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

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

VYVYAN EVANS EVAN EVANS

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

OXFORD OXFORD

Contents Contents

UNIVERSITY PRESS NIVI:;RSITV PRESS PRE'S 1JNIVI-RSITY MU 6nr 61)r GreatCbmWon tiarendon Street, Oxford 01.1 ozi Street. ()xk,rd (JI'~.t !"Ilrm, Odurd fu." (,rca( Oxford tnlYnllly University Press Presali departmentof ofthe theUni%ersutv University department of Oxford. Oxford. Oxford Pr of ttl< l'nI"",,,'ly of of Oxford. University isisa..ackpanlMnl It further. the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship. excellence m in rtW.mh, rrsrirch. schoLarship. furthtn the tM University's llmvtrllty', ob,atl kh...,bnlll J'. itII furthers objectivepf it n...dlnkt and education by publishing worldwide in .nd m and «Ilk.1ll"n education by by ruhh~lIni publishing W\lri.Jwuk worldwide in Oxford New New York Oxford I'<W York \ork Auckland UJ't Town 1)ar cx Karachi Kong CapeTown Town Dar Salaam tHong Hong Alk.kbnd Oar nes ~m I nl Kong Knns Karachi K.lr~hl Kualalumpur 1lumpur umpurMadrid MadridMelbourne Melbourne Mexico City "Nairobi Nainki Mub 1.adnd 1dhtlutnC' Mexico klk.O Cii'. (.Jly m..tM KuaLa New Delhi Shanghai 'lawn loronto Mw {)rlh. h.tncN1 T'I",", rvn.tnlO Nss Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto

Acknowledgement Acknowledgements Acknowledgements p",fac I'reface Preface List Li of Listt of of Figures Figures List Tab I list Listofof ofTables Tables Abbreviations Abbreviations

v ii viii ix IX

xiv XIV xvi XVI XVII

Withoffices offices in in With oftktt In Republic France (rreic ArgentinaAustria Austria Brailll(bile Chile • iechRepublic _ ArJtntlfu Au Irt.1 8rl.1I1 hlk ('zcth c:u...h RtruhL IFiance r,lI'''..:' Greece (.r('(t..t Argentina Guatemala Itunllry Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore Guatemala hungary Italy (.lUlnn.a1.l lI.aly Japan J'l"n Poland PoLlnd Portugal I\.nupl Singapore 'm..Pllr.:' South Korea Switterland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam South ~'lzn1.lnd ThaiL1ind Tlu.u.nd Turkey lurlry l'mu,," VIt1rwm South Korc. korca Switzerland Ukraine Vietnam registered I~ trade muk markpf of (Oxfmd Oxford University Press Oxfordis isaaa registered ()xford trade mark of )stord ('nisrrsuty Oxfllrd li rtploltrN L'mwnlly Press Prna in the UK and in certain other countries m the 1M UK .nd and m in t.:n1.ln (11M lounlnn in Published In in the the United United States Published in Publi.haJ 1M UmlN States !"lU.I by Oxford University Press Inc.. Press Inc..New New York by Oxford Umvnslty PrftI Inc.. 'f:W York .... ork Lw

Part Part1II Introduction I. Word and meaning meamng i. Words of 2. meaning Towards a new 2. Toward Towards .1 new account account of of word word meaning linguisti.s 3. 3. Cognitiv~ Cognitive linguistics 3. in 4. in 1.( LC( ;M M Theory Th ry 4. Word Word meaning meaning in LCCM 4.

I

33 27 27

47 65

Vyvyan Evans VlO9 moo Evans Vyvyan ,• • Vyvy n fun The moral rights of the author have TM mUr
"what

Typeset India Typnn by PI Publisher Publn.htr ~k.n.. i\.ndldwfTy. lnJla Typesetby by519 SPI PublisherServices, Services,Pondicherry, Ponditherry.India Printed in Great Britain Pnnled 8rll.ln Printed In in (.mlt (,rcat Hritain on acid-tree paper on acid-free ...t
'."J

42 9 10 64 2 lo A lb 7 9 10

7

representation Lexical representation Part PartIIIIII Lexical

85

SymboliC units units unit 5. Symboli Symbolic 6. Semanti tru ture 6. Semantic Semantic structure Lexical 7. Lexi a1 concepts con cpt 7. 7. Lexical concepts 8. Polysemy Polysemy Polysemy 9. (onceptual Conceptual structure structure to. Cognitive Cognitive models 10. Cognitive models model

87 87

S.

100

127 149 '49 175 175 193

mantic compositionality compositionality Part III Ill Semantic Semantic compositionality III Part

215

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

17 2217 236 6 23

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

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

252 25 2

279 281 181

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

302 }02

V Conclusion Conclusion Part V nelusion Part

333

16. LCCM I..CCM 1heorv in context 16. LC M Theory in context wntext 16.

335 33S

(;k)ssary (,10 ~ry (Aossary References Referen es References Index Index

343 3-13

358 8 3S .373 173

-----------------------Words all OlIT of of us us all OUT nuke rhymes, That make rhyme>. Will choo Will you choose Sometim($Sometimes— As the winds use M u~ As A cmck wall in the wall crack in Or a.i drain, drain. Their pain Theirpn joy or their pain through— To throughTo whistle through— (;h(x)se me, mc, Choose me. You Engli word,? inglishhwords? You English words?

I know you: You 35 dreams, dream.., are light You are arc light as as 35 oak, oak. Tough as Precious Preciou as gold. Precious as gold, poppies and and corn, corn, M com. As poppies Or an old cloak; cloak; Sweet weet aas our birds bird Sweet to the the ear, ear. As the hurnet rose M burnet hurnet rose the heat In the heat Midsummer: Of Midsummer: Strange races tmnge as the races Of dead and unborn: Of dead and Strange trange and sweet Equally, Fqually. familiar, familiar. And familiar, lo lu eye. Tothe theeve, eye, As the dearest dearest faces faces That know,. hat aa man knows, That are: And as lost homes home> are: are: And as homes But older far far But though older i'han oldest oldest Than old"'t yew. yew. yew, As hills M hll" are, arc. old, old. As our hills Worn new new Worn Again and again: agam:

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

-

vi' VII vu

Acknowledgements Acknowledgements ICCM been under under development L, M Theory ha been under development since ~in« May May zoos. 2005- Since S,n« that time sinie zoos. Sincethat thattime LCCM Theory has has been research which has has culminated culminatedin inthe thepresent the research research which which has culminatetl presentwork hasbenefitted benefitted from workhas has benetittedfrom the discussions number of colleagues to to whom am indebted, For discu ions with with aa number number of ofcolleagues colleagues towhom whom III am amindebted. indebted.For h)rtheir their discussions feedback on on many many aspects aspects ofthe feedhack on aspeels of of theideas idea presented pr.,.;entetl thefollowing follOWingpages pagM Iam am pages am presentedinin inthe feedback 11 Danoel Casasanto, Casasanto. Paul Paul Chilton, Chilton. Alan Cienki, ienki.Peter Peter particularly grateful grateful Paul Chilton, Alan Alan Cienki, Peter particularly grateful to to t)aniel Daniel Casasanto, Harder, George Chris Sinha, Sinha, Harder. George Lakoff. Chris inha. Andrea Andrea Tyler, Tyler. and Jorg Zinken. Zinken, For For Tyler, and andlOrg Jörg Zinken. For Harder, George Lakoff, reading and and commenting commenting on on various various chapters variou chapters chapter. 1II am am extremely indebted indebtetl to reading commenting amextremely extremely indebted to reading and I)aniel Casasanto, Peter Peter Harder, I-larder, Daniel Casasanto, Casasanto. Harder. and and three three anonymou readers for Oxford threeanonymous anonymousreaders readersfor forOxford Daniel University Press, I1I also also gratefully gratefully acknowledgethe theassistance a istanceofof Laura Michael'niversitv Press. gratefully acknowledge the assistance ofLaura LauraMichaeMichacalso acknowledge University Press. who provided provided and advice advice on certain aspects Iilis who provided leads leads and oncertain a\petls of ConstructIon Gram aspectsof ofConstruction Construction (ramlis leads Grammar. and ask for mar, IIlam am grateful for the in ightand and wisdomof ofall allof ofthe theabove, above. and and ask ask for mar. amgrateful gratefulfor forthe theinsight insight andwisdom wisdom of all of the above, ignore. peel of oftheir theirexcellent excellent their forbearance forbearance where have chosen chosen to where to ignore ignore aspects of their excellent their forbearance where III have have chosen aspects advice. No No doubt doubt the the present work would would be kss advice, doubt the present pr.,.;ent work work be less I~ prone prone to error than ititIt proneto toerror errorthan than advice. No he is had II adopted all of otherwise i had had .11 of the the many many sound sound suggestions suggestion that thathave havebeen been suggestions have been adopted all of the otherwise is In owe thank you to Stephanie Pourcel, put me, In In addition, addition.IIlowe pecialthank you to toStephanie StephaniePourcel, Pourcel. both both put to to me. me. addition, owe aaaspecial special thank you ideas presentedhere, here, and forher many of ofthe the issues i ues and and ideas idea presented prescntetl here •• nd for for her for her feedback for her her feedback feedback on on many many of the issues and indefatigable indefatigable upport in in all all else. else, II am also grateful grateful two of ofmy mygraduate graduate grateful to two of my graduate am also also to two indefatigable support support in all else. students:: Kyle Kyle Jasmin Jasmin and Andrea Andrea Morgado de Matos. Kyle Andrea Morgado de Matos, Both Both andAndrea student RothKyle Kyleand Andrea students: fasmin and and have engagedwith withLCCM [C 'NI Theory Theory have LCCM in their their own research. forcing for(lng me to rethink research, forcing me meto torethink have engaged engaged with Theory in own research, some significant details, making work richer detail. making the the work richer and and sounder than might some ignifi ant details, and sounder sounderthan thanitititmight some significant otherwise have been. III also also gratefully gratefully acknowledge acknowledge the faith faith and otherwise have been. been, upport of of support of also gratefully acknowledge the the faith and support otherwise have John I )avev, my editor at oxford University Press. Iinally, with immense John at Oxford Oxford University Unover ity Press. Press, Finally, finally. with with immense immense John Davey. Davey, my my editor editor at gratitude, I acknowledge the support and love of ofmy mother. Edith, EdIth. whofirst gralltude. and love love of mymother, mother, Edith,who first acknowledge the the support support and gratitude, II acknowledge This hook dedicated to her. is dedicated dedicated to toher. her, taught mean, This book is taught me me how how words words mean. mean. book is

Preface Preface What is the thesubject subject matter of this book? What is ubjectmatter m atte rof ofthis thisbook? book? This aa contemporary This represents contemporary treatment Th,s book book represents repr~nt ,a contcmpo,,:,ry treatment of ofword word meaning meaning and and how how treatment meaning and words words arc are combined combinedin in service service ofsituated situated In servICe of of sItuatedmeaning inlanguage languageunderstandund"Mandword arc combined meaninginin language understan(Iing. That is, I am concerned with the areas that are traditionally referred ing. That is. I am concerned with the areas that ins, is. I with the areas are referredtotoasas a are traditionally traditionally referred and lexical semantics compositional semantics. I use the term lexical meaning conand compositional selllallll($, semantics. II use Irxical selllall',es eompoS/liollal "'falling conCOliuse the the term nicaning to refer to the phenomenon (or rather phenomena) I address in struction struction to refer to the phenomenon (or ,,,"flloll (or rather rather phenomena) phenomena) II address addr in the inthe the following pages. The problem that the book seeks to address concerns how following pages. (ollowlng pages, The problem that that the thehook bookseeks seeks to address address concerns how how to account for the inherent variation in meaning exhibited by words, as account fo~ for the inherent to acco~nt inherent variation in meaning meaning exhibited exhibited by words, words. as as isis i evident in their use in different contexts. That is, evident In in their the .. use use in In different dllTerent contexts. contexts, That is, i • II am am concerned concerned with with how how eVIdent concerned words mean. mean. mean. This comes This problem problem comes comes in in aanumber numberof offorms, forms.as asillustrated illustratedbelow: below: of forms, as below: (t) decided toto declare I) a. a. a,Helie decidetlto declarehis hi undying undYInglove lovefor her lie decided declare his undying love ((i) forher her b. He told the customs officer he b. b, He He told toldthe thecustoms customs officer officer he he had had nothing nothing to todeclare declare nothing to declare Neville Chamberlain, obliged to declare c. Ihe Prime c, The The Prime Minister, Minister. Nevilk 'evilleChamberlain, Chamberlain. was was obliged obligetl to to declare declare wis war on Germany following the Nazi invasion of Poland the Nazi azi invasion inva ion of ofPoland Poland war on Germany following the (2.1 a. (2) a. France regionofof ofoutstanding outstanding natural beauty (2) a, France Franceisisaaregion outstandingnatural naturalbeauty beauty b. France is a pivotal country in the European Union h. b, France is aa pivotal the European Union pivotal country country In in the luropean Union

(3) (3)

Francedefeated defeated New New Zealand Zealand the World Cup a. a, France France defeated Zealand in the 2007 2007 Rugby Rugby World in the 2007 Rugby World Cup h. The has h. wandering hands b, The ham ham sandwich sandwkh has has wandering hands

My boss (.) (4) a. a. My Myboss boss isi a• pussycat pu rat h. The h. time for for aa decision b, The time decision has has arrived arrived has In the the examples examples in inin(I). (1), declare appears appears to to have have aa a distinct distinct meaning in in examples (i) the In the the form form declare drc/areappears have In distinct meaning each example; in (ta), the meaning of relates to a forthright assertion declare each in (Ia). (ta), the each example; in the meaning meaning of ofdeclare drc/arr relates relates to a forthright forthright assertion a sertion of a particular fact or belief. In (th) legal requirement to declare relates relates to a of a a particular fact fact or belief. behef, In (ib) (Ib)declare drc/arr Ja legal legal requirement requirement to make aaa formal formalstatement statement as to to whether dutiable dutiable goods make make tatement as goods are are being being transported tran poned as to whether transported (tc) relates relates to aa acrossan an international international bordercrossing. crossing. The use use of of declare in in across international border across border ero ing, The use drclarr relates to to a of declare in (tc) (ic) specificsort sortof ofspeech speech act, wh/th which brings brings about aa change legal state specifh. sort which in aai given of pee
xXX

PREFACE PKFIA(E PREPA B

semantic lexicon. That That mental lexicoll. the mental Ihat is, typically referred aas the the IIIfllt,,1 iis,• the different different semantic !>Cmantic typically referred referredto to as typically result of (at (at in each areheld held to to be contribution declar~ in each example example held be the the result result of of (at example are declare in contributions of kclarc contributions are stored stored in memory. declare, which meanings Of detlare, which are distinct meanings Ie.") three distinct meanin~ of tlrel"rf. memory. . kast) least) three meaning a distinct also appears appears to have have a.d. a distinct France aLso appears to therorm r","uabo tllltt mea",~g In In the the eumples examples inin (1). (2), examples (z), the theform form France In geographic refers to to aa particular France refers refers (ia) in each instance, in (2a) in instance. (13) France Frallet partlcular.geographlC each =mple. example. For instance, in region identified identified as 2b)France France relates particular political entity, identified as In (w) hanee relates rel~t~ to to aa partkular pJrticularpolitical politicalentity, ent.ty.aaa region a France. hance. In In ((zh) region particular sort. nation state whith which has has political political and andeconomic cconornkinfluence influenie of of ofaaaparticular particularsort. sort.Yet, Yet. nat.on economIC IIlnuenee which nation linguists ordinarily ordinarilyview view variation of meaning of linguists of this this sort sort as as having having aa different diffe~nt ordinanlv variation of linguists to exhibit exhibit not held examples in is, France France is not status Vls·a vis the declareex.,mples III (I). (.). That is, .\0 France.s held to exh.b.t declare examples (i). That drclare status vis vis-a-vis a vis assumesthat that context context two distinct senses. Rather, perspective t,m Rather. perspective often olien taken taken assumes assumes context Rather, the perspective two distinct senses. thereby allowing the serves to fill in, in some way, the precise semantic details, thereby allowing fiU in. way. the precise scmantic details. allmving the sef\es semantic details, serves to to fill in, some way, France ineach each example. !rance in language uscr user to to interpret interpret the the referent rekrent of of f","ct in each . language user which as metonymy, known as metonymy, in (3) (3) relate to the phenomenon The examples in phenomenon known known lII~tOIl}111Y, wh"h associated withthe theform formin in order order makes salient meaning meaning associated associated with mak .. uuse particular \vith form makes useof of aaparticular particular salient not to relates not France relates to identify aaarelated related referent. I'or instance. inin(3a) ()3) relate to aa to identify relatedreferent. referent.For Forinstance, instance,in (a) Prallet to identify in (1». (2)), but to team of of but rather rather team (as in geographical reg.on or political nation nation state state (as (a rather to to aaa.team?f geographital region inthe gameofof rugby. Similarly, in fifteen rugby players filieen represent France France in in thegame ofrugby. rugby.Similarly, .m.larly.inIII players who whorepresent in relates to to aa cu customer who customer whoordered ordered aaaham hamsandwich, sandwkh,•.in hate: CS and and '998). Put another apparentin in the variation variation in way, from from this latter latterperspective, perspective, way. perspective. the in word word meaning meaningapparent appJrent ofvariation variationin of (3) is from the the nature nature of of variation inword wordmeaning meaningapparent apparent kind from is of of aa distinct distinct kind 1). and,for forthat thatmatter, matter,inin in( (.). (i). in (2), (1). and, and. for that matter. as metaphor. have beenvariously variously rekrrcd to Finally, the the examples examples in (4) !'inally. (4) have havebeen been variou Iyreferred referred toas a metaphor. lIIf1ap/lOr. In In Finally, of aspect of some is being conceptualized in terms of some aspect of my boss boss (4a) the referent (43) referent of ofmy my boss iis being conceptualized in terms term of a pect of relatingto torelative relative docility. what it isiis to what beaapussycat: pussycat: presumably, presumably. qualities qualities relating relating relativedocility. to he he pussycat: presumably. doesnot not relate relate to arriied. Yet, "me mot.on ascribed to to arrived. Yet. time "lIIf does not relate to In In (4b) t u ne has (4b) time' has motion motion ascribed ascribed toit: it: arrived. other thatother instance,that an entity that arrive, in the same way.for forinstance, instance. an that can can literally IiteraUy arrive, arrive. in inthe thesame sameway, literally way, Somescholars, scholars, workingprimarily primarily on examples entities, such such as entities. people. can. Some Some "holar •working working primarily on examples examplesof of .is people, people, can. thepredicate predicatenominative nominative(or (or"is "isa") a") the illu trated in (4a), (4a). involving the the predicate nominative (or"i (.a), involving involving the sort sort illustrated illustrated construction, have claimedthat that metaphor constitutesaaaform formof ofcomparison comparison of con truction. have have claimed that metaphor constitutes constitutes form that argued that have (e.g., Bowdle, Wolff. Wolff,and andBoronat Boronatzoot). toot). Others Others Bowdie, Wolff, .• Gerstner, Gentner. Bowdle. and Boronat 100.). Othershave have argued that (e.g (e.g., zoo;). Still 2002; Glucksherg Clucksberg 2003). it involves aa form of categorization catl,&orir.ation (e.g., (e.g ..Carston CarMon 1001: Glucksberg 1003). Still form of categorization (e.g., (arston 20o2; whohave have primarily examexamothers, and Johnson Johnson (1980, 1999), who Johnson (1980, ('980. 1999), '999). haveprimarily primarily examothers. Lakoffand others, notably notably Lakoff Lakoti by (4b) understand metaphor to involve IIled data data of of the the type type exemplified by unde .... tJnd metaphor involve ined exemplified by (4h) understand metaphor to involve type if experience, experience, systematic correspondences between for sy tematic c()rropondcm:~ ~trm.lllrcd dom..1IIl\ of of expenenlC,1k' (orr rrespondences between betweenstructured structured domains thought province notnot of of in tance. Time These arc belllgthe the provlllce not of instance, andSpace. Space. These are thoughtofof ofasasbeing being the province are thought Time and orrespondences or or mappings. mappings, language, language. rather. underlying underlying conceptual tonceptual correspondences wrr"'pondences or mappll1gs. language,but hut rather, rather, underlying conceptual metaphors. metaphors. known as ton a conceptual couuptmd tIIewplrors. as

- -- -

PREFA(I PRPPAce PREFACE

x. Xi Xi

The data.such ueh as a the the above above raises raises for a follows. follow. The challenge challenge that that data as raisesfor for the the analyst analyst isi as as follows. The it, and intuitively, face of of it, On the face face it. wordmeanings be relatively relativelystable. stable. and intuitively. intuitively,word meaningsappear appearto tobe all, for After all. for language language communication, words word Mter language to be effective effective facilitating mmmunication. to he effective in in facilitating must have associated associatedwith withthem themrelatively stablesemantic scmanti. units, units, established by them relatively stable stable scmantic units.established establi hedby widely known commuconvention. and hence hence widely throughout aa given given linguistic Iingui tic commucommuconvention, known throughout given .ire nity. Ilowever. words are are protean protenll nature. That That is. is. and and as a illustrated illu trated above, above. nitv. illustrated nity. However, However, protean in in nature. is, above. shift meanings in hift meanings different contexts mntexts of of use. U!>C. The The challenge challenge then, then. III they use. challenge then, in in they can can shift in different meaning construction construction in accounting for meaning theory oflanguage languageunderstanding, understanding. in aatheory theor of of language the nature "is to be able to model model the the Iinguisti that language language knowledgethat language nature of of the linguistic to be linguistic knowledge accessto. to,while whilebeing beingable ableto toaccount accountfor forthe theway way word uver mu have access while able to account for way word word users users must mustt have access to, use. ofuse. hili in varying contexts of meanings shift shift received view view in in linguistics, linguistics, and philosophy philosophy of language.has has attempted The received Iingui tics. and philosophyof oflanguage. ha attempted attempted language, challenge by by distinguishing distinguishing between between two kinds kindsofof recondle this challenge d.~tinguishing between two ofmeaning: meaning:aaa to reconcile context-independent, word. and a conconcontexl-independent. "timeless"meaning meaningassociated associated with words, context-independent, "timeless" "timeless" associated That is, is. text-dependent words contain contain text dependent meaning. meaning. That is. words tontain context-independent context'lI1dependentmeanmean context-independent meanbe interpreted interpreted hby virtue way> by ofthe the ings which whi h can can he interpreted in in context-dependent context·dependent ways virtue of of the ings in context-dependent interpretation maxims. application of of various variou principles principles of ofinterpretation, interpretation.e.g., e.g.•the theGricean Griceanmaxims. maxim. e.g., For aa contemporary contemporary account .tcount of "neo.( ;ricean I'or ofthis th. "nen-Gricean" "neo-Gri can" perspective, per pective. see seeLevinson I.evinson perspective. see Lcvinson (2000). Thi perspective, whichRecanati Recanati(2004) (uo;) refers (2000). (1000). per pective. which Recanati (1004) refersto literallSlI/. This general perspective, refers totoasas literalism, enshrines as asaxiomatic axiomaticaaaprincipled principled distinction distinction semantics andpragpragenshrines principled di tinctionbetween betweensemantics scmanticsand between ni.itks.. The one which is is in keeping keeping mati The position position that that IIIdevelop develop in in this thi book, book. one one which i in keeping with with matics. that pages which which follow. takes takesthe theview viewthat that much recent recent research research discussed discussed in in the pages pages which follow, takes discussed the the distinction between between semanticsand andpragmatics pragmaticsis notprincipled. principled.Rather, Rather, pragmatics i isnot not principled. Rather.itit between semanti semantics is is artificial. Mv approach for the the inherent inherent variation in word meaning inherent variation variation in inword meaningisis i My approach to accounting accounting for between the the linguistic sy.tem-the linguistic principled separation separation between Iingui ticsystem—the linguistic system—thelinguistic linguistic to posit aa principled knowledge words encode--and encode—and the conceptual system systeni—the non-linguisthe non-linguisnon Iinguis knowledge that that words system—the knowledge that facilitate access to. to. This this distinction distinction tIC knowledge that words word facilitate fa ilitate access ace This distinctionI IImodel tern. modelininterms terms tic instructs the theoretical theoretical constructs con truct of of the the lexical lexical concept concept and cognit.ve model. mode/. of the concept and the the cognitive model. 'these two These two constructs construct central to to the the theory theorydeveloped developed in in these thesepages. pages. onstructs are central pages. These central the theory developed hence, II refer to the the approach approach as the 71.eo'1 Hence. as the of LexicalConcepts Collcep" allli Cogllit.ve ( ouceptsand andCog Cognitive Hence, of Lexical Theory of ► itive Models (or LC('.\I Theory for short). Briefly, Models Models LCeM Theory Theory hort). Briefly, Brieny. aa lexical lexical concept iis aa bundle of bundle of LCCM concept is varying sorts of knowledg~=ribcd in detail in Chapters and 7—which 7which knowledge—described in detail in Chapters 66 and 7—Which sorts knowledge—described are pcialiied for in language. language. In In contrast, contrast.cognitive cognitivemodels model encodedin language. contrast, cognitive models are specialized specialized for being encoded body of of coherent and structured non-linguistic knowledge— ofcoherent coherentand andstructured tructured non-linguistic non-linguisticknowledge— knowledge-constitute aa body constitute (hapters in. described in detail onsist of d=nbed in detail ininChapters Chapter 999 and and 10. '0. Cognitive .ognitive models modeh consist consist of models perceptual and subjectivestates statesincluding derived "recorded" subjective inincluding luding information information derived derived recorded" per«ptual and subjective motorperception, percept Iofl,proprioception, proprioception,and andintrospective introspective from sensorysensory-motor perception. proprioception. introspectivestates, states. states, from sensory-motor sense, cognitivestates, states, andso soforth. forth. In In including emotions, emotion. the the visceral visceral sense, vense. cognitive cngnitive tat .... and and '>0 forth. In including emotions, addition, rehearsals of perceptual ofperceptual perceptual and and subjective .ubJectivestates, "ates. addition.II) tohe beable Jbletotoproduce producerehearsals rehearsalsof states, addition, to be subjective svmhtils form. the the perceptual perceptual symbols ymbols can can he be combined providing can becombined combinedproviding providing albeit in attenuated form, the novel conceptualizations. conceptualiiat ions.The ihe re-enact mentsofofperceptual perceptual and (onccptualiz.ltion\. The rt·cn3ltmcnts pcn:cptuJIand andsubjective SUh;Cdivc novel re-enactments states and and the the novel conceptualizations states Slales and the novel novel conceptualizations coru;cptualil.llions are are referred refcrrctl to as J~ simulations. 5;IIIlIlnt'O"5. referred as 4

xii XII Xii

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

PRFFA(:F PREFACE PREFACE

modelsprovide provideaaalevel levelof ofnon-linguistic non· linguistic linguisticknowledge knowledge whkhisis lienee. cognitive models models provide level of non knowledgewhich which is Hence, cognitive Hence, specialized for being being accessed accessed via via lexical concepts. lexical concepts. concepts. specialized for specialized corecontent, contentthe the LC( LC 'M M approach approach works as follows. Words Words encode encode aa core core content. the The LCCM The approach works works as as follows. follows. Words encode lexical concept, concept,which whichrelates relates tohighly highlyschematic schematic information: 1;lIgll/$';( lexical (oncept. which relatel. to to schematICinformation: information: linguisiti linguistic lexical represents thecore coreinformation information associated associated withaagiven givenword. word. (Olllml. Thi represents the the core information associated with with contCflt. This This represents content. non-linguistic of non"lingui ticcontent: content: In addition, addition. words word facilitate facilitateaccess access to to aa large body of large body of non-linguistic In addition, words facilitate access f.ieilitating content. This This is achievedby byvirtue Virtue of of aaalexical lexical co/lccpruai cOII'errl. Thi iis achieved achieved by virtue of lexkalconcept conceptfacilitating facilitating conct'ptual content. conceptual cognitive models, models, which IIIrefer access body of ofcognitive models. which refer to toas as aaa word's word's semantic semantic xCSsto to aaa body semantic refer to as word's access to all of moddstoto which wordfacilitates facilitates po,ell,wl. Not all ofthe the cognitive cognitivemodels model towhich whichaaaword facilitatesaccess acces are are poteutial. Not all potential. word meaning meaningarises arise. actIvated in any any given given utterance. lienee. the variability activated in givenutterance. utterance.Hence, Hence,the thevariability variability in in word word meaning arises activated the partial partial activation of the semantic potentialtoto towhich whichaaaword wordfacilifrom the actIvation of of the the semantic semantic potential potential which word facilifrom activation tates access. access. tates In L( CM Theory. range of presenting LCCM LCCM develop account of the range range of of In presenting presenting Theory,IIIdevelop develop aa unified unified account account of of the the phenomena presented presentedinin in examples examples (i) above.That That is, is, treatthe the phenomena (4) above. above. That is. I II treat treat the phenomena presented examples(I) (i) to to (4) phenomenaabove. above,while while distinct, distinct, as being continuous and and hence being phenomena distinct. a being being continuous and hence hence being being phenomena above, while as explainable in set ofrepresentational representational andcompositional compositional explainable term of common set set of of representational and and compositional explainable in terms terms of aa common mechanisms.This Thisdoes doesnot notmean, mean,however, however,that thatIIprovide I provide provideidentical explanmechanisms. does not mean. however. that identicalexplanmechanisms. at ions for for each of the ations for of the phenomena phenomenaIIIaddress, address.as aswe weshall hallsee. sec. ations each of the phenomena address, as we shall see. Iinally, L(CM Theory isisis an Finally. LCCM Theory an attempt todevelop developaaacognitive cognitivelinguistics linguistiCS Finally, LCCM Theory anattempt attempttoto develop cognitive linguistics account of lexical representation and meaning meaningconstruction. construction. One impulsein in of lexical lexical representation representation and meaning construction. Oneimpulse in account account and ofmeaning meaningconstruction construction cognitive lingui tics has has been to to develop develop accounts accounts of develop accounts meaning construction cognitive linguistics linguistics has been been which privilege I his is true both both of Conceptual which priVIlege non-linguistic non"lingui ticprocesses. processes. This iis true both of ofConceptual Conceptual which privilege non-linguistic processes. This Blending Metaphor Theory Theory (Lakoff (Lakoffand and Johnson 19&). 1980. 1999) 1999) and Conceptual Conceptual Blending (Lakoff andJohnson Johnson 198o, and Turner Turner 2002), Indeed, these approaches 2002). for example. example. Indeed, Indeed. these these approaches Theory Turner Theory (Fauconnier (Fauconnier and 2001), for remain important important in the present present work.Any Anylinguistically linguisticallycentred centredaccount .iw'unt of in the present work. work. Any linguistically centred account of remain remain important language understanding, such such asLCCM LCCM Theory, Theory, must must interface interface language uch as as LCCM Theory. interface with withthese, these.as as as language understanding. understanding, with these, discussed later in my main is to to integrate integrate and rntegrate and discussed book. Neverthel • my concern is discussed later later in the the book. book. Nevertheless, Nevertheless, main concern concern on many of ofthe the important importantadvances advances in interms term of ofresearch research on on linguistic linguistic build linguistic build on on many many of the important advances in terms of research semantics andgrammar grammarevident evidentin in cognitive cognitive linguistics, linguistics, and and to to incorporate incorporate semantics linguistics. and to semantics and and grammar evident in cognitive these with recent recent advancesin philosophyand andcognitive cognitivepsychology, psychology, whkh these recent advances advances ininphilosophy philosophy and psychology. which which these with with have provided fresh fresh impetus impetus for an have fresh impetu for an approach to toknowledge knowledge an"empiricist" "empiricist" approach to knowledge have provided provided approach representation .• Barsalou Barsalou 1999. 2008; Prinz 2002; 2002; sec also Gallagher representation (e.g zooS; also Gallagher Gallagher 2002; see sec also representation (e.g., (e.g., 2008; Prinz Barsalou 1999, 2006; 2006; 2007). 2006; Johnson Johnson 2007). 1007)•

book for? for? Who iis the for? Who is the book The beenwritten written with The has with aaa number number of of ditTerent readers readers in rn mrnd. ThIs of different different readers in mind. mind. This This The book book has has been been written inevitably brings with in terms terms of coverage, number of ofchallenges, challenges. in in terms of ofcoverage, coverage. inevitably inevitablybrings bringswith with ititaaa number number of challenges, for general linguists accessibility, and so soon. on. rirstly. Firstly, the the book attempts to cater for accessibility. linguist Firstly, thebook hook attemp" attempts to general linguists on. accessibility, and and so be familiar familiar with to situate who with cognitive linguistic;.IIIhave ha"e attempted attempted to to situate situate who may may not not be be familiar with cognitive cognitive linguistics. linguistics. have attempted LC(M of lexical semanlics semantic and and compositionality, compositionality,in in LCCM Theory. asasan an account lexical and compositionality. in LCCMTheory, Theory,as anaccount account of of lexical semantics cognitive linguistics. linguistics. have terms of assumptions umptions and and approaches approaches of of linguistics. III have have term termsof of the the core core a assumptions of cognitive included discussion of many nuny included many of ofthe thebackground ba
PREFACE PREIA( F PRePACE

xiii

Xiii Xiii

attempted attempted theory presented here in terms attempted to to situate situate the the theory theory presented presented here here in temu ofofhow reactstoto terms howitititreacts reacts received receivedapproaches approachesinincognitive cognitivelinguistics linguistics(both received linguistics (bothtotosemantics pragmatsemanticsand andpragmatpragmatics, ks, but also to grammar), grammar), and in terms of the relevant cognitive linguistics ics. but also also to grammar). and andin interms temuof ofthe therelevant relevantcognitive cognitivelinguistics approaches upon approachesupon uponwhich whichit builds.Accordingly, Accordingly, II hope hope that the the book ititbuilds. builds. Accordingly. hope that the hook bookwill will approaches which provide approaching provide a useful useful way way of ofapproaching approaching some of the seminal work that has has someof of'the theseminal seminalwork workthat that has beendeveloped developedover overthe thelast couple of of' been been developed the lalistt couple ofdecades decades inincognitive cognitivelinguistics, lingui tic. as aas cognitive linguistics, as current trends trends and newdirections. directions. well well as as current current and new d,rections. The second secondreader reader II have have in in mind mind is The The second reader have cognitive scientist. scientist. One One ofthe the is the the cognitive cognitive scientist. One of of the potential pitfalls that a linguist faces in attempting to provide an account pitfalls that a linguist faces in attempting provide an account account of of that lingui t faces to provide meaning construction is to provide an account that is psychologically plausmeaning construction is i to to provide provide an an account a count that that isi psychologically p ychologically plauspia us ible. inthe the present work hasbeen been to to develop develop My aim ible. My aim in thepresent pre.ent work workhas develop such such an account. one one an account, account, one that grounded insome some of the firmly most is firmly firmly grounded grounded in in of the the most mo t recent recent work work on on knowledge knowledge that is recent knowledge representation Hence, availahk. Hence, account of of cognitive representatIon available. avaIlable. lienee. my my account of cognitivemodels, model.for forinstance, instance. for instance, employs, employs,by byway wayof ofillustration, illustration, the the recent work perceptual of illustration. the recent recent work work on f1"ceptual symbol symbolsystems syst.ms employs. by way on perceptual systems 1issociated with associated with the Barsalou and his associated the pioneering pioneering work workofofLawrence Lawren e Barsalou Barsalou and and his hisvarious various collaborators. collaborators.While Whilethe theflavour flavourof ofthat thatwork workis empirkist, itItit isishighly highlyplaus~olla~rators. navour of that ISisempiricist, empiricist. piau" plausible, given our current knowledge of the brain, based on research in cognitive current knowledge of the brain, based Ible. gIven of the brain. based on research research in in cognitive neuroscience, consonant and is, with approach outline. consonant consonant with with the theapproach approach to embodied neuroscience. and i • in outline, toembodied cognition prevalent in cognitive cognitive linguistics. linguistics. As such, such, II hope hope to (ognitlon prevalent prevalent in III cognitIve linguistics. As A such. to provide provide the the provide the cognitive scientist with account of lexical representation and oflexical lexicalrepresentation representation and andsemantic semantic cognitive scientist scientist with an an account account of composition what is, at with best developedsimulation simulation compo ition which whichsits itswith withwhat whatis, is.at atpresent, present. the the best best developed developed simulation ofknowledge knowledge representation representation available. available. Such Su h an an account. hope.will will account of knowledge representation available. Such anaccount, account,IIhope, hope, will show what linguists science can do for show what linguists lingui ts can do for for cognitive cognitivepsychology psychology and andcognitive cognitivescience science more generally, generally, and andprovide provideaaprogrammatic programmaticframework framework that that can generally. programmatic framework can both bothfurther further can development and theoretical development andprovide provide aa basis and basi for future experimental work. work. basisfor forfuture future experimental work. reader the cognitive cognitive linguist. linguist. As discussed The third third The third reader reader isiisthe linguist.As Asdiscussed discu sed below, below. one of below,one oneof ofmy my has beento to provide aims has oflinguistic linguisti semantics. semanti . This This aIm has been been provide aa joined-up joined"up account account of joined-up account of linguistic semantks. This necessitates dr drawing upon necessitates drawing upon significant, significant, and often often complementary, nec~it~tes •.wing upon ignificant. and often complementary, complementary. cognitive cognitive linguistictheories theories that address semantics linguistic th~n~ that thataddress address semantics semantics and and grammar, grammar. while while developing developingan an IrngulSuc grammar, developing an which is orthogonal to, and hence account whICh complementary IS orthogonal orthogonal to, to. and and hence hen ecomplementary complementary to, to. cognitive cognitive account. to, cognitive linguistic linguisticapproaches approaches which which arc not primarily concerned are primarily Irngu"tlC approaches whi h are primarily concerned concerned with with (accounting (accounting for) for) language. language. In In so so doing. doing, I attempt unify some ofthe thediverse diverse strands strand of of language. attempt to unify unifysome some of so diverse strands of researchin in cognitive research in cognitive linguistics, linguistics, as well as presenting an account which research linguistics. as as well as presenting an account which well as presenting an account which appropriatelyernphasiies emphasizes the significance of language language appropriately the significance emphasizes ignificance of of language in in meaning meaning construcconstrucmeaning construction processes, by taking seriously its tion processes, by taking seriously its semantic complexity. tIon processes. seriou Iy semantic complexity. complexity. •Fhe final reader I have in is educated The final reader I have in mind the educated lay The final reader have in is the reader. Such Such reader will lay reader. reader. Suchaa.ireader reader will will he interested in language and how it he interested in language and how It it interfaces with be rnterfaces mind. role of interfaceswith with the the mind, mind, and and the the role role of of language in language in contributing construction. These central issues language contributing to meaning meaning construction. construction.These Theseare are central central issues issues in in developing an account of how words mean. words word mean. developing an account Vyvyan Evans Evans Vyvyan Evans www.vyvevans.net www. vyveva ns. net www.vyvcvans.net January2(X)9 2oo9 January '.nuary 200<)

