puti.1 promaryulSnllI\C muddprofile profile [.,AUII'UI) FIGURE 13.4.

GEOGRAPHICAL GEOGRAPHICAL REGION

NATION STATE

(3) France (3) I ran<eisi aabeautiful beauliful country counlry Without further (eXira (extra-linguistic) give ri\C Withoul lingui ti )context, context,the th example exampleinin(3) (3)isi likely likelyto to gi,e rise to what I will term a "geographical area" conception: France, in this utterance, ternl are.l" conception: irance. in thi~ ullerallle.is1 understood as understood a referring referring to aa specific pecifi geographical geographical region regi n of ofmarked markedphysical phy ieal beauty. The The principle beauty. principle in (p4) (1'_1) guarantees guarant that that interpretation interpretallon takes takes place place in10 conjunction with with Ilexical concept mtegration. integration.That That Iis in conjunctIon 1(011 concept in (3), (3), for forinstance, i""tancc, [BEAUTIFUL) and (COUNTRY) [COUNTRY) undergo undergo lexical (8LAUTIfUL) I.xical concept integration integration to to provide provid THING WITH an unpacked unpacked (,(SPECIFIED Pfnnrl> TilING WITII AAPARTICULAR PARTI( nAR ATTRIBUTE] ATTRIBI'Tf) lexical concon cept associated MODIFIER NOUN the vehicle vehide DETERMINER DFll RMI I R MOl>IIIl-R OU (i.e., (i,e., an an cept a ""iated with the NP), associated 1'), prior prior to to being being integrated integrated with the th more more complex om 1'1 lexical I ",cal concept con .ptaiated with the predicate predicale nominative nominative vehicle vehide which whi hcomprises compri the theentire entireutterance. utterance. The relevant lexical concepts for interpretation in (3) are !FRANCE], BEAUTI1rdl"ant lexical wn«l1t; for interpn:tallon 10 (3) arc (FRA '( 1). (81AU1 FUL I, and [COUNTRY ]. 2 The principle fULl. (COUNTRy).l Th principle in in (P4) (P4) ensures, ensUfC>,then, then.that thatI(BEAIlTIFI!L) BEAUTIFUL] and IcauwritY] are subject «-OI'NTRY) ub)CAUTII UI) range rang from frolll assessments a ment relating relating to the th receipt rec Ipt or orawareness awar n of ofphysical phy ,ealpleasure, pl=ure,particularly particularlyphysical phy iealappearappear· ances, often of of aa sexual ",xual nature, nature. to to the the awareness awarene of of non-visual non-vi,ual but but physical phy "al n ,often pleasure, pleasure, as 10 in the 1'1 a ure, such uth as a aural aural plea ure, ., Ihe appreciation app"xldllon of of music, mu i', or orpleasure plea,uro derived from touch, derived from touth. for for instance. in tante. The The lexical lexical concept on«pl (BEAUTIFUL] (BEAIlTIFUL) also affords aCH to aa cognitive cognitiv model mod I having having to 10 do with wilh non-physical non phy,ical pleasure, 1'1 .hure, afford access

I

Crt .i' k sated with it which thit the vehicle g- crialtrl'AIN41 his s ICOUNTITSIIII I .II Note~lhaltM ~"", .."., 1~Ih.ualull ,., IPllks..Kalu)ft( l>tuso.,wttd\llfllhltwh ... h is .. not selected for in this utterianie. oot td«tcod tor til thq, Utt(1""~,

[COUNTRY) [COUNTRY] [COUNTRY( rl(,lTI 13.S. 1l.~. Partial Puti~1 primary primary cognitive (ogn"i\ model mood profile profile for for {COL' TRY) FIGURE

which II glo AfSTfIETIC PLEASURE. PLEASL'RE. This Thi relates relat to the the appreciation appreciation of of gloss as AESTHETIC plea urr thJt i\ non-physical non'phy\i{JI in in nature, natur ,\u{h a'the th appreciation appreciationofofliterature, literature, pleasure that is such as culture. or aa particular particular language, language. and !>O forth. forth. In In contrast, contra t. the th lexical I "ical or culture, and so NTRY) facilitates, fa ilitat • at very least, lea t. access a{{ to cognitive cognitive models model onccpt (co at the very to (COUNTRY] concept conterning what what itit means mean to 10he be. A110, STATE, TA 1[, and aa relating to knowledge concerning a NATION model relating relating to to a• GEOGRAPHICAL L[()(;RAPIII(;AL AREA. AHA. cognitive model matching process proc pl()(ced as follows. follow A A search "h isi established abli hed in in the tbe The matching proceeds {(lgniti,. model profiles pmfiles accessed acee \cd by by the th lexical lexicJIconcepts concep"subject IIb)C<1totomatching. mat 'hing. cognitive model The The initial iOltiJI cognitive CogOlt". model modelprofiles profil undergoing undergoinginterpretation interpreldlionare arethose th accessed a e»ed by [BEAUTIFUL] (8EAIlTIFUL) and [COUNTRY'. (0 TRyl. The Th search se."h serves rv to identify one (or (or more) more) cogniti,' model(s) model(s) in in the therespective r ~ti\C (primary) (priIllJry) cognitive cognill\Cmodel mod Iprofiles profil which whith cognitive mJtch-"" constrained con trained by by. number of ofother otherprinciples prin{lpl discussed di uS>Cdbelow. below.The The match—as a number informationalcharacterization characteri7.. tionassociated associatedwith with"beautiful "beautifulcountry" country"arises ari due duetoto informational matchlllg between between the the visual vi lIal pleasure ple.,ure (and (and perhaps perhaps also al the Ihe non-visual non vi wlphy,ical matching physical ple.1!ourc) cognitive cognit".model( model(s))accessed iKc '"via via !BEAUTIFUL] (Bl.AUIIFUI) and the the GEOGRAPHICAL LEO itl~ to 10 a.1 that have access sites in (3), ll>goitl\~ model mo,.Id profile—the profile tht: next nl~t level Il"\ ·1 of oflexical lexiul concept t:.OIK picomplexity compleXityinvolves Involv cognitive the entire entl~ utterance, utttr.1nce,and and the the"predicate "prcdic.lte nominative" nomin3tivc'"Ilexical ieal concept. (;oocept. This Th. entails entail the

258

INTERPRETATION

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY

that the informational characterization "beautiful country" is matched with the cognitive model profile to which the lexical concept [ FRANCE' facilitates access. I now turn to the second implication of the Principle of Guided Matching. This is as follows. The way in which matching takes place is guided by the linguistic content associated with the: lexical conceptual units, and the larger utterance, in question. To illustrate, reconsider the examples in (i) and (2). Each of these constitutes an appositive vehicle, associated with what I gloss as the [SPECIFICATION OF THING x) lexical concept. The semantic function of this lexical concept is to specify in greater detail a particular entity, represented by "x." That is, the internally closed lexical concept that is integrated with the internally open lexical concept (THING xJ, which occupies the "x" slot in the larger lexical concept, constitutes the entity which is being specified. The consequence of lexical concept integration is that in (I) and (2) it is FRANCE which is the lexical concept being specified, rather than (LANDMASS' Or (NATION I.

The Principle of Guiding Matching, then, ensures that interpretation proceeds in a way which is compatible with the output of this unpacking process. In terms of the specific utterances in (1) and (z), it follows that matching occurs as a means of specifying the conceptual content associated with (FRANCE', rather than with (LANDMASS' or I NATION'. Hence, the cognitive model profiles accessed by (LANDMASS! and (NATION! are employed in order to activate compatible cognitive models in the cognitive model profile associated with (FRANCE' rather than the other way round. It is for this reason that in the examples in (1) and (2) there is selective activation of one cognitive model in the cognitive model profile to which (FRANCE) affords access, as evidenced by the variation in meaning evident: it is (FRANCE' whose semantic contribution is being specified, rather than that of (LANDMASS! or (NATION'. The matching operation central to interpretation is constrained by the Principle of Conceptual Coherence. This can be stated as follows: (ps) Principle of Conceptual Coherence Matching occurs between one or more cognitive models/informational characterizations, belonging to distinct cognitive model profiles/lexical conceptual units, which share schematic coherence in terms of conceptual content. This principle in (p5) mirrors the Principle of Linguistic Coherence (pi), central to lexical concept integration, discussed in the previous chapter. In particular, this principle (p5) relies on the Principle of Schematic Coherence (pi) also introduced in the previous chapter, which I reproduce below: (pi) Principle of Schematic Coherence The content associated with entities, participants and the relations holding between them must exhibit coherence in fusion operations.

259

What the two principles do, in (p5) and (p2), is to guarantee that matching takes place only when the cognitive model profiles or informational characterizations that are subject to the matching process (i) belong to different cognitive model profiles or lexical conceptual units as relevant, and hence are accessed by different lexical concepts, and (ii) exhibit coherence. *I•e ► illustrate consider the example in (4), which minimally contrasts with the example in (3). (4) France is a beautiful nation While the example in (3) related to what I termed a "geographical area" conception, the example in (4) provides what I will term a "nation state" conception. A common conception arising from (4), without a further specifying extra-linguistic context, might relate to an understanding of France as a nation state whose culture, language, cuisine, art forms (e.g., literature), and so on are held to be aesthetically pleasing. This takes place by virtue of I BEAUTIFUL' and [NATION I undergoing matching, giving rise to an informational characterization, before being matched with the cognitive model profile accessed via (FRANCE', as determined by the principle in (ps). The Principle of Conceptual Coherence determines how the matching process(es) are constrained and hence how, in general terms, the cognitive model(s) across cognitive model profiles or informational characterizations to be matched are selected. In the example in (4) the first step in interpretation is the matching that takes place between the cognitive model profiles accessed via IBEAuTtFut.1 and [NATION' which form part of an internally simpler lexical concept than the one also involving [FsisicE1. 3 Recall the partial primary cognitive model profiles for I BEAUTIFUL I and 1NA -rioN1 provided in Figures 13.4 and 13.3 respectively. The Principle of Schematic Coherence ensures that in the matching process only cognitive models that are schematically coherent can he matched. In terms of the cognitive models to which ( BEAUTIFUL) and I NATION J afford access, those that achieve schematic coherence across the two partial primary cognitive model profiles are the AESTHETIC PLEASURE cognitive model associated with the cognitive model profile for [BEAUTIFUL! and the CULTURE and LANGUAGE cognitive models associated with the cognitive model profile accessed via ( NATION'. The AESTHETIC PLEASURE, CULTURE, and LANGUAGE cognitive models achieve schematic coherence as CULTURE and LANGUAGE relate to bodies of knowledge concerning entities which may exhibit properties relating to knowledge concerning AESTHETIC PLEASURE. Once matching has occurred, the resulting informational characterization is then subject to matching with the cognitive model profile accessed via the (FR/4 NC E 1 lexical concept. The "beautiful nation" informational characterization The lexical iliNkePal IllEAVTIPUL1 and INA !RINI mike up the (stecireati THING) boat countept than the more cnt innpassing - predicate nominative' lexical concept_ A simpler lexical con

whic h is

260

INTERPRETATION INTeR PRET ATION

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY

i, ma\(h rtl with the NATION \TATI

cogmtIV model moddfrom fromthe theprimary pnma rycogni«'gnl is matched with the NATION STATE cognitive tIVe model a c via IFRANU). Thi follow as the NATION STATE ognitlVc tive model accessed via (FRANCE). This follows as the NATION STATE cognitive model rclat to knowledge of enhti uchasa the thepeople peopland e andtheir th ir national model relates to knowledge of entities such nation identIty, Including lUlture and language. Ilente , thi lund of know al lcdge identity, including culture and language. Hence, this kind of knowledge rdate to enlltlcs which are coher nt with knowlrtlge ari ing from the b"au relates to entities which are coherent with knowledge arising from the "beautiful natio n" informational chara t rilali on. tiful nation" informational characterization. !lefore prote eding , It I worth nohn that the utterance In (4) can rcadll Before proceeding, it is worth notinggthat the utterance in (4) can readi gl\e ri to an altem ativ conce ption subject to anappropriate appro priateextra-linguistic extra Iingu l tit give rise to an alternative conception subject to an context, one whi h involv und rstanding the French peopl a being ph. context, one which involves understanding the French people as being physieally attral li,'r: what might be gl(, sed a the "beau tiful people" conte pt l(,", ically attractive: what might be glossed as the "beautiful people" conception. 1 hI involv con trucll ng an informalional chara tt riuho n for I 8£AUTlF~ This involves constructing an informational characterization for (BEAUTIFUL)t ) and INATlOS ) by virtu of match ing the VtSUAL PLEA URE ognili.. modd and (NATION) by virtue of matching the VISUAL. PLEASURE cognitive model from the prima ry cogm tl\e modd profile a cesscd via IBfAU11I ull and the th from the primary cognitive model profile accessed via 1 BEesu -rtuut.( and PIOPII eognltiv model from the prima ry cognillve mod I a via PEOPLE cognitive model from the primary cognitive model accessed via I ATlos l. Thi infom .ation al characteri1ation i then matched WIththe th 'NATION'. This informational characterization is then matched with NATIO TATI tOgm tl\e model a xiate d with the eognitiv mode prohle NATION STATE cognitive model associated with the cognitive model lprofile a,,~ via II RANU ). Thi r ult in th "beau liful peopl e" concepli n.This (,hi accessed via 'FRANCE). This results in the "beautiful people" example Illu trate , then, that different inter preta tion, andconception. h neeconcepconce p example illustrates, then, that different interpretations, and hence tions, can be Jccou ntrtl for by tCCM Th ry, and ari preci Iy betau tions, can be accounted for by I.CCM Theory, and arise precisely because of of th dIVe"" way In which match ing can occur, as con trained by the prin il'l the diverse ways in which matching can occur, as constrained by the principles of interp retati on, and made mor (or I ) lient b virtue of the .. lienee of interpretation, and as made more (or less) salient by virtue of the salience a -iatrtl with partic ular inter prew ions, and as guidrtl by c tra lingui til associated with particular interpretations, and as guided by extra-linguistic conte xt. context. I now tum to a rdate d i u, and h nc th need for furth er printi ple I now turn to a related issue, and hence the need for further principles whith rve to tOn train Interp retah on . In di -u ing the cump l In (3) which serve constrain interpretation. In discussing the example in (3) aoove, I argueto d that lhi~ utter an« giv ri to a "gengraphical area" con ep' above, I argued that this utterance gives rise to a "geographical area" conception. Yel, what I have just indicated regarding the po ibility of multI ple tion. Yet, what I have just indicated regarding the possibility of multiple inter preta tion, du to the diverse way in which mah,h ing can can occur, (Xtur, suggests uggc t interpretations, due to the diverse ways in which matching lhat lhl example hould, in print ipl , be capabl of mor than on conce p· that this example should, in principle, be capable of more than one conception. Indeed, it hould be equally po ibl, based on what I have po Itrtl thu, tion. Indeed, it should be equally possible, based on what I have posited thus far, for J " beauhful nation" con« ption to able from (3). That That is, i" illst ju t far, for a "beautiful nation" conception to be he deriv derivable from (3). • matth ing may ~rve to con trutt an inform ation al characterization characlerization in in as matching may serve to construct an informational whi h VISUA L PLfA l'R£ and (jF()(j RArU ICAl AREA ognit ive modd which VISUAL PLEASURE and GEOGRAPHICAL AREA cognitive models Jrc~ are

.w

matth ed, giving ri to th "geographilal area" tOnccption, It hould al", be be matched, giving rise to the "geographical area" conception, it should also po Ible for the AI TlIH II. PLEA l'RI and NATION TATE cognitive mod I to possible for the AESTHETIC PLEASURE and NATION STATE cognitive models to und rgo matching, giving ri to a conce ption In whith lhe prod ul" 01 giving rise to a conception in which the products of aundergo natio n matching, tate, language, culture, and '" on, ar tOnlelH'() of a being a nation state, language, culture, and so on, are conceived of as being aesthe llcally plea ing. Ilowevcr, and basrtl on intuit ion from a larg numb er aesthetically pleasing. However, and based on intuitions from a large number of nah,e peak r ,thi i not a tOneeption that nallve peakers of t ngli h of native speakers, this is not a conception that native speakers of English readil . derive for 1.1), Without further \l""-l fYlnl lutra Iingui tic tOntext. readily derive for (3), without further specifying extra-linguistic context. II.t .I on th pnnei pl thu far pr"", nted, this findin g Iis nnott predicted. prrtlicted. Based on the principles thus far presented,thi finding Henc e, we requi .. a furth er prino pl ,th Principl of h matic li.nce inin Hence, we require a further principle, the Principle of Schematic Salience ~atching 'I hi pnnli ple lan be \latl..! a f..11",, : Matching. This principle can be stated as f011ows:

261

pr•) Schematic Pnnelp)ofof S<:hematlSalience (1'1» Principle Sali ncrininMatching latch ing Matching profiles/informational characterizaMatchingacross aero cognitive cognitiv model modd profil infom .ation al characteriz.t · tions salience when relatively more tion achieves achievesgreater greaterschematic hematic Iienc when relati, Iy morecognitive cogn it" models mod I are ar matched matchedthan thanmatches matchesinvolving involvingfewer cognitive models.

fewer cognItive mod Is.

The I heprinciple prineipl provided providrtlinin(p6) (p6)accounts account for forthe thefact factthat thatwithout WIthoutadditional addItional linguistic rise to what may Ii ngui ticor orextra-linguistic extra -lingui titcontext, context,certain certainutterances u\lera n, give glV n to what may he be considered con idered to to be beaacanonical canonicalor orwhat whatI Iterm terma adefault defaultconception. con
addit ional context:

(5) of the (~) France !'ranceisi\a abeautiful beautifulcountry, country, according allor ding to to aarecent rccent survey urvcy 0 the aesthetic a thetic contribution conlr ibutio n of ofaarange rangeofofEuropean Europeancultural traditions.

cultu rallra dilion .

the Applied Applirtl to to an an example exampl such uch as a (3), (3), the theprinciple pnnu pl in in(p6) (p6) guarantees guara nt that that the "geographical area"(on conception emerges at the the expense possible "geographical area" eptio n emerg .. at expense of ofother other po ible conceptions. to the conc eptio n, This Thi principle prin ipl. applies appli as a follows. follo w. As As we we saw saw above, abov , due due to lhe Principles Principl of Interpretation Interp retati on already already introduced, inlrod uced, the th first first lexical lexical concepts concept The Principle to undergo under go interpretation interp relati on are ar (BEAUTIFUL) )8EA TlfUL) and and (COUNTRY). I OUNTRY). Th Principle of Conceptual cogniof Conceptual Coherence herence serves rv to to establish labli h two two matches mat h between between the the cogni . tive model profiles of (BEAUTIFUL) [COUNTRY'. The "geographical area" and ILOU tlve model profil of(Be AuTI Ful) and lRY). The "geographical ar a" the VI VISUAL PLEASURE and NONmatch match emerg emerges due to .. du to aa match mat h between between the UAL PLEA URE and NO, cognitive models of the profile VISUAL VISUA L PHYSICAL PIIY I AL PLEASURE PlU URF cognI tIVe models of lh cognitive ognih v model mod I profil GEOGRAPHICAL REGION cognitive model accessed by IBEA and the (BEAUTIFUL) ae< UTlrnl and the "'O(;R APIIICA' REGION cognitive model from th the eogm cognitive accessed via (COUNTRY) lexical concept. Irom tiv mode mod profile prolil a c via the lh IcouN TRyllexical concept. AESTHETIC The "beau "beautiful nation" match emerges due a match between Th liful natio n" match .merg du a mat h belween the the Af TII[TlC model of the profile accessed by I BEAUPLEASURE cognitive PU,A ~RF cogn iu,e mode l of the cognitive cognitiv model mod Iprof il accessed by lUAU ' cognitive model from the cognitive model TIFUL) and the the NATIO NATION III ull and N STATE TATB cognl tiv mode l from th cognitive model profile acces accessed via the concept. Once these two distinct profiJ sed via the [COUNTRY) I 0 NTRyl1 lexical i al conce pt. n. lhe<e two di tin t matches have have been been dderived, the Principle of Schematic Salience Matchmat,h rived, lhe PrinCIple of Schematic Salience in III ~at{h · ing identi identities the "geographical area" malch match aas involving across Ing li th "gengraphi al area" involving matching mat hing a ro largernumb number ofcogni cognitive models, and hen hence as involving a broader aa larger er of tive modd , and e as Involving (i) (i) a broad er baseand and (ii) (ii) aa greater of matched to ba great r quantity quant Ity of matched information. inform ation . This Thi serves rv to establish thismaleh matchasasthe thedefau default. Hence, andin in the the light of there being cstabl i h thl lt. Hen e, and light of th re being noaddit additional context, the other match is discarded, with no ional conIc t, tho olher match i di ardrtl , with the the"geographical "geographical as the informational characterization which matchbeing being established ararea" a" match tabli hrtl a\ the informational tbara lleri' .!ti"n whith proceeds the nnext of interp interpretation: bematlh matched with the cognitive proce ed tototh xt stage tag of retatIon: totobe rtl with the cognillv model. In short, the cognitive modelprofil profile accessed via tho the (FRAN (FRANCE) modd e ace -cd via ( r) cognitive mode

l, In hort, th accounts for thr the inMgh insight that certain conceptions principle in (pM (p6) 3(;4.uu prind pl In nl for t that (crtJin ,om~cpllnn arise Jri canbe belon refer considered typical, canonical, or what I automatically, andcan autom dticall)', ami idered typica l, canon ital, or what I refer totoaas default conceptions. d.fau lt con« plion .

262

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY

Of course, default conceptions can Ix overridden by further context, as illustrated by the example in (5) above, where additional utterance context, notably the complex NP: "a recent survey of the aesthetic contribution of a range of European cultural traditions" serves to ensure that, at least for sonic native speakers, a "beautiful nation" interpretation for [ FRANCE] emerges. This arises due to the construction of a "beautiful nation" informational characterization following matching between the cognitive model profiles associated with [BEAUTIFUL) and icouNTRY I. This takes place by virtue of a process I refer to as co-activation due to the context provided by the complex NP which forms part of the comment clause intnxluced by "according to". That is, the informational characterization associated with the complex NP is subject to matching with the cognitive model profiles associated with (BEAUTIFUL] and (COUNTRY] simultaneously, giving rise to a co-activation of cognitive models AESTHETIC PLEASURE derived from the cognitive model profile for BEAUTIFUL], and the NATION STATE Cognitive model accessed via [COUNTRY) together with the infOrmational characterization associated with the complex NP. The reason that matching with the informational characterization of the complex NP involves simultaneous activation across two cognitive model profiles follows from application of the overarching Principle of Interpretation: the Principle of Guided Matching. As the lexical concepts I BEAtrrt FULA and (COUNTRY] form part ofa lexical conceptual unit, given that they comprise part of a complex lexical concept, and given the nature of lexical concept integration, these two lexical concepts are matched with the informational characterization of the complex NP, in tandem. Once the informational characterization of "beautiful nation" is derived for the lexical conceptual unit associated with the expression beautiful country, this informational characterization is matched, in turn, with the cognitive model profile accessed via (FRANCE'. This results in an interpretation of (FRANCE' in which a "nation state" informational characterization is derived. Together these various informational characterizations result in the conception associated with the entire utterance which can be paraphrased as follows: "According to a survey examining attitudes towards the aesthetic pleasure resulting from products of distinctive European cultures, the nation of France is found to have a culture that is ranked as being high, in terms of the aesthetic pleasure it provides". The finding that the cognitive model profiles accessed via (BEAUTIFUL( and [COUNTRY] are matched simultaneously with a distinct informational characterization is predicted by the Principle of Simultaneous Matching, which can be stated as follows: (p 7)

Principle of Simultaneous Matching When matching takes place between an informational characterization and a complex lexical concept, matching may occur simultaneously across cognitive model profiles of the lexical concepts that form part of the complex lexical concept.

INTERPRETATION

263

In essence, the Principle of Simultaneous Matching ensures that when an infOrmational characterization, such as that associated with the complex NP in the clause introduced by the complex preposition according to in (5), is matched with the complex lexical concept associated with the expression beautiful country, the cognitive model profiles which constitute the simpler lexical concepts: (BEAUTIFUL[ and (COUNTRY ) respectively, undergo matching simultaneously with the informational characterization with which they are being matched. In this particular example then, LCCM Theory is able to distinguish between the distinct interpretations associated with beautiful country in (5) and the default interpretation which is associated with this expression in the utterance given in (3), and in so doing, account for the distinct interpretations associated with (FRANCE) in each examples I now turn to a further principle of interpretation, which is termed the Principle of Primary Activation. In the discussion thus far I have repeatedly talked about matching in terms of activation of cognitive models. Moreover, I earlier introduced the term primary activation. Activation has to do with the resonance of the conceptual (i.e., multimodal) content associated with cognitive models (or informational characterizations) that form part of the cognitive model profiles accessed via distinct lexical concepts. The Principle of Primary Activation can be stated as follows: p8

) Principle of Primary Activation Matched cognitive model( s) are subject to primary activation.

What this principle does is to guarantee that cognitive models which arc subject to matching achieve a high degree of resonance. Hence, in an utterance such as (3), the reason for the emergence of the "beautiful geographical area" conception is due to the high level of resonance (primary activation) of the cognitive models NATION STATE, VISUAL PLEASURE, and GEOGRAPHICAL REGION accessed, respectively, by the lexical concepts FRANCE', 'BEAUTIFUL', and (COUNTRY'. AS we shall see below, some cognitive models can receive a relatively attenuated form of resonance which I refer to as secondary activation. Thus far in the discussion of interpretation, I have been assuming, for the most part, that a match is always possible in the primary cognitive model profiles of lexical concepts which are subject to interpretation. However, sometimes, there is a clash. To illustrate, consider the following examples: It is worth considering what 1 c t IM Theory predicts, from a proceming perspective. which is to wy, As the utterance in Is) unfolds. After processing of the first clause in the utterance France is a heaurtful country, It 't Al Theory predicts that following standard Print pies of Interpretation. I pa) to 11+71 inclusive, a default ► nterpretation arises in which a "beautiful country . ' interpretation emerges. However, with the advent of the setond clause. this l(mt.rpt ► on is revised. and a new matching process takes place. in which a new informational ch.aracteritation emerges for be ► utols41,ountry. This in turn serves to revise the interpretation which emerges for l ► kAr44 I. Hence. It t AI Theory predicts that t 'inceptions emerge dynamical's'. and an be revised during processing as further h tigUlst It t ullterit emerges in order to produce new matches which "overwrite" previously established tont eptiiiiis during the process of language understanding.

(6)

(6)

INn RPR£ TATIO N INTERPRETATION

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY ALiTY

264

a. ?John, the landmass a. ?John. th landnus> h. ?John, the nation

b. ?John.

th~

nation

by the The utterances in (6) are not straightforwardly interpretable, signalled b Th ulleranc an (6) or not tralghtforwardlyant rpretable. ignallrd question marks, precisely because an informational characterization Iis not qu tion marks. pr iscly!>«au an informational characterizatIon possible for (LANDMASS) or(NATION when matched with the primary ry pcl Ibl for llANO IA s] or INATIONI when matchrd with th~ prima cognitive model profile associated with the lexical concept (INDIVIDUAL I cognItive model profil ass!l(iated wIth the I xical concept I,NIlIvml'A NAMED JOHN!. This is due to a clash in the primary cognitive model profiles NA 1m 101lNI. Thi i due to a cia h in the primary cognitive model profil one associated with the [INDIVIDUAL NAMED JOHN) lexical concept on the lin a ",xlatl'd WIth th I,NOIVIIll'AI AMIII IOIlN llexia l concept on the hand and (LANDMASS( and (NATION) on the other. This is not to say, of hand and ILANO"A ] and INATloNI on th other. Thi i, not to >Jr, course, that matching is impossible, thereby avoiding a clash. However, clash cia h course. that matching i impo ible. thereby avoiding a clash. Howev~r. resolution requires recourse to what in Chapter to 1 referred to as the level Of dill resolution rcquor rClOU"" to what an Chapter 10 I rcferrrd to th I level is the hallmark of figurasecondary cognitive models: activation at this ligura SJy a da h. Thl follow due to application of th Principl of Conc Coherence (ps) as applied to the default search region: the primary cognitive tl\. '{lh renee (1'5) '" applied to the d fault arch region: the primary Ulgno

••

•I

r SOCIO)41P1, 1 (MIXo

SIZE SHAPE

THNICITY

OOQO.

SOCIAL

......

TINI4 P1

HiSTOFMCILL STATUS OF IlAfU8 Qf NM*

...roow::.o..

,"

CIE (It FS

••

b

I

••

• c

C

BODY

!IOOy

SOCIAL IDENTITY

SOCIAl. 100NTlTY

IDIOSYNCRATIC IDIOSYNCRATIC COGNITIVE COGNITIVE TRAITS TRAITS

O0

.• 0

•• I

(INDIVIDUAL NAMED JOHN] JOHNI

(INDIVIDUAL NA/,t(O

FIGURE 13.6. A partial primary cognitive model profile with attributes lexical 11:11:1..... 1 Ihl: furthe utotor I U,l tit' I).~ "pJrt i.. 1 pnm.lry ... ognHI \t: nHKld prol"ilC" wHh .Ulnh concept ImnivinuAt. NAMED JOHN) lUna rl (I

l'IVUl l'Al NAMf O l()flN)

265

th on the apparent in readily apparent crencc readily hematilcoh e,. That l profil model profiles. That Iis,• there there Iis no no schematic coherence mode I,NO,VII)' and 'INDIVIDlLANO IA I and the(LANDMASS) \lathe alCcs.edvia profil accessed model profiles tiv~ model ry "'gnl primary cognitive prima rch that aa search i that lhi is quence of on cpt . The al concepts. A tEO 10llN JOHN]Ilexic lexical The conse consequence of this "AI UAL NAMED e of one or l profil llve mode condary mgnl tJbli, hrd ininthe t be regionmu must be established the secondary cognitive model profile of one or regIon of Prin ipl of the Principle pt . Thi, l conce r I ant lexica f th more of the relevant lexical concepts. This follow follows from from the more follow: a follows: tatrd as h. which red Sear Ordt Ordered Search, which can can be be stated Sea" h Ordered Search PrinCipleofofOrdered (p9) Principle (1'9) • which i the li, mod ry cogni e ininthe hing t3k Matc Matching takes pIa place theprima primary cognitive modelI profil profile, which is the facilItate thatfacilitate concept,that Icri al concepts oflexical ub;ct of that subset lt ",aRh defau default search regoon region for for that lite in the umuc ' ful in matching isi unsuccessful If matching proftie. If model profile. cognoti\c model ace access to to aa cognitive rch new search th n aa new ""curs. then da h occurs, say. aa clash to say, i to in. which "h doma lt search defau default domain, which is The profil . The model profile. ((Igniti> model xond ary cognitive the secondary Clotabli,hed in i established in is doma domain in the the ba i of rding on n. proce ed f""hio c~ in sear
i( tUhrfC' lkt' hc-1Ii;&lcoherence. ftU;h.h Itnn ofofa .. match inIn scheniatii. "'1. I, inLnterms

266

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY

INTERPRETATION INTERPRETATION

-

actually (i.e., (i.e., Iilerally) literally) LANDMASS( Cannot aClually cognitive model profile ace accessed via via [LANDMAS cogmlive [cannol match wilh with the primary cognitive model NAMED 'OHN toHNI) [INDIVIDUAL NAMED malch primarycognilive modelprofile profileofof(INDIVIDUAL the lexi lexical concept il it iis aboul, about, a al concepl a search arch region regIon is i established labli hed in in the Ihe secondary ondary Ihe cognitive model profile accessed via (LANDMASS' in order to establish a cogllllive model profi) accessed via [LANDMA J in order 10 eSI.blish match. malt h. The Principle of Ordered Search further ensures that the search domain The Principle of rdered Search further en ures thai search doma in is i progressivelyenlarged, enlarged,beginning beginning wilh with secondary secondary cognitive models, progr~lVely model. which which are are searchedbased basedon on Iheir their relative conceptual coherence se.rched relalive con eplual coheren e with those Ihose cognitive cogmti\e models Ihal that populale populate the model the primary primary cognitive cognilive model model profile. profile. This Thi ensures ensur that Ihal cognitive models models which are, cogniliv are, in in relative relalive terms, lem. , conceptually con eplually "closer" "doscr" to 10 the Ihe site Ihal that is access sile ace i represented represenled by by the the lexical lexi al concept, c neepl, are are searched searched prior prior to 10 those cognitive models which arc less close. This captures the intuition that Iho cognilive which arc I clo. Thi captures Ihe intuilion thai of, think of. knowledge which is likely knowledge whi h is likely to 10 he be more more "central" "cenlral" to 10 what whal we we might mighl think meaning" iis searched informally, 3!> as constituting con liluting "word "word meaning" searched before before knowledge knowledge mformally, that, in Ihal, in relative relalive terms, lerm ,iis more more"peripheral." "peripheral." In In LCCM LC M Theory, Theory, the the centralcenl ral· peripheraldi distinction, as we we saw saw in in Chapter peripheral lin tion, as Chapler to, 10, is i modelled modelled in in terms lerm of a. hierarchical cognitive model profile, WIth with those those cognillve cognitive models hiera«hical ognllive mod I profile, models deemed decmt'\! to 10 be more be more peripheral peripheral represented represenled diagrammatically diagrammaticallyas a further furtheraway. away. The application of the Principle of Ordered Search serves to The applicallon of the Principle of Ordered Sear h rYes to ensure en ure that Ihal due due to the failure to establish a match between the primary cognitive model 10 the failure 10 e labli h a match belween Ihe primary cognilive modd and (INDIVIDUAL. NAMED profile of ILANDMASSJ [LANDMASS] and I,NDIVIDUAl NA lED'JOHN' II J aa search search region regio n is I profile established in to 10 which (LANDMASS) eslablished m the Ihesecondary secondarycognitive cognitivemodel modelprofile profile whICh JLANO IA\\J facilitates access. The The secondary model fa ililales access. model that thai achieves achi.. primary primaryactivation aclivationinmthe Ihe cognitive model that of being significantly cognilive mod Iofof[LANDMASS( JLANDMA J iisIhalofbeing ignificantly larger than other olher geographical features. This secondary secondary cognitive model we we might geographi al fealur . Thi ognitive model mighl gloss glo as J\ OVERSIZE. This is cognitive model of OVU IZ£. Thi i matched matched with wilh the Ihe primary primary cognilive of BODY DOllY Jss0a~Ml dated with providing an informational charac(INDIVIDUAL NAMED JOHN', cialed wilh J,NDlVIDUAl NAMED 'OIlNJ, informational characterization of an "excessively large individual named lohn". lenzation of an "exc ively larg individual n.med lohn". The final in this The fin.1 Principle Pnn iple of of Interpretation Inlerprelalion 1I consider con ider in Ihis chapter chapler isi, the thc Principle of Secondary Activation. This can be stated as follows: of Secondary Activation. Thi can be laled as follow : (pm) Secondary Pnn ipleofof Se<:ondaryActivation Awvallon (p'O) Principle All primary cognitive cognitive models, cognitive models models, and and all aU secondary cognilive modelson on the the route roule of of access a«e which do do not nOIachieve achieveprimary primaryactivation, aclivalion, achieve achieve secsa ondary ondary activation. .ctlValion. II mentioned whICh are ar matched m.lthed achieve athieveaahigh high mentioned above above that Ihal cognitive cognitive models model which level lev I of of resonance re>onan e and and give give rise rise to 10the Ihemeaning-construction meaning·con Iruclionprocess. proc .This Thi, II referred to as as primary primary activalion. activation. In addilion, addition, other referred 10 other cognitive cognitive models modelswhich whi h form form part pari of ofthe Ihe search search region rCSton achieve achIeveaa more morediffuse ditTuselevel levelofofactivation. aclivalion.This Thi is i guaranteed guaranlt...'\! by by the Ih principle principle in m (pio). (pIO).This Thi more morediffuse dinu level levelofofactivation acllvationisj, what whal 1I refer refer to 10 as a secondary secondary activation. activalion. The Th rationale ralionale for for positing po ilmg two Iwolevels 1C\c1 of of activation JLtlVoltlOIl comes (HnlC from from the the view viewthat thai aa search an:h region region will willnecessarily n«cs1klrily entail entail aa minimal mimmal level level of ofactivation .ellv.llon in morder orderto 10 establish I.bl"h whether whelheraa match m.lehisi,available. Jv.,IJblc. Hence, this level activation lIen. ,Ihl level of of. livalion may m.ymake make the Ihe searched searched cognitive cognilivemodels modelsmore more

267

,

:"

! Input ranee (a input an an UII utterance (a !

!• Sltualad situatedusage usage """"I) event) ! •

· ..... ---

-"

SEUCTIOH SELECTION driven driven by by UIIeranee extra· utterance and and extraIongu,slOC linguistic conlext context

·

rr-

........

oulput :' stnng o. of output: stong leXICal concepts lexical concepts ~-.--.---- ............ -_ ..... ..

i

I

FUSION FUSION productoon production 01 of a a concepIion (Sllualad conception (situated mean'ng WIth meaning aSSOClalad associated with an UIIeranee) an utterance)

IHT£RPRETATtON of INTERPRETATIONactlVabOn activation of

•

INT£GAATlON integration ~_.j the INTEGRATION Inlegraloon the semanbc semantic polenll8l potential accessed accessed oIlexlcal of lexical concepts concepts 1118 a go_ lexocal concepl via a given lexical concept constraJllad by by the the lexical leXICal constrained conceplual unol o. whICh is aa conceptual unit of which it~ is

pan part

·! output lexical conceplual '! , ·,,• ...• '"

.n

'"

' output: lexical conceptual ' : units units :

.'

i output. output informational Informattonal

.i

! characterization charact8r1zalion associated associaladwith W1Ih ! !t lexical leXICal COnceptual conceplual units un,ts _______ J! t

.

'

i output oulput aa conception conceploon(a(a'meaning' 'meanong'or or i i 'reading' 'readlng' associated aSsoClaladwith WIththe theinput Input i

.: utt ranee) utterance)

L.

:,

..!

FIGURE 13.7. 1'}.7. Meaning Meaning construction con lruc.lloninInLCCM LCCM Theory Thtory FIGURE

readily accessible, acc""ible,and dnd hence hen« they Iheyachieve .1
268

268

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY

INTERPRETATION INTERPRFTATION

",,-ondarycognitive cogmtive model model profile profil achieve achievesecondary ",,-ondaryactivation. activation. This Thi"i s did, secondary cu >cd in more detail in the next tion. cussed in more detail in the next section. By virtue virtue of ofconcluding concludingthis thi section sectionononthethe Prin ipl ofof Interpretation. By Principles Interpretation, prC'>entaasummary, summary.ininFigure J-igure13.7, ').7. of 01 meaning meamngconstruction
Access Access route routeactivation activation To I" illustrate illustratethe thefirst first type typeof ofactivation, activation.access a« route routeactivation, activation.reconsider recon id the r the following example discussed in earlier chapters: u.ro in earli r ,hapter : lollowing example di (7) referendum (7) France Francevoted votedagainst again tthe theEU EUconstitution con titution ininthe theioo 2005 referendum

Types of activation Types of activation As we we have hav As

seen thus thu far farininour ourdiscussion di u sionofof interpretation.the theresult r ult of seen interpretation, matching- the process pro< at at the theheart heartofofinterpretation—is interpretation .•activation. a tivat.on. In th" matching—the In this "'llion II present prC'>ent aa taxonomy taxonomy of ofthe thetypes type,ofofactivation activationthat thattake takeplace plale III section interpretation. In gen ralterms th re are two types: interpretation. In general terms there are two types: activation of of an an access a c route: rou te: this thi'serves M:rv to tofacilitate fas route route activation activation takes tak place place over more than Ihan one one highlighting, is over more

cognilive model. while while highlighting highlighling involves involves activation activation within ,vithin aa single ingle cognitive cognitive cognitive model, model. The hallmark hallmark of aClivalion of ofan an access a c route roule iis that that while one (or more) model. The of activation while one (or more) cognitive underg,,.,,, primary al1ivation. the majority of aClivall'tl cognitive model(s) model(s) undergoes primary activation, the majority of activated cognitive models undergo undefSo the the lesser I r form form of ofresonance resonancethat that IIrefer refer to to as as second""and cognitive models ary tinction in activation types i, prC'>enled in hgure '3.8. ary activation. activation. lbe The di distinction in activation types is presented in Figure

The rheconception conceptionwhich whi harises arisesfor forthe theexample exampleinin(7) (7)involves onv.olvesprimary primaryactivation activation cognitive model, a secondary cognitive model to which of ofthe the ELECTORATE [. fCTORATf cognitive model. a ondary
CONSTITUTIONAL CONSllTUTtONAL

13.8.

ActJv tlon 'Nlthtn a Activation within a C<>gn' cognitive model model PfO/,Ie by profile by

...... .. ........• • •

SPORTS SPORTS

access route activation across/through cognitive models

c:oon,lMI cognitivemodel model(annbute). (attribute).0< orbe"""," between annbul8Ol<:ogn'lMI mode attributes/cognitive models (s.ructural (structuralWlVenant) invariant)

•• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• : : :

GEOGRAPHICAL

GEOGRAPHtCA LANDMASS L LANDMASS

,;.~~~

•• CUISINE ••• POLITICAL POlITICAL CUISINE SYSTEM •• ••• SYSTEM •••• •• • •••••••••••••••••••••• •• •• •• • •••••• :c ••"'.-.!..-<": . •• ••••• • •••••••••••••••••• ~ • • • HOLIDAY •

NATIONAL NAllONAL

hIghlighting 0/ structure Structure ",lIwl highlighting of within • a songIe single

HEAOOF STATE

ELECTORATE

SYSTEM SYSTEM

• : :

,........ ·····,s·········.. ........

: : •

Is ....••..

NATIONSTATE STATE NATION

: : HOUDAY : DESTINATION : : : Dt;SnNAOON :: :

: . .\ .......,~ ......... .......... ,.......... : ...... . o 1%,,Vaa

•••••

............

oo 000

activation

MCOndary

AL.

0 000000

[FRANCE] (FRANCE]

secondary OCINa'oon activation

h (o l III: 1.1.8 . \1.11\ lion I~ within .a 4..0gIlIU\'C m(ld I profile FIGURE 13.8. Activation types within a cognitive model profile

000 000

• ••• ••••• •• ••• ••••• r-~.~.~ .~ .~~.~.~--, ..

pnmory pnmary act", hon

269

the utter (FRANCA Access route established bythe theinterprcl.,uIC, interpretation of( fRAN( FIGUREIV13.9. h(.lltF '). Al.4..C: ~ route t.llhlt hl-d by m of 1 1 l Ininthe ullerreferendum France voted against the EU constitution in the 200,5 anceFnm(f' ~'Olt'/ agmml 11.f' ance l"OlISlIlW.otl ." ,lri' 2005 r"'trtnt/"",

ru

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY EMANTIC COMPO ITiONAUTY

270

,1;nitivemodels models whllh which achieve cogmllve a hlev~ secondary s«ondary activation acllvallon are are represented repre""n1N wi wllhth dashed boldface.The The cognou cognitive model da hed boldfac~. mod I which whi h achieves a hieves primary primary activation actlvahon sI . markedwithunsbolface. marked wilh undashed boldface. Beforeconduding concludingthi thisdisc=ion discussionof of a«es access roules, routes, IIit Iis Imporlanl important I" to I' roUIr Ihe is that Ihal language language users uscr~ will will judge )udg aa particula parlil ularr ullerance a being figuralive, wilh grealer lenglh correlaling with a menl uterancsbigftve,whralngcoetiwhasmn, of grealer greater figuralivily. figurativity. of

Highlighting Highlighting now lurn turn 10 to the II now Ihe phenomenon ph nomenon of ofhighlighting. hlghhghling.This Thl results muh from fromdifferential ditTerenllal activation of of allribules attributes inlernal internal 10 to aa given given cognilive cognitive model, achvallon mod I, as a we we will will see ":e in in the discussion of the examples in (8) and (9) below, which relate to the lexical Ih~ di ussion oflhe exampl in (8) and (9) below, which relale 10 Ihe lexilal concept onlepl I(Boma DOOKI.AApartial partial cognitive cognilive model Illodel profile profile for for this Ihis lexical lexical concept cOnlepl is " provided in Figure 13.10. provided in Figure 1).10. (8) (8)

a. That's Thai's aa heavy heavy hook book a. b. That antiquarian illegibl book is i illegible b. Thai antiquarian hook

(9) (9)

a. That's Thal'_ aa long long hook book a. b. That's book Thai's an an interesting onler tong book b.