LIST OF OF FIGURES H(;UREs OJ.! FIGURES LIST

xv XV

------------------------~~~-------10.1 Typo of cognitive (ognHlvc model in., Types 10.1 Typesof model 200 100

List list List of of Figures ii An

literalism n O\CfVlt'W htC'rali m overview of of literalism overview 1.1 An 1.1 overthe thewall wall jumptd for: 11lt Tue tat Jm"Pt~d jumped over ible trajectories trawtori for. 0\'« tilt Willi The cat Possible trajectories Possible for: 1.1 , ... 1.1 Po 1.2

same base base Uifferent Different :LI ... nl profiles pmfil derived d ... ,w from the Ih. same sam. hal< 2.1 Oiff 22.2 .1 ThC' lexicon-grammar continuum I he lexiulO kxicon·groilmm.u grammar (ontinuum z..z The Fusion the ditransitive ditransitivc 2.3 Fusion hake l.J Fu Ion of of the duroiln III\"e and and bake b.Jkc constructions ,-on truc.:tlOn Theory in ILCCM ( ( L4 llexical .. ical representation repr..... ,.,ion in III LCCM 2.4 Lexical representation Theory representationin InLCCM (;CM Theory representation 1.S Semanu,- reprN:ntoiltion II(,CM 2.5 2.5 Semantic study meaning andgrammar grammar in in cognitive linguistics )31 . 1 Th tudy of of meaning III anlng and .lind grammilr In cognitive (osmtlvC''linguistics lingui ti 3.1 The Ihe study mental spaces ).l A lattice lallie< of m.nlal 'poc.. 3.2 3.2 A lattice of of mental to 3.) IIIl
8 24 14 24 34 J4 34 37 )II 38 45 4i 45 41 so 10 So 52 Sl 52

SI 55 75 7S

78 So 80 $9 89 9,, 95 91 96 96 96

.0.

101 to

104 .04 104

io6 .06 106 I 18 118 111 III 121

10.2 Frame AR 10.1 h41me for CAR for (CAR 10.2 10.3 Partial cognitive modelprofile profilefor i I '0 .. 1 Pani.1 cognillV' mod.1 profil. for[FRANCE IroANCEI 10.3 Partial cognitive model ii.i Narrowing the situated situated interpretation of words 11.1 arrowing in In IIUJlcd interpretation Inlerprc:utiun ofwords word 11.1 Narrowing in Iht' Processesohemanlit: ofsemantic semanticcomposition composition 11.1 Pnx compo IlionininLCCM l.CCM Throry of MTheory lheory 11.2 Processes 11.2. ii.3 Selection types II.) SeIKl.on types Iyp<s it.3 (ommon 11.4 ('..omOlon ground and and the di ounc representation rC"prCKntallon 11.4 Common ground the discourse discourse representation 11.4 process of iLl fusion 11 .. 1 Stages StOlg in 10 the the process ('roc of fusion 12.1 Stages lkAN( _I Partial .) .• Pani.1 pnmary cognill" modd profil.for for [FRANCE] IFItAN model profile profile 13.1 Partial primary primarycognitive cognitive model Partial primary cognitive model profile forILANntaAssl 13.2 Partial cognitive ').1 Pan ••l primary cogniti .. model moddprofile profil.for ILAN"MA Partial primary cognitive model profile for 13.3 cognitive model '3.) PUli.1 pnmarycognil'" moddprofile prohl.for (NATION] INAT.ONII i;.; Partial (NATION Partial primary cognitive niodd profile for [REAUTIFULJ 13.4 Partial primary cognitive model profile for [BEAUTIFUL] ').4 Panial pnmary cognill" model profil. for IOEAUT.FULI 13.4 Partial ').1 Partial Pan ..1primary primary CogOlIl" moddprofile profil.for for(couNTRYJ leocNTRyl 13.5 primarycognitive cognitivemodel model profile for !COUNTRY] u.s 1.\.6 A primilry cognltlv model profile profile for (or (INDIVIDUAL (INDIVIDUAl A partiill partial primary primarycognitive cognitive model 13.6 NAMFI) SA I[ll IOHNJ rOlIN] POIINI NAMED

Meaning con construction inLCCM ICCM ').7 lruct.on in III LC M Theory Throry 13.7 MUOIng Meaning construction 13.8 Activation typeswithin within aa cognitive cognitive model modelprofile l, l .8 Activation (tiv.11ion types t)'J"tS (ognlllvC' modd profile 13.8 13.9Access Access routeestablished established the interpretation of (FKAN( 13.9 route the interpretation ofof [FRAN( ').9 lL roul< labli hwby byby Ih. IIIl<rprclallon InANuiiI 13.10 The relationship relationship lexical concepts, cognitive models. ') .• 0 Th. rdallon hip between belween I.xical coneS<Sin IIILCCM Throry 14.2 Partial Partial cogOlli\" cognitive model profile profile '4.1 Panial profilefor for(FRAN:EJ IIFRANCEI rltANccl for 14.2 14.3Partial Partial pnmary primary cognlllV' cognitive modelIprofile profile for for [moss! '43 Parllal mod prom. 100 14.3 primary cognitive model 14.4 Partial cognitive model profile '4-4 Partial Pani.l ognill" model mod.1 profile profil. fur for(PUSS'flATJ Ipu feATI for [PussvcATi Partial cognitive model profile for (WENT 14.5 Partial cognitive '4-5 Pania! cOSOIli .. model mod.1 profile profil. for for IWENT I:pl (WENT VP) UPI 14.6 Partial Partial cognitive cognitive model model profile profile for 14.6 14.6 Pilrlla.1 modd profil for for (HAM IItAM 5A.NllWl( III HAMSANOWICII) SANDWICH[ 15.1 Representation of the the linguistic content encoded 'S .• Representation Repr nlallon of of Ih. linguistic Jingu. II( content cOnl ..1I encoded .ncodw by by is.'

'4.'

(LOCATION lIME, EVENTI (LOCATIO. EVENT IN TIME, TIME,FROM FROMPFRSPF.CTIVE PER PECTIVE OF OF EVENT] [LOCATION OF OF EVENT FROM PERSPE[:TIVE FKO%1 PEISPEC1IVE OP EXPERIENCERI OF EVENT IN IN 11511, TIME, fROMPERSPECTIVE PlR Pt (;TIVlOF OFEXPERIENCERI EXPERILNfER) OF TIME FROM 15.3 Pro Prospective relation encoded encoded by by lexical concept: 'S.) p
160 16o

[x SEQUEN( Fl)URI EAIL1IR tHAN vi yl Ix I SEQUENC1-1) \lQl~lN( 1:.1) ua TitAN IX IS IS FART tiR THAN YI 15.4 Retrospective relation encoded by the TEoR lexical lexical IS·4 Rt'tro Jl('\:tive relation encoded enuxled by the tht'TFoR TFoR luiul concept: c.:om:ept: concept: 15.4 Retrospective

162

163

168 171 '7' 173 173

185

'$9 189

208 108 21') 219 119 219 119

=

222

228 n8 141) 240 140 253 153

254 154 254 154 257 15] 2 57 1 257 15]

264 264 267

26$ 268 269

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

292 191

294 194 294

196

296

317 '7 )'7

15.2 Representation ofthe thelinguistic linguistic content encoded ([04 ATION 15.2 Repr Representation encoded by [by LOCATION IS.l ot;lIion of of the hngui ticcontent content t'ncoded [lOCATIOS

157 157 'S7

162

201 10.

[(EVENT I SEQUENCED EQUEM:£O LATER LATER THA EVENT vi X15 IS SFQUENCEI) LATERTHAN THANEVENT FVENT vi EVENT Xx 111 15.5 15.5 Partial Partial primary cognitive cognitive model for ICHR1STMAsl 'S·S p.ni.1 primary pnmary cognill" modd profile profil. for for (CHRIsmIASI Ic"o. T.. A Partial cognitive modelprofile profile IS·6 Putl.lll cognitive (ognitivemodel profile for [APPROAUtlNG) 15.6 Partial forfor [APPROACHING] (APPR0ACHINGI

319 319 )'9

)10 320 321 )11 323 323 )13

2$ )18 32,8

a

of Tables Tables List of of List 2.1 ('..on lructions and and lh~ir their corresponding 2.1 (orrcsponding '4 tn ('x~ri "(r enes from from CXpCflCflCC 2.1 Constructions and their corresponding scenes from experience ',,i ()j ~.I IIntlion in in idiom Idiomtypes Iypn f)jstiiitlions 5.1 idiom typessymbolic unit: ditransitive 51Distinctions Properties ofinthe English j.1 Prop
(if ymbolic units ~.J T.u:onomyof unit 5.3 construction Taxonomy of symbolic units 5.; content a SOt.lattd 6.1 . hemali (Onltot

with closed-class d~-da vehicles vrhicl with

content associated with closed-class 6.1 6.2 Rich associated 6.1 Schematic Rich content COnl
6.2 content associated with vehicles A summary terms in open-class LCCM Theory 6..1Rich A ummary of key k
',mt

J

Abbreviations Abbreviations 39 3919

Note be found ·ole that thaI definitions that definitions of technical terms definition of oftechnical term can Cdn foundinin inthethe thGlossary Clo ry terms can be be found Glossary on Øfl 339. onp.p. p.339. 339.

91 919'

93 93 95 91 95 103 .03 103 103 to; '07 to7 125 125 "5 131 1

13 '3' 139

'39 139 146 '46 146 16116

.6.

i$4 .84 184 198 198

'98

CR CR CR

cognitive cognitiverepresentation representation

CS CS C

Conceptual n eptualSystem ystem Conceptual System

EF.I· F ICM I(:M ICM LASS LASS LCCM LCCM L M LM IM LM LS NP P

event ('Vent event

NTL TL $99 '99 199

225 115 225 316 3·6 316

figure figure Idealized IdealizedCognitive Cognitive Model Idealized Cognitive Mod ModelI Language Simulation Linguage and Situated Situated ·ituatedimulallon Languag and

Simulation

Lexical Concepts Lexical and Cognitive ~xicaJ Concepts ncepts and Cognitive Models Model

Cognitive Models

landmark landmark linguistic linguistic lingui tic system ystem sstem noun phrase phrase noun phrase

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

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

S

Sentence Sentence nlen e

S

SEL SEL SEl SFoR SFoR ToR SUM SIJBJ UBI TFoRs TEoRs TfoRs TNS INS TN

TR TR

VV VP VI' VP

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

Part Part II Introduction Introduction The four four chapters The chapters that that make make up Part Part II lay th foundations foundalion for forthe thedevelopdeveloplay the the for the developremainder of hook. Chapter addresses the L(;cM of LCCM L .M Theory Theory in III the the remainder ofthe the book. book. Chapter hapter ti1addresses addres "the ment inent of central IIlherent variation in word meaning in ~ituated contexts context~ of ofuse, u the • the thecentral cntral inherent variation in inword wordmeaning meaning insituated situated contexts use in the the book. book.Also Alsoreviewed—and reviewed—and rejected—is the standard IIlth book. AI reviewed-andrejected—is r j "ted-i the thestandard tandard problem addressed addressed in linguistic referred alCount of of meaning meaning in in linguistic lingui ticsemantics, mantics.referred referred to to as a~ literalisrn. literali III. Chapter 2 account semantics, as literalism. introduces the the theoretical theoretical starting points assumptions uponwhich which llltroduc theoretiul ~tarting point. and and assumptions ~ umplion upon upon whilh LCCM Theory rrests. t.Chapter Chapter introduc th perspective persp tive provided provided Lw by cogcogI (;(M Iheory rests. 3 J3introduces cogLCCM Theory Chapter introducesthe the perspective provided by L((I\1 how this this informs the development Illti,e linguistics, lingui ti • and shows hows how how thi informs informs the thedevelopment developmentofofLCCM L .M nitive shows to the the awlunt of of word IIheur. hcory.chapter Chapter provid an the account account ofword word Theory. Chapter444pruvkks providesan an informal introduction introduction to I (1( meaning provided meaning provided by by LCCM LCCM Theory.

11 1 Words and meaning Words and (Weaning the"holy grail" also of philosophy, (M).aning isiis the Ih. "holygrail" grail" not nOI only onlyofoflinguistics, ling" Ii •but bUIalso alsoof ofphilosophy, philosophy. psychology, and neuroscience... neuroscience... Understanding howwe we mean mean and ps)'\:hology. and ode unding how we man and and how howwe We" and how we think vital issue issue fbr our our intuitive think us is sense of ourselves ourselves a.shuman humanbeings. beings. For I aitavital vitill issue for (or Colur intulli\·C' sense rue of of our Ives as it hum~n bti"&>. For the study of language—far most central issue most people, people, meaningisis intuitively intuitively the in poopl•• meaning mtaninglS inluluvtly lhocentral «nlralissue i"".in in the tho Iudy oflanguag f.r more important than understanding of word order or morphology. morphology. mo'" import.mt import.nl than th.n understanding und....l.ndingdetails d
Foundations lackendoff, Foundaucins zoor. 2.67 Ray JockendotT. Jackendoff, (zooi /'Olmdllllons of of ulIIglmgr ((1001: 167)) ol Language

Providing anaccount of nature of construction l'roviding an thethe nature of meaning and and meaning construction Providing an aaccount counlofof the nalure ofmeaning meaning and meaning meaning con InlClion is, of processes as processes as observed observedininthe thequotation quotationabove, above, theHoly HolyGrail Grail the quotation abov •the tht 1I0ly rail of linguistics linguisti proc iis,• a. well disciplines in the the humanities as well range social and aas wtll as a a range rangt of of related rtlated disdplines di iplin in tht humanities humaniti and and the tht social social and and cognitive sciences. concerned meaning. sciences. In this and the the cognItive itn <s. In thi book III am am concerned con emed with with word word meaning, meaning. and tht words in meaning meaning construction: role of of word. construction: how words mean. This fundamental constru tion: how howwords word mean. mean.This Thi isisfundamental fundamtntal to an account language Nevertheless, in ofthe tht role rolt of oflanguage language in in giving givingrise ri to tomeaning. meaning.Nevertheless, everthd a count of accounting for for for the role has proved to be he accounting role of of words words in in meaning meaning construction constru tion has has proved proved to h< and both controversial and problematic problematic for of the therelatively relativelyshort shorthistory history of ontroversialand for much much of of rdatively hi tory of of linguistics linguistics as a discipline, linguisti discipline. as a well well as as for for research research on language within philosoresearch on language languagewithin within philosophilosophy, and, indeed, indeed, for for work cognitive science. phy. and. indeed. work more mort generally generally in cognitivescience. scienct. in cognitive The specific address that we account Tht pecific problem that that IIIaddress addr in this thi book book isi this: thi: how howdo dowe w account a ount for for the word meaning in language use? inherent variation of That is, is, the tht inherent inh rent variation ofword wordmeaning mtaning in inlanguage language use? u 1 That That i •the tht meaning with any any given givenword word form form to vary vary each time ititit isi meanong associated aassociated sociattd with any word Co rm appears appear to vary each each time timt used, in used, termsof ofthe theconceptualization conceptualiiation thatit, inpart, part, gives to.To lb inin terms teml of th con eptualization that that it.it,in in part. gives giv rise nriseto. to. To used. France: illustrate, consider consider the following examples illustrate, iIIustral<. con id r the tht following examples txampl<s focusing focu ing on on the tht form form France: Frallce: the form (1) (s) (I)

France countryof ofoutstanding outstandingnatural natural beauty beauty a. France a. han. isisisaaacountry country of outstandong h
In In these France varies varies across these examples examples the the meaning meaning associated associated these exampl<s tht associattd with with France Frallu van a ro each ea h each instance of use. In the first example, Frant-e use. In first example, France relates to to aa specific specific on tan e of u . th first example. frallce relates relat peeil; geographical geogr.phi al landmass coincident with the borders of mainland France. In the second land rna coincident coincidtnt with the tht borders bordt ... of ofmainland mainland France. Franct. In In the thesecond second example, France relates t France he political nation state, encompassing its political to the political nation state, encompassing its political relates th politi I n.tion talt. en omp. ing it political examplt. Frlll"r relat infrastructure,political politicaland and C'ulnomic economic influence, infrastructure, its infra.strw.:turt. and influ nce. and its it citizens, citi1Cn\, including including overseas territories. the txamplt example France relates relates to the those in in French ov overseas territories.. In In tht example in in (lc) (ic) France tho r a terrilori (oc) frallcrrdal<s

4

WOR1)S ANt) MEANING WORDS WORDS AND AND MEANING

INTRODUCTION IIN1ROI)UCTI0N TRaDuCTION

players,of of French Frem.h team (it of fifteen fifteen rugby player.. players, drawn drawn from the pool of players1 drawnfrom from th the pool pool of of rugby team of rugby players player hench fifteen rugby team of WorldCup. Cup. citizenship, who who represented representedthe theFrench French nationin inthe the2007 zoo'Rugby RugbyWorld citi7enship. rrpr=nted the Fren h nation nation in the 1007 World up. the French French electorat electorate,.' and and specifically ckctoratc, France relat'" relates to example, France relates to the In the the tinal final example. In the linal i-mllff the. hench and. pC<:lfitally In with ratification ratification of that part partof ofthe the cI electorate which voted against againstt proceeding proceeding electorate which that of the torate whi h voted agam procffil~ng with wIth rallfic.tlon of of proposed EU EU constitution national referendum referendum in 200s. aaa proposed titution in in aa national referendum in mZoos. 1005· proposed EUcon constitution to appears to to be be appears as France These examples illustrate that a word form such that a word form such as France The", be These eXJl11ple examples Illustrate illustrate that. won! form su h .., rmllff appcars of in part part dependent dependent upon the context protean in nature: its its meaning is flexible, protean nature: ne~ble. in part d pendent upon the conte .. of protean in nature: its use. use.This This notion of of context context least, of the following, include, ,itthe thevery ver least, the follow1l1g. following, its of conte .. must m lude.at at the very least. all all oflhe must include, Fhis notion its USC. make up up the the (I) the other words that the chapter: chapter:(i) ) the in the discussed in more more detail later in disations associated a sodated with with word such u h as a giving rise distinct with aa word doall this France in Franceas asillustrated illustrated in the examplesabove. above.Finally, Finally,II attempt attempt PmllCf .. illu trated in th examples exampl Finally. att mpt to do do all this thl ofjoint joint hearing in mind that that meaning meaning construction construction constitutes con truction constitutes con titutes aa form form of of joint while bearing bearing in 1996), service situated communicative goals. 1996).ininservice ",rvlCeofof ofsituated situatt-dcommunicative communicativegoals. go.1 . Hence, lIenee. the the aaction tion (Clark (Clark iwo), Hence, thoroughly approach take to lexical and compositional compositional approach I take lexical and compo itional semantics semantic must must be be thoroughly be grounded in usage-based perspective (Langacker 2000).The Thetack tackI take, I take, in aa usage-based u ge-based perspective per pC<:ti, (Langacker (Langa ker woo). 2000). The tack take.inin introduce aaa presenting of the issues outlined, presenting an ao:ount issues just outlined. outlined, isis to to develop and and introduce pr~ntmg account of i sues just to develop introduce new—or oflexical lexicalrepresentation representation and lea t aa differently nuanced- theoryof of representationand and new---<)r new—or at least least differently nuanced—theory nuanced—theory and meaning construction. This is termed the Theory of Lexical Concepts and meaning construction. constrution. This Thi isi termed termed the Theory of lexical Concepts Concepts and Cognitive (LCCM Theory). begin the thepresentation presentation ofthis this new new Models ( (l((M MTheors). Theory). II begin beglll the pr~ntation of of new CognitiveModels Models approach approach in the next chapter. approach in the the next next chapter. chapter. that However, mu t first first examine the thereceived r ei,ed view view word meaning m aning that Ilowever. However. we wemust must first examine examine received viewofof ofword meaning has hasemerged emergedinincontemporary contemporarylinguistics, linguistics, andconsider consider prohkmsthat that arise fur tic.and and con iderproblems prohlems thaIarise arisefor for ha contemporary lingui lexical representation, it. move towards aJnew account lexical representation, Thi~ will allow uusto toto move toward na w J((ount oflcxkJI rcprl.'\Cntation, it. This Thiswill willallow allowus nmve towards new jnintofof service of meanand compositionality—how words are composed in service of situated itionality- howwords word are arc composed composed in service of situated ituatedmeanmeanand compo compositionality—how Lhaptcr. ing construction. This is our task in the present chapter. com.tru(tion This ('hi\ is i\ our our t,isk ttl kin inthe thepresent prC\Cnt chapter. ing construction. I'.irt IIofof itir book. by!CCM U (MMTheory Thcnry IIII hook. • III will Will pruh the dw n..tUft' of I" .ritunti, t !'Ilk.tructure lfU&.luf('.t..tinted alWmnIbyby I' 11w'lltYinin Infart P,ut ofthe the' twNll n.iturc uf itir future will spettfy

S 55

The The received view of of word meaning The received received view view meaning .iccount The tandard account meaning. at lea t in the dominant dominant Anglo. The standard account of of word meaning, The standard meaning, at at least least in the dominant AngloAnglotradition, an tradition. refer to. lit rali m; in this IIIam amfollowing followingRecanati Recanatl ,\l11en American American tradition,IIIrefer referto toas as literalism; literalism; in this this am following Recanati (2u04). In fact, (jct,t. lit eralism is anaaccount a.ouflI fa Iiterali mil count (it ofword w rdmeaning, meanmg.being bemg more mor an an (2004). (2oo4). In literalism is less less an an word meaning, being more an in general, general, ofwhich which word account the nature nature of oflinguistic lingui ti semantics semantic in general. of whi hword word account of of the linguistic semantics ,issotiatcd meaning is litcralism isiisaiM) pC<:1. literalism also less an a iated meanong I clearly d arlyaaa central aaspect. central aspect. Literalism alsoless an account associated probably lair to as iis probably probably fair fair to claim, claim. as a any individual individualscholar. holar. Nevertheless, everthel • itItit is with withany any individual scholar. Nevertheless, Recanati does, thatititit represents representsthe thedominant dominantpo position modern linguistics linguistics Recanati ition in modern lingui tics Recanatidoes. does, that that represents the dominant position with and pC<:t to the nature nature of ofword wordmeaning, meaning.sentence ntence meaning, meaning. and and speaker speak with rrespect withrespect to the nature meaning, sentence meaning, speakerr particular, literalism takes asaxiomatic axiomatic the the pnnClpled principled division meaning. in In particular, parti ular.literalism take. as axiomall of literalism takes principled division of semantics—the context independent aspects aspects ofmeaning— meaning— labour between -the context-independent context a peet of of meaninglabour between between Kmanti semantics—the and pragmatics—the aspects ofmeaning. meaning. Inthis this section Jnd the context-dependent context dependent aspects a peeh of of m aning. In In thi sectionII and pragmati pragmatics—the context-dependent first provided by by literalism, literalism, going on onto to argue, literali m. before going goong toargue, argue. lir present per peetive provided firstt present present the the perspective perspective in sections, word and the the role subsequ nt section. perspective on word word meaning1 meaning. and th role role in subsequent subsequent sections, why aa new perspective meaning, of words words in meaning meaning construction, construction. required. meaning constrution, is isI required. required. as aa consequ nce of of adding or compos Literalism views senten Literalism consequence ofadding addingor orcomposcoinpos-· Literalismviews viewssentence sentencee meaning as consequence smaller units of of meaning, meaning,together togetherwith withthe thegrammatical grammaticalconfigurations configurationsinin meaning. together with the grammatical conliguration ing smaller mailer unit units of which In other accounting for linguistic linguistic from whi h they appear. In words. accounting ac ounting for linguisll meaning1 meaning. from which they appear. appear. In other words, words, meaning, oflanguage languageare arewords wordsand and thi perspective, per pective. assumes aassumes urnes that that the "ingredients" this thatthe the"ingredients" "ingredients" of of language are words and perspective, "atomic" encoded by rules. with conjoin "atomic" "atomic"meaning meaningelements element encoded encodedby by rules, with rules rules serving to conjoin meaning elements words. adequateaccount .tc.ounl of linguistic linguistic semantks thi view, view. aa descriptively ddescriptively 'ripti,c1y adequate ac ount of of Iingui tic semantics semantic words. On this should provide ohservationally account of these "elements of hould provide provid an an observationally ob rvationally accurate accurate account of these these "elements "e1ement of of should an accurate account meaning" (associated with words words or or aa single single word),and andthe the"rules "rules of of commeaning" ((associated iated with ingle word), word). and the "rul ofcomcom meaning" with words (r uhing in in aa sentence). senten e). bination" sentene). bination" (resulting (resulting Identification of meaning oftenreferred referred to componId ntilication of ofthe th elements elementsof ofmeaning m aningisis isOften referred to to as as componIdentification of the elements as ential analysis. This to work work out analy is. This Thi. approach approa h seeks howto repr=nt the th meanmeanential analysis. approach seeks to out how how torepresent represent the meanings of words, words, or lexemes—the meaning that ongs of of word. or more precisely. what arc termed lexemes—the lexemes th meaning meaningthat that ings more precisely, precisely, sang, sung, series of related forms, for example, I held h Id to to underlie underli aaseries ro of ofrelated relatedforms, form •for forexample, example.sing, sIIIg. sang, sang. sung, sullg. is sing, Miforth, forth, which which to all all have the same same meaning, SING. SiN;. sillgmg. and so forth. which are are assumed a umed to all have ha,e the m meaning, meaning. SING. singing, are assumed lhc essential insight of of this this approach approach is that word word meanings are madeup upof of of approa h is i that word meanings meanings are are made made up of The essential insight atomic elements elements or components. components. Typically, lexical lexical items items are are thought of as atoml eI m nt or or components. Typically, Typically. lexical item ar thought of ofas as atomic being tagged taggedwith with syntactic, syntactic, morphological, andsemantic semanticfeatures. katures.. tagged ynta tic. morphological, morphologi al. and featur being early omponential-style that developed by Katz and An early early such such componential-style componentIal · tyleanalysis analy.is was wasthat thatdeveloped developedby byKatz Katzand and analysis was Katz 1972). Inthis this colleagues(Katz (Katzand andFodor Fodor Kat2 and and Postal Postal coUcagu (!(an and I'odor1963; 1963; Katz !(an Postal1964; t96~ Katz !(an1972). t972). InIn colleagues account, word meanings meanings consist semantic markers and distinguishers. Sc ofsemantic scmanti markers markersand anddistinguishers. dl tinguishers.Seaccount. word mcanings consist con istofof account, mantk markers the information by words, while distinguishers by words, words, while whiledistinguishers distingui hers mantic markers comprise compri the information inforonationshared haredby mantic markers comprise the shared idiosyncraticinformation infonnationspecific pccifi toto toaaagiven givenword meaning.For ('or constitute the theidiosyncratic information specific given wordmeaning. meaning. For constitute instance, based basedon onKatz Katzand and Postal Ik)stai (1964), thepolysemous polyscmous senses forthe theword word on !(an and Postal (1964), (1964). the pol mou senses sensesfor for the instance. based instance, bachelor an be be represented represented asin in(2), (2),where thesemantic semantic markersare aregiven given in in bllc/Jclor can represented as in (1). wherethe scm,lIlti markers gIVen III bachelor parentheses and the semantic distinguishers are given in square brackets. 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) a. (human) lwho marriedj (male) who has never thecolours anotherj b. (human) (human)(male) (male)lyoung knightserving servingunder underthe oloursofof oranother' an th rl b. (human) (male) (youngknight knight serving h. (young

((2) 2)