Let'sconsider consider Ihe the cognillv cognitive models models accessed 1. As illustrated It1'S a«cssed via via loom: IDoo~). illu traled in the Ihe partial cognitive model profile given in Figure 13.1o, the knowledge accessed parllal cognilive model profile given in Figure I.PO, Ihe knowledge acce ......J by by [Komi IBOOK) includes, includes, at al the Ihe very very least, leasl, that that aa book book isi aaphysical phy ical entity enlity and and isi~ interacted of reading. knowledge— interaclN with wilh via via aa process proc~ of reading. These Th two lwo distinct dislincl sorts wrtsof ofknowledg,~ knowledge to an knowledge relating r blong to an artefact, art fact, and and the theprocess pro.:cssofofreading—are reading-arecaptured captured in Figure 13.10 by the two cognitive models (BOOK) PHYSICAL .IlYSICAlSTRUCTURE STRt:CTl;RF and and in Figure 1).10 by the Iwo cognillve model (BOOK)

TOME

TOME

PHYSICAL PlfYSICAI. STRUCTURE

STRUCTURE

TEXT

LEVEL LEVEl OF OF

DURATION OURATlON

TEXT

HI ADE" H 1 4 - - -REAOER--I>!

(BooR1 IBOOK)

INTEREST MEREST

READING READING ACTIVITY ACTMTY

Aftribules

Cognitive mod/ill

Lexical concept

.on,epts. nitive nuxlel, IU.l at 13.m. 1\.10 The Thcrelationship rel.lllOn hlrbetween bchH'C1l It" u. ..1I..:um . ept .L..:ognlll\C model and Jnd attri.Jun

FIGURE

butes

hutt"

,

-

INTfRPRETA nON INTERPRETATION

271 271

~IREADING ADING AerlVITY are related related by respectively.The Thetwo twocognilive cognitive models models are by virtue virtue ACTIVITY re:.~lVely. "f tru tural invariant-who inleracts with wilh the the physical phy icalartefact invariant—who interacts artefact READER—the structural of aa READE~-Ihe bv relation holds holds between between cognitive cognitive virtueof of reading reading Ihe the prinled printed text. text. Thi This relation by virtue n;"dels Chapter to. 10. II capture caplur the Ihe structural Slructural models and/or and/or ,"ributes, attributes, as as di«:msed discussed in in Chapter the specific pecifi relation relation IIlvariant invariantin in Figure Figure 1).10 13.10by byaa double-headed double-headed arrow, arrow, and and the IIwolved addition, cognilive cognitive models models READER.In In addilion, involved iis signalled signalled by by the the mnemoni mnemonic RPADrR. of a large, delalled, bUI lructured, body of knowledge. Figure 1).10 cun i I consist of a large, detailed, but structured, body of knowledge. Figure 13.10 provides BOOK) provides provides providestwo twoallribules attributesfor foreach eachof ofthe thecognitive cognitivemodel modelswhich whichIIsom] J(C ICAl STRuerURE Ihe physical physical relates 10 to the PHYSICAL STRUCTURE relat The cognitive cognitive model model PIIY access 10. to. The Jrtefa t, con i ling of, very least, least, knowledge knowkdge as as to 10 the Ihe physical physical structure Iru ture artefact, consisting of, al at th the very .nd n book. tailed knowledge knowledge concerning concerning and organizalion organization of of aa giv given book. This This indud includes d detailed Ihe peets of weighl, binding binding the malerial material aaspects of the the artefact, artefact, including including itits dimensions. dimensions, weight, forth. This This aspect a ped of ofour our knowledge knowledge about aboul books booksIIrefer refer (pa per or (paper or cloth), cloth), and and w so forth. 10 Ihe physical phy i aI organization organizalion and and construccon trueattribute.. In In addilion addition 10 to the TOME atlribul to aas Ihe the TOMh books consist consisl of oftext lex I which which isi interacted inleracted with wilh through through the Iheprocess proc lion tion of of aa book, hook, books of refer to Ihe TEXT attribute.. -rEx -r atlribut reading. Thi This II refer to aas the of reading. Th~ READING ACTIVITY cognitive model relales to 10 the the process process involved involved in on The READING ACTIVITY cognitive model relates onleracting nature of Ihe interaction interaction with wilh the the text lext interacting with with books, hooks, especially especially the the nature of the liseif. ofthis Ihi interaction inleraction isi that Ihat reading readingtakes lakes up up, period of of itself. One One consequence consequence of a period lime, which II refer refer to 10 as as the Ihe DURATION DURATION allribute. depending on on the the attribute. That That iis, depending time, which .mounl oftext text involved, involved, reading reading can can take take lesser I r or or greater greater amounts amount of oftime. time. amount of Another e of interaction with wilh books books isI the the level level of ofinterest interest that that aa Another consequen consequence of interaction given book holds holds for for the the reader. read r. This Thi II refer refer to to as as the the LEVEL LEVEL OF INTEREST OF INTEREST given hook .nribut . That while the the reader reader might might judge judg the the book book to tobe beinteresting, interesling, attribute. That iis,, while another might might be be judged judged to to be be boring, boring, and and so so on. on. another ow let's return to the i ue of highlighting. Ea h of ofthe the utterances ullerances in in (8) (8) Now let's return to the issue of highlighting. Each and (9) (9) involves involves aadistinct di lin tinformational informalional characterization characterization for for the the (nom] IBooKI and lex I I concept. con ept. This Thi isisachieved achievedby byvirtue virtueofof ea hinstance on tan of e of IBooKII being beong lexical each (BOOK con i tent with with the theutterance ullerancecontext contextsuch suchthat that, lightly interpreted in in aa way way consistent interpreted a slightly through the thecognitive cognitivemodel modelprofile profile ditTerent access a c route is i established established through different route ",,,-.sed via via IIDooK). accessed BOOK I. For instance, the conceptions conceptionsthat that result r uh from from (8) (8)have havetotodo dowith withprimary primary For instance, the actIVation of ofthe the PHYSICAL PIIYSICAl STRUCTURE TRuerURF cognitive cognitive model. mndel.However, lIowever,each ea h conconactivation ception involves Inmlv differential ditTerenlial activation activalionofofattributes allribultsassociated a -ialedwith withthis thi cogcog ception nitive model—the model-the process proc ofhighlighting. highlighting. While Whilethe theinformational informational nitive of IBOOKI inin(8a) (8a)involves involveshighlighting highlightingofofthe the chara terizalion aassociated iated with characterization with (Book' rOMI attribute, allribul ,Ihe informati nalcharacterization characterilalionassociated a sociatedwith wilhIBooK IBooKI the informational I inin TOME Ihe TEXT TEXT attribute. allribute. (8b) involves involv highlighting highlightingofofthe (8b) In contrast, contra t, the the conceptions conception that Ihatresult r ult from from the theutterances ullerancesinin(9) (9)have hav to10 In dowith withprimary primaryactivation a livallon of ofthe the READING R.AOIN.; EVENT fV'NT cognitive cognitivemodel modelaccessed ac cssed do Theinformational informationalcharacterization characterizalionassociated a ialedwith withI Board IBOOK)inon via (Book]. IBooK).The via (9a) results resuh from from highlighting highlighllngof ofthe the DURATION IlURATION attribute. anribule. The Theinformational informational (9a) lharallerilJlion associated ''''''''Ialedwith Wllh!BOOK] InooKI in in (9b) (9b)results r "Ihsfrom fromhighlighting highlightingthe Ihe characterization LEVEL OF OPINTEREST INTf.Mf~Tattribute. .ltlribule. LEVEL

272 2

27

INTI RPRf.TATI()S INTERPRETATION

SEMANTIC EMANT IC COMPOSITIONALITY OMPOS'~'.!.T!! ' O:!!N~A~L:!'.!.T!.Y_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

of matching matching Types of Types now turn turn to to aa consideration of the of matching. II now con ideration of th process proc of match inS. Matching Matching Iis tthe central m mechanism in interpretation, (cntral hani\m in interpretation, and Jnd involves involves simultaneous \imultancou primary primary activationof of cognitive cognitive models a{tiv.tion model, accessed accessed via, via. or or arising ari ing from, from. distinct distinct lexical lexical concepts andlor and/or lexical lexical con conceptual units in in ord order concept eptual unit r to to produce produ e aa complex compl x informational characterization. informational characterintlon. Matchingtakes takestwo twodistinct distinct ~forms. This Iis aa consequence of the rms. Thi con;equen of the broad broad Matching distinction which holds between nominal versus relational lexical concepts distinction which hold between nominal ver u relational lexical concep" 6, and and hence. hence, th the sort sorts of of cognitive first discussed in (Chapter fir t di 'u;;cd in hapter 6, cognitive model model profiles prolik." that, in broad terms, these two types of lexical concepts facilitate access that. in broad t rms. th two type oflexical onceph fa ilit.te access to. to. Put Put another way. way,not not only only iis there th re aa distinction distinction in in the the nature nature of ofthe thelinguistic lingui tic another content that (To) EXcontent that nominal, nominal. e.g., e.g.• (ExpLostoNI, (>XPIO ION(. versus versu relational, relational. e.g., e.g.• (bo) IX lexical concepts encode, but aas each PLODE] lexical PLOOl) onccpt en ode. but ea h lexical lexical concept con cpt has ha aa unique unique access site, the cognitive it • the cognitive models models accessed accessed via via each each lexical lexi al concept concept will will be acc slightly distinct. With respect to matching, the claim in I.CCM Theory slightly di tin t. With respect to matching. the claim in teeM Theory isi, that the the distinctive distinctive nature of these classes of lexical concept—and da oflexical concept-and hence hencetheir their that nature ofthese associated cognitive model profiles—entails a differential contribution to the a iated cognitive model profiles-entail a differential contribution to the construction of a complex informational characterization—the interpretation con tructlon of a complex informational characterilatlon- the interpretatinn that ari arises from from integration integration of of a lexical conceptual that a lexical onceptual unit—due unit-
DESIRABlE DESIRABLE

ClWlACTERISTIC CHARACTERISTIC

OUAUTlES OUALITIES

OUAUTlES QUALITIES

PROVI KlNOf PROVISION OF NY>IANTMlEi ADVANTAGE/ WEU·BEING WELL-BEING

173 273

PROVISION PROVISION Of OF PlEASURE PLEASURE

(0000) [GOOD] F,GUR. 1).11. Parli.1 profile for for (Goon) Goool cognitive modd model profile Partial cogni"" FIGURE 13.11.

proc profil accessed accessed via via [Goon) (Gooo) isi of ofaa process as as itit appli applies to to thtcognitive the cognitive model model profile distin t kind. illustrate con ider the partial cognitive model profile profile for for distinct kind. To To illustrate consider the partial cognitive model (1Goonl ;OOIl( as a, presented presentl'tl ininFigure l'igure13.11. 1).11. The complex informational characterization associated associated with with "good "good nun", man". The complex informational characterization for tance. might relate to notion such uch as as physical physi al beauty, beauty. honour, honour. being being for in instance, might relate to notions morally on. depending depending upon upon morally up'tanding. upstanding, providing providing for for one", one's famIly. family, and and <0 so on, · linguistic context. Such notions notions relate relat to to the relevant utteran" the relevant utterance andlor and/or extra extra-linguistic context. Such of knowledge knowledge having having to todo dowith withdesirable desirablequalities, qualities.characteristic characteri tic bodies bodies of qualities. provision of of advantage advantage and and provision provi ion of ofpleasure, pica ure. as a they theyrelate relatetoto qualities, provision lbe way. in in which whICh being being aa man man affects affects such such issues. i u . the ways em th ofknowledg In t. while In contra contrast, while aa "good "good meal" meal" also also (on concerns the same same bodies bodies of knowledge,• the (omplex informationalcharacterization characteriation associated a ty the the food food is, IS. that that itIt consists con I IS of of do with with the lbe size do whol. me ingredients, ingredient and so on. on. Thus, ThUs,while whileboth bothcomplex complexinformational informational wholesome and so characterization, invohe models associated a '>O
a mallgalaxy galaxy a.a.a small b. aasmall ,mallelephant elephant h. c. aasmall mall mouse mouse c.

small provides provide. in in these these examples examples are arewholly wholly I he metric metri properties properti that that small The different. by several orders magnitud . However, However. this I not not due du toto different, by several orders of of magnitude. this is s toto aa di tinct cognitive cognitiv model model profile profile on oneach ea h bMAll.] facilitating IsmAt.t.1 facilitatinga" access distinct IIl"an« of ofaccess. a(Ce , . Rather, Rather. the the scale \(ale atatwhich whkh(smAt.1.1 "MAli) applies appli isi adjusted, adjusted. instance on the the cognitive cognitive models) model(s)it itisibeing beingmatched matchedwith. with. depending on depending wlltr"t. in III building buildingcomplex campi xinformational informationalcharacterizations—inforcharacterization· - inforIn contrast, In ,hJrollleri/dlion of ofmore mor than than one onelexical Icxi\..ll concept (OI1(Cptwithin Withinthe the same \aIllC malinn.ll characterizations mational lexi al conceptual conceptual unit—matching unlt - mdtchlOS as a, applied applied to tonominal nominallexical leXICalconcepts (oncept lexical model. but butthe Iheactivation activationofofdistinct distinct involv not nol adjusting adJusting of of cognitive (ognilive models, involves (ogniu\c models Il1nc.lcl, - the lh ..·phenomenon phenomenonofofperspectivization. per IlCII..tivi/Jtion.To '(0illustrate, IlIlI trate. conlon cognitive Ider the the distinction distlOlllonininthe Ih.following: followIIlS: sider —

274 274

(.2) (12)

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY

a. aa good a. good man man b. aa small b. mall man man

The complex intOrmational '1 h tomplex mformational characterizations chara terization that that result result from from the theexpressio xpr< 'nlln1 in (12) in (.2) involve inv Ive activation activati n of ofdistinct di tinctcognitive cognitivemodels model accessed a c sedvia viaIMANI. ( IA . I. While (12a) (Iza) involves involv activation a
INTERPkETA1' ION INTERPRETATION

275

J\a,'ab' w., a dittionary r ad through to to Z. 'L available to him was dictionary he lx'gJn.t began at the letter A and read In uch a situation. th example examplein in(13b) (.jb) becomes Ix,<:om semantically ;cmantlC311ya«eptable. In such situation, the acceptable. Theexamplein('lC).onth fa eofit.i al semantically semanti allyanomalou The example in (13c), on the face of it, is also anomalous as aarock rock "not that has h internal internal structure trUtture that that isi subject ublC'1 to toaasequential uentialprocess proc is not an entity that that n be construed onstrued as a having having aa starting startmg point. pomt. Thus, Thus, while whil aadictionary dict.onary' that can is aa txlOk uoder certain novel contexts, context be be construed con truedas as an an entity entitythat that can can be be hook that can. can, under anomalous than lithe read (.)h) is i less I semantically '11.Jnti
Above the utterance: discourse models models Semanticality Semanticality In this th., section ·t.on II briefly bri fly addre\> well fnrmedn ,of onceptlC," . address the the ",mantic semantic well-formedness of conceptions. Conceptions are, Conteption are. by definition, definition. semantically mantically coherent. coher nt. We We will will see !ott that tha t this th" isi the C.1 case by considering situations th ituation in which whi h conceptions conception,fail fail to tomaterialize. materiali7 . The term Thc term semanticality, mltn ticality. as a introduced introdu ed into intolinguistics IingUl tic bybyPustejovsky pu tCJOv ky (1995), related related to to the of ('995). the semantic manti well-formedness well·formedn ofaasentence. >entente.InInLCCM LeeM Theory, scmanti semanticality relatestto well· well-formed utterances, which which iis to Theory. ality relates formed utterances. to say "'Y those that tho,"" that give g.ve rise "'" to to conceptions. concept.on. Utterances tterant that that fail fail in in this thi regard n.-gard arc arc semantically anomalous.. The semanticallyanomalou The reason rea n for f< r failing failing to to achieve a hievcsemanticality semanticalityisi due due e.ther failur to conform to to the th Principles Prin il'l of ofLe i al Concept Concept Integration Integra tion either to a failure Lexical (principles (prindpl • pi-p3), p. 1'3). or or aa failure failure to to conform confoml to tothe thePrinciples Prinupl ofofInterpretation InterpretatIOn (principles 1'41"0). pa-plo), or (prindpl oraa failure failur to to conform conf< rm to toboth. both.In Inother otherwords, words.semantimanti · cality failure CIllity f.ilu re is is aa consequence con\Cquence of offailure failure totosuccessfully u c fullyundergo undergo fusion, fu ion. thereby resulting resulting m in aa string of \vehicles, but no conception. thereby tring of h.dev. but tonception. To con consider this phenomenon phenomenon consider 10 id r thi. omidersome someexamples examplesinvolving involvingthe th verbal verbal began: vvehicle hicl btgmr. (13) ('3)

a. He a. He began began the th book book b. 111e ?He began began th the dictionary dictionary c. 1111e ??He began began the t. th rock rock

On the the face fa e of of it, it. while while the the first fir t example example evidences eviden aa semantically semanti allywell-formed well· formed conception, the conception. the utterance utterante in in (1;h) (.)b) isi, not not well-formed. well fnrmed.This 'Ihi follows follnw as a dictiondi
A noted in in Chapter hapter 3, 3. LC 1 Theory. theory of ofwhat what II refer re~ r to as a LCCM Theory is aa theory As noted Iront\tas togn.tion. i,. itit isi concerned tonccmed with the the way way in which concepconeep frontstage cognition. That is, tion emerge, emerg. and is i focused focused on onthe theinteraction mter.ttionbetween betweenlinguistic Iingui ticcontent, content. tions conceptual content and and extra-linguistic extra·lingui ti context context at at the th level level of ofthe theutterance. utteran . Ilowever. aa full full account .ccount of ofmeaning meaningconstruction con~tru(tionrequires requiresunderstanding understanding However, compo .tional processes proc "abov "the lewl of ofthe theutterance. utterance.This Thi involves iO\'olve the compositional "above" the level will refer refer to aas a discourse model.° modeJ.6That That is, is. utterances utteranc do do not n t building what I will "ccur in isolation: i;olation: they they form foml part part of ofongoing ongoingdiscourse. di\(ourM!.Moreover, 1oreover.utterances utteranc occur th m",lvC\ Jre from other other forms fom" of of themselves are not not dehvered delivered and and interpreted interpreted in in i;olation isolation from \ymbolic representation. representation. For in tan e. the the following ~ 1I0wing attested att ted utterance utterance symbolic For instance, appe.red b.ck of of aa red red double-decker dnuble-de..ker eco-friendly e..o·fri ndlybus bu ininBrighton: Brighton: appeared on the back I.4) Red ( '4) Red.is green! green!

In ord conception.extra-linguistic extra hngu;,ticknowledge knowledge. requiredrelating relatmg In orderr to form aa conception, is required th recently rceently introduced introduced fleet tleet of of eco-friendly ceo·friendly buses buses in in the thecity cityof ofBrighton, Brighton. to the vi ual information relating relating the colour colour of ofthe the bus, bu •and and background batkground knowledge knowledg visual relating to the notion notion of ofthe thecolour tolourgreen green as a aasymbolic ymtx.licrepresentation rl'Prcsentatlon of of relating to the environm ntal "friendliness." "friendlin ." That understanding involves involv aa lot lot environmental That iis,• language understanding ,emant; composition, compo,ition.but but integration integrationwith withvisual vi ual cues, cu •and and access ace more than semantic integration of ofknowledge knowledge relating relating to to other other sorts \Ort of ofstored tored information, information. to and integration propo itional and and visual. vi uaJ. both propositional In addition, addition. utterances utterantev must mu t be be related related and and integrated integrated with withknowledge knnwledge In deriVe'" from fmm other utterances uttl'ral1CC\ and model that that isi, being beingconstructed on trutted during during derived and the model ongoing discourse. di Dune. As As is i now now known knownfrom fromthe thelanguage languageand andcognitive cognitiv sciences, ienccs, ongoing meaning (Sperber fml11 complex "'1111'1 inferential inferential processes prtx (Sperberand ndWilson Wi bon1995), '995). meaning results rc. ult from interattlonal nature of the the exchanges e«hangev during during ongoing ongoing discourse, d."ou,"",. including II1duding the interactional role that that speakers peake" adopt and and negotiate negotiate with with respect r pet.. to to one on another anolh r the range ranse of the of roles

0'

bJ"

l.y «•

taJ..kn

ZWJallritt1 IW&an.nd .,.,.)./w n.nd Madden ((101141 fur zoo.° 1.4 •• Set' /W.I.111 411d ILItiVan•Y t IWO

01a uf. siturth/r1 - ..(\WI ... nmodel:* nw"jd·

ts.stiihot d I" the therebated rNt"" 1101 n..h14..,11n di., usSion

2 76

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY

dunns ongoing ongoms discourse d,S<:OUM (G( (Gonman Slhiffrin 1994), 1994). the Ihe range range ot ofLontexttOnIc I ' Aman 1981; Schiffrin during cu employed employed(Gumperz (Gumperz1982), 1982).the thegoal-directed g al-dim:lmnature nalureofoflanguage ualization cues language a, use u<e in In interaction inl ractlon with with others olhe"(Clark (Clark1998), 1996).lhe exten iv use u ofofgesture g lurethat Ihalisi as the extensive cO .llmed with with language language (McNeill (Mc ' ill 1992; 1992; Kenton Kendon 2004 2004). Iheproliferation proliferalion ofIII co-timed ), the mental spaces, paces, and the th spreading preading of ofinformation informalion across a ro aalattice lalli eofofinterconintercon_ mental 19940 1997), 1997). the integration inlegralion of ofknowledge knowledge n""led menIal spaces paces (Fauconnier (Fauconnier 1994, nected mental Ih construction construclion of of mental mental spaces paces by by virtue VlrtUC of III from multimodal muhimodal ,""ur< from sources in in the Ihe compression comp ionof ofwhat whatisi referred referredto toas a vital vitalrelations relalion ( (Fauconnicr andTurner lumer the Fauconnier and 2002). ofcross-domain cro ·domainconceptual conceptualmetaphors metaphor..lhal neurally 2002), the deployment of that arereneurally in;!antialed 1999). and the triggering lriggering of ofmotor motorand andsensory 'n\(lry Lakoff and and Johnson *999), instantiated ((Lakoff es in the process proc offlanguage understanding(Zwaan (Zwaan2004). 2004).All AUofofthese the re50nan resonances language understanding iissues ,u operale .bove the the level level of ofthe Iheutterance, ulleran e.and andare areininvarious variou,ways way operate at at or above beyond Ihe scope 'ope of ofLCCM LeCM Theory. A full full account accounl of ofmeaning m ningconstruction con trU
-- involves II1vol,<" the Ihe relationship rrlallon;hip belween vehide, (lexical forms) form,) phonological vehicles between phonologIC.1 ,md structure, including in luding access ace \ to to encyclopaedic/conceptual tncydopaedicJconceptuJI and t..c.."mantic.:: semantic structure. knuwkdge "'l11anli< potential) pOlenlial) knowledge ( =semantic ' Ste in partkular Clark 0996); see also (..hate ( 1994).

INTERPRETATION I TERPRfTATION

277 277

- involves involve; principles pnncopl of of semantic mal1lic composition compo ilIonthat Ihalserve ;ervetotonarrow narrowthe the semantic mantic potential potential accessed acc~ in in aa given given utterance, utterance. as asconstrained constrained by by (eXIra lingul tic) context cont .t (extra-linguistic) • Backstage Bawtag cognition cognition invoh' non-linguistic - involves non-Iong", ti principles principl that th.1 facilitate faCllilale construction on trucllon of ofaa di our model discourse model - must mu t involve involve extra-linguistic extra.lingui Ii context, context.background background knowledge, knowledge.e.g., e.g .• pattern completion, recognition pattern cOl11pletion. recognilion of of situated iluated communicative communicatIve intention onlentlon of of language language user, user. and and so so forth. forth.

i .CM Theory attemplS attempts 10 to provide e 1 Theory provide a sound \Qund basis ba is for for the Ih role role of oflinguistic linguistic knowledge, its it interface inlerface with wllh conceptual conceptual knowledge knowledge and and the thelinguistic lingui;!iccomcom. knowledge. positional po ilional processes processes involved at the the level level of ofthe th utterance. utterance. It It seeks to to do do so soinin a way which is cognitively cognillvely realistic, rcali IIC. i.e., i.e.• consistent con Islenl with with the Iheguiding guiding principles prindples of cognitive cognitiv linguistics—as Iongui tl as discussed di u sed in inChapter Chapter )-and III aa way way which whi h 3 and in builds on many builds many of ofthe the theoretical theoretical advances advances made made by by cognitive cognitive linguists lingui ISand and others Ilowever, aa full full account a auntofofmeaning meaning olhers such as as cognitive cogniliv psychologists. psychologi. t.. However, construction the integration
Summary This Thi chapter has ha addressed addr~ interpretation. onterpretation. Interpretation Interpretation involves involves access a c to to conceptual can content model. ininservice servi eofoflinguistically lingui ti ally conceptual lent encoded en oded by by cognitive cognitive models, mediated meaning l11ed,aled me.nong construction. con!>!ruction. Interpretation Inlerprelalion applies appli to to lexical lexical concepts concepl within a given lexical lexi aJ conceptual unit, unit. resulting re uhing in in an an informational informationalcharaccharac. within terization, whi which, leri7<1llon. h. in on effect, effect. isis aa linguistically lingui tically mediated medialedsimulation. imul.lion.Matching Matching occurs recursively, operating on on addillonal additional cognitive
~

278

SEMANTI OMPO ITI,::O.:.:N.::A.:; lI:..: TY ~_ _ __ SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY

overar
Part IV IV Figurative Figurative Language and Thought Thi book represents repr~nt an application applicationof ofl CM Theory Theoryto tofigurative figurative This part of of the book LCCM language and thought. thought. Part Part IV IV consists consi ISof oftwo twochapters. hapt rs.The Thefirst, first.Chapter hapter14, 14. addresses phenomena of metaphor and and metonymy, metonymy. and and provides provides an an addresses th the phenomena of metaphor LC :M account figurative language language understanding under tanding which. argued. LCCM account of figurative which, it isisargued, complement th major major insights insights provided provided by by Conceptual nceptuaJ Metaphor Metaphor Theory. Theory. complements the 15, provides provides an an LCCM LC M account a count of ofthe semanti ofofTime, Tim • The se ond. Chapter hapter ts, second, the semantics i of ub.et of of lexical lexi al concepts on ept from from English Engli h for for this thi presenttng presenting an an .naly analysis of a subset domain. purpo is is to to provide provide an an application application to toone onearea areaofoffigurative figurative domain. The purpose LC M Theory applied to to specific specifi language demonstrate how LCCM language to to demonstrate Theory might might be applied domain. domains.

14 14 Metaphor Metaphor and and metonymy One ofthe. the major majOr successes u. of Ihe comcom One of of cognitive cognitive Iingui!,lics linguistics has has been been 10 to model model the plcxity richness of Ihe human humanimagination. imaginal ion.Until Untilrelatively relalivelyrecently recently inin plexity and and richness of the Iingui~II" cognilive science "ience more moregenerally, generally. itil was W assume(' a umedeither ilherthat thai linguistics and and in cognitive imaginalion was nol he be the the human human imagination was peripheral peripheral10tocognilion cognitionor or thai that ilit could not lemalically sludied~ represenlalive papers papers in which assume ume Ortony (1993) (190 which systematically studied—see representative in Ortony exactly ·u ,ion in in Gibbs Giblx (1994). (1994). Th cognillve linguisIinguisexactly thi this, and and referen(~ references and and dl discussion The cognitive Iitics enterpri ludying human human imagination, imagin.uon. and has has enterprise has has provided provided an an appro'Kh approach 10 to studying been inOuenlial in arguing lhal l.ngWlIl reveal lernati processes al work. been influential in arguing that language reveals systematic processes at work. ha,e argued argued that Ihal such uch processes pro<: . are arc central cenlrallo Ihe way way we we think. think. Cognilive ( :ognitive linguists linguists have to the Th role of ion in in human human thought Ihoughl has ha been been approached, approached. in in cognitive cognllive The role of imaginal imagination way of ofpositing positingrelatively relalivelystable siableknowledge knowledgestructures lructur which whichare are linguistics, linguistics, by way held 10 inhere inhere in in long-term long·lemlmemory. onemory.'these Theseknowledge knowledgestructures lruclurcsare aretermed lermed held to con eplual metaphors metaphor ( (LakotT and Johnson John n1980, 198<>.1999) 1999) and andare arc claimed claImedto10have hav conceptual Lakoff and 10be bemanipumanipureality. In addilion. conceplual metaphors metaphorsare areheld held to psychological reality. addition, conceptual laled by an ive dynamic meaning·con Iru tionprocess proc . known knownasa,concepcon ep· lated an inelu inclusive dynamic meaning-construction lual blending blending (Fauconnier (Fau onnier and and Turner Turner 1998, 1998, 2002; 2001; Grady Grady 2005). 200S). The Theway wayinin tual and processes processes have have been been studied ludied has has predominantly predominantlybeen been which these Ihese structures lructurcs and which 10 examine exam,"e systematicities 'Y'lemaliciliC\ in in figurative figuralive language, I.nguage. particularly particularly in Ihe study study of of to in the conceplual metaphors. metaphors.George eorgeLakoff LakotTand and Mark Mark Johnson, Johnson. the Ihe proponents proponentsof ofthe Ihe conceptual ludy of of conceptual conceplu.,1 metaphor metaphor and and the Ihe architects archilect of ofConceptual Conceplual Metaphor Metaphor study Th ry. argue that Ihal figurative figurauve language language is a consequence consequence of ofthe Iheexistence exi len eofofa a Theory, primarymetaphors melaphors(Lakoff (LakotTand andJohnson Johnson 1999; 1999; see see unIVersal set sel off pre-linguistic pre-linguisli primary universal also Grady rady 1997), 1997). and and aa language-specific language- pecific set sel of ofconceptual conceplualmetaphors, metaphors,both bolhofof also whith map map structure siructure from from more more concrete conerel domains domains of of conceptual conceplual structure, lruclure. which a source domain onto onloless I easily easilyapprehended apprehended aspects aspecb of ofconcepconcep· referred 10 referred to as source domains, lual structure, truclure. referred referred to as a target target domains. domain Together Together these Ih knowledge knowledgestruclructual 10 give give rise ri\C both both to 10the Ih productive productiveuse U\Cofoffigurative figuralh language, languag.asas lures are arc held held to tures weU as a to 10 more more creative creative aspects. uch aas poeti well aspects, such poetic metaphor. metaphor, for for instance instancy (see (see LakotT [Aka and Turner 1989). More recently. il has been argued Ihal conceplual metaphors and Turner 1989). More recently, it has been argued that conceptual metaphors ha,'r. neural instantiation in"anli.lion(see ( discussion di"u~ionininFeldman I·eldon.n2006; lOOt.; (;.11"",and and LakotT have a neural Galli:se 1005; Lakoti LakotTand and Johnson Johnson1999). 1999). 2005; Whil Ih ucc of halh ConccplualMetaphor MetaphorTheory Theoryand andConceptual n eplual While the success of both Conceptual llIending Theory Theory provides pn!Vlde the Ihe backdrop h.Kkdmp for for the Ihe discussion di u~lon ininthis lhl chapter, (hapl .....the Ihe Blending 10. and, and. IIargue, argu •complement (omplemenlthe Iheapapanalr pn.""nled here here are arc orthogonal orthogonal to, analyses presented proach developed developedby bythese Ihesetheories. theories.For I'orinst.' in lance. ConceplualMetaphor MetaphorTheory Theory proaches MC, Conceptual

METAPHOR METONYMY METAPHOR AND AND METONYMY

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT 1~8:;1,-_-,F IGU RA TIVE LANGUA~ E,-,A:.N::::!;:D~T~"!!O!!U:.:·G!!'.:.'T =-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 282

metaphor unders understanding about melaphor not primarily (if at at all) all) a theory abo'" i~is not primarily (if ... nding in in language. IJnguJj;". Rather, Conceptual Metaphor Theory has traditionally been concerned with Rather. nceptual Metaphor Theory b«n with the the nature and and the level of nature of the the various various cognitive cognitiverepresentations—cognitive representation 'ognitivemodels model. in present terms—that serve serve to to structure targetdomains domains in in terms in present tcrtm-that tn!lture target terms of (Ifsource '>Ou«. domains. That That iis, Conceptual Theory iis a theory domain. Conceptual Metaphor Metaphor Theory th ry concerned concerned with with backstagecognition. cognition. What What is required, addition, isi aa theory backstage required. in addition. theory of ofhow howlanguage language deploys and deplo and interfaces mterfac with with these th non-linguistic non Iingul tICknowledge knowledgestructures— trueture understanding. the conceptual metaphors—in th metaphors-in service service of offigurative figurativelanguage languag understanding. That iis, we require aa theory that addresses frontstage cognition. In That addr fron~tage cognition. In this thi chapter, chapter. LCCM Theory.1 Theory.' of l.CCM attempt to provide provid such uch an account a count from from the theperspective perspec1iv of II auempt Phenomena in in need of explanation Phenomena explanation

order to to be In order he able able to toprovide providean anLCCM IJ Maccount a countofoffigurative figurativelanguage language phenomena to be addressed. identify the phenomena to he addr sed. In understanding, we must understanding. mu t first first identify In particular II addr~ address the the following: particular foil wmg:

283

the ont nt encoded and the the cognitive cognItIve model mod Iprofile profile to to which whi hitIt the hnguistie linguistic content encoded and atTord c , might mightbe beglossed glossedasa (UPWARD IUPWARD VERTI AL MOTION lOTION BEFORE affords aaccess, VERTICAL BEFORE NOW). NOW). In itali "went ..m liP. In (.) ( t) the the expression expression in italics, up. relat relatestotoan anentity entity which which can undergo veridical n. Hence, llence. the lexical an interprettlllerpret veridical (i.e., ( i.e.,actual) actual)moti motion. lexical concept concept sanction sanctions an ation up relates the vertical verti aI axis. axis. In In the the ation in which ""m went up relates to upward motion motion on the second th expr ion ""III lip relates tudent' grades. grad As As second example in (2) the expression went up relates to to the student's II", slud"m'sgrades g",des refers nphy ical entity an not undergo undergo the student's refers to to an a non-physical entity which which thus cannot ..mllp veridi ion "went veridicalI motion. motion, the expr expression up would appear not to apply in the same way (.). In (2) "went ..III up lip refers in the the student's tud nt' way aas itit does does in in (1). refers to to an an improvement in being used used in in its itsspatial spatial sense, sense. we wemight might grades. that ""III grades. Given Given that went up iis not being informally ge aas being being non-literal non-literal or or figurative figurative in in nature. nature. informallydescribe describeits its uusage Ilence. ofthe the challenges challeng in in this thi chapter chapter isi to topresent presentan an',CCM LC .M account of Hence, one of of figurative c.ptur the th different ditTerent conceptions on eption asso figurative meaning construction construction which captures associated with the two utterances ulleran III (.) and (2). and doing so while a counting for in ( t) and (2), doing so while accounting for expr ion: went up. lip. the quite ditTerent different contributions of of the same expression:

""m

Metaphor veflUSmetonymy metonymy Metaphor versus

literal and figurative language, between literal the distlllClion distinction hetween language. •• th the distinction between • th metaphor and and metonymy. metonymy. hetween metaphor I elaborate below on on some some of of the the issues i u at .t stake stake ininaccounting ac ountmg for for these th elaborate helow distinctions. di tinction. versus figurative Literal veflUS figurative language language

While Gibbs Whil Gibb (t994) ('994) warns warn against again t the the possibility po ibility of ofmaking making aaprincipled principled distinction between the two, pointing to the range of often contradictory di tinction hetween th two. pointing to the range of often contradictory ways ways in which linguists, linguist. philosophers, phtlosophers. and and cognitive cognitivescientists ientimhave havedefined defined reasonable grounds these notions, II will th will assume a ume for for now now that that there there are are r sonable ground for for supposing uppo 109 that there there is i some basis basi for for the the intuition intuitionthat that there thereisI aJ distinction di tinction between hetween literal literal and figurative figurative language, languag. even en if drawing a hard hard and and fast fa~t line line between hetween the the two two may may not notbebestraightforward. traightforward. To To make make this this point pointclear, clear, consider ""III up, liP. and examples eXJmpl~ of of the the following followingkind: kind: con ider the the expression e pr . ion went went up (t) (. ) The Therocket rocket ""III lip (in (in the the sky) ky) (2) Thestudent's tudent'.grades grades went .....", up up (during the the course cour of ofthe the semester) mester) (1) The

Without aa specific cont xt, native natIVespeakers peake ... of ofEnglish rngli hinformally mformally pexific utterance uUeran e context, define define went Wc.'''' up as relating relating to 10 veridical veridical (i.e., actual) J<.lu01I) motion motionininan anupwards upwartb direction LCCM dir ·tion along alongthe thevertical verti alaxis. axi .InInterms termsofofLC ' MTheory, Theory.we wecan cansay saythat thatthe the vehicle vehide went 'n'm up up is i conventionally conventionallyassociated a SO(:iatoowith withaalexical lexi 31 concept con rplwhich, which,given given irresentation..ti nowled ge rt'pUW'nt.llkm,., nal met.iphot% .hilt examine tomtit' , between •I I1 a.tw.U namllwthe dw tart rcw"unJlIp Mho.. n,orkept uorkt'l'lu.aJ mc1"I~h.·r and .nJkknuwW %LImcdby:CMTheor,intxcap. nw.J bY' 1(<< i l'bc-ury. an tht 1lC:J.1 dwr'('f",

. onclly. we need to be be able able to to account ac ount for for the the intuition intuitionthat thatmetaphor metaphor and Secondly, the two forms form of offigurative figurativ language languag which whi h have hav received received most 010 t metonymy. metonymy, the auention cognitive linguistics, Iingui ti • and and cognitive cognitive science ienc. more more generally, generally. arc are attention in in cognitive phenomena. with, with. presumably, pr umably. di tinct sorts sort of oflinguisti and perhaps perhaps di tinct phenomena, distinct distinct linguistic and conceptual ri to them. them. An An important important objective objective in in the the conceptual operation operations giving giving rise an LCCM LC M account of ofthe the meaning-construction meaning-con truction present present chapter iis to develop an proc..... responsible respon ible for the the figurative figurative language language phenomena ph nomen aoften oftendescribed described processes metaphor and and metonymy. 01 tonymy. These Theseare areexemplified exemplifiedby byexpresexpr as constituting metaphor Slon th following following kind: sions off the Metaphor (3) a. a. My My boss bo is i a pussycat p"ssrcal (3) b. The Thestudent's tudent' grades grades went ..."m up lip h. Metonymy Metonymy Frallce rejected rejected the EU EU constitution con titullon ((4) 4 ) a. France The ham lID", sandwich lalldwic/I has h asked for the the bill bill b. The mod rn linguistics, hngui ti s. metaphor metaphor isi often often understood und r tood as as involving involving the th interinter· In modern pretation (or (or conceptualization) conceptualization) of ofone oneentity entityininterms term of ofsomething somethingelse, else.as asinin my boss bo Sin terms terms of ofaa pussycat, PflsS)'(ol, or or an an improvement improvement in instudent's tudent' grades grad in interms term ofan object in in motion. motIon.Metonymy Metonymyon onthe theother otherhand handisi often oftentaken takentotorelate relatetoto of a referent referent other than than the the one oneliterally literallydesignated. d ignated.For for instance, instance, in in (4a), (43). France Frallce refers to the portion portion of ofthe theFrench french electorate electorate that that voted votedagainst again tendorsing endorsingaa refers [urop.an Union constitutIon in In a•texas lOOS referendum referendum held held by bythe theFrench Iren h European Union constitution governm nl. Similarly, Similarly. given r lauranl scenario, cnario, and and two two waiting waitingstaff staff government. given a.1 restaurant

METAPHOR ANll Mf.:TONYMY METAPHOR AND METONYMY

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT 284 ~!4 _____F~I~G~U~RA~T~IV~E ~ LA~N~G~U~A(~i~f~A~N~D~T~I~IO ~ U~G~II~T____________________

who talkingabout aboutaapani particular hart;11.2 comparismo TradItionally, Examples uch suchaastho thoseinin(3'1) (3a)making makinguseofth use of the predicate predicate nominati nominative Exampl .. vehicle 'chId of which I shall have more to say below are the kinds of examples that are of which I shall have more to say below ar~ th~ kind of exampl that are usuallyemployed employedtoto support this perspective. and )ohn~n Johnson inin thm their u,ually uppon thi per peetive. Lakoff (.. koff .nd of th the theoreti",1 theoretical con construct of the ddevelopment .. clopment of truet of the conceptual (onceptual metaphor met.phor have have subsumed a wider range of examples as relating to metaphor, to include sub umed a wider rang of exampl a relating to metaphor, to indude •, ample% of the following sort: exampl of the following sort: going s",oo,lIIy smoothly in Things .r~ arc gOlllg in th~ the operating operating theatre theatre (5) Thing (5)

He wa was III in aa ,tat state of of shock (6) lie (6) ,hock after after the the election eI tion result r.. ult (7) The economy is going from bad to worse (7) The economy is goillg fro", bad '0 worse As Lakoff Lakoffand and )ohn~n Johnson (t980) (198o) first these are As fi ....t observed, ob.. rved, examples example such uch.as the
See Evans

.11111d Green (soon) for a felt' Ile% 5« I ".am .nd (.rC'C'n (1006 ) fur. fC"VM'W See the collection of paper in Barcelona 2( • lhe: UIUn.1Inn (I' In !l.tn:dul\,l h

J

JUre"

) tier

· ...... ' furinstance. In t .. ~t'.

285

metonymy taphor. \I~nce, whilewwemight mightinforinformetonymyfunction functions differently differently Cmm from m metaphor. Hence,whil mally gloss metonymy as the rdation 111 which "X stand for V; by the same mally gloss metonymy as the relation in which "X stands for Y," by the same token, lation"X in terms tenns of ofY." V." token,metaph metaphorr isis the the .. relation "X understood understood in

Assumptions Assumptions tlefo .. prou'eding eM account Before proceedingwtth withan anl LCCM accountofofthe thephenomena phenomena intmduced introduced .bove, above, II first, briefly, present my. umption A consequence of the LCCM perspective first, briefly, present my assumptions. A consequence of the LCCM perspective i,isthat ing from m~ proce thatliteral.nd literal andfigurative figurativelanguage.re language areseen seenas.ri as arising fromthe the same processes of meaning construction. In other word>, they can be!>Cen.s point lying along. of meaning construction. In other words, they can be seen as points lying along a (continuum ontinuum of meaning con truction, rather than being du to whoUy different of meaning construction, rather than being due to wholly different meehani ms. Iy, metaphor particular ~
ulteranc utterances there figur.tive and literal language language and literal between figurative there iis continuity continuity between there I continuity continUIty between between metaphor metaphor and .nd metonymy metonymy there is figurative th~ nature nature of of figurative languag~ language understanding understandingisisaa consequenc~ consequence of of the semantic representation representation .nd manti composition, compo ition, which whi h isi totosay, say,the the semantic and semantic me structures tructures and .nd processes proce as asdescribed d ribedfor forliteral literallanguag Pan Il\I same language ininParts and Ill \II of ofthe th~ book. book. and

literal versus understanding Literal versus figurative figurative language language understanding The distinction di tinction between between what what II will will refer refer totoasa a aliteral literalconception—the conc~ption-the The meaning. iated with with aa literal literal utterance—on utterance--{)n the th one onehand, hand,and .ndaafigurafigurameaning associated tiv~conception—the conception-th~meaning meaningassociated a i.tedwith witha •figurative figurativ~utterance—on utteranc...-onthe the tive other, relates relates to to that th.t part pan of ofthe thesemantic scmanticpotential potenll.1which whi hisi activated activatedduring during other, theprocess proc of ofinterpretation interpretationduring duringthe theconstruction con tru tionofof. on epllon.While Whil a • the a conception. literal conception conception canonically canonicaUyresults result ininan aninterpretation interpretationwhich whichactivates .ctivatesa a literal cognitive model, model, or orcognitive (ognitivemodels, model,within withinthe thedefault, default,which whichisi totosay say cognitive prtmary, cognitive cognitiv model modelprofile, profile,aafigurative figurativeconception (onc~ptionarises ariseswhen whencognicogni primary, tivemodels model are are. tivatedininthe th~secondary ~ondarycognitive cognitivemodel modelprofile. profile.Moreover, Mor~ver, tive activated th greater greaterthe theaccess accessroute routelength, length,ininthe th sense sen defined definedininChapter hapter13,t,\.the th more more the feel. figurativethe theconception conceptionis ilikely likelytotofeel. figurative The b .. i di tin tion between hteral versu figurative figurativeconceptions, con ~ption in , in t~nn The basic distinction between literal versus terms themechanisms melhani,n" ofof meaning m aning construction construction posited po,itedbyby LCCM L .eM Theory, Thl'Ory, ofofthe relal~, as a we webegan begdn totosee \t.'e in the prcYiou~ lhaptcr. to .t da h inone lh relates, in the previous chapter, to a clash in oneofofthe

286

METAPHOR AND METONYMY

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT

primary cognitive model profiles of the lexical concepts in the same lexical conceptual unit undergoing matching in interpretation. As we shall see below, the distinction between metaphor and metonymy, from the perspective of LCCM Theory, concerns the respective discourse function of each type of figurative language understanding, and hence, the way in which clash resolution functions in terms of the conception being constructed. In order to get a sense of how the language understanding process results in literal and figurative conceptions, consider Figure 14.1.

Literal conception

Figurative conception

Primary activation in primary cognitive model profile

Primary activation in secondary cognitive model profile

Match

pnrna ►y

cognott f2 models

Fusion (stage 2). interpretation

Clash resolution: search of secondary cognitive models

Fusion (stage 1): Lexical concept integration

Lexical concept selection FIGIT*1- 14.1. Meaning construction processes in LCCM Theory leading to literal

versus figurative conceptions

287

Figure 14.1 illustrates the following. At interpretation, the primary cognitive model profiles for lexical concepts which afford access to conceptual content And are in the same lexical conceptual unit undergo matching. The Principle of Conceptual Coherence requires that a clash in the cognitive model profiles of the two (or more) lexical concepts undergoing interpretation is avoided. The Principle of Ordered Search ensures that primary cognitive models undergo matching first. If there is a match, primary activation of one or more primary cognitive models occurs. If there is no match then there is a clash in the primary cognitive model profiles of the relevant lexical concepts. In order to avoid a clash, a search is initiated in the secondary cognitive model profile. As we saw in Chapter to the secondary cognitive model profile relates to knowledge that is not directly associated with a given lexical concept, as it does not form part of a lexical concept's access site. As such, the secondary cognitive model profile constitutes a very large semantic potential available for search. The Principle of Ordered Search serves to ensure that the search in the secondary cognitive model profile proceeds in a coherent way. That is the secondary cognitive models are searched to facilitate a match based on their conceptual coherence with the primary cognitive models which form part of the lexical concept's access site. Put another way, this principle also ensures that secondary cognitive models are searched in the order of their relative "distance" from the point of lexical access. Hence, secondary activation continues "upwards" through the secondary cognitive model profile until a match is achieved, giving rise to primary activation of one or more secondary cognitive models. In order to illustrate, I consider by now familiar examples relating to the lexical concept [FRANCE]. A literal conception arises from the utterance in (8) while a figurative conception arises for the utterance in (y). By way of reminder, the partial cognitive model profile for I FRANCE] presented in previous chapters is given here as Figure 14.2.

(8)

Literal conception France has a beautiful landscape

(9)

Figurative concept ion France rejected the EU constitution

A literal conception arises for the first example by virtue of a match occurring between the informational characterization of [BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE' and the primary cognitive model profile to which I FRANCE] affords access. As interpretation relates, in the utterance in (8), to a lexical concept 'FRANCE] and an informational characterization associated with I imAtrrinit. LANDSCAPE', these being the only elements in this utterance which are associated with conceptual content, a search takes place in the cognitive model profile associated

288

THOUGHT AND THOUGHT FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE ANO

tlTAPUOR AND METONYMY METAPHOR AND METONYMY

CONSTITUTIONAL CONsnTUnONAL SYSTEM SYSTEM

ELECTORATE ELECTORATE

HEAD OF OF HEAD STATE STATE

NATIONAL NATIONAL SPORTS SPORTS

POLITICAL POUnCAL SYSTEM SYSTEM

CUISINE CUISINE

GEOGRAPHICAL GEOGRAPHICAL LANDMASS

NATION NAnON STATE STATE

HOLIDAY HOLIDAY DESTINATION DESnNATION

-

[FRANCE] [FRANCE)

{FRANCE] 14.2.PUII.I Partial(ognll'vc cognitive model IFIGURE It,CRE '4.1. mod I profile for (rRANerl [LANDSCAPE] having (BEAUTIFUL) and ILANDSCAPE) With IFRANc:E), as the [FRANCE], as wilh lh lexical lexical concepts con epts IBEAUTIFUL) undergone interpretation undergone inlerpretation have have formed formed an aninformational inforn,alionalcharacterization. charaet rizalion. I tense, their cogOllive cognitive model Hen e,lheir model profiles profil are a~ no nolonger longeravailable availableas assearch arch domains. domai n>. The FRANCE]. Hence, a search occurs in the primary cognitive model profile for arch occur Ihe cognitive model profil for I FRAN E). The and Ordered Principles ofConceplUal of Concept sal Coherence and PrinCIplerdered.Search arch serve serve to 10 ensure ensure aa match malch FRANCE'. for (8) in the th primary primary cognitive cognitive model model profile profileof ofIIrRAN EI· In terms lerm of of primary primary activation aClivalion in in (8), the the Principle Principle of ofConceptual Conceplua)CoheroherNDM ASS ence ensures enee en ure, that Ihal the Ih GEOGRAPHICAL GWGRAPIIICAL LA LANDMA S cognitive cognilive model model for fo r primary aactivation. That iis,,lhi this cognitive [FRANCE] receives IFRANCll receives primary IIvallon. Thai cogniliv model model matches mal(he, the landscape". This Ihe informational inforn,alionalcharacterization charaCierizalionassociated associaledwith with"beautiful "beaUlifullandscape". This follows follow as "' there Ihere is i, aa clash d"h between bel ween the Ihe informational informalionalcharacterization characlerizalionand andthe Ihe FRANCO: other olh r cognitive cognillve models model in in the Iheprimary primary cognitive cognilive model modelprofile profilefor for [IrRAN' I): NATION STATE, STATE, and HOLIDAY 1I0LlOAY DESTINATION. Ol$TlNATION. Hence, Hen (', the the conception con eplion which whi h arises for .ri for (8) is i literal hleral as activation aelivalion occurs occurs solely \olely in in the Ih primary primary cognitive cognolive model mod Iprofile. profil • all the In contrast, conlra\l, in in (9) (9) there Iher is i a clash cia h between bel"cen .11 th cognitive cognilive models model in in the lhe primary promary cognitive coglllllYe model model profile profile associated a "xialed with wilh I(,FRANCE] "AN' , ) and the Ihe informainfornlJ tional lional characterization characlcril.lion associated a so<:,alcd with wilh "EU "EU constitution". conslllUllon". Due Ou to 10 application applicallon of this gives of the Ihe Principles Principle of ofConceptual ,oneeplualCoherence Coherenceand andOrdered rdercdSearch, reh,lhi givesrise ri to. .lr
289

ach,eve Ihe "ELECTORATE I (:T()RATI cognllive lIen(e, in in achieves pnmary primary a(lival,on, activation, "is the cognitive model. model. Hence, (9), ~ Uowing interpretation, inlerprelalion, the Iheinformational informalionalcharacterization characterization associated ialed (9), following wilh rRANC t) iis Ihal ~Ifically due highhghling,that thai with I[FRANCE] that of"eI«torale", of "electorate", and and .specifically due 10 to highlighting, "pori ion of the Ihe French I·rench e1cclorale ,oted 'non' in in the Ihe lOllS lilu"portion electorate which voted 2005 IU EU con constitution referendum". referendum': A Ihe ELECTORATE model is i aa secondary ondary cognicogniAs the ELECTORATE cogOlti,·e cognitive model live thi means means that lhal Ih i figuralive nature. tive model, this the con«plion conception is figurative in in nature. In um, Ihe fining feature ~ alure of a literal hlcral con«plion Ihal matching mal hingoccurs O(cur In suns, the ddefining of a conception isi, that in primary cognilive model profiles profil of ofthe Iherelevant relevanl lexical lexi al concepts. concepts.The The in lhe the primary cognitive model defining fealure of a figurative figuralive coneeplion is aa clash clash in in the Iheprimary primary cognitive cognllive defining feature of a conception is model profiles profil of of the Ihe relevant relevanl lexical lexical concepts concepl necessitating nccessllaling clash da h avoidance, avoidance, and profile of of one one and hence primary activalion activation in in the SlXondary secondary cognilive cognitive model profile (or more) of ofthe Ih relevant relevanl lexical lexical concepts. concepl .

Metaphor IlavlOg illu>lrated the Ihe distinction dislin(lion between belweenliteral hleral and andfigurative figuraliveconcepconcepHaving JU justI illustrated lion, now provide provide aa sketch kel h of of the the meaning-construction meaning-con IruCiion processes proce Ihal give give tions, II now that rise melaphoric conceptions. conceplion,. IIfirst fiN of ofall all consider con ider metaphoric melaphoric conceptions con
Whal isi strikingly slrikingly figurative figuralive about aboul the Ihe example exampl in in (3a) (J3) isi that Ihal the Iheentity enlily What designaled by by my Illy boss bo s is i. not nol normally normally taken laken as a being being aa member member of ofthe Iheclass cia designated of pussycats. pus ytwlMetaphor kt..I"hllrTheory. rtw. ..·v InInparticular, J\lrtltuLlIr, while _hiltconceptual cntkrptWll orthogonal mct.arhnnare .arc.' hypothesized hvrvthbllN to III structure n\kturt primary rnnury cognitive (l'5"IIIV(,models, ""MId inInterms tt'TPltofttflanguage L..n~understandul'kkr ...nd metaphors hJUr.. II\ Language ~J Ulfk"t"r''''M ttk primary rrunuy cognitive U,,"III\(' model mo.ldd profile(s) rwhl ,)of.,(the lhting figurative conceptions Inutlw involve " a "l.&.-\h clash In in the ...... ".llu"'('1'1 nlt'tolrho WhKhstructure tnklutc.' lexical concept%unJcorll.1Inllu'i(ln undergoing tusiam. Ilk' Then:t..ttOntoh,p relationship MWft'n between u.n..q.tu..l conceptual metaphors--which kr pts and ..h<.tr.... ' ,,,e uln,",1" an.1 hence honkC'contain w tnknowledge kh
In,

290

METAPHOR AND METONYMY

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT

This vehicle exemplified by the utterance in (to) involves the copular or "link ing" verb be which combines with a nominal, e.g., "a pianist". The nominal functions as the essential part of t he clausal predicate: "is a pianist". The function of the lexical concept conventionally paired with RE in this symbolic unit is to signal a stative relation t Langacker isgia). Namely, "my boss is a member of the class of pianists; a situation which persists through time. The same cannot hold for the example in (3a) as, in the normal course of events, someone's boss cannot literally be a pussycat. That is, the person designated by the expression my boss is not normally taken to be a member of the class of pussycats. The metaphoric conception which this utterance gives rise to is derived from a property which is usually associated with pussycats, namely that they are extremely docile and often affectionate, and thus not frightening or intimidating in any way. in this utterance, we are being asked to understand the boss not in terms of being a pussycat, but in terms of exhibiting some of the properties and behaviours often associated with pussycats as manifested towards their human owners, such as being docile, extremely friendly, and thus non-forbidding and perhaps easy to manipulate. Such a conception might he contrasted with the conception which might derive from an utterance such as: (n) My boss is an ogre The metaphoric conception derived from (1f) involves understanding the boss in terms of extreme ferocity, a property associated with the mythical creature referred to as an ogre. Yet how does the metaphoric conception associated with (3a) arise The LCCM approach to figurative meaning construction allows us to see the similarities and differences between metaphor and the literal predicate nominative examples such as (to). An important point of similarity relates to the process of fusion crucial for meaning construction, involving both integration and interpretation. As noted in the previous section, figurative language, of which Meta phor is a subtype, diverges from literal language use in terms of the sorts of access routes it provides, and specifically primary act i vat ion in the secondary cognitive model profiles of the lexical concept which is undergoing clash resolution. In an utterance such as "My boss is a pianist", the two relevant lexical concepts for interpretation are [Boss] and 1PiAsfisrl. This follows as these are the only two lexical concepts in the utterance which have access sites and thus provide direct access to conceptual content. Interpretation proceeds by attempting to match cognitive models in the primary cognitive model profiles associated with each of these lexical concepts as guided by the Principle of Conceptual Coherence and application of the Principle of Ordered Search. A match is achieved in the primary cognitive model profiles of each lexical concept. That is, it is semantically acceptable to state that My boss is a pianist because the referent of my boss is a human and humans can be pianists. The

291

reason, then, why the conception associated with (to) intuitively feels literal is that the access route is relatively short, limited to the primary cognitive model profiles to which both [Boss] and [PiAsiisT] afford access. Now let's consider how the metaphoric conception arises, In the example in (3a), the process of interpretation leads to a clash in the primary cognitive model profiles of 'Huss! and PUSSYCAT]. This is where metaphor differs from literal class-inclusion statements. A partial primary cognitive model profile for 'Boss] is provided in Figure 14.3. The primary cognitive model profile for I Bossy includes, at the very least, cognitive models relating to the fact that a boss is, typically, a human being, and the complex body of knowledge we each possess concerning what is involved in being a human being, that a boss has particular pastoral responsibilities with respect to those for whom he or she is line-manager, as well as managerial responsibilities and duties, both with respect to those the boss manages, the subordinate(s), and the particular company or organization for whom the "boss" works. In addition, there are an extremely large number of secondary cognitive models associated with each of these, only a few of which are represented in Figure 14.3. In particular, by virtue of being a human being, a boss has a particular personality and exhibits behaviour of various sorts, in part a function of his/her personality, in various contexts and situations. In addition, each boss exhibits a particular managerial style, which includes interpersonal strategies and behaviours with respect to those the boss manages. The boss can, for instance, be aggressive or docile with respect to the subordinate. Moreover, there is a cliched cultural model of a ferocious and aggressive boss, who seeks to keep employees "on their toes" by virtue of aggressive and bullying interpersonal behaviour. By contrast, a boss who is relatively placid and can thus be treated as a colleague rather than a superior may be somewhat salient with respect to the stereotype.'

BEHAVIOUR

PERSONALITY

114 JUAN

FIGURE

14. ;.

E X PE FIJI NU OF MANAGEMENT NIT SuBORCANATE)

CONTROL OF SUBORDINATE

Partial primary cognitive niot.kl profile for i Rossi

Sec Likors {1987) diuo,sion of the war ICMs can nietonymitAlly give rise to prototype effects,

by bervanK .6% - Lognstive reference p ► ino%.

-

2 291 29

FIGURA T I V 6 LANGUAGE LA NG UAG£ AN ;.:D ~ T;.; ".;; O.;; U.;; G;.; II;..;T_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ FIGURATIVE AND THOUGHT

DOCILE (TOWARDS HUMANS)

....."""'"

ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR

MOT""

MOTOR BEHAVIOUR

PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES

DIE

EATING HABITS

....."""'"

PATTERNS OF PATTERh!J Of BEHAVIOUR

AGGRESSIVE (TOWARDS OUtER OTHER (TOWARD6

CAT'\) CATsi

SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

HOUSEHOLD PET

(PUSSYCAT]

F",l'" I

model profil. profile r.for 1pussycmi '4.4. P.rIl.1 iognitivc C08Il1t; .. modd r [.l·S YCA TI I4.4. Partial

Just ieal con ept for [80 sl has ha aa sophisticated sophi tt ated cognitive cognitive model model Just as as the the Ie lexical concept for [Ross] profil whi h the the lexical lexical concept concept potentially potentially affords afford access, ace ,so too the the profile to to which so too [I'U ~Y(. AT I lexilal provid a,,~ wid range range of ofknowledge knowiL-dge 1PUSSYCAT] lexical concept provides access to to aa wide tructures. A very profil isi provided providedininFigure Figure14.4. t4.4. structures. very partial partial cognitive cognitive model profile The lexical concept [PUSSYCAT] [pu SYCATI relat relatestotocognitiv cognitivemodels models having having to do UlIl emlllg physical physical attributes, attributes, including including body bodyshape 'hape with, at least, knowledge concerning and size, ize, diet and and eating eating habits, habit,patterns patternsof ofbehaviour, behaviour.and andaapussycat's pu yeat' status, tatu. in of choice choice for for many many people. peopl .In Interms term in W"'tem Western culture. culture, aas the the household pet of of secondary 'ondory cognitive models, model. there there are are aa number number that that relate relate to to our ourknowknow sociated wilh sorts of ofbehaviours behaviourspussycats pu yeats exhibit. exhibit.For Forinstance, instan e. ledge ledge aassociated with the sorts S ' also also exhibit exh.hlt animal animal behavbehav manner of motion in luding hunting, hunting. reproduction reproductionand andso forth. forth.Finally, Finally. iour> iours of certain kinds including yeat also «xial behaviour, behaviour. including including behaviour behaviour towards toward, other other pu pussycats also exhib.t exhibit social conspecifics, and Ilence. social SO<.ial behaviour behaviour is is aJ con;peeific>. and behaviour towards toward human~. humans. Hence, cognitive related to at at least lea t two two primary primary cognitive cognitive models: model: those tho of of cognitive mod modelI related PAll I RNS OF 81lfAVIOliR and HOl: 111010 PET. PIT. PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOUR HOUSEHOLD In e.. mple in (3a), ( 1J). aa figurative ligurative conception conception arises ari to aafailure failure to tu In the the example due to tablish aa match match in the the primary primary cognitive cognitive model model profiles profiles associated associated with with establish Boss[I and thetwo two lexic.1 lexical concepts relevant [80s and (PUSSYCAT], [Pl" weATI. the relevant for for interpretation. interpr tation. lIen..:c. dol h tKlUr ICJding to aJ search \Cdn..h in in aa secondary «ondJry cognitive logniti\'c model mtxlcl Hence, aa clash occurs leading profil . In In LCCM 1eeM Theory. th particular particular lexical lexical concept con ept selected ... Ietted for for clash clash profile. Theory, the [

for primary rC"Allutinn. primary activation activJtion in the the secondary ondary cognitive cognitive resolution, and hence. hence, (or m ..del profile* pmlik. Iis ",ntextually 'J hi, isi, formalized formalil d as a, the thePrinciple Principle model contextually determined. This of Context-induced Context ·induced Clash d. h Resolution. R oJution.This Thisstates tatl">the thefollowing: following:

193 293

METAPHOR AND METONYMY METONYMY METAPHOR

( I'" Prin iple of of context-induced Context inducedClash Cia h Resolution Re,olution 'I1) ) Principle re clash i required, required. the the lexical lexical concept con eptwhose who In In ea cases wh where clash resolution is secondary profile is i searched arched to to resolve resolve the theclash cia hisi secondary cognitive cognitive model profile determined context. This Th. isi achieved achieved by byestablishing establishingaafigurative figurative determined by context. ofcontext. conlext.The Th lexical lexical target and figurative vehicle, vehide. on on the th basis ba i of target and a figurative concept that that isi. established e tahli hed as as the the figurative figurative vehicle vehicle isi subject ubject to to clash cia h resolullon. resolution. In utterance in ()3) II am am assuming a uming aa discourse discourse context context in in which which the th In lhe the utterance in (3a) ,pe.ker u ing their their boss. 00 . In In such u h aa, ntext.the thefigurative figurativetarget target speaker has has been been di discussing context, target for short) is I~ the the boss, 00 • as a this thi is i the topic topic or or theme themeof ofthe theutterance. utterante. (or target Infom.ally. lhe of the the utterance utterance isis to to say saysomething something"about" "aoout" the theboss. 00 . Informally, the point point of 6 hom thi follow that that the th figurative figurativ vehicle vehide (or (orvehicle vehidefor forshort"), h rt ).isi the lh From this it follows pu y at. Crucially. 'ondary cognitive model model profile profile of ofthe thevehicle, vehicle. pussycat. Crucially, itit is is the the secondary here [PUSSYCAT], Ipus YCATI. rather order to to ratherthan thanlhe thetarget. target,which which undergoes undergoes search in order fa ililat clash lash resolution. rd • the prin iple in (pH) (pit) serves serves to to facilitate resolution. In In other other w words, the principle ofthe the lexical lexi al concepts' concepts' secondary secondary cognitive cognitive model modelprofiles profile isi detem.ine determine which of subject search. subject to search. Before con luding the discussion di u ion of ofthe the example example in in (3a), ()3).consider con ideraacontext conlext Before concluding in making making the the utterance utteran e provided provided in tn (3a) ()3) isisactually actually in which whi h the the speaker, peaker. in lalking pu yeal and bemoaning bemoaning the lhe fact fact that, lhat. due dueto toan anextremely extremely talking aooutlheir about their pussycat (on trained by by fussy and awkward awkward pet. peaker's life is, i • in certain respects, respects. constrained pet, the speaker's the "demands" at for on. In In such u h. "demands" of of their their cat for food. food, affection. affection, attention. attention, and so on. a enario. the lhe cat eat owner owoer might might say: y: My My boss boss is scenario, is aa PUSS}'Cat. pussycat.Thi This interpretation. interpretation, a~ the the "bossy "00 y cat" interpretation is also accounted for for by by the the r fer to as which II refer Prin iple of .on text induced Clash la h Resolution. Resolution. In In this thi case, a • it it isi the the [Boss} 180s I Principle of Context-induced SYCAT] lexical lhe figurative figurative rather lhan the the [ [pu rather than PUSSYCAT] lexicalconcept conceptwhich which becomes becomes the vehicle. and hen e whose who secondary secondary cognitive cognilive model model profile profile isi subject ubject toto vehicle, and hence ... arch and lash resolution. resolution. Moreover, Moreover.th [pu sYcATllexical con cpt search and hence clash the [PUSSYCAT] lexical concept becom lhe figurative figurative target largel as a the the interpretation interprelation represents represent an attempt attempt to to becomes the aascribe ribe some quality quality 10 "pu sycat". to the "pussycat". la h between between the th primary primary The interpretation interpretation ari i aa clash arises aas follows. follows. There is cognilive profiles associated associated with with [Boss] [80 I and and [pu Y ATI as a in in the the cognitive model profiles [PUSSYCAT' "00 ycat" cat"interpretinterprel canonical interpret.ti n described described earlier. earlier. With With the the "bossy canonical interpretation at ion. the the difference difference arises ari due du to to context: context:the thespeaker peak risi describing describingtheir theirpet pet ation, 00 .The Theprinciple prin iple hence. utterance isi "about" "aoout" their their pet pet rather rather than than their lheirboss. hence, the utterance [00 Ilexical lexicalconcept conceptisi treated treatedasa the lhefigurafigura given (pit) ensures ensures that that the the [Boss] given in (pit) loosslreceives r eivesan aninformational informallonalcharacterization charactemationthat that tive vchide. That is, i •!Rossi tive vehicle. relates an adult adult human human inina aworkplace workplacescenario, scenario. but butrather rath r any any relates not not to an organism th.t serves rve to toconstrain constrainand andthus lhu restrict restrict a organi,m that that exhibits exhibit behaviour behaviour that human\ freedom f"...... om in .n certain
w,,..

The figurative h is a non •• 1M h"U'IIW vehicle \'Ch ...k is I the 1M lexkal k:u.. .lIeirpre...ion np,-nuo .n whit Whkoh It being MIn. dephired lkrl.~inIn" nunIncr.,' h'""'"sv.iv. and anJis.. nniio be contused umlmN With l~ notion "tlhun of 01.a (phinitiliigicAli jphnnnic"l(X"' .vehicle. ,tl\.dll'. not to he with the

-294 294

______________

nc;uRATlvE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT

primary "cllvatlon activation of a cognitive primary cognillVe model model relating relalmg to 10 restrictive r Iriclive behaviour behaviour and an praClier. practice. The gradeswent wentupup The student's student's grades 'ow let's leI's consider con ider the Ihe kind kind of ofmetaphoric melaphoric conception con eplion associated a. i.led with wilh aann Now intransilive mol ion vehide: TIlt s"IIIft/'s grades grmlN went W(/I'up. lip. The metaphori metJ phnri by application application of ofth PrinCIpleof ofConceptual Conceptual volves matching which isis guided by the Principle Coherence ensurr a match match isi achieved. achieved. The ThePrinciple Prin ipl ofofOrdered OrderedSearch Search Coherence to ensure en ures that made to match match in in the th primary primarycognitive cognitivemodel modd ensures that anempts attempts are are made profiles profile!>. Due to to profiles before before proceeding proceeding to to the secondary cognitive model profiles. the ed Clash Cia h Resolution, Resolutjon. given that that the the communicommuni . the Principle Principle of Context-indu Context-induced cative a ribe some quality quality to to the the student's student' grades, grades. itit isis the the cative intention intention is to ascribe lexical ept [WENT IWFNT up) a the the figurative figurative vehicle vehicleinmthe the lexical con concept uP1which which i\is designated as hen e which which undergoes und rgoes the thesearch search operopermeanmg truction process, proc • and hence meaning con construction ation ils secondary secondary cognitive cognitive model model profile. profile. A A partial partial cognitive cognitive model modd ation in its went up profile for wrrl/ lip iis provided below below in inFigure rigure14.5. 14.5. As w wesee. see,Iw ENT up) UP) affords a As WENT relating to a physical ph icaJ entity entit y access to knowledge relating motion. and and the the motion motionisisdirected directedagainst ag.rinst gravity gravity on o nthe the that capable of motion, that iis capable verti aI axi reprrsent at three of th primary primary cognitive cogniti"e models models vertical axis.. These These represent at least least three of the

BENEFITS DUE TO INCREASE

AND METONYMY METONYMY METAPHOR AND

~.::!.ETAPHOR

295 195

which IWfNT upl affords afford aaccess. cess. Therr are, additionally, additIonally. a small mall number number There are, [WENT UPI which of secondary cognitive cognitive models modelsillustrated iUustrated ininFigure Figure 14.5. '4.5. The first first relates relat to to of secondary IN REA P IN ases in in everyday everyday interaction inleraction with with our ourenvirenvir· INCREASE !N QUANTITY. QUANTITY. In many cases onthe thevertical v rtllalaxis axi correlates correlat with withan anincrease mcrease unment.being bemglocated locatedfurther furtherup upon onment, m quantity—for quantity-for instance, instaner.the thehigher higherthe thelevel I 'eIof ofwater waterin inaaglass, gla the themore morrthere th rr in i\. In In each of ofthese thesecases, cases, an anincrease increase ininheight heightcorrelates correlateswith withan anincrease increaseinin is. cognitive model modelconcerns concernsthe thebenefits benefitsthat Ihatnaturnatur· quantity. A further secondary cognitive aUy of greater quantity. pile of oforanges orange!> ally accrue accrue by virtue of quantity. For instaner. instance, a higher pile correlates WIth which correlates correlates with with more morefood foodand andthus thu greater greater with more oranges, which glassrelates relat upportunltyfor for nourishment. nouri hmen!.The Thegreater greaterthe theamount amountofofliquid opportunity liquid inIIIaaglass receive refreshment, refreshment, and and so SOforth. forth.In Inaddition, addition,there therrisi also alsoa a to greater ability to receive of IMPROVfM[NT h derives derive from fmm an increase in in \C(ondary cognitive model of IMPROVEMENT whi which secondary Improvement relates relates to to aa change change evaluated evaluated as a positive, positive.in inthis thi instance mstance quantity. Improvement incre~ in i.~., an amount at one one point point in in time timemeasured measured an increase in amount, amount, over time, i.e., against an increased in 'reased amount at at aa later later point. point. against Cia h resolution achieved by virtue th secondary cognitive model of of Clash resolution is achieved virtue of the Improv ment achieving a hieving primary primary activation. This Thi provides provides aa match matchbetween between improvement DES' and the informational informational characterization chara tcrildlionassociated associatedwith withSTUDENT'S IsTunfNT's GRA (iRAIlES) the secondary cognitive ognitlve profile pmfil to 10which which[WENT IWlNT uP] upl affords afford access. ace .This Thi the secondary example provid figuralive con eption. as it involves involv clash da h resolution in in aa provides a figurative conception,
Metonymy IMPROVEMENT

~/ INCHEASF IN iN INCREASE

I now turn, tum. briefly, briefly. to the LCCM lC M account m tonymi conceptions. con eptlons.Earlier Earlier account of of metonymic in this chapter I presented the following following examples examplesas a instances in tan esof ofmetonymy: metonymy: (4) a. France Frarl" rejected rejected Ihe con tltution the EU constitution (4) a. /ram sandwich !Ilrldw;c/r has ha asked a ked for the the bill bill b. The The ham h.

QUANTITY OUANTITY

PHYSICAL ENTITY PHYSICAl.

VECTOR UPWARDS VECTORUPWAROS MOTION MOTION

[WENT UPI JWENTUPI

FIGURE

14.5. Partial cognitive model profile for I wENT LIP!

AlONG ALONG THE VERTICAl VERTICAL AXIS

I provided i of earlierin in order orderto to illustrate illustrate provided an an LCeM LCCManaly analysis ofthe theexample exampleinin(43) (0) earlier th tin tion between between the th meaning-construction meaning-con tructionprocesses processesinvolved involvedinindedethe di distinction figurative conceptions conception associated a sociated with wilh utterances. ulleran es. In Inthis thi; nving literal and figurative riving literal section II will consider the example example in in (4b), (4b). The TI,e ham /ralll sandwich sarldlVlcillras askedfor forthe til has asked brl/. illustrate the th way metonymic metonymicconceptions conception are arederived. derived. hill, in order to illustrate analy", of the example in in (4a) (43)and andthe theanalysis anal isofof A w th earlier analysis As we saw with the metaphoric metaphor and metonymy in in metaphoric conceptions. conceptions, what what iis COmmon common to both metaphor I.C M aaccount count,is that con truction involves involves primary primary activation activation of of the LCCM that meaning construction cogllltivc model, in in the .he secondary 'IC<""dJrycognitive u>gnitivcmodel modelpmtile particularlexical I xical cognitive models profile ofofaaparticular lien e, clash cI. h resolution rc ,Iution isi required, required. which which isi the thedistinguishing di tinguishingfeature feature concept. Hence, opposed to Inorder ortlerto toillustrate illustratethe .he offigurati"e a 0Pl'0>«l to literal Iiter.1 meaning meaning construction. construction.In of figurative as hetween J a metonymic di~'inctiol1 mclunymi,.; conception lOIlt.:cplion and and metaphoric mct~lphori( conceptions (om:cption\ distinction bctwl'Cn consider the example in discussed earlier, let's let' conSIder in (4h). (4b).

METAPHOR AND METONYMY

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT

296

297

The Ham Sandwich Has Asked for the Bill

Metaphor versus metonymy

In an utterance of thi% kind the relevant elements that afford access to conceptual content are the lexical concept (HAM SANDWICH{ and the lexical concepts (ASK Foal and !ma As (ASK FOR] and (mil form a simpler lexical conceptual unit than the entire utterance, by virtue of the principles o integration, these lexical concepts undergo interpretation, giving rise to an informational characterization. The lexical concept (HAM SANDWICH ] then undergoes interpretation in conjunction with the informational characterization "asked for the bill". However, there is a clash between the informational characterization, and the primary cognitive model profile of (HAM SANDwicii I. After all, a ham sandwich is not, normally, conceived of as an animate entity that can ask for the hill. Due to the Principle of Context-induced Clash Resolution, the customer who ordered the ham sandwich is identified as the figurative target, and the ham sandwich is identified as the figurative vehicle. Accordingly, it is the cognitive model profile associated with the lexical concept (HAM SANDWICH] which becomes the site for clash resolution. Following the Principle of Ordered Search, the search region for clash resolution is expanded to take in secondary cognitive models associated with (HAM SANDWICH]. A partial cognitive model profile for (ham sandwichl is provided in Figure 14.6. In this example, clash resolution is achieved by virtue of a search occurring in the secondary cognitive model profile of (HAM SANDWICH]. The cognitive model which achieves primary activation is that Of RESTAURANT CUSTOMER.

As observed earlier, it has often been pointed out that metonymy, but not metaphor, has a referential function—one entity serves to stand for, or identify, another, as in a "ham sandwich" serving to identify the particular customer who ordered the ham sandwich. In contrast, previous scholars have variously argued that metaphor serves to frame a particular target in terms of novel categories, e.g., My job is a jail (e.g., Glucksberg and Keysar 1990; Carston 2o02), or analogy, e.g., Juliet is the sun (e.g., (,entner et Al., zool). That is, metaphor has what we might very loosely refer to as a predicative function.' From the perspective of LCCM Theory the distinction between metaphor and metonymy relates to whether the figurative target and figurative vehicle exhibit alignment, and hence whether the clash resolution site corresponds to the figurative target. To illustrate, let's reconsider the canonical metaphoric "docile boss" interpretation of My boss is a pussycat. In this example the figurative target is [BOSS) and the figurative vehicle is PUSSYCAT I. Following the Principle of Context-induced Clash Resolution, the cognitive model profile for ( PUSSYCATJ, the figurative vehicle, is the clash resolution site: primary activation of a secondary cognitive model takes place here. This situation differs with respect to metonymy. In the "ham sandwich" example. the "customer" corresix)nds to the figurative target, as determined by the Principle of Context-induced Clash Resolution, and the figurative vehicle corresponds to the "ham sandwich". However, both contextually salient elements are accessed via the cognitive model profile associated with a single lexical concept: HAM SANDWICH I. In other words, there is alignment, in a single cognitive model profile of the figurative target and vehicle. Hence, the site of clash resolution corresponds to the access mute for the figurative target: "customer". In sum, LCCM Theory reveals a divergence in metaphor and metonymy, which emerges as an outcome of the application of regular meaning construction mechanisms. Figurative conceptions which are labelled as "metonymic" arise due to the figurative vehicle facilitating direct access to the figurative target due to alignment of the figurative vehicle and target in the same lexical concept and cognitive model profile. In contrast, "metaphoric" conceptions arise due to a divergence between figurative vehicles and targets across two distinct lexical concepts. Based on this discussion, we see that the "bossy pussycat" interpretation of My boss is a pussycat discussed earlier is metaphor-like, in the sense that there is nonalignment of the figurative target and vehicle. After all, in that interpretation, the lexical concept [Rossi is the figurative vehicle and hence the site of clash resolution, while (PussvcATI is the figurative target. Yet, the "bossy pussycat" interpretation doesn't intuitively feel metaphoric. While this interpretation does

COW-AM VI

SHOP CUSTOMER

CAFE/RESTAURANT CUSTOMER

SHOP

CAFE/RESTAURANT

INGREDIENTS

VENUE

[HAM SANDWICH]

APPEARANCE/ COMPOSIT ION

inctaphors").01"thr type singled b 1-ikott ti ■ %lc that the LIV■ Of 4.TOSS-d1:10141t1 on.sppings -con. tilt I And (0471 appear to be ota different kind than thi ► ,e Anil II tlinvon, as exemplified by the ci,milvk s in ( 'winner. %Imbed by scholars such as Canton, t Am -

i4.t

I4.h

Partial cognitive model profile for

i HAM SA/440%61'14M I

29$

METAPHOR AND METONYMY

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT

constitute a figurative conception, given the way tigurativity is operationalized LCCM Theory, involving, as it is dots, primary activation of a seconda cognitive model in One of the cognitive model profiles undergoing matchin the interpretation is somewhat atypical, from the perspective of the canonical discourse function associated with metaphor. As we have seen, metaphor normally has a predicative function: it says something "about" a Subject or Them e. Yet, in the "homy pussycat" interpretation, the predicative interpretation is at odds with the organization of the linguistic content as it emerges following integration. That is, while at the level of linguistic content lexical concept integration leads to the I Boss, lexical concept having the semantic value of Subject, interpretation leads to a conception in which the utterance serves to attribute the quality of bossiness to the "pussycat", the figurative target in this interpretation, rather than the "boss". For this reason, there is what we might think of as a mismatch between the output of lexical concept integration on one hand, and interpretation on the other. The net result is that such an interpretation is unlikely to feel metaphoric, although the utterance is figurative, in present terms. In the final analysis, metaphor and metonymy, rather than being neatly identifiable types of figurative language, are terms that have been applied by different scholars to a range of overlapping and sometimes complementary figurative language phenomena. What emerges from the LCCM account is that the intuitions that lie behind the use of these terms for data of particular kinds are a function of a small set of compositional mechanisms that are guided by various sorts of constraints (the principles identified in this and earlier chapters). Moreover, the application of these mechanisms and principles gives rise to a range of figurative conceptions which, in terms of discourse functions, are continuous in nature. That is, from the perspective of language understanding, while there are what might be thought of as symptoms of metaphor and metonymy, there is not always a neat distinction that can be made that serves to identify where metaphor ends and metonymy begins. What is not figurative language

In some accounts of figurative language phenomena,' examples such as the italicized lexical items in each of the following examples are taken to he metaphoric in nature: (12) a. That is a loud shirt b. They have a close relationship c. She is in love d. That took a long time For instance. we the metaphor identification criteria A% develop ed by the Praggleia/ tiroup (20071. See also disco...ion in papers in Itarcel ► na Imono).

299

In these examples, the use of /out/ refers to a brightly coloured shirt, close relates to emotional "closeness", in relates to an emotional state while long relates to extended duration. From the perspective of LCCM Theory, such usages relate to distinct lexical concepts rather than being due, for instance, to figurative language conceptions. For instance, long has at least two conventionally established lexical concepts associated with the vehicle long. !EXTENDED IN HORIZONTAL SPACE! and I EXTENDED DURATION]. Dining lexical concept selection the 'EXTENDED DURATION! lexical concept is selected, thereby avoiding a clash in the primary cognitive model profiles associated with (EXTENDED DURATION! and [TIME'. Evidence that long has (at least) two distinct lexical concepts conventionally associated with it comes from examples such as the following: 110 a. A long kiss h. A long hook "Long" in "long kiss" relates to extended duration, not to physical length—a kiss cannot, obviously, be extended in space. Similarly in (13b), we are not, or at least not typically, dealing with an oversize book, but rather with an extended reading time. Understanding the form long as relating to I EXTENDED DURATION) relates to the process of lexical concept selection, as discussed in Chapter iI. During language understanding we select the ! EXTENDED DURATION! !Mical concept in conjunction with the lexical concept I BooKI as facilitating provision of most coherent conception, as guided by context. Of course, we are helped by the frequency with which these two forms collocate and are associated with this very conception. Collocations of this kind which provide a pre-assembled conception I refer to as concept collocations. In the same way, long time represents a concept collocation. In view of the LCCM Theory account, concept collocations such as "long time" are not, then, appropriately thought of as involving "metaphor," in the sense that they do not result from the online process of clash resolution, as described above. This view of highly conventional "lexical metaphors" is consonant with the approach developed in the Career of Metaphor Hypothesis (Bowdle and Gentner 2005), which builds on the Structure Mapping Approach to metaphor developed by Dedre Gentner (e.g., 1988; (knitter et al. 2oo1). In that approach, highly conventionalized "metaphors" are treated as being polysemous sense units which are conventionally associated with the "base" term, here, long, and which are accessed via a "lexical look-up" process, rather than by establishing structural alignments and inference projections (mappings) between a base and target. This aspect of the LCCM perspective is also consonant with the work of Rachel Giora (2oo3). In her work, Giora demonstrates that certain examples of "figurative" meanings associated with lexical items appear to be stored in memory and can he more salient than so-called "literal" meanings.

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT

;00

METAPHOR AND METONYMY

From the LCCM perspective, the interesting question in such cases is how an ( EXTENDED DURATION] lexical concept became conventionally associated with the form long. Recent work on semantic change pioneered by Elizabeth Closs Traugott (e.g., Traugott and Dasher 2004) has argued that situated implicatures (or invited inferences) can become "detached" from their contexts of use and reanalysed as being distinct sense-units—lexical concepts in present terms—which arc associated with a given vehicle. Intuitions, by som e scholar,texmpsarfigutvebd,1sgoniterfence of contextually irrelevant lexical concepts, in the case of our example the lexical concept (EXTENDED IN HORIZONTAL SPACE). I assume that such interference can occur when the temporal restrictions on language processing are relaxed, as is the case in the theoretical practice of language scientists who often appear to analyse such expressions without taking (any) account of their usage context(s). 9 In actual conversation, I would argue, talk of a "long time" is hardly ever felt to he figurative.") The [EXTENDED DURATION] lexical concept associated with long might be historically derived from contexts of communication in which reference to length can be understood as reference to duration without harming expression of the communicative intention, as in communication about "long journeys". Through repeated use of this form, with the inferred meaning, in such bridging contexts (Evans and Wilkins 2000), 11 it is plausible that long developed an (EXTENDED DURATION] lexical concept by virtue of decontextualization (Langacker 1987).

Summary This chapter has been concerned with an LCCM account of figurative language understanding. In particular, the chapter addressed the distinction between a literal conception—the meaning associated with a literal utterance—on one hand, and a figurative conception—the meaning associated with a figurative utterance—on the other. While a literal conception canonically results in an interpretation which activates a cognitive model, or cognitive models, within the default, which is to say primary, cognitive model profile, a figurative conception arises when cognitive models are activated in the secondary cognitive model profile. This takes place when there is a clash in one of the primary cognitive models involved in interpretation. A clash results in enlargement of the search domain, such that matching takes place in the secondary cognitive model profile associated with one of the relevant lexical concepts. In some cases, context serves to determine which • Sec Leezenhcrslumil and Stern (woo) for diskussion of the importante of context in metaphor understanding. See Bowdle and GenIner (200i) for • related perspective (41. the tirades, Saliense I ► pothesis o f ' 6

Giora. e.g.. 11

14, ► ' ).

Retail the dissussion in Chapter

S.

301

lexical concept is the site for clash resolution, captured by the Principle of Context-induced Clash Resolution, introduced in this chapter. A further distinction made was the distinction in discourse function associated with figurative conceptions referred to as metaphor and metonymy. It was argued that the distinction is due to whether there is alignment or not between what %.as referred to as figurative target and figurative vehicle. While the hallmark of metaphor is that there is divergence between the two, the symptom of metonymy is that there is alignment. In general terms, LCCM Theory predicts that the same set of compositional mechanisms arc responsible for literal and figurative language understanding. Hence, figurative language does not involve a distinct module or set of processes. Rather, it is continuous with literal language understanding.