6

WORDS WORDS AND AND MEANING

INTROOUc:.'ION INTRODUCTION INI

(. (human) (human) (recipient (r"'lpient of ofthe th lowest low tacademic acad mildegree' degree( degree) the lowest academii c. (recipient of (mal) (young (youngfur furseal withoutaamate] mate I d. (non-human) ((non-human) n n·human) (male) fur sealIwithout without mate) (male) d. d. analyses of word word meaning lorerecent r",ent and mor phi'ti13ted componential componentialanalyst-s analyses of of meamng More recentand andmore more sophisticated sophisticated More ar by Anna nna Wierzbicka WierzhlCka(e.g., (e.g.• 1996) 1996) in in her I tu ralSemantic manticMetaMetaprovided by by Anna Wierzbicka (e.g., 1996) her Natural Natural Semantic Metaare provided are 1990) language ((NSM) 'SM) account allount of ofword wordmeaning, 01 aning.and andRay lUylackendoff lalkendoff(1983, (1983.1990) account 1990) of word meaning, and Ray Ja.kendoff language (NSM) Nevertheless, important It) In hi theory ofConceptual nceptual Semantks Semanti . Nevertheless, 'erthel • ititit isis i important important topOWI ptllnt in his theory of of Conceptual Semantics. to point in his endo~ alia pect of ofliterali m.In In out that that neither neither Wierzbicka Wierzhicka nor Iackendoff lackendoffendorse that Jackendoff endorseall allaspects aspects ofliteralism. literalism. In neither Wierihicka nor nor out level) partilular. they they not th view that that compositional compo,itional(i.e., (.i.e..'sentence 'nteneelevel) It'Vdl particular, theydo do not not take take the that compositional (i.e., sentence particulars do should betruth truth ~mantil patterlll> after aft r refercihe, reference. nor northat >entenl meaning meanmgshould houldbe truth semantics patterns after reference, thatsentence sentence meaning semantics patterns (5« th discussion disco ion below). evaluable the (see the evaluable (see of word .. r. th hallmark of account. and and the view view of of word word Ilowe accounts, andthe However, the the hallmark hallmark of of componential accounts, However, assumed to be meamng under literalism, lit rali m. is i that that word w rdmeanings 01 .nings are ar assumed a umed to to be be meaning adopted is that word meanings literalism, meaning adopted under under which relalively fixed and table. Put way. the manti primitives primitiv which whi h relatively fixed fixedand and stable. stable. Put another another way, way, the semantic semantic primitives relatively ofcontext. ontext. make up a given given word identified independently independently of make up up a word meaning can he be identified independently of context. make word meaning Onle Idenlified. word word meanings meanings are are integrated, mtegrated. by by applying Iherules rules of ofthe the integrated1 byapplying applyingthe the rules of the Once identified, word meanings Once identified, are that provide sentence nlemantilunits unil> nature, positing principles which ensure ensure that that the nature, which resull are are unable chang or tbe meanings meanings of of tbeunits unitswhich whichare are the meanings ofthe the which are result are unable unable 10 to change change which result to or delete dekte the This restriction restriction to conjomed 10 form form aaa larger larger semantic sernanli< unit umt or orexpression. exp ion. This Thi restrictionserves ~ to 10 conjoined to semantic or expression. serves conjoined to form larger unit make a larger larger exp=,i n. for nOlonicwith withrespect respecl to10 II> monotonic with respect toits its make a larger expression, for instance instance aa >cotenc sentence,• m monotonic sentence for make componenl parts. where where lerm "monotonic" has to 10 do dowith withthe theview viewthat thaithe the component parts1 parts, has "monotonic" has do with the view that the component where the the term term "monotonic" componenl pari> rrlain their onginal meanings l11eanings in the lhe larger larger expression exp"'" ion (e.g., (e.g.• expression meanings in the larger ,- omponent parts component parts retain retain their their original original Cann '"word rd meanings meanmgsdo donot notalter allertheir theirmeaning meamngin10 lbe Thus, alter meaning inthe the (*Ann 1993). 1993).Thus,lhe Thus,the theindividual individual word meanings Cann they form part. larger manli units larger ofofwhich Largersemantic semantic unitsof whichthey theyform formpart. part. meaning.Under Onl itionhas ha occurred, occurred. thi giVe. ri to tosentence nten emeaning. meaning. Under Once compo composition this gives to sentence occurred, this gives rise truth tru th Iiterali m. >entence propo ition. isiistruth literalism, sentence meaning. meaning, technically known literalism, sentence meaning,t",hnically technicallyknown known aas as aaproposition, proposition That is, evaluabl although thi i ue isiispotentially problematic.>2 That That is. aa sennevaluable—although this evaluable—although this issue issue potentially problematic. problematic.2 formed gral11matical word - —Is i held held "carry" tenl a well grammaticalstring string of of words—is words heldtototo"carry" "carry"aaa tence—a well-formed grammatical string tence—-a ofaa meanmg which patterns patterns after after reference: reference: the th onv nllonal assignment ignment of meaning which after reference: the conventional conventional assignment of affair complexlinguistic lingui ticexpression e pr ionresultrresultull worldly and state tate of entity and worldly entity of affairs affairs to the the complex linguistic expression ing ilion of ofthe the individual mdlvldualelements el ment in informing formingaasentence. ~nten e.The The ing from from compo composition elements sentence. individual in forming that is, is, it Ion. that that is. the the meaning sociated with ntence constitutes onstitutes the propo with meaning aassociated associated with the the sentence sentence constitutes theproposition, proposition, ~nten e meaning. the following example ntence: sentence meaning. Thus, example sentence: sentence: sentence meaning.Thus. Thus,ininthe thefollowing followingexample J A khubn lh.! PnpNtk. InJlltOn Cr .... Bach 8.kh 1'#970 nt(ln iuoz; JOOl;Recanati R«.ln.JU Bach1997:(:orston $997;( (arston 2(X)1 kec.anata number of of scholars WOrlonlln working A numbn' otscholaxs working in tothe thePragmatic Pragmatictradition tradition(e.g.. byan an uticrcdby formuttered lUI"") tu\'t tlul "uoften (,hm ft" u~,.) 1M \:.ut thaithe Itwlinguistic Imgul heform (nrm uuntd by o1n zoo4) have observed that haveot'twnni obtten'ed thatIIititis otten(or (orusuallyi usually)the thecase cuethat that the iittcrSflCCS are often propositional. tntnt,."Ulnr III " meaning. mc.mma.. "Th.It I utterances unt'l'alkn aIT vitro n..not tpropositional. rn'P' Ih.. ruJ. interlekutor underdetermines the are often not the sentence sentente nwaning.Thai Thatis. underdc'ternun&s lhtinirriotulor PolnJrnktnml thatinferential inferentialpro. but ttmW'd J'RPMIK ",IN"",". WI. hthat lh., mt.'ftntw rn"nift but have to hewmrAttnJ completed by has~ ten termed esses intrusion,such such been termedpragmatic pragmaticintrusion. but h.aw have Id to bt be s.ompletedbr"'NI by what what hol, ewaluable. I 4rMon.for for ;t~ In rtndcr tM ullft'lIkC propositional rrop,lISJlk)f\M and btrk.c trulh ~nlwtW :Arston. <':'I'llIn. fur are required in order truth I.-valuable. propositionaland andhence hence truth arcm;auirN requiredIn inordn" order to torender renderthe theutterance underddefmines aentencc meaning (i.e.. the InM"n..~. rt'ftn 10 the nultnn ttYI Imitul tk nW'nall. rr-~mabl,. quIlt' (lh\k'U. an dw meant scntenle shaped(priipouti4inAi meant by byaa speaker.... .isis something sentence-shaped the top shrill. ahdrl. (cmlnl Ifnr nam~ the item lInn you )'UU Iln ioolJna fur Iis on the ",..hdl context (for forexample. csanipk. 'the 'the stern youare arelooking lookingfor for i. is on on 1M

torrUn. .. ..

It,. rN

777

of London Brighton is miles south ( 3 ) Brighton (.I) IIrightonis I 50 50 miles mil south \(luth of ofLondon london the sentence being true or the proposition proposition "carried" the sentence can he evaluated as propo ition"carried" "carried"bybythe ntencecan canbe heevaluated evaluated as as being beingtrue trueor or false with respect to the the state ofaffairs affairs which holds in the world. InInthis false respect this case, t.ll", with r pcct to the state tat of of affairs which whi h holds hold in inthe theworld. world.In thi case, ca • the by(3): (3):that thatBrighton Brightonisiis so 50 miles milesfrom from London, london, the proposition proposition expressed isi propo ilion expressed expr~ by by (3): that Brighton 50 mil from London.is true, Itrue. rile. Thus have beenaddressing addressing thefirst halfof ofliteralism: literalisin: the study of far, we have Thu far, far. we have been heen addr 109 the firfirst t half half of ht rali m: the th study tudyof Thus of semantics. According to literalism, ",mantics. According A ording to to literalism, literali m.word wordmeanings meaningsand andthe theresulting r ullingsentence ntenc semantics. word meanings and the resulting sentence the full meaning of a sentence, meaning, is context-independent. However, meaning, meaOlng. is i context-independent. contextind pendent. However, 1I0w 'er. the th full full meaning meaning of ofaasentence, ntence. whit is referred to as speaker meaning, may aIM) depend on context. This 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 .tspcct of meaning meaning falls under under the the purview of the sub-branch of linguistics aspect of meaning falls falls under the purview purview of ofthe thesub-branch sub· branch of oflinguistics Iingui ti a'peet known known as as a pragmatics. pragm.ti . The meaning and speaker meaning was introThe distinction between sentence [he distinction distinentenlemeaning meaningand andspeaker ,peak rmeaning meaningwas wa introintro duced by the British $989). Grice distinguished duced philosopher Paul Grice (e.g., dUled by by the th British Briti hphilosopher philosopherPaul PaulCrice Gri e(e.g.. (e.g.•1989). 1989).Grice Gri edistinguished di lingui hed between what a sentence means, its literal meaning, and what between what a sentence sentence h<:tween what ~nten -e means, mean. its it literal literal meaning, meaning. and and what what aaasentence ntence implicates, hs virtue of the context in which it is deployed, and the speaker's implicates, ofthe the context context ininwhich whichititisi deployed, d ployed.and andthe thespeaker's peaker' Implicates. by virtue of communicative intention in deploying it in the particular context of use. The communicative communi alive intention intention in in deploying deplo ingitit ininthe theparticular parti ular context context of ofuse. u .The The latter sort what Grice Grice rekrred speaker meaning. According rt of ofmeaning meaningisis i what .ricereferred referredto toas a speaker peaker meaning. m anlng.According A cording latter sort of meaning to as to literalism is principled distinction distinction semantks. which to then, there between HI literalism hteralism then, then. there there is i\ aJa principled prinllpled di,lInction between hetween semantics, semantic.which whilh is concerned with literal literal meaning, and pragmatics, which is or sentence is concerned concerned with with literal or orsentence sentence meaning, meaning. and andpragmatics, pragm.ti •which whi h isis i concerned with with context-based context-based speaker meaning:what whatisiisimplicated. implicated. concerned loncerned contelt·hased speaker peaker meaning: meaning: what impli ted. the literal literal meaning this lu illustrate, in To illustrate, reconsider the sentence "10 illu trate.let's Ilet's t' reconsider rIXon id r the th sentence '>Cntence in In (3). (3). The The literal meaning meaningofof ofthis thi sentence relates to a state of affairs in the world referenced by the proposition 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 1w this sentence. Ilowever, the proposition expressed is independexpressed this sentence. e.pr sed by thi ntence. However, 1I0wev r. the proposition propo Ition expressed e.pr~ is i independindepend . as partof ofan an ent of any given context 1)1 use. lo illustrate, flOW consider part 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 of an exchangebetween betweentwo twointerlocutors interlocutorsinin(4) (4who who are driving to to Brighton, are exchange between exchange interlocutors (4) whoare are driving driving toBrighton, Brighton.are are just north hovering just empty. just north of London, and whose petrol gauge isishovering above jU\l north of oflondon, I.ondon.and andwhose who petrol petrolgauge gaugeis hoveringjust ju tabove aboveempty. empty.

l)o you think we can make toBrighton Brighton without tilling up? (.) A:A:Do (41 Doyou youthink thinkwe wecan canmake m.keititittoto Brightonwithout withoutfilling fillingup? up? (4) B: Brighton Brighton is miles south south of of London London B: is B: i 50 miles of l.ondon According to by B B means meanswhat whatititItdoes: does: According to literalism, literalism, the sentence expressed by According to Iiterali m. the thesentence ntence expressed e pr BOlan what d Brighton is miles south of london, which is truth evaluabk independent iii Brighton iis 50 50 mile. miles 'iOuth south ofl.ondon. of London, which is independent of IIrighton i truth evaluable ind pendent of any given given "lOtext context itIt can byvirtue yin Lieof ofaacontext-independcontext-independgiven context because because can he be assessed any bc..au\e it be assessed a'~ by of. context independ . ent state of affairs: in the world, Brighton really is 50 miLes south of London. 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 thecontext contextassociated with the the exchangein (i), itititmeans means more However, in the mean more more Ilowever. aassoiated sociat<'tl with the exchange exchange inin(4), (4). than this. This Is because the ofthis thissentence sentence thiscontext contextimplicates implicates than thi this. This of thi nt nee in ininthis thi context implic.t than rhi isi because bc..au the the use uuseof something in in addition addition to to literal by the sentence. The something the meaning expressed in addition tothe theliteral literalmeaning meaningexpressed expr~ by bythe th sentence. ntence.The The Mlmething implicature associated with the the sentence sentence utteredby byBIIBisiisthat that the travellers implicature associated with with Impli ature ","lCiated \Cntenc uttered uttered by thatthe th travellers travellers cannot reach Brighton unless unless firstobtain obtainmore morepetrol petrolfor fortheir theircar. tar. Thus, 1 hits. cannot lannot rreach alh Brighton IIrighton unl they they first Ii"t obtain more petrol f()r their ,u. Thu\, the speaker speaker meaning consequence interpretingthe thecommunicative communicative the interpreting !h peaker meaning m .ning is Iis aaaconsequence onsequence of ofof interpreting the communicative intention of in deploying deploying the sentence meaningin inaagiven givencontext. context. of the speaker the ofthe the speaker peaker in th sentence \Cntence meaning meaning ina 81Hn ,ontext. intention simplified overview of the main elements of AA somewhat are somewhat simplified of the m overview ur main ~omt"whdt \implifil'tl u\crvicw .. in element, clemcnh of or literalism literali m arc arc presented in Figure i.i. presented pr nted in Figure figure Li. 1.1.

WORDS WORI)5 AND ANI) MEANING MEANING

8INTROI)L1CT1ON INTRODUCTION

ti

Speaker meaning

PRAGMAT1CS PRAGMATICS

Pragmatic piincipies pdnclples of of inference inference Pragmatic

9

(the (the semantics/pragmatics distinction) distinction) isisillusory.' illusory.' From Fromthis thisititfollows followsthat that the the position positionthat that word word meanings meaningsare arccontext-independent context-independentisispotentially potentially problematic. instance, in researchers have problematic. For instance, in the Pragmatics Pragmatics tradition, tradition, researchers have shown shownthat that the the meaning meaningof ofaagiven givenword, word,and andhence hencethe thetruth truth conditions conditions of of the the sentence sentencetotowhich whichthe theword wordcontributes, contributes,isistypically typically(perhaps (perhapsalways) a a function in in particular functionof ofcontext/background knowledge knowledge(see (see particularC-arston Carston 2002; zooz;

Searle e.g., e.g.,1983; 1983;Recanati Recanati 2004). 1004). By examples of open based By way way of of illustration, illustration, consider the following examples of open based on on those discussed discussedby by Searle Scarle (i983): (1983): Sentence meaning meaning Snntencs L

(s) (5 )

1

Rulesof ofcomposition conçosdion Rules

SEMANTICS SEMANTICS

a. a. John Johnopened opened the thewindow window b. John opened his h. John his mouth mouth c. c. John opened the the book 1)00k John opened opened his d. John his briefcase briefcase e. C. John opened the the curtains curtains 1. The Thecarpenter carpenteropened openedthe thewall wall g. The Thesurgeon surgeon opened opened the the wound wound h. The The sapper sapper opened the the dam dam t

Word meanings meanings Word

1W of of literalism literalism Ili.UIE LI. LI. An An overview FIGURE

In and from from the the perspective perspeitiveof ofliteralism, literalism,word wordmeanings meaningsinvolve invoke In sum, sum, and relatively atoms are are relativelyfixed fixedand andcontext-independent context-independentatoms atoms of of meaning. meaning. These These atoms concatenated, giventhe therules rulesofofthe thegrammar, grammar,and andthen theninterpreted, interpreted,bybyvirtue virtue concatenated, given of principks of (if language language use. use.The Thecontext-independent context-independent atoms atoms of of meaning meaning of principles associated to sentence meaning, and and speaker speaker meaning meaning associated with with words words contnbute contribute to sentence meaning, relates the use useto towhich which sentences sentencesarc areput put(including (includingthe the context-independcontext-independrelates toto the ent speaker meaning meaningbuilds builds cnt word which constitute them), which speaker meanings which word meanings upon. upon.

Problems with the view Problems with the received received view l.iteralism an approach suffers from from aa fatal fatal Literalism as as an approach to to meaning meaning construction suffers problem: - independent (sentence) (sentence) problem: the the principled principledseparation separationbetween between context context-independent meaning (speaker) meaning. meaning.Put Put another another way, way, the the meaning and and context-dependent context-dependent (speaker) difficulty literalisni is the principled principled division division of labour that it difficultyatatthe the heart heart of of literalism is the posits to word word posits between between semantics semantics and and pragmatics. In In terms terms of of the the approach approach to meaning by literalism, ipart from meaning adopted adopted by literalism, words words are are assumed, assumed, apart from aa number number of of

As Searle observes, in in examples examples such such as these Seark observes, thesethe themeaning meaning of of open is aa function open is function of what he he refers refers to to as asthe the"background", "background", which is to say our our knowledge knowledgeof ofthe thesorts sorts of ways ways in which entities and opened. Cnicially, iii and objects objectsof ofdifferent different kinds kinds are are opened. Crucially,the the differentways ways in inwhich whichwe wecan can open things isis aa function of our encyclopaedic different function encyclopaedic knowledge, which is to say knowing about and experience with the knowledge, whkh isto say experience with thevery verydifferent different involved. For Forinstance, instance, opening opening a wound sorts of operations involved. Woundinvolves, involves,for for use of aa scalpel instance, the skilled skilled use scalpelon onflesh, flesh,totocreate createan anaperture apertureofofaacertain certain sue size and shape shape for a particular purpose, such as particular purpose. as to to clean cleanthe thewound woundand/or and/or remove potentially damaged or or diseased diseased tissue. remove potentially damaged tissue.The Theopening openingofofaawall wallinvolves involves ditterent different sorts sorts of tools, typically a particular ally carpentry carpentrytools toolsofota particularkind, kind,which whichare are made typically an aperture of applied to a wall, made typically of wood, and resulting resulting in in an aperture of aa certain size size and and shape shapefor foraavery verydifferent difIcrent sort sort of of purpose: purpose: for for instance instance to tocreate creak or insert insert aa doorway. doorway. Both Both of of these these operations or operations differ differ from opening aa mouth, mouth, which which involves involves muscle gestures on a pre-existing aperture, or opening curtains, gestures on a pre-existing aperture, or opening curtains, which doesn't involve which doesn't involve an aperture at all, both of which serve serve very different different functions. Finally, opening a functions. Finally, opening a dam dam by byaa sapper sapper involves involves knowledge relating relating to warfare—a sapper js warfare—a sapper is aa military militaryexplosives explosives expert—and expert—and destroying destroying the thedam daminin question luestion as aspart part of of aamilitary military action. Thus, Thus, understanding understandingwhat what open open means means in in (5h) (5h) involves involves knowledge of aa very sortofofevent, event, agents, agents, and and purposes. purposes. very different ditlèrent sort

notable exceptionssuch such as as indexicals indexkals (for (for instan(C he, or or here), here), to have have instance he, notable exceptions

asword word meanings lied to meanings tied to them them which which are are context-independent. context-independent. This This follows as meaning (ratherthan than pragmatics). pragmatics). semantics (rather meaning falls falls under under the the purview purview of of semantics Ilowever, scholars have haveargued arguedthat that the theprinprinof scholars However,aa by by now now large number1)1 largenumber meaning cipled independent and separationofofcontextcontext-independent and context-dependent meaning .:iplcd separation

For a flavour ' Fora nature of the problem. that have been flavour of of the the range range and md nature hut h.i%cbeenraised for foraaprincipled principled "eparation separationbetween between context-independent and context-dependent mcanIng. see, we, I.ir for t.'ntcxt-depcndent dimcnuons ofofmeaning. cxiirnpk, example. the the apprihithes to Lingua", highlighted by the the following: language and situated utuated .onsmun ► at ► on highlighted folkiwing: Limon 211 ► 2; (isik (arstun itxx); Clark i4496; (1)tJhon C ► ulson l.wio; zoom Croft 204 ► 444; IaUeOflflICf 1akutt 107; (riiñ Zooo; iAXl4a l'Atitonfiler I987: 1akoif Lingacker 1987; L4flg11ckcr Iy$7 Rt.anatj Sperber and Wilson andI Evans 2o93). Rrianali 24)04; Sperber Wilion tins: Swcetser 199w Tyler 'pd; Sweetwr T)'kr and van, zoos).

tp 10 10

WOR1)S WORDS AND WORDSANI) AND MEANING

IINTRODUCTION STROOUCTION INTROI)U&TION

yclopacdic knowledge In addItIon. addition, in eeach of these examples the sort of encyclopaedic In eh of th cumpl the th sort n of ofcii. cneydopaedic knowledge In addition, in each of these examples which the word is involved Iis aa fun function the utterance utterance context in in which the word embedmvolved tion of of the utteran e context which .the wort!.isisembed embedinvolved is a function ded. Thu Thus,• not not only is distinct dcd. i the th meaning me ning of of the the word word aa function fun tlon of ofquite qUIte distinct dl tmct ded. Thus, not only is the meaning of the sorts the 'iOn sort of of encyclopaedic to elley lop cdie knovsledge, knowlcdge. the ofencyclopaedic cncydopaedic knowledge knowledge to to n of encyclopaedic sorts of encydopat'dic knowledge the sort word is a function of the context in which the access iis aafunction whi h the th word provides provid access Ie of the ont t in whi h the word which the word provides function of which embedded. That That iis,•the the linguistic linguistic context in part serves the iis embeddcd. th lingui ti context cont xtin inpart panserves rv to narrow narrow the the sort 'iOn of of narrow is embedded. That is, relatesin ineach each example. and as open rdates encyclopaedic knowledge to to which which enq'dopacdic knowlcdge whichopen o~" reiat in aeh example. cum pie. Thus, Thus. and and as a .IKvdopaedic knowledge makes to to the open makes truth Searle observes, the semantic o~" mak th truth truth . arle observes observ • the th mantI contribution ontribution that that open semantic contribution Seark conditions of sentences, sentenntenc • such u h as a these, thoc. vari • being being fun tion of ofthe thesentensenten condItion as these,varies, varies, beingaaafunction function onditions ofofsentences, tialcontext context in in which which it is embedded. 10 i embedded. embeddcd. lIal (()Otext itIt is tial While the examples above literal sentences, the context dependWhile the examples exampl above above relate r late to to literal hteralsentences, nt n •the the context contextdependdepend to reLate While intuitively, is even more marked if we consider uses that are, intuitively, of opt'" cven more more marked markcd ififwe w consider on ideruses u that that are, arc. intuitively. ence open isi even ence of of open ence of examples: in nature. Consider more figurative hgurativ III nature. Con ider the th following following indicative indicativ setof ofexamples: exampl : more figurative in nature. (onsider the following indicative set a.•.The discussant The di u lOtopened openedthe th conversation (onversati n (6) the conversation (6) a. The discussant hank account account Johnopened opened b. John John 01 ned aaa bank aC«lunt b. John opened opened the c. John m tlllg John opened the meeting meeting John opened a dialogue d. John John opened opencd a• dialogue dialogue d. 1940 hostilities e. The The Germans t;erman opencd tihti." against against the the Allies Alh inin1940 1940 Germans opened ho opened hostilities e. skies f. The ki opened The skics opened 1. opened aa new g. He opencd to a new way way of ofthinking thinking his mind mind to to new of g. He opened his He finally finally opened up lie finally opened opencd up to to her h r h. h. He her these examples relates sorts The meanlllg of of open opt'" in each of ofthese th examples examplrelates relatto to distinct di tinct sorts sort of of The open in each The meaning meaning meeting actions, events, In action. nd situations. ituation. In the /irst example, cumpl • opening opening aaa meeting m ·tlllg the first first actions, event. events, and and situations. In the requires meeting who, in in declaring declaring the rcquir designatcd authority: meeting "chair", "chair". who, who. d laring the the requires aa a designated designatedauthority: authority: aa meeting meeting open, specific speech thusfacilitating facilitating the meeting meeting perform aaa specific peeific speech pecch act, act. thus thu fa ihtating the th meeting meeting meeting open. open, performs performs act, begin and process. In opening a dialogue, two (or more) interlocutors begin pnx . In ol",nmg a dialogu • two more) mterlo<:utol"o begin and dialogues two (or (or more) process. In opening continue face-to-face, electronicallyvia via continu a conversation conversati n that that can cantake takeplace pia eface-to-face, face· to-face.electronically ele.:tronically continue aa conversation that can take place email, the telephone, ofletters. letters. Toopen open such an email. the telephone1 telephon • or or via the th exchange exehang of of letters. To To open such u han an email, on on the or via via the exchange theexchange. exchange. bank account exchange ofthe exchang . To To bank account exchange relat the initiation To open open aa hank exchangerelates relatestotothe theinitiation initiation of interviewwith with aa bank bank involves completing certain formalitiessuch such involv uch as aas an an interview IIIterview with bank involves completing completing cenain certain formaliti formalities official, financial and the paperwork.In contrast1 he.: • and filling ininof of paperwork. In contrast, ontra t. toto official. official, financial financial checks, checks, andthe thefilling tillingin ofpaperwork. (6e), concerns actionsinvolved involved open ho tiliti •as a in In the examplcm conlCrn inillal acllon IIlvolvcd concernsthe theinitial initial actions open hostilities, hostilities, as in the theexample exampleinin (be). different forms forms of Of open in Thus,each each of of these uses each of these uses u of of ope" relates rrelates lat to different form of warfare. to very different in warfare. warfare. Thu Thus, of open initiations, sorts inillallon involving different differ nt sorts 'iOn of of event. procedures, pnxcdur • and and agent>. ofevents, events, procedures1 andagents. agents.InIn In initiations,• involving involving different to a and open sudden and contrast, in the the example example in in(61), (60, the relates to «ample in (6f). the usage u... g of of opt'" relates rdat •.sudden udd nand contra t. in the of open contrast, in the usage examplesrelate relateto flexibilityof heavy downpour hcavy rain. whil th I. t two t\\O e.ampl relate totoflexibility f1exibihty of heavydownpour downpourof ofrain, rain, while while the thelast last twoexamples expansivein termsof of thinking emotional responses thinking and emotional cmotional responses r pOll and/or and/or being more expamivc ininterms term of thinking and and/orbeing beingmore moreexpansive spoken, poken. physical, phy Ic.d,al,or motional interactions. mtcra(.tion'\. spoken, phvsi.. oremotional emotional interact ions. and(6) (6)illustrate illustrate the following. What examples such as those in (5) and What exampl such a; tho (5) and (6) Iliu trale isiisthe thefollowing. follow mg. What examples such as those in impressively diversearray arrayof as hr tly. 3aa word \ul.h as a open open provides prOVide olle.. '\ to In an Iml?r ive~y diverse divrr array orof Firstly. access toan animpressively providesaccess Firstly, word such such scenarios, and actuins,events, evcnts, and cnt.ydnp.lcdic.: knowledge knuwledge IIwolving di,tin-.:t su:n.lflO • actions, JltlOI1\, eyent •• 1Iltl encyclopaedic knowledgeinvolving involvingdistinct distinct sccflari''5, "opened"include includean anarray arrayofof of agents. agent. A w have ha,e )",t .... 'Cn. things thmS that that can I'<' "ol>cnl..!" IIldud an array thatcan canbe be"opened" havejust just seen, seen, agents.As As we

IIII

Jitierent dlllerent 'iOrt. of ofphysical phy;i al entities ntlti and and abstract ab tract events—which event - which is is related related to to difkrentsorts sorts of physical entities and abstract events—which is related to (6) ~Jrlc'. notion of "background':' Understanding Understand 109the the exampl in and (6) (6) Searle'snotion notionof of "background".4 Understanding theexamples examplesin in (s) and and detailed knowledge about the sorts of scenarios that nvolves complex and (lIves complex and detailcd knowledge knowlcdg about about the the sorts son of ofscenarios enario that that In' involves and detailed to in each example and, thus, the specifit way in which open relates 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 open in each case. After all, opening a mouth involves a very different form apphes mouth involves involvesaavery very different different form form applies applies in each case. After all. all, opening a mouth than when a carpenter opens a wall, or when a sapper opens, and 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 Of each example is, in part, in dam. Hence, the meaning of open thus aa dam. thusdestroys, destroys,•• darn. Ilenc Hence,• the m meaning open in ea~h thll' destroy ning of of O~1I1O .. mple is, i •in 10 part, pan.aaa each c example in order function oftapping tapplOginto IOtothe theencyclopaedic encyc10pacdl knowledge, knowlcdg. in 10 order order to to determine determin fUllction function of of tapping into the encyclopaedic knowledge, to determine each example. Put another way, it is is the the open ofopen O~II in in a h example. eumplc. Put Put another another way, way. it i the thc the \pecifi meaning meaning of the specific specific meaning of in each that open relates scenario "enano that open Opt'll rrelates lat to to that. in inpart, pan.determines determin the th nature nature of ofthe th scenario that tothat, that, in part, determines the nature of the with l1Iealllng a lated with with open Opell 10 ea h case. c. . meaning associated associated open in meaning in each each case. Second I, in appears to to be be th the sentential sentential context, which which in each each case Secondly. ach case ca it itit appear ntential context. whi hiis tosay say Secondly, appears the context, is to to say direct the sort of encyclopaethe other words in the sentence, which serve to word in 10 the thc sentence, ntcn e. which which serve rve to direct dire.:t the thesort sort of ofencyclopaecneydopa the other words large access to. That is, while open provides dic dil knowledge that opm provid ace That is, is, while while Of>ell ha aa• large larg thatopen: open provides dic knowledge knowledge access to. to. That open has has and hodv of knowledge, in the sense of a sophisticated range of scenarios l>
m....,... ....

as White encyclopaedic sensethat ithere. here,and andasIU developed in cognitive *1wI IIuse use knowledge. inthe thesense • While \\hak ,·oInIk. knowledge. ~.wkJ • in In thl' It'MC' tiLit U itII httt. an...! dndllpnt (.1"",""( developed inIn cognitiveSeark's notion of related to is in Chapter j), is Irngwstks Isee the linguistics 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 - ititis of is knowkdgr which m't quite the same. For Searle. background has to do with wh.it we might think 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 theidea tkit NORI word non.rt'prcsnt.iti.nal practice. Wh.u tattrim twin Searle wii'tstutes entrenched.non-representational constitutes um 1,lul entrenched. nttr.:n..hn.I, nHn ~1'rcvnl"lk'n.aJpractice. rr tkt What \\'h .. t II take II b frvm 'W-~rk is Iisthe thl' ..idea I...that ttut "'uN in (Lsrgr) ran 'twining is always contcztualizcd with rcspet it' kn'wkdgr 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 ... the linguistic hnctuSJ ... meaning. nwanmJ.

12 1Z

IINTKOIfl'(:JION NT RODUCTION

reterring to in nature. nature. Moreover, Moreover, the of open open only only referring to as as encyclopaedic encyclopaedic in the meaning meaning of given contexts contexts of of use, use, even evenwhen whenthese these are are the in given appears in the mini,mjl minimal ever appears ever deployedby bythe thelinguist: linguist:a anumbered numbered"linguistic "linguisticexample" example" ofuse usedeployed contests of contexts technkalarticles artickspublished embeddedininthe therunning runningtext textofoftechnical publishedinin Ott and and embedded set off In other word meaning meaning emerges emerges from from aa large large academic journals academic journals.s In other words, words, word potential which which is is narrowed narrowed by bythe thesentential sentential(and (andextra-linguistic) extra-linguistic) semantic potential embedded. As As such, such, word word meaning meaning appears appears to to be in which Which itit isis embedded. beguided guided conteXt in context context: words, words, II suggest, of context: suggest, do not mean mean independently independently of of by and and aa function by function of do not

the fundamental fundamental problem problemwith with literalism literalism is is that that itit attempts attemptsto to Thus, the context. Thus, artificially divorce from (situated (situated meaning meaningin) in)contcxt ofuse. use. artificially divorce (word) (word) meaning meaning from context of More precisely, precisely, literalism literalism lives lives in in something something of ofaafool's fool'sparadise. paradise.ItItholds holdsthat that More language users usersretain retainan anidealized, idealized,timeless timelessmeaning meaningfor for open open which which they they language from the keep .ipart neatly keep arise from from its its open which arise neatly apart from the situated situated meanings meanings of of open use in in examples examplessuch suchas.isinin(5) (s)and and(6). (6).The Themistake that thatliteralism literalismmakes, makes, use then, is is in in being being reductionist reductionist and and simplistic simplistic about then, about meaning. meaning.

An figurative language An additional additional challenge: challenge: figurative language As we we have have just ,tist seen seenin in our our discussion discussiun of of open. the protean protean nature nature of of word word open, the As meaning relates relatesboth bothto toliteral literal and and figurative figurative uses. uses.AAchallenge challengefor ftr any any theory theory meaning of —which is to say, say, the the mental mental representations representations associassociof lexical lexical representation representation—which is to ated with words, with the the protean protean nature nature of of word word meaning meaningdisdisated with words, consonant consonant with cussed inthis thischapter—is chapter—isto toprovide provide an anaccount accountofofliteral literal and andfigurative figurative cussed in language. Under literalism, asradically radically different different sorts sorts of of language. Under literalism,these these are are treated treated as language. It is is often often assumed, assumed,from from this this perspective, perspective,that thatfigurative figurative language language language. It involves the "defective" "defective" use as argued, argued, for for instance, instance, by by involves the use of of literal literallanguage, language, as Searle this view, from Searle ((19791 i9ç;). 1993).on On this view,the theuse useof offigurative figurativelanguage language arises arises from the interpretation of thus involves involves the context-dependent context-dependent interpretation of literal literallanguage, language, and and thus principles the context-independent context-independent principles of of pragmatic pragmaticinference inferencebeing being applied applied once once the sentence meaning has hasbeen beenderived. derived.Put Putanother another way, way,figurative figurative language is aa sentence meaning language is function use,and andthus thusfalls fallsunder underthe thepurview purviewof ofpragmatics, pragmatics, functionof oflanguage language use, rather proper. rather than than semantics semantics proper. The literalism perspective on The difficulty for for what what we we might might refer refer to to as as the the literalism perspective on figurative language, is as follows. This perspective predicts that understanding [figurative language, is as follows. This perspective predicts that understanding aa literal should be befaster fasterthan thanunderstanding understandingaafigurative figurative expression: expression: literalsentence sentence should we must first understand what the sentence means before wecan caninterpret interpret we must first understand what the sentence means before we what the speaker intends us to inaanon-literal non-literal way. way. what the speaker intends us to infer by using the sentence in However, as has been shown, based oninvestigations investigations of of psycholinguistic psycholinguistic However, as has been shown, based on processing, language users often to be be equally equally as as efficient efficient in in computing '..omputing processing, language users often appear appear to the meaning of figurative language utterances as they are nonfigurative the meaning of figurative language utterances as they are non-figurative ones ones (Gibbs iooj). Glucksberg 20o1, 2003; also Giora see also Giora 1997, 2003). (Gibbs 1994; Glucksberg 2001, 2003; See (A,ukofl See similar iámiLar arguments ary.umcnts made ,n.& by scholar. including s,itluding t lark wit); CA ► ulson /00 ► ); IWafl% brit% I2O(*); ' See 2ootil; (1003). and Lang..ker IvIer anti Evans t1ou3). . ; "nfokier 119871; Swectser 11t>90; ) "or fauctmnici (

WORDS WORDSAND ANDMEANING MEANING

13 13

The I'hc challenge, challenge,then, then,that thatawaits awaitsan anaccount accountofOflexical kxicalrepresentation representationand andthe the le of wordsin in meaning meaningconstruction constructionisistotowork workout outthe thedifference, difference,ififany, ro role of words any, the role role and andfunction function of of literal literal and and figurative figurative word use be tween the useininmeaningmeaningToTo illustrate processes. illustratethe thenature natureofofthe thechallenge, challenge,let's let'sconsider consider c onstruction processes. the the following tOIl()Wingexample: example: (7) -)

John's boss is a pussycat Johns boss pussycat

Presumably utterance doesn't doesn't mean that John's boSs boss isisaapussycat, presumably this utterance that John's pussycat,ininthe the sense of a four-legged organism, with a tail and pointy ears that utters sense of a four-legged organism, with a tail and pointy ears that utters "miaow." Rather,the themeanings meaningsassociated associated with with the the phrases phrases John's John'sboss boss and "miaow." Rather, have to to be beintegrated integratedwith with the the predicate predicatenominative nominative construction, construction, pussycat have which ordinarily carries aa class-inclusion class-inclusion meaning. 6 Informally, ordinarily carries meaning.6 Informally, this construcconstruction has has the thefollowing following syntax: syntax:"SUBJECT "SJ.'RJI( 1' is an an NP," NP," and and means, means,again againinforinformally: "The "The subject subject k is aa type of the the entity entity specified." specified." To Toillustrate, illustrate, consider considerthe the following: 8. (8)

hoss is is aapianist pianist John's boss

The meaning meaning that that aa language languageuser userwould wouldordinarily ordinarilyderive, derive,for for an anexample example such such as this, would he be that John's boss boss isisincluded includedin in the the category category of of those who play the piano and thus constitutes aapianist, p1w pianist, and andthat that this this situation situation persists persists through time, time. But, But,the thesame same construction construction does does not through not provide provide aa class-inclusion class-inclusion for the the previous example example in The challenge challenge then, reading for in (7). (i). The then, for for our our account account of the variation in in word word meaning, meaning, is to be able to provide an explanation as to to be able to provide an explanation .15 to why why (7) means something other than what it literally says, while (8) means means something other than what it literally says, means what it does literally does literally appear appear to say.

The nature of context II suggested above that that the fundamental fundamental problem suggested above problem with with literalism literalism is is that that itit divorce meaning meaning from context of of use. Before proceedattempts to artificially artificially divorce ing with ing with an attempt to identify identify the ingredients of aa theory theory of of word word meaning meaning and meaning construction, we sense of we must must first first get get an an initial initial sense ofthe thedifferent different sorts of context which serve serveto tonarrow narrow the the meaning meaningof ofaaword. word. Accordingly, Accordingly, we we will willbegin begin to to see seethat that the thenotion nOtionoflitcontext contextisisaacomplex complexand andmultifaceted multifaceted phenomenon crucial for for language phenomenon crucial language use useand andlanguage languageunderstanding. understanding. AccordAccordIngly, notion of of context ingly, the the notion is fundamental to the development of LCCM context is fundamental to the development of LCCM Theory I heory that II begin begin to to sketch in the next next chapter, chapter, and and develop developinin detail detail in the Ihe nominative " The nominative predicative verb be predh.atIve construction involves the fie which which it'm com• the copular topular or or "linking" linking" verb as the with a nominal. nominal, e.g.. pine. with thee%'ential mentirl part e.g.. "a "a pianist." The nominal fu n ctions as The nominal part of the the cI4USaI Pftdkate-: Predicate:"is is a pianist." t4flgJtIt'r 1.ang.s. ker twou in tt.th.sts ot of the the nonunalive n ► nuttateve pretts‘ ate lion inhis his aanalysis argues that be t ierucci only as stablesSILMIK)fl situation chma he cn(odci entoties the the -cunt tnudtt tonthrough throughtime tune of of .iastable argu-s ..ontinuation tharaLlcriie.d as aa stative st.itive relation relation" (find. ibid. 6%. 65).

14

1-1 '4

I ItO1)ICI ION

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTIO.

restof book.' I knce the the account ofword wordmeaning meaning providedisiisdiametdiamet7 Hence, re'>I Ihthebtx)k. book.' Ilen«. the account de ount of of word m ningprovided pmvidw diamel rest ofofthe ricallyoppoS«! opposed10 thatoffered offered byliteralism. literalism. rically opposed totothat rically Ihal oU rw by by lileralism. AsIhe theapproa approach take iis is uusage-based, usagebased, I use termutterance, utterance, ratherthan than As the approach take I uuse thetheterm Ihe lem. utteran e. rather ralher Ihan A h II lake ge' ba5Cd. seknce, word meaning. meaning. I hisreflects reflects my assumption thatitilitisiis sentence, in discussing discussing my assumption hat in di u ing word meaning. This Thi refllxl my umptiont thaI nlenee. in by laking takingaaccount account oflanguage languagein thatwe wecan canhope hope fullyunderstand understand onlyby taking to10to fully counl of oflanguage ininuse uusethat Ihal we can ho~ fully under land only of word meaning. It the nature also follows from the position that sentences, the ndlure nature of of word word meanong. meaning. It also follows follow from the Ihe position po ilionthat Ihalsentences, nlenc •asaas Ihe understood inlinguistic linguistit. theory,are areartificial artitiual theoretical theoretical constructs, understood lictheory, Iheory. ar artlfidallheor lilalconstructs, (on Irllct abstracted •abstracted ab Irallw under lood in in lingui from actual usage events, which is to say, utterances. I will have more tosay say from actual actual usag usage ev~ events, from 1 • which whi h isi to 10say, say. utterances. utterane . IIwill will have have more moreto10 y about the distinction between sentences and utterances in Chapter about the distinction aboullhe di IInClion between belw nsentences nlen and andutterances utteranc ininChapter .hapler 44. Utterancecontext context Utterance context

with the examples relating to to France As we we saw and Of>t:1I above, the the utterance ot*'n above. above, open France and As with the A w w,lh Ihe examples exampl relating relallng 10 Frallcr Ihe utterJIK elements which occur in a given utterance contribute, in part, to determining elements which occur in 10 a a given utterance utterance contribute, conlribule. in in part, part. to 10determining delerminlOg the meaning of the word. That is, and as suggested above, the utterance 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 a context which assists in narrowing the meaning of the word in 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. To illustrate, consider the following examples: question. qu lion. To 10 illustrate, illu lral • consider con ider the the following foUowingexamples: exampl

a. May 1st grandfather expired (9) a.a. OnOn May 1st (9) On ~by , my I my mygrandfather grandfalh rexpired PIrW b. On May 1st my driving licence expired b. On b. On May May'1stI my driving licence licence expired expired

The in each each exampleis functionof ofthe the utterance expired in The meaning m meaning meaning of of expired rxplml in a 'h example eumpl Iisaaafunction function of Iheutterance utterance inin in which it is embedded. In the first example. expired relates to an event 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 involving death, while in the second, expired relates term involving ddeath, while in the involving alh. whil Ihe second, second. expired! expirrd relates relal to 10 expiry p'ry of of the Ihe term I rm for which an individual's right to drive public for whkh which an individual's to drive on on the the highway was sanctioned for individual' right righllo Ih public public highway highwaywJs wa; sanctioned '>3nclionw or licensed. or "licensed." "lie nS«!." Now consider another example involving verb. Thisinvolves involves the follow Now ow consider con ider another anolher example ample involving involvingaaaverb. verb. This Thi involv _the Ihefollowfollow. ing well-known context-dependent alternation associated with the verb alternation associated ing well-known w II known context-dependent wnle I-dependenlaitemalion a '>tl
While to change-of-state reading, the example Whilethe the example in (ma) (ma) relates rial to 10aaachange-of-state chang oof· lal reading, reading. the Iheexample exampl Ihe example exampl in (loa)relates in (mb) to a creation reading. l'hat is, in (iob) the meaning of !'take can 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 be paraphrased by "made" or ofofbake in ((ma) ma) be paraphrased while the meaning bake paraphra;ro by "made" "mdd " or "created', "crealed". while whil the themeaning meaningof !hIke in (,oa) cannot with bake cannot be paraphrased in this this way. The shift inmeaning meaning associated cannol be be paraphrased paraphra5Cd in Ihi way. way. The Th shift hifl in meaningassociated aSMXidled with wilhbake I.. l. appears to be a function of the object iated with bate potato versus cake, potato versus cake, appears to be a function of the object associated with appea" 10 be. oflhe nbjed a l
15 WORDS WORDSAND ANDMEANING MI __ --------------------------------W~0=.~O~S~A~N~O~~'~A~,~'N~G~----'~5 15

rather laIc. aaa cake fact exists eexists i " once on e it,Iithas ha been been baked. ratheralTecl afkcts ilits rather affects itsstate, state, cake only in akeonly only 10 in fact once has beenbaked, baked,asas bbaking •• king isisk one Ihe requi ile stages lag involved inv Ived in ininmaking making cak one of baking oneof of the therequisite requisite stages involved makingaaacake. cake.. Mv Ihe rol of utt.,an e context conlexl conlribulong Ih My linal final example ofofthe ininincontributing finalexample exampleof therole roleof ofutterance utterance context contributingto10 tothe the meJI;ong of a given relal 10 whal S<.hmid (2000) I m. "hell noun ." meaning word relates to what Schmid (2000) terms "shell nouns." meaning of a given word relates to what Schmid (boo) terms "shell nouns." ,~«ording hmid." hell nouns noun make up an open-ended functionallyo according 10 to "Shell functionallytoSchmid, Schmid, "Shell nounsmake makeup upan anopen-ended open-ended functionallydefined Ira I nouns noun Ihal hav .10 varying dcgr •the Ihe polcntial for class of.b class of totovarying potential of abstract abstract nounsthat that have, have, defined da varyingdegrees, degrees, the potentialfor for of hems aasconceptual conceplual hells for for complex. propo ilion·like. pieces p,ce of being used being used usedas conceptualshells shells forcomplex, complex,proposition-like, proposition-like, of IOformalion" 4). Common exampl of hell noun include: ca .... (ibid. 4). Common examples of shell nouns include: information" case, information (ibId. (ibid. examples of shell nouns include: case, d"wu, itltl', nnv POlllt, problem, po 11;0". reason, rrusall, rrpor/, S.tutltlO", position, fat -1, idea, hance, fact, point, problem, idea, news, situation, iiia,:t-c, [m:I, report, news, point, problem, pOsition, reason, report, Situaitioii, t/IIII!!. 19oifi(an<e of hell nouns noun Ih proenl discussion di u Ion is iisthat Ihal Ih of shell thing. thin,,'.The The significance significance floUflsfor for the the present present discussion thatthe the emanli valu of Ihe hell noun i normally delerminw by Ih ullerance semantic value the shell noun is normally determined by the utterance semantic value of the shell noun is determined by the utterance "",lex\. 10reov
om

((11) II) The (;",'ernmenl\aim aimisisIto makeGPs (.P more more financially .(Counlable.inin ii) The Government's Ihe(overnment's aim to10make make GPs morefinancially financiallyaccountable, accountable, in

.ha e of Iheir own budgel ••as well 10 eXlend Ih choice Ihe charge of their own budgets, budgets, their as well well as asto toextend extendthe thechoice choiceofof ofthe the alient patient

In the Ihe in (11) (II) the Ihe hell noun noun is in hold, bold.The Th idea ,dea the Iheshell hellnoun nounrelates relales In the example in (11) the shell shell isis in bold. The idea in the shell noun relates 10 is i underlined. underlinw. The hell noun, noun. the Ihenoun nounphrase phraseinin which occu ....and andthe Ihe to underlined. The shell phrase inwhich whichititiloccurs, occurs, and the IdCJ itit II relates relales to, 10. whkh whichhere here is medialed by by the Ihe copula copula is. are arc collectively coIICdively idea relates which here isismediated mediated is, are collectively opula is, o tcrml"'lhe" h II -(Onlenl compl x." termed "shell-content-complex." the "shellcontent -complex?' 10 hmid. the meaning of hell-conlenl-complexin inexamples examples According According to to Schmid, the meaning of the shell-content-complex of the shell-content-complex in examples " ... h.as this thi' arc oflhe pc.xifi< combination combinalion oflh h IInoun nounand andthe Ihe such are aaafunclion function the specific the function of specifIc combination of of the shell shell noun and the idea ,dea itit il relates relal to. 10. ThaI is, i the lhe shell-like hell like function fun lion of ofthe Iheshell h Unoun nounisisi not nolan an idea relates to. That That is, the shell-like function of the shell noun not an inalienable pro~rty Ih noun nounitself, itself.but bUIrather ratherderives deriv from fromthe theway wayititilisisillS«!. inalienable property inalienable propertyofof ofthe the noun itself, derives used. but rather from the way used. In this Ihi example. Ih ~Jker presenl a particular ide. ("~m.ke (;P" ~ In example, the this example, speaker presents aa particular idea ("to make GPs more speaker presents particular idea ("nake (Ws more findneiall accountable, JlCrv", to 10 encapsulale the lbe various variou components compon~" and and complex complexideas idea;contained contained serves serves to encapsulate encapsulate the components and complex ideas various contained in Iheidea ideaas ingle.relatively relativelystable, slable.albeit albeil temporary, lemporary. concept. concept.It doesso so inthe the idea asa aaasingle, concept. does single, relatively stable, albeit temporary, ItItdoes so hby by casting ca"ing "this "Ihi complex mmpl of information informalion into inlo one onesingle inglenoun nounphrase" phrasc" casting "this complexxpiece piece of one single noun phrase" 10 ((11", ibid.7). 7). 7).Evidence !'videncefor forthi unOlycomes com from fmmthe Ihenext nl'Xlsentence senll'll'"presented pr nledin ('2): (ibid. this Evidence for this unity unity comes from the next sentence (12): presented in10(22): (12) (11) The Thr overnm.:nt'aim aimisisItoto to m.lke (,Pmore mnrefinancially finJnliall.raccountable, (countable.in (12) Government's make GPs The Government's aim make CPs more financially accountable, inIn

cha e of oftheir theorown bud ct>. as a, well well as as to 10extend exlend the Ih choice (hoiccof ofthe Ihe charge their ownbudgets, budgets, as well as to extend the choice of the do<:torsare rerequired requirwto 10produce produce ali Under nl. Under nder thi new heme.family familydoctors patient. new scheme, family doctors p!nt. thisthis new scheme, are required to produce .1OnllJI reports reporl for fortheir theor Iloll,ent annual reports for their patierit.. .. annual

%SOKI)S ANt)MEANING MEANIN. WORDS AND

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

1(►

beenencapsulated, encapsulated1itit can can he be that once once the the complex idea idea has has been see that Here Here we we see noun phrase phrase glossed with with aa different signalled by by the the shell shell noun characteri,ation as signalled different characterization glossed the content content associated .tssotiated marked in in(12) (12) in inbold. bold.In Inessence. essence, the this Hew new scheme, this scheme. marked withshell shellnouns nouns comes comes from from the the ideas, ideas that that is, is, the theutterance utteraike context, context, they with and even their construal relate to. Yet, the the ideas ideas receive receivetheir their characterization, characteri,*tion, and even their construal participation in as aa single single unified idea, from inaa shcll-content-cotnpleX. shell-content-complex. iinitwd idea, from their participation as

Manner of utterance

serves,in inpart, part, to to The manner manner of of the the utterance utterance can can provide a context which serves, The partk uparticular word. For instance, whether aaparticudetermine the the meaning instance, whether determine meaning of of aa particular kind can contribute to to the the lar word wordreceives receivesstress stress or or emphasis emphasis of of some kind can contribute lar illustration. Consider the the following following by way way of of illustration. meaning of of the the word. meaning word. Consider 03) a.a. Look thatblackbird blackbird ltwkatatthat ('i)

b. Look at that black black bird bird the adjective adje tive black. In receives primary primarystress stress on the The compound blackbird receives The blackbird,receives receives happenstotohe beblack, black,but butisisnot notaablackbird, contrast, a that happens contrast, a bird bird that serves as asaatype type the second second example. Here, stress serves bird, as in the primary stress on bird,, primary stress determine, in in part, part, the the semantic semanticcontricontriserving to cue, serving contextualiiation to determine, of context ualization cue, black to the bution of black bution of the utterance. ■ Extra-linguistic context Extra. linguist context written), or medium (e.g., spoken or the the genre of the medium The time, venue, or or medium (e.g., spokenor or written), of an an utterance utterancecan cancontribute contnhutc (e.g., (e.g., newspaper newspaper report report versus spoken spoken lecture) lecture) of context the context thus provide provide a context. to the meaning of given words, context. In Inthis thiscas&', case, the words, and and thus whichthe the the"location," "location," broadly broadly construed, construed,ininwhich is extra-linguistic as constitutes the as itit constitutes is extra-linguistic utterance occurs. To illustrate,consider consider the following utterance: lo illustrate, utterance: utterance

thebar." bar." (4) watched thethe young lady approach the watched young lady (14)"I "1

thekind kind of of I the meaning of of bar bar in this utterance is is determined, determined,in in part, part, by The meaning law, Forinstance, instance,ififuttered utteredininaacourt courtofoflaw, venue venue to to which which the utterance utterance relates. relates. For thejudge judgesits. sits.IfIf the the notion notion of of bar bar would would refer refer to to the theraised raisedplatform platformat atwhich whichthe ak'ihol is is ordered ordered said said in in aa public public house, house,ititwould would refer refer to to the the area areaat atwhich whichalcohol and purchased. context, this this time time employing employing Consider another example example of of extra-linguistic context, thebeach. beach.The Theexamples csamplesare arc the sale in the context the word word safr context of of aa child child playing playing on on the based based on on Sweetser Sweetser(1999 (1999): ):

Iiiborrowing the term here, htft, hs(,UmpCtl riunwert 1102 I. In • 11w Theterm tcrm - contextualiration sue" was ',tintedby .i1plscd ii in the limit1(1 of his ,umpcll who differentway way ti-nm from that that of (infirm: who applied it in the I am in .ia slightly ilighily ditici-ent using itIt in &m using work on on (ode- swit‘ hing.

'

17

a. The The child childisissafe safe (15) a. b. The The beach beach is is safe safe The shovel is safe c. The shovel is safe is that that the the child child will will not not come come to toany any In In this thiscontext, context, the the meaning meaningof of(15a) (isa) is harm. not mean meanthat that harm. However, However, given given the the extra-linguistic extra-linguistic context, context, (15b) does does not

is an an the beach will willnot notcome come to to h.irtn. harm.Instead, Instead, ititmeans means that that the the beach beach is the environment in which the risk risk of the child child coming coming to to harm harm isisminimized. minimized. environment in which the of the the shovel shovelwill will not not come cometotoharm, harm,but butthat that Similarly, (isc) (15c)does does not not mean that the it will examples it willnot notcause cause harm harm to to the child child using using itit to to dig dig in inthe the sand. sand. These These examples illustrate that there is no fixed property property that that safe assigns to the the words words no single single fixed assigns to and thud, shovel.InIn order order to shovel. chile!, heath, beach, we must must to understand understand the the utterances utterances we interpret extra-linguistic context, a interpretthem, them, in in part, part,with withrespect respect to to aa specific specific extra-linguistic context, a scenario, which which holds. In this child on a beach, beach, employing employing scenario, this scenario, there is a child a spade to to dig dig in in the the sand. sand. In In order order to interpret these a spade to successfully successfully interpret these utterances utterances we must must also alsodraw draw upon upon our our encyclopaedic encyclopaedicknowledge knowledgerelating relatingto tochildren, children, we beaches, and shovels, shovels,and andthe thepotential potential harm harm that that shovels can cause causeifif mismisbeaches, and shovels can used, for instance. used, for Encyclopaedic knowledge

l.arlicr context serves servestotonarrow narrowthat that Earlierininthis thischapter chapter IInoted noted that that the the iitter.ince utterance context part knowledgetotowhich whichaaword wordpotentially potentiallyprovides provides part of of the the encyclopaedic encyclopaedic knowledge access.What WhatII have havein inmind mind by by encyclopaedic encyclopaedicknowledge knowledgehas hasbeen beenreferred referredtoto access. 1w aarange rangeof olterms terms in in the the linguistics linguistics and and cognitive cognitive science scienceliterature. literature. These These by include following: background common-sense knowledge, knowledge, include the the following: background knowledge, knowledge, common-sense sociocultural knowledge, knowledge. and andreal-world real-world knowledge. knowledge. By By encyclopaedic encyclopaedicknowknowsociocultural ledge have in mind the the highly highly detailed, extensive, extensive,and andstructured structured knowledge knowledge ledge II have in mind we as as humans humans appear to have have access accesstotoininorder order to to categorize categorize the the situations, situations, we appear to events, and entities entities we we encounter encounter in in our our everyday eveTydaylives livesand andininthe theworld, world,and and events, and the knowledge knowledge we we draw draw upon upon in in order order to to perform perform aa range rangeof ofother otherhigher higher the cognitive operations including conceptualization, reason, choice, choice, cognitive operations including conceptualization, inference, inkrence, reason, and the to rely rely upon. upon.This Thiskind kind of of and the knowledge knowledge which whichlanguage language appears appears to kiiiwkdgc is primarily non-linguistic, or in nature, nature, and appears appears knowledge is primarily non-linguistic, or conceptual in to constitute constitute aavast vaststructured structuredbody bodyofofrelational relationalinformation information which which psychopsychoto logists sometimes refer toas asframes frames(e.g., (e.g..Barsalou Barsalou1992, 1992.1999: 1999;Barsalou Barsalou et aL logists sometimes refer to al. Although I knowledge as 1993). Although I will willrevise revise the the notion notion of' of encyclopaedic encyclopaedic knowledge asthe the book proteeds, the notion of of encyclopaedic encyclopaedicknowledge knowledgewill willhe hecentral centralto tothe the hook proceeds, the notion theory of of word word meaning and compositional compositional semantics semanticsdeveloped developedininthis thishook. hook. theory meaning and While speakers upon encyclopaedic cncyclopaedi. knowledge knowledgeininusing using While speakers and and hearers hearers call upon language, this this knowledge knowledge thereby asaakind kindof ofcontext contextagainst againstwhich which language, thereby serves serves as and achieve achieve meaning. meaning. For For instance, instance, the the meaning meaning of iii France words receive and France in each of the examples in (i) above, draws upm aadifferent ditkrent body body of utknowledge. ledge. each of the examples in (i) above, draws upon In the example in (ia) we draw upon our knowledge of the geographical In the example in (la) we draw upon our knowledge of the geographical

______________

-

WORD MEANING WORDS WORDS AND AND MEANING

INTRODUCTION INTROI)t(TION INTRODUCTION

18

—

our knowledge landmass associated associated with France, whll while in in (ib) ( lb)we we draw draw upon our knowledge IJndma;s iated wath Iran
os context Interactional lnteroctional goals goals context Interactional gools as as context the meaning of Another form of context which serves,in part, to to determine determine the of whi, ininpart, part, til detemlln the meaning meaning of ofaaa Another foml form of interlocutors.According According given constitutes the the interactional goals goal of of theinterlocutors. Ac ordingtoto given word word constitutes theinteractional goals ofthe whichh communication form of joint action, action, in Clark (1996), Iingui linguistic communication form Clark (1996). tic communi at ion iis aaa form of joint action. in in which whi linguistic (lark (1996), interactionalgoals."' goals.'° interlocutors negotiate, interlocutor negotiate. negotiate. establish, tablish. and and attempt toachieve achi",einteractional onteracttonal goals. interlocutors attempt to achieve linguist arise due theextra-linguistic extraThese goals. which can be explicitly igoaDed. or orarise dueto tothe extra-Iinguistik These goals, goals,which whichcan canbe beexplicitly explicitly signalled, knowledgesuch suchas asaaacultural culturalscript, script, context or or S()flW some some aspect a peet of of encydopaedi knowledge knowledge such as cultural ript. aspect ofencyclopaedic encyclopaedic items can he, be, part, serve oflexical lexical items item. can be. in inpart, part. ",rve lOntext again.t which which the the meaning meaning of serve as asthe thecontext context against against determined. determined. restaurant: For instance, consider e. con ider the the following rvi encounter encounter inaaafast-food ~last-food t· foodrestaurant: restaurant: For instan instance, consider thefollowing following service service encounterin in

I.

(17) at at serving counter I [Waits at serving serving ounterj (17) Customer: (Walt counter( Customer: Waits cus[Appears Server. Server. (Appea .....after fter aa short hort delay .fter fetching fetching another anothercus(Appears after short delay after after fetching Server: tomer's tomer'sorderI orderlHi! lii! llrderilli! tomer'. meal please. Customer: A double whopper Cu to mer: A double whopper whoppermeal meal please. plea Customer: in in the tbc nest Mc. J..• In Iht
"

as this one, (, IJr).. "h-,.crvC\ Ihat in service e encounters such as one. interlocutors,

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

t lark (lark

Discourse topiC Discourse top'C topic as os context context will to the notion ofofdiscourse discourse I he final finJI lund of context II will will mention mentton relates relates to to the the notion notionof dis
provides jonal norm norm which A cultural culturalscript script such as thi thiscon constitutes an interact interactional ript such uch as as tit utes an whi h provides provides A cultural this constitutes For instance, 9 particular meaning.' For instance, the context against which words derive a particular meaning. .gain t which words word derive derive aa meaning.< I'or in tance, against is, in part, knowledge in informed restaurant the meaning the meaning of the the word word restaurant r.. /auralll i , part, informed by byknowledge knowledge word relating to the script captured in relating in (16). (16).

'

19 19

,

onversation on on aaarecent recent central bank base-rate increase, In the context of fn ofaaa conversation conversation recentcentral centralhank bankbase-rate base rateincrease, oncrease. In context of of I,ik~ might might relate relate to to the the financial financial pain paininvolved involvedin inan anincrease increa this mention thi, hike mention of of hike might relate to the financial pain involved in an increase in nlortgage however, in 11\ mortg.lge repayments. repayment. Ilowever. the context context of ofaa discussion di u ion of ofaaa recent recent in mortgage repayments. However, in the context of discussion of recent cross-ountry walk, more physical in nature. nature. "",,-country walk. the the pain pain might mightbe be more morephysical physicalin nature. cross-country walk, pain might he point, then, of this this discussion hasbeen been the following.Context ('ontc\tisis of this discussion di u ion has ha been the following. Context isaaa The point. then, then. of The point, the following. itii plex and and multifaceted multifaceted phenomenon. Moreover, L
A possible possible solution? solution? Sense Sense Enumerative SenseEnumerative EnumerativeLexicons Lexicons A lithe component ialview viewofofword wordmeaning meaning offered 1w literalism fails, If the fixed, fixed. componential componential view meaningoffered offeredby byliteralism literah mfails, fails. If fixed, what then? then? possible solution to what then.? A A possible po",ible solution ,,,Iution ttlthe theapparent apparent variation inword w"rdmeaning meaning to the apparent variationin in word meaning what exhibited in use might be he to posit posit vast number of distinct exhl~lted 111 language language use use might might be to po it aaavast vast number numberof ofdistinct distinctsenses. sen . exhibited in language senses. Ior instance, that the range of meanings associated lor 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 instance, rather than assuming with, with, ontextand/or and/or say,open openin theexamples txainpks above due to to With. say, \dy. ope" ininthe the cX.JmplC'\ doove are Jrc somehow \omchuw due tocontext context above are somehow has knowledge, we might assume that exactly the the same enl1,dopaedic knowledge, knowledge. we w might might assume a, ume that that open ope" has ha exactly the same !>am encyclopaedic open

2.0 20 20

IN rRODUt.TION INTRODUCTION

--

number ofdistiIKt meanings.

numberofofdistinct di tin"meanings, meanong technically , tethnically knownas d\ sen ,aas the number technicallyknown known .is senses, the number of number senses, as the number ofof different scntcnces in which dIfferent sentences sentence; in which itItitappears, appear,and thateach chof ofthese the,",are are toredinin appears. andthat that each of these arestored stored different long-term long· term semantic manti memory. long-term semantic memory. Pustejovsky his Pu'tejov ky 0990 (1995)ininhis hi pioneering pioneeringwork workononlexical lexicalsemantics o;cmanti~'refers rtfer~ lexical semaniks referstoto Pustejovsky approacheswhich whichposit posit largenumber numberofof ofdistinct approach which po it aaalarge large number distinctsenses sen for gIVen lexIcal senses forgiven givenlexical lexical approaches for items Sense Enumerative Lexicons(or aasSense Scnsc En umerative Lexicons lexicon (orSELs Elsfor forshort). hort).However, However,asas a short). However, items as Enumerative Pustejovsky observes, even such Pu te)ov ky observes, ob rves, even such accounts account> cannot predict creativeuse u ofof accountscannot cannotpredict predictthe thecreative creative use of Pustejovsky such in novel contexts. That is., words in novel cont xts. That i ,even lexi ons which a ume a high degree of evenlexicons lexiconswhich assume assumeaahigh highdegree degret'ofof words in novel contexts. That is, even granularity fail on the store of descriptive adequacy granularity fail on the ore of de.criptiv ad to which word, areput, put, rangeofofuses usestotowhich words wordsare from knowledge of the conventional range even when when one one assumes highly granular lexicon: even a um aa highly lexicon: one po it aaalarge lars onethat thatposits posits large even when one assumes a highly granular lexicon: one nunther of distinct senses. ihis follows number of ofdistinct di,tinct senses. n .This Thi, follows follow,., the number of di. tinctword wordsenses '>Cnsc> asthe thenumber numberof ofdistinct distinct word number as senses required, e'en for a single word, would need rCmantic memory. usershave havein termsof ofsemantic seniantk memory. memory. capabilities that language Th illustrate the foregoing, consider the lexical To the foregoing, comlder th lexi al item fllSl, discussed di u;;cd by by Just, discussed To illustrate the fiiregoing, consider the lexical item fast, Pustejovsky. It iis commonly .isstimed Pu tejov kyo ItIt assumed that thi. word word has ha aa a number number of ofconconthis word (If conPustejovsky. is commonly assumed that this has ventional senses—mentally stored scmant, ventional n e mentallystored tored semantic mantI units—asstxiated unit a ;oc:iated with it. it. These Th ... units—ass( 'ti.ited with it. These ventional senses—mentally include the following: ondude followong: include the following: (19) (i9) a fast car (t9) a fast car (zo) aa fast (20) fast typist (20) a fast typist (21) (21) (21)

Ifast,: to to move movequickly( quicklyj (fast,: move quiddyJ (fast,: to

(fast,: some aactt quickly) quicklyJ tfast,: someact quicklvj (fast,: to to perform perform some

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

a fast (ast driver

a fast driver

This usage of }IISI last concerns not Thl is, iisnot not the actions of ititis Thisusage usageo( of fastconcern concerns not not the theactions actions o( of the the driver. driver.That Thatis. is,it not the the actions o( of the the driver driver which action, which arc perfonned quickly. 'or would thi utteran e are performed quickly. Nor this utterance actions of the driver which are performed quickly. Nor would this utterance refer to such actions, normally , cven thcy were performed performed qUldJy. Rather, even if they i'erformed quickly. normallyrefer refertoto,uch sucha
WORDS AND 21 __________________~WORD. tEAN~IN~G ~__~2~1 WORDS AND ANDMEANING MEANIN(; 21

fast,, ratherthan, than, , rather thedriver. driver.Thus, Thus, the I,i\<'. than,strictly, . trictly,the Thus,the thecombination combonationofof o( (a t"with with driver combination fasts, with produces a novel reading in which fast might he paraphrased as produces 3a novel novel reading reading in which fasl ,lr:u'r, produces driver, be paraphrased paraphrased as a "to "to t0ist might might be "to quickly". to move U) move quickls". I.JU"C quickly". Just. 10 Now 'owconsider con Iderthe (ollowingexample: exampl : thefollowing following example:

:1",,,,,,

;

lane ,;) thefast fast lane(of (ofthe themotorway) motorway) (z l l the (astlane (of Presumably lane presumably this usage Of last also alsorelates relates Pre.umably thi usage usageof o(fast fllS131 relatestoto tofast,. (a t,.Yet, Yet, the III.fast fasllalld 3 venue venue for fast,. Yet, the ttisr lane is is aa venuefor for rapid locomotion rather than an entity capable of rapid locomotion. In other rapid locomotion rather of rapid locomotion. rapId I(xomotion rath r than than an an entity entity capable capable o( locomotion. In In other other fast in (22) and (23) while seemingly related to the words, both the uses of words, both bOthththeuuseso(ofjiw lastinin(22) (in and \\lmh, and (23) while seemingly s«mingly related related to the to the fast in (21) have different semantic selectional tendencies, and meaning of meaning o( of fasl last in (ii) meaning (21)have havedifferent differentsemantic semanlicselect selectional tendencies, and and innal tendencies, meanings. We could posit that both (22) and (23) constitute somewhat novel somewhat novel ",,"ewhal novel meanings. meanings. We could could po il Ihal and (23) (23) con titul posit that bolh both(u) (ii) and '.onstitute continue distinct senses. However, we can finding novel uses of fast, distinct senses. However,we wecan cancontinue continuefinding finding novel uses d"llnct!>Cn . Ilowever, uses o( (or which of fasl, last,for for which Indeed, we couldproduce produce virtuallyinfinite infinitelisting. listing. \\c could could produce aaavirtually virtually Ii ting. Indeed, Indeed, the the same '
((.L4) 24) We for leave the day after tomorrow We need fastIgarage garage forour ourcar, (2·1) Weneed needa afast (a garage for our car,asas we leave Ihe day after lomorrow car, aswe we leave the day after tomorrow As (1995) notes, notes, this this use use fast appears to he be of Pusteiovsky \, Pustejovsky PU'lejov ky (1995) nOles, thi use of o(fast filSl appears appear to to be aa a "blend" "blend" of o( both both of both fast,, andf.ist0: fast; last2, and and la'l (a t,: a3 garage garage which carri out repairs quickly qUikly and takes tak little lillietime tim garagewhich whichcarries carriesout outrepairs quickly and and takes little time to do do So. so. to What this thisdiscussion discussion of of fast fast reveals, reveals, Ihen, then, is the examples What o( fasl reveal, Ihal Ihe examples exampl we we have have Ihi, di\(ussion then, i> is that that all all the we have considered, and to consider, upon close analysis predicate in and might wish to iiinsider, "''''idcred, Jnd might wish (onsider, upon Jose close analysis analy i predicate predi ate in in aaa slightly slightly different differentway. way.In Inother other words,each eachunique unique instance has 'Iighlly different way. oth r words, words, each unique instance in tance has ha aa 3 distinct di tincl distinct utterance context, utterance context, and is associated with a slightly different semantic value. ullerance (ontexl, and i as;oc:ialed with wilh a3 slightly hghtly different different semantic value. semantic value. Ihus, Thus, we can conclude from this that, we in principle, every instance of use of aaa from Ihi this that, that, III in prin prilkiple, 'r hu" we can contiude condud from iple, every every instance in tanee of o(use usc of o( word wordsuch such fast has has aa a different meaning. different meaning. To "ord uch as aas fllSl ha differenl meaning. To To take lake n Enumerative" Enumerative" takeaa" a"Sense "Sense Inumerative" approach10 to word wordmeaning meaning would would be he to to sanction sanction infinite proliferation approach to approach word meaning be 10 sanction an an infinile proh(eration of an infInite proliferation of word word senses senses stored in memory by language position stored in memory memory by "nrd \Cn lored in by language languas users. users. Such u(h aaa po ition is i psychoI' yeho. users. Such position is psychologically logically untenable. untenable.