TIl SEMANTICS OF TIME THE

15 The semantics of Time In Ihi chapter chaplCf I1 apply 11.1 Theory ingle domain: of In this apply L LCCM Theory10 to aa single domain: Ihe the domain domain of Time. oflen taken laken to 10 be be an an instance in. lanc. of ofan anabstract ab Iract domain, domai n. Time. A As Tim. Time is often structured in in terms P'" excel/filet. ~lru(lu~ed lerm~ of content conlenl from from more _more concrete concrele dodo.par excellence, mains Spa e. it It provides provide an an arena arena for for investigating onvestlgatong the the relationrelallonmains such such as Space, hip between between linguistic lingui tic representations representation (e.g.. lexi al concepts) concept) and and ship (e.g., lexical conceptual representation representations (cogmtive (cognitive model) models) from conceptual from the the perspective per~pe"'ve of ofaa ingle domain. Hence. my my strategy trategy in this this chapter chapter is i to to explore explnreaaspecific pe ilk single domain. Hence, dnmain (Time). structured siructured figuratively, figuratively. rather ralher than Ihan aa type type ofoffigurative figurallve domain (Time), metaphor). I1 do do so in phenomenon (e.g .• metaphor). in order order totoinvestigate inve"igale semantic semantic (e.g., represenlation. meaning-con tru lion proce se aas in on the the representation, rather rather than than meaning-construction processes previou hapter. previous_ chapter. A further further reason reason for for selecting ",Icetlng Time Time isI that Ihal this thischapter chapleralso al.soaddresses addr (in (in cepts (on (in the

303

the con eplual system) yslem) also also hears bear on on aacrucial crucialmethodological melhodologicalissue. i ue.That Thai the conceptual branch .. linguistics Iongul ti known as as cognitive cognitive semantics' manli Iisi predicated predi aled on on branch of cogoili cognitive Ihe a umplion that Ihal language language can he be employed employed to 10investigate onv ligalethe Iheconceptual con eplual the assumption sy lem. For For Lingacker Langa ker ((1987). in~lan •language language isis equated with wilh concepon epsystem. t987), for instance, 11131 Iructure. For For Lakoff Lakoff (1987), (0987). language language reflects conceptual conceplual structure. lructure. In In tual structure. L 1 Theory. represenlation provide aa means mean of ofinteracting inleractingwith wilh LCCM Theory, linguistic linguistic representations Ih. conceplual system, yslem. bUI m (on Ihe sense n of of the conceptual but ar arc nol not equaled equated wilh with Ih them (in the Langa ker). and not directly directly reflect reflect them them either. either. This Thi follows follow as a the the Langacker), anddo do not linguislic encoded by by lexical lexi al concepts con eplsisishighly highlyschematic, schemali •and andtakes lakes linguistic conlenl content encoded an allenualed form. in in the Ihe shape hape of ofparameterization, paramelerizallon. with wllh respect respecllO Iherich ri h attenuated form, to the conceplual lent encoded by by cognitive cognitiv. models. models. LCCM L 11.1 Theory posits po its disdisconceptual con content linct rol for semantic manli structure tructure and conceplual tru lure in the Ihe formation ~ rmalion of of tinct roles conceptual structure concepllon • hence I to 10 be beexpected expecledthat Ihalthe Iheparameters paramelers encoded en oded by by conceptions, hence II it is semantic structure are bUI aa pale pale reflection reflection of ofconceptual conceplualstructure. IruClure.As Aswe we semantic structure are but hall see. Ihe nature nalure of of the Ihe linguistic linguislic content onl nl encoded encodedby bytemporal lemporallexical Ie ieal shall see, the concepts con el'l is i~ quite quile distinct dislincl from from the Ihe rich rich spatial palial content conlenl provided prOVIded by by the Ih level I vel of con eplual metaphors, metaphor. associated a ialed with wilh conceptual con eplualstructure. Iructure. conceptual wilh the Ihe LCCM L 11.1 analysis analy is of of Time, Time. II begin, begin. in in the Ih.next nexllwo Before proceeding with two lions by by providing providing some Ihe context onleXI for for the Ihe study ludy presented presenled in in this Ihi sections some of the chapler. Ihese two sections seclion briefly briefly reviews review the Ihe linguistic lingui licevidence evidence chapter. The The firsl first of these for Ih widely widely held held view view that Ihal Time Timeisi asymmetrically a ymmelri ally structured slru lured in in terms lermsof of for the pa e. Th ond section seclion takes lakes issue i u with wilh the Ihe view viewadopted adopledby byLakoff Lakoffand and Space. The second lohn n. based Ihe linguistic Iingui Ii evidence, eviden e. that Ihal Time Time isisprimarily primarily Johnson, based primarily primarily on on the Iru lured in mOlion events, events. and and possesses pos lillie (if (ifany) any)inherent inherenl structured in lerm terms of motion little lruclur.ofit Indeed. II argue argue that, Ihal. on on the Ih contrary, conlrary. an an important importalllaspect a peel structure of its own. Indeed, of our our conceptual conceplual representation represenlation of ofTime Tim.isi inherently inherenllytemporal. lemporal.>2 The The sububof sequenl provide an an overview of of some some of ofthe Ihe temporal temporal lexical lexi al concepts concepl sequent section provides n oded in in English. English. The final final two IWO sections -lion provide providedetails delails of ofhow howtemporal lemporal encoded Ilexical ical concept interface with temporal cognitive cognilive models, models, which which are arestrucslru concepts interface with temporal lured. part. by virtue virtu of ofconceptual concel'lual metaphors. melaphor . tured, in part,

The spatialization of of Time Time Ihe key findings findings in III cognitive cognillVe linguistics Iongul II and and cognitive ogmlive psychology I' ychologyisi One of of the Ihat putalively abstract abSlract domain, domain. appears appears to torecruit recruit conceptual conceptualstrucIructhat Time. Time, aa putatively lure from the Ihe more more concrete conuele domains domains of ofmotion mOl ionand andthree-dimensional Ihree-dimen ion.1 ture from space. Evidence Eviden • for for Ihi recrullm nl most mo lofl ari on on the Ihebasis ba i of oflanguage this recruitment oftenn arises language zoo4a, 2004b, et al. 2005; Clark data (e.g., dala (e.g .• Alverson Alverson 1954; '994; Bender Bender ./ Clark 1973; 1973; Evans Evan 2oo4a. 200411. lOOS; Fauconnier rau onnier .lnd Turner zoo8; 2008; Fleischman Hci ohman 1982; 1982; Gentner Jcntn r et .., al. (II. 2001; 1002; and Turner zoos; Lakoff and Moore 2000, Grady 1997; '997; Lakofl and Johnson John~n 148o, 1980.1999; 1999; Lakoff 1990, 1990. 1993; '993; Moore 2000. Rt'\..l1J the:- tI. u ..n In ( h.apc('r .\. i-II L is .1,,0 :n111.:: l Iell:::;11:. fh" It'' P'"ltl,.n. .. lh,,t +Ii ttutlt uma.! by ,"",urk on 'lRthe the-...vaunt It'nl.lnlk. (If IIme:' also Asuitricd In' mun' more rnrnt retent work ics cATime tallp4 ")1 :eitumss. 1 UkIJ.ll, Thu the con‘c-ptuAl metAphot tr.adlitiort Nioore Within the:U'lfktpt~ mn.arho)r tr..J.hun (~.8-0 M'M'''-'' .lIM)fl ). 204161. within I

J

THE SEMANTICS Of- LIME

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT

zoo6; Nunez and Sweetser 2oo6; Shinohara 1999; Radden 2003; Traugott Yu 1998; Zinken forthcoming), as exemplified by the following: 1) a. She arrived on Saturday b. a short time c. Christmas is approaching The putative spatial words arc underlined. Indeed, while Time often has spatial ideas ascribed to it—and we may find it difficult to conceptualize and lexicalize Time without recourse to spatial notions—the reverse tends not to be the case. That is we are far less inclined to invoke temporal notions to understand Space. In other words, the structuring of Time in terms of Space is asymmetric.) A particularly influential account of the asymmetric structuring of Time in terms of Space is that provided by Conceptual Metaphor Theory (e.g., Lakoff and Johnson 1980, 1999). Moreover, recent behavioural studies have provided empirical evidence for the psychological reality of conceptual metaphors for lime: the position that space is indeed recruited to structure time in asymmetric looz; Nunez a 2006). More tashion (e.g., Boroditsky 2000; Gentner et recently, it has additionally been established that this recruitment is involuntary (Casasanto and Boroditsky ioo8). Further converging evidence for the conceptual metaphor account comes from gestural studies (e.g., Nunez and Sweetser 2006) and from signed languages (e.g., Engberg-Pederson 1993). Various reasons have been posited for the asymmetric structuring of the domain of Time in terms of Space. Some scholars have argued for shared neurological resources. For instance, Walsh (2003) argues that a common magnitude system underpins spatial and temporal processing. While a drawback of Walsh's account is that it fails to account for the asymmetric structuring of Time in terms of Space, other accounts have argued, in various ways, that the recruitment of Space to structure Timc is a consequence of exaptalion: the re-use, in evolutionary terms, of pre-existing mechanisms for new purposes. Somewhat different accounts along these lines have been argued for by, for example, lackendoff (1983) and O'Keefe (1996). See also the discussion in Casasanto (forthcoming). The explanation provided by Conceptual Metaphor Theory emphasizes the role of embodiment in ontogenetic development, rather than an evolutionary motivation. Lakoff and Johnson (1999), influenced by the ground-breaking los 14141114. 111114r1 11 ► •Alble

to exprc..., pawl notion. In term, 44 tenTotrl

.y.111 the following

r KhanKt1. Now far o lianNer I I 4 )ndon? train. K 'Three and 4A Italf hours I 10WeVe this is by no nicaos 11 41 ► 41UttlVe. That is. thr %inkhorns I. not .voloi•trot Yet. ihr tact that rime can he deployed to structure Space argue. Agrinsi 1114• position that au- mtut Wrong i. unidirectional. !fence, the rrIrtionship Appears to be awnonetrit

305

work of Grady (1997), argue that conceptual metaphors arise as an inevitable consequence of humans acting in the world, such that tight correlations in pre-linguistic experience serve to establish connections between concepts that have what Grady refers to as, image content, i.e., source concepts, and those concepts which have response content, i.e., target concepts. Grady posits what he terms primary scenes: recurrent humanly relevant scenarios in which the relevant experiences co-occur. These primary scenes, he argues, facilitate the establishment of conceptual metaphors (see Grady and Johnson 2000). 4 Lakoff and Johnson (1999) couch Grady's notion of experiential correlation and primary scenes in neurological terms. Lakoff (personal communication) argues, for instance, that the consequence of tight and recurring correlations in experience types, gives rise to the notion of Hebbian neurological learning: "what fires together wires together."

The temporal nature of Time Despite the success of Conceptual Metaphor Theory in highlighting the asymmetric structuring of domains such as Time in terms of Space, one of the consequences, and I argue, drawbacks, has been to neglect the study of the inherent temporal structure that is part and parcel of our conceptual system for Times Part of the reason for this has been that Lakoff and Johnson have, for the most part, successfully focused the study of Time on the nature of spatial structure that is recruited. Indeed, they have explicitly argued that very little of our understanding of Time is purely temporal. They suggest, in fact, that most of our understanding of time is a metaphorical version of our understanding of motion in space. The premise from which the Lakoff and Johnson account of Time proceeds is that we cannot observe time, if it even exists as a thing unto itself. Rather, what can be observed are events of various kinds, including motion events such as objects in motion. Moreover, events can be compared. Hence, for Lakoff and Johnson our conceptualization of Time is grounded in our direct experience of events. That is, the properties associated with Time arise from understanding Time in terms of events which, unlike Time, are directly perceived. In particular: • Time is directional and irreversible, because events are. In other words, events cannot "unhappen." • Time is ongoing because events are experienced as being ongoing. • Time is divisible because we perceive events as having beginnings and end points. • Time can be measured because instances of event types can be counted.

See Moores (1oo4 I related notoott ol a ttttt sitting %tenni° 5

For a critique of the concept

tnetaishobr atproat h to I unt- see Evans (lo ► aa).

306

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT FIGUR ATIVE LA G AGE AND TIIO GifT

LMAN TI( S or TI if 1111:. THE SEMANTICS OF TIME

-

The Inherent Structure Issue: 1lI/,.r rlll SlruC llIrt 1 ur: •• nit Lakoff and Johnson (e.g., 1999) sometimes appear to assume Ihat um that

LakofT and lohn 1Il (e.g.• 1999) 'i(,mct,m appea r 10 a Time has limited, if any, inherent structure of its own. On this Timeml' Time ha limited, if any, inh rent truelu re of it!. own. On thi. Ti Is-Space account, the function of of conceptual metaphor is to structure con eptual meta phor i to truet ure I ·Spa e a coun l. the funetion the target domain, Time, in terms of structure derived from the source ur<e the target donlJ ln, Time. in term of lructu re derived from the
conceptualization is embodied.

con(qltu.1liulion i embodied.

i ibid.

138--9)

• The complexity issue: comp laity issll'" Tht Time-Is-Space • The perspective assumes that conceptual metaphors relate The Tim ·1 . Space pel'>petllve a lim Ihal conceptual metaphol'> relat to entire domains: Space and Time..The difficulty here is that this leads to nllre doma in: Space and Time The difficulty here i Ihal Ih, lead to the position that Time, and indeed Space, are undifferentiated intern- to the poSition thaI Time . and indeed I' e, are undifTerentiated intern ally homogenous bodies of knowledge—a 100ft byMoore mad by .Isomade critici malso acriticism ally homogenoll bodi of knowl dg (e.g., 2oo6) in his analysis of space-to-time metaphors. (e.g .• 2006) in hi•• naly t; of 'I" e· tll-t,m e m tapho r;. i. The inherent structure issue i. Th inh rent struc ture i u There are two objections that can and have been levelled at the view viewofof Th re ar two ()b)eclion Ih.t ,an and have bttn It", lied at the inherent structure for Time, often attributed to Lakoff and Johnson. The on.The inher ent truetu re (or Time , oft n attrib uted to LakofT and lohl1> first relates to the kind of generalalcriticism presented in Murphy (1996). rilici m pr nted in Murp hy ('996 ). Ii", relal 10 Ih kind of gener Murphy argues that if abstract domains such as Time have little or no no hy .rgue s thaI if ab tract dom. in ""h" , TIIl,e h.ve hili or Murp inherent structure of their own, thereby requiring conceptual projection requiring con cptua l projection inh renl lruet ur. o( Iheir own. Iherebythen from source domains to provide structure, it is not clear what motivates mru."cJnmolin to prOVide IrU(lUrc. th n it i nol clear what l110livat from the projection in the first place. That is, it is not clear what motivates the llOn III Ihe Ii", pla,e_ Th., i • ", nol d ar wh.lI m()lIvatt'" the pro)ec Ih structuring of Time in terms ofo(domains Space rather rathe r Sp.,. n and M()lioand u
(,997) III h, work on pnma

307

struc turing . Thi i m tapho r pac to ·hme metaphors nt of iscd 3c(Ou ed in Ilion adopt 31so alsothe thepo position adopted in th the rrevised account of space-to-time . . 2006) e (2000 oped by Moore (2000, 2006). devel developed by Kevin Kevin Moor neurobiologlc I petific neurobiological are specific Th re are follo w. There lIOn iis as follows. d Ob)tX The The scome of th truetu re of ent structure inher inherent of,titsown own((see Lvan Evans2004" ioo4a for for aa rreview of some of these ). point points). differ nt many different are many ther are that there reveal that biology reveals h in tance. r~" For Foron instance, research in neuro neurobiology fun tion • bodily function, regulatong bodily for regulating tial for are essen oral proc rt of sorts of temp temporal processes which which arc essential cyde. which wok leep cycle, the wake–sleep in luding the m. including ian rhyth u circad u h as the such the vario various circadian rhythms, which m hani m oral temp of range the and • ical prtX olled by are arecontr controlled by chem chemical processes, and the range of temporal mechanisms interval of prOt ing intervals rang from latter range Th latter ing. The ptual prOt that that guide guide perce perceptual processing. from processing of Thi ds. secon three d aroun of limit outer limit of around three seconds. This an outer to an up to ·ond up tion of aa fra fraction of aa second referred to (lt89011t950) referred lames ([189o)/I95o) what James to what pond to range may · ond range three three-second may corr correspond to horl the ... tim ,ed oncei all of lype proto "the nt: pr u pet,o the specious present: "the prototype of all conceived times... the short aas the (,b,d. t950: n ible" (ihid, ntlysensible" in andincessantly immediatelyand war whi h we of which ion of durat duration aree immediately 19so: (sec enl mom ptual perce the a n know only comm mor commonly known as the perceptual moment (see 63')' 631), and and what what iis more ). Evans 2oo4a Evans woo). IImong sophi hcated timing are sophisticated there are Ihal there reveal that proc ing reveals oral processing R arch on Research on temp temporal speech ( hafe IIldlldingspeech behav iour including to behaviours key to are key thaI are brain that Ihe brain in the mechani m in mechanisms (Chafe Ihe well a ). el'983 I'Opp and r Turne and Piippel 1983), as well asa the 2006;Turner (Davi 2oo6; poelr y(Davies and poetry t994). music and 1994), experi n e ourexperience present:our thepresent: perceivingthe experien eof fperceiving r Iexperience ph nom nologi allyreal phenomenologically in temp oral impli (ated in lructu r implicated brain structures "",if k brain The specific 1994). The el 1994). now ((l'opp of now temporal of ['Opel ifying quant in ed in,olv be may which . cortex al pariet the indud the parietal cortex, which may be involved in quantifying proc ing include processing (Wal sh 2003). magn itude(Walsh temp oralmagnitude oftemporal ment of a litalin gassessments hen efaci and hence lime and time facilitating 2003), eeping timek al menl funda for xllum cerl'i and ia gangl baylganglia and cerebellum for fundamental timekeeping Ihebasal a the well as a well as but 1998. but al. 1998, (llarr inglo n et.,al. contr ol(Harrington moto rcontrol coord inahn gmotor a coordinating u h as perations such operations lemp oral thattemporal argue dthat haveargued neuro enti IShave Olhe r neuroscentists 2004). Other pen er 2004). and Spencer Ivry and sec Ivry see intrin ie toto being intrinsic Iruetu r being brain structures aero brain di tribut edacross widelydistributed prtX ;ing isi widely processing 2004). Buon oman o 2004). and liuonomano (Mau k and function (Mauk neural function neural that reveal that I' ychologi t reveals bypsychologists perceptionofofhm theperception onthe rchon r addit ion.research In addition, timeeby In phen om . xperi neeisi phenomorale i ,temp ThaIis, time.That perceIVetime. dirtXllyperceive indeeddirectly doindeed wedo we temporal experience ab nee of theabsence limeininthe experience time huma n experience moreover, humans and, moreover, real, and, enologi ally real, enologically of perso a e, tan in For . 1999) rty flahe (e.g., s event ived perce externallyperceived events (e.g., Flaherty 1999). For instance, a person n ptXificexternally specific cell and hence '>olitaryconfinement, placed inonsolitary placed and hence would ed expos are Ihey i timul n'>t nolhave donot wedo i we ThaIis, tim.That oftime. eJap of the elapse perceIVe the "ill perceive nevertheless still nevertheless to first onlra tll11 ricn(c cxpc: Ihu ancJ ilC pluJl (on\;c 10 urderto conceptualize and thus experience time—contra inorder evenh in pcr\;cive events perceive range of neum arc. Iherearc factthere Ihefact Indeed.the per;pt'\:lIve. Indeed, Time · Is Spa, perspective. theTime-Is-Space the a range of neuror to be cenlral appeato whi happear someofof lim.some prtX ongtime, (orprocessing mha ", m for logicalmechanisms logical which be central evcnt\ plion pcr(c Ihc thdn r ralh Ih.lt t usgc al. genn in pcr\;eplinnin general. suggests that rather than the perception of uf forperception for events

horic structuring. This is endently of ture indep ent struc ~nd and inher inherent structure independently of the the metap metaphoric

Nevertheless, while it is incontrovertible that that structure from nonnlln rulled (rom trullu r rrecruited heleM, whil 11, III ontm vertib le 'evert temporal domains, such as Space,~form part of the conceptual content nl oral dom ain, u h a pace, rm part of the con eptua l conte temp encoded by temporal cognitive models, itit iis increasingly clear that a signifionerea ingly d ar that a ign,li ed by temp oral cognitlV mode l. encod cant portion of conceptual structureinin Ih the doma domain of Time inherently i inherently lime is in o( on of con eplua l tructu re porti canl temporal, rather than spatial. In particular,there thereare are two two ggeneral criticisms i m n raI crilic ral. rathe r than pahal. In parti ular, Irmpo that can be levelled against the perspective that Time is primarily (or solely) solely ) that can be I.. elled again I Ihe pers" ",ti, Ihal Time ,s primarily (or constituted of non-temporal content, what I will dub the Time-is-Space pa e IItuted of non .lemporal onlen t, what I will dub th T ime-I ,on perspective. These relate to the following two issues, which I outline here relate to the following two is u ,whi h I outlin here perspective. Th and elaborate on further below:

and elaborale on (urth r below:

307

•

08

being the precursor of temporal experience, temporal experience is necessary in order to perceive events in the first place. A range of behavioural studies conducted by psychologists reveal that time is directly experienced by human subjects, and moreover, the nature of our experience of time is often independent of the nature of events in question. For instance, Ornstein (119691/1997) found that our perception of duration is a function of stimulus complexity, while familiarity with a particularly complex stimulus array can impact on our perception of duration. Zachay and Block (1997) found that temporal perception was influenced by how interesting subjects found a particular activity to he, while Flaherty (1999) found that perception of duration is a function of how much we attend to a particular stimulus array, and how familiar with particular activities and events we are. In short, a range of studies reveal that our experience of duration, rather than being a function of event comparison, as assumed by the Time-Is-Space perspective, is a consequence of subjective evaluations of stimuli types, and of how we process particular types of stimuli on particular occasions. Evidence of this sort makes a persuasive case for thinking that temporal experience is internal rather than external in origin, constituting a subjectively-driven response to events, rather than emerging from events themselves, an abstract mental achievement. Other research reveals that the human ability to judge temporal magnitude (i.e., duration) is a function of physiological mechanisms, and varies in predictable ways. For instance, if vital functions are accelerated, for instance by the consumption of coffee or stimulants such as amphetamines, this results in overestimation of time ( Fraisse 1963). This is known as protracted duration and constitutes the phenomenologically real experience whereby subjects perceive standard units of duration as being of greater magnitude: the perception that time is proceeding more "slowly" than usual and hence there is more of it. Overestimation of duration also occurs when the body temperature is raised, for instance when suffering from fever (see Wearden and Penton-Voak 1995 for a review). In contrast, nitrous oxide and other anaesthetic gases which slow down the body's vital functions have the opposite effect, giving rise to an underestimation of time, the phenomenologically real experience that there is less time, known as temporal compression .° Raddeley (1966) showed that exposing the body to low temperatures also gives rise to an underestimation of time.'

" The notions of protracted duration and temporal compression were introduced earlier in the hook—recall the discussion in t . hapter 7. for instance. ' 'this WAS &thieved by exposing scuba divers to old water 14 l'1. The divert estimated time by ounting from t to t. At what they presumed to he the rate oft numeral per second. The Count ing took place before the dive. and im ► ediately following the dive onte the divers' body temperatures had been towered.

I

THE SEMANTICS OF TIME

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT

309

ii. The complexity issue:

As with the inherent structure issue, there are two objections that can be levelled against the view of Time as an undifferentiated domain. The first holds that temporal experience is highly differentiated. That is, it is far more complex than Lakoff and Johnson appear to acknowledge. For instance, Poppel (1978) has pointed to what he terms "elementary time experiences." These constitute distinct yet fundamental types of temporal experience. There are a number of elementary time experiences that we can point to, all of which are fundamental to a range of human behaviours, including perception and successful ( inter)action in the world. These include: (i) the ability to perceive an elapse of duration, (ii) the ability to perceive simultaneity, (iii) the ability to perceive non-simultaneity, (iv) the ability to perceive order (or succession). (v) past and present, and (vi) change. The second objection relates to the way in which language encodes temporal experience. In previous work based on a detailed examination of a single vehicle, time, in a single language, I found that there are a range of distinct temporal lexical concepts (Evans 2oo4a)—see also the discussion of time in Chapter 7 and below. Thus, both phenomenological experience and language suggest that Time is a highly differentiated domain (or domains), more internally complex than allowed by Lakoff and Johnson. In more recent work, Kevin Moore ( zoo°, 2oo6) has developed a revised conceptual metaphor account of Time by addressing exactly these criticisms. Moore (2oo6) makes the following two assumptions. Firstly, he assumes that Time has inherent structure independently of the metaphors that serve to structure it. Secondly, he posits that, in analysing space-to-time mappings, we are not dealing with distinct and homogenous domains such as Space and Time, but with a complex array of experience types. Moore's general assumptions are consonant with the ones being adopted here.

Conceptual metaphors for time in LCCM Theory: a first look In view of the above, what then is the status of conceptual metaphor in LCCM Theory? Conceptual metaphors provide a means of structuring cognitive models in terms of structure recruited from cognitive models associated with other domains of experience. That is, conceptual metaphors serve to provide one of (probably) many types of links which connect cognitive models, allowing them to inherit structure. Conceptual metaphors provide stable, long-term links which allow the automatic and unconscious recruitment of structure in asymmetric fashion. They serve to structure, in part, attributes and values, providing massive redundancy across concepts within the conceptual system. Conceptual metaphors arise when stable links are established between cognitive models encoding experience that is sensorimotor in nature, and cognitive models which encode conceptual content that is subjective in nature. In terms of the semantics of Time this amounts to the following. Much of the structure associated with temporal representation is

310

THE SEMANTICS OF TIME

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT

inherently temporal. However, conceptual metaphors facilitate the recruitment of structure from cognitive models derived from the domain of Space. Nevertheless, this structure is but one way in which temporal knowledge is organized and understood. I return to the relationship between conceptual metaphors and knowledge representation later in the chapter once we have discussed temporal lexical ,oncepts in more detail.

311

The symbolic unit—vehicle and lexical concept—which sanctions expressions such as those in (2) is provided in (3): (3)

a. vehicle "PREP NP" b. lexical concept (x SITUATED WI Ili

RESPECT TO TIME PERIOD(

The lexical concept glossed in (3b) encodes a highly schematic temporal relation, in which a particular entity such as an event, glossed as X, occurs with respect to a particular time period, as exemplified by the expression in (3):

Temporal lexical concepts (4) now turn to an overview of some of the main types of temporal lexical concepts. I illustrate with examples from English. The challenge for future research is to identify the nature and range of the temporal lexical concepts for other languages. Indeed, preliminary findings suggest that the range of lexical concepts available to a language such as English may vary quite c onsiderably in other languages.' I suggest that the methodology for identifying lexical concepts, introduced earlier in the book, may provide a systematic and insightful way of cataloguing the range of lexical concepts within and across specific languages in a range of domains including Time. The overview below is meant to be illustrative rather than exhaustive. I divide the discussion into the following types of lexical concepts:

The exam took place in March

The lexical concept in (3b) is internally open, and in (4) is integrated with internally closed lexical concepts. The specific lexical concepts which are integrated are derived by virtue of lexical concept selection, as described in Chapter it. For instance, there are a great many lexical concepts conventionally associated with the vehicle in. These include a spatial lexical concept such as (ENCLOSURE', the range of "state" lexical concepts described in Chapter 8, and several distinct "temporal" lexical concepts, evidenced in (5): (5)

a. He completed the exam in March

(PERIOD OF TEMPORAL ENCLOSURE FOR XI

• • • •

Lexical concepts for temporal relations Lexical concepts that encode aspect Nominal lexical concepts Lexical concepts that encode temporal frames of reference (TFoRs)

Lexical concepts for temporal relations One way in which temporal experience is encoded in language relates to closed-class lexical concepts that encode what I will refer to as temporal relations. In a language such as English, these lexical concepts are associated with an adverbial vehicle introduced, typically, by prepositions, as the examples below illustrate. (z)

a. in March b. on Saturday c. at 2 pm

• Findings presented in Silva Sirihr a al. (forthcoming, on the temporal representation for Time in the Am ► ndawa language until relatively recently An isolated sim ► minity of around 'so speakers in Ammonia provides evidence of a Language which encodes lime in a startlingly different way from r language such as English. ‘1 he challenge that awaits linguists is to describe the semantics of Time in whic h. at present. virtually nothing is known. mime of the less well . st ud ie d languages of th e world

b. He completed the exam in one hour

(PERIOD OF CONTINUOUS DURATION OF X1

c. He will take the exam in one hour

(PERIOD AFTER WHICH X OCCURS(

In each of these examples, a distinct lexical concept associated with in is in evidence, In (5a) the lexical concept glossed as (PERIOD OF TEMPORAL ENCLOSURE FOR XI mediates a temporal relation between a particular event, the exam, and the period of time, March, at some point in which the event occurs. In (5h), the lexical concept I gloss as (PERIOD OF CONTINUOUS DURATION OF X1 mediates a temporal relation between a particular event, the exam, and the temporal period for which the exam continues. Finally, in (5c), the lexical concept (PERIOD AFTER WHICH X OCCURS' mediates a temporal relation between an event, the exam, and the period after which the exam takes place. In other words, the distinct conceptions associated with the utterances in (5) are a consequence, in part. of distinct lexical concepts for in being selected. We are also now in a position to see that the conception which arises as a result of the utterance in (4) is a consequence of the (PERIOD OF TEMPORAL ENCLOSURE FOR xl for in being selected and integrated with the internally open lexical concept given in (3h).

31) 112 312

THE SEMANTICS OF TIME

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT

FIGURA TIV£ LANGUACE

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

AN~D!..!.T~II~O~U~G~II:..:T

Lexical concepts that encode aspect

Lexical concepu that encode aspect Another way in which temporal experience gets encoded in terms of linguistic Anolher way 10 which temporal experience gets encoded in term of lingUlsti content relates to the range of linguistic phenomena often referred to, variously, content relates to the range oflingm tic phenomena often referred to. variously. as aspect. In general terms, aspect relates to the highly schematic encoding of the a aspect. In general terms. aspeet relates to the highly hematic n oding of the distribution of action through time. Nevertheless, aspect is not a homogenous di'tribution of a tion through tim.. 'e,erthel a peet i not a homogenou category, and even an individual language (such as English, for instance), has category. and even an individual language ( uch as l.ngli,h. for in lance). has a range of ways in which aspectual phenomena are encoded. Two examples of a range of way in which aspeetual phenomena arc encoded. Two examples of aspectual categories encoded by English are given below: a'llCClual categori .ncoded by Engli h are given below: Category: Boundedness

Category: Boundedn 6) a. He is drinking the beer [UNBOUNDED EVENT] i drinking the beer IUNDOU ORO EVENTI (6) a.b. He He has drunk the beer [BOUNDED EVENT) b. lie ha drunk the beer IBOliNOW EVENTI These examples relate, respectively, to what is traditionally referred to as

These examples relat • respectively. to what i traditionally referred to a imperfective aspect (6a) and perfective aspect (6b). What I gloss as the imperfe<:tive aspect (6a) and perfective a peet (6b). What I glo as the UNBOUNDED EVENT] lexical concept is associated with the vehicle provided IUNBOUNDED EVENTllexi I concept i a iated with th vehi Ie provided in (7a), and is conventionally associated with the vehicle "BE + VERBine, 10 (70). and is conventionally iated with the vehi Ie "BE .. VERBillg". and works in conjunction with lexical concepts for Time-reference (i.e., and works in conjunction with I xical concepts for Time referen • (i.e .• the tense system). The [BOUNDED EVENT] lexical concept is conventionally th tense ystem). The IBOUNDED EVENTI I.xical on ept i conventionally associated with the vehicle "HAVE + VERB PAST PARTICIPLE". The [ UNassociated with the vehicle "HAVE • VERB PA T PARTI IPLE". Th. I U BOUNDED EVENT) lexical concept encodes highly schematic content which can 80UNDPLl IVf Tllexical oncept en od highly schemati ontent whi h an be paraphrased as follows: the event in question is/was in progress at the time be paraphrased as follow : th event in question is/was in progres at the time reference indicated by the time-reference lexical concepts (i.e., the tense reference indi ated by the time ref< rence lexi al concept (i .•.• the tense system). The [ BOUNDED EVENT) lexical concept encodes the following schesystem). The IOOIJNOfLl IVENTllexical wncept en odes the f< 1I0wing he matic content: the event in question occurred (or was initiated) at an earlier mati content: the event in qu tion oc urred (or wa initiated) at an earlier point and is complete, but still relevant, at the more recent time reference, as point and i complet • but till relevant. at the more recent time referenc•• as indicated by the time-reference lexical concepts. Indicated by the time · refer n e lexical con epts. Hence, the conception which typically arises as a consequence of the H.n e. the conception which typIcally ari as a onsequen of the utterance in (6a) is that the drinking of the beer is ongoing at time of utteran e 10 (60) i that the drinking of the beer i ongoing at time of speaking. That is, the [UNBOUNDED EVENT) lexical concept contributes the peaking. That is. the I UNBO NOW !VlNTI lexical con cpt contribute th following content: in terms of the time period covered by the utterance, the following content: in t rm of the tim period covered by th utterance. the drinking event is unbounded. The conception associated with the utterance in drinking event i unbounded. The conception associated with th utterance in (6b) is that the drinking of the beer was initiated at an earlier point in time, (6b) is that the drinking of the beer wa initiated at an earlier point in 11m • and was completed prior to, or at the moment of speaking. That is, the and was completed prior to. or at the moment of peaking. That is. the (BOUNDED EVENT] lexical concept encodes the following: in the time period IBOUNOfD EVENTllexi 01 on ept en odes th following: in the time period covered by the utterance, the drinking event is hounded. covered by th utt ranc • the drinklOg vent i bounded. As I have observed earlier in the book, linguistic content is typically A I have ob rved earlier in the book. linguisti content i typically bundled in a single lexical concept. For example, in the examples in (6a), bundled in a IOsle lexi al on ept. ror example. in th examples in (6a). the lexical concept paired with the vehicle "is drinking" bundles the Unthe lexical conlept paired with the vehide "IS dmlklllg' bundl . the Un bounded parameter from the temporal category Boundedness, with the bounded parameter from the temporal category Boundedness. with the Non-past parameter from the temporal category Time reference.'' on pa t parameter from the temporal ategory Time r ference.' •

ReL,A11 the dixussion of Time Frio - rote in Chapter 6

Another a aspectual peetual category that I often bundled with paramet rs from category that is often bundled with parameters from Another other lates totowhat othercategories categoriesr relates whatIIrefer referto. to ashent EventContour. Contour.The Theglo glosses for for the the relevant parameters. provided below in (7). arc drawn from Talmy (2000): relevant parameters, provided below in (7), are drawn from Talmy (woo): Category: Category:Event Event Vehicle: Vehicle: (to)di die (7) a.a. (to) b.b. (to) (to) fall fall c.c. (to) (to) nash flash d.d. (to) breath (to) breathe e.e. (to) leep (to) sleep

ntour Contour Parameter: Parameter: On -way non resettahle One-way non- resettable One· way resettabl One-way reset table Full cy Ie Full cycle Multiplex Multiplex Steady tate Steady state

Lexi al con ept glo

Lexical concept gloss:

«TO) Dlrl ((To) DIE) «TO) FAll I t(TO) FALL) «TO) FLASIII [(TO) FLASH) «TO) BRfATIIRI ((TO) BREATHE) «TO) IHPI ((TO) SLEEP)

While the .xamples in (7) relate to open- las lexi al con cpt which fa ilitat. While the examples in (7) relate to open-class lexical concepts which facilitate •access . to th wnceptual content encoded by th cognitiv model that are to the conceptual content encoded by the cognitive models that arc aassociated i.ted with th.lexical concept. th temporal experience directly en oded with the lexical concept, the temporal experience directly encoded by th lexi al concept a Iinguisti content is highly hemati. Thi relat to by the lexical concepts as linguistic content is highly schematic. This relates to hemall aspect of the di tribution of action during the WUN of th event schematic aspects of the distribution of action during the course of the event in question. The nature of this hemati cont nt I refer to as an Event in question. The nature of this schematic content I refer to as an Event Contour_ Thi. category of Iingui ti wntent has a number of parameters. Contour. This category of linguistic content has a number of parameters, bundled with other aspeets of Iingui>!i' content a part of the variou lexical bundled with other aspects of linguistic content as part of the various lexical concept whose glosses glo scs are are also also provided. provided. concepts,• whose For in,tance.1 (TO) aIEl encodes encodes schematic ""hematic content cont ntrelating relatingto toan an event event that that For instance, [(TO) DIE) one can do only once. at least under nonnal circumstan es. llence. it encodes one can do only once, at least under normal circumstances. Hence, it encodes the parameter which. following Talmy. I t.rm ne-way non-resettable. In the parameter which, following Talmy, I term One-way non-resettable. In contra t.«TO) fAlll en odes content which i resettable: you can do it more contrast, [(To) FALL) encodes content which is resettable: you can do it more than onc .IIow cr. it i one-way.likr«To) Ill' I: it involves a beginning and than once. However, it is one-way, like [(TO) DIE): it involves a beginning and an end. Hen e. «TO) FAlll .ncodes the parameter ne-way resettable. In an end. Hence, [(To) FALL) encodes the parameter One-way resettable. In contrast. «TO) IlA III en ode> th parameter: rull cycl •. That i • It encodes contrast, )(TO) FLASH) encodes the parameter: Full cycle. That is, it encodes the followlllg schematic content: the ent IIlvolv a return to its initial t.te. the following schematic content: the event involves a return to its initial state. The lexi al concept «TO) BREATIIEI en od the hematic cont nt that the The lexical concept [(To) BREATHE) encodes the schematic content that the .ent in,olv a srri of action and hen c con tilutes a multiplex event. event involves a series of actions and hence constitutes a multiplex event, while «TO) . LPEPI encod content relating to an action that i ongoing. and while )(TO) SLEEP) encodes content relating to an action that is ongoing, and thu encodes encodesthe th parameter parameterwhich whichI Igloss glo asa Steady Steadystate. tate. thus

Nominallexical lexicalconcepts concepts Nominal

Another type oftemporallexi al concept relates ~o what I refrr to a. nomi~al Another type of temporal lexical concept relates to what I refer to as nominal temporallrxical concrpt . These are temporallexlC.1 onccp" a '''<:I.ated WIth temporal lexical concepts. These are temporal lexical concepts associated with noun vehi les. or nominal vehicles. 3 .xemplified by the followIOg: '""e. noun vehicles, or nominal vehicles, as exemplified by the following: time, tomorrow. }'Ntrrtllt}" fm, ct"tury, 'IOU'. tlWlUif. ~CC",tI, peu,. futurt. n~"'. tomorrow, yesterday aeon, era, century, hour, minute, second, past, future, now, prt5t,U. momc,,'. Imumr,.. Ix(cmbrr. \\","c1. 5um"u~r. dnd 0 forth" The Ic~u:JI present, moment, January, Decenther, week, summer, and so forth. The lexical oncept conventionally paired with these vehicle> are each aSSOCIated ~Ith a concepts conventionally paired with these vehicles are each associated with a unique 01(((:\\ ..,it • f.lI.;ihl.1l1ng '}u:c to ri hknowledge knowledgerelating relatmgtotodistinct dlstmct unique access site, facilitating access to rich ~()rhofof tempor..elapses. 1cldP~ • sorts temporal

"CO".

314 114

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGe LANGUAGEAND ANDTU THOUGHT FIGURATive UGHT _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

THE SEMANTICS OF TIME

JIS 315

'--

which . to indudlllg purely purely temtem which facilitat facilitateac access to temporal temporal cogllltive cognitive model, models, including h spatial patial content r ruited by onceptual poral poralcontent content as as well well as ri rich content recruited by virtu virtue of of conceptual metaphors, ussed .bove, in more more detail detail below. below. metaphors, in in th. the sense sense di discussed above, and and in a TFoR, ider the In Inorder orderto tocontextualiz contextualize th. the notion notion of of a TFoR, {Oil consider the related related notion notion of patial fram. FoR). In a SFoR, ToR, aa figure figure (F) i located located by by of aa spatial frame of of rtferenc< reference ((SFoR). Ina (F) is virtue reference object obi t ((RO) which serves serves to toestablish establi haasearch search virtue of of employing employing aa reference RO) which rtgion figurt. Consider the following following example: txample: region for for localing locating th the figure. Consider the

withother othertemporalle"ic.1 temporal lexicalconcept, concepts, nominalle"ical nominal lexical COli concepts may 31", also AAswith cpt may time As w we saw saw in 7, the exhibits polypolyexhibit polysemy. polysemy.I.0 As exhibit in Chapter hapt« 7, th. vehicle vehicle lII ..e exhibits semy, havingaa number number of of di distinct my, having tina lexical lexi .1 concepts concept associated associated with wilh it. it. More1or. ... over, lexical concepts paired with the same vehicle can be distinguished based over, lexical (oil cpt pmed wuh th m. vehi Ie can be di~tlllgui hed ha 'd on identifying distinct lexical profiles by examining on id ntifying di tinct lexical profiles by <xamining usage usage data. data. In In other other words, divergences in the lexical profile is a symptom of polysemy. Utterances words, divergenc in th lexi al profile i a ymptom of polysemy. Ullerane", time involving distinct temporal temporal lexical lexical concepts concepts associated are provided provided associated with with lII IIlvol ..e art v ing distinct below: below:

(8) (8)

Time drags drags when when you're Tillie you'r lx)red bored

DURATION' I[PROTRACTED PROTRACTED DIJRATIONI

(9) (9)

Time flies flies when when you're you're having having fun Time fun

(TEMPORAL COMPRESSION) COMPRFSSIONI ITEMPORAL

(to) (10)

Time fl flows on forever Time ws on forever

'TEMPORAL MATRIX'I In 'PORAL MATRIX

(11) (II)

The time time for The for aa decision dtci ion has ha arrived arrived

(TEMPORAL MOMENT) MOMENT] ITEMPORAL

(11) Thebike bikeisi in infront front of ofthe the church church (12) The

While ea each of these lexical Whil h of th lexical concepts con epts encodes en od linguistic linguistic content, content, the the gloss glo provided refer refers to to the the nature nature of of th. the conceptual conceptual content content to to which which these theselexical lexi al provided concepts facilitate thethe (PROTRACTED DURATION ] lexical COllcept facilitateaccess. access.For rorinstance, instance, IpROrRACTED DURATloN)lexiral concept facilitates access to to con conceptual concept facilil.t ace eptual content content relating r lating to to the th phenomenophenomenologically real experience of protracted logically real experien e of protra ted duration—the duration-the experience experienc< of ofhaving having more time than usual, and hence the experience of time proceeding mor tim than usual, and hen e the experi nee of tim proceeding more more "slowly" than usual. The lexical concept illustrated in (9) facilitates access " lowly" than u ual. Th lexical on ept illustrated in (9) fa ilitates ace to to the phenomenologically real experience of temporal compression—the exthe phenomenologi ally real experien e of temporal compr ion-the experience of having having less less time time than than usual, u ual, and and hence hence the th experience experience of oftime time perienc of proceeding more "quickly" than usual. usual. Th The lexical in evidence evidence in in proceeding more "qui kly" than lexical concept concept in (to) facilitates to the (10) facilitates aaccess ces to the conceptualimion conccptuali7.ation of oftime timeasa the theevent evcntwhich which encompasses all othen, others, which which II glo gloss as as th the Matrix Matrix conceptualiution—time onceptualildtion - time en Olllp~ all as ev nt takes takesplace. pia ~.Finally, rinally, the th lexical lexical as the th manifold manifold in in which whi hall allother otherevents concept which sana ion the the use u of of time lilll' in in (u) (II)relates relates to toconceptual con eptual content content concept whi h sanctions concerning time as a temporal moment or point without regard for concerning time as a temporal moment or point without rtgard for its ih duration. durallon.

Lexical which encode LeXICal concepts concepts which encode temporal temporalframes framesofofreference reference(TFoRs) (TFoRs) The The final final kind kind of oftemporal temporal lexical lexical concept con eptthat that II consider con ider are ar~ those those that that encode reference,or orTFoRs TFoRsfor forshort. \hort. encod what what II refer refer to to as as temporal temporal frames framesofofreference, Akin ofreference referen e (e.g., (~.g.,Levinson Levin n 2003; 2ooJ; see see also also Talmy Tal my z000), 2000), Akin to to spatial pallal frames fram of TFoRs complex symbolic TFoR. are are complex symbolic units, unit ,involving involvingaa vehicle vehicle and and an an internally internally open open closed-class do,.ro da lexical Ie ieal concept. con cpt. The The lexical lexical concept concept serves ~rv"" to toencode encodehighly highly schematic see below, .emporalreference. reference.Yet, Ye., and and as as we weshall hall".,., below, hemat/< aspects a pec~ ofoftemporal TFoR ((1n ept are arc integrated inttgrated with with open-class open-cia nominal nominallexical lexicalconcepts concept TFoR lexical le.ical concepts due ° Retail polvscrnv .. RnaUthat IJuIinInLCCM I(LMTheory rhenry P'''YWPlY arras .If due- to ,.)the 1M same RlC' phorkilogital rhf.n.,''''Ik-.I1 vehkk \'ch ....kbeing ~n. conventionally paired with distinct lexical concepts. and hence potentially distinct access sites. utmft'ltOMlly ~lrN With d ... lukl k'uul U>rkt'pl and ~~ Jt(JlmlWly d. Il1'kl Au.. It 1

4

In titutes the F, the location isI established tabli hed by by constitutes the F, the .ntity entity whose whose location the b,k. bike con In (.1) (12) II,. RO. The The RO RO thereby thereby serves serves to to narrow narrow down down the thesearch search virtue virtue of of employing employing aa RO. rtgion the FF can can be be located. located. region in in which which the point in in order order to to "locate" "locat." aa In fashion, TFoRs TFoRs employ r r. ren • point In analogou analogous fashion, employ aa reference given event in time. II will will employ .mploy English Engli h as as the the language languag of ofillustration. iIIustralion. in time. given event difTer, often oftell quite quite radically, radically, from from English, I'ngli h, there ther isi Although other languages languages differ, Although other reasonably h is not alone alon in inpossessing po inglexical lexical reasonably robust robust evidenc< evidence lhat that Engli English is not concepts that encode encode TFoRs TFoRs (see ( Alverson Alverson1994; 1994; Bender Bender el al. 1005; Moort et al. zoos; Moore concepts that 2000; unt? and and Sweetser weetser zo)6). 20(6).Nevertheless, everthele:.s, work work by by Silva ilva Sinha Sinha et el al. al. woo; Nunez (forthcoming) rev..1 that that TFoRs TFoRs may may not not be be cross-linguistically ero -linguisticallyuniversal. universal. (forthcoming) reveals Ikfort procteding a discussion di u ion of ofspecific pecific TFoR IToR lexical lexi al concepts, con cpt, aa Before proceeding with with a in order. order. In In Conceptual Con eptual Metaphor Metaphor Theory Theory it it has has been beell common commontoto caveat iis in caveat that the the type type of oflinguistic linguistic expressions expr ions IIdiscuss discus below beloware areaaconseconsea um. that assume of conceptual conetptual metaphors—cross-domain metaphors-
__________~T~I~IE ~ ~EMANTI OF ~I~ M~E~__~3~1~7 THE SEMANTICS OF~T TIME 317

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT THOUGHT FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND

earlier/later relation. Both Both types edrlierllal r relation. types are are illustrated illu trated with with specific peeilkutterances utterane

Experien er·b. d TFoR xieal concepts con cpt Experiencer-based TFoR Ilexical

below: below:

While there are a large iIIu trate by considering con idering just ju t two twoTFoR TFoR large number, I will illustrate leXIcal of this this type: type: lexical umeept concepts of

(l' xpenencer-ba;cd) Christmas approaching(u(us) tma iisapproaching ) (Experiencer-based) (13) (13) ehri

(14) (14)

• (LOCATION TIMl,FROM fROM PERSPECTIVE PER PECTIVE OF OF EVENT] EVENT) [LOCATION Of OF [VENT EVENT IN IN TIME, e.g., Clms/mllS (liS) Christmas is upproac/mlg approaching (us)

(Event . based) Christmas precedes New Year (Event-based) ehri tma precedes 'ew Vear

As with spatial of reference, referene , temporal temporal reference referen e encodes en odes aa reference r ferenee A patial frames fram of point which event in time. poont whi h serves to "locate" "I<><:at.' a particular particular event time. In In the th example exampleinon (13), the the notion of (13), of"now" " now" associated asso<:iated with with the the location location ofofan anexperiencing experiencong consciousness—the as th the reference consciousn the "Experiencer"—serves " lxperiencer"- serves as referen e point. With With rereo spect to this an event event can can be be understood understood in terms speet thi Experiencer, Fxperiencer, an term of of its it immiimmi · nence--the nenc the degree d ree to to which which itit isis"located" "located" in in the thefuture future with with respect r"'peet to tllthe the Experiencer--or its occurrence—the degree to to which Experien er-or its occurrenct'-the degr which it it is i "located" "located" in in the the pastt with respect to the (13) isi licensed licensedby by pa the Experiencer. Experiencer. Hence, Hen e, the the example examplein in(13) an Experiencer-based TFoRlexical lexical concept and the open-class an Experiencer· ba\ed lToR oncept and open -cia lexical lexi al concon cepts which are integrated with it. It. Together Together these these give give rise ri to to aa conception conceptioninin the which a past/future Christmas, ,and which pa t/ future relation relation holds hold between between the theevent, event,-hristma and the reference ref< rence point, "now," "now:' associated a \llCidted with WIth the th Experiencer. hperien(er. employs a given (14) employ In t, the the example example in in (t4) given event event as as the thereference ref< renee In contra contrast, point, rather than notion of of"now." "now." In In (14), itit is i New ewYear, Vear, aa temporal temporal point, rather than the notion as the reference point in event reference point in order order to toestablish establi,h the therelative r Idti", serves as event which serve in time of of another another event, event, here here Christmas. Christmas. Hence, Hence,the theutterance utteranceinin ""location" location" in (4) isi licensed (14) licensedby byan anEvent-based Fvent -based TFoR TFoR lexical Icxi al concept con cpt and and the the open-class open-cia lexical concept concepts that that are are integrated with it. give ri-. to to aJ lexieal integrated with it. Together Together these th give rise conception in conception in which which there there isis an anearlier/later earlier/later relation relation holding holding between between the the ewYear. Vear. The The distinction di tinctionbetween between event, Christmas, .hri tma" and the the reference referen e point, point,New the content the linguistic linguistic (on tent encoded encodl.,) by these the . two two IFoR TFoR lexical lexicdl concepts contept isis sumsum marized in 15.t. in Table Tdble '5.1. of TFoR lexical The two broad types types ofTFoR lellical concept con cpt arc arc manifested manifested in in terms term of ofaa number of of specific 'peeilk TFoR ,(,FoR lexical lexical concepts. wnerpt .Below BelowIIbriefly bneflydescribe de,cribesome someofofthe the mostt common types. mo type,.