Words Wordsas ascontextual contextualexpressions expressions as contextual Words expressions The The observation observationwith withwhkh whichthis thisbook lx)ok proceed" proceeds,then, then,is is that that words words .re are never never '1 he "h...,rvallon wilh whICh Ihi book Ihen, is Ihal word; Iroiecds, are never tlleaningful meaningfulindependent independentof ofthe theutterance utterance in inwhich which they they are areembedded, embedded,and and meaningful ondependent of the ulterance which embedded, and they are the theencyclopaedic encyclopaedicknowledge knowledgeand and exIra extra-linguistic context which which guide guide how the enC)'dopaedi knmvledg linguisti conlext how and extra-linguistic context which guide how words embedded in an utterance should be interpreted. Indeed, evidence embedded in word, embcdd d in an utterance ullerance should ,hould be be interpreted. IIlterprell-d. Indeed, Indeed, evidence eYldencc from the from the perspectives of social psychology, cognitive psychology, interactional of sodal from Ihe pcr peelive o( ;oc:ial p;y
11

21

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

I NTRODUCTION ,NTRonu(:TI0N INTROD CTION

sketched in terms of of th the straightforward approach to to (Ompo compositionality in traightforward approach itionality sketched ketched above the straightforward n term terms is untenable. untenable. iis . _~ . h associated with As observed by a large number of scholars, associated number of scholars, the meanings A ob.erved by a large scholar , th~ meanings. I.teu with WIt \s observed highly sensitive to utterance utterance context. words arc aretkxihle, flexible,open-ended1 open-ended, and highly words are flexible, open -ended, and .emltove to utterance context. context. Allwood Such scholars include, but are by no means limited to Allwood (2003), hut are limited to u h scholars scholar include1 include, but are by no no means mean limited (2003), Such moo), (nulson (iooo), ( roft Carston (2002), Clark Clark (1983, 1996), 1996), Coulson (2000), Croft Car ton (2002), lark (1983, oulo;on (2000), Croft (1993, (19?3, moo), 2000), (2002), (1997), Croftand and Cruse Cruse (2004), Evans (2oo4a), (2x)2h Fvtns Croft and Cru (2004), (2004), Cruse Cru (20432), (2002), I-van (zoo4a), (200411), Fauconnier I·auOme usage-ba;cd approa -h . to to Thomp"on 2~2; Croft roft and and some usage-based usage basedapproaches approaches to language language (e.g., (e.g.,Thompson otending up in the see Harder ending Cruse ruse 2004; 2004; 2009 for d ription of of the the risk of endong up up in on the the (;ruse ioo4 see Harder 2009 for a description risk of fundamentalism"),isis hardto10 tomaintain. maintain.After extreme eextreme treme position po,itoonhe hecalls (all "usage "usagefundamentalism"), fundamentali,m"), i hard hard maontaln. After position he calls "usage distilht readings all, all,. pointed out outby bySweetser Sweetser(1999), (1999),the thevery verydistinct d"tonetreadings reading,typically typo<.lIy all, as as pointed out by Sweetser (1999), very derived derived from from utterances utterances ofthe thefollowing followingkind: kind: of th following utteranc of (25) .i. John ran up the stairs (25) a. lohn ran ran up up the Ihe stairs \lai", (2s) a. b. b. John the stairs b. lohn ran ran down the th stairs lair

—-=

-

2', 23 23

fact forms are associated withrelatively rclativdv welllexical form aassociated MlClated with WIth relatIVely well the the fact fact that that lexical lexical. forms arc do with with the t do . . . well' sense ofconventionalized—semantic conventionahzed—scmanticrepresentations. representations. For . 1hlishcd—in hli,hed-in lhe of conventoonalozed-semanto representatIon.For For blished—in the the sense sense of esta tact that (25a) (isa) quite different from (25b) ~,;~·:anee. the mean. mething quite different from (25b) isis i_a the fact fact that that (25a)means means something something aa instan ce, the of switching in '1'lenee of sWltchong the particle particleup upfor for dowlI. As we hall begin begin to sec on down.As consequence switching the the particle fordown. Aswe weshall shall beginto tosee see in \.(Hl~'" . chapter1 my claim is that words do not have stable semantic Ihe next ,hapter, my claim i not lhat word do not have table mantIC the next next chapter, my claim is that words do not have stable semantic the associated with them. I argue thatthcy that they do, do,and andrefer rckr to rcpre',ent.t tions associated with lhem. largu and refer to thesc these these reprcsentuhhi0fl5 re presentations associated with them. I argue that they lexical conceplS. concepts. Rather, Rather, my my claim claim is is that lexical concepts provide lexkal Rather, claIm IS that that thcsc these lexical leXIcal concepts concept provide prOVIde concepts. my these a s lexical encyclopaedic knowledge—asemantic semantic potential—which is is con~:,e" encyclopaedic knowledge—a knowledge-a manti potential—which potential-which i conc~n­ to encyclopaedic access to the semantic structure (lexical ,tr.lIl1ed deterntined context. Thu • the the semantic mantI structure tructure (lexical (leXICal 5trained and strained and and determined determined by by context. context. Thus, Thus, with does not in fact equate ,,,neept) i.is conventionally conventionally ~sociated with wi.th nO.t in infact ~act equate equate that aa word word is conventionally associated associated does not co ncept) that meaning, from this always \\ IIh the the word's word's meaning. meamng. Word lhl perspective, perspectIve, is always aaa with with the word's meaning. Word meanmg, meaning, from this perspective, isI always aa situated situated interpretation: thecontext context in in which which lundilln situated interpretation: interpretation: the the context which any any word is i function of a in any word word is embedded and to to which which itit contributes. eonlxooJde'tl wh"h contribut.". contributes. embedded and and to Iihave ivC to hJ\~ (

A further problem: compositionality compositionality compositlonality lii the the' of word In the foregoingwe wehave have considered con idered the the nature nature of ofword word meaning. meaning.II Isuggested uggested theforegoing foregoing we have considered meaning. suggested that accountedfor, for, the theinherent inherentvariation variation of of word meaning for, the inherent variation of word meaning that that the the problem problem to to be be accounted accounted in use, is,in part, aa function m language uuse, ,i~, inin part, part, function of ofwords word providing proyidongaccess a c to to encvcloencyclo· in language language is, of words providing access to encycloininturn turn i narrowed by context, context, effectively effectively delimiting paedic k.nowledge. paedic knowledge.Thi Thisin turn is is narrowed by effectivelydelimiting delimiting paedic knowledge. This which part encyclopaedic knowledge—the semanticpotential—availpotential—avail"hilh of the encyclopaedic encydopaedi knowledge—the knowledge-thesemantic semantic potential-avail which part of of the' the able to to any any given givenword word activatedin in any given utterance. able any given w rd isis i activated actlyated IIIany anygiven givenutterance. utteranc . able to Yet, u h an count is is not enough are tofully fullyget getto togrips grip Vet, providing providing such an account is not not enough enoughifif if we weare areto fully get to grips Yet, providing such an aaccount contribution of To do do so, so, we must, must, with the ofwords word to to meaning meaning construction. construction. To so, we mu t, with the controbution contribution of words meaning in addition, addition, be be able able to to account account for forhow howutterance utterance(i.e., (i.e.,sentence) nten e)meaning meaning meaning in addition, be able to account for how utterance (i.e., sentence) ti units, unilS,each ea h arises. e meaning meaning involv several, often many, lingui arises. Utteran Utterance meaning involves involvesseveral, several,often oftenmany, many,linguistic linguistic units, each arises. Utterance of which which individually individually great variability 2006; SCC also IIr mdividuallyexhibits exhibitsgreat greatvariability variability(Goldberg (Goldberg2006; 2006;see sec also Kay of exhibits (Goldberg also Kay and Michaelis forth oming). That i ,on mu t also also be able to aaccount count for for the lh and Michaelis Michaelis forthcoming). forthcoming). That is, one must must also beable ableto toaccount the and is, one require of integration of of lexical and and constructional con tructional meanings: meaning: we we require require an a count of of integration of lexical lexical and constructional meanings: we an account account semantic compo tonipositionalitv, with \emantoc itlonality, one one that is is coherent coherent with withthe theobservable observable facts factIs of of semantic compositionality, one that that is coherent the observable language, and, and, of of course, language, course, one one which which cognitiyely plausible. OflC whichisiiscognitively cognitively plausible. plausible. language, and, of One of of the the most most realizationsfor any cognitive scientist attempting of mo tsobering soberingrealizations for any cognitive scientist ienti tattempting attempling One to grapple grapple role of language meaning constructionisis that despite oflanguage language in in meaning meaningconstruction i that thatdespite despite tn grapple with with the the role role of to the the apparent the apparent ease which w constru t and and mterpret utleranc in m our easewith withwhich whichwe we construct construct and interpret interpret utterances utterances inour everyday liy lives, the everyday of semanti composition compo ition is deceptivelycomplex complex composition isi aaadeceptively deceptively complex everyday lives,,the the nature nature of of semantic semantic procc . Moreover, Moreover, the the details detail of thi process proc are ar far from being fully details of of this this process arefar farfrom frombeing beingfully fullyunderunderprocess. stood. for instance, the' \tODd. I-or in tan e, th way in which th m aning f even a " impl "senten which the the meaning meaningof ofeven evena "simple" "simple" sentence sentencee stood. For instance, the way in which Is constructed constructed incredibly complex. icon tructed isiisincredibly in redibly complex. complex. is Til illustrate, Illu trate, consider con ider the th example example of: of: The 71.. cat cal jumped Jlmlpell over ov~r lilt wall, illustrate, consider the example cat IUflt/)Cd Owl' the the wall, To Tire discussed by Trier and di"u ;cd by by Tyler Tyler and Evans Evans (2003). This Thi utterancedescribes dribesaaajump jump underIvans (2003). This utterance utterance describes jumpunderdiscussed (2003). taken by taken by by aa a cat. Figure 1.2 1.1presents presentssome somediagrams diagram which whichpresent presentpossible po ibl cat.Figure Figure i.i diagrams which present possible taken presents some traJectori." of the jump. of the' trajectories of the jump. While there' are atleast least possible tra)cttories associated associated withthis this uttertra)Cllori a~lated with WIth thi utterutterWhIle there are are at at lcast four four possible po Ibletrajectories While there ance,the thecanonical canonicalinterpretation interpretationisis that the cat cat begins beginsthe thejump jump on oneside sideof of ance, the canonical interpretation that the cal bc:gins Ihe jump on one side of ance,

,,,,ll,

24 24

INTRODllCTIO . INTRODUCTION INIRODt'CTION

nature of semantic composition. My first objective, and the subject of Part II -

D (I) (a)

(b) (b) (b)

(e) (c) (C)

•

D (d) (d) (d)

FIGl'U: 1.2. L2. Possible Po Ibl~ trapectorics tr~f«lon for: (()r~ The Th~ cat cat jumped /wllpt,1over O~'tT the tll~ wall tmll the wall The over tat trajectories Possible for: FIGURE 1.2. FI6URE

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

25 25

IS

(it " Iseniafltic \Cmantlc composition. eompll 11.(,".My Myfirst fir t objed"e. and the ubj t of Part II an hook, is to provide an account lexical th" book. i to provid an a countofof of lexicalrepresentation. rcprt<entation.As Aalready already o,,1 this do inin the perhaps controversial J1iim that I advance larly I advance the perhaps controversial claim that words do not ",,,,'.1 JI" "c. I advance the perhap controve"ial claim that word donot notin although position isi not without precedent, partkuthisthis is not without precedent, viceng, although -:IId cI have .da hiha, th savitxe:nmeaning. lad meaning. although thiposition po\ltion not without precedent.particupaniw . psychology literature (e.g., Ct 1993 Murphy 1991). lady in the psychology literature Barsalou et al. Onn I,,.,, inin the psychology hterature (e.g.• Barsalou et al. 1993; '993; Murphy Murphy 1991). '99' )' On hrlv meaning is a function of an utterance, rather than a given lexical my a function 111) account, .luHunt . meaningisis.1 functionofofan dnutterance, UUerdll(C,rather rdthcr than .1 givenlexical I xk.11 on with a word, or other symbolic (Ic., linguistic ) unit. epresentation tation associated .l\.\Oglllll, hngu. tIC s.. However, '!owewr ••the he )'tlthe. ,,\elf, ,,,-,<.ally In so in far as it cognitivelingui linguistks approaches togrammatical grammatical fara.\asItit\enservestotomttgratc integratecogniti\c cognitive linguistics In far ti( approaches approa h to to grammat1(al 1ture nIIJture

/ .• DHD H

MFANIN( _________________________WORDS WORDS AND MEANING ~ W~·0~.~D ~ANI) A ~N ~ D~ M ~2 ~ A ~.~ G~

1 :

26

26 26

INTRODUCTION INTRODU('-ION

4Tk(flUON

organization,lexical lexicalsemantk-s, semantics,• scmanll semanticcompo composition, language.. figurative language. composition1 organization. it ion. and and figurative figurative languag lexical scmantl organization. In sodoing. doing, it attempts tounify unifyth theconipkmentary complementaryand andsometimes sometimes competing competing competing ttempts to complementary and somttimes In the to In so so doing, itit attempts theoriesand and approachesthJt thatabound abound in in cognitive cognitive linguistics. linguistii.s. Moreover, cogniti' linguistic. Moreover. while while theories and approa he:. that the role of language in semantic composition is crucial to cognitive grammarcrucial to cognitive grammarthe role of oflanguage language in semantic mantic composition is crucial to cognitive grammar· the role hastended tended to be ignored 20436),itithas Goldberg 1995,2006). toto bebe ignored ians ( e.g., langacker 1987, 2008;Goldberg ians (e.g.• Langacker 1987. 2008; it has tended ignored Lingacker 1987, zooS; Goldberg '995. 2(06). ians (e.g.1 in (oratatleast leastdownplayed) downplayed) incontemporary contemporaryaccounts of meaning meaning constrtlct construction lit ion in (or played) in contemporary aaccounts (ount of meaning coostmction in (or at least down cognitivelinguisti linguistics (e.g (e.g., andTurner Turner 2ooz). LCCM also L.CCsI Theory Fheory lauconnier and cognith-e .• Fauconnier Fauconnier and Turner zo()2). 20(2). LCM Theory also al cognitive linguistics (e.g.1 serves to restore, or at least redress, the centrality of language to semantic of Language to semantic scrv to rrestore, tore. or at Ileast t redress. redress, the the centrality of language to semantic or at serves to compositionality, whilst also recognizing the importance importanceof ofnon—linguistic non-linguistic the importance procompo~ltionality. whilst also also recognizing the of non-lingUl tic propro cessesinin meaning meaning construction, pointed Turner, and pointed to to Lw Fauconnier andTurner, Fau onnier and Turner. and ccesses to by byFauconnier construction, pointed in meaning construction. George Lakoff (see, for example, Lakoff of indeed others, not least in the work Lakoft (see, for example. indeed not least least in the work work of ofGeorge ,eorge Lakoff (see. for example. Lakoff indeed others. others not Lakoff and Johnson 1980, 1999). 1993, 1996,1006; 2006; Lakoff and and Johnson 1993. Johnson 1980, 1980. 1999). 1999)· 1993, 1996. 1996, 2006; LakolT As we we shall see, LCCM Theorytakes takesIts itsname name from the A hall see. LCCM Theory tak its nam from from th two two central central LCCM Theory As we shall see, constructs upon which it is built, the lexical concept and the cognitive and the built. the the lexical lexi al concept con cpt and the cognitive cognitive con tructs upon upon which which it iis built, constructs model. The purpose of the next three chapters then, is to begin to sketch to begin an of the next three three chapters chapter then, then. iis to begin to to sketch ketch an an model. purpo of model. The Ihe purpose account of LCCM Theory. The The rest of the the book book will out the detaiLs. the aaccount count of Le NI M Theory. rrest t of will work work out th details. detail. of LC( Summary Summary what This 'hapter chapter has has argued argued that the received view of in linguistics, view of meaning meaning in Thi has received vi w of in Iingui ti •what what This chapter argued that that the received II refer to as literalism, is flawed in a number of respects. The distinction l'he distinction it flawed in aa number ofrespects. r pect. The distin tionitit refer to to as a Literalism, Iiterali m. is i flawed number of I refer meaning and sentence meaning principled posits speaker meaning makes makes po its between between sentence sentence and speaker speaker meaning makes aaaprincipled principled posits distinction between context-independent and context meaning (semantics) (semantics) distlOction between context context -independent independent meaning (semanti ) and and contextcontextdistinction between dependent meaning (pragmatics). The consequence word meaning meaning consequence ofthis thisfor for word dependent e of of thi for word meaning dependent meaning (pragmatics). The consequen is that word meanings are assumed to be stable and relatively delimited to be stable iis that that word word meanings meanings are are aassumed umed to table and relatively relatively delimited delimited "atoms of meaning: which are context-independent. I have argued, the context-independent. on the "atom meaning." which which are arc context independent. II have have argued, argued. on the "atoms of of meaning:' meaning word contrary, isaaa language use. use. This isis isinherently inherently variable in in language ccontrary ntrary. that that word word meaning meaning isis inher ntly variable language use. This Thi~ that function of both encyclopaedic have sugknowledge and context context of of use. ofboth bothencyclopaedic encyclopaedic knowledge knowledge and and ofuse. u .I IIhave havesugugfunction of gested that word meaning provides access to a sophisticated and structured sllphistkatcd and structured ac es to a sophi ticated and structured gested meaning provides providesaccess gested that that word meaning word's body of non-linguistic encyclopaedic knowledge. thisconstitutes constitutes of non-$inguistk non -Iingui ti encyclopaedic ncydopaedicknowledge. knowledge.This Thi con titutesaaaword's word' body of semantic whichisis this semantic potential semantic pot ntial. The preci part ofthis thi semantic semanticpotential potentialwhich which i semantic potential. potential. The precise precise part of relevant in any given utterance is a function of context, which serves to function given utterance utterance is i, aa fun lion of of context, ontext. which whi h serves serve. to relevant relevant in in any given narrow or constrain the semantic potential. Thus, word meaning is always, onstrain the semantic potential. Thus, Thu • word meaning meaning is ialways, alway. narrow or constrain in that the also argued in part, part. aa function functionof ofand anddetermined determinedby bycontext. context.I Ihave Ihave havealso alsoargued arguedthat thatthe the part, of and determined notion of context is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon which includes which and multifa multifaceted ofcontext context isi aa complex and eted phenomenon phenom non whi h includes includes notion notion of linguistic as well as non-linguistic aspects of the communicative event. InIn the communicative cvent. lingui ti a well a non lingui ti a peets of the communicative event. linguistic .is well as non-linguistic aspects addition have Sense word Enumerativelexicon Lexicon approach addition haveargued argued that thataaaSense n Enumerative Enumerative Lexiconapproach approachtoto toword word addition II Ihave argued that meaning is unable to capture the rampant variation in meaning exhibited by variation in meaning exhibited by meaning IS unahle to capture the rampant variation in meaning exhibited by is unable words in language use. I have also pointed to the problem for any theory of theory pointed to the words in in language language use. usc. II have have also also POlOted the problem problem for for any any theory of of compositionality that arises by acknowledging such variation in word meanword meanacknowledging such variation in in word meancompo itionality that that arises arises by acknowledging uch variation compositionality ing. This follows as the meaning of any utterance is a function, in part, thethe is a function, in part, of ing. follow,", of any utteranc utteran« i J function. in part.ofof the ing. This [his foLlows as the meaning of word meanings which comprise it, and yet, each of these word meanings ol these word meanings and yet, word mcaning\ whi h ,ompri~ yet. a~h of thC'\e word meaning\ word meanings which comprise it, it, dnd varies on each occasion of use. varies on each ~ach occasion of ofuse. u . varies

22

-

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

points Starting points Starting perspective, my starting In this thl section tionI IIbriefly briefly review.from fromaaavery verygeneral generalperspective, per peetive.my my tarting brief lvreview, review, from very general this In starting presented this book. These pmnts for the thestudy tudyof ofmeaning meaningconstruction con tructionpresented presentedininthis thi book. book.These These pointsfor the study of meaning points can be summarized as follows: besummarized ummari7edas asfollows: an be can

ctnnmuni M mngconstruction constructIon occurs thinterface interfacebetween betweenlanguage, language.communicommuni Meaning construction occurs the interface between language, ••Meaning occurs atatatthe studied by virtu virtue of an an cation. and cognition and can only fruitfullystudied tudiedby by cation,and andcognition cognitionand andcan canonly onlybebe befruitfully cation, virtue ofofan I'he sorts of research areas implicated include interdi -iplinary effort. Thesorts sort ofofresearch r=archareas area'implicated implicatedinclude in ludeatat at interdisciplinary effort. The interdisciplinary (including cognitive stylistics and least the following:cognitive lingui ti (including (indudingcognitive cognitivestylistics stylisticand leastthe thefollowing: cognitivelinguistics least discourse anal sis and (intercognItive poeti ).cognitive cognitiveanthropology, anthropology.discourse discolmCanalysis anal)'>isand and cognitivepoetics), poetics), cognitive anthropoLogy, cognitive (interpsychology, social actional) 5otics,gesture gesturestudies, IlId; developmental developmentalpsychology, psychol"!,.".social social aclional)sociolinguistics, sociolinguistits. gesture studies, developmental actional)

psychology,and and (cI gn it ive)neuroneuro psychology. cognitiv I',y.hology. and(cognitive) «ognitive) ncumpsychi logy,neuropsychology, neuropsychology.cognitive cognitivepsychology, psychology, interdisciplinary endeavour beyond ience.Clearly, learly. such u han an amb,tiou interdisciplinary endeavourisisi beyond beyond science. Clearly, such anambitious ambitiousinterdisciplinary science. endeavour

~ ~

28 2$

___ INTROnUCTION ____________________________________ INTRODUCTION INTRODUCT~I~O~S~

attempt to to integrate recent the "opr scope of Nevertheless, work. Nevertheless, the of the present pr"",nt work. ' 'erthel ", II attempt tointegrate integraterecent recent scope of the the findings and theoretical frameworks from cognitive linguistics, and recent theoretical frameworks from linguistics, and recent findings frameworks cognitive lingui ti and recent presentsaacoherent coherent a way that that findings from cognitive psychology, in a finding: cosmtiv ppsychology, ycholoSY, in way thai presents prC'iCnl\ mherenl from cognitive finding-s from viewof of detailed starting position from from which which to to begin begin to develop tartmg position po;lIion to b..llin 10 develop aa more more detailed detllied view view of whkh starting plausibk, psychologically construction. create aaa psychologically meaning lruction. My My purpose purpose isiisto tocreate crcate p hologicaUyplausible, plausible. meaning con construction. ked programmatic framework frameworkwhich which can can feed feed into present programmatic into present pr"",nt and future fulure work work in in the olher other areas concernmentioned mentioned above.InIn Inparticular, particular given recent of concern 01 ntionedabove. above. particular.given gi,cnrecent recent the area of ot concern other areas advances in in cognitive linguistics, discussed in advances in cognitive cognItive Iingui linguistics, discussedin inmore moredetail detail below, below, and and in in advan ti dio;cu.ro more detail below. and of the 3, part ofthe themotivation motivation behind behindthe thedevelopment tkvdopmcntof of!LCCM CCM Theory Chapler behind the dC\dopment of tCCM Chapter J, word meaning cognitive linguistic up" cognil" cognitive lingul linguistic i, tic theory of of word "ord meaning and is to present a "joined ·up" aim to to build build upon recent advances, construction. In meaning construction. In so doing, doing. III aim aim buildupon uponrecent recentadvances, advan meaning theoretical perspectives concerned with synthesiting aaa number synthesizing number of of theoretical perspectives concerned with meaning meaning synlhesiLJng per;pectives concerned as con conceptualization,' and meaning meaning as aspart part of of the the studyof ofgrammar. grammar. This This eptualization.' and a; part of Ihe study ,tudy of Thi as conceptualization,' provide a set should ideas how language contributes to hould provide aa set set of ofconcrete concrete ideas ideas on on how howlanguage language contributes contribut to bothinin construction, and empirical meaning mn\lrultion. and should facilitate hould facilitate faciiltale empirical empirical testing, te ting. both bolh meaning isk human terms of behavioural studies—those that ask ask human subjects term; of behavioural behavioural studies—those ludie.--tho that Ihat human subjects ,ubjects to make make terms iudgemcnts and and perform perform activities of those that deploy deploy of various various sorts—and sorts-and those thosethat judgements brain-imaging brainimaging techniques. hrain imaging lechnique . influenced by This uated acts acts Meaning construction usage. situated • Meaning M aning construction conslruction is i influenced influenced by usage. u;age. This This involves involves sit ituated a t; cues, of language use and other other non-verbal non-verbal cues, such as gestures,in inservice service of of uuse and cues. such uch as a gestures, gestures. in servi e of of expression expressionof ofsituated, situated,goal-directed goal-directed wmrnunicativeintentions, intentions,in in aaJ the expre'~ion ,ituatl'(). goal directed communicative communicative mtentions. particularphysical physical setting and and aa cuhural cultural milieu, making use ultural milieu, of various milieu. making making use use of ofvarious vanou particular phy ical setting address some someof ofthese these in in this this cognitivemechanisms mechanisms andprocesses. processes. some in cognitive mechani m and and proc~. III address address of these this book. meaningconstrucstudy of of the the role contribution of language to contribution of language to meaning Thestudy ;Judy of role and contribullon oflanguage construc• The tion is is challenge tion outstanding unifying is now now aa tractable tractahle problem, problem. and the Ihe outstanding out tanding unifying unifying challenge chaUenge yet 10 to be grappled by many of the social and cognitive sciences. grappled Accordyet grJppled by hy many mJny of ofthe thesocial \<)(ial and andcognitive cognilivescIenceS. "ienc .AccordAccord ingly, the attempt to integrate and advance recent research findings findingsthat ingly. 10 integrate Jnd advance advance recent recent research research finding. that model aim at aa psychologically p ychologicaUy plausible piau ible model role of oflanguage language in in aim at model of of the the role role of language in proces'es construction bothtimely timely and and overdue. bolh limely andoverdue. overdue. meaning construction con truclion processes proc . isiisboth -

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

•• Embodied Embodied Embodied cognition cognilion Lexical representation • lexical Lexicalrepresentation repr"",ntation ••• Encyclopaedic I·I ncydoPJedic semantics semanl", I'he symbolic symbolicnature nature of grammar •• The .ymbolic nalure ofgrammar •• Fhe language List' situated The interactional interactional nature interadional nature nature of of situated ituatoo language l.lngu,1ge uusec

with meaning construction intenhingraNY with ' I Iuse the theterns term conceptualiration interchangeably

TOWAROS A NEW A((OUNT 0)- WURI) ------...:..::...

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

29 29 29

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

j,,,hodied Emboclled cognition Em bodied cognition at the heart of much research within I he Ihe,i, of of embothed cognitio n is I at at the the heart heart of ofmuch muchresearch reseafch within wlthm cognition is embodied cognition The Fhc thesis ioo6; 2oo7 "n,lIve linguistics linguistics ((Evan l004a; Evans Evan and Green rccn 1006; John n1987, 1987. 2007; 100]; (Ivans Evans 2004a; zoos; Johnson Johnson 1987, c ognitive zoos), and has been influential in ~:,LtJ Jnd han developmenl Lakoff1987; 1987;Tyler Tylerand andEvans Evans1003), 2003),and andha hasbeen been influential influential in developments developments 1987; Tyler psychology particular 'ognitive psychology p ychology (in (inparticular parti ularBarsalou Barsalou1999; 1999;Barsalou Barsalou Ct 01 al. 1993; 1993; in cognitive Barsalou 1999; Barsalou etaL af. 3993; in ,n(,knbcrg l ded .. (B )997).3 This thesis—also thesis—also referred referred to as grounded cognition 1997).' thesis-also referred a grounded gro un cogmllo n(l%arsaarsa · as cognition (Barsa3 This (;lenberg 3997). (;knbcrg firstIdeveloped developed cognitivelinguistics linguistics by Lakoff and Johnson III" andfirst fir developedinincognitive Iing"i"i~by byLakoff \.akolTand andJohnson Johnson lou "1<,8)2(x0—and li)(' human mind mind and conceptual represenk-!\., ly80) holds that huma~ min~ in ingeneral, general. and ~nd conceptual concept~alrepresen~epresen that the human in general, 198°) ( e .g., 1980) particular1 is gro bodily, IJlinn particular. is unded in m bodily, bodily.neurological, neurological.and andsubjective ubJectlvestates. lat . tation in particular, grounded neurological, and states. of system— I h,'l rJnge concepts populale the Ihe human conceptual conceptual system— ystem That the range range of of concepts concepts that that populate 1 hat ". is, the that form form basis ofofhigher-level higher-level cognitive ofconcepts concepts that that form the thebasis ~ i of high r-Ie~elcognitive cognuive Ihe repository repo,II0ry of the concepts the repository on—is function categorization1 reason. reason, chOIce. choke, and nperalion as categorization. so on—is on-I aa function operations such such as categorization, reason, choice, and so operations and neuro-anatomical substruc nl Ihe species-specific 'peties' pecifk nature of our bodies. and and neuro-anatomical n uro-anatomIC:,,1 substrucsub trucspecies-specific nature of our t'sxlies, bodies, of of the the have evolved to to the the particular niche that we, as IUT< .• which whi h have the particular particular ecological ecological niche nich that we. as a tures, which have evolved evolved to ecological we, tures, humans, inhabit. inhabit. What means, practical terms, is is that cognitive cognitive human" thi thesis th ,i means, 01 an • in in practical practicallerms. i that cognitive What this this thesis terms, disembodied mind,which which functions lunction notaaaconsequence consequen e of ofaaadisembodied disembodied mind, mllld. which functions fun(lion. fun tion isi, of function isnot not consequence independently of states (perceptual,motoric, motoric,•cognitive, cognitive, subjectondependently body-based states states (perceptual, (perceptual. motori cognitive.subjectubjectindependently of of body-based body-based i,e, Jnd hrined in th mind/body mindlbody duali 01associated associated with with ive, soforth). forth), a view en enshrined in the mind/body dualism with and so so forth), enshrined associated French ""cnleenlh-century French hench philosopher philo\ro.enl~lIon of ofthe the organism, organa m, organism, willhappen happen only those circuits contain basic and if they monitoring of the the organism organism in action. action. In brief, neural .md if if they continue monitoring mOnlton"gthe sial of of organi m in 10 act jon. In In brief, brief, neural ncural and they the states states ..Ircuits represent the organism iontinuously, as it is perturbed by stimuli from the (m:ull represent rtprnent the the organism organl~m continuously, f,;ontmuously. as ~ it it is i perturbed Pf:nurbrd by stimuli I1muli from the circuits ph) II.~I and oInd MXl(XUItUT.l1 cnvtronll1cnt • and ::md ~ IIit acts .nl on tho ('nvlronmcnt~. phvskal ironments, and as asit actson onthose thoseenvironments. environments. physical and sociocuhural socioculturalCIPb environments, 116) ibid. 2.26) ((,b,d. (ibid. 226) In essence, essence,Damasio's l)amasio\ argumentis thatthe thebrain, brain, which which computes e,sente. DJma io' argument argument i,isthat Ihal the brain. whICh computes (ompul the Ih mind, mind, evolvedin in order order to to facilitate facilitate the survival In doing, this gave e'ol,ed order 10 fa ilitate the the survival urvival of of the the body. body. In In so so doing, doing,this thi gave gave evolved rise to to aa mind which which arises from symbiotic brain—body interaction,what what ri a mind whicharises ari from fromaaasymbiotic ymbioticbrain–body brain-bodyinteraction, what rise Mark Johnson refers to as: as: 'J1,r The body bodyin inthe the MJrk John""n refers refer. to as: 1>o
IinJU

thr ofcognitive cognitivelinguist them with sharpened to uusFor For 11 the the- emergence cmrrp'l'kC of ~I( LCJttlllh'~ 110",.,.11< Inthe the-..... h.u provided rnJVtJnJ them Iht-m with with. wrpmaJfocus. fl)~. Ftlr in the tics, emergence 1.. in 1484K has provided aa sharpened .i.. rnk'w vi 1,1 cognitive hi l(lrk ..l.nl~NmI (ll ,-vitn.lnC' Imttul II see tft' Nerlich Nnh,-h.nJ Luu 2007). (2001). wgrutiir linguistic. review ot of historical historical snit...Mous of and t(Luke I~ur a '• For the embodied embodied nature nature of cognition see survey to, experimental sUpporl &recent rC\.rnl hook bt",* length lmgth survey urvcy of experimental oJ'"lfn~nt..t urJ'l,rt for fur the lhe ~mhodtnl fUtUre" of 01 cognition UlpUllun)('f support see

(lr

(,ihhs tzoo6). knowledgereprercpreh'r related related penpctiis'es and/or that ('Ihbt, t11006). 1.....6).For For rC'a..ttdperspectives pn"Jla.I1\ which whk.h posit rowl that ltul cottnlll\"(" fUrK1.on and/or &nJJor knowkdge ~kdJ<' rqmo. which Gibbs ognative function function 'eflIaII,n isIis grounded sentation 1)amasso AHport 105), (iq$j),Itarsalou Rarsalou(1999), groundedin inmultirnodal muhimodalstalearnes.h.misins st,itJmechanisnis Itnt,,!!nn I'munJc.J In muhltfll;lolt.aJ UI mt'\.h.tm m see 1ft Allport AlIrort h9l''I"I\.an.1luu hyW).lb,rn.ut4' I %mum) I'I~I. log), t(.knhC'rt acobe i g 11997), hill (lOU)'. I loot). For important (,knberg (2ooi. 1,and andI('h.'m 11 ompiunhrtln ((zuOI .1UI.I7',.oJ ...... ,hlU I ur important Imp,n .. nt perspec J"Cf'J'Iir'.II\ sonn S‘ hill 2003). ((199;"', Martin WM.•2007 ). hn,iii For uses

Un the (knbetg Kaichak and un t~ embodied C'llllllwJk'd nature fUlu«, of tot Linguage Lmgu.agr see. fur example, C' .... mrl • Gknherg «lrnMrsand ;mJk.aich.sk h.tlt (iooz). hun1), ""lull.and .nJ the rmhudecd nature of we.• for to, and Kaschak zooz Kaschak on language ('knhcrg Vigjiocco Zwa.an (2004) (jlmhnJ (lOGOl. VlpK..Oci rtaL ",-(1009). (10''19.,.end .ndZwaan /wun lino4). 11IJ0.41• ilenhergt24XX)). (loots). Vighocco et al. (long).and hook. The body mind is is the the title uk of ol Johnson's J,hn'.s,ns boJl' iii 1'1 ,,.,. mind """,11\ Ill< tllk «,I Ivhn ....n \ seminal urullyAl tw,..~ hod,' The in the seminal i987 hook.