TABLE 151. Linguistic content encoded TFoR lexical TABU ' $0', lmgm tic cOnltnt tncoded by by two IwO types lyptS of ofTfoR Itx"at concept wnt:tpt

Type of of Temporal Frame lram of of Reference Refe«n e (TFoR) (TFoR) lexical Itxical concept conttpt Reference point (RP) ReferenL< (RP) ethoded enco.led Relation encoded en o.led

Experiencer-based ,. xpt:ricn,cr h.J\et.l e.g.. t .p...

Christmas Christmas isIS approaching apprc..)f.l,/,ing Human lIum;ln experience t J't."ricnct of "now" ("Experiencer") { OO l- pt.-ricf\\:er", Relative location in Rtlall\C I()(.uion m time lim ((i.e' i.e., past/future) of •• p.ut /tUlure) of event C\1.."tlt with \\-lIh respect rt pa.1 to to RP RP

Event-based I vrnl ho\ed e.g., e.g.,

•

(LOCATION [VENT IN IN TIME, TIMl,FROM I-ROMPERSPECTIVE PERSPECTIVE OF OJ EXPERIENCERI EXPLRllNCERI (LOCATION 01 OF EVENT

e.g., Wt Chris/mas We arc are approac/IItIg approaching Christmas As WIth all all TFoR Tl'oR lexical lelO al concepts, concepts, these these are arc complex compl xclosed-class c1osed -da lexical lellic.] As with concepts which consist con ist of ofphonetically phonetically overt overt as a well well as asphonetically phoneticallyimplicit implicit comtitute partially partially internally internally open open lexical lexi .1concepts, (Oncept , vehides. lIence, they they constitute vehicles. Hence, which can be be integrated integrated with with other other closed-class dosed -da. as a well well as a~open-class open- la~\lexical lexical which can con cpt. concepts. I begin by considering considering the the first first of ofthe thetwo twoexperiencer-based experien er-ba dTFoR TFoRlexical lexical concepts. The symbolic unit is i given givcn in in (IS): (15): (IS) (15)

J. vehicle a.

b. lexical concept concept h. lexical

""NP1 PI VERBAL VlRBAL eOMPLfX I DIRECTED [)IRlCTU) COMPLEX OF MOTIO (NP2)" ( Pl)" MOTION (LOCATION OF OF EVENT EVENT IN IN TIME, TIME,FROM fROMPERSPECTIVE PERSPECTIVE [LOCATION Of EVENT] [VlNT) OF

The lexical concept (ISb) encodes en odes the thefollowing. following. There There isi an an event event (E) (E) The lexical concept in in (10) which is i located located in on time lime with with respect r . peet to toan anexperiencer expenenlCr which whith serves serves as d the the which reference point location isi viewed from from the the reference point (RP). Additionally, the temporal location ofthe event. This Thiscan canhe berepresented representeddiagrammatically diagrammatically perspeetiv point ((PP) perspective point PP) of the event. as in in Figure I-igure 15.t.

'5.'.

PP PP

•

-

Christmas C/,ruttmuprecedes prclc,/t· New Nnv Year \i'd' Temporal event C'\cnt Relative sequence Rdative Sot"qu n~t (i.e., ( i.t .• earlier/later) c;lrhtr/ l~ll:r ' of ofevent nenl with With respect n: ptl.1 to 10 another .anmher event enl

•

bme-time

RP RP

EE

FIGURE FI(.l'a. l~l . Representation Reprt."'!K"nt;lUunofuftht lingul II, t.ootcnl tnuKled hy l It)( ATlON I VI- NT the linguistic content encoded by [LOCATION OF01 EVENT INTlloU.I-ROM 1"a Pit l'V' OF ()I EVENTI IVI-N' ) IN TIME. FROM PERsPicTIVE

318

-

he Iingul linguistic content encoded encoded by Ih lexical I xlCal concept cone pi illustrated illu Iraled in in Figure rigure The lie conlenl by the does nol not relate to th the phenom phenomenological 15.1 highlyschematic schematicin in nalure. nature. IIIt does 15. relate 10 nological 1 i ishighly of whal what ilit "fuels" like, for for inslan instance, to experience of experience experien e of "feel .. like, e, 10 experience the Ihe passage pa ge of time. Nor does itil encode lime. or does en ode phenomenologically phenomenologically rich ri h notions nOlion relating relaling to to the Ihe experienceof of pastn pastness or or fUlurily. futurity.That That iis,,thi this lexical lexicalcon concept encodes experience epl simply imply encodes relation holding holding between aa relalion belween an an event evenl and and the Ihe RP: RP: the Ihe present. presenl. In In other olherwords, word, "getsinlo" into" languag language, to speak, in terms of linguistic what "get whal , so10 peak, in lerm of lingui Ii content, eonlenl, isI aa highly paramalerized paramaterized version version of of temporal nothing about about highly lemporal experience. experience. IIIt says ys nothing whether Ih the evenl event isis located whelher localed in in the Ihe future fulure or or the thepast pa Iwith withrespect r peeltotothe IheRP. RP. Ibis rich inference emerges following interpretation, once open-class lexical This rich infer nee emerges following onlerprelalion, once open ·cla le"ieal concepts have have been been integrated with the concepl inlegraled with Ihe TFoR TFoR lexical lellical concept, con cpt, as a discussed di u sed later. For For Ihi this reason, reason, the the time laler. tim line line in inFigure Figure15.1 IS .• has ha no no directionality. direclionalily. In addillon addition 10 to Ihisschemalic this schematic content, the lexical In conlenl,lhe le"i Iconcept conceplalso alsoencodes encodesaalexical lexical profile. As As thi thisTFoR TFoRlexical lexical concepl concept iis inlernal1y internally open, open, the profile. the lexical lexical profile promeencodes encodes internal formal and semantic selectional tendencies. This includes the following: inlernal fom.al and semanli selcctionallendenci This in Iud Ihe following: NP1 must be be aa temporal temporal evenl event of of some some kind, P,musl kind, and and the Ihe optional oplionalNP2 P2(signalled ( ignalledby by the parentheses in (15a)) must be an experiencer of some kind. The verbal Ihe parentheses in (Isa)) must be an experiencer of som kind. The verbal Lomplex ofdirected directedmol motion to motion omplex of ion must musl relate relale to 0101 ion events event that Ihal can can be be construed con Irued facilitating arrival arrivalalat th the experiencer. experiencer. These These in include of deictic aas facilitaling lude verbs verb of deicti motion, molion, come, verbs such verbs of of lern.inal terminal motion, motion, such approach, verbal verbal complexes complexes uch as as com., u h as as approach, Involving increase increase in in proximity, get/move closer, or verbs of motion involving proximily, such U h as a getlmo,." c/OSl'r, or verbs of mol ion which are manner-neutral, mow, bUI but which whi hare manner·neulral, such u h as as mOl.", which are are paired paired with wilh aa path path satellite of of directed directed mol motion, to give give the complex mo,." move up salellile ion, such such as as up on, 01410 the verbal verbal complex upon. Ott Fxamples of utterances licensed by this lexical concept are given below: Examples of ulleran es licensed by Ihi lellical con epl are given below: ( 16) (.6)

THE SEMANTICS OF TIME

FiciURA IVELANG LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT _ _ _ _ __ FIG U RA TII VI!; UAGe__A:::.:N.:::O...:T:..:I.:.:IO:::U:::G:::'~IT=-

a. a. b. b. c. c. d. d. e. e.

Christmas hri Ima is i moving moving towards loward us us Christmas is approaching (us) hri lOla i approaching (u ) Christmas is getting getting closer closer (to ehri Imas I. (10 us) u ) Christmas hri tmas is i coming coming Christmas hri Imas is i whizzing whizzing towards lowards us u

The The second cond experiencer-based experiencer-based TFoR TFoR symbolic ymbolicunit unitcan canbebestated statedasasfollows: follow: '7) a.a.vehicle (17) vehicl b. b. lexical le"ieal concept con el'l

"NPt " PI VERBAL VERBAL COMPLEX OMPlEX OF Of DIRECTED DIREcrED MOTION NP2" MOnO P2" [ILO<'ATION LOCATION OF OF EVENT EVENT IN IN TIME, TI 'E,FROM IRO.,

Rl

319 319

PP PP

• llme-time

•

RP RP

• E

FI(.l'al lSol. Rcpr ntation of tht linguistic hngui til content (on tent encoded encoded by by (UKATION or (LOCATION OF of the Representation FIGURE 15.2. lVlNT TIMt;,FROM I ROMPERSPECTIVE P) R Pu.:TIVI OF Of EXPFRIFNCER lXPERIt;N( u,lI EVENT IN IN TIME,

The leXIcal profile profil for this Ihi. lexical leXICal concept oncepl stipulates Slipulaiesthat Ihal N1PI must be an 3 1 muSI The lexical experien er of that NP2 P2 must mu I be aa temporal lemporal event evenl of of some me experiencer of som some sort, sort, and and that kind. verbal complex direcled motion must must relate relale to to motion mol ionevents evenl kind. The The verbal complex of of directed Ihal wilh respect respecl to 10the Ihe evenl. lIlu Iralive examples exampl", event. Illustrative involve direcled directed molion motion with that involve are are provided below: (18) movong lowardsChristmas ('hri Ima is) a. a. WeWe areare moving towards b. We We are are approaching approa hing Christmas hri Ima h. c. We We are gelling 10 Christmas hri Imas getting close to concep" Evenl-based TFoR lexical concepts Event-based As with with experiencer-based experiencer-based TFoR al con el'l , there there are are aa number number of of TFoR lexi lexical concepts, di linci kinds kinds of ofevent evenl-based based TFoR TFoR lexical lexical concepts. con eplS.In Inthis Ihissection seclionI Iexemplify exemplify distinct jusl two. two. Recall Recall that Ihat the theessential essentialdifference differencebetween betweenexperiencer-based experiencer-basedand and just evenl based TFoR .1 con eplS iis Ihe Rp encoded, en oded, and and hence hen e the Ihe event-based TFoRle"i lexical concepts the RP schemali relation relalion encoded. encoded.While Whil experiencer-based experien er-basedTFoR TFoRlexical lexicalconcepts con eplS schematic encode an an event event that thai isislocated locatedinintime limewith withrespect respecttotothe theexperiencer, experiencer,eventevenlencode lexi al concepts con epl encode en od the Ihe relation relalion of ofan anevent evenlwith wilhrespect r pectto10 based TFoR lexical another event, evenl, and and hence hen e encode n odeaasequential sequenlial(i.e., (i.e.,ananearlier/later), earlier/laler),rather ralher another Ihan aa temporal (i.e., (i.e.,past/future) pa tlfulure)relation. relalion.To Toillustrate, iUu trale,consider con iderthe thesymbolic symbolic than unil provided provided inin(19): ('9): unit

PERSPECTIVE PERSPlCTIVf OF Of EXPERIENCERI EXPERlfNCI

The Th lexical lexical concept concept in in (17b) (17b) encodes encodes the Ihefollowing. following. There There isI an an event evenl (E) (E) an which is located in time with respect to experiencer which serves as the whith is I'Kaled in lime wilh respecl 10 an e peri neer whi h serves as Ihe reference point (RP), referen e poinl (Rp), and and that thai the the temporal temporal location local ion isI viewed viewedfrom fromthe the perspective point (PP) of the experiencer. This can be represented diagramper;petlive poinl (PP) of Ihe experiene r. Thi can be repre nled diagram matically as inonFigure malitallya Ilgure15.2. 15.1.

(19)

.. PI COME ME before before NP2" 1'1" vehicle "NP. a.a. vehicle IQUENC£D EARLIER [ARLIER THAN THANYv)I b. lexical le"i .1 concepi b. concept IxIXIIS SEQUENCED

In this Ihi example, example, the Ih~ lexical lelli aI concept concepl in in(19b) (19b)encodes encodesaaschematic schematicrelation relalioninin In which one 011 temporal lemporalevent nentisI sequenced '>CC(ueneedearlier earlierthan Ihan another. anolher. That Thai is, i ,there thereisi which oneevent, evenl,event evenl E, L. which whi(.hisi~ sequenced ~lucnu"dprior priorto toaasecond set:ond event, evenl, which whichserves rYesas ~ one the reference reference point polOl(RP). (RP). Moreover, Moreover, as as the th~ relation relation isisone oneofofbeing beingearlier, earlier,the th~ the

THE SEMANTICS OF TIME

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT

320

perspective point (PP) is fixed at the earlier event. Hence, this TFoR lexical concept encodes what I refer to as a prospective relation. It says nothing about the nature of the temporal event in question, nor about the degree of temporal proximity of the two events nor about phenomenological aspects of temporal experience. In short, the content encoded is linguistic in nature and hence highly schematic. The phenomenologically rich details are derived from interpretation of the open-class lexical concepts which are integrated with the closed-class internally open lexical concept in (19b). The symbolic unit in (19) ..anctions an example such as (20): (20)

time RP

is that in France, cheese is sequenced prior to dessert in a four-course meal—which happens to contrast with the convention in the United Kingdom where cheese follows dessert. The TFoR lexical concept described here can be diagrammed as in Figure 15.3. In Figure 15.3, Time is represented by the directed arrow, so as to signify the earlier/later relation. The black circles labelled F. and RP represent the two events (X and Y), while the circle labelled PP signals which event is the perspective point. The arrows leading from the PP to the two events (F. and RP) signal the prospective relation. The lexical profile associated with this lexical concept stipulates the following. NPs and NP2 must be temporal events, there is a finite form of come, and an obligatory element, l► efore. (2o)

The second event-based TFoR lexical concept I consider is given below as part of the symbolic unit of which it is a component: (it) a. vehicle "NP1 COME after NP2" b. lexical concept (x IS SEQUENCED LATER THAN YI

I

SEQUENCED LATER THAN EVENT Ifl

In this example, the lexical concept in (21b) encodes a schematic relation in which one temporal event is sequenced later than another. That is, there is one event, event E, which is sequenced subsequent to a second event, and the second event serves as the reference point (RP). Moreover, as the relation is one of being later, the perspective point (PP) is fixed at the later event. Hence, this TFoR lexical concept encodes what I refer to as a retrospective relation. As before, it says nothing about the nature of the temporal event in question, nor about the degree of temporal proximity of the two events nor about phenomenological aspects of temporal experience. The content encoded is linguistic in nature and hence highly schematic. The symbolic unit in (21) sanctions an example such as (22): In France, dessert comes after cheese

The role of temporal linguistic content and temporal conceptual content in meaning construction

RP

QUENCED EARLIER THAN Y

Retrospective relation encoded by the TFoR lexical concept: [EVENT X IS

the earlier/later relation. The black circles labelled E and RP represent the two events (X and Y), while the circle labelled PP signals which event is the perspective point. The arrows leading from the PP to the two events (F. and RP) signal the retrospective relation. The lexical profile associated with this lexical concept stipulates the following. NPi and NP2 must he temporal events, there is a finite form of come, and an obligatory element, after.

time 4 Prospective relation encoded by the

E

In Figure 15.4, Time is represented by the directed arrow, so as to signify

•

1s3.

FIGURE 114.

(u)

PP

FIGURE

PP

In France, cheese comes before dessert

The typical conception that arises from

321

TI 4 R Ic.ical concept: l x

IS SE-

Providing an account of the level of schematic linguistic content associated with TFoR lexical concepts is only part of the story, however. Temporal

conceptionsalso also involve involve the the IIItegration integration of of open open-class temporal lexi,al lexical con con(Onception da temporal ceptswith with the the closed-cia closed-class TF TFoR lexical concepts, and and hen hence access to cept R lexi al concepts. cae to cogni_ cogni . live model profiles and so structure recruited via conceptual metaphor. That t.ve model profiles and so tructure recruited v.a con eptual metaphor. That we need need to to con consider the way i is, • we .der the way in in which which linguistic hngui tic and and conceptual (oneeptual content ,ontent interactiningiving givingrise riseto to temporal temporal conceptions. conceptions, the the subject subject of of this interact lhi section. section. To To do this, I consider an example relating to the first of the experiencer-based do this. I consider an exam pi relating to the first of the experiencer.ba<ed TFoRsdidiscussed: thelexical lexical(oncept concept prov.ded provided III in ('5b). (15b), which which sanctions sanctions tthe he TI'oRs ussed: the following example: example: following (23) Christmas is approaching (2J) C.hristmas i approa hing On the the face face of of it, On it. the th utterance utterance in in (23) (2J) isis distinctly di tinctlyodd oddififtaken takenliterally. literally. After After all,Chri Christmas temporal event. event, whi which usually la lasts for aa determined determined period. period, all. tma isisaatemporal h u~ually t for and as. as such cannot undergo motion of and uch cannot undergo veridical veridical motion of the the sort sort indicated indicated by by the the approaching. Yet, this utterance is straightforwardly understood expression by expr .on "pprolmas. while located in the fu ture is relatively relatively imminent. imminent. To To S« see that is lhat this lhi is i so, so. we we can can contrast contra t the theutterance utterance in i~ (23) with that in (24): (2J) with that in (24): (24) (24)

The "0' 1 MA,I ThecognitIVe cognitivemodel modelprofile profilefor for Ie!CHRISTMAS' IIaassume ume inin LC 1 Theory. that LCCM Theory,ininkeeplllg keepingwilh with Lakoff Lakoffand andJohnson Johnson('999). 0999), that con eptual metaphor uncon iou recruitment recruitment conceptual metaphors facilitate facilitate the the automatic automatic and and unconscious of on eptual content from distinct di tinct domains, domain,. in in the the of conceptual content from from cognitive cognitive model models from ca pace. Thi thereby facilitates fa ilitates th recruitment of pati.1 caseof of Time. Time, from from Space. This thereby the recruitment of spatial model.That That con eptual content 'iervcs to tru ture temporal temporal cognitive cogmtive models. conceptual content which which serves to structure is. is, conceptual conceptual metaphor. metaphors, in in effect. effect, provide provide the the primary primary cognitive cognitive models models to to (CHO.STMAS) afford acc • with additional tructure. To which. for in tance. which, for instance, (CHRISTMAS) affords access, with additional structure. To .lIu trate. con ider aa partial profile for for (CIIR.STMAS). pro'CHRISTMAS', proillustrate, consider partial cognitive cognitive model model profile !'igure '5.5. vided t5.5. vided III in Figure R. TMA I facilitates primary The lexical concept facilitatesaccess accessto toaa number number of of primary -rmAs1 The lexical concept (CII IcHms cognitive III lude knowledge knowledge relating relating to to Christmas hri tm. as a aa CUL.u, cognitive model. models. Th= These include TURAL FEST.VAL. in luding the gift; and and other other cultural cultural practice, practi e. including the exchange exchange of of gifts TURAL FESTIVAL, including umed. activiti coming together together of of including food food con consumed, activities engaged engagedin. in, th the coming family. forth. The ond type type of ofknowledg relatestotoChristmas hristma asa aa family, and and SO so forth. The second knowledge relates TEMPORA' EVENT. Thi, in Iud aa whole wh Ie host ho,t of temporal knowledge, knowledge. aas of temporal This includes TEMPORAL EVENT. iIIu trated by with the the TEMPORAL TEMPORAL EVENT EVENT illustrated by the the attributes attributes and and valu values associated associated with cognitive model. For in,tan e. part of our knowledge relating to a t mporal cognitive model. For instance, part of our knowledge relating to a temporal is that that it it can can be be situated ituated in in the th PAST. PRESENT. and further event A further FUTURE. A and H;TUR>. PAST, PRESENT, event is

I'AOTAACT£D

•• ••

Before Before accounting acwunting for f?r these these,issues, i ue;.I I first first consider con iderthe .he way way inIIIwhich whi hspatial patial conceptual content is recruited, via conceptual metaphor, to structure temconceptual content I recruited. via conceptual metaphor, to tru ture tern· poral poral cognitive (()g~'lIv models. m~e1. IIdo dososoby byconsidering comideringthe thecognitive cognitivemodel modelprofile profile accessed via the lexical concept (CHRIsTMAsl. aCl< '" v•• the leXICal ( ncel" (tI •• I\.MA I·

TEMPORAL

PROTRACTED DURATION DURATION

In (24), while also located In (24). wh.le Christmas 'hri tmas is is al located in in the the future, future. it it is is not not imminent. .mminent. Accordingly, there are three specific issues that need to be accounted for in in Accordingly. lherr are three peeific i ues that need to be accountedfor terms of explaining how LCCM Theory models the conception which arises temlS of explaining how LC .M Theory model the con eption which ari for for the the utterance utterance in in (23). (2J). These These are are summarized ummarized below: below:

rather than a rather than a spatial patial scene. ene. That That is, i •the lh utterance utteran, isi interpreted interpreted asa concerning concemlllg aa temporal temporal scenario scenario rather rather than than one oneinvolving involvingveridical veridical motion. mohon. Issue 2: /SSIl' z The The temporal temporal event esent of ofChristmas Chmtma isi located located ininthe thefuture futurewith with respect to our understanding of the present which is implicit, although r peel to our under tanding of the present which i implicit. although not not explicitly exphCltly mentioned, mentioned.ininthe theutterance utteranceinin(23). (2J). Issue y The future event of Christmas is interpreted /SSllf •.I: The future event of Chri tmas is interpretedasasbeing beingrelatively relatively imminent with respect to the present. .mmlllent w.th r peet to the present.

SYNCHRONOUS DURATION

OBJECT IN MOTION ALONG A PATH

Christmas approaching, but but is is still till aa long long way way off off Chri tma iis approaching.

•• Issue /e IIf I: The The utterance utteran e in in (23) (2J)'is interpreted IIIterpretedas asrelating relatingto toaatemporal temporal scene scene

J2J 323

Til SeMANTICS OF TIMl. THE SEMANTICS OF TIME

FIGURATIVELANGUAGE LANGUAGEAND ANDTltOUGUT THOUGHT FIGURATIVE

I

( A MPRE SSION

0

0

I I

0 I

(. •

PAST PAST

PRESENT PRESENT

FUTlM'IE FUTURE

DURATION

DURATION

RELIGIOUS

CULTlM'IALFESTIVAL FESTIVAL CULTURAL

TEMPORALEVENT EVENT TEMPORAL

RELIGIOUS FESTIVAL FESTIVAL

[CHRISTMAS) [CHRISTMAS] FIGUaf ISS. IS-S. MAW P.lfti,,-IIprimary pnm.Jrycognitive l.(lg"'t1\'~model modelprofile profilefor (or'CHRISTMAS' It ItRI\TMAS) FIGURE

324

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT

attribute relates to the nature of the durational elapse associated with the event, which is to say its DURATION. This attribute has a number of values associated with it. Moving from right to left, the first is TEMPORAL COMPRESSION—the underestimation of time, which is to say, the experience that time is proceeding more "quickly" than usual. The second is SYNCHRONOUS DUE• A-rtoN—the normative estimation of time, which is to say, the experience time unfolding at its standard or equable rate. The final value is PROTRACTED DURATION. This relates to an overestimation of duration, which is to say the felt experience that time is proceeding more "slowly" than usual. The sorts of experiences that give rise to the range of different attributes and values represented in the conceptual system in the domain of Time are of myriad kinds. For instance, we experience the past in terms of the range of measures we deploy to record temporal "distance" from now, such as time lines, calendars, diaries, and so on. We also experience the past in terms of biological ageing, photographic records of past events, narrative and story which recount past happenings, as well as personal and autobiographical memory, and so on. The present is experienced by virtue of direct perceptual processing, the phenomenologically real perceptual moment briefly described above." The future is apprehended in terms of our experiences of intentionality and the realization of intentions, as well as our experience of waiting and the subsequent occurrence of events. Moreover, it is apprehended in terms of our experience and interaction with the recording mechanisms that we deploy in order to gauge the relative imminence of future events such as calendars, timetables, schedules, time plans, and time-reckoning systems and devices on a daily basis. Finally, we also have detailed knowledge of the range of phenomenologically real aspects of duration which we experience throughout our lives. The final primary cognitive model diagrammed in Figure 15.5 is that of Christmas as a RELIGIOUS FESTIVAL. This relates to knowledge concerning the nature and status of Christmas as a Christian event, and the way in which this festival is enacted and celebrated. In addition, the primary cognitive models for IciiiusmiAsi recruit structure from other cognitive models via conceptual metaphor. That is, as operationalized in LCCM Theory, a conceptual metaphor provides a stable link that allows aspects of conceptual content encoded by one cognitive model to he imported so as to form part of the permanent knowledge representation encoded by another. For instance, the primary cognitive model TEMPORAL EVENT is structured via conceptual metaphor in terms of a stable, long-term link holding between it and the cognitive model relating to an witucr IN MOTION ALONG A PATH. As such, the cognitive model, OBJECT IN MOTION ALONG A PATH, which is represented, in Figure 15.5, by virtue of a circle located on a path, with the arrow indicating direction of motion, provides I' See Evans (sonsit) for further detail•

TILE SEMANTICS OF TIME

'

325

the TEMPORAL EVENT cognitive model with inferential structure relating to our knowledge of objects undergoing motion along a path. The conceptual content recruited via conceptual metaphor is indicated by the dashed lines. Specifically, inferential structure from this cognitive model is inherited by the PAST, PRESENT, and FUTURE attributes, such that content relating to the region of the path behind the object serves to structure, in part, our experience of pastness, conceptual content relating to the object's present location serves to structure, in part, our experience of the present, and content relating to that portion of the path in front of the object serves to structure our experience of futurity. This is indicated by the dashed lines which map the relevant portions of the path of motion from the OBJECT IN MOTION ALONG A PATH cognitive model onto the relevant attributes: FUTURE, PRESENT, PAST. In addition, content relating to the nature of motion is inherited by the DURATION attribute. Again this is captured by the dashed arrow, which links the arrow—signifying motion—with the DURATION attribute. In Chapter to, I discussed chaining within the conceptual system—the phenomenon whereby links and associations are established such that a web of connections serves to relate cognitive models. Hence, cognitive models are related to one another, facilitating activation of knowledge as it is required, for instance, by linguistically mediated communication. In LCCM Theory, conceptual metaphors provide one of the ways in which cognitive models from other regions of the conceptual system can become linked with cognitive models belonging to the access site of a given lexical concept. By virtue of humans acting in the world, tight reoccurring correlations serve to establish connections between cognitive models associated with distinct domains in the conceptual systems of human infants prior to the onset of language (see Lakoff and Johnson 1999). The establishing of these links provides a powerful organizational device that facilitates the deployment and re-us• of multimodal knowledge in order to structure other (less easily apprehended) domains of experience.' 2 From the perspective of LCCM Theory then, as conceptual metaphors serve to establish stable links between specific cognitive models that may belong to the access sites of many lexical concepts—for example, Easter, Spring, the concert, his prime, and so forth—this leads to massive redundancy of spatial conceptual content subserving temporal concepts. That is, conceptual metaphors provide a fundamental structuring mechanism of the human conceptual system.

" It is important to note that sonteptual metaphor—the establishment of linked sognitive models which derive from unrelated domains of expetiente is but one way in which cognitive models 'niters' %truth's-v. others insludr the ► hen ►► menon isanssentlence. as well is ♦ alit Rees, discussed in Chapter 10. These pin models.

ilia also serve to essaslish links bvissern tisimitivr

Nf.

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT

THE SEMANTICS OF TIME

Meaning construction in Christmas is approaching I now return to a consideration of how the various interpretations (issues 1- 3

discueabov), tdwih(23arse.

Issue I Firstly, how is it that the utterance in (23) is interpreted as relating to a temporal scenario rather than a spatial one? The answer is as follows. Th e TFoRlexicanpthsoeurancswholevafrm for interpreting the open-class lexical concepts—those associated with the vehicles Christmas and approaching allowing them to achieve an informational characterization relating to a temporal scene. That is, the linguistic content encoded by this TFoR lexical concept, as described above, ensures that the interpretations that arise for the lexical concepts paired with Christ► as and {approaching are a consequence of these lexical concepts undergoing integration in the context of schematic temporal, as opposed to spatial, content. Put another way, as the overarching internally open TFoR lexical concept relates to a temporal scene, this provides a schematic framework which constrains the process of interpretation, as it applies to the open-class lexical concepts that populate the larger TFoR lexical concept. —

i ssue 2 Secondly, how is it that the utterance is understood as relating to a temporal event which is "located" in the future? After all, as we saw above the experiencer-based TFoR lexical concept which licenses the utterance as a whole does not encode whether a given temporal event is situated in the past or future. The answer, I suggest, relates to a special kind of matching that involves the spatial content recruited via conceptual metaphor, which structures the cognitive model profile of [CHRISTMAS] and the primary cognitive model profile accessed via [APPROACHING]. This type of matching I refer to as conceptual metaphor matching, which is constrained by the Principle of Conceptual Metaphor Matching, summarized below: (p12) Principle of Conceptual Metaphor Matching During interpretation, (an) open-class lexical concept(s) structured in terms of conceptual metaphor(s) are subject to matching, whenever possible, in the primary cognitive model profile of relevant lexical concepts in the same lexical conceptual unit. Conceptual metaphor matching does not preclude regular matching. This principle does two things. Firstly, it ensures that in the case of (23) the spatial content to which lciikisTmAsl has access in its primary cognitive

327

model p rofile by virtue of recruitment via conceptual metaphor is matched with relevant cognitive model(s) in the primary cognitive model profile of I APPROACHING]. Secondly, this matching operation does not interfere with, and hence does not prevent regular matching, matching that takes place on conceptual content which is not recruited via conceptual metaphor. In terms of the utterance in (23), the spatial content to which iciiRISTMASI facilitates access has to do with inferential structure derived from the motion scenario involving an object in motion. This is matched with the kind of terminal motion accessed via (APPROACHING]. The cognitive model profile associated with [APPROACHING' involves motion towards an entity, and hence, the object in motion is in front of the entity with respect to which it is "approaching". As the FUTURE attribute of the TEMPORAL EVENT cognitive model accessed via (CHRISTMAS( is structured in terms of that part of the motion trajectory that is in front, the resulting match involves an interpretation in which the temporal event of Christmas is "located" in the future. In other words, this particular interpretation is a consequence of the special type of matching I refer to as conceptual metaphor matching.

Issue 3 The final issue relates to the interpretation that the temporal event of Christmas in (23) is interpreted as being relatively imminent. This interpretation arises, I argue, due to the regular process of matching as described in earlier chapters. Matching, as guided by the previously introduced Principles of Interpretation, attempts to build an informational characterization for (CHRISTMAS' and [APPROACHING] by first searching the primary cognitive models of both these open class lexical concepts. As Christmas is a temporal, cultural, and religious event, and hence something that cannot undergo the sort of veridical motion implicated by the primary cognitive model profile associated with APPROACHING 1, a clash arises. This necessitates clash resolution. Due to the Principle of Context-induced Clash Resolution, introduced in the previous chapter, [CHRISTMAS] is designated as the figurative target, and [APPROACHING' the figurative vehicle. This follows as the utterance is "about" Christmas, and specifically serves to "locate" Christmas "in" time. The consequence of the foregoing is that a search is established in the secondary cognitive model profile of (APPROACHING]. A very partial cognitive model for (APPROACHING' is provided in Figure 15.6. The cognitive model profile for (APPROACHING] includes primary cognitive models for a TARGET LOCATION, the DIRECTED MOTION OF AN ENTITY, and the IMMINENCE of ARRIVAL OF AN ENTITY. A consequence of the relative imminence of arrival of an entity is the IMMINENCE OF OCCURRENCE OF EVENT, which is a secondary cognitive model. As a temporal event such as Christmas can occur, but not (literally) arrive, -

;28

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND T"OU:::G~·::".:.T_ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT

IMMINENCEOF OF IMMINENCE OCCURRENCE OF OCCURRENCE OF EVENT EVENT

TARGET TARGET LOCATION LOCATION

DIRECTEO DIRECTED MOTION OFAN AN MOTION OF ENTITY ENTITY

IMMINENCE OF OF IMMINENCE ARRIVAL OF ARRIVAL OF ENTITY ENTITY

(APPROACHING! [APPROACHING]

FIG"Rf 1~6. P,nl.l ognlli, model profile for (APPROA "'~G! 1- 1GURF 156. Partial cognitive model profile for [APPROACHING] there is aa match match between between the the secondary ;econdary cognitive cognili.e model model IMMINENCE IMMINE U OF UF there is oc XRRENCE Of EVFNT and the primary primary cognitive cognitive model model profile profile of of OCCURRENCE OF EVENT and the Ie(CHRISTMAS!. IIRI\T tA\I. Ilence, mterpretation of the imminence imminence of ofthe theoccurO« lor Hence, the the interpretation of the renee Christm. iis due to aa metaphoric metaphoric conception coneeplion arising, ari ing. along along the the rence of of Christmas due to line discu sed in in more more detail detail in the previou chapter. lines discussed in the previous chapter.

The of conceptual conceptualmetaphors metaphorsininLCCM LCCM Theory Theory The status status of II condude by conSidering the statu or conceptual conteptual metaphors metaphor; in in conclude this considering the status of this chapter chapter by LCC 1 Theory. to answer, answer. four four questions: question: LCCM Theory.IIdo do so by by asking. asking, and and attemptmg attempting to What tatus of metaphors in in I.CCM tecM Theory? Theory? What is is the the .status of ",nceptual conceptual metaphors What role of of lexical lellical con ept and cognitive models? models? What is is the the distinctive distinctive role concepts and cognitive What the motivation motivation for for TFoR TI'oR lexical Ie i(al concepts concepts to to deploy deploy vehicles vehide What is is the relating patiallanguage? relating to to literal literal spatial language? •• What d this how about th utility utility of of using u ing semantic semantic structure tru ture in on What does this show about the language investigating conceptual (on eptual structure? tructure? language a, as aa len lens for for investigating •• •• ••

I.i. What tatu of t.phors? Whatiis the the status of conceptual conceptual m metaphors? (onleptual structurmg Conceptualmetaphor, metaphors,in in teeM LCCM Theory, Theory, proVIde provide aa Illean, means of of structuring "'gmti .. model, term of of conceptual conceptual content content recruited recruited from from cognitive cognitive cognitive models in in terms model SO<.I.lIl-d with dOlllains of xperience. That conteptual models •associated with other other domains of experience. That i,. is, conceptual metaphor (probably) many Illany types of links link, which which metaphors'..:rH servetotoprovid provideone one of of (probably) types of

(unnt.",-t uglllll\~ model, to inherit inherit structure. ~truc.:ture. Conceptual Con(cptual connect ...cognitive models, aJlowing allowing them them to

THE SEMANTICS OF TIME

329

329

metaphors metaphors provide providestable, ,table. long-term long-term links link> which which allow allowthe theautomatic automaticand and unconscious uncon iousrecruitment recruitment of ofconceptual conceptualcontent contentininasymmetric asymmetricfashion. fashion.They They serve ",rve to to structure, .tru ture. in in part, PJrt.attributes attributcs and andvalues, values.providing providingmassive ma iveredunredun dancy dancy across aero concepts concept within within the th conceptual conceptualsystem. sy tern.Conceptual Conceptualmetaphors metaphor arise arise when when stable table links links arc arc established cstabli hed between between cognitive cognitivemodels model encoding encoding perceptual experience that is sensorimotor in nature, and cognitive perceptual that i nwrimotor in nature. and cogmtivemodels model, which encode conceptual content that is subjective in nature. whICh encode conceptual content that i ubjective in ndture.

ii. lexical ii. What Whatisisthe thedistinctive di tinctiv.role roleofof lexicalconcepts, con cpt cognitive • cognitivemodels, model and and conceptual metaphorsininfigurative figurative meaning meaning construction con truction for fortime? time? concq>tual metaphors Rased on the ila\Cd on the guiding guiding premise preml e of ofLCCM l.eeM Theory, I"heory. the theconception conception that that arises ari s from from the th situated ituated usage u ge of ofaa given given utterance utterance is is aa consequence consequenc of of two distinct sorts of representations: purely linguistic content encoded by di tinct wrts of repre. ntations: purely lingUIstic content encoded by lexical lexkal concepts, concepts. and and purely purely conceptual conceptual content content encoded encoded by bythe th cognitive cognitive model profile to which lexical concepts facilitate access. For instance, model profile to which lexical concepts facilitate acee s. For in tan e. the the TFoR TFoR lexical lexical concepts, concept, considered con idered briefly briefly above, above. encode encode schematic 'hematic temtem . poral content, aas well poral content, well as a information information about about the the nature nature of the the sorts orts of of internally closed lexical lexical concept. concepts, and and vehicles mternally dosed vehicle that that make make up up these the ininternally complex complex Ie lexical concepts. The ternally ical concept. The result result of oflinguistic lingui tic unpacking unpacking isi aa of temporal schematic level <>chematic level of tempor.1 representation. representation. However, However, this thi level level provides provide. aa prompt for the deployment prompt for interpretation: interpret.tion: the deployment of of conceptual conceptual content content associa iated with conceptual structure, resulting in an utterance-level simulation, ated with conceptual tructure. re ulting in an utter.n e·level . imulation. which is whICh i to to say "'y aaconception, conception.and andhence hencemeaning. meaning.Interpretation Interpretationmakes makes use of the use the cognitive cognitive model model profile profile associated a ociated with with aa lexical lexical concept, concept, and and in figurative this involves in figurative language language understanding, under tanding. thi involv primary primary activation a tivation of of secondary cognitive mndels. models. In condary cognitive In other other words, words, temporal temporal conceptions con eption are arc the result both of the result both of linguistic lingui tic content content and and conceptual conceptual content. ontent. As we we saw saw earlier earlierin inthe thedi discussion of the the interpretation interpretations which As ussion of whi h arise ari", from from the the utterance, Christmas is approaching, temporal language understanding involves utteran
33o 330

FIGURATIVE L\N(jUAGE LANGUAGE AND AND THOUGHT THOUGHT FIGURATIVE

What ii%ththe motivltion motivation for TfoR TFoR lexicil lexical con concepts to deploy iii. cpt to d ploy vvchid iii. What literal spatial language? relating patiallanguagel relating to Iitenl This issue Thi,. ue relates relate. to the fact fact that that TFoR TJ'oR lexical lexical concepts concept arc ar aassociated _iated with vehicles that that literally literally relate relateto to motion motion through space, vehicles spa e, and yet, yet, II argue, encode aa schematic "hematic temporal temporal relation relation independently of of the the conceptual conceptual metaphor metaphor s that structure Tim In term of Spa e at th con eptual level. The que t.lln thasruceTimn ofSpacethnulv.Teqstion then is why? As As semantic semantic representation representation in in language language (semantic (semanticstructure) tructure) then .s why? reflects con conceptual structure, albeit albeit indirectly indirectly (see discussion renect eptual structure, di u ion below), below), the linguistic content content encoded by linguiMic by lexical Ie ieal concepts, concept, and and the thevehicles vch. Ie>employed, em pili cd, reflect—again indirectly—thenature natureof of the the simulations reOectagain indirectly-the imulation that that they they serve serve as a partial prompts In other words, partial prompt for for constructing. con. tructing. In word, symbolic ymbolic units unit (lexical (lexical are conventionalized conventlonalizcd prompts prompt for for buildbuild concepts and phonological vehicles) vehi 'Ies) are ing complex ing complex simulations imulations (conceptions). (conception ). As As thinking thinking and and communicating communicating about temporal relationships is central to the way we coordinate ouractions actilln relation hip i the way We coordinate our and with with one another sociophy.ical environment, environment, and hence hence the the with another and with our sociophysical sorts of complex simulations that sorts imulations we we (seek (seek to) to)evoke, evoke,ititisi (perhaps) (perhap)natural naturalth.t the nature and make-up of of TFoR TFoR lexical lexical concepts con cpt should hould reflect rene" aspects a pect of IIf th nature and conceptual structure Mru lUre that they they serve, serve, in in part, part, to toevoke. evoke. iv. What What doe does this the utility iv. this show how about the utility of of using using semantic semanti structure tructure in in len for for investigating inv tigating conceptual conceptualstructure? tructurel language aas aI lens At the outset of chapter I1 alluded alluded to the assumption At of the the chapter a umption made madeby by cognitive linguistics IinguiMi ' that language can be be deployed deployed in inorder ordertotoinvestigate investigateconceptual conceptu •• 1 some sense, n, language language reflects rtfl t conceptual conceptual structure—although stru tur~although structure aas,, in som different authOr> authors take different different different views view on the the precise pr ise way way ininwhich whichlanguage language reflects conceptual conceptual organization. Theory, Irom the the perspective perspective ofofLCCM LCCM Th<'Ory, renect organization. From semantic structure semantic tructure iis aa pale pale reflection reflection ofofconceptual conceptualstructure. structure.After Alier all, linguistic content encodes lingu"tlC encod highly highlyschematic hematicrepresentations, representation" which whichstand standinin stark contra contrastt to the "ark the perceptually perceptually and and phenomenologically phenomenologicallyrich richrepresentarepre enta tions model. This Thi does does not not mean, mean,ofofcourse, course,that that tions encoded en oded as a cognitive cognitive models. semantic structure cannot he deployed in order to investigate conceptual semantIC ;tructure cannot be deployed in order to investigate conceptual structure. In "ructure. In point of offact, fact, the thecentral centralargument argument of of LCCM L eM Theory is i, that that as a' lexical lexi aI concepts con epts facilitate facilitate access a cess to to conceptual con ptualstructure, tructu«, semantic manticstructure tructure can be deployed deployed as a aameans m an of,of,albeit albe.tindirectly, indirectly,investigating inve>tigatingconceptual conceptual can he structure. \tru ture.

Summary 1 his chapter detailed examination examination of a range Th" chaptcr has ha provided prov.ded a reasonably reasonably detailed range of of lexical lC'xi4..al ..concepts onu·ph for for Time, Time, and Jnd aJ selection c..clt"t..llon of ofthe thecognitive (ognitivemodels mod Iwhich whkh populate Time atat the I'<>pulate the domain domain of ofTlln thelevel level of ofconceptual conccl,tualstructure. tructur. In Inparticuparticu lar, have cxamined examined the way in which the the theoretical theoretical construct construct of ofconceptual con eptual lar, I have

THE EMANTICS or THE SEMANTICS oi TIME I IME

33' 331

metaphor. III orporated IIIto LCCM Theory, ofTime. Time.The The metaphor is incorporated into LCCM Theory, in in the domain of i that temporal representation representationhas hasreflexes reflexes in in central central argument argument of the chapter is term lanlluage, temporal lexical concepts, con cpt, which whichencode en ode terms of of direct direct encoding encoding in language, highly hematIC parameteriz,ltion, of temporal experience, and perceptually highly schematic parameterizations of temporal experience, and perceptually and ally rich temporal cognitive models. The The temporal temporal cogcogand phenomenologi phenomenologically purelytemporal temporalininnature. nature.For Forinstance, in tan e, nitive much that that isispurely nitive models include much phenomenolog. ally rich notion such uth asas phenomenologically rich telllporal temporal experienCe> experiences relate relate to to notions sequentiality, imultaneity, temporal ion, protracted duration, our our sequentiality, simultaneity, temporal compres compression, experien e of tness, futurity, In addition, addition, such uch experience of pa pastness, futurity,the the present, present,and and so so on. In notion arc systematically ystemallcally structured Iructured in in terms terlllsofofstructure "ructurerecruited recrUited from notions are ofperceptual perceptual experiexpericognitive models model which which relate relate to non-temporal non-temporal aspects a peets of a hieved via via conceptual onceptual metameta ence uch as a motion motion through through space. pace. This Thi isis achieved ence such phors, which serve and automatic automatic level level of ofaccess ace ,to serve to provid provide an an uncon"iou unconscious and to non-temporal knowledge allowing allowing inferential inferential structure structure from from cognitive cognitive non-temporal knowledge llIodel of Space Spa e to form form part part of ofour our conceptual conceptual models associated associated with with the domain of tenn of oflinguistically Iingui Ii allymediated mediated representation In terms representations for for temporal temporal concepts. concepts. In .mulation ,thi lead to conceptions conceptions which which are are not n t figurative, figurative, in in the the simulations, this can can lead .1 sense, 1I0wever, canoni allyfigurative figurative canoni canonical sense, aas defined defined in in Chapler Chapter '4 However, canonically temporal ible in tandem, as a in in the the case case of of the the temporal conception conceptions are are also also po possible in tandem, approacllll'g. example: C/lri5lmas Christmas isi5 approaching.

Part V V Conclusion Thi book consists con i I of ofone onechapter. chapler.The TheLCCM 1. 'M This final part oflh~ of the book chapter situates Th~ry respecl to 10 the Ihe various variou theories Ih~ries within withincognitive cogniliv~linguistics linguistic which which Theory with respect ilit synthesises ynth ile!> and builds build upon. upon. As A~ such, uch. this Ihl final final part part serves ""rves to 10 contextualize conlexlualile Ih developmenl of ofLCCM LC M Theory. Theory. the development

16 16 LCCM LCCM Theory Theory in in context context Thi hort chapter chapter considers consIder the th status tatu of ofLCCM LCCM Theory Theoryas a aa"theory." "theory." In In This short certain course, LCCM LC M Theory Theory isi not notaanew n~theory theoryatatall. all.After Afterall, all,itit certain respects, respects, of of course, examines · tudled phenomena phenom na that that countless countl=scholars holar of ofevery everyconceivcon eiv· examines well well-studied abl i n have me. ItIt also alsoincorporates in orporates able theoretical theoretical penua persuasion have examined examined before me. seminal lingui tics and cognitive cognitive seminal idea ideas developed developed by by others, others, in in both both cognitive linguistics psy hology, and in orporat and synthesizes many of the the core coreinsights in ights psychology, and incorporates and synthesizes many of developed in the th best-known best~known approaches approach to tolinguistic linguisticsemantics semanti and andgrammar grammar developed in developed by other oth r cognitive cognitiv linguists. linguist. My in the the preceding preceding pages, pag ,has not been to add add yet yet another another theory theory to been to My aim, aim, in has not the to speak, peak, simply simply for for the the sake ke of ofdoing doingso. so.Nevertheless, everthel ,there thereare are mix, so so to the mix, thr of LCCM LC M Theory, a presented presented in in the thepreceding precedingpages, pages,which whichI I three aspects aspects of Theory, as believe which provide provideaanew newand, and,IIhope, hope,elegant elegantaccount a ount believe arc are noteworthy, noteworthy, and, which of ti phenomena phenom na discussed dl ussed during during the the course course of ofthe book. range oflingui of linguistic the hook. of the range movement has ha reached reached aa point pointin inits its II also also believe believe that that the the cognitive cognitive linguistics linguistics movement development where where itit requires require (something (something like) like)LCCM LC M Theory. Theory. The Th three thrtt development notabl aspects aspect arc are detailed detailed below. below. notable l M Theory iou attempt attempt to to synthesize ynthesi7ekey key Theory provides provides aa selfcon self-conscious i.I. LCCM development relating relating to to cognitive cognitivelexical lexi 31semantics, semanti ,and cognitive developments and cognitive grammar from across a ro a number number of ofdistinct di tinct theories theoriesand and approaches to grammar approa h within cognitive (ognitlve linguistics Iingui ti sthereby thereby providing providingaasingle inglejoinedJOined · approaches up theory theory of oflinguistic Iinguisti semantics. mantic. up ne of of tthe hallmarks of of cognitive cognitivelingui tI isi that thatititconstitutes con titutesananapproach approach linguistics One he hallmarks to the the study tudy of oflanguage and the the relationship relation hip between betwttnlanguage, language,the themind, mind,and and language and to sociophysical experience. experien e. Hence, Hence, itit comprises comprises aa number numberof ofdistinct, distinct,complecomplesociophysical m ntary and and sometimes sometime:.competing competingtheoretical theoreti alframeworks frameworksand andapproaches, approaches, mentary which often often address addr overlapping overlapping phenomena. phenomena. From hom this thi perspective, per pective, one one which challenge for for cognitive cognitive linguists lingui t isistotointegrate integratethe therange rang ofofperspectives perspective and and challenge frameworks on offer in in order order to to provide provide aa more morefocused focusedattempt attempttotoaccount ac ount frameworks for the the object object ofofanalysis, analy is,whatever whatever that that happens happen totobe. be.AsAI noted I noted earlier, for earlier, cognitivelinguistics Ilngui ticscan canbe benotionally notionallydivided divided into into two twosub ub-branch cognibranches::cognicognitive -

tive semantics semantic. and and cognitive cognitiveapproaches approolche totogrammar. grammar.One Oneconcern concernwithin within tive (ognilivcsemantics b>CmJntic~has hd\been beentotostudy \tuoylexical Icxic.Urepresentation r pr~ntalionfrom frol11a3cognitively (ogniliv Iy cognitive rcali tic framework. framework. This Thi work w rk has h~assumed a umedthat tholtsemantic scl11anlkstructure ~trU(.: turereflects reneeLS realistic

336

CONCLUSION

cognitIVe particularly the mbodied nature nature of the human concon cognitive organization. organization, particularly the embodied ceptual system, ceplUal y tern. as enshrined en hrined in in the the thesis th is of ofembodied embodiedcognition ognition(Lakoff (Lakoff1987 t987;; John'>On t987; e [van and ,rcen 2006 for an overview). a well a oth rJohns1987;ecEvadGrnzo6faveiw),slothr organizing ~uch as a categorization categorization and and attenatten organizing principl~ principles of human cognition such tional mechanisms. tional mechani m . In In addition, addition. cognitive cognitive semantic mantic accounts a count have have made made "gnificant tride in moddling lexical lexiCilI representation, representation. as is i evident in in exemexem significant strides in modelling pia" Lakoff (1987), ('987). Geeraerts Geeraert> (1994), (t994). Tyler Tyler and Evans Evan (2003), (2003).and andthe the plars such as Lakoff coUection ofpapers papers in in Cuyckens Cuyckens tI al. (20433). (2003). Some me of of the notions notion apparent apparent in et aL collection of cognitive semantics >;emantic have hay' also been hern important in in the .he development development of ofcognitive cogni tive approach . to grammar. ""pcO evident evident in in the thetheory theoryofofCognitive CognitiveConstruction ConstructionGrammar ,rammar ization is also developed by Goldberg, Goldberg. (e.g., (e.g .• 1995, '995. 2oo6). 2006). This This isi evidenced, eviden ed.for forinstance, inMancc.by by Goldberg's ene·encoding hypothesis, hypoth i~. which which predicts predicts that thatsentence-level sentence-level Goldberg's scene-encoding argument · tru ture con truction serve \Crve to encode encodeubiquitous ubiquitoushumanly humanl)'relerde argument-structure constructions vanl M:en~. vant scenes. However. lhat there is i not n t aa common commonset tofofvocabulary. vocabulary. However, what what iis apparent iis that And. moreover. distinct distinct approaches approach have have emerged emerged within within both both cognitive cognitive And moreover, semantics and and cognitive \Cmantics wgnitive approaches approach"" to to grammar grammarwhich whichpartially partiallyreplicate replicate (and partially distinct from) from) other other related related cognitive cognitivelinguistic lingui tictheories. theorie . (and are partially While this thi may have advantages. lead to to confusion confusionand andcan canthus thus advantages, itit sometimes sometimes leads be a disadvantage. di\Jdvantage. for in tance. Talmy .• 2000) 2000) and and Langacker Langacker (e.g., (e.g.• 1987, '987. 2oo8) 2008) use U!>e For instance, Talmy (e.g (e.g., di tin(\ sets \Ct of ofterms term for forcovering coveringsome—arguably wme-arguably much—of much f the thesame \.1me distinct wnteptu •• 1 territory. territory. Moreover, More'owr, Langacker Langaeker (e.g .• 1987) '987) and Goldberg Goldberg (e.g., (e.g.• conceptual (e.g., '995) antly in they define d fine the theterm t rm"construction," "con tru tion," aa 1995) differ differ quite quite signifi significantly in how they fundamental theoretical construct in fundamental in their their respective rc pc use u>c the the same \Jme replication, but when there temlS, occasion, in inmarkedly markedlydifferent differ nt ways. way. Moreover, Moreover. different differ nt cognitive cognitive terms, on occasion, linguistic lingui ti approaches to linguistic lingui tic organization organll.3tion while while ostensibly ostemiblygrounded grounded in cognitive semantics, cognitiv semantic. base ba>c their their accounts account~ of oflexical lexical and andconceptual conceptualrepresenrepre n· tat ion on different different semantic semanti theories. lh ries. For Forinstance, in tane •Goldberg Goldbergbases base:.her h racactation count on Frame Fram Semantics Semantic; ((Fillmore '982). wh.le ba his his account acmantK~"(e.g., (e.g.,Langacker Langal~er 2008). Indeed, what Langacker Langa k r refer the same same", refersto to ~ asaa domain domain iis not quite the as Fillmore' ofaa semantic \Cmantic frame. frame. Moreover, Moreover.both bothare arcdifferent different from fromwhat what Fillmore's notllln notion of Lakoff and and John"," Johnson refer refer to. to, in La~of1 in Conceptual Conceptual Metaphor Metaphor Theory Theory (e.g., (e.g .• 1980, '980. 'm) domain. which whi h isisdifferent differentagain agaonfrom fromwhat whatLakoff Lakoff(1987) ('987)refers refer> 1999),.•as a domain, a an an Idealized Ide.li/ed Cognitive Cognitiv Model Model (ICM). (ICM). The Theplethora plethoraofoftheoretical theoretic.1 to as (on Irw.1 can, 4..Jn, on nn occasion, ()u:~l,i()n.be becontradictory. lUlllra<.lu.;tory.For I'orinstance, in lolnce.while \vhileLangacker L..:lIlgad;er constructs ,"dude l:.mo.ion as a basic, ba;ic. but but not notabstract, ab tract.domains, domains.for forLakoff Lakoff includes 1,me Time and Emotion

t(:eM TlIEORY 'ONTEXT LCCM THEORY IN CONTEXT

337

and Johnson both are are abstract ahstract domains. domains. This 1 h,slack latk Ma of aunified unifiedvocabulary vocabularycan can also undermin a concerted concerted focus focu on on aadelimited delimited set tofofagreed-upon agreed·uponphephe. also undermine nomena. nom na. As A such, uch. this this state tate of ofaffairs affair isis potentially potentially confusing confu ing to tothe th analyst analy t who seeks secks to apply apply and and deploy deploythe thevarious variou,theories theorie<;on onoffer, offer.and andmoreover, moreover. can make itit difficult difficult to tocompare compar (and (andcontrast) contra t)the thedistinct distincttheoretical th reti al can make po ition •their their main main claims daim and andobjectives. objcctive<;.The Thedivergences divergencesalso, also.potentially, potentially. positions, undermine the claim claim that that cognitive cogllltive linguistics linguistic represents represcnt aacoherent coherententerenter· undermine pri that di iplin (e.g., (e.g.•cognitive cognitivepsychologists, p ychologi t • prise that offer offers scholar> scholars from other disciplines literary t. and for use u in in examining e .. mining phenomena phenomenathat that literary anal analysts, andso so on) on) a toolkit for fall of study tudy in in their their respective respcemantic memory. memory. From From cognitive cognitive approaches approaches to to gramgram storage in long-term mar. LCCM LC M Theory has taken two two essential ntial insights. insight . mar, Firstly. grammarian have argued that lhat grammar grammar is i Firstly, cognltivel)' cognitively oriented oriented grammarians have argued meaningful. a position po ition that that until until relatively relallvely recently recently was wa aa marginal marginal view view inin meaningful, main tream linguistics. linguisti . In In particular, particular. scholars -holar such u hasa Talmy Talmyand andLangacker Langa k r mainstream u c fully ddemonstrated mon trated that although grammatical grammatical meaning meaningi5i highly highly have successfully s
CONCLUSION CON LUSION

Integration of conceptually conceptuallydepend dependent with con conceptually autonomous symintegrallo nt with eptu~Uy a"tonomou symn of t)olic lInil units.. For For Langa Langacker conceptuallyddependent entities encode bolic ker conceptuaUy pendent entoll encod schematic hematiC trajectorsand/or and/or landmarks landmarks whi which tra,eclor h can he be filled in—Langacker in Langacker uses uses the Ihe terms term, under the sofa, the Asa consequence, in a phrase such as: "elaboration." 0/" 'elaboration." As a consequen e, III a phrase lIch a : lII,der tilt sc of ofcognitive cogniliv.semantics, ""lnanli~,as a~aa sub-branch ,ub branch of of role of embodiment in cognitive has been cognillve linguistics, lingui lie, ha been to 10 emphasize empha ile the Ih role of embodimenl in cognitive and in in language. language. Another Another has has been been to 10demonstrate d mon Irate the the cognillve function funclion and importance of of imagination Importance imagination in in meaning meaning construction. (on truction. However, Ilowevcr. one one of ofthe the consequences language consequence of of this Ihi move move has ha been been to 10downplay downplaythe Ihesignificance ignoficanceof oflanguage itself it If in meaning meaning construction. con Iruction.This Thi isisapparent apparent in inperhaps perhap the Ihetwo IwOcognitive cognitive linguistic theories Ihat that have lingul\11( Ihemic have the Ihe highest high.,' profiles profile, beyond beyond the Ihe confines confine. ofof cognitive cognilive linguistics lingui lie. itself. ilself. These Th are are Conceptual ConceptualMetaphor MelaphorTheory, Theory,pioneered pioneered by George George Lakoff l.ak"ff and and Mark Mark Johnson, Johnson, and andConceptual onceptllalBlending BlendingTheory, Theory, developed by Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner. This is not to say, of course, dc\ei"l"oJ hy ("lie humnnicr and Mark Tlimer.lhi. i, not 10 'lay, of cou,""" that of these Ihal either cllher of Ihe . theories Iheori .. ignores ignMe. language, languagc, or or explicitly explkilly attempts allempl to 10reduce redu, its significance in meaning construction. The issue is more one of focus. ih ignificolm:r in meaning con truction. Tht i ur i mort ant of focu .

_ _ _ __ _.....;l~C::!C ~.1 THEORY ONTEXT LCCM THEORY 'N IN CONTEXT

JJ9 339

ror cplllal M taphor Theory pnmarily aa theory know· For "its part, part, Con Conceptual Metaphor Theory is is primarily theory of of knowon language languag to to ledg representallon. Although has traditionally traditionally relied relied on ledge representation. Although itit has provide e for for conceplual m taphors, and and seeks seeks to to account account for for aa subset subset provide eviden evidence conceptual metaphors, of ompo ilion exhibited exhibited by by figurative figurali .. language, language, it i not not aa theory Iheory of of scmanll semantic composition it is of languag rstanding nor ion. I1 have have assumed in language und understanding nor of of melaphor metaphor comprehen comprehension. assumed in Ihi thai Conceptual ,onceptual Metaphor ietaphor Theory Theory isi correct correel ~II this book that en gralll/~j grandes /igll($. Thai That ~s, there is compelling evidenl< from behavioural tudi demon trating, for is, there is evidence from behavioural studies demonstrating, for is structured truelured in in terms terms of ofconceptual conceptual Instance, knowledge representation repr ntation is instance, that that knowledge ub trate taken con eptllal representation, repr ntalion, in in the thesense n substrate taken from from other other domain domains of of conceptual predICted epl"al Metaphor Theory. Theory, However, Ilowever, II believe that Ihat Concepn«ppredicted by Con Conceptual ietaphor Theory be supplemented upplemented in in two two ways. way>. tual tual Metaphor Theory needJ needs to be rir Ily, Con eptual Metaphor 'l11eory has ha traditionally traditionally been been concerned con erned Firstly, Conceptual Metaphor Theory with motor experience e perience and and how how this Ihi gives givC\rise rise to 10abstract ab lract concepts. on«plS. with sensory· sensory-motor ror tan e, Lakoff Lakoff and Johnson have have emphasized empha ized that that notions notion such uch asas For in instance, and Johnson Anger, are, in in some som sense, n , subjective ubjective and and hence, h nce,inincertain certain Anger, Tim, Time, and and Quantity arc, Ii n . Much of of the Ihe impetus impetu behind behindConceptual Con eplualMetaphor Metaphor rrespects peclS ab Ira t nnotions. abstract Theory has has been been to show show how how these thesemore moreabstract abstrael notions notion are ar structured truelured in in term hav been referred referred 10 a concrete dimensions d,men.ion of ofexperience, experience,for for terms of of what have to as in terms t rm of of Motion Motion through through space, pa e. Anger Anger in in terms termsofofHeat, lleat. in tan
F40 o

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _......!L~,~C~M THEORY IN CONTEXT

CONCLUSION ("ON I\J~ION

LCCM THEORY IN CONTEXT

of knowledge. Hence, what is required is an account of lexical representation

of knowledge. lienee. whal i required i an a(tounl of lexic,al repr~nlallon and semantic composition which complements the perspective on knowledge and ...,manlic compo ition whi h complemenl Ihe per pectlve on knowledge representation provided by Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Yet, such an ac• re'oCnlalion provided by Conc I'lual 1 laphor The<,ry. Yel. uch an a(· count must also remain mindful of the unique contribution of language to rcp . counl muSI also remaIn mindful 0 f Ihe umqu conln'b' ullon f Ianguage 10 meaning construction. This is what I.CCM Theory attempts to do. meaning conslruclion. Thi i whal Ie ' .M Theory attempl 10 do. , , Conceptual Blending Theory, while this overlaps in certain to Turning now Turning now 10 ,onceplual B1endmg 1 h~ry. whIle Ih.'s ovcrlap m cert'IO respects with Conceptual Metaphor Theory, its primary impulse is somewhat respeelS with Conceplual Melaphor Theory. lIS pri~larr Im~ul~ I som hal different. Unlike Conceptual Metaphor Theory which is primarily concerned differenl. Unlike .onceplual Melaphor Theory whl h I pnmanly concerned with a subset of knowledge representation—accounting for the relatively Ih a sub I of knowledge reprC'oCnlation -a(tounllng for Ihe relallvely stable aspects of the structuring of abstract domains—Blending Theory is ~~ble aspeel of Ih slrucluring of ab.lra I do~ain Blending The<)ry i concerned with a wider range of domains, and is primarily exercised by the concerned wilh a wider range of domam • and I pnmanlyex rC1 ed by Ihe desire to account for dynamic aspects of meaning construction. Like Con10 a(tounl for dynamic "'peel of meaning con Iruction. Like Con. desire Metaphor Theory, however, Blending Theory is not concerned with ceptual Melaphor ceptual Theory. however. Blending Theory i no~ concerned .w,ilh language per se. Indeed, the architects of the theory emphasize the overriding language per se. Indced. Ihe archilects of Ihe Iheory emphasIZe Ihe overndlOS importance of non-linguistic processes which are, they argue, conceptual imporlance of non.lingUlslic proc~ses which are. Ihey argue •• conc plual rather than linguistic in nature. It is these processes, operating "behind the . operalmg behlOd Ihe ralher Ihan lingui lie m nature. It I I~e;c proc scenes" which guide meaning construction ( Fauconnier 1997; Fauconnier and , 'enes" which guide meaning conslrucllon (Fauconmer 199~; Fau onmer and Turner zooz). My purpose in this hook has not been to dispute this claim. Turner 2002). iy purpose in Ihi book has nol been 10 d,spule thIS dalm, Indeed, as with Conceptual Metaphor Theory, I assume that Blending Theory Indeed. a wilh Conceplual Melaphor Theory. I a umelhal Blendmg 1 heory is, in general terms, correct. Rather, LCCM Theory represents an attempt to is. in generallem". correct. Ralher. LC 1 Theory rePn:s"nts an att mI'l 10 redress the balance. It seeks to do so by demonstrating the complexity redr. Ihe balance. It seeks 10 do so by demonslrallng Ihe complexlly associated with lexical concepts—the prompts for the conceptual processes associaled with I xi .1 concep Ihe prompts for Ihe conceplual proce " operating behind the scenes—and to show that language does in fact make a operaling behind Ihe, en.,-and 10 show Ihal la~guage does in facl m~ke a significant contribution to meaning construction, involving a range of highly ignificanl conlribulion 10 meanmg con lrucllon. InvolvlOg a range of hIghly complex meaning construction mechanisms. Indeed, this is an assertion with complex meaning on Iruction mechani m . Indeed. this i an assertion wllh which Fauconnier and Turner would no doubt agree. which Fauconnier and Turner would no doubl agree. In essence, I conceive of LCCM Theory as complementing, rather than In essence. I conceIVe of l.('eM Theory a ((ImplemenllOg. ralher Ihan competing with, the theories ofConceptual Metaphor and Blending. I t provides, competmg with. the theones ofConceplual Melaphor and Blending. II provld.... I suggest. the missing link in meaning construction which is essential for a I uggesl. Ihe mi ing link in meaning con lruction which i essenlial for a complete understanding of how language interfaces with conceptual structure. complele underslanding of how IJnguJg inlerfac,,,, with concepluJI Inl(lure. That is, while Conceptual Metaphor and Blending Theories address the role of ThaI i" whil Conceplual Melaph rand BlendlOg Theori address the rol of conceptual processes in meaning construction, LCCM Theory is concerned with conceplualproc in meaning con lruction. LC M Theory i concerned wilh the role of language and linguistically mediated access to knowledge represenIhe ml of languJge and Iinguislically medialed a"es 10 knowledge repr.... n· tation. Hence, while Conceptual Metaphor and Blending Theories constitute lalion. lienee. whil Con cplual 1 taphor and Blending Theories con IIlule theories of, what Fauconnier (1997) has termed backstage cognition, ILCM Iheories of. whal Fau((lnnier (1997) ha lermed ba kslage cognilion. LC .M Theory constitutes a theory of what I have called fmntstage cognition. Theory ((In IIlul ,Ihe<,ry of whal I have called fmntslJ!: cognilion.

°

LCCM Theory reanalyses and thereby reinterprets the encyclopaedic iii. iii. LCC 1 rhl'Ory reanalyse and Ihereby reinlerprel Ihe encydopaedic approach to linguistic semantics developed in cognitive linguistics. .pprod,h 10 Iingui IIc ...,lIIanll" devdoped in cogmllve linguistic . The encyclopaedic approach to semantics developed in cognitive linguistics is Th enC)dopaedic approach 10 semanlics dcvdoped in ~gni.'ivc lingui Ii i i n his development of in10no measure, the work of Ronald I Angacker nilsmall malllllcd ure.due dueto10 Ihe workofRonJld l..tnSJcker 10 hI developmenlof semantics which is part and parcel of his theory of Cognitive a aconceptual UlIllcptUJI "toCmantic.:, whkh 1\ pJrt and ~.lrtl':cI of hi,. tht.t·ory of Cogniu\.e Grammar. While the encyclopaedic semantics perspective equates semantic

(Iranlnlar. \\fhilc the tncydopaedic -;emantlc per,pcctlve equat

c,cntant,,;

34 1

341

slru,1ure wilh cnnccpludl Iruclure. It: :M Theli, system is the ability to evoke simulations, which developed for non-linguistic functions. uch.as perceplion n etaLforthforth· functions such perceptionand andaction action(Barsalou (Barsalou2005; zoos;Barsalou Barsalou In view view of of this, Ihi" the Ihe separation "",aralion of ofsemantic scmantic representation repr~nlalion into intolexical lexical coming). coming). In concepl (linguistic conI nl) and cognilive models (conceplual conlenl). rYc, concepts (linguistic content) and cognitive models (conceptual content) serves 10 provide provide aa somewhat somewhal nuanced nuancedperspective perspectiveon onencyclopaedic ency lopaedi semantics. semanll"'. to In the Ihe final final analysis, analy,i • what whal II have have provided provided in inthese Ih~pages pagesisi aaprogrammatic progralllmalic In framework Ihal provide an an account aecounl for for how howwords word,mean. lIIean.Much Much framework that seeks seeks 10 to provide 10 be be done, done. not nolleast leaslto10provide provideexperimental experimenlalpsychologists p ychologi I with with 3 remain to remains a framework that Ihal offers offer specific p''
Glossary i ,1a listing II ting or technical I hniul terms. term. along with with brut briefdefinitions, dctiniliorb.that thatare 3reeither eithernovel no\cl Below is to LCCM u.:C 1 Theory which. urn a• special p<ei.l,nterprdation in the the context
Ace Thephenomenon phenomenonwhereby wherehylexical Icxu.:JI concepts l:Onl.t"JlI serve \Crvc to10activate ,1(.lIvale*conceptual ·,om:('plu.11 Access The

;

(ontcnt There are .1fe two types typc") of ofaccess: ~'I,.~ 'primary 'primaryaccess 01(( and' ·onduY.1l:' content. There and 'secondary access. Ace Thepoint pointwhere wherea a*lexical °1 xkalconcept conl piinterfaces inlerfOl( with wHh the the'conceptual 'con(('ptual Access point point The y tcm in In aJ given gl\lcn *cognitive ',ogl1lli\(' model modd profile. prohle. system

Ac ut e The Thepath pathofof'activation 'a
which it It is I embedded. embedded. which Access route Ilength Ac routt " gth The Thenumber numberofofcognitive (tlglllliv('models mod Iactivated IlUVillcdininaagiven SIV n*cognitive ·'ognlli\(·

mooel profile: protile: the greater gf alrf the number numbtr of of cognitive COgllltlV(, models modd~activated, a(tl\'alro,the thegreater gre.uerthe Ih model acc roule length. length. access route ite The Therange .. ng ofof(typically) (typlully)many many'. ",,-iallonarras area that that" lexiulconcept
ar itt is i.i unique unique to to each each 'lexical -Icxi al concept. con epl. areas, an access site Activation Theprocess pro<:o> whereby ",to..'rrlly part port of of the the 'semantic ',emantK potenti.1l whk.h •a lexical lexiuJ potential to which Activation The concept provides aa:es. achie> resonance. monanC<. This This can can he befacilitated facilitated by by'primary 'primaryaccess a access achieves or 'secondary •s«ondaryaccess. au.. Adjustmen of *matching 'mat< Adjustmentt The type of model profile profile accessed accessed by by. °rel.tionallexical con epl.This Thi contrasts contra ISwith WIth*per'per· a *relational lexical concept. spectivitat pofitivil,J,1 ion. ion. AUgoment Rel.t to to the the distinction di tinctIon between between 'metaphor 'md.phor and and 'metonymy. 'mdonymy. AA Alignment Relates 'figurat" conception that I judged judged as ... being metonymic mdonymi (as (a opposed opposed to metaOld. · 'figurative that is phont:) exhibits co hibit alignment. alignm nl. Thai Incases (,1 ofmetonymy metonymythe th *cognitive -,ognlll\'(model moot! phoric) That iis•in of profile associated a i.ted with with the the *figurative 'figuratIVe target t.rgd and .nd *figurative 'figu .. tove vehicle v
GIO ARY GLOSSA KY

GLOSSARY (iIO SARY

344

Attribute See 'Attribute-value sets. ... uribute

Sec' ...uribute,value scts.

withtheir thcirown ownframe. frame, Attribute frame Attributes within a 'frame that are associated -iatcd with Attribute fram an Attnbut 'frame that are a providing embeddedwithm form ofa framing. providing an embeddcd form of framIng.

Attribute systematicity The property associated with certain attributes which form Attribute ystematicity a iated with cmain attributes h. form the core Of a 'frame,The duepropn1y to frequency of occurrence across a rangewhi of distinct the ,"ore of it 'frame. du to frequ ncy c,)f CXfo.urrcn,"e ;lUc,) a range of dl tIOlt contexts. contexts.taxonomy Attribute-value sets form taxonomies whereby a given value, Attribute Attribute lu \do attribute. form ta'(on~mi whereby ~alue. an attribute, while taxonomy subordinate Attribute-v to a superordinate can in turn serve aAS given while uborJIOolte to a upc:rordmate attnbute. can m turn rve as an attrlhute'. and hence he superordinate, to more specific values. and hence M urerordinate, to

mo~ p«ific vatu •

Attribute-value sets The set of attributes—superordinate concepts--and values— Attribute-v lue sd The t oftogether attnbutes--valunsubordinate concepts—that with u~rordllute a related kindconcepts-and of concept—sstructural ubordinate concepts-that together with a related kind of
Broad selection Selection of a distinct 'lexical concept from among a number of Broad Itction Selr..:tion of a di tlllll 'Iexkal (Onlept from among a number of possible lexical concepts conventionally associated with a particular 'vehicle. po Ible Ie icaJ (on(ept conv ntlonally a»4Xlatcd With a p.1rtic.:uIJr 'vehide. There are two main types of broad selection, namely 'single selection and 'mulThere are tWO maon types of broad I ·tion, namely' ingle lection and 'multiple selection. Broad selection contrasts with 'narrow selection. tiple I~tlon . Bn»d I tion (ontr h wuh ·narrow I«tion. Chaining The phenomenon whereby cognitive models are linked in a web of Chaining The phenomenon wher
tive model profile and/or 'informational chancleriutlon undergoing 'matc.:htng(lash resolution The process in which a 'search region is established in the 'secI h rrsolution The prc.x in whifo.h 01' arth rcglc.m i tabh hw III the '\Cfo. ~ ondary cognitive model profile of one of the cognitive model profiles undergoing c,md.uy ,"og1l111ve model profilea01'match. on of the fo.og.nllive model profil unJt:rgoing

'matching. in order to facilitate

nlolh.hlllg. in orJer to facihtJte • 'mau;h.

345

345

Oash onduy cognotive mod I profile th.t rv as the Clashresolution resolutionite site The' The 'secondary cognitive model profile that serves as the 'snrdl h resolution. 'searchregIOn regionIninfaulilatang facilitating'dol 'clash resolution. Oosed ·cla lexical con ept Th.t uto.et of lexical concepts that are convcotionally limed-class lexical concept That subset of lexical concepts that are conventionally paored WIth 'dO>ct of 'phonological v.hid eon\entlonally paired losed ,cia • vehicles h icl Closed-class The subset of 'phonological vehicles conventionally paired lexical cpt . WIwith th 'closed· cI 'closed-class lexical(on concepts. Cognitive "oJy of multlm,,,bl knowled~e of any kind to whkh a Cognitivemodel model ...Awherent coherent body of mutt imodal knowledge of any kind to which a and which can gi\·e riK to a ' Imulation. 'Iexi at con ept can facilitate olc," •lexical concept can facilitate access and which can give rise to a 'simulation. Cogllltlve compn\Cd of one or more 'fram I and an be cI lfitd Cognitivemodel models arc are comprised of one or more 'frames, and can be classified based on the way in whi
based 00 the way in which they relate to 'individuals, 'types, 'episodic situations,

or ituatlon. or 'generic 'generic situations.

Cogniti' model profile The r.n~e of wgnill' model to which a gi' n lexi 01 Cognitive model profile The range of cognitive models to which a given lexical concept potentially fauhtolta 'o1U. • The cogniti\' model profile on titut a concept potentially facilitates 'access. The cognitive model profile constitutes a lexical con ept' 'scmanti potential. ... cognitive model profile i made up of lexical concept's 'semantic potential. A cognitive model profile is made up of a 'primary cogolll' model profile and a 'sc
'primary cognitive model profile and a 'secondary cognitive model profile.

Common ground Con IItutes the. hared knowledg he,w n pani ip.nt that i Common ground Constitutes the shared knowledge between participants that is built up incrementally during the course of ~ 'JOint activity. Joint actlviti procca.l built up incrementally during the course of a • joint activity. Joint activities proceed In Incremental t p whlth arc cumulative III nalOre. Th IIlHClllcntoll ~"~p rve

in incremental steps which are cumulative in nature. These incremental steps serve to accumulate a cumulate the the common commonground. ground. to nctption

A (om pi x ' Illluloltion r ulting from prc.x

of' manUc compo ~

Conception A complex 'simulation resulting from processes of 'semantic composition lIl\olvlng an inter;a(tlon between rcpro.cntation In the '!tngui tic y tcm ition,,involving an interaction between representations in the 'linguistic system and the •conceptual tern. A con cption I thu an utterance-level unit of and the 'conceptual system. A conception is thus an utterance-level unit of mraning. Conc.:eption emerge dynamlfo.ally and un he revl~ during proc mg meaning. Conceptions emerge dynamically and can be revised during processing ib further lingui tic.: context tmerg tht~by multing In new 'mtltc.:.h whlc.:.h as further linguistic context emerges thereby resulting in new 'matches which .o,.erwrite· pr
Conceptual content

The knowledge represented in the 'conceptual y tem. Con-

Conceptual content The knowledge represented in the 'conceptual system. Con(q"llual (ontent coheres in term of a conc.:cptual unit rd rred to as a 'cognitive ceptual content coheres in terms of a conceptual unit referred to as a 'cognitive model , and i multlmod.l In nature (cf. 'linguistic content). model, and is nn ltimodal in nature (cf. 'linguistic content). n eptual polysemy The phenomenon whereby a ingle 'phonological vchi Ie I

Conceptual polysemy The phenomenon whereby a single 'phonological vehicle is (OllVentlonollly. iated with di tllllt lexilal concept which arc nlilnt".Uy conventionally associated with distinct lexical concepts which are semantically rclolted. ~mantic rel.tron i a matter of degree and i ddermlneO by th related. Semantic relatedness is a matter of degree and is determined by the 'bipartite tru(ture oflexical con CpI . For in tance.lexical con cpt can M related 'bipartite structure of lexical concepts. For instance, lexical concepts can be related hy virtue of hared or ovc:rl.lpplng 'ilngul tit (ontent. for in tant:.t In term of by virtue of shared or overlapping 'linguistic content, for instance in terms of holrro 'parameters. The K'(ond way lOn(ern th nature of the 'UlIl(epIUoll shared 'parameters. The second way concerns the nature of the 'conceptual ~tructure that 'oprn -cla lexical concrpt afford potential 'acc to. For In tance , structure that 'open - class lexical concepts afford potential 'access to. For instance, th re molY be \llf,llItll,tnt oVt."rlJp bc:tw 'n pan of the '((lgnillve mudd profile there may be significant overlap between parts of the 'cognitive model profile ol("'esKd open-dol Icxlul "'O"(tpt~,) Mlt..i.1tw With the me "chid. accessed viaViol open - class lexical concepts associated with the same vehicle.

GLOSSARY GLOSSA R Y

GLOSSARY

GLO

ARY

onceptual neeptual structure trudure The Thenon-linguistic non-Iingu. ticknowledge knowledgerepresentations rcpr nlt1l1onS that that words worm tap tap into and can draw upon in situated language use. In LCCM Theory, conceptual and can draw upon in huatcd language usc. In LC 1 Th ry. conceptual inlO structure is modelled in terms of the construct Of the 'cognitive model. \1f\U.. ture 1\ nlOdelltd in term of th~ (on Irucl of the 'COgOlllv~ mod I. onceptual nceptual system y tem The Therepository repo ItOryofofconcepts—mental conup ment.1}representations—available rcpr nlallon tlv.1ll..ble to•a human human being. being. The The lon(cplual conceptual system populated by by (ognillve cognitive models. models, and and 10 Y lem iis populaled each•*cognitive modelem:od encodes "conu:ptual *conceptualconI content. Conceptual contrnt content iis wh.lt what l!'isi (.1l.h ulgnilive model nt. Conl.eptual activated during • simulation.

a(tivatcd during" imulalion.

characteristic proptrty of "nominal lexital con"=pl . conceptually autonomou autonomous AA(hara(teri\li~ Conceptually

property of 'nominal lexical concepts.

Lexical concepts"rthl of this kind kind relale relate10 to enllli entities which which are independently identifiable, Lexlullon«pl are independently Idenllfi.bl., such as "chair", or "shoe". The notion of being conceptually autonomous uch a "chair". or" hoc"'. The notion ofbting conceptually autonomou contrasts COOtf; I with that of being 'conceptually dependent. wllh Ihal "rbetnS 'lonceplually d pendenl. Conceptuallydependenl dependent AAcharacteristic lexical concepts. (h.ra len'lil property property of or'relational '..,lallon.lltx".:a1 lOnlcpl . Conceplually Lexical concepts of this kind constitute a relation holding between other ~ iul con(cpt\ of thl kind con titut~ a relation holding between other entities, rntiti and Jr~ are thu thus "dependent" "dependent"on on Iho those oth~r other entities and entilt in in order order to 10 fully fully determine dctermin the Ihe nature or of Ihe the relalion relationship. The nOlion notion of nalure hip. Th. orbeing beingconceptually (on«pluallydependent depend nl contrasts (onlra I with that of being 'conceptually autonomous. wllh IhJI or being 'conleplu.lIy aulonomous. :onstraints Con trainl5 AAtype typeofofrelation relation that that holds huld within wilhlll 'attribute-value ·attribute· ...alue sets t in in aa 'frame. ·fr.lme. two types of constraints: 'global constraints and `local constraints. are two tyres of con traint : "global con traints and ·Iocal con traint . There ar~ Ther~ :ontextual fa factors Contextual tors 'Factors • hllorsthat thatrelate relatetoto'attribute–value •attnbut v.1lu~sets.t .Concerns Com: rn the th way W.lyin 111 which context influences the interaction between values associated with related which (ontext influenc the IOteraction betwC'tn vaJu a5S(k;.iated with related attributes within a frame.

attribul

347

Jll."l.I~- pailll ~mOOdIl1lCnl isvanolbl. variable,~ acomeqUak consequenceof of bOlh both species-specific embodiment and. and, IIldeed. indeed, Ih~ the umqu~ emlx)(Jimmt of cac.h mcmbrr of any ,,\~n p«1 . unique embodiment of each member of any given species.

1

Ene p ulation The The illusion Illu ion that that words word hne molnl1c unll)'. by vinu~ of open-cb» Encapsulation have semantic unity, by virtue of open-class Ilexical liul com.epl ... ldmg an u.e~ site it of n conceptspro providing an... 'access of cOIKq>tual conceptual knowledge knowledge Whllh which loft is often . Encap ulation i isI.afundion tinct complex complexand and informauonally informationallydiffu diffuse. Encapsulation function of of two two di distinct !oy tern hting lalro such uc.;h thai II( system y lem provides pro...id aa means m~.. n of ofinterinler· systems being rrelated that the the ·lingul `linguistic paifil roint\, 01(,,: paint. 50 I m . facing.ll facing at specific points, known known Jas .In' an 'access point, wllh with Ihe the 'colKeptual 'conceptual system. Episodic itullion AAtype Iypeof of'cognitive 'cogniti\emodel modelininwhich whllha amental mentalrepresentation rcpro-rntation isi Episodic situations l.lbli~hcd for lIuJtion that tholt is i\ actually a(tuJlly experienced. cl('leflem.cd. Episodic £-pi\oOllk situations ituJt!on\ established for aa uniqu~ unique situation contrast ituation. contrast with with 'generk 'generic situations.

EX!",rien er·bascd lemporal rrame orof..reference rerence (TFoR) 'Iemporal frame rrame of or Experiencer-based temporal frame (TFoR) A A 'temporal rc(erenLC ren(e point con iou n ,referred refi rrtd reference whllh which tJk takes .1.) as Ib its rt'fi reference point tin an expericnl.lI1g experiencing consciousness, to as the the experiencer. aperiencer. Such u h TFoRs TFoRs en(ode roative lexltion time (e.g.• p t. to as encode relative location in in time

pr 'nl, .nd rUlurel. present, and future).

(e.g., past,

Exlernal inlegralion An pro.: whereby whereby 'internally 'lnl
Evenl.based 'Iemporalframe trameoforreference .. rerence Event-based lemporal temporal rrame frameor of rerercnce reference(TFoR) (TFoR) A 'temporal whi h takes t.lkC1 a it reference re~ rencc pOInt .In event. ('\lent. Such SUl.h TFoRs TFoR encode enu)cJe relative rel.lIl\'e sequence Stquen(ein 111 which as its point an tune (e.g., (~.g., earlier earlier versus venu later). l.ller). time

Even" Events

within a frame.

347

A Iype of or 'cognitive '(ognill,·e model modd that Ihal isiscomprised comprised of or'situations. ' iluallon .Events Evcol have ha .. A type

Counterfactual that hasn't won't occur. These are Counterfactual situations ituation A 'situation ·$IIU3110n th.lt h~n'tand/or and/or won't l,,-ur.1'hc! a~often often

thr features. feature;.,. They ri of two or or more mtlre situations, itu.ltion.the thesituations ItuJtion .lre three They II1voh:c involve tIa series of two are relattd 10 a ~oherent mann~r. and they I ad to a 19nifkant outcom~. related in a coherent manner, and they lead to a significant outcome.

,lifference that in in theulunterfOktuai the counterfactual situation, the 'individuals dlffcrtnU'1is that IlualKlIl.the ·lOdividual and/or ancJJor'types, "typn.their their

factors AAtype ty~ofof rdatlonthat thatholds hold within within· .Jtlribule- vt1luesets wt ininaa'frame. • f~me.There Ther~ Factors relation 'attribute-value

alternatives to 'episodic ·epi.sodic situations ituation that that have have occurred (k;(urrm or or are a~ likely likely to tooccur. oo:ur.The The altemati\ to

rat

states, and the lOll • and the actions auion they thqr perform pnfonn vary v,uy with with respect to to the the episodic eplsodll. situation. IIU.lt)on. Default canonical 'interpretation that arises Default conception conception The The canonical ·mterpret.ltion thai ari forforcertain cenllinutterances, utteranc in in the the absence t1b~nl.(' of o(aafurther further novel no\('1 or orqualifying qUOllifyingcontext. (onlext.

'inDefault Derault search surch region region The The'primary 'primarycognitive cognillv.model modelprofile, profile,for rorpurposes purpo ofof'In' terpretation.

Discourse mental r~pfCKntalion AAtype type:ofof mentalrepresentation repr~nt.lIionofofthe thediscourse di ou event t'Vt'nl Discourse representation which a 'joint the whkh isi maintained maintained by byparticipants participant\ during during.1 'jolOtactivity. activity.ItItisi by byvirtue virtueofoflh maintenance of a discourse representation that 'common ground accumulates.

rrprC1
The representation, a The discourse di nUDe representation representation consists con i.st of o( two twoother othersorts );Ortsofo( rrpr nUl1tlll.;II 'textual representation and a 'situational representation.

'tutu,)1 ft'prn
.1 •

lIuatlOnal represenl.1tion.