• n...

10

- ----

INTRODUCTION INTRODUI lION

atCount of The notion is limdamental fundamental to the account Cflth4)diedcognition cogflitwfl is tit embodied flOtiOfl of The we shall shall see ste in in Part Part II of the semantic representation representationininl,( LCCM Theory, as we ( NI Theory1 semantic in bodily are grounded grounded in hook. Both conceptual representations arc and conceptual E3othlinguistic linguistic and hook.

and cognitive cognitive states, states, whkh whichemerge emerge from fromthe the situated situated action of the human and

theoreticalconstructs constructsatatthe theheart heartofofLCCM LCCM organism. In short, the the two two theoretical Theory: the the lexical lexical concept concept and model,are, are,ininslightly slightlydifferent different and the the cognitive cognitive model, Theory: body—braincoupling couplingthat that ways, grounded in in the the statCs states experienced experiencedby bythe thebody—brain gives rise mind. gives rise to to the the embodied embodied human human mind.

Lexical representation representation Lexical ofcognitive cognitivelinguislinguisRecent work work in in cognitive cognitive lexical lexical semantics—that semantics—that branch branch of Recent

work in incorpus orpus ticswhich whichisis concerned concerned with meaning—as .is well as recent work tks with word meaning— representationisis linguistics, has has begun begun to to show showthat thatthe thenature natureofoflexical kxicalrepresentation extremely complex. that we werethink rethink the the nature nature of of the the extremely complex. This This complexity complexity requires requires that mention linguisticknowledge knowledge associated associated with Inthis thissection section1 Ibriefly brieti mention linguistk with words.' In complexity: three of the three the recent recentfindings findingswhich which relate relateto tothis thiscomplexity:

Polysemy is conceptual in in nature • Polyserny Wordsare are associated associated with tendencies • Words with selectional sdectional tendencies Grammatical categories have aa semantic • Grammatical scmantk basis Lakoff(e.g., (e.g.,DrugBrugSince the Since the seminal seminalwork work of of Claudia Claudia Brugman Brugman and and George GeorgeLakoff _10R:1988; becomeclear clearthat that man Brugman and and1_2 LakoIf 1988; Lakoff Lakoff 1987), it has become man 1988; Brtigman due to to word word forms forms part of the the variation variationassociated associated with word meaning is due part of with word being associated associatedwith withdistinct distinctunderlying underlying conceptual conceptualrepresentations: representations:the the phenomenon phenomenon of of conceptual conceptual polysemy. polysemy.Polysemy Polysemyoccurs occurswhen whenaaword wordform form exhibits more than one one distinct distinct but hut related meaning meaning conventionally conventionally associated associated with it. it. Brugman Brugman and and Lakoff Lakoffargued argued that thatthese these distinct but but related related meanings meanings arise due to to language language users usershaving havingaarange rangeofofdistinct distinct but hut related meanings polysemy: stored stored in in their their heads, heads,in in semantic semanticmemory, memory.hence, hence,"conceptual" polysemy:

the polysemy polysemywhich whichisisexhibited exhibitedisisa afunction functionofofunderlying underlyinggranularity granularityinin semantic memory. To illustrate, illustrate, consider considerthe thefollowing followingexamples exampleswhich whichallall employ employthe theverbal verbalform formflying: flying ((i)i) The The plane/bird is flying (in the the sky) sky) (2) The The pilot is flying the in theplane plane( (in the sky) the sky) (3) The The child child isisflying flying the the kite (in (in the the breeze) breeze)

(SELF-PROPELLED AERODYNAMIC MOMOn ARODYNAMIC TION' TU)NJ (OPERATION OF OF ENTITY OF INTITYCAPABLE (APAHII OF AERODYNAMIC AEROI)YNAMI( MOTION] (CONTROL 01 OF Ll(HTWIIGIIT LIGHTwEIGHTFNTITYJ ENTITY'

1

TOWARI)s ANEW NIWACCOUNT ACoUNTOI TOWARDS A OFWORI) WORDMEANINt, MEANING

(in the flying (in the flag isis flying The T he flag

1

hree/e) breeze)

14

fi'r aareview). Evans Evans and in-en limo for and Evani I'.4n5 rotri aoot for kr disco...ion. and

f'SUSPENSION 5tSI'I NSI( INOF OFLIGHTWEIGHT 1ft;IITwIl(;IIT OBfECTJ

thesemantic semanticcontribution contribution Of of each of the the For convenience IIhave have glossed glossed the each of lor appear in in small small capitals capitals inside inside square square brackets brackets /lying. The Theglosses glosses appear instances of of flying. instances relevant examples. examples.InIn(1) (i) flying relates relates to to the theability abilityofofananentity entity a longside the relevant bird to undergo sell-propelled motion. In the example in (a) tiring In example in (2) flying as aa bird to undergo self-propelled such as an entity entity such suchthat thatitit can relates to to the the ability ability to to operate operate an can undergo undergo aerodynamic aerodynamic relatcS the meaning of flying has to do with the control of an an entity entity motion. In In(3) (3) the meaning of flying has to do with the control of motit)fl. of aa airborne, o rne, while in (4) flying relates such that it remains airb relates to to the the suspension suspension of attachedto toanother anotherentity. entity. lightweight entity that is attached lightweight While meaningsare aredistinct, distinct,they theyare tirenevertheless neverthelessintuitively intuitivelyrelated. related. While these these meanings in (1) (i) might, represent the themost most Afterall, all,while whilethe the example example in might,for formany manypeople, people, represent typical of flying, flying, what what we we might might refer refer to, to, following following Lakoff Lakoff(1987) (1987) as as typical instance instance of the application of fl;ing in (2) relates to the the central (or (or prototypical) prototypical)sense, sense, the application offlying in (2) relates to the aerodynamit motion motion close to operation of an entity entity such such that itit undergoes undergoes aerodynamic close to in that that that fly:ngm that in in U). (1). Similarly. Similarly,the themeaning meaning of flying in(3) (3) isis close close to to that that in in (2) in is salient aspect aspectofofthe themeaning. meaning.Finally, Finally,the themeaning meaningof offlying flvingin control is aa salient in (4) is in that the lightweight entity in question, while not under under close to that that in close to in (3) in control of attached to to the the ground, ground. in the 01(4) the control of an an agent, agent, is is nevertheless nevertheless attached the case case of (4) due to a flagpole. tLigpok. In cognitive lexical semantics, it has been common to model In cognitive lexical semantics, it has been polyscmous senses termsofofa aradiating radiatinglattice latticestructure structurearranged arrangedwith with polysemous senses ininterms respect to to aa central central sense senseororprototype prototype(e.g., (e.g.,Lakoff Lakofi1987; 1987;Tyler Tylerand andEvans Evans respect 2001, 2003). 6 2001,

secondrecent recentfinding fInding relates relatesto towhat, what,in in the the previous previous chapter, chapter, I1referred referred The second as selectional sekctional tendencies. Recentwork work in cognitive to as tendencies. Recent cognitive lexical lexical semantics semantics (e.g., (e.g., 2006)and andinincorpus corpuslinguistics linguistics(Atkins (Atkins L)ahrowska 2009; Dabrowska 2009; Evans Evans 2oo4a, 2005, 2oos, 2006) of the thelinguistic linguistic knowledge knowledge 1987; (irks Griesand andl)ivjak Divjak2009) 2oo9)suggests suggests that that pars part of associatedwith withwords wordsincludes includesthe the kinds and range range of semantic arguments associated semantic arguments ith which which aa word word sense sensecan canco-occur co-occurand andthe thegrammatical grammaticalconstructions constructionsin in kith sensecan canappear. appear.While While any any given given usage usageofofaaword word which ai partkular which particularword word sense will have own unique unique selectional sekctional requirements, requirements,in interms termsof, of,for forinstance, instance, will have its its own will co-occur, co-occur. with which with which other other words and grammatical constructions it will established,and andform formpart partof ofthe the general patterns ("tendencies") ("tendencies")can can be he established, conventional knowledge knowledgeassociated associatedwith witha aparticular particularword wordsense. sense. PartIIII conventional InInPart refer to to as asaa termsof ofwhat whatII refer the book hook II will will characterize this this notion notion in in terms of the lexicalprofile.' profile! lexical sensesofofflying livingexhibited exhibitedabove abovein in(0 (') to to illustrate, reconsider reconsider the the distinct distinct senses To illustrate, (4). salient grammatical feature verbs isistransitivity, transitivity, which which isisto saywhether whether (4). AA salient feature for verbs to say verb such such take aa direct direct object or died,aaverb or not. not. While While aaverb verb like likedie diedoesn't: doesn't:He liedied, they take as kick as kick does: does: He wayof ofbeginning beginningto todistinguish distinguishthe thelexical lexical He' kicked kickedthe thebalL balL One One way b

See to)tot (or • %cc• mdGreen (,rcm rime: (loo6:...h. to) ans and

tradmonally assume atsume that mC4IflIflgtraditionally thatword, words word meaning ► mputational approathes Many formal and and tcomputational approaches to to word ' Many Pustiswsky katum (set and wntattst and morpholcogical features (see l'usteitivsky tuys; Ivicr 1995; Ivkr and SC1111.111ilt t.orreprise bundles n1a4ti. and bundles01 o(sctfl.sfltsi.

31

an ovcrvtcw an 11Vrf ICW 11)Tag" lag (Atkin a similar idea (Atkins► 197) Oiher terms have been used to lilt luting "II) Idea snduding tither terms have hren used to express a similar 1917) And and behavioural profile" 1((Gnes 2oo9). and "behavioural i nc. and Divjak 2009).

32 '.2 \1

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

TOWARD Of' WORD MEANING MEANINC TOWARI)S A NEW NEWA(:COUNT A((OUN I OF TOWARDS AA NEW ACCOUNT OF WORI) WORD MEANING

above, is is to to examine the senses examine which whkh ofof of Jlying, flying, JLX)vc, profiles of of the the tour foursenses senses prof.Ie<. me; of flrillg, alxwe,. ,:"hich ofthe thesenses ~ are are of the profiks (do not require transitive (require a direct object) and which are intransitive (do not require not reqUIreaaa transitive (require a direct object) and whICh are mtran .1Ive do not not and (4) ( 4 ) do flying in (1) withfI}'"g flyingin in (.) (i) and directohfrct). object ).For Forinstance, thesenses senses aassociated associated direct obJect). For ininstance, t.nce,the the ""n iated with takeaaadired directobjcR()OY' Thesense sense of offlying (OPI RATION OFOFENTITY AFKOI)Ytothe the operation by an restrkted be NA tiC MOTION' IOTI() ] is i,is restricted r tricted to the operation operalion 1w an entity enllty which which can (an be be NAMIC MOTIONI thatcan can undergo selfconstrued aas as an an agent, construed agent. and, and, moreover, 10 entitie. that that canundergo undergoselfselfconstrued agent1 and,moreover, moreover, to to entities entities he .ihk to accompropelledaerodynamk aerodynamicmotion. motion. Further, Further, the cntiIv entity must must propelled aerodynamic Furlher, the the entity mU t be be able able to accomaceom propelkd agent and and thereby means of transport. This This explains why of transport. the agent modate the theagenland therebyserve serve as aas aa mean Thisexplains modale modate means aeroplanes and and hot air balloons balloons are compatible with this this sense, entities aeroplanes balloon are this sense, sense, but but entities em ill aeroplanes and hot hot air unable to accommodate accommodate an illustrated by example (s). unable an agenl are not. Thi i illustrated iIIu trated by by example example(5). (s)· an agent agentare arenot. not.This Thisisis I

I

,II.

?Hie was was across Channel (5) ??He ??Hc wasflying living the sparrow the English English (s) nying the sparrow parrow across acro the Engli h Channel hannel (s) Nevertheless, entities which which un can be Neverthekss, be construed construed as asbeing beingguided, guided,or tOnMrued as being gu.ded, oratat alleast least 'evertheless, entitic. nevertheless susceptible to agent, u eptible to being trained by volitionalagent1 ag nt,which whichnevertheless neverthel cannot cannot susceptible to being beingtrained by aa volitional volitional accommodate an sanctioned bythis this lexical concept, as accommodate are partially partially sanctioned accommodat an agent, agent, are parlially nClionedby thi lexical lexi alconcept1 concept,as a the the following ing example exampleillustrates: illustrates: followmg illustrales: Channel (6) lie u((ceded in minflying nying the homing pigeonacross aao the Fngli hChannel hannel I-Ic succeeded succeeded flyingthe thehoming homing pigeon pigeon across theEnglish English (6) He Use In the cisc of((ONTROI [CONTROL OF LIGHTWEIGHT E NTITYIas asevidenced evidenced by the the use caseofof (CONTROLOF OFIIGHTWEIGH L1GHTWE.GHTI ENTITY ENT.TY] eviden ed by by use In the of (3), to that are are this sense of of appears 10 to be herestricted entities that of flying flrillg (3), this Ihi sense sen flyillg appears appear rrestricted tricted to to entities entiti ar flying in in (3), of flying capable of capableof of becoming becomingairborne airborne by by turbulence, turbulence, and can canhe becontrolled controlled byan an capable airoorne turbulen e, and be coni rolled by .n agent objects ground. This Thi lexical lexicalconcept con eptappears appearsto tobe bespecialized peeiatizedfor forobjects agent on on the the ground. This lexical concept appears to be specialized such such askites kitesand andmodel/remote-controlled model/remote-controlkd aeroplanes. uch as as kiles and modeUremol ·conlrolledaeroplanes. aeroplanes. The sense, WEIGHT OBIECTi, 0IIJECTJ, selects OF final sense, ",n"" glossed glo~ as a 'SUSPENSION ]su Pl NSI0N '0 OF O. LIGHTWEIGHT L1(iIlTWllGIIT ()B'Ecr], selects Ie t~ The final final glossed as for entities virtue air enlities that that can be upported by by virtue air turbulen e,but butremain remain entities that can canhe hesupported supported by virtueofof of airturbulence, turbukn.e, but remain "connected to" ground. This lexical concept to" flags as well as hair wellas ashair hair to" the th ground. ground.This Thi lexical lexicalconcept conceptapplies appli totoflags nag as a well and scarves, which can "fly" in the wind. and scarves, whichc.n can"ny" "fly" in in the wind. and arv . , which The third finding concerns the that grammatical categories The third have third finding findingconcerns concern the position po ilionthat Ihatgrammatical grammaticalcategories calegorieshave haveaaa semantic classes as here concerned with lexical as basi. In In particular, parlicular, II am am here h reconcerned concernedwith wilhlexical Ie iealclasses da a semantk basis. basis. particular, particularly in the previously semantic categories. Until relatively recently, particularly in the previously ",manlic semantic categorie>, categories.Until Until relatively relatisdv recenlly, particularly m Ihe preViously workof of Generadominant tradition of formal linguistics associated dominanllradilion ti associated a-'SOCialedwith wilh work ofGeneraGenera dominant tradition of formallingui linguistks withthe thework Verbs, adjectives, tive Grammar, it was assumed that lexical classes, e.g., nouns, verbs, adjectives, live Grammar. it wa ~umcd thai lexical da ~. c.g .. noun. verb, adjct:tivcs. tive Granimar, it was assumed that kxk al classes, e.g.1 nouns, determined on on the the basIs ofdistridistrietc., categories, etc, purely grammatical gramm.ukalcategories1 C~ltegOri • determined dclcrmllll"ti un the basis ba\i\ of of distrietc., were were purely purely grammatical n appears—and morphology—in bution—where morphology—i bution ·where in III the sentence nlen the Ihe formappears—and appears-and morphology. ·in bution—where in the the sentence theform

33 33 33

with ""lI,UI.".lhc ofinnection, forinstance, in .'an(C, word-ending, word·ending,associated associaled with withaaa ular, the kind kind of of inflection, inflection, for for instance, word-ending, associated particular, consider thefollowing followingEnglish Inglish Iform. 1 For exampl .der the followmg Engll hsentence: nten e: form. Forexample1 example,,con consider sentence: hlrn . For

I[he hc boy IxlY kicked Ihe Ix,y, The boy kicked kicked the the boys boys (7 I,(7) and can 4.an appeareither eitherin in with the the plural 11
itit counts as In contrast, the po .tlOn. On On this th. basis, baSl,.t ount> as a aanoun. noun.In Incontrast, conlra t,the the ,subject u[l,cdt or orobject objectposition. position. this basis, counts kick can can he inflected inflectedwith with the the past past tense marker -ttl -t'i and Ie I(al form form kick innected with past tense ten marker marker and cannot can be -ed and cannot IcxkJI lexical Thus,, it it.t counts an instance of verb. object ,'rr ,ubjecl po it ion. Thus, Thu counl as as an an instance instan eof ofaaaverb. verb. appear in subject subject or or object object position. position. counts as c'" in the .... ' a word or a verb Wierzhicka1988). 1988). In other words, what makes a word a noun verb isisi aa• \Vier/hkka of abstract abstract grammatical grammatical featuresreflecting reflectingthe theword's word'sdistribution lund.on. of abstract grammali aI features features renecting word' didistribution tribulion function, tLiIhtiofl, not of semantic propertiesof ofthe theword worditself. itself.On onthis thisview, III <enlcnee, properties oflh word itself. On view, in aaa sentence, sentence, but but rather rather the the semanti semantic properties in class anem emergent propertyof ofword word function. function. Ic .cJI clJ' rgent property fundion. lexical class i,isisan an emergent given word word aa noun noun I·or instance, in tance, Langacker Langa ker (1987) (1<)87) argu mak noun; For For instance, Langacker (1987)argues argues what what makes makes aa given isIs operationaliiesin in terms that refers to as asaathing. thing, which he he operationalizes Ih.II.ld,"
third recent recent developmentrelates relatesto tothe thenature natureofof ofthe theknowledge knowledge to which ·1[he he third recenl development development rebl 10 the nalure Ihe knowledge The toto which wordsprovide privide access. access. years workinin incognitive cognitivelinguistics, linguistics, inspired by word, provide ace .In InInrecent rrecent ·enlyears ye." work cognillve linguisti ... inspired in pired by by words work

arguedthat that rc'carch on knowledge in Cognitive rc\C.ulh knowledge representation rcpre\Cntdtion in in cognitive (Ognltl\;Cpsychology, I'\y.. ho!ogy,has h.l'~argued argul'tlth.ll research the vast repositoryof ofencvclopacdii. knowledgeto10 to th vast va. trepository repos.lory of enC)'dopaedlCknowledge word meaning m aningisiisa functionofofthe meaning word aa function encyclopaedic

34

TOWARDS A NFWA(( 1)1ST OF WOK!) %tFANINc, 35 _----....;T~O:..:WARO COUNT OF WORD UAN,.::;IN;.:G=--_-'3!!5 TOWARDSA A NfW NEW A ACCOUNT OF WORD MEANING 35

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

semantics have which il connected. 1wo influential theories of of ot encyclopaedic which iis connecled. encydopaedic semantics semanli have Two inOuenliallhcones itit is which 1985). (e.g.,1982, 1982, been pul put forward, forward, (e.g.,.• 1987) been forward. by unga ker (e.g., (e.g 1987) and and Fillmore Fillmore(e.g., (e.g.. 19 1,1985). 1985)· Lingacker put by Langacker been with The hasit basic insighl insight iis Ihal that word word meaning meaning respect The hasi' meaning isis always alway relativized rclalivized with wllh respect respecl to 10 insight underlargerbody bodyof of knowledge knowledge wilhoul without which Lwproperly body of without whi not aaa larger larger knowledge h it ilit could not nol be he properly underunder· semantic frame frame stood. This to as as base base(Langacker) (Langacker) lood. This iis variously variously referred referred 10 ba (unga ker) or semantic semanlic fra me This is variously referred to stood. The meaning meaning of this this nwaning of diameter. The (Fillmore). To To illustrate consider word diameter. ,Iia",clrr. The Ihi (Fillmore). illu lrale consider con ider the Ihe the word lo illustrate (Fillmore). words, word is function that part part of the the circle circle In word iis aa fun lion oflhal parI of oflhecir I which which itit II designates. ddesignates. ignal.",.ln olh word. of that In other otherr words, tunction word function ofthe of the ba base semantic diameteris base (or (or semanlic semantic frame), frame), the meaning meaningof ofdiameter Ihe meaning of din",dcr iisaaa function fram ). namely the this derived.From From this the enlire entire circle with with respect respect to which meaningisis its the cirde wilh respecl 10 which its il meaning meaning ISderived. derived. Ihi entire circle the perspective, wordmeaning meaning involv involves bolh both a a profile, designated, what isiisdesignated, profile both involves per pecllVe. word meaning profile. what whal designaled. word perspective1 base which conslilul constitutes a a substructure larger structure, substructure ub lructure in aa larger larger structure, tru lure. and and namely namely aaabase basc which which constitutes of a function thus a fun function ( Langacker1987). 1987).According Accordingto toLangacker, Langacker, wordmeaning meaning is According (L.1ngacker 10 unga ker. word meanlllS is Ihu lion of (tAngacker such cannot organization, and organization profile/base profil Ib organizalion. and as aassuch u h cannot cannol be he separated separaled from from the Ihe larger larger which depicts depicts aa 2.1 which to which it z.i units 10 knowledge unil access.. Consider Consider Figure 2.1 knowledge il afford access. acc Con ider Figure it affords units to (Figure2.1a), z.ia). radius tadius circle. This This base base can can provide numerous numerous profiles, circle. ba numerou profiles1 profiles. e.g., e.g .•arc arc (Figure (Figure 2.13). radius This e.g., kiRk. circumference (rigure (Figure 2.ld). 2.1d), and so so on. LId), and 2.1c), 2.1b), diameler diameter (Figure (Figure 2.1C). 2.It), circumference (I:igure ci«umferen, 2.Ib), diameter (Figure 2.lb). base: circle. Crucially, each profile profile iis understood thebase: respect tothe rucially. each underslood with with respect respect to 10 Ihe ba :circle. circle. each ('rucially,

•

radius] b: b 'radius' 'radlus' Tb:

a: a: 'arc' arc'

I

are related related perspective reveals reveals that that word Word I[he he encydopaedic perspective Ihal word meanings meaningsare relaled The encyclopaedic selllanlics semantics perspective the approach approach taken taken In IJrger more complex) knowledgestructures. lructurcs. hoWever, However. the laken larger(and ( andmore morecomplex) complex)knowledge structures. However, to larger to semantics in divergesfrom from the the received viewof "' Ihi' hook hook diverges diverges from the received received view view ofencyclopaedic ncydopaedi semantics semanli in in in this book iii linguistks1 as developed by Langacler forr instance. For Lan,,>gnll"'C Ii as red by kcr (1987), (1987). Instance. For l'or Lanun linguistics, asdevel developed byunga lanpcker (1987), fofor instance. c ognitive lingui structure: ~J,kcr. Cnlallons language and Ihose thaI rclale 10 human concepncepencoded by to the human conceprepresentations encoded in LCCM LCCM Theory that the representations LC Theoryis thaIthe therepresentations represenlations lual <)"Iem. de\'e1opcd in tualsystem. system. The The position position developed developed Theory isisthat tual very different kind kind than e,,«xled language kllld than those Ihose in the conceptual conceplual language are are of of aa very very differenl different than those in emoded by language are inthe the conceptual system iscontinuous continuouswith with the conceptual A5 Ihe human human conceptual conceplual system tem is IS continuous With the th conceptual conceplual ",lel11. As the the human conceptual svstCfli. system. As ",\em Hurford 2007). and preceded. in ev lus!,stcm of other pflmates (Barsakni system of of other primales primates ((Barsalou Barsalou200S; zoos; Hurford Hurford2007), zoo7),and andpreceded, preceded, in evoluevoluol language (Deacon t)onald twa; 1;'lI1Jry lem,s, much later laler emergence emergence of of language (Deacon (Dea n 1997; 199;r. 1991; tionaryterms, terms, the the much later language tionary 1997; Donald Donald 1991; represented in 1999), then the Rentrew 2007; \hlhen 'Iolllascllo 1999). then mcanangs represented represenled in III i996; Tomasello 1999), the meanings meanings 1996; Renfrew 2oo7; lonusello \lithen Mithen 1996;

distinct kinds. in Ihe systems are likely he of di tinct kinds. kinds.'8This Thi isis isenshrined enshrined in in l.( LC;CM1 the t\\ two systems arelikely likely to to be beof ofdistinct This enshrined LCCM thetwo theoreticalconstructs constructs thatprovide the I hl'o,), separalion between hctwccn the twotheoretical con truetsthat thaI providethe th heory IIIlhe in the separation Theory model. theory with its kxical Ihl'll')' its name, name. the lexical lexical concept and cognitive cognllive model. model name, concept and the [he basis is The basis for for Ihi nuanced nuancedperspective per pective on onencyclopaedic encyclopaedi semantics semanti is is the The basis for this this nuanced perspective on encyclopaedic semantics result of «result ... ult of recenl work work in incognitive cognilivepsychology. p ychology. Recent Recenl Ihcori ofknowledge knowledg Recent theories theories of of knowledge of recent recent work in cognitive psychology. js the onframes, fram •has ha emphasized emphasized the Ih represenlali n. such uch th r enl work w rkon representation, suchas asthe therecent recent work on frames, has emphasized relalional nature nature of ofknowledge knowledgerepresentation represenlation (see (secBarsalou Barsalou1991, 1991.1992a, 1992a. relational Barsalou relational nature of knowledge representation (see 1993).More More rrecent recent work ha has emphasiied the role role of of 1992lr. Barsalou cl aL enl work i,ed Ihe role of a!. 1993). Barsalou ci et rtaf. 19921r, Barsalou 1993). More work has empba emphasized the simulations: rehearsals and cognitive states (Rarsalou simulalions: rehearsal of of body·based and and cognitive cognilivestates lates(Barsalou (Barsalou1999, 1999. simulations: rehearsals of body-based body-based 1999, notion of 2003.2008; sec also Glenherg and Kaschak 2002; Zwaan Zwaan 2004). The notion nOlionof ofaaa ioo8; see also Glenberg Glenberg and Kaschak 2002; 2003, 2oo8; see also 2004). The and the infinite set set qua large-scale, large- Ie. coherenl menIal representation, represenlalion. and and the the infinite infinile sel of of frame frame qua coherent mental simulations that that it itII can give rise to, isisan anissue that1IIshall shall takeup upin indetail detailinin "mulalion Ihal can give gIVe rise ri to, 10. an iissue uethat thaI hall take lake up in delail simulations can shallsee, see, thesenotions notionsfeed feedinto intothe the theoretical and to. 10. As A we we shall shall see. these these notion feed into Ihetheoretical theorelical Chaplers 99 and (hapters and lo. As we Chapters construct of the the cognitive model. However, discuss inslightly slightly more detail (on"ru I of of the cognitive ognillve model. model. However, However. IIIdiscuss di u inin lighllymore moredetail delail construct separated, LCCM semanticrepresentation representation below the way in whichsemantic semanli repr nlalion isis i separated, separaled. ininLCCM LC M below the theway way inwhich below Theory, into Theory. into inlO distinct di linctlinguistic Iinguislicand andconceptual conceplualrepresentations. representalion . Theory, distinct linguistic and conceptual representations. The symbolic Thesymbolic symbolicnature nature o( ofgrammar grammar nature of grammar The The emerged in in the the context context rhe fourth fourth significant ~ignifi anI development developmenl has has emerged emerged in Ihe onlexl of ofcognitive cognitive significant development has

approaches togrammar. grammar.Here Herelinguistic linguistic units—the entities whichpopulate populate approa h to to grammar. Iler Iingui Ii units—the unil Ih entities enlilieswhich populaleaa approaches meaningful, uscr' mental mental grammar—are grammar-are treated treated as as being heing inherently m aningful. grammar—are being inherently inherently meaningful, language user's user's language treated as

way. in prinCiple.as a words. words.That ThaIis, i grammatical • grammatical grammali alconstructions con lru lion in the Ihe same same way, the same way,in inprinciple, principle, as words. That is, in above - the 'above" the level of the word, for instance, sentence-level patterns of syntax, "Jbove" Ihe level level of ofthe Iheword, word.for forinstance, in. Ian e.sentence-level senlen e levelpatterns pattern of ofsyntax, ynla •

cc: C:'diameter' diameter' 'dlamele( I

d: 'Circumference' d: circumfereflce 'etrcumference' Ed:

FIGURE 2.1. I:IGt,RI .1.1. IJitIcrent profiles profiles derived from from the s.Ime F1GlTRl 1.1. Different Oift~renl prom derived fromthe Ihesaint. samebase bne

have been beenfound 10 havemeaning meaningconventionally convenlionallyassociated associaled with wilh them. have hccn found to tohave have meaning conventionally associated withthem. them. have aresymbolic symbolicin innature. nature. Hence, grammaticalI constructions, constructions, like words, words, Ilence. grammatical grammall con Iru lion. like word, are arc symboli nalure. Hence, [his perspective, perspective. associatedin parti&ularwith with the the theories theories Cognitive a-'SOCialed ininparticular partICular wilh Ihe Iheories of ofCognitive Cognitive This per pective. associated This and Cognitive Cognitive ConConi99th, 1999, (,rammar 1987, Grammar(e.g., (e.g .•Langacker unga ker1987, 1987.1991a, 19910.1991b, 1991b. 1999. 2008) 2008) and ConGrammar (e.g., struction Grammar lruction Grammar Grammar (Goldberg (Goldherg 1995, 1995. 2(06)-lh two Iwogrammatical grammalicaltheories Iheori 1995, 2006)—the struction I

in I4hapter 9. the dmuwon in • Scc the

____

36

INTRODUCTION

that a .1 Iheory-—holdsthat developmentofofLCCM ILCM Theory—holds the development which have most influenced the which OBJi,variously variously OBJ OBJi, thesentence sentencestring stringSLIM SUI3JVV01311 such as the grammatical unit such

theditransitive ditransitive construction construction known .is as the double double object object construction construction and and the whohas has (e.g.,1995), 1995), who has has aa conventional conventional meaning meaning associated associatedwith withit. it. Goldberg (e.g., construction studied the the ditransitive ditransitive construction construction in in detail, detail, argues arguesthat thatthis thisconstruction studied the exhibits that one ofofthe exhibits polysemy polysemy in inthe thesame same way way as as words. words. She She shows shows that with ditransituve syntax isisthe thefollowing: following: meanings conventionally ditransitive syntax meanings conventionally associated with the following following example: example: Z. To To illustrate illustrate consider consider the X INTENDS INTENI)S Y Y TO To RECEIVE RICEIVE Z. Johnbaked bakedMary Mary aa cake (8) John (8)

This sentence sentence exemplities a subject, exemplifiesthe theditransitive ditransitiveconstruction, construction, consisting consistingofot'a cake. In terms of the schematic objects: Mary and a cake. bake, and two ohpects: John, a verb, bake, corresponds.inin meaning held to be be associated associatedwith withthe thesyntax syntaxexhibited exhibitedinin(8), (8).XXcorresponds, question. Thus, Thus, the the coke and Ztotothe cake in question. V to Mary and /ohm Y to John, this example1 example, to sentencecan canbe beparaphrased paraphrasedasasfollows: follows:John Johnintended intendedMary Mary meaning of the sentence does not However,the theverb verb bake bake does not to receive receive the thecake cakeby byvirtue virtueof ofbaking bakingit. it. However, associatedwith withit. it.That That is, is. all all ordinarily V to receive Z' semantics ordinarilyhave have the 'intend Y semantics associated not ordinarily ordinanly have aa meaning meaningOf of transfer associassocidues not bake does things being equal, bake ated with it. that it must be be the the construction construction itself itself it. Goldberg Goldberg compellingly compellingly shows shows that this novel novel meaning meaningassociated associatedwith withit,it,thus thusfacilitating facilitating the the intended intended which has has this with the theact actofotbakinga cake. transfer meaning associated with baking a cake. The consequence consequenceofofadopting adoptingaasymbolic symbolicapproach approachto togrammar grammar is is that that anabstract abstractset setofofrules ruleswhich which grammar is grammar is no no longer longer viewed viewed as as constituting an operate on onwords. words.Rather, Rather, the the lexicon lexicon and andgrammar grammar form a continuum, each operate consisting of of bipolar bipolar symbolic symbolic units units comprising .omprising a form and meaning: aa consisting phonological pole and a semantic pole, pole. also alsoknown known as asthe thelexicon-grammar lexicon-grammar continuum, as 2002; Langacker 1987; Goldberg continuum, as depicted depicted in Figure 2.2 2.2 (Croft 2002; once more more 1995). From From this thisperspective, perspective, semantic semantic composition composition becomes becomes at once more receivedview, view,and andmore morestraightforward. ItIt isismore complicated than the received straightforward that semantic semanticcomposition compositionininLCCM LCC\1 Theory Theory straightforwardininthe thesense sense that involves nested nestedintegration integration of of lexical lexical concepts conceptswithin within larger larger lexical concepts. concepts. involves For suih as aa cake—must take—must For instance, the the meaning of bake—to create an item such be integrated integrated with with the the ditransitive ditransilive construction: X INUNDS INTENDS Y YTO To aEcEivE Z, such implies 'X that hake virtueofofbaking." baking.' to receive such that 'X intends Y to receiveZ' Z' by byvirtue bake implies semantic composition tomposition is also alsomore morecomplex. complex.The The However, this view of semantic integration of .11 concepts—the t.oncepts—thesemantic semanticstructures structuresassociated associatedwith with symsymintegration of kxk lexical Wordsand andconstructions—has constructions—hastotoproceed proceedininaaway waywhich whichisis bolic units units such such as words compatible with with each eachof of with integration integrationofofthe therange rangeof ofmeanings meanings associated associated with concepts in in question. question. There There arc are complex complex possibilities possibilities involved involved the lexical concepts in eachofofwhich whichmust must be hecompatible compatible in the the meaning meaning of of each each lexical concept1 concept, each with the lexical concepts conceptswhich whichthey theyare arebeing heingintegrated integratedwithin: within:the the with hook, III ail the the book P.iilIII issue of of "nested "ncsted integration" is dissussed ininPart - the issuc •' The