Embodied that mental Embodied cognition (.ognilion The Th view vleW'thou m('01.11representation rqn nUlIoo isi grounded groundrdinIIIthe themultimulti modal experiences constructed from the interaction between the human body modal tx('('flt'm: con tructed (rom the IIllcr.u.:tion between the human body(in (in brain. As such, mental representation is grounded in multithe the world) and thr world) .. nJ the hrillO u(h. mcnlal rcprescnt.tuon 1\ grounded in multi from sensory-motor, proprioceptive, as well as modal brain states that arise mcld.tl br,lIn toll th.ll an frolll ItCn lry· motor. propflfM.t'pli\ • .1 welt.t subjective experience. One consequence of this view is that knowledge representation

uhi

11\('

Figurati ... e conception Th~type typeofof'conception ·cont:eplionthat thatarises an when whencognitive cognitivemodels model Figurative conception The

re activated all "aled in in the Ih<''secondary ·undarycognitive (ognll"emodel mod.1profile pmfil oforthe 'figur.. ivevchide. are the 'figurative vehicle. AA figurative conception (om:q>tlon contrasts (ontra.st with with a..'literal ·Iiteralconception. (on(tption. figurative Figurati ...e target target The The'open-class '0, n od,] lexical I xi,..concept 1ulnlcptwhich whkhis iestablished tabli halasol the thefocus f
tt'rpretation,

maintenan(e of a di our

.lre two 1"'0 types typo of offactors: (tll.toJ'): 'contextual ·contextu.l1factors f.ldOf\ and and 'goal 'SOtlIfactors. fador . are

('~rerien.,;e. One ~oru.equcm:e of ,h~ View I that knowledge represcnt;lhOn

lopn. of ofan oiln'utterance 'ulterant:~ininaa'figurative 'hguratlv conception. U1IKcption, topic vehide The The"open-class ·o~n· I lexical I~ iulconcept (onceptwhose whos-e· oodarycognitive Cognili"e Figurati ... t vehicle Figurative 'secondary modelprofile profileisi established labh halas U the Ihe'clash '''a hresolution rc~olull()nsite Iteinin.l "figuratlve(onl.elltion. model a 'figurative conception.

Formal selectional l
\('1 tionaltendencies tt'ndcnd contrast (ontr.J twith with'semantic '~molnti(selectional ~Iationallcnd n(ie selectional tendencies.

coherentbody bodyoft)( ·corKcplUal (ontentthat thatmakes mak upupa a'cognitive 'cogniti\'e model. Frame A A Frame coherent 'conceptual content model. 1r.lm exhibit exhibu organization org.uu'oIllon in 10 tum of ·t1ltrihut~ v.llu \.('{\and .Ind'structural • \trul.1 ural Frames terms of 'attribute-value sets in...olri .. nt . invariants.

;414

(iLO ARY GLOSSARY

(ilO ARY GLOSSARY

fully lyreofof*internally ·onlemally open openlexical l«i<.1 concept Wlllsnl""model mod Ithat ,h.,exhibits ..h,bOl 'transcend·".n,",
349

In fo rmational characterizatio n The The· imulation associated o1~laled with wuh aalinguistic hngui~tl<:unit unit Informational characterization 'simulation unit or or an an *utterance 'utteran e following foUowing 'interpretation. 'interpretation.An An uch as a 'conceptual -con eptuallcxinl such lexical unit "ultrranle· lev 1 informational infornlJtlonal characterization c;hJraderll~tlon Iis known as a a 'conception. 'conc.:.eption. 'utterance-level Integration Integra tion See Set'Lexical "Ltxic.:alconcept c;onlC'ptintegration. Inlegro1uon.

n The Thrtype typeofoflexical It'Xi(~lIconcept e.:onu:ptintegration intcgr.llionthat that Internal lexical Internal lexical conce-pl concept integratio integration IntC'rnally open 0l~n lexical luiul concepts. wne.:e-pl . appli applies to internally lexicalconcept con cplwhich whochdoesn't doesn'lhave have· 101 "that Ihal Inlemall y closed Internally closed Inical lexical conccpl concept AAlexical "slots" on" by other olher lexical 1< lui concepts. conlepl . An An internally onlemaUy closed do,.ro lexical l.. i",1 concept onc con "tilled in" can be "filled USO
Fu ion One One ofofthe thetwo twoprocesses proc manti composition compo ilioncentral cenlral to 10'LLCM :Itl M Fusion ofof' 'semantic Theory, Ihe the olher other being being 'selection. Theory. ·"Ieelion. Fusion Fu ion works works on the Ihe output OUIPUI of fselection "Ieellonand and is the mechanism 1\ lllC\.ho1ni\111 whereby whereby lexical lexic.:al concepts ("n..::ept are arc integrated. IOIt'gro1tcd Fusion FUSIOn consists con I t of oftwo two pox . 'lexical 'Iexlul concept (oncept integration Integration and and 'interpretation. "interpretation. comtlluent constituent processes:

cona-pl A A lexl(01lconcept t:om.:eptmade mad upupofofsimpler Impl rconstituent lon tituent Intern Ily complex Internally compkx lexical concept lexical

Fu ion operation Thetwo twoconstituent con tituentprocesses prCk.: of'fusion: "fu ion:'lexical 'lexicalconcept con cptinteinte Fusion operation The of gr .. tion Jnd "lnterpretallon. gration and 'interpretation.

I. i . 1 con«pl hem.llclexical lex ,uiconcept conc
4

Generic ituations AAtype typeofof'cognitive 'cognitivemodel modelininwhich whi ha amental mentalrepresentation repl"t)("ntationisi t ;comic situations C\tahh htd for of situation ituollion that that isi\actually ae.:tually experienced. experi ne.:ed. Hence, Ilene.:e,an anepisodic epi'Kltiu.. established for a type of iluo1tion is i abstracted o1l»trae.:ttd from in `episodic "episodicsituations, ituatlon), situation from au across commonalities found in with it contrasts. contra t . with which it Global con tralnt One One of "um tnint that that relate relate to to 'attribute-value 'allrihule·value sets. \Ct. two *constraints of two Global constraints Global lrainl constrain con lraon attribute allribule values ,>.Iu globally. globally. This Thi means mean that Ihal aa modificamodlfica· Global con constraints lion c.lne value value entails entail aa proportional proportional modification modifko1tionininaarelated relaledvalue. value. tion in one Goal (actors Oneofof two'factors "f;u.:lors that relatetoto ,Jltribute' valu sets. ~t.Concerns (.onc:ern the the Goal factors One two that relate "attribute-value 0

w .. y in agent's goal(s) goal( ) influences innuencothe thrinteraction intrrat:tionbetween bttwttnvalues valu associa Iway in which an agent's o1lt:d rdo1ted attributes atlribul within within a~ frame. (ralll . ated with related Grounded Grounded cognition

"I xic:allOIl(C-pt ofthis thl kind kindcontrasts umtra t with wltho1n -Internallysimple impl Ic:xlul iexical (Onlepl concepts.. A 'lexical concept of an 'internally lexical concept.. concept.

See cognlllon. See ·embodied 'embodied cognition.

IhJttakes lolk place pl.uewithin within. II1gle'cognitive 'u:l gnill\'cmodel. model.This Thi\can CJn Highlighting Adiv.. tionthat iiighlighting Activation a single II1volve p'-"ific 'attribute-value "attribute· value sets t\ and/or olndJor 'structural °\truc;turalinvariants. inv;Jriant. . Involve ae.:tivallon activation of of specific lomponent of of' lIuo1tion .There Therearc arc Imag conceptualrepresentation repreKnto1tion that IhJt isi ait component Images AAconceptual 'situations. atur ofofImage . '1They hey arc .. set \Ct of of'discrete oi re-te' four inur lholrJlleri!ttll characteristicrfeatures images. aremao made up up of of a per<
.,)'peS.

Immi" nee The 1 hedegree dcgr totowhich whilhananevent eventisi "located" "1C.'ollrd"inInthe thefuture futurewith wllhrespect ro-prC1.:t to 10 Imminence thr nu:r in In an itn experiencer-based experience-r'N't'
can be "filled in" on" by Iless schematic hemalie lexical eoncepl Inlemally open openlexical lexic.1concepts onccpts concepts.. Internally arc iated with 'phonetically "phonetlullyimplicit implicitvehicles. \'ehld •This Thiscontrasts contrastswith withanIn• intern·intern · are associated lexICal concept. coollepl. ally do>Cd closed lexical im ple Inical lexicalconcept con cplthat thaIisi not nolmade madeup upofofsimpler impler Inlernally Internally simple lexical concepl concept AAlexical (on tiluent lexical lexiul (OllltpIS. "Iexiul concept (ontep' of ofthis thl~kind kindcontrasts conlraM with withart an constituent concepts, A •lexical ·,nlern.lly compl x lexical leXIcal concept. coneepo. 'internally complex Oneofofthe thetwo twoconstituent con tiluenlprocesses pr
Joint .ctivili activities A cullurally lwe or or more more participari; i· Joinl culturally recognIzed recognized activilY activity enS'ged engaged in by two pants, in order to achieve at..hit'\e some mutually mutually understood undcntoocJ goal. 8001. language Languageuse u arises an inIn pant • III joint activities, a(livlti I which whi4.;h are arc typically tYPluJly impossible impo ible without without language. languilg .

TheTheory TheoryofofLexical lnic.1Concepts Conccpl and andCognitive CogniliveModels Model (LCCM). (l.eeM). M Theory LCCM Theory The whit:h tak its II name name from frol11 the thr two twotheoretical the·orrti..:alconstructs con truU atatthe theheart h~rtofofthe thetheory: theory: which takes the 'lexical "lui .1 concept (on ept and 'cognitive -cogOltlve model. model.

'ym

Lcx.ical concept bundleofofvarious v rioustypes ofo(schematic hemollie.:knowledge knowlcJg conventionally e.:ullvenll(miJlly Lexical concept AAbundle aassociated \(XloitOO With ulllque •plionological 'phonologlul vehicle vehlde in in aol 'symbolic ' ymbolie.: unit. unll .Lexical Lexl~allon with .aa unique conCt"pl arc stored tored 111 'hngui II system y tern and and can can facilitate r. CllitOite 'access "ac.:c to to'conceptual -conceptual cepts are in the 'linguistic

350

310

SARY GlO GLOSSARY

GLOSSARY

(aoS ARY

structure. There are two types ofle:uul lexicalUlf'Ke concept: the °opcn 'open-class lexical (OnlCpl Icxiul concept -d pt: the

trudu re. There arc two typo of and the 'closed-class lexical concept. l<xi",1 cooc«l ·d

Lexical concept integration One of the two of [.e-.lul ·fu\lu n.Lexical of 'fusion. prou: um Illuenl processes two constituent

ltxjca J ona-p l inttgr alion On of the concept integration involves the integration of linguistic content associated with latcd with con(c pt intt'gfalllon invoh thc antegratlon of hngul~lI( conte nt the lexical concepts which are subject to integration. This is achieved Ihe by the 'Cd by Ihe IUIt.al Ull1t.CPI\ whi\.h arC' ubj t to inlt'grallon. Thl i a(hiC'\ linguistic content encoded by the lexical concepts involved undergoing an uprtr an operhngui\U( \.c.mttnl tm_oded by the IUK. Jllon lqtb 111\()hll-d undergoing ation termed 'unpacking. Lexical concept integration is constrained by oper· tht operby the allOn Itrmt d °unpacking. Lexia l concept intrgn tion I con trained ation of three principles: 'Principle of linguistic coherence, 'Principle of of schematic hrmat il .Jtlon of thrrt prinll rl ." Prin(lpl ofilng ul li( (oh ren(t. ·Pnnu plc coherence, and *Principle of ordered integration in internally open lexical uln,-q ll lui concepts. (OhCrt'IKe o and· Pnnu pl 01 ordere d Integrallon In Inttm allyor c:n lex lexical concept potential The range of lexical concepts conventionally a lIoo.lI y associated Laica l cooc
uxica l conccpt

«olra llo 'I.C<M Thtt'r y.lh< olh
Lexical conceptual unit An integrated unit r ull Ih result whichisi the
An 101
LakaJ conap lual unil

of 'lexical concept integration.

Lexical profile The selectional tendencies which form part of the linguistic umten t tit. content Ltrical profile Tht I tional tende nu whKh lo"n Po1rt of thc Iingui encoded by a lexical concept, and which is unique to any Two concr pl.Two I<xical concept. givrn lexical any given <0 odrd by a luical concr pl, and which i uniqu < 10 distinct types of selectional tendencies are distinguished: 'semanticcselectional I lIon.Jl di tind tYrO of I Ilono1l ttndt nu art dl tlOgUI htd:" manti tendencies and *formal selectional tendencies. Itndtnl.! and "formal )<1C\..tlonal tendt nll . 11/4.11 representation The primary substrate in linguistically mediated mcanlng ted meaning Lexical rtprcR ntatio n Thc prima ry ub tntt in hngul lially mtdi~ construction. lexical representationn is made up of 'symbolic units and sLognitive ·ulgfliti\;( 4.:0n truc.:llon_ 1.('" 14.:~1 r~rncntoltlo I madt up of ·,ymbolic.: umt ilnd models. mod.l >. Linguistic content Knowledge which is represented in the linguistic system. Kne)",, lem.Knowlingu i ti contc nt Knowlcdg whKh I reprn cnttd 111 the Iingul IIc ledge of this kind is highly schematic in nature (cf. 'conceptual content), .ndisI nl),and Irdg< of Ihl lind I hIghly hem.l lc In o.lur< (d. 'cOl",
Linguistic y ttm The rcpo lIory ot ture—specific to a given language. A language user may have knowledge of more ofmore turt" - pt\..lfic to a glvcn languagt. A 100nguagc user may hOlV(' knowledgt than one language or linguistic variety,'•• and hence can he said to more than h.&o nUlrC't po topossess th~n on l.Jnguo1gt or hngui lil v.ui~I) md hcnle un ~ 1..1 one linguistic system. onc hngui III )' t m.

Literal conception The type of *conception that arises when the "Ill.) hininthe therrisi nono'clash whenthere an~ tholt "J'tJllO

Littrl l on tpllon Tht tyt'tC' of "llon'-t primary cognitive models of the 'defaultuhsearch region during 'interpretation. prctOllion.A primolry u~l1Itl\,(, moJd 01 tht "c.le(.& \oIl"oIn.. h region durm g °lntC'r literal conception contrasts with a 'figurative conception. literal c.:on!o.t"ptlon (onlr. ut WIth a "figun tlvt (on4.: ptlOn. Local constraints One of two *constraints that relate to 'attribute-value sets. Local OnC' uf tv-n "u)m.tr.JlOt Ih'&l rC'I.< 10 -oIl1nbule valut \('t . t
"t nnlh r

.lSI

351

~ v-hto uoc or °mtcrpn.101l1on. AA n\Oltlh I.k.!o. tul 'interpretation. ofsuccessful m.uh of cJresult match is.Kh achieved when one or 11lC'm 1.1tch The Match end rtU1\ ·pnma ry profiles receive model profiles cognl ll\t model more: cognitive or more b m uw rnc.>c.ic more(ogru cognitive models in lWO two or 'primary more:

helO. act1\' activation. ·Cog.nlll\·t mooel ubh h concrplU.1 pl 10 ing allem 'lnl<rpr
tabla hro in 'cognitive model tUC established rcgaclO are ar\.h regions when 'by"'search pn, whereby Thtprocess Matching 1atch ins The III

and largrt and 'figur ali..target Ih<'figurative whi h the in which lion ininwhich 'figur al"
Thi i achin ·cd by

conct pt.This is achieved by "Iex.icalconcept. WlthlOa a'lexical " Itt:tionwithin Conc.:ml 'selection Icdio n Concerns Narrow arrow selection gJ\.' nit iul (on«" pl. by.la given (ncod ed by °p~falmetef) encoded the 'parameters g the from .lmon lating from lexical concept. selecting among

whl h ..
ru.:.cpt. xiullO "rtlolIlOn.111 wlth.J (o",~ t with 1111 contrasts to1nd~ This stands. a 'relational lexical concept. of narrow reslnc lC\..tion.l1 thc" n.1turtofofthe the:nature on the limit on tre limits Imrc> severe othtrw i impose whilh otherwise tion~ which tions •selectional I lional 'r lrictrdselectional wllh*restricted coni ......with Thl contrasts concr pl.This alconcept. byaal<xl
~ 13(kofof Thc ttnde n i The Imion a) tendencies tricttd selectional lon-rrestricted lack a specification of narrow restricNon -

tendt nll tendencies. pout with r rat rtftrcn c. frameofof ttmpo ralframe ·('Vcnt -basedtemporal an'event-based toan r p«t to with respect txP'"itOf.:tr with experiencer reference.

10 Ihe

thtpast with respect to the " Icx.lltd-ininthe n nl .&n whi«::h t to dtJrcto Tht Occurrence degree which an event is i"located" Dc urnn e The

th.1t olfC lonvc:ntlono1l1y additi on to kind.inanaddition Ihi kind, ofthis con(c pt of Ltxiu l concepts vthld t.Lexical ·optn -cu»vehicle. ~n 'open-class with an paired with paired to tru(ture:. tptual ·con( to a(e ilitatc fa onally additi nt. (Onlc tic l ·hngu .hng enc..oc 'linguistic content, additionally facilitate access to 'conceptual structure. encoding 'hi.. 1 <",od edbybya ••lexkal cool
U)I1(tptthat are conventionally lC'liul ub$ctofof Th.usubset on cpt That lc.xia1 concept Open-class lexical concepts Open - las lexical

100te: I enukl td

bralO mUlllmoo.11 whtrr oy.t ph nomt non Tht Pafllm tttriu tion The Parameterization phenomenon whereby a multimodal brain state is encoded as 10 rqnCK ntalio n in the ahle oJmtn form a 10 lOg C'o..:od of purpo f
~

____

OSSARY

~~A~R~Y~ ~ IO ~G~

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___

Perceptual moment A neurobiologically instantiated temporal processing Inlt'rv.1 illS interval P rccptuaJ mom( 'nt A nnarobl()I'lSil..illJy In t.mlliltaJ ItmllOrill pr"~. with an outer limit of about three seconds. This ~orr may corresrang" may thr«· ond range 11\1 three-second

with an outtr IInul of bout thrtt second . pond to our experience of the present. pdnc.llo our ('''reru:"tt' oflhe pr "nl.

Perspectivization The type of *matching that takes pia place with rrespect to Ihe the 'cog, `cogpa.1 10 e wllh

P"spcctivizalion The IYJ'" o( 'malntr.bl with' )· rhonc tlully o\' Phonetically overt vehicle A 'phonological vehicle that is lexically filled and hen« Ind hence Phone'ically overt vehicle A 'phonologIcal vchide Ihll i lexically fill..! does not exhibit 'phonetic potential. This contrasts with a 'phonetically implicit ly Impli ut dCH.: not exhibit 'phon ell( JlC.'lrntiJI. 1111 umlr 1 with .. ·phon t.1Iul vehicle.

vchn.lc.

Phonological vehicle The formal component of a 'symbolic unit, and conventionlOt formal comp onr"1 of a • ymbolic unit, Ind COo\ ntl n· ally paired w ith a lexical concept. Phonological vehicles can "" be of lund,: aa I"',. kinds: o( two c un

Phonological veh' Ie

ally pa"ed wllh a 1e".. 1 "'n«p l. Phonolo8,ul Hh,,1 'phonetically overt vehicle, or a 'phonetically implicit vehicle. 'phonell Illy o\crt vchlde, or I 'phon",caJly Impll"l vehide.

Polvsemy Sec 'conceptual polysemy. Poly my Se< 'wn« plu.1 poly my. Pragmatic point The schematic aspects of extra-linguistic dimensions oUt" Ih~t are Ion that Pngm atic point Th~ h~mati a pt(:t of exlra·lingul tit.: dlmen encoded as 'linguistic content by a given "lexical1 concept. Pragmatic point relates rd.Jln tm:oded oJ\ -hngul lIe (Onlcnl by.J gl\; " O't':ul..,J UlJK:tJ'l. Pr; gmall( pomt to two extra-linguistic dimensions: (i) schematic aspects of the contexts of use umln t or U~in10 to two C'Xlra·hn~ul til dime" Ion; (i) htm.lillt.. a f'\."\.l or tht which a given lexical concept is conventionally employed, including settings and Itln' and which a gi\cn Inlul con t"pl i con\'cntlon.lJJy tmplo ,-oJ. mdud ing participants, and (ii) some aspects of the communicative purpose whkha .t forwhich purpo for ~rtu.:lr.. nt • .1nd (ill \()mt ;1'1''\.1 of the comm uniUI !\'( lexical concept is employed. luiut conf..C'pt i crnpl0 ·cd. Pragmatic strengthening The process whereby crnerg in10 thatemerges IOferencethat invitedinference byananinvited

ali Pngm a

trc:ngthcning The proc

whcn

'bridging context is reanalysed as a distinct 'lexical concept suc h that 'vehicle ·vchi dtA,", .. *hndgmg (C,)ntClt I rC'Jn.-IYM.Jol • til IlOll °lul\.oIl um"Cf lI ulh th.u comes to have a distinct lexical concept associated thl' .ddllm nto10the 10 addition with itIt in 'K.1.1tt.-d with pt B8.J

dl lind ICXKoll lont.:c extant lexical concept A. utan. In:il..,J,1 com:tpt A. "om

to hint

.1

Predicative function The communicative function of 'metaphor, namely nolmdytotosay y Prcdi It ,\it (undi on Tht (lmm unilJI I\(' tunlu()n of IOmetolph",. something about the subject or theme of an uHcra m.. t. anutterance.

mrthi ng bout the ubj«t or Ihc'mr

Primary access

or

The establishment of a, I'search region in the 'primary cognitive 'I ht.· nlahh .. hmcnt ot . .m.h reglnn In the ·prim.ary f..ognIlIH· Prima ry I model profileo of an 'open-class lexical concept, which is to say in the 'default 'ddolUIt modd pruhlt. til an °Ol\c."n -d.l loin) UlOf..('pt. whl",h l to y in the search region. This contrasts with 'secondary access. ,uf..h rc-gum , 1111 c.:ontr;t t with' nnd.u y .I1..f..C,- • or more cognitive models in the Primary activation Activation of one ·pnm .uy the'primary Primary .,.jut lon ,f..llv.twn of ,mc nr m(m," 4.:ognlllvc m(~cl In cognitive model profile of an 'open-class lexical concept. This contrasts WIth .. hwith lOluut!\e m(xid prof.) of .In '0r
GLOSSARY

3S)

353

indud cd in Ihe •.a...u: llvc modd tll c.:'lgm set of Ine set IVt' model ry (ogo!t Primary cognitive modelprofil profile The cognitive models included in the 'access Pnma 10 Whllh the Itxk.J1 (Onlt"pl the \Ct pt .;and -d.J 1(~lul Ite siteof of.an an"opcn 'open-class lexical f..on,,-t concept and hence hence,. the set to which the lexical concept tlvt mod I profilc . ·ond.u y cogni t with' t' ac.:f.. l dlra f.J(ilita facilitates direct 'access.11u Thisc.:ontr contrasts with 'secondary cognitive model profile. c.:on'lotr.in ·inter tlut constrain prinf..lpl that th principles ofthe Oneof cn e (ps) tptual coher iple ofofcon Principle conceptual coherence (p5) One 'interPrin uv cogJU mort' or one rn betwt s ()(cur hmg 'milh: thilt hold Thi ion. This holds that •matching occurs between one or more cognitive prttilt pretation. lin" cottnitl\~ mOOt'1 ,JOg totocJi ltcriLUum~ hclonp imlnrm.JtlOn.a1 ",h.u models/informational characterizations, belonging distinct cognitive model mtxic:1 C'nu: In tcrlTb or hem.at .... c.:oher h.1fe schematic ltu.at umt IcxKal (on"t'J profiles/lexical conceptual units,whlf..h which share coherence in terms of prohl nl. ptuill conte 'conct 'conceptual content.

Ih.. lOn pnnu pl that Iheprinciples Oneofo(the ing (p'.) '"pho , mOI(h plual mmetaphor pl o( Principle ofconce conceptual matching (pa) One conPrinri t 10 ub, n.are t.Jpho m flltu.a1 f..Onc.: th.at prct.. tlon. 1111 lrau\) ·mtcr strains 'interpretation. This hold holds that conceptual metaphors are subject to conccpl>. le",,,1 concepts. ,devonl lexical profile(.)ofo(relevant modd profile(s) (agolli.. model 'prim ary cognitive the 'primary hing in 'matc 'matching in the Ihal prinll pl. that Iheprinciples Oneofo(the lion (I'") h resolu ..! cIclash l indu( ple o( Principle of (onlu context induced resolution (pet) One Princi roolu llon isi ·da h resolution when 'clash c rcl.Jtlon. Thl nin 'intcrp cOlUl constrain •interpretation. Thishold holds thilt that in in cases where sc.Jr(htd pmfi! isi\searched m,l(] Iprofile (ognitl'o'emodel ondar ycognitive who ,,''secondary pt whose td. thC' rcqulr required, the 'Iulu 'lexicall (ClIlf...C concept l.lblbh lllg.t byestablishing "hi rd by Thi isl)achieved umtl'X t. This by context. d tcmun ed by ·d.1.Jl 1is determined resolve the 10 to resolve the 'clash a lenul The t, contex of iJbl the on e. vchlcl atlve ·figur au\c tillJ,n ·figur 'figurative target and and aa •figurative vehicle, on the basis of context. The lexical rnolu llon. cI.J h resolution. to clash uh; t to vchide isI subject hp,urallvc vehicle the figurative ubli hed.1as the I established thill is tt" that f..onc.: concept 'inler p''' '
cont nt. 'lingu ticcontent. of'linguistic term of III terms in I onccp (pl) One o( the "'"'cp l lexk.ilIconcept Ih ..lexical hold.that Thi holds IOI
all opcn alion inin inl<m .d inlegr P,inciple o( Principle of ord
integration takes place by applying to internally simpler lexical concepts before

UlJ\\.Cpl\. lexu:alconcepts. comp lnlexical mort'complex IOtcrl1.llly more 10internally aprlylllg to applying

Thl ·IOlerp'.... ion.This (on>lrain 'interpretation. th..constrains p,ind plethat (1'9) A A snrch (p9) o,d.....! search o( ordered Principle of Principle principle

regIon (or Ihal uh«1 ,.( . If nt.11c..hm I pmhl If moddprofile. ·c.:ogJllllvcmodel toaa'cognitive 'ac..c.. to faf..lht.alc 'access th.Jt facilitate c.:onlcpt that lexl .....1concepts lexical matching is htd in the tabl! i region ~r.,;h new il . rcg;on \Cafchregion, a new search region is established dtfau hsearch thedefault un UCf.. fut inInthe unsuccessful in the hion. f.J l ordcm lO.n J proc.:m arch The . profile The search proceeds in an ordered fashion, moddprofile. (OttOlti\('model • onti.arycognitive 'secondary more lun.,;cplu.allymore .Jrcconceptually tholtare model that f..ognitlvcmodels k"f.:ondilrycognitive bobl ofofsecondary thebasis onthe prc.-...:ttJingon proceeding rLhlllg (ognill\'e priortotosearching modtl sprior cogniti\'emodels primarycognitive theprimary r pnttotothe withrespect (ohc:rcntwith coherent cognitive 'nc.t. ulMrC 1 .. rtu (;onu: I i\cly .. Uf.." nlubu th.u :1 .. mod models that exhibit successively less conceptual coherence. ..,hregion for that subset of 'defaultsearch th 'default pl.l
'inlerpn-I um Ir.alll'interpretth.J1constrain princ.:lr1cthat Oil(' (pA) One .cti" lion (p8) primary activation ofprimary Principle of of thethe principles Principl~ of Uh~110 ·prim .uy ..(tiuti on. ).trtsubject modrl( are ulgrluivcmodel(s) Itl.Ih.hC"\!cognitive th.. tmatched hnltbthat Thi holds "I"'n.This ation. to 'primary activation.

GLOSSARY

GLOSSARY

/ maple of schematic coherence (ps) A principle that governs both *lexical conLept integration and 'interpretation. This states that the content associated with entities, participants, and the relations holding between them must exhibit coherence in 'fusion operations.

355

which one temporal event is sequenced later than another, such that the reference point is the later temporal event. Search region The region of a cognitive •odd profile in which 'matching takes place. A specific type of search region is the 'default search region.

nciple of schematic salience in matching (p6) A principle associated with *interpretation. This states that 'matching across cognitive model profiles/informational characterizations achieves greater schematic salience when relatively more togniti ► e models are matched than ntatches involving fewer cognitive models. • inciple of secondary activation (pio) One of the constraining principles of Interpretation. This states that all primary cognitive models, and all secondary cognitive models on the `access route which do not achieve 'primary activation,

Secondary access The establishment of a 'search region in the `secondary cognitive model profile of an `open-class lexical concept. This contrasts with 'primary ac cess. Secondary activation Activation of one or more cognitive models in the *set ond.ii-v. cognitive model profile of an 'open-class lexical concept. This contrasts with `primary activation.

Secondary cognitive model

Achieve 'secondary activation. lociple of simultaneous matching (p7) One of the principles that constrain *interpretation. This states that when 'matching takes place between an *informational characterization and an *internally complex lexical concept, matching may occur simultaneously across cognitive model profiles of the lexical concepts that form part of the complex lexical concept.

A 'cognitive model that is not included in the `access

site of an 'open-class lexical concept, but which is connected to a 'cognitive model that is in the 'access site via 'chaining. This contrasts with a 'primary cognitive model.

Secondary cognitive model profile The set of cognitive models not included in the access site of an 'open-class lexical concept. but which are connected to those that `

ospective relation The schematic temporal relation encoded by an 'event based temporal frame of reference lexical concept. A prospective relation is one in which one temporal event is sequenced earlier than another, such that the reference point

are via *chaining. Hence, these 'secondary cognitive models are not subject to

-

is the earlier temporal event. retracted duration The phenomenologically real experience whereby subjects perceive standard units of duration as being of greater magnitude: the perception that time is proceeding more "slowly" than usual and hence there is "more" of it. This results in an overestimation of temporal magnitude, and contrasts with 'temporal compression. cierential function The communicative function of 'metonymy, in which the 'figurative vehicle serves to identify the "figurative target by virtue of 'alignment of the figurative vehicle and target. lational lexical concept A 'lexical concept which concerns a relation, and which is not identifiable independently of the entities that it relates. This contrasts with a 'nominal lexical concept.

direct 'access by the *lexical concept. This contrasts with the `primary cognitive model profile. Selection See *Lexical concept selection. Selection revision A type of 'selection. The revision of which 'lexical concept is selected for a given 'vehicle during ongoing *semantic composition. Selectional tendencies Usage patterns conventionally associated with a lexical concept and hence stored as part of the linguistic content encoded by a lexical concept. The stored select ional tendencies are referred to as a 'lexical profile. Two types of selectional tendencies can he distinguished: 'semantic selectional tendencies and 'formal select lona l tendencies. Selective activation The distinction between *primary activation and 'secondary activation. During 'activation one or more cognitive models are selected for primary activation at the expense of others, an outcome of 'matching. Semantic composition The process of meaning construction whereby an "utter-

stricted selectional tendencies The specification of restrictions of some kind which impose relatively severe limits with respect to the nature of the 'selectional

ance-level 'simulation, a 'conception, is constructed by virtue of interaction

'endemics encoded by a lexical concept. This contrasts with 'non-restricted

mediated communication. Semantic composition arises by virtue of two compos-

selection tendencies.

itional processes: 'selection and 'fusion.

..•trospeetive relation The st hermitic temporal relation encoded by an 'event-based temporal frame of reference lexical concept. A retrospective relation is one in

between the 'linguistic system and the 'conceptual system during linguistically

Semantic potential The entire set of cognitive models to which an 'open-class lexical concept potentially facilitates 'access. This includes both primary cognitive models and secondary cognitive models. A lexical concept's semantic potential is

GLOSSARY

4

ciplc of schematic coherence (ps) A principle that governs both 'lexical concept integration and 'interpretation. This states that the content associated with

GLOSSARY

355

which one temporal event is sequenced later than another, stk. h that the reference point is the later temporal event.

entities, participants, and the relations holding between them must exhibit coherlice in 'fusion operations.

Search region The region of a cognitive model profile in wind' 'matching takes place. A specific type of search region is the 'default search region.

liciple of schematic salience in matching (p6) A principle associated with 'in.crpretation. This states that 'matching across cognitive model profiles/informa• zonal characterizations achieves greater schematic salience when relatively more ognitive models are matched than matches involving fewer cognitive models. ficiple of secondary activation (No) One of the constraining principles of • interpretation. This states that all primary cognitive models, and all secondary ► gnitive models on the *access route which do not achieve 'primary activation, ichieve 'secondary activation. ociple of simultaneous matching (p7) One of the principles that constrain ' interpretation. This states that when 'matching takes place between an *informational characterization and an 'internally complex lexical concept, matching !nay occur simultaneously across cognitive model profiles of the lexical concepts hat form part of the complex lexical concept. asp ective relation The schematic temporal relation encoded by an 'event-based cmporal frame of reference lexical concept. A prospective relation is one in which

.

one temporal event is sequenced earlier than another, such that the reference point the earlier temporal event. it racted duration The phenomenologically real experience whereby subjects per,. eive standard units of duration as being of greater magnitude: the perception that

Secondary access The establishment of a 'search region in the 'secondary cognitive model profile of an 'open -L . lass lexical concept. This contrasts with 'primary

access. Secondary activation Activation of one or more cognitive models in the 'secondary cognitive model profile of an 'open-class lexical concept. This contrasts with 'primary act ivation. Secondary cognitive model A 'cognitive model that is not included in the 'access site of an 'open-class lexical concept, but which is connected to a 'cognitive model that is in the • JCCCV. site via 'chaining. This contrasts with a 'primary cognitive model. Secondary cognitive model profile The set of cognitive models not included in the 'access site of an 'open-class lexical concept, but which are connected to those that are via 'chaining. Hence, these 'secondary cognitive models are not subject to direct 'access by the 'lexical concept. This contrasts with the 'primary cognitive model profile. Selection See 'Lexical concept selection. Selection revision A type of 'selection. The revision of which 'lexical concept is selected for a given 'vehicle during ongoing 'semantic composition.

A MC is proceeding more "slowly" than usual and hence there is "more" of it. This

esults in an overestimation of temporal magnitude, and contrasts with 'temporal (impression.

Selectional tendencies Usage patterns conventionally associated with .1 lexical concept and hence stored as part of the linguistic content encoded by a lexical concept. The stored selectional tendencies are referred to as a 'lexical profile. Two types of

ierential function The communicative function of 'metonymy, in which the • figurative vehicle serves to identify the 'figurative target by virtue of 'alignment

selectional tendencies can he distinguished: 'semantic selectional tendencies and 'formal selectional tendencies.

bf the figurative vehicle and target. Selective activation The distinction between 'primary activation and 'secondary Litional lexical concept A •lexical concept which concerns a relation, and which is lot identifiable independently of the entities that it relates. This contrasts with a nominal lexical concept.

activation. During 'activation one or more cognitive models are selected for primary activation a t the expense of others, an outcome of `matching. Semantic composition The process of meaning construction whereby an 'utter-

• tricted sclectional tendencies The specification of restrictions of some kind

ance-level 'simulation, a 'conception, is constructed by virtue of interaction

.vhich impose relatively severe limits with respect to the nature of the 'selectional

between the •linguistic system and the 'conceptual system during linguistically

ondencies encoded by a lexical concept. This contrasts with 'non-restricted

mediated communication. Semantic composition arises by virtue of two compos-

elect ion tendencies.

itional processes: 'selection and 'fusion.

.

rospective relation The schematic temporal relation encoded by an 'event-based c•mporal frame of reference lexical concept. A retrospective relation is one in

Semantic potential The entire set of cognitive models to which an 'open-class lexik out tilt potentially facilitates 'access. This includes both primary cognitive models and secondary cognitive models. A lexical concept's semantic potential is

GlO SARY

GLOSSARY

GlO

GLOSSARY

ARY

Principleorof schematic coherence (pi) A governs bolh both 'Iexlul 'lexical conPrinciple hemalic coh renee (1'1) A principle pnnllple that ,h., govern on· cept integration and 'interpretation. This states that the content associated with cept integration and "interpmation. nus tates that the content associated with entities,partlupants. participants,and andthe therdation relationsholding holdingbdWttn between them them mu mustt exhibit exhibit coh coherentities. r· ence in 'fusion operations. em:e in "fu ion oper.u ion .

with 'inPrincipleor of schematic salience in matching (p6) A principle associated w Principle hemalicsalienceinmalching(p6)Aprinipleaialed ilh.in. Thi. states that 'matching cognitive mod modelI profiles/informaterpretation. Thi tcrpre'latlon. Ut that" matching across ero cogrutlve profiles/informa tional characterizations achieves greater schematic salience when tional chara.cteriuti n achiev gRater hemati hence when relatively relatively more more cognitive models are matched than matches involving fewer cognitive models. cogniuve model are mat htd than match involving f~er cognitive model . One or of the of One Ihe constraining constraonong principles pnncopl or models, and and aU all secondary secondary 'interpretation. Thi This Slales states that primary CognllOvt cognitive modds, 'Inlerpretalion. Ihal all all primary cognitive mod models on the the *access route whkh which do do not ls on "., route not achieve a hieve 'primary "primary activation, activatIOn. l.ogllltive

Principleor of secondary secondary activltion activation (1'10) (pm) Principle

achieve "secondary activation. al.hieve" ondary activation. Principleor of simultaneous matching(1'7) (p7) One Principle imultaneous malching One oforthe Iheprinciples principl that Ihalconstrain con lrain •interpretation. This states that when 'matching takes place between an °infor "Interpretation. This lalts that when °mat(hmg takes pl.;au bttw nan 'inforlexical concept. concept, matching characterization and and an an •internally mational chuacttrization "inttmally complex ompltx lexiul matching mationaJ may occur simultaneously across cognitive model profiles of the lexical m.y occur imultaneou Iy aero cognilOve model profiles or Ihe lelcical concepts concepl that fiform of the ,h., rm ppart r1 or Ihe complex omplex lexical leXIcal concept. concepl. Prospective relation The Theschematic schem.,ictemporal lemporalrelation relalionencoded en odedby byan In'event-based '
is the earlier temporal event.

i the tarlier ttmroral t'Vtnt.

Protracted experience Prolracted duration dunalion The Thephenomenologically phenomenologoc.Uy real real "pcri nee whereby whereby subjects ub;",. perpcr

ceive ceive standard tandud units ullli of ofduration duration as as bring being of ofgreater gRater magnitude: magnitude: the the perception pc:n~.tptionthat that time "slowly" lime isI proceeding proettdlllgmore more" lowly" than than usual u ualand andhence hencethere thereisi "more" "more"ofofit.it.This Thi results an ov overestimation III an r IImatlon of ofltemporal mroral magnitude, magllltude. and and contrasts conlra t with with 'temporal °temporJI r ult in compression.

compr

355

355

which mror.u ('Vent later than than another, another. such uch that th .. t the tht reference re~ rt04.e whichone one Itemporal event Iis M-quemed sequenced later poonl pointiis the the I.ter later lemporal temporal evenl. event. r h region The region region of .. ctlgnitive modtl profile III whi h "matchlOg tak~ Search region The of a cognitive model profile in which 'matching takes place. p
A IIVOllioo of ofone oneor ormore more cognitive e.:ogOluve models model in in the the"'secondary 'ondary Secondary SecondaryIdivltion activation Activation ognillve model an 'open-class 'open-cl. lexical lelci.1 concept. concepl. This Thi. contrasts conlrasl with with cognitive model profile profile or of an ·primary 'primary activation. activation. onc:bry cognitive "cogrutivemodel nulde! that thai isi not not included lIleluded in in the Ihe ·a(l. secondary cognitivemodd model A 'cognitive 'access ile or an 'opcn.d leXIcal concepl, bUI whl hi onnected 10 a 'cognllIVe model "a ( ite via via 'chaining. "chaining. This Thi contrasts contra I with With aa 'primary "primary cognitive cognitIVe that that iis 10 in Ihe the 'access site site of an 'open-class lexical concept, but which is connected to a 'cognitive model

model. model. Secondary rognilive modd profile The set or cognilIVe models nol included in Ihe Secondary cognitive model profile The set of cognitive models not included in the °'access ace.: site ite of I xiul concept, com.:epl. but but which which are to those tho that thai arc conntcted connected to of an an "open-dOl 'open-class lexical "maining. Hence, lIenct, these th 'secondary " ond.1ry cognitive cog,OIti\'e models mootl, are are not notsubject ub)C\.t toto are arc via via 'chaining. 'ac by the Ihe 'lexical 'lexical concept. concepl. This Thi contrasts conlrasts with Wllh the Ihe'primary 'primarycognitive cognllive direct direct 'access by model profile. profile. model lection See Sec 'Lexical 'Lexi aI concept concepl selection. selecti n. Selection A lyre of' It(tion. The r(V1 ion of whie.:h 'Iukal concept i lected for for aa given given 'vehicle "",chid during during ongoing ongoing"'semantic mantic composition. composition. selected

ItCtion revision revi ion Selection

A type of 'selection. The revision of which 'lexical concept is

tcndena U~ge patterns patterns conventionally conventionally associated aS50datN with with aa lexical Itxical concon lectio"al tendencies Usage Selectional cepland hen« ,ored a p rl ohhe Iongul li«ontenlen oded by a lexical conlcpl. cept and hence stored as part of the linguistic content encoded by a lexical concept. 10 'Ielcicalprofile. profile.Two Twotypes Iypesofof The stored lored selectional lectionallendenco arereferred rererred to The tendencies are as aI 'lexical

ion.

Referential function The Referential function The communicative e.:ommunicative function funltion of of 'metonymy, "metonymy. in III which whil.h the the "figurative vehicle serves to identify the 'figurative target by virtue of 'alignment 'figuralIVe vehide '" 10 IdenlOfy the 'figuralive larget by VIr1U or' alognmenl of the figurative vehicle and target.

1«lional tendencies tendenci can can he bedistinguished: distingui htd: 'semantic ° manti selectional l«tionaltendencies tenden i and and selectional nt.i . 'formalselectional I tionaltend 'formal tendencies. Itrtive activation adiVition The Thedistinction di tinctionbetween between'primary °primaryactivation activationand and'secondary °SKondary Selective

or Ihe figuralive vehicle and largel.

Relational lexical concept 'lexical concept which concerns Rtlalionallexial con q>1 A A °ltxil.al (onl.tpt whkh concenlSa ..relation, rclJtlonand ... ndwhich whilhisi not not identifiable identifiableindependently IIldtptndentlyofofthe theentities tnllU that thatit Itrelates. relat This . Thi contrasts contra twith Witha a 'nominal lexical concept.

"nominallexi 011 concept.

Restricted R tridtd selectional Icctional tendencies tend n ies The The specification pttlhution of ofrestrictions r tndlon of otsome wmekind kind which impose relatively severe limits with respect to the nature of the "selectional whu.:h impost rtl.. tively K\o·tre limit with r r«t to the nature of the " I tional tendencies ulIll.ept.This Thi contrasts contra.\t with with'non-restricted "oon r tril.ttd temlcnl.lc encoded enuxled by byaalexical I xk..llconcept. select ion tendencies.

')nunn tcnd('nu .

Retrospective temporal relation encoded byby anan'event Retro ('tdiv relation ftlation The Thschematic hematic; temporal rel.Jllon en(odtd "('Vent based based A retrospective relation temporal frame of reference lexical concept. is one Icmrur I (rdme of ref' renc..e Icxiul UlO\.('l't. r('lro f"C\,tIV(, rtl.;atlon loneinIII -

iU.t1\lahon. During During 'activation "actlv.ltion one one or ormore morecognitive Cogllltl\ models model are areselected 'CIa tedfor for activation. primary activation attivation at at the the expense ("penM' of ofothers, oth rs, an an outcome outcomeof of'matching. °molll.hlllg. primary

mantic om position The prOctS.S of meaning con truction wh~by oln "utter· Semantic composition The process of meaning construction whereby an 'utterana.1 el· Imulollion. <1 "cooctption, icon trul.tN hy virtue of IIlter.;ac..Uon ance-level 'simulation, a 'conception, is constructed by virtue of interaction bet" ..n Ihe 'ionguisli y tern and the 'conceplu.1 sy leon dunng Iongui l"aUy between the 'linguistic system and the 'conceptual system during linguistically (ommuni alion.Semantic Semantic.:composition comp<»itionarises ;]f1 bybyvirtue vinueofoftwo twocompos(omp<> mc'(ilatedcommunication. mediated IIlOnalprocesses: prO\: :" lC't..tionand and'fusion. 'fu lOll. itional •selection Semantic potential potential The Theentire entireset sttofof cognllivemodels modelstotowhich whl hanan'open-class "opcn-d Semantic cognitive I('x.il-alconcept u'Ull.eptpotentially potcnudltyfacilitates faulitolt 'access. ".JU:. This . Thiincludes indud both hoth pnmJry «lgOilive lexical primary cognitive modd and "ndsecondary ond.1fYcognitive ulltOltlvemodels. mod I A . Alexical Ie Il.ollconcept's l.onl.ep" semantic ·m.Jnti4..potential pOI nl1a1l\ is models

GLO SARY GLOSSARY

GLOSSARY GLO ARY

3 56

modelled,'"in 'LCCM •LCCMThtOry, Theory,'"interm termsof ofthe the(On construct of the the '
profil• .