NEWACCOUNT A(;I:tnNT OF WOK!)MEANING MIANIN(i IOwARus AA NEW TOWARDS OF WORD

a— Opendass Open-classelements elements

37

Closed-class elements -IP.

the lexicon-grammar lcxi.on-giammar continuum FIGUR E 2.2,. 2.2. The

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

ditransitive construction, construction, and andthe the ,ntcgr.LtCttiniflthe thelarger largerlinguistic linguistic unit, unit, the ditransitive integrated he integrated integrated in in aaway waywhich whichisiscompatible compatiblewith withthis this bake must be 1ncaniflg of meaning of bake

lirger unit. larger in detail detail in in her her pioneering pioneeringwork work isk issues that that Goldberg studies studies in one (,)ucof of the the issues and larger, larger, multi-word multi-word constructions, onstructions. are in such suchaaway way words, and are integrated integrated in that words, that fusewith with the theother otherproviding providing aa derived derived meaning meaning the semantics semantics of each each fuse that the argues that sum of of the the parts. parts. For For instance, instance,Goldberg Goldberg argues which is more than the sum have, as aspart part of of their meanings slotsfor for both verbs and larger constructions have, meaning, slots larger constructions frame—in the the semantic arguments. These These constitute constitute part part of the semantic frame—in i verbororaalarger larger Fillmore—associatedwith with each eachconstruction, construction,be beitita verb sense of sense of Fillmore—associated linguistic the ditransitive ditransitive construction. \Vith linguistic unit unitsuch such as the With respect respect to verbs, thesesemantic semanticarguments argumentsasasparticipant participantroles. roles,while whilefor for Goldberg refers to these onstructions, such as asthe theditransitive ditransitive construction, she she refers refers sentence-level sentence-level constructions, verb bake brings with it two bake brings to such slots slots as asargument argument roles. roles.While While the verb brings participant roles: the object objectof ofbaking, baking,the theditransitive dii ransitivebrings participant roles: the baker and the agent, the the object object of of transfer transfer and the recipient. recipient. A consequence three: the agent, consequence ofof fusion of constructionsisisthat thatthe themore morespecific specific"baker" "baker"role role Fusion of the the two sorts of constructions fused with with the the agent agentslot slotofofthe theditransitive ditransitiveconstruction: construction: the themore more of is fused of bake bake is role specific role roleof of"object "object of ofbaking" baking" is is fused fused with the the "objectt of transfer" role specific onstruction (see Figure2.3). 2.3). \\hat Whatmo— mo(see Figure comesfrom fromthe theditransitive ditransitive construction which comes tivates this is semantic semantic coherence, coherence,which whichGoldberg Goldbergformalizes formalizesininterms termsofof she calls callsthe theSemantic SemanticCoherence Coherence Principle.'0InInaddition, addition,the theditransiditransiwhat she Principle."' semantic frame: that that of bake semantic tivc role not not present presentin inthe the l'akt' live construction adds adds aa role recipient who is is to to receive the object object of of baking. baking. The fusion fusion of of the the receive the intended recipient in Figure Figure 2.3, dutransitive verb hake bake isis illustrated in ditransitive construction and the verb tive,isusnot notdue duetoto the point is that semantic semanik composition, composition,from fromthis thisperspective, The language beingconstituted Mnstituted in in terms terms of of words wordsand andrules, rules,with withthe therules rulesbeing being language being abstract conventions conventionsfor for combining combining "atoms" "atoms" of meaning, the the words. words. Rather, Rather,aa language system Units —conventional symbolic symbolic assemassemlanguage system consists of of symbolic units—conventional blies of form form and Semantic composition composition is is thus thus the the and meaning—at meaning—at all all levels. levels. Semantic result of integrating material associated with the the various various symsymintegrating the the semantic semantic material associated with bolic units, including including sentence-level constructions. sentence-level constructions. end up up with with an baked Mary Maryaacake, cake, which which anutterance utterance such such as: as: John John baked We end far more more specific specificthan thanthe thehighly highly schematic schematic provides meaning which which is is far Thisprinciple roles with withwhich whichthey theyoverlap. owdap. I° This pnncipk stairs statesthat pan KI pant roles roles arc are matched maiched with Argument noir. th.oi part ii; ipant

that One can1w heconstrued construed Instance o(anothct irstanor,gerwrAl grncral tatcwirmation categoriiataon principles pnnoipks such thAt one c.m as as an an instance oil Another. ForFor onstArkr. nahk us hto) 110 enable of the rob owrrtaps suthwntly with the the k bake thai the hlakn paftkipaiil ink fi of the el mine that ► (wet Lips sufficiently determine the !taker !smirk 1114111 both ..hate shareseti semanik properlie such ► Anix properties such as as argument role Ageol. of ofthe thechtrAnsitive ditransativeconstruction. ,i,nsIru him, because ixith Animacy, lnientionabty. 4 .ausation.And and so so forth. forth. Aniniacy. Intentkmality.(..AusatKin.

_____t____

1$

TOWARDSA ANEW NIW AC:OtJNT TOWARDS ACCOU T OF or WORU WORD MEANING MEANING TOWARDS A ACCOUNT OF WORD MEANING

-----'-=

INTK(M)U(;TI0N INTRODucnON INTRODUCTION

Agent TAgent Intends (X) intends intends (X)

to transfer transler

II

(verb)

recopoent to recipient (Y) M

object 01 of transfer (Z) (Z)

Ditransitive Dttransit., OItrans1tJve construction constructJon Construction

39 39

rrespondi ngskews scenes frcim experience ~'.1I comt (Aln\tnu;.tl(lll aoJ Ihclrt:OITt"f"-lJkilllg Cfk"\from tmOlexperience tXpenC04.C wrresponding ructIoflSand andthen their (oflstructions Tao 2.1.

,h.,

object(ix., (i.e., anobject objci.i thatforms formspart part of of 0Nigue aa ~~' ~.;i". ubJ
ktnt scene

Baker Balter ,ntends intends

Baker

FIGURE FIGUIII 1.). FIGURE 2.3.

to transfer transfer baking by bakulQ

bake(verb) (verb) [bake

reciptent to recipient recopient

of object 01 baking balong

Object of baking

t)hpi Sub' ~ub, V V Objt Ob" Obji Obj2 Obi'

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

Suhp \ubj V V Ohp Subj Obj

N:~ UhJII\t.' Koultative

Subp V Sub, V Obj Ob, Subj conip comp

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

ObI Sub) V Obl Obi Subj V

Result of Aesuhof

nested WltegralJOn integration

OhI Obi Ohl

bake

construction

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

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

)it ransit ive II htrJIl\II!H

Suhj Sub, V V Subj Obi •• at Obi

Agent gcnt gives 81\ an on 10l-,t Itttcr Ohpeit to a0 ob)d III~ sneezed the Y TO To xx CAUsES CAl'~f' y to X CAUSES Y roni One one object oh,«1 Ifrom from letter tlit MOVE Z the iIttlrr ft:17)tier off off the MOVE Z 10V'1 I()('OItion to to location tablt table another OInother Agent Aist s y to anaesthetist CAU I Y Tel TO T/I~ dtme Iltel; I genl acts old on on The anaesthetist xX CAUSES patient .iusing BE OME Z rtllllatd lilt a patient au iog causing rendered the IECOME z rengiered BECOME Z patient palle", undergo patient them to undergo st.it ,WWtlj( lOUS of l.llt aa d\01nge change cii of state 1014$ U ?lte)fl$e ta le OHSCJOUS y Entity moves into 111t "".up JIm' mlo Entity [ntllY mov to 10 The wasp wasp flew IPilt) xx MOVES MOVE. Y X MOVES new location Il,t room a ntw a the room the Agent directs directs an an John kickedat atthe the /01", llLled at lilt Agtnl dirat\ .n fohn kicked Agent X DIRE Ts llIaUT x DIRECTS action rul lilt ion towards tow.ud rat A( lION ACTION another anolher entity tntity AT V Y Y x t;At'SES CAl'\FS Y X CAUSES Y TO TO

Mary a Mary John stilt Afdry" john 101m SOH q",

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

distinction made aadistinction we saw saw in the \, we ".w in III the theprevious previnu,chapter, chapter,Crice Grice(e.g.1 (e.g., 1989) '989) made di~tlll tlon As chapter, Grice (e.g., between what whataaagiven given ",nten sentence means and and what and gIVen e means mean what its use use means mean, in in aagiven given b.:twecn what sentence between context: the the distinction distinction betweensentence sentence meaningand andspeaker speakermeaning." meaning." context: di tin tion between between sent ncr meaning meaning and spraker meaning." this distinction distinction betweensentence sentenceand speaker meanIn lingui'tic ,thi di\tin tionbetween andspeaker sprakermeanmean In modern linguistics, linguistics, this ing is Is embodied in the disciplinary disciplinary distinction between semanticsand and pragpragIIlg i embodied in the di iplinary distinction di tinction between betweensemantics prag· ofthe thestudy tudyof ofmeaning: meaning:literalism. literali m. matic , and and infomlS the thereceived received view view of niatks, of the study of meaning: literalism. matics, andinforms informs the received Irom the perpective scrnantks—the of sentence meanI'mm per I""'tive cit of literalism, lit rali m, semantics—the semantic the study study of ofsentence senten emeanmean · From the perspective ngi, normally nomlally con idered totobe be primary. and prior pragmati - the ug—is normallyconsidered considered beprimary, primary,and andprior priortotopragmatics—the mg—is enshrined informal formal tudyof peaker meaning. suprema y of of semantics semantics isiisenshrined en hrined in forma l study olspeaker of speaker meaning. The supremacy semantics, whkh logic-inspired tradition which whichis directly descended descended from from the thelogic-inspired log.c inspired '>emanti ,the the tradition isi directly the ideal ideal languagephilosophers. work of the th ideal language languag philosophers. hoWever, Clark (e.g., 1996) pointsout out that in fact point out fact However, in Ilerbert However, in seminal seminal work, work, 1-lerhert HerbertClark Clark(e.g., (e.g.,1996) Igo) points wrong way way round. Clark argues that this perspective thi\ pr"f"",tive situates ituates things thll1g\ the wrong way round. round. (lark larkargues argue<.that that situates things the the wrong °

I)urrng the Ihir twentieth language of the .anahtk " During the analytic the of n•aring meaning II l)unn. the- twentieth 'wt'nhcth century I.mtury the the study Ilkiy of (,f mrantrlIinin In 1M ~n.aJythphilosophs• . philosophy rhll.~y14 tlflanguage bn~u.aer rid it ion W,I\ was split including l iri g Frrgr, i&l.'.i language twit IfhC' hefirst. tirst. the Fregr. lIok.i.hun rhl into mh. two two camps. um The fir I,the tM"ideal -,,1':.111 Lanttu.agc'philosophers rh1ic*'rt\ll;n-- inchrc uk.luJm, 11'fJl'. tradition was split into caniri. sentence it ascomprised comprisedof ofits its component component Russell.(Larnap. (4rnap, and Tardki. Tarski,".,UN arguedthat thatthe themeaning mianing (It o( Ruurll. m.lJ\.nJ 1.arU.I, (Ju, the mt-.1In1na ...umpnlit\J ut Its 4..VmJ'l4.'fknl 4 ..a IC'nlcfk.C' sentence is And argued PJrls, reference. Ihus, linguistic could be assigned worldlyentities entities p.ln and .nd me.n'"l reflects rdl('\:1 nrference. rtf«nk~. Thu Img:ul tk. symbols ymbol could UlOid he brassigned .tuianNworldly \lW\uldly nil III PdrN, and meaning meaning Thus, linguistic symbols absent ..A ordinary language group, the so-talkd a ~wn given f:(tntnl context use.Thr the 1C'\,.(lnd second absent context 4,1 of use. second g p. theIht so-called "ordinary language abtrnl (If ute' 1lw,n,ur. ~~lIcJ "tlrJuury Lln,u.t philcistiphers". ph.J rhrn-, iIlitluding n cludingAustin. that•al.abownt absent a sprcifk speiahc contextIwords words and Austin. Strawson. arid 1Vittgenstem. argued dui ,scrit ..a 1n...luJmg A~tm,Strawson. 'Ir. .n .• nJ the the:- later Lli r Wittgcnsictn. WIHttt·n,h·m .argued ltu I"l'lh( contest ""lllt wvrJ cannot -innol refer. s*racklkd byI'Aul Paul(',rk.t" I.ric who nftcrcd way of uniting scts of unn"l rd". Rulh groups ,ruupt%were \IIoC'ft 'raJJJ<'\.I by ".aul wh.;. littered "flt'tcJ aa• way w.ty +It t.1 umlmll b...lh sets wt of (., (ince who uniting both both group refer. tioth Both were str.iddled meaning, and arguing that both .°flccrns bydl hs distinguishing distinguishing and speakrr concerns by and required ~(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 sentence 54)mI' ofthew theseconcerns. corkerns for aa review review 'or aa full f.lr. fuU (J''''.) rn-~ 01 tIl some 'rlW of 01 thew .... for full ok,-(Iunt Account meaning. ~ Sec R~nall Resanati(aoo4 0°04) for of kcount o(.,ot mr.mng.

.aflUt'\!

ft., •

0&.'""

________________

40 ~

40

__

-

-

INTRODUCTION INTRODt( lION _____________________________________

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

all we we can't can't speaker meaningiisislogically logicallyprior priorto tosentence sentence meaning.'2 meaning." After logically Alter all peaker meaning prior to ""11Ien« A(ter speaker meaning speaker talkabout aboutwords wordsand andsentences sentences having having meaning meaning without assuming aaa speaker ~ntenccs without assuming speaker talk words and and aaa hearer hearerwho who are are using using the the words words and andsentent.Cs sentences in in order in order order to ,1I1d arc ",ing word~ ""ntene." to accomplish a compli h and hearer interactional goals. As Clark puts it: "Signals [ i.e., words and sentences] words and ",ntenc.,,1 sentencesi aren't aren't int ractional goal. As A Clark lark puts put it: it: "Signals "Signals Iii.e., .. , word Jren't interact innal goals. they important merely because they mean things. They are important because important because Important merelybecause becau they mean mean thing. They are important becau they they important merely Put arcused used in in discourse discourse to participants' (ibid. xx). xx). Put arc u~ di\Cour~ a«ompli;h the participants' participants' goals" goal" (ihid. Put to accomplish .kcomplish the the are another way: way:"\\ortls "Words and sentencesare aretypes types o( signals, of signals, linguistic way: "Word and ",ntence; are type; ignal, linguistic lingui tic units unit another another and sentences abstractedaway awayfrom fromany anyocca occasion on which which they they might he used, abstracted ion on might be be used, u~, stripped stripped abstracted away from utof all all relation relation to particular speakers, listeners, times and andplaces. places. [Yeti .... . utspeakers. listener, listeners, tIme; times o( relation to 10 particular ;peake", and pIa es. (YetJ IYetl .... ut· of things on on terancesare arethe theaction actions o( of producing producingwords, words,sentences, sentences, and other things of and terance. words, ntenc ,and terances are the (ibid. particularoccasions occasions speakersfor forparticular particularpurposes" purposes" particular ocea ions by particular speakers speakers (or particular purposes" (ibid. (,bid. by particular particular (:lark's point is that theconventions—the conventions—the words andgrammatical grammatical 128). Clark'; 128). that the the convention th words word and gram mati 31 12$). Clark's point point iis that constructions—that linguists study under the guise of sentence meaning constructions—that construdionsthat linguists linguists study tudy under under the the guise gui", ofo(sentence senten« meaning meanmg are, in in fact, ab abstractions, fromlanguage language in in use, arelogically logically abstractions and hence traction, derived derived from in use, use, and hhence nceare are logically are, are, in (act, U~, that that is, i;, speaker ;peaker meaning. meaning. dependent I.nguag use, dependent on on language language use, is, speaker In cognitIVe cognitive lingui linguistics, the most influential usage-based of language language In ti - ,the mo t influential influentialusage-based u ge - h.~ model model of oflangu.ge linguistics, the In is the the theory of Langacker (e.g., )987, 1991a, developed by IS Cognitive Grammar developed developed byLangacker Langacker(e.g., (e.g.,1987, 1987,1991(1, 199 1a, is the theory theory of of Cognitive Cognitive Grammar 2oo8). In Cognitive the symbolic symbolic units units that that make upan anindividual individual unit th.t make make up up an individual 1008). 200$). In CognitIVe CognitiveGrammar, (ramrnar, the language u""r'. user's knowledge of from language language language system sy. tem are deriwd from (rom language language language user's knowledge knowledge o( of the the language language system are derived Abstracuse. This takes place by processes of abstraction and schematization. Abstracofab abstraction schematization. Ab of traction and schematization. trac· uuse.. Thi takes place by processes proc This takes tion is the process whereby structure emerges as the result of the generalization generalization procCS,s whereby structure . tructurccmerg rresult _ult of the generali7.ation tion is the process emerges as For example, a speaker acquiring use. of across instances acquiring of pattern aero in tances of of usc. I-or peaker acquiring instances of language language use. For example, a speaker of patterns patterns English as "discover"recurring recurring words, offrequent frequentexposure, expo ur ,"discover" "discover recurringwords, word , Engli. h will, a the English will, as the result result of of frequent exposure, phrases, and sentence-level hear, phra , and con;truction in inthe theutterances utteran they theyhear, he ..,together together phrases, and""ntence-Ievel scntene-kvel constructions in the utterances the range meanings Sheniatiza · me.ning associated aassotiated iatl'(\ with WIth those ymbolie units. unil;. S<:hematiza with the the range r.nge of meanings with those thosesymbolic symbolic units.Schematizathatare are lion hon i aaa special peeial kind kind o(abstraction, abstraction,which whi hresults r ultsinin inrepresentations representationsthat are tion is is special kindof of which results representations much less detailed than than the the actual actual utterances utterances give rise rise them. much less Ie ; detailed detailt,(\ than actu,ll utter.nce; that that give ri to to them. them. SchemaS<:hema · tization results in schemas. This is achieved by setting aside points of of differtil.ation rc ult, in in schemas. hema. This Thi is i achieved .lhieH'(\ by setting. ide points ofdifferdIffer· tization results setting aside ence between actual structures, leaving just the points they have in common: have in common: leaving just just the the point points they have in common:aaa ence between actual structures, leaVing schema. schema. "hema. To consider the exampl examples in in (id), (9), focusing inparticular particular on the the illu trate, con;ider (9), focusing (ow ing in in p.rticul.r on the onsider the II) illustrate, illustrate, meaning in: meaning of of the thepreposition preposition of the prepo ition in: ill: meaning (9) (9) a. a. i, in thebox box a. The Thekitten kitten is is in the the box b. The flower is in the vase b. The flower b. flower isis in inthe thevase v c. The crack is in the vase c. The i, in the vase v.'" c. The crack crack is

4) 41 41

TOWARl}!) Of WORD MEANING ITOWARDS UWARI)s AA NEW AC(OLNT UI A Nl:.W NEW ACCOUNT ACCOUNT OFWt)kL) WORDMEANIN(a MEANING

does not prompt prompt for for aa relationship relationship udc' lrum (ye) '" not prompt for. relationship of ofenclosure endo;ure from it.it.In protrudes fromIt. In(9c) (9c) in in doc> does not l'f( 'Ir . as to qUl me way: crack" the xteriorofo( th vase, va ,a to the same quite the .. same way: the the crack crackisis on on the the exterior exterior ofthe the vase, as opposed opposed to le Ihe i n quitC SI', examples illustrate, spatio'~. A th exampl illustrate, illu trate, the th specific pecific spatiopatio. interior.As Asthese these examples the specific t he H.lumetri v olumetric interior. the associated with the the enclosure meaningo( of 1/1 in is fixed, ~'~'l11ctri'. det~il; ure meaning iis not not fixed, fixed, geometricdetails details.;;ociated associatedWIth with theendo enclosure meaning of in in den vc'(\ on (rom th utteralKe utteranc context. context. but but is derived derived in part part from fromthe the utterance context. LII I' is that arises from these specific aside the IThe he .... hema that ari from these specific example leaves leaves aside a ide the the schema that arises from these specific examples examples leaves highly abstract abstract spatial spatial relation relation iii. details. «.ntc t ' I"'tilic detaIl,. R.ther, itit Itgives Siv ri"" to to aaa highly highly details.Rather, Rather, gives rise rise to con te xt-specific the comflionality It is is in\l.h ins enclosure: endo ur : th ingacross aero alh context of use. use. It is involving enclosure: the commonalityari commonalityarising arising across each each context of of use. 1fl%I)l\Wg the schema for ommonality that thl' thatestablishes .. tabli h the the hema for for in. 111. 10reover, the schema hem a for this,,>1llmonality commonality that establishes the schema schema in. Nloreover, Moreover, this of II·and "' ',1\ ry little and RO, only th.t they theymust mu texist, exi,t, very says \C very littleabout about the the nature nature o( of the the F andRU, RO,only onlythat that they must exist, gu in sJVS have the basic properties that that enclosure. the basic basic properties properti that enable enabl enclosure. en do ure.Crucially, eru ially, and that and ih.t that they they must must have enable populate the t(igflitiVc "gllltiveGrammar Grammar aassumes umes that that the symbolic units which which populate populate the th assumes Cognitive Grammar thatthe the symbolic symbolic units units which abstracted from ment.1 grammar are nothing more than thanschemas, hem., abstracted ab tr.cted from (rom language language mental mental grammar grammarare are nothing nothingmore more than schemas, language I heory enshrines enshrines how L(CM hall begin to see, Chapter 4, 40 LC ' M Theory Theory en hrin We begin see,,in inChapter Chapter 4, how use. We We .shall shall begin to in how LCCM LISC. construction. SpecifiSpecifiuuse ~ ais itits account aaccount count of of pecifi . language language use as fundamental fundamental to to its of meaning meaning construction. units, the lexical concepts. ",II), ,Irgue lingui'tically ennxk,(\ . mantic units, unit, the thelexical lexi Iconcepts, concept>, cally, II argue argue that that linguistkally linguisticallyencoded encodedsemantic semantic is, by ir situated ituated interpretation. IIlterpretation. A situated situated interpretation interpretation is, i ,by undcrspecifv for th their interpretation. A situated under>pec ify (or underspecify for their situated dehnitiofl, functionof oflanguage languageuse. u . ddini tion, aaa function definition, function of language use.

U"'.

Semantic structure Semantic structure structure versus versus conceptual structure Semantic structure versus conceptual conceptual (ognitive (2000) —have ('nsniti velinguists—for Iingui;t, (orexample example Talmy (1000) andlAngacker Langackcr(1987) (1987)-have Cognitive linguists—for examplelalmy Talmy (2000)and and [Anacker (1987)—have distinguished between two two types typesof ofsemantic semanticknowledge: knowledge:that thatwhich which rich di,tinguished between two types of semantic knowledge: that whi h isisrich distinguished between is schematic. schematic. Thisdistinction distinctionis implicitin in the the work of which i; -hematic. This This di;tinction i isimplicit implicit in the work work of of and that and that that which whi ii is and distinguishes L.mga,ker and explICit in the the work work of of'lalmy. T.lmy, for (or instance, in,tance, distinguishes di'tingui he; of Talmy. Talmy. Taliny, md Langacker and explicit explicit in in the for instance, between >chemati schematicmeaning meaningassociated with the closedmeaning a.issoiated iated with with what what he he refers refer to toas as the the closeddosed· between between schematic what he refers to as classor orgrammatical grammatical subsystem, subsystem. andthe therich meaning associated withthe the das nr grammatical ubsy tern, and and the rich meaning meaningassociated a soci.ted with with class followingexample: example: illu,trate, eon,iderthe thefollowing (ollowing e .mple: openlass or oor rlexical lexi .1 subsystem. ubsy tem.To -1"lbillustrate, open-class lexical subsystem. illustrate,consider open-class

ki'd

filii

iii) AA A popstar (to) (111) /'t'ps/,Ir kissed k. d the the 1u,s Om with the grammatical The forms in bold: bold: 'I he forms fo rm in m bold: a, ·ed,the, the,and and-s areassociated a soclatedwith WIththe thegrammatical grammati al a, -ed, -ed, the, and •s· are are associated The subs stem.Their Their semantic semanticcontribution contributionrelates relates towhether whether theparticipants participants ub,y,tem. Their ",m.ntic contribution relates toto whetherthe participant subsystem. evokedby by(to) cjfl be beeasilv identified by the hearer useof (/'t'p,"'rlfiIllS) evoked by ((io) HI )can can beeasily ca ilyidentified Identilil'(\by bythe thehearer—the hearer-—the theuse u'" o( popstar/fiws) evoked of took place the indefinite indefinite article the indefinite article aa aver u the the definite arti Ie the—that the-that theevent eventtook tookplace place versus thedefinite definitearticle article the—that the the event the versus now—the use of the the past-tense -ed—and how mans' particibefore now—the now- the use u of of thepast-tense pa,t ten",marker marker -ed—and ·ed -andhow howmany manyparticipartid · before pants wereinvolved—the involved—the presence orabsence absen.eofof ofthe theplural pluralmarker marker I'an" were were involvedthepresence pre>enleor or ab",ncc the plur.1 marker -s. ·s.. pants In popstar, kiss1 andfan fanare areassociated associatedwith with the the In contrast, contra t,the theforms (orm popS/ar,kiss, kiss, and and fall are associated with the contrast, formsininitalics: italics: popstar, tothe the natureof lexial That is, is, their semantic semantic contribution relates relates leXicalsubsystem. , ub y,tem. That i , their ""manti contribution contribution relate to thenature of lexical subsystem. the participants the participants partieip,,"" involved involved in the the experiential experiential complex, com pIe , and and therelationship rd.tio",hip involved in the experiential complex. md the the relationship the oneinvolving involving kiss. other words, the holdmg between them, them,namely involvingaaakiss. ki ,.InInother otherwords, word while , while whil the the holding between between namelyone holding closed fbrms encode content relating to structural aspetts of what we do\C'd dd , forms form encode cn((k1~ content ( Onlentrelating reloltingto10structural tnu.: turJIaspects d pct:hof ofwhat whatwe we closed-class -

These spatial scenes slightly Theseexamples examplesinvolve involve spatial senes of slightly different kinds, in Th examples involve . patial en ofof lightlydifferent d,ffi rentkinds, kmd where , where where in '" reflects a spatial relationship between the figure (F) and the reference object reflects a spatial relationship between between the the figure (I) retle"" patial relatiomhip (P)and andthe thereference re~ r nceobpect object the box. F, the box. I lowevcr, in However, (RO). In (9a) the the kitten, is fully enclosed by the RO, (RO In(9a) (9' )the theF,1-, I'" kill"',is " fully (ullyenclosed ndo ....'(\ by by the the RU, RO, II" btl\. Ilowcver,in m (RU).). In for quite quite the s.,me kindof of the the other two twoexamples, examples, in ill doe> not not prompt for for quile the the same ... me kind kmd of the other two examples, in does does not prompt prompt the vase, it partly partly relationship. rel.tion hIp. In In (9h) (9b)the theflower nowerisis i;not notfully fullyenclosed endo ....'(\bybythe thevase, v. since , since inleit ilpartly relationship. (9b) the flower not fully enclosed ,cntencC(and (and word) meaning. ("lark uses vrord I meaning. " (lark meining to refer to sentence uses the term term"signal meaning"

"

'night refer refer to asthe theexperiential experiential complex v'kcd, the forms give rnlght refer to to.1' the xpcrientialcomplex omplexevoked, evokc..~, theopen-class 0llCn -dJ ,forms form\give give might as the open-class

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

42 42

stenes risetotodetailed detailed informatkm information concerning concerning the nature nature of the participants, participants. scenes involving the the participants, and and the the states states and and relationships relationships that that bold. hold. involving present in The distinction in types of semantic representation isis also in also present The 107). As we saw Langacker above, Lingacker Cognitive (e.g.,Langacker Langacker 1987). saw above, ognitive Grammar trammar (e.g., argues that lexical classes such as nouns and verbs encode schematic: meanargues that lexical classes such as nouns and verbs encode schematic Another distinction distinction claimed claimed to to hold between nouns do has to to do verbs has nouns and and verbs ing. 15Another ing.'' withwhether whetherthere there isis aa temporal temporal dimension encoded. Langacker Langacker maintains with evolution of of aa thatverbs verbs (but (butnot not nouns) nouns) relate to time, time, and and encode encode the the evolution that particular eventororstate statethrough throughtime.'4 time." AA further furtherschematic schematic aspect aspect of meanofmeanpart kular event ing h1is has to encodes aa schematic (1K) and/or and/or schematictrajector trajector (TR) whether a a form form encodes ing to do do with with whether landmark (LM). ( LM ).For Forexample, example,Langackcr Langackerargues argues that that relational relationallexical lexicalJ1isses, classes, landmark such as as prepositions, schematicTR TRand andLM I NIas aspart partof oftheir their such prepositions1 encode encodeaahighly highly schematic as: under under the instance, in terms of of an an expression expression such such as: tile' 15 For semantic structure. semantic structure.IS For instance, in terms encoding aa schematic under encoding is by of under phrase (NP) (NP) sofa, itit is schematicLM LM that a noun phrase sofa, by virtue virtue of under, giving giving rise rise to to the can he be integrated the complex integratedwith with the the preposition preposition under, can 1^ expression: under the the'sofa. sofa." expression: In addition additionto to schematic schematic meanings also assumes assumes that this sort, sort, Langacker Langacker also that In meaningsofofthis words encode encode "rich" semanticcontent. content.As As we we saw saw earlier earlier in inthe the discussion discussion of words "rich" semantic profile/base encyclopaedicsemantics, semantics, this this Is is conceived conceived of of in in terms terms of of aJ prohie/base complex, in profilesaagiven givensubstructure substructure in which which aa given given form form designates designatesororprofiles withinaa base. base. within The distinction distinctionbetween between schematic schematic versus versus rich also The rich aspects of meaning can also be seen ;oldberg Recallthat thatGoldberg be seenininGoldberg's Goldberg'swork workon onConstruction ConstructionGrammar. Grammar.Recall argues sentence-level constructions, such such as asthe theditransitivc, ditransitivc, have haveaahighly highly argues that that sentence-level rules. schematic meaning associated schematk meaning associatedwith with them, them, serving serving to to encode encodeargument argument roles. In contrast, individual individualwords wordssuch such as as the populatethese theseconconIn contrast, the verbs verbswhich which populate structions, e.g., bake, bake, are associatedwith withrich rich frames framesand andparticipant participant roles. roles. are associated structiuns, e.g.. In ionbetween betweenschematic schematicversus versusrich rich In this this book book II argue arguethat thatthe thedistinction meaning reflectsaa meaningidentified identified by LwTa!my, Talmy.Langacker, langacker, and and Goldberg Goldberg actually actuallyreflects distinction in types types of of meaning meaning representation, distinct distinction in representation1and andthat thatthe thetwo twodistinct types systems. Schematic Schematicmeaning meaningrelates relates typesof ofrepresentation representation relate relate to to distinct distinct systems. to bylanguage. language.That Thatis, to representations representations that that are are specialized specializedfor for being being encoded encodedby such representations take a form that isis highly highly schematic schematicin in nature, nature, specialspecialized being encoded iied for for being encodedin inthe theauditory auditory (or (or signed) signed)medium mediumthat thatisislanguage. language. Representations The Representationsofofthis thissort sortare arewhat whatI Irefer referto toas assemantic semantkstructure. structure.The

" Ihe

" The distinction verb% being profiled: region thenature natureofofwhat whatis is being profiled:a a region I verbs and and nouns flOUflSconcerns the d*stinitionbetween in a domain. in the caw of nouns. and the relations that hold between such regions. in the of in a domasn. in the case of nouns, and the relations that hold between such regions. in the case of

eli)'.. '• I angacker refers to to this way inin which the way whichverbs encode encode scanning.lieliedistinguishes the this as .issequential sequential scanning lexical classes, such as adiectives, adverbs, time from the way time is encoded by other relational such a. advrfbs.and and tinw from the wa'. time is encoded b'. other 'rdaiii,nal kxical irecti 21,04s for aareview). see Evans and I prepositions (see Langacker 59117, 199th, 1999, :ANA; (rcen 21)0(1 review). 200$; see Evans and 1991b, prrpos,tu'r,s (we 1 .rngacker .r.111Inut 'I Indeed. notion importantfor forconstituency c.,ttstitUrn'yinIflt (iT%flitIYC' Indeed.this *hi% m)tionisisimportant I* In I angacker's terms, the NI' elaborates the conceptually dependent dijiendenipreposition PftPI)SItft)nunder. wide,.II will will terms, the N I' elaborates the In discuss what it means to be conceptually dependent in more detail in Part II of the honk. The issue of detail UI P.irt II of the book. The issue of dee ient an more be at ►4,4 ► Ic. elaboration. in the sense of Langacker. will he discussed in more detail in Part III 44 the 1 detail in Part Ill of the book. in more be elaboration. in the sense of langaLker. 1

''