Semantic representation The manti ~plUCntltion The semantic m.1ntif.: dimension dlmen ion of of*lexical 'Ie:xU:.oll representation. reprnentallon. This Thi~ involvesan anIOteraction interactionbetwrm between-'ogOlII\e 'cognitive mod models and 'lexical 'lexical concepts. concepts. im'olv I and semantic tendencies Concerns the (range Scm ntic selectional Imional tendena enn( rn the (range of) 00 lexical Ie ical concepts (Onl 1'1 with wllh which a lexical concept co-occurs and in which it can be embedded. Semantic which a leXical concept (O-CXl.un and 10 which II can be emMdded. Stmantk selectional tendencies contra contrastI with with *formal I tlanallendentl "formal selectional lectional tendencies. tendenci . Semantic 'semantic mlnti structure tNdurt Schematic S<.h mati( dimensions dlmen')lon of of· mantllrepresentation rcprC'Stntation which whilh arc are directly.ncodro encoded '" in langudS.language. 5<mantJc Semantic structure modelled, in dirtCtly tructurt Iis mod.Ued, '" 'LLCM 'LCCM Theory, ThtOry, in term terms of of the the (on construct of the concept.. 10 truct of the *lexical "lrxkJI (om:cpl Semantic value The concept once mantic value Thevalue valurassociated a~.I.ltcd with with aa 'lexical "Iexilal(on(cpl onceitIt has ha undergone und rgone 'lexical concept integration and prior to 'interpretation. "lrxlc.:al concept IOtegralion and prior 10 "interprttation.

357

357

Stru tural invarianl lue sets, ·t that Ih.Jt makes m.1~ Structural invariant AA type typeof of(on(ept. concept, along along Wllh with ".Jllribute"v 'attribute-value up lru\:tunllOvari~nt INdure that upaa "fnme. 'frame. A A structural invariant iis aa relational relational knowltdge knowledge structure that hold holds ~tw n di IInct attrihute-valuc t. between distinct attribute-value sets. ymbolic unit con\! nllonal assembly a mhly involving mvolving Ja 'phonological 'phonologiul vehicle vchld aO(.I a Symbolic unit AAconventional and a mantic unit. manti unit 10 'l Theory. in in terms lerm of ofthe semantic unit. Thc The semantic unit is is modelled. modelled, in •I.CCM1 Theory, the u)O\lrullofth 'Iexiul UlOU:-pt. construct of the 'lexical concept. T.mporal ion The Th.phenomenologically phenom.nologlcaUyreal rtalexperience .xptn.nctwhereby wh.reby subjects ubJ«15 Temporalcompr compression perc.:CIV 100ndard unit of lesser I r magnitude: rnJgmludt": the the perception pcrc.:cpllon perceive standard unitsof of dur.llion duration as btlng being of th.u pr()(cedlOg more more "quickly" "quu_kly" than th.Jn usual U u.JI .. nd hem:e Ihere i I • of ofit. It. that time time iis proceeding and hence there is "less" Thi uh in an underestimation under timJllon of oftemporal lemporal magnitude, magnitude. and and contrasts contra IS with with This rresults in an 'protracted "protracted dur.1tion duration. T.mpo",1 r.n • (Tr-oR) Akintotospatial patl.1frames fram ofof rtf relK.,TFoRs noR are arc Temporal fram. frame of of r.~ reference (TFoR) Akin reference, compl.x ymboli units, unit involving Involving aa *vehicle " hid. and and an an internally InternaUy open optn "closed 'do>td·d. complex .symbolic class lexical t:on(cpt. The T~oR lexiul UlOt:Cpt \en to eocooe highly hem.llll lexical concept. The TFoR lexical concept serves to encode highly schematic a5pt'\.1 temporal reference. rcferen(e. aspects of of temporal -

Semanticslity manticality The Th property pnlptrtyassociated )(i.1tNwith witha..*conception; ·ult\(eplion;informally, IOformally. this thi can un be bt thought of of as the of an thought the semantic ",mantic well-formedness wdl-formron of an 'utterance, 'utt.ran«, and and relates rdat to to its It< success in communicating a specific intention given a particular context. UCl 10 communiutlOg a p«-Ific.: intention given a parti ular context. Semanticality failure The of a manticality failure The failure failure of a 'conception "conc.:cption to 10 emerge, em rge. due duc to to aa failure l,Jilure in III 'matching. "moltchlng. Simulation imulation AAgeneral-purpose gen ral purpo5lC!computation (omput.llionperformed performedby bythe th brain bramwhich whkhreactirea(1I vates multimodal yates muhimodal brain brain states. tat . Such u h brain brain states ""t include include those thru.erelating relatingtotodiverse diveM experience types including sensory-motor experience, proprioceptive experience, ex('Crienc.:e lyres indudlng n(,(lry' motor c prrien(e. propri<XC'pti\'e C'Xptrience. and subjective arise during and ub,allve experience. ul~rien(e. Simulations !'.Ilmul.1tion,Jn dunng language lolngu.Jge understanding, undenl.JndlOg. due due to the interaction between representations in the 'linguistic system and *concepto Ihe interaction bd-w«n rtprcscntatlOos in th "iingul tu.:: y tern and "conl..ep tual system.

tual sy tern .

Simulator imulator AA'cognitive 'cognlti\! model, model,which whllhis iconstituted oru.litulcdbybyone oneorormore moreframes, rram •which whit.:.h are subject 10 to 'simulation. are ~ubJtct • Imulatlon. Single type 'multiple selection. Arises multiple selection lection A A typeofof "multiple \C1C\:tion. Ari when whenthere thereisI Single instance in tan e multiple aa single ingle instance instance of ofaI 'vehicle "vmidewhich whichselects lC\:t more mortthan than one one'lexical "Iexiulconcept. concept. Situational the representation ituational representation representation Part P,Jrtofor the rC1'r nt,JlIonthat th.ltparticipants pJnidp.Jnt maintain m.JintalOinin service rvke of or'discourse "dl OUDerepresentation. represenlation.The Thesituational ltuallon.11representation rqunenlationcomprises (ompri the the participants, the time, partidpant • the time. venue, venue. and olnd physical phy iul environment, environment. the Ihereferents refrrent ofofthe the linguistic deployed, and and the lingui til expressions e pr \Ion\ dcplo)·oo. Iht social "'1.11 commitments c.:ommltmenl implied Implied by bythe the participants' utterances, in carrying out a 'joint activity. In addition, participants p rtll.lpant • uttennc.: • In urrylllg out a ",oint .l4..lIv,ty. In addition. p.lrtllip.1nl also .11 )maintain maintainaa'textual "tcxtualrepresentation. repr nlalion. Spatial scene involving en AAcne Involvl1lga olspatial pdti.11relation rel.uionholding holdmgbetween between a,Jfigure, figure •a.1 Spalla! scene reference rekrenc.:c object, ob,cc.:.l. and, and. optionally, option.dly. aIIsecondary ·ondolryreference rcfcrent.:.t object ob)«t encoded em:odcdvia viollanlan guage.

gU.Jgc

Tcxtual Partofofthe therepresentation rqu nt.llionthat th.. ,participants partidp.mt maintain m~int,Jinin inthe the Textual ~prC'SC:ntation representation Part rvke of "di OUf\e representation. reprncntation During [)urang aa •"JOint .l(:tivily. participants p.1rtlllp.Jnh keep k«p service of 'discourse ioint activity, tralk of.U uro and ignai>, such uch as a accompanying ac ompanylng gestures, S tur... track of all the the utt.ranc utterances iissued and oth.r other signals, pro xly. and on. This 1111 constitutes con tltut the the textual textual representation. repr ntation. In In addition, ddllion. partiparti prosody, and M> so on. c.:ip.Jnl m.1IOI,JIO;J· ilu.1tion.J1 representation. rcpr nt.1t1on. cipants maintain a 'situational Transcrndence ncerns the the number number and and range range of oflocations 1000Jtion at al which whi h and andwhen when Transcendence Concerns "individu,JI • 'types, "typo. 'episodic 'C'pi\Odksituations, ItuJtion~.and olnd'generic "gen ricsituations _itu.Jtion are .lrerepresented repr nted 'individuals, in our our mental mental representation rcprC'Knt.Jtion of ofthe the world. world.The Thegreater grealer the Ihe number numberand olndrange rang of of in location. the Ihe more more transcendent troln endent the the 'cognitive "cogniti\:emodel modelininquestion. qu lion.Transcendence TranS(cndrm;e locations, un lead I ad to to aa cognitive l.ogniti\t model model becoming h«omlllg'functionally "fun'-'Ionallydetached. dC'I,Jl.het.l. can TyptS A kind A kind mod.1. TyptS art mtotal r.p""'nwlonbased basttrallTypes of of'cognitive *cognitive model. Types are mental representations ing.1c.:m partKuln"'individuals andividualsininorder ordertotoleave I .)\'Cpoints POint ofof imiLuily.AAtype tyreisithus thu a a ing across particular similarity. gentn( representation reprnent.Jtion based ~ on onaasettof ofrelated relatedindividuals. iooivldu.tl . generic Unpacking The Th.process, pro< central ,c.ntraltoto'lexical '1«lealconcept conceptintegration, integration,whereby wh rtbylinguistic lingul tic I`npacking (ontenl encoded enuxied by hy lexical Icxiul concepts con(ept\ in 10 an .lOutterance utter.1nt:e isI~integrated Intege-ollN in inthe theway woly content (on tralnN by by the thethree thr«principles prinlipl of ofintegration. integration. constrained tltrance AA somewhat somC"Whal discrete disc.:rtte entity tntltythat that has h.1 unit unll like like status taW ininthat thatititrepresents reprncnt Utterance theexpression upr ion of ofaasingle ioglccoherent (:oherentidea, ide.J.making makang(at (.1least I ol~tpartial) p.utl.ll)use uscofc.,fthe thenorms nonn the and conventions comenlloo ofoflinguistic lingul licbehaviour behaviourinin aa particular partkular linguistic linguislic community. c.:ommunaty.An An and ulleran(erepresents repr nl aa specific, ~ifi(. contextualited, c.:ontcxtualiltd. and olndunique uniqueinstance in tJn(eofoflanguage I. mgu.lge utterance u •performed performedby hy a,J language IJngu.Jgc user u 'r in 10 !J.Crvke uf Ignollhng,J p.1rti(:ul.Jr ulmmuni use, service of signalling a particular communicativeintention. inlention.Hence, HC'n(e.ananutterance ulteran(econstitutes (:on tllul a adiscrete dl ·reteusage u geevent. C'\'cnt. cative -

Valu See Set" unhult v.Jluesets. '1 . Value •Attribute-value Hhldc. Vehicle See • "Phonulogil..aI Phonological vehicle. Vehicle

REFERENCES

References Aitchison, Jean. (1996). Wards in the Mind. Oxford: Blackwell. Aliport, D. A. (1985). Distributed memory, modular subsystems and dysphasia. In S. K. Newman and R. Epstein (eds), Current Perspectives in Dysphasia, 207-44. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone. Allwood, Jens. (2oo3)• Meaning potentials and context: Some consequences for the analysis of variation in meaning. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven, and i. Taylor (eds), Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics, 29-66. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Alverson. Hoyt. (1994). Semantics and Experience: Universal Metaphors for Time in English, Mandarin, Hindi gird Sesotho. Baltimore, MA: Johns Hopkins University Press. Atkins, B. T. S. (1987 ). Semantic-ID tags: corpus evidence for dictionary senses. In The Uses of Large Text Databases: Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the New OED Centre, 17- 36. Canada: University of Waterloo.

Bach, Kent. (1997). The semantics-pragmatics distinction: What it is and why it matters. Linguistiche Berichte 8, Special Issue on Pragmatics, 33 -So. Baddeley, Alan D. (1966). Time estimation at reduced body temperature. American Journal of Psychology, 79 (3): 475-9. Barcelona, Antonio. ( z000). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Barsalou, Lawrence. (1991). Deriving categories to achieve goals. In (i. H. Bower (cd.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory,

CA: Academic Press. (1992a). Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In A. Lehrer and E. F. Kittay (eds), Frames. Fields. and Contrasts: New Essays in Lexical and Semantic Organization, 11-74. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlhaum. (1992b). Cognitive Psychology: An Overview for Cognitive Scientists. Hillstble, NJ: Lawrence Erlhaum. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22: 577-66 ► . (2003). Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Language and voL

27, 1-64. San Diego,

Cognitive Processes, 18:

513-62.

(2oos). Continuity of the conceptual system across species. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9: 309-11.

(ioo8). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59: 617-45. and Billman. I)orrit. (1989). Systematicity and semantic ambiguity. In D. Gorfein (ed.), Resolving Semantic Ambiguity, 146-203. New York: Springer-Verlag. Santos, Ava, Simmons, Kyle, and Wilson, C. D. (forthcoming). Language and simulation in conceptual processing. In M. De Vega, A. Glenberg. and A. Graesser (eds), Symbols, Embodiment, and Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

359

Barsalou, Lawrence. and Wiener-Hastings, Katja. ( zoos). Situating abstract concepts. In Pecher and R. Zwaan (eds), Grounding Cognition: The Role of Per and Action in Memory, languag•, and Thought, 129-63. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ych, Wenchi, Luka, Barbara, Olseth, Karen, Mix Kelly, and Wu, Ling-Ling. (1993). Concepts and meaning. In K. Beals, G. Cooke, D. Kathman, K. E. McCullough, S. Kita, and D. Testen (eds), Chicago Linguistics Society 9: Papers from the Parasessions on Conceptual Representations, vol. z 23-61. Chicago Linguistics Society. Bender, Andrea, Bennardo, Giovanni, and Beller, Sieghard. (zoos). Spatial frames of reference for temporal relations: A conceptual analysis in English, German, and Tongan. In B. G. Bara, L Barsalou, and M. Bucciarelli (eds), Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 220-5. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlhaum. Bennett, David. (1975). Spatial ism, Temporal Uses of English Prepositions. London: Longman. Bergen, Benjamin K. and :hang, Nancy. (zoos). Embodied construction grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In I.-0. Ostman and M. Fried (eds), Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretic -al Extensions, 147-9o. Amsterdam: John Beniamins. Polley, Carl, and Wheeler, Kathryn. (forthcoming). language and inner space. In V. Evans and P. Chilton (eds), Language, Cognition and Space: The State of the Art and New Directions. London: Equinox Publishing. Boroditsky, Lera. (woo). Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75 (1): 1-28. (zom). Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers' conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43: 1 - 22. and Prinz, Jesse. (forthcoming). What thoughts are made of. In G. Semin and E. Smith ( eds), Embodied Grounding: Social, Cognitive. Affective. and Neuroscientilic Approathes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boodle, Brian and Gentner, Dedre. (zoos). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 193-216. Bowerman, Melissa and Choi, Soonja. (2oo3). Space under construction: Languagespecific spatial categorization in first language acquisition. In D. Gentner and S. Goldin-Meadow (eds), Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought, 387-428. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Brenier, Jason M. and Michaelis, Laura A. (2o05). Optimization via syntactic amalgam: Syntax-prosody mismatch and copula doubling. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, I: 45-88. Brugman, Claudia. (1988). The Story of "over": Polyserny, Semantics and the Structure of the Lexicon. New York: Garland. and Lakoff, George. (1988). Cognitive topology and lexical networks. In S. Small. G. Cottrell, and M. Tannenhaus (eds), Lexical Ambiguity Resolution, 477 -507. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman. Burling, Robbins. (2oo7). The Naked Ape: How language Evolved. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

360

Cann, Ronnie (1993). Formal Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carston, Robyn. (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Commu-

361

Croft, William and Cruse, D. Alan. ( 2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cruse, D. Alan. (2002). Aspects of the micro-structure of word meanings. In Y. Ravin

nication. Oxford: Blackwell.

and C. Leocock (eds), Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches,

Casasanto, Daniel. (forthcoming). Space for thinking. In V. Evans and l'. Chilton

30-51.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

(eds). Language, Cognition and Space: The State of the Art and New Directions. London: Equinox Publishing. - and Boroditsky, Um. (2008). Time in the mind: Using space to think ab(nit

Cuyckens, Hubert, I)irven, Rene, and Taylor, John (2oo3). Cognitive Approaches to

time. Cognition, 106: 579 93.

-

-

Lexical Semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruytcr. Sandra, Dominick, and Rice, Sally. (1997). Thwards an empirical lexical semantics. In B. Smieja and M. Tasch (eds), Human Contact through Language and

Chafe, Wallace. (1994 ). Discourse. COnStiOUSlIeSS, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and 4Vriting. Chicago: University of Chicago

I ► nguistics, 35 54. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. -

Dabrowska, Ewa. (2oo9). Words as constructions. In V. Evans and S. Pourcel (ads),

Press.

New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics, 201-24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Choi, Soonja and Bowerman, Melissa. 0990. Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: The influence of language-specific lexicalitation patterns.

Damasio, Antonio. (1989). Time-locked multiregional retroactivation: A systemslevel proposal for the neural substrates of recall and recognition. Cognition, 33:

Cognition, 41: 83-121. Chomsky, Noam. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

25 62. (1994). Descartes' Error: Emotion. Reason arid the Human Bnain. London: Vintage.

(1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. (0991). Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In R. Freidin 417 54. Cambridge, (ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar,

Dancygier, Barbara and Sweetscr, Eve. (2005). Alental Spaces in Grammar: Conditional

-

MA: MIT Press. 1199s). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Christiansen, Morten H. and Kirby, Simon. (2003). Language Evolution. OxfOrd: -

-

Constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Davies, Paul. ( 2006). About Time: Einstein's Unfinished Revolution. London: Penguin. Deacon, Terrence. (1997 ). The Symbolic Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the Brain. New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Co. Deane, Paul. (2oo5). Multimodal spatial representation: On the semantic unity of over." In B. Hampe (ed.), From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive

Oxford University Press. 4 gain. World .1; ..wf. 1 ler A

Clark, Andy. (1998). Being There: Putting Brain. Body and Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Clark, Herbert. (0973). Space, time, semantics, and the child. In T. Moore (ed.), Cognitive IleveIopment and the Acquisition of Language, 27 63. New York: Academic -

Press. -

(1983). Making sense of nonce sense. In G. Flores D'Arcais and R. I. larvella

(eds), The Process of Language I !nilerstatrifing, 297-332. Chichester: john Wiley. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corhallis, Michael. (2003). From Hand to Mouth: The Origins of Language. Princeton:

Linguistics, 235-82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dijk, Teun van and Kintsdi, Walter. (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press. Donald, Merlin. (1991). Origins of the Modern Mind: Three Stages in the Evolution of

Culture and Cognition. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Dunbar, Robin. ( 0996). Grooming. Gossip and the Evolution of Language. Faber & Faber.

Engberg- Pederson, Elisabeth. (1993). Space in hinish Sign I anguage: The Meaning and

Morphosyntactic Use of Space in a Visual Language.

sions of perception verbs in Australian languages. l angua ige, 76 (3): 546-92.

Coulson, Seana. (2000). Semantic Leaps. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coventry, Kenny and Garrod, Simon. ( 2004). Saying, Seeing and Acting: The Psychological Semantics of Spatial Prepositions. Hove: Psychology Press.

Evans, Vyvyan. (20040). The Structure of Time: Language. Meaning and Cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (2oo4h). How we conceptualise time. Essays in Arts and Sciences. 33 (2): 13 44Polysemy, the lexicon and conceptual structure. iru meaning (1):"time": 33

Croft, William. (1993). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and

-

metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4: 335 70. -

(1998). Mental representations. Cognitive Linguistics. 9 (2): (2000). Explaining Language Change An Evolutionary Approik•.

Jour nal 2 Sofh Linguistics, Th

1 51 -74-

- 75.

(449 c01-s. (20 06). LiL;exical concepts, cognitive models and Linguistics

London: lA ► gman.

(2002). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (2007). The origins of grammar in the verbalization of experience. Cognitive

Linguistics, 18 (3): 339-82.

Hamburg: Signum-Verlag.

Evans. Nicholas and Wilkins, David. (2oo0). In the mind's car: The semantic exten-

Princeton University Press.

-

London:

-

ion. Cognitive meaning-const ruction.

(forthcoming a). From the spatial to the non-spatial: The "state" lexical concepts of in, on and in. In V. Evans and P. Chilton fetish I anguage,

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

362

Cognition and Space: The State of the Art and New Directions. London: Equinox Publishing. Evans, Vyvyan. (forthcoming b). The perceptual basis of spatial representation. In V. Evans and P. Chilton (eds), Language. Cognition gold Vail.: The State of the Art

and New Directions. London: Equinox Publishing. and Chilton, Paul (eds). (forthcoming). Language, Cognition and Space: The State of the Art and New Directions. London: Equinox Publishing. and Green, Melanie. (2oo6). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh:

363

Fodor, Jerry A. 09831. The Modularity of Mind. (:ambridge, MA: MIT Press. Fraisse, Paul. (1963) . The Psychology of Time. New York Harper and Row. Gainotti, Guido, Silveri, Maria Caterina, Daniele, Antonio, and Giustolisi, Laura. (1995). Neuroanatomical correlates of category-specific semantic disorders: A critical survey. ,%fe ► ory, 3: 247-64. Gallagher, Shaun. (2006). How the Body Shapes the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University I'ress. Gallese, Vittorio and lakolf, George. zoos). The brain's concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in reason and language. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22: 45s-79.

Edinburgh University Press. and Tyler, Andrea. ( 2004). Rethinking English "prepositions of movement": The

Garner, W. R. (1978). Selective attention to attributes and to stimuli.

case of to and through. In H. Cuyckens, W. De Mulder, and T. Mortelmans (eds), Adpositions of Movement. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, t8: 245-70. Amsterdam:

Experimental Psychology: General, 107 ( 3 ): 287-308. Geeraerts, Dirk. 0994). Diachronic Prototype Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University

Journal of

Press.

John Benjamins. Fauconnier, Gilles. (1994). Mental Spaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1997). Mappings in Thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Gentner, Dedre. (1982). Why nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity

Press. and Turner. Mark. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science,

Language, Thought and Culture, 301-34. Hillsdale, NJ: lawrence Erlhaum. (1988). Metaphor as structure mapping: Tlw relational shift. Child Development,

versus natural partitioning. In S. A. Kuczaj (ed.), Language Development: Vol. 2.

59: 47- 59. and Boroditsky, Lera. (29m). Individuation, relational relativity and early word

22 (2): 33-187.

(2002). The iVily we Think Conceptual Blending and the Mind's Hidden

learning. In M. Bowerman and S. Levinson (eds), Language Acquisition and Con-

Complexities. New York: Basic Books. (loos). Rethinking metaphor. In R. W. Gibbs (ed.). The Cambridge Hand-

ceptual Development, 215-56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

book of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Feist, Michele. (forthcoming). Inside in and on: Typological and psycholinguistic perspectives. In V. Evans and P. Chilton (eds), Language, Cognition and Space:

Bowdle, Brian. %Vial', Phillip, and Boronat, Consuclo. (2001). Metaphor is like analogy. In D. Gentner, K. 1. Holyoak, and B. N. Kokinov (eds), The AntilOgiCal

Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science, 199-253. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. and Goldin-Meadow, Susan. (2003). Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

The State of the Art and New Directions. London: Equinox Publishing. Feldman, Jerome. (2oo6). From Molecule to Metaphor: A Neural Theory of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

-

two systems in processing space time metaphors. Language ea se! (:ognitive Processes,

and Narayanan, Srini. (29o4). Embodied meaning in a neural theory of language. Brain and Language, 89: 385-92. Fillmore, Charles. (1975). An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. Proceedings Odle First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 123-31. -

(1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, 111-37. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.

-

17 (5): 537-65. Gibbs, Raymond W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. -

(1997). lectures on Deixis. Stanford: CA: (*.MI Kay, Paul, and O'Connor, Mary Catherine. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity

in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64: 501-38. l'inke, Ronald A. (1989). Principles of Mental Imagery. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Flaherty, Michael. (1999). A Watched Pot-. How We Experience Time. New York, NY: New York University Press. Fleischman, Suzanne. (1982). The past and the future: Are they coming or going? Berkeley Linguistics Society, 8: 322-34.

( woo). Embodiment and Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Giora, Rachel. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded

(1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Seniantica, 6: 222-54.

[mai. Mutsumi, and Boroditsky, Lera. (2oo2). As time goes by Evidence for

salience hypothesis. Cognitive linguistics. 8 (3): 183-206. -

(2003). On our Mind: Salience, Context, and Figurative Language. New York: Oxford University Press. ;lenberg, Arthur. (1997). What memory is for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20: 1-55. and Kaschak, Michael. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic

Bulletin and Review, 9: 558-85. Aucksberg. Sam. ( 2001). Understanding Figurative Language. New York: Oxford University Press. (2003). The psycholinguistics of meta pho r. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7: 92-6. and Keysar, Boa,. two). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review, 97: 3- 18.

REIERENCES

REFERENCES

;64

365

Grammaticalization, and edition.

( ;otinian. Erving. (19811. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

IIupper, Paid and Traugott, Ili/abeth (loss. (2oo3).

( ;oldberg, Adele. (1995). Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argu► e ► t Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hurford, James. (2107). Origins of Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

- (2006). Constructions at Work The Nature of Generalization i ► i I anguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gonzalez-Marquez, Monica, Mittelherg, Irene, Coulson, Seam, and Spivey, Michael

1. (2007). Methods in Cognitive Linguistics.

Amsterdam: John Benjamin,.

Grady, Joseph E. (1997). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Linguistics Dept.. LIC Berkeley. (2oos). Primary metaphors as inputs to conceptual integration.

Pragmatics.

Journal of

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ivry, Richard B. and Spencer, Rebecca M. C. (2oo4). The neural representation of time. Current Opinion in Neurobiology; 14 (2): 225-32. lackendoff, Ray. (1983). Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (1990). Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (1992). Languages of the Mind: Essays on Mental Representation. MA: MIT Press. (mu).

Cambridge,

Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution.

Oxford

and New York: Oxford University Press.

17-10: 1595 -614.

Converging evidence for the notions of "subscene" and "primary scene. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 123-36. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Grier, Paul H. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Jaeger, leri and Ohala, John. 0984). On the structure of phonetic categories. Proceed-

Press. (;vies, Stefan Th. (2006). Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many

January, David and Kako, Edward. ( 2007). Re-evaluating evidence for the linguistic

- and Johnson, Christopher.

2000).

ings of the loth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society,

15-26. Berkeley,

CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. James, William. ( 118901 195o). The Principles of Psychology. New York: Dover. relativity hypothesis: Response to Boroditsky (2o01). Cognition, io4: 417-26.

meanings of to run." In S. Th. Grits and A. Stefanowitsch (eds), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis, 57 -99. Berlin:

lasmin, Kyle. (2oo8). Declaring Genius at Customs.

Mouton de Gruyter. and Diviak, Dagmar. (2009). Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based approach to

lohansson, Sverker. ( 2005). Origins of Language: Constraints on Hypotheses.

cognitive semantic analysis. In V. Evans and S. Pourcel (eds), New Directions in

Johnson, Mark. (1987). The Body in the Mind The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagin-

Cognitive Linguistics,

57- 76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

( ;umperz, John. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

and Levinson, Stephen. (19961. Rethinking Linguistic Relativity.

Cambridge:

Haiman, John (1980). Dictionaries and encyclopedias. Lingua, so: 329-57. Hanks, Patrick. 0996). Contextual dependency and lexical sets. international Journal Harder, Peter. (2009). Meaning as input: The instructional perspective. In V. Evans and S. Pourcel (eds), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics, 15-26. Amsterdam: Johns Benjamins. Harley, Trevor. (2oo8). The Psychology of Language: From Data to Theory,

3rd edition.

dam: Benjamins.

ation and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (um). The Meaning of the Body: Aesthetics of Human Understanding.

Chicago:

University of Chicago Press. Press. )(Kg-Schmid, I LIM. ( 20X0). English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus Kaschak, Michael and Glenberg, Arthur. (2000). Constructing meaning: The role of affordances and grammatical constructions in sentence comprehension. Journal of

Memory and Language, 43: 508-29. Katz, Jerrold J. (1972). Semantic Theory. New York, NY: Harper and Row. and Fodor, Jerry A. (1963). The structure of a semantic theory. Language,

Hove: Psychology Press. Harrington, Deborah L, Haaland, Kathleen Y., and Knight, Robert T. (1998). Cortical

18 (3):

Amster-

to Cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

75 -98.

networks underlying mechanisms of time perception.

University of Brighton.

Johnson-Laird, Philip N. (1983). Mental Models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Cambridge University Press.

of Corpus Linguistics,' (t):

Unpublished MA term paper,

Journal of Neuroscience,

and Postal, Paul M. (19641.

At: Integrated

Theory of Linguistic Descriptions.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

to85 -95.

Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania. (2007). The Genesis of Grammar: A Reconstruction.

Kay, Paul and Fillmore, Charles. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What's X doing V construction. Language, 75:

Oxford: Oxford University Press. Herskovits, Annette. (1986). Language and Spatial Cognition. Cambridge:

39: 170-210.

Cambridge

University Press. (1988). Spatial expressions and the plasticity of meaning. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn 271 - 9$. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (ed.), Topics in Cognitive

and McDaniel, Chad. (1978). The linguistic significance of the meanings of basic color terms. Language, 54-3: 610- 46. and Michaelis, Laura A. (forthcoming). Constructional meaning and compositionality. In C. Maietth ► rn. K. von lieusinger, and P. Portlier (eds), Semantics: An I ► ternati ► nal Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

gir 366

Kemmerer, David and Tranel, Daniel. ( 21mo). A double disvociation between linguistic and perceptual representations of spatial relationships. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 17: 393- 414.

Kendon, Adam. (2oo4). Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kovecses, Zoltan and Radden, Gunter. (1998). Isietonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, q-1: 37-77. Kreitzer, Anatol. (1997). Multiple levels of schematization: A study in the conceptualization of space. Cognitive Linguistics, 8-4: 291-325. Lakotf, George. (1987). Women. Eire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press. (1990). The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, i (I): 39-74. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 2nd edition, zoz--st. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1996). Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (2.006). Don't Think of an Elephant: Know your Values and Frame. the Debate. Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing. and Johnson, Mark. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh. New York: Basic Books. and Thompson, Henry. (1975). Introduction to cognitive grammar. Proceedings of the 1st Annual Alerting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 295-313. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. and Turner, Mark. (1989). More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of ( :hicago Press. Landau, Barbara, Dessalegn, Banchianilack, and Goldberg, And Micah. (forthcoming). Language and space: Momentary interactions. In V. Evans and P. Chilton (eds), Lanuage, Cognition and Space: The State of the Art and New Ihrectiems. London: Equinox Publishing. Langacker, Ronald W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Volume I Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press. (19914). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Volume 11 Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press. (199110. Concept, Image, Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. (1999). Grammar and Coriceptuakation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ( zixxi). A dynaiiiik usage-haled model. In M. Barlow and S. Kemnier (eds), Usagebased Models of Language, 1-64. Stanford, CA: (:SL1 Publications. 4 2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

I eezenherg, Michael. ( zoos). Contexts of Metaphor. OxtOrd: Elsevier Science. Levinson, Stephen. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. -

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

(woo). Presumptive. Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

367

Levinson, Stephen. (2003), Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Linguistic Diversity. Cambric* Cambridge University Press. Livingstone, Margaret and Hubei, David. 0988). Segregation of form, color, move111e111 and depth: Anatomy, physiology and perception. Science, 240: 740-9. Lucy, John. (1982). Language Diversity and Thought: A Reformulation of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Martin, Alex. ( 2001). Functional neuroimaging of semantic memory. In R. Cabez_a and A. Kingstone (eds), Handbook of Functional Neuroimaging of Cognition, 153-86. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (2007). The representation of object concepts in the brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 58: 25-45. Mauk, Michael I). and Boonomano, Dean V. (zoos). The neural basis of temporal processing. The Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27: 307 40. McNeill, David. (1992). Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Michaelis, Laura. A. (mu). Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning. In H. Cuyckens, R. t)irven, and J. Taylor (eds), Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics, 163-210. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. (2004). Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, is: 1-67. and Lambrecht, Knud. (1996). Toward a construction-based model of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, 72: 215 47. Miller, George and Johnson-Laird, Philip. (1976). Language and Perception. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Mithen, Steven. (1996). Prehistory of the Mind: A Search for the Origins of Art, Religion and Science. London: Orion Books. Moore, Kevin Ezra. (wooi. Spatial experience and temporal metaphors in Wolof: Point of view, conceptual mapping and linguistic practice. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of California, Berkeley. (zoo6). Space-to-time mappings and temporal concepts. Cognitive Linguistics, -

-

17-2: 199-244.

Munnich, Edward, Landau, Barbara, and Dosher, Barbara Anne. (2001). Spatial language and spatial representation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cognition. 81 (3): 171-207.

Murphy, Gregory. (1991). Meaning and concepts. In P. I. Schwanenflugel (ed.) The Psychology of Word Meanings, 11-35. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. (1996). On metaphoric representation. Cognition. 6o, 173-204. Nerlich, Brigitte and Clarke, David 13. (5.007). Cognitive linguistics and the history of linguistics. In D. Geeraerts and H. Cuyckens (eds), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 589-607. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nlinel, Rafael, Moats, Benjamin, and Truscher, Ursina. (2oo6). Time after time: The psychological reality of the Ego- and Time-Reference-Point distinction in metaphorical construals of time. Metaphor and Symbol, 21: 133-46. and Sviretser. Eve. (2006). With the future behind them: Convergent evidence from Aymara language and gesture in the crusslinguistic comparison of spatial c4 ► nstruals Of time. C‘ignitive Science, 3o: 401-50.

REFERENCES

368

REFERENCES

O'Keefe, John. (1996). The spatial prepositions in English, vector grammar, and the cognitive map theory. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, and M. E Garrett (cds), La ► guaxe and Space, 277-316. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ornstein, Robert. 019691/1997). On the experience of time. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. ()finny, Andrew. (1993). Metaphor gind Thought, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Paivio, Allan. (1979). Imagery and Verbal Processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart and

Sandra, Dominick. (1998). What linguists can and can't tell you about the human mind: A reply to Croft. Cognitive Linguistics, 9 (4): 361 -478. Schank, Roger. (1975). Conceptual Information Processing. New York: Elsevier. (1982). Dynamic Memory: A Theory of Reminding and learning in Computers and People. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. and Abelson, Robert. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals. and Understanding: An inquiry into Milian Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbauni. and Kass, Alex. (1988). Knowledge representation in people and machines. In U. Eco, M. Santanibrogio, and P. Violi (cds), Meaning and Mental Representations,

Winston. (1986). Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. Oxford: Oxford Uni-

181-200. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

versity Press. Poppet, Ernst. (1994). Temporal mechanisms in perception. In 0. Sporns and

Schiffrin, Deborah. (1994). Approaches to Discourse: Language as Social Interaction.

(cds), Selectionion and the Brain: international Review of Neurobiology,

Searle, John. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of anguag•. ( 'Ambridge: Cambridge University Press.

37: 185-201. - (1978). Time Perception. In R. Held, H. W. Leibowitz, and H.-L. Teuber (cds), I landbook of Sensory Physiology, 713-29. Heidelberg: Springer. Praggleiaz Group. (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22 (1): 1-39. Prinz, Jesse. (2002). Furnishing the Mind: Concepts and their Perceptual Basis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pulvermtiller, Friedmann. (1999). Words in the brain's language. (2003).

Oxford: Blackwell.

- (1983). intentionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (119791 1993). Metaphor. In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 2nd edition, 83-111. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shepard, Roger N. and Cooper, Lynn A. (1982). Mental Images !mil their Transformations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shinohara, Kazuko. ( '999). Epistemology of Space and Time. Kwansci, Japan: Gakuin

Behavioral and

Brain Sciences, 22: 253 - 336.

The Neuroscience of Language: On Brain Circuits of Words and Serial

Radden, GUnter. (2003). The metaphor TIME AS SPACE across languages. In N. Baumgarten, C. BOttger, M. Isloti, and I. Probst (eds), Ubersetzen, Interkulturelk ►

el:wren

Sprachen. Festschrift fur Juliane House :um 6o Geburtstag. leitschrift Jive InterkulII relief: Fremdsprachenunterric -ht (online), 8 (2/3): 1 - 14. Recanati, Francois. (2004). Literal Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Renfrew, Cohn. (2007). Prehistory: The Making of the Human Mind.

When Time is not Space: The social and linguistic construction of time intervals in an Amazonian culture. Journal of Pragmatics.

Pustejovsky, lames (1995). The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

kom In unskation, Spracherwerb and Sprach-vermittliing--clas Leber: mit

University Press. Silva Sinha, Vera da, Sinha, Chris, Zinken, Jorg, and Sampaio, Wany. (forthcoming).

Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sinha, Chris and Kuteva, Tania. (1995). Distributed spatial semantics. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 18: 167-99. Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deidre. (1995). Relevance: C0111 nicatiom and Cognition, 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell. Stalnaker, Richard. (1978). Assertion. In P. Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics, 3ts-32. New York: Academic Press. Stern, Josef. (2000). Metaphor in Context. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

London:

Sweetser, Eve. ( '999). Compositionality and blending: Semantic composition, in a cognitively realistic framework. In T. Janssen and C. Redeker (eds), Cognitive-

Rosch, Eleanor. (1978). Principles of categorization. In B. Lloyd and F. Rosch (eds),

Linguistics: Foundations, Scope and fethodology, 129-62. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Weidentield and Nicolson. Cognition and Categorization,

27-48. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlhaum. Reprinted in E. Margolis and S. Laurence (eds), (1999), Concepts: Core Readings, 189-206.

Talmy, Leonard. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics (2 volumes). (:ambridge,

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ruhl, Charles. (1989). On Monosemy: A Study in Linguistic Semantics. New York,

Taylor, John. (wo2). Cognitive Grammar, Oxford: Oxford University Press. (2003). Linguistic Categorization, 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

NY: State University of New York Press. Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel, and Jefferson, Gail. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation. Language, so: 696-735. Sag. Ivan. (2007). Sign-based Construction Grammar. An InfOrmal Synopsis. Unpublished manuscript. Available online at: .

I

369

MA: MIT Press.

Taylor, lawrence I. and Zwaan, Rolf A. (2o09). Action in cognition: The case of language. Language and Cognition, a (t): 45-18. Thompson, Sandra A. (zoos). "Object complements" and conversation. Studies in Language 26 (i): I25-64. ThoMps00-Sihill, Sharon. (2003). Neuroimaging studies of se:multi.. memory: Infer-

ring - how" from "where". Neuropsychoiopii, 41: 280--92.

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

37t) l ► masello,

Michael. (1999). The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition.

Harvard:

Loki Semir

11992).

371

The ‘11.tial image in mind and brain. Scientific American, 267 (3):

68-76.

I larvard University Press. 711eary of Language Acquisition.

and Shipp, Stewart. (1988). The functional logic of cortical connections. Nature,

Trancl, Daniel and Kemmerer, David. (2004). Neuroanatomical correlates of locative

335: 311-17. Ziemke, Tom. (2oo3). What's that thing called embodiment? In Proceedings of the 25th

- (2003). Constructing a Language: A llsage-based

H arvard: Harvard University Press. prepositions. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 21: 719-49. Iratigott, Elizabeth (l ► ss. (mg). On the expression of spatio-temporal relations in language. In I. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Human Language, 369-400. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. and Dasher, Richard. (2oo4). Re gidarity in Semantic Change.

Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. Turner, Frederick and Piippel, Ernst. (.983). The neural lyre: Poetic meter, the brain Turner, Mark. (1991). Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Tyler, Andrea and Evans, Vyvyan. (zoo.). Reconsidering prepositional polvscmy

(zoo;). The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vandeloise, Claude. (1990). Representation, prototypes, and centrality. In S. Tsohat403-37.

(1991). Spatial Prepositions: A Case Study from French (trans. Anna R. K. Bosch). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (1994). Methodology and analyses of the preposition in. Cognitive Linguistics,

comprehension. In B. H. Ross (ed.) The Psychology of Learning and Motivation,

35-62). New York, NY: Academic Press. and Kaschak, Michael P. (2oo8). Language in the brain, body and world. In P. Robbins and M. Aydede (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition, and Madden, Carol. (2004). Updating situation models. Journal of Experimental Psychology:

Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Jo: 283-8 .

and Radvansky, Gabriel A. (1998). Situation models in language and memory.

Psychological Bulletin, 123: 162-85.

5 (2): *57-84. Varela, Francisco, Thompson, Evan, and Roach, Eleanor. (199.). The Embodied Mind:

Cognitive Science and Human Experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vigliocco, Gabriella. Meteyard, Lotte, Andrews, Mark, and Kousta, Stavroula. (2o09). Toward a theory of semantic representation. Language and Cognition,' (z). Walsh, Vincent. (2oo3). A theory of magnitude: Common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity. TRENDS in Cognitive Science, 7 (It): 483-8. Wearden, John and Penton-Voak, Ian. (199s). Feeling the heat: Body temperature and the rate of subjective time, revisited. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48B: 129-41. Whitney, Paul. (1998). The Psychology of language. Roston. MA: Houghton Mifflin. Wierzbicka, Anna. (1988). The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (1996). Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilson, Margaret. (low). Six views of embodied cognition. Psych ► no ► ic Bulletin and 9 (4): 625-36.

Yu, Ning. (1998). The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: A Perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam: John Renjamins. Zakay, I tan and Block, Richard A. (.997). Temporal cognition. Current Directions in

Psychological Science,

models. Discourse Processes, 28: 81-8.

.08-81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

London: Routledge.

Review,

(eds), Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics, 447-94. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

(2004). The immersed experiencer: toward an embodied theory of language

networks: The case of over. Language, 77 (4): 724-65.

-

Spatial

iwaan, Rolf A. (1999). Embodied cognition, perceptual symbols, and situation

Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

-

London: Equinox Publishing. Zlatev, Jordan. (1997). Situated embodiment: Studies in the Emergence of Meaning. Stockholm: Gout).

(2oo3). Polysemy or generality? Mu. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven, and I. Taylor

and time. /Wiry, 142 (5): 277-309.

zidis (ed.), Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Categorization,

Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 1134-9. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Zinken, Jorg. (forthcoming). Temporal frames of reference. In V. Evans and P. Chilton (eds), Language. Cognition arid Space: The State of the Art and New Directions.

6: 12-16.

How Words Mean: Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models, and Meaning Construction

Read more

Lexical Meaning in Context: A Web of Words

Read more

Cognitive Models

Read more

Words without Meaning

Read more

Words without meaning

Read more

Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development

Read more

Lexical gestures and Lexical Access

Read more

Epilepsy: Models, Mechanisms and Concepts

Read more

Visualizing Statistical Models and Concepts

Read more

Cognitive Models of Science

Read more

Models Of Cognitive Development

Read more

Cognitive Models of Memory

Read more

Why Words Mean What They Do

Read more

Words and Other Wonders (Cognitive Linguistic Research)

Read more

CONSTRUCTION GRAMMARS: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions

Read more

Words and Symbols (Core Concepts in Therapy)

Read more

Lexical Priming: A new theory of words and language

Read more

Linear models: A mean model approach

Read more

Logistics Operations and Management: Concepts and Models

Read more

Mean

Read more

Linear Models: A Mean Model Approach

Read more

Linear models: A mean model approach

Read more

Decision Making: Cognitive Models and Explanations

Read more

Utterance Interpretation and Cognitive Models, Volume 20

Read more

Integrated Models of Cognitive Systems

Read more

Mental Models In Cognitive Science

Read more

Integrated Models of Cognitive Systems

Read more

Animal Models of Cognitive Impairment

Read more

You Know what I Mean?: Words, Contexts and Communication

Read more

Data Mining: Concepts, Models, Methods, and Algorithms

Read more

Recommend Documents

How Words Mean: Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models, and Meaning Construction

ISBN 978-0-19-923467-7 llhI!ilHh!I 111111! 11111 uhf How Words Mean ••I How How Words Words Mean Mean - Edith For ...

Lexical Meaning in Context: A Web of Words

This page intentionally left blank Lexical Meaning in Context This is a book about the meanings of words and how they...

Cognitive Models

C E N T E R F O R http://www.hum.au.dk/semiotics ©1997-2002, Center for Semiotics & the author You are not allowed to ...

Words without Meaning

Contemporary Philosophical Monographs Peter Ludlow, editor 1. A Slim Book about Narrow Content Gabriel M. A. Segal (20...

Words without meaning

Words without Meaning Contemporary Philosophical Monographs Peter Ludlow, editor 1. A Slim Book about Narrow Content...

Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development

Lexical gestures and Lexical Access

Lexical Gestures and Lexical Access: A Process Model Robert M. Krauss, Yihsiu Chen and Rebecca F. Gottesman Columbia Un...

Epilepsy: Models, Mechanisms and Concepts

Advances in epilepsy research are occurring at a rapid rate, aided particularly by new technologies that permit the stu...

Visualizing Statistical Models and Concepts

VISUALIZING STATISTICAL MODELS AND CONCEPTS R. W. FAREBROTHER Faculty of Economics and Social Studies Victoria Univers...

Cognitive Models of Science