OF MI ANINt; M(i1t TOWARI)5 TOWARDSAANEW NEW ACCOUNT OF WORI) WORD MEANING

43 43

that of of the the theoreticalconstruct constructI Idevelop developtotomodel modelsemantic semantic structure structure is is that associatedwith with In contrast, contrast, the the rich rich representations representations are are associated lex ica l concept. In Lwlanguage—although language—although and are are not not directly directly encoded system. and encoded by the conc eptual system1 level. Representations Representationsofofthis this sort sort are are what what languagefacilitates facilitatesaccess access to to this this level. to modd conceptual structure. The theoretical I refertotoasas conceptual structure. The theoretical construct 1 develop to model I1.'tcr involve aa structure is that of the cognitive model. Cognitive models models involve o mceptual structure is that of the cognitive model. Cognitiveintroduced, simuframe,,,id andsimulations simulations deriving deriving from from the the frame. frame. As As briefly briefly introduced, simufIJmC motor, cognitive, reactivations of ofsensory sensory-motor, cognitive,and andsubjective subjective states, states, are reactivations lat ions are lations that identical to based on, on, hut but not not identical to the the perceptual perceptual and and subjective subjective experiences experiences that k,sed arcstored storedinin the the conceptual conceptual system. system. conceptual in this structure and Partofofmy myargument argument in thisbook book isis that that semantic semantic structure and conceptual Part representation and they structureform formtwo twodistinct distinct levels levels of representation, and do do so so because because they 5trtiULlre systems:the thelinguistic Iinguisti system and the the inhere in in two two distilht distinct representational representational systems: system and presentedby byBarsalou flarsalou et et al. a!. (forth(forthFollowing arguments presented conceptual system. system. Following evolved,ininpart, part,by byfacilitating facilitating that the linguistic system coming), 1I suggest suggest that system evolved, sys in the the conceptual sysmore effective effective control control of of the the extant extant representations representations in more for providing providing aa linguisticrepresentations representations are arc specialized is, linguistic l'hat is, specialized for tern.' tem. 17 That therebyfacilitating facilitating "5caftolding "scaffolding" to to structure structureconceptual conceptual representations, thereby theconceptual conceptualsystem systemevolved evolvedfor foraction action While the communication. While their use in their in communication. language theemergence emergenceofoflanguage purposes1the i.e., for for non-linguistic non-Linguistic purposes, perceptions i.e., and and perception, representationsininlinguistically linguistically mediated mediated conceptual representations of conceptual facilitated facilitated the the use use of with aa cognitivdy modern meaning meaning construction, thereby providing providing cognitively modern humans humans with and linguistic and of linguistic significant significant evolutionary evolutionaryadvantage. advantage. With Withthe theassociation association of advanced in the theadvanced Lonceptual representations,humans conceptual humans were were able able to to engage engage in ritualpractice, practice, symbolic behaviours behaviours that that led led to to the the explosion explosion of of sophisticated sophist icatedritual symbolic agoduring duringthe thelater later scars ago material culture, material culture,art, art,and andscience science around around 50,000 5o,000 years Paeleolithic StoneAge, Age,the theperiod periodthat that archeologists archeologistsrefer referto toas asthe theUpper UpperPaeleolithic Stone alsoRenfrew Renfrew 2007). 2007). ((Nlithen Mithen 1996; see see also of the the book book isis In essence, essence,the theargument argumentIIshall shallbe bemaking making during during the In the course course of that semantic semantic structure structure and and conceptual conceptualstructure structureinvolve involvefundamentally fundamentallydisdisthat is this distinctiveness that tinct sorts representations. Moreover, Moreover, itIt is this distinctiveness that facilitinct sorts of representations. facilitating tatesmeaning meaningconstruction. construction.ItItisisby byvirtue virtueof ofsemantic semanticstructure structurefacilitating tates That accesstotoconceptual conceptualstructure structurethat thatwords wordsappear appeartotohe beprotean proteanininnature. nature.That access is,what whatwe wemight mightinformally informallyrefer referto toas asthe the"meaning "meaningshifting" shifting"properties, properties.soso is, to speak, speak,associated associatedwith withwords wordsisisaasymptom symptomofofthere therebeing beingtwo twodistinct distincttypes types to of representation representationimplicated implicated in in meaning meaningconstruction. construction. of representationalsystems systems involvedinin Rut to toclaim claimthat that there thereare aretwo twodistinct distinctrepresentational But involved meaningconstruction construction isisnot notto toadopt adoptaamodular modular perspective perspective(e.g., (e.g.,Fodor Fodor meaning Modularity holds holdsthat that the the mind mind consists consistsof ofdomain-specific domain-specificencapsuencapsu1 1983). 983). Modularity modules,which which work work by by virtue virtue of module working working on I)Ut lated modules, of one one module on the the out output meaningarises arisesbybyvirtue virtueofof of another. another. As As we weshall shallsee, see,ininLLCM LCCMTheory Theorymeaning of dynamic exchange exchangetaking takingplace placebetween betweenthe thelinguistic linguistic and conceptual aadynamic and conceptual baptcr detailin a hapter moredetail Thisisisdiscussed ininmore "" This in

INl"ROOl'CTION INTRODU(.IION INTRODUCTION

44

disinterplayinvolving involvingdis\yMcm\. M aning construction (on IrU(lion involves IOvol ..., aaacontinual which gi,erise ro to 10 imulalion,.As As activation of of in Ihe bx)k, the we shall hall begin see in delaill.ler Ihe principled separation paralion to in more detail begin 10 to see later in the book, separation of semantic structure approach of ",manlic structure lru lure from from conceptual con eplual structure lru lur calls calls for foraa revised revised approach approach semantic sein,intks adopted in in cognitive cognitive linguistics. this 10 encydopaedic semantics emanli as a, adopted adopled III
system • Th The linguistic linguistic system consists •■ ''''gllislic s>~le", con i ts of of symbolic ymbolic units. unil . units are are mad kxical • Symbolic S,.",/lOlic units omirs form and and lexical I xicalconcepts. concepl . Symbolic made up up of of phonological forms concepts. • '1 t'ptual system li'ie •■ he co/lfeploml S>",lflll con i IS of cognilIVe models. modeh. consists of cognitive The conceptual and give giverise riseto toaaapotentially potentially Cognitive' models are • Cog,lIli.·e ",oCnlalion ()f lexical "rUllur., Ihe ubjClIofof provides diagrammatic Part II of the book. Part II of the book. In between thelexical lexicalconcept conceptin Pari oflhe In Figure rigure 2.41h d. hed line between belween the Ihe lexical concepl in In Figure2.4 2.4the the dashed dashed the model—represented thecircle—in circle—in Ihe linguistic svstim y,lem and Ihe cognitive cognilive model—represented model- repro nled by bythe Ihe irdc- on system and the the conceptual system represents the two. two. conceptual which associates a path of (OI1l.:cptual system ,y,tclll represents rCJlr~nb a of .14.:4..C"" d''''k:iJt the two. access whilh Figure representation in IA( !-igur. Ihe nalure of 'manlic representation rcpre",nl.lionininLCCM LC M attempts to the nature nature of of semantic Figure 2.5 2.5 allempls attempts 10 to convey convey the notion 1,1 I I11W hc nelll(," ol ilrili1011 III 01 a a ~Up'll 'I Ihr .. il m<Jl.ld I hascd battJ I'I'W) ""Iton III a.. .14111111410r. Imul~lor flatrrC'\br modd on f\.lruJuu Iiarsalou' II144411 is ilignitivr Ft% t‘c model ,% Kiwi" un n tdih s(up.rd simuLator, IS relmiolishir conktruit %irimi.ii411. u ri.1 iIn fl)Udd.and and IIit% Its rN rrtatsonship withthe ihc tunsirulni ni n.dW t 0of1 a•a cognitive '-''lUUhu' model, Ul<,Jd.. "00 tlnnlfup with whh thot "onlolrlkl nl mill t or. is I dlkuunj nature in and eipcsi.alty Chaptersindcly10. (.h.&pttn ~ .00 ~ r«"'lh' to. 10. .

TOWARDSAAA NEW NEWACCOUNT Ac:(:ouNr TOWARDS AC OUNT OF OF WORD MlANING TOWARDS OF WORD MEANING 45 ----~~~~~~~~~~~~--~ LEXICAL REPRESENTATION LEXICAL LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

LINGUISTIC SYSTEM LINGUISTIC SYSTEM

CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM CONCEPTUAL CONCEPTUAl.

SYMBOlIC UNIT UNIT SYMBOLIC

COGNITIVE MODEL MODEL

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

1e""",1 lexical concepl concept

·1

lllol RF: 1.4. 1. .. . .t KE F161.•1E 2.4.

I

phonopIoonoIogocal logical form loon

I

lexical L( (M representation ininLCCM Theory t exiul representation LC .M Theory Thcory Lexical

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION LEXICALREPRESENTATION REPRESENTATION

LINGUISTIC SYSTEM LINGUISTIC SYSTEM SYSTEM

CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM CONCEPTUAl. SYSTEM CONCEPTUAL

-_..._.

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

.'.' :•

•'.

, '.

'0__

....

"......

--

SYMBOLIC UNIT SYMBOlIC UNIT

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

lexical concepl concept

./

...

.........

.

--

phonopIoonological IogocaI form loon

-V

2.5. Semantic Sernanti. representationin I.((;NI Theory fI'I(,L'kI l<.l'RI .l.S. mantic: representation rtpl"bC'nt.ltion ininLCCM Le . 1Theory Th ry FiGv•E 2.5.

heur. Figure ligure 2.5 I he()ry. Hgure 2.5 is aasFigure I;igure excepllhal ilit additionally addilionallyfeatures fealur features ISIhe thesame sameas Figure 2.4 2.4except exceptthat that it Theory. the dashedelipse elipseencircling encirclingthe thelexical lexical .oncept—in the linguistic system—and aa dashed da~hed Ihe lexi al concept—in con epl- in the Ihelinguistic lingui Ii system—and sy Itm- and the cognllove model—in Ihe model - in the Iheconceptual conceplual system—thc ~YSlem- th two Iwotypes Iype. ofofrepresenrepresen · the cognitive model—in the system—the comprise semantic semanti. representation. laloo n which collectively c U""lovciy comprise manli representation. represenlalion. tation

Summary Summary this terms, oUllined outlined the the starting points andguiding guiding in broad lem", In this Iho chapter chapler 1II have, have, in Ih. starting I.rting points poinl and gUiding Jssumptions of the theTheory of Lexical I esical Conceptsand andCognitive CognitiveModels Models(LCCM (I.(CCM ( 'NI d" .. mpli()n of ()flh 1Theory hcory of of! exildl Concepts (.on«pl and Cognllive Model (I assumptions I heory). heory). The observation that word ·1 larting point poinl for for this lhi study ludy isi the theobservation observation that Ihal word word Theory). The starting starting for this study is inherently inherently variable ross situated instances of use. meaning is variable or protean protean across mc:aning i\ inherently variable or proteana. auo \ituatcd instances in\tancC4iof ofuse. usc.InIn attempting to from five recent develallel11l'ling 10 address addre, Ihi' issue, i,,"e, LCCM II(nCNI .MTheory 111l'(oryarises dri from fromfive liverecent '<'<eoll develdevel · address this issue, Theory arises attempting to pmcnts in Theserelate relateIt) theembodied embodiednature natureof opment Ihelanguage languag sciences, ·oenc . These rei.le ( (i) i) the Ihe embodied nalure of opments inthe the language sciences. toto(i)

__________________________

46

46

INTRODUCTION lION

'NTRODUCT~'~O~N ~

________________________________

ismore moresophisticated sophisticated than cognition, (ii) cog111tion, (i.) th view lexical representation repr~ntation isis more !>Oph. t •.catedthan than (ii) the the viewthat that lexical lexical representation cognition. rdatc, lexical representationsrelate, has previou previously been aassumed, has Iy been umed, (iii) (i.i) theview v.ewthat thatlexical lelU alrepresentations representat.on relate, (iii) the view previously has mental knowledgestructure, structure, (iv) the the view viewthat that the the mental in parts part, to to non-linguistic non-linguistic (iv) m part, non Iingui"i knowledge knowkdge t.ructur , (.v) v.ew. that mental in form and and meanings, meanings, rather than than grammar consists of symbohc symbolic assemblies of form rammar consistS con iSIs of a scmbh of meaning, rather than of grammar words, and (v) the view that words and and abstract abstract rules which which operate on on words, words, and and (v) the ~,ord rules whi h operate the view v~ewthat that abstract rules operate and words the context of language use, which is to say meaning constiuCtiofl construction arises in in the context of I~nguag use, whICh.is to con truction arises ari to say .say meaning communicathe sit situated and interactional natureof linguistically mediated the situated interactional nature oflinguistically hngUl ucally mediated med.ated communicaco.m111UnlCa the uatcd and and the That arises as a function function of the tion between between interlocutors. Thatis, is, meaning meaning arises as as aa tion between interlocutors. interlocutors. That is, meaning arises funct.on of .of th: tion also discussed, discussed, inthis this intentions. I also expression of of situated situated intentions. exprCS5.on ~itu3ted communicative ommunicati.. intention. al d.scussed, in m th. expression Theory, the presump presumpof Theory, the NI Theory, distinction at th the hheart oilLCCM (.(.Cr.~ chapter, tm tion at rt ofl chapter, the the principled distinction chapter1 the pnncipled principled di of and conceptual tion that that the linguistic linguistic consist tion that the lingui tie and con eptual systems tern con. t of distinct d. unct types types of of tion modd. As shall see, representation:the the lexial lexicalconcept concept andthe thecognitive cognitive model. As we the rcprC\Cntation: lexical con cpt and the cognitive A we we.shall hall see, see, interact and thereby give rise to although distinct, these representational types interact and thereby give rise distinct, these representational reprC\CntJt.onal types mteract and thereby gIVe nseto short, [.CCM LCCM word meanings. meanings. protean nature the apparently nature of of word meanin~. In short, L 'M Theory Theory the apparently apparently protean protein nature and conceptual assumes.1a principled distinction principled di distinction between semanticstructure structure as,umes tinction between between semantic semantIC stru ture and and conceptual conceptual assumes structure. Structure. trutture.

3 Cognitive linguistics

I

present representation and and semantic semantk composition \, the of lexical lex; al representation representat.on Jnd semanu ompo .tion As the present present treatment treatment of lexical composition the perspective perspective known as as cognitive cognitive linguistics, thischapter chapter in the "is grounded grou nded in perspective known cognit.velinguistics, linguistics,this thi hrietlv introdt,es isi hrlefly thecognitive cognitive linguistis Iinguisti enterprise. enterpri .Cognitive Cognitivelinguistics lingui tic is briefly introduces introducesthe linguistics enterprise. Cognitive linguistics irguably the the approach to drgu.,bly rapidly developing devel ping approach approach the relationship relation hip between between arguably the most most rapidly rapidly developing to the the relationship between language1 mind,and and human human sociocultural 1.lOguage, socioculturalexperience experiencein in the thelanguage languagesciences, iences. language, mind. mind, and the language sciences, and increasingly influential in the the interdisciplinary .10<1 i, increasingly inerea ingly influential influential in theinterdisciplinary mterdi iplinary proic projecti known known as a known as and is is project ognitive science. stience. In In this this chapter chapter 1II present present its its guiding assumptions assumptions and also ,,'gnitive In it guiding assumption and and also also cognitive science. briefly review itits its two two best-developed best-developed sub-branches: hriefly two best-developed sub-branches: ub-branches: (i) cognitive semantics, semantic, briefly review review (I) cognitive cognitive semantics, and cognitive approaches togrammar. grammar. II ddo do this thisin in order to to provide .111<1 cognitive approaches approa h to grammar. thi in order toprovide provid aaa and (ii) (ii) cognitive context for for the the discussion at various various points throughout then lUntext di ussion at at various points point throughout throughout the book. II then then context for discussion the book. book. discuss the ways ways in in which which LCCM Theory builds builds upon upon and and complements
which LCCM 11CM whlth ICCM Theory is i.is based, based, deriv from cognitive Iingul ti .In Inparticular, parti ular, based, derive derivefrom fromcognitive cognitivelinguistics. linguistis. In particular, which [.( fC CM M Theory t3k its starting tarting point point the the core coreassumptions a umptionsand primary is the core assumptions andprimary primary LCCM Theory takes takes as as its starting point Ulmmi tmC1ltsof ofthe thecognitive cognitivelinguistics Iingui tiesenterprise. enterprise.Accordingly, Accordingly,in thi.section ommitments of the cognitive linguistics enterprise. Accordingly, in this this section commitments briefly introduce the nature of the cognitive linguistics enterprisefor for those I briefly briefly ontroduce ofthe the cognitive cognitivelinguistics Iingui ti enterprise forthose tho introduce the nature of readers to to whom itit may rCdder> may be unfamiliar. before before proceeding, proceeding, in in the the following following may beunfamiliar, unfamiliar, beft)re proceeding, the following readers to whom whom it Section, to toidentify identifyhow howLCCM 1C(:M relates to some "'
A .oinprchensive book,letigth introduction èntroduinon 1i cognilivr lingutsikias Evans and andt ;men 120061. 11006). to cognitive linguists.%

1.INTRODUCTION TROOU(;TION

-

48

they tmerged emergeddunng during Ih the 196<1 loos and cognitive Ihey and1970s, 1970 •particularly particularlycognitive cognilive psychology. p'YLhlll~,gy. partitularly during the 1960S and they emerged Nowhere this dearer than in work relating to human categorization 'owhere iis Ihis dtarer than Ihan in 10work workrelating relalmg to 10human humancategorization, calegonzallon. Nowhere is this lillmore particularly as adopted Charles Fillmore the 1970s (e.g., 1975) parll(ularlya dopled bbyCharles (harl ... Fillmore I illmor.ininthe Ihe1970S 1970 (e.g., (e.g.•Fillmore !til more1975) 1975) brRJ by particularlY as have and Georg George L.tkoff Lakoff in the 198os (e.g., Lakoff 1987). Also of of importance and Ihe1980s 1980 (e.g., (t.g .• Lalwtt Lakon1987). 1987). Also AI", ~fimportance Imporlanc have ha\c Lakoft ininthe and George been earlier traditions such as Gestalt psychology, as applied to the structure applied to the structure betn earlier traditions lradilion such u haG lall p y,hology. as a apphed 10 Ihe Iru lure as (estalt been earlier of language by Leonard TaImy (e.g., 2000) and Ronald l-angacker (e.g., oflanlluag by Leonard I conardTalmy '[Jlmy(e.g.1 (t.g.• 20(0) and and Ronald RonaldLangacker I.. nga(ker (e.g.1 (e.g .• 1987). 1987), ofFinally, language by have had longthe neural underpinnings of language and cognition have had Finally. Ih n ural undcrpinnin~ of oflanguage languag and and «>gnlllon ha\e had, longlong. Finally the neural standing influence on the character and content of cognitive linguistic the'landing influence on the Ih character character and and content conlenl of ofcognitive cognlli\e linguistic hngul IIC theIh standing influence on ories,• from from early early work work on on how how visual biologyttinst constrains colour-termsystems systems orie vi ual biology biology con'lrain coIOl~r'lerm y,lems rains colour-term work on how visual ories, from earls ( Kay and McDaniel 1978) to more more recent recent under the (t;ayand 1<0 niell978)to re enl work work under Ihe rubric rubn( of ofthe Ih Neural cur I rubric Nkl)aniel 1978) to more (Kay and Theory of of Language (Feldman 2006; Gallese 2oo5). In recent Langu,lge (Feldman 2006;Gallese Gall and and Lakoff Lakoffzoo5). l00S).In Inrecent re<enl years. )'can.. Theory Likolt ioo6; Theory of Language and cognitive lingui linguistic theories become sophisticated sufficiently ~a~e become bt-come sufficiently ulhuenlly.5ophisticated ",phl\llldled and an~ (Ollnllive lic theories Ihe"ril'" have have linguistic cogrnti'e detailed to begin making predictions that are testable using the broad range the broad range delailed 10 bt'gin making makIng predictions predlcllon that Ihal are are testable l"lable using u"ng Ihe broad range detailed to begin of converging methods from the cognitive sciences.] of (o",erging methods mel hod from from the Ihe cognitive cognilivesciences.2 , itn.( ..1 . ' of ItIt i, described as an is important to note that cognitive linguistics is best described importanl to 10 note nol that Ihal cognitive cognlll\e linguistks hngul Ill' isI.' best he I d""rtbt~ as a an an is important It articulated enterprise" precisely because it does not constitute a single closely articulated "enlerpri~" pre
leading researchers empirical Ofl ctflpirKaI for anUvdudury introductory essays • See ~ (,ont.ile. toOlr\L1lkJoSlarquer 1.artt11tZet~ al. aL 1241417) (1oo~' for nwrs by by h.twn on lin nnplfial bYlad... r al (2007) for (onzalc,-slarquez Cf 5cc methods in topinive linguist rnc1M.1 In ctlf1llhW' hnpbtK linguist ItL

ifl

(:0GNIIIvE -

S

COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS

"

49

49 49

(or studies of Generalization ('Aimmitment has concrete is common among Firstly1 cognitive nfl what Il.•anguage. ognlllvelinguistic hngui IICstudies ludi focus fOlU nguage. Fi~tly. Firstly, cognitive linguistic studies focuson on whal what iiscommon common among successful methods and of language, seeking to re-use ... 1' nf u successful UCl ,ful methods mel hod, and and explanations explanalion, spects Oflanguage. language,\CCking seeking10 to re· re-use explanations a"1" displays us word meaning instance, just these aspects. For :,,,. pe I . I'or lance. ju ., word word meaning mean 109 displays di,play prototype prolOlype ms' , Ihl'>C these aaspects. For 10 instance, justI as prototype a cross examples of reft rents of given are better and worse ' -Ihere arc wor~ examples example of of referents referent of of given givenwords, word,. are hetter better and and worse words, llectsi—there e«cd' applied the same prinvarious studies have particular related in

Ihe he (.enerali'duon ludies (If I The Generalization C.ommilmenl Commitment ha has lonuele concrete consequenles consequences for for studies of

,.IJI«I "" vvarious riou studies ludi have Ih same same prinprin . related10 in parlicular particular wa ways—so have applied applied the (e.g., organization of morphology (e.g.1 'taylor i o), syntax ,pic> to lU Ihe organization organilJlion of of morphology morphology (e.g., (e.g .•Taylor 'Jylor 2003), 2(lO). syntax ynlax (e.g.. (e.g .• ciples tothe the and Ohala 1984). 1995), and phonology (e.g., Jaeger (, hlhe rg I99S ). and (e.g .•Jaeger Jaeger and Ohala Oh"'a 1984). 1984). 1995), and phonology phonology (e.g., Goldberg (Lakoff 1990). This commitment is the Cognitive Commitment Ihe h "second 'ond (Ommilmenl i the Ihe Cognitive COSOltiv Commitment Commllmenl(Lakoff (Lakoff1990). 1990).This Thi, The commitment is haracterization 1)1 the general printo nrepresents I'r,,,,,n" aaa",mmllmenl 10providing pnlVldingaaacharacterization chara ·Ieri/.llion of ofthe Ihegeneral gener'"prinprin commitment to providing cognition from that accord with what is known about human for language <'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 artificial intdli and brain sciences, particularly psychology, the Ihe nlher lC>gntlive brain sciences, <'(Ienc"" particularly partkularly psychology, p y,h logy. artificial artificial intelliinlclli the other tithercognitive cognitive and brain philosophy In other words, the Cognitive IICUIOSCienCe, and grnce. lencc. and phil""'l'hy. In In other olher words, "'nrds. the Ih Cognitive Cognili,. gence, cogniuve cognitive neum neuroscience, and philosophy. should models of language and linguistic organization ommitment asserts that (Commitment nmnlllmenl asserts a rt that lhal models mooel of oflanguage language and and linguistic lingui Ii organization organizalionshould hould mind, rather than purely aesthetic what is known about the human nil d whal known about aboul the Ihe human human mind, mind.rather ralherthan Ihanpurely purelyaesthetic aeslhetic reflect what Iis known of lonmulisms or economy of such as the use of particular kinds ,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 of formal approaches to linguistics.4 in n·pre" nlalion. as aas in Ihe (case of approach to 10lingu15u representation, in the thecase of formal approaches linguistics..'4 nuniber of concrete ramilkations.,Firstly, The ( ognitivetommitment has a 'I he CognillVe Commilmenlhas ha,aanumber numberof ofconcrete (Oncreleramifications. ramificallon Fir Ily. The Cognitive Commitment Firstly, iolatc known include structures or processes that linguistic theories cannot hngu"lic 11 include include structures IruLlur or or processes prlllc"" that Ihal violate viol.le known known linguistic Iht.'Ories theories cann cannot instance, if sequential denyproperties of the human cognitive system. For Ihe human human cognitive (ognllive system. y I m. For I;or instance, in lance.ifIfsequential
and a quite a lot is about human categonilatK)fl1 For example. 111 tril..\. For I·or a lot i, known known about about human humancategorization, 4.:Jh."guri/,.)tlun.and dndaa metrics. example, quite is for theory that that reduces word mechanisms Ihl'''rr Ihal redu e word w rd meaning meaning to 10 the Ihesame memechanisms m 'ham m responsible rresponsible pon Iblefor for theory reduces meaning to the same simpler than one that hypotheLategorizalion in in olher other cognitive cognitive domains domains is ,.Ill'gortlalion cognilive domain, is i simpler impl r than Ihan onethat Ihal hypotheh)1'<'lhe categorization in other one Finally. instanie, lexical a separate system for representing, for IlC .. y lem for for representing, rep"""nlmg. for for instance, in lanc .Iexilal 'manlil.Finally, Imally. sizes a "'parale separate .system lexical semantics. find convergent incumbentupon uponthe the cognitive linguistk researcher tofind IIit isiisincumbent incumbenl upon Ihecognitive cognilivelinguistic lingui licresearcher researcherto10 find convergenl it convergent of components of any model or explanation— evidence for the cognitive Iden,e for for the Ihe ,ogniti\e realily of ofany anymodel modelor orexplanatione pl3nalionevidence cognitive reality of (Omponenl components of 'shether or not this research is conducted by the cognitive linguist. whelher or nm this Ihi, research research is i, conducted conducled by by the Ihe cognitive (ogllltivclinguist. Iingu"l whether or not main (ognitive linguistics practice can be divided, approximately1 intotwo twomain can be bedivided, divided.approximately, approximaldy.into inlO IWO maIO ( ognllive linguistics lingui liespractice pra Ii ecan Cognitive approaches to) gram gramireasof ofresearch: research: cognitive semanticsand andcognitive cognitive(approaches arc." .. '>C,uch: cognitive ogniliv semanli and cogniliv (approa h to) (0) areas of semantics gram- ' mar(see ligure3.1). j.i). mar ((see 'cFigure Itgur. J.I ), mar I he area of study known aascogniu\' cognitivesemanli semanticsiis(on concerned with 10' investigat'I he area area of ludy known known emedwith wllh IIgal The of study as cognitive semantics is concerned investigatthe relationship between experience, the conceptual system, and the semanIIIg the Ihe relationship rdali(ln hip between helwc n experience, experience.lhe conceplual, lem.and and(he Ihesemanscman ing the conceptual system, working in terms, structure encoded by language. In speciti.. U, structure lruLlure encoded en"l
c:o(;NITIvE ICSS CO(iNITIVELINGUISt LlNGUISTI COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS _

INTRODUCTION

50IN1 ROI)I(.T ION .!50 ~_.......;' ;;.;T'OD\JCT'ON so

CognitivelinguIstICs: linguistics: cognatlvs COgnH'vellngu'"uc.: thatisiscompatibIs compatible The study of language in a waythat The study en The Il\Jdy ol 01 language ~ in aa way way"'" .. -mind. -human the what is known about with human wIth who' what II is k.-n known oboU1 about "'" the hum8II mind w,II1 n1II1d. and revealingthe the asreflecting reflectingand languageas treating language " treating . ."", ~ . . refleclong end ,rev.ahng ....1Ing "'" mind n1II1d

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

grammar: Cognitiveapproec:hee approaches to to grammar: CognltIvS approaches CognlUve The ltudy study 01 of "'" the oymboIIc symbolic linguistic study ot the The The IInguII\IC their language,and andthesr comprise units that coinpflse language. ..... and " units ",., that compnM Ia~. principles of organization 04organozallOn organizatIon prwcploo pnncsplSS 01

by language ,revealed ....ledby~

3.1. The The study of1 meaning FIGLIRF. FU.il' Rl 3.1. }ole tudy of mnning and grammar meaning and and grammar the study FIGuRE

in cognitive linguistics in in cognitive lingul Ii

concerned with he interested interested in in modelling modelling the the human human mind much as concerned w,th with muchh as mind just just aas mu be mmd as it it is is concerned be interested in semantic structure. structure. investigating Iinguisti linguistic semanli semantics,• which which is is to inv~tigaling 10 say say semantic semanlic slructure. semantics, investigating linguistic grammar concerned with with modelling modelling the the to In contra contrast, cognitive approach In I. aaa cognitIVe wilh lhe cognitive approach to to grammar, grammar isisconcerned In contrast, per language system: the mental grammar. grammar, rather rather lhan than the the nature nature of of mind mind se. than language y.lem: the Ihe nature of mind per per se . language system: the mental grammar1 of work in so by taking as its starting points the conclusions of work in does so by taking However, 1I0wever. laking aas its starting tarting points points the the conclusions conclu ion of work In However, itit doe> does so meaning is central to cognitive cognitive approaches as cognitive semantics. This follows meaning is central to cognillve follow a~ i ognitiv. approaches approach I his follows as cognitive semanti . Thi forthe the to grammar. Indeed, il it that the centrality of meaning meaning for to grammar. Indeed. iis worth worth observing observing that lhallhe centrality of for Ihe it is to grammar. are study of of grammar iis anolher another way in which which cognitive cognitiveapproaches approaches togrammar grammar are study way in whi h cognitive approa h to to grammar are study of grammar grammar is another way fundamentally cognitive. cognitive, as (2000). observed by by Talmy lalmy (zooo). as a~ observed observed by T.llmy (2000). fundamentally fundamentally cognitiveapproaches approachesto to Although the cognitivesemantics semanticsand and cognitive Although tudy of ofcognitive cognitive semanti cognilive approaches to Although the the study study ot implies that grammar are occasionally separate in practice, this by no means implies that no means grammar arc o(c. ionally separate parale in in practice1 pra Ii e. this Ihi Lw by no mean impli Ihal occasionally grammar arc Linked—most workin in their domains of enquiry are anything but tightly linked—most anything bUI but tightly Iheir domains domains of of enquiry enquiry are arc anylhing lighlly linked mOSI work work in their both meaning and gramcognitive investigate cognilive linguistics Iingui li finds find nee ry to to investigate inv tigate both both meaning meaningand andgramgram cognitive linguistics hnds ititit necessary necessary matical simultaneously. malicalorgani7.ation imultaneou Iy. mat icalorganization organization simultaneously. approaches togrammar grammar As with research in cognitive As with research In manllCS. cognitive cognitiveapproaches approa he toto grammar cognitive semantics, semantics, As with research in cognilive Ronald Scholars such as have also typically one of have also typically typically adopted adopted two foci. foci.Scholars holars such ueh as asRonald Ronald adopted one one of two two foci. have also 2oo8) have emphasized the study of the study of emphasized Langacker (e.g., 1987, 1991a, iy9tb, 1999, Langacker (e.g .•1987, '987. '99w. 2008) have empha ized Ihe tudyof 1991!'. '999. zooS) 1991a, '99,11. langacker (e.g., organization. In his theory the give rise to to linguistic linguistic the cognilive prin ipl that th.t give rise ri 10 Iingui tic organization. organization. In In his histheory theory the cognitive cognitiveprinciples principles that give delineate the principles of Cognitive Grammar, Langacker has attempted to delineate the principles Langacker has attempted attempted to delineate lhe prin iples of Cognitive Grammar. ker has of Cognitive Grammar, Lang. that structure a grammar, and to relate these ofgeneral generalcognition. cognition. to aspects that Irueture aa grammar. grammar. and to 10 relate relate these these to 10aspects aspects of of general cognilion. that structure researchersincluding including The investigation, pursued by The second avenue av nue of ofinvestigation, inv IIg.tion.pursued pur uedby byresearchers researcher including The second second avenue of a!. (Fillmore et Bergen and Chang (2005), Croft (2oo2), Fillmore and Kay (Fillmore Bergen Chang (2oo5), (2005). Croft roft (2002), (2002). Fillmore Fillmor and Kay (Fillmore a tt al. al. Bergen and and Chang Lakoff (lakoff and Goldberg (1995, 2006), Lakoff (Lakoff and Kay and Fillmore 1988; 1999), '988 ; Kay Hllmore 1999), '999). Goldberg (199s. ('995. 2006). Lakoff (Lakoff and Kay and and lillmore (1996), aims Thompson 1975; Lakoff 1987), and Michaelis aims and Lambrecht Thomp,,"n '975; Lakoff L.lkoff1987). '987). and dnd Michaclis Mkhaelb and .... mhrc..hl (1996), ('996) •• imsto10 Thompson 197s; the linguistic detailedaccount of provide provide moredescriptively d riplivelyand andformally formallydetailed deta.led •account count of ofthe Ih linguistic Iingui lic formally provideaaamore more descriptively resear.hers attempt to units that comprise a particular language. These researchers attempt language. These unil Ihal comprise parlicular language. The. researcher attempl to to iimprisc aa particular units that of language, from morphemes provide a broad-ranging inventory of the units of language, from morphemes units oflJnguag ,from morphcl11 provide .ranging inventory inventory of the unil~ provide aa broad broad-ranging oftheir theirstructure, structure, and seek accounts to words, idioms, and phrasal patterns, and seek t words, words, idioms, idiom.s, and phrasal phrasal patterns, pattcrn~, ~kaccounts Jt:.t:.ount~ofof their truc.:turc. to hers who have pursued this compositional possibilities, and relations. Researchers who have pursued relations. Resca «lmpo"lional po ibilill • and rcla,inn . Re..carcher who have pur uedthis Ihi compositional possibilities,

51 .£. 51

investigation are are developing set Iinc IIlH'>lIgalion Iheories that Ihal are aretollectively coli lively arc developing developingaaa sel set of of theories theories that are collectively li ne "ofI investigation construction grammars. approach takes known lruction grammars. grammars. This Thi g neral approach lak itits name name as known J' as con construction This general general approach takes its name that Ihe the bask Iro'" linguistic unil of language is iis the Ihe the the new view in in cognilive cognitive linguistics linguistics Ih.1 that the basic basic unit unitof of language language the fro mIhe (roifl units "n,I)(,II( IIllroduced above. ·ulh symbolic ymbolic uni arc aiM> known. III unit, si.mbolicUIllI. unit,as asintroduced introducedatx)ve. above. Such Such symbolic units are are also also known, known, in in \.oll,(rudion grammars, aasconstruction.' ruct ion grammars1 grammars,as constructions.' co nstruction

LCCM Antecedents ofLCCM LCCM Theory Theory Antecedents of compøsut tonality to rtprestnt4ition IIThe he 10 lexical toLw be he "I'Pro'lh approach approachto to lexical lexical rcprc.entalion representation and and semanlic semantic compo;itionalily compositionality to be and "r,'..cnled rCSI book ha feet fcct in in both both cognitive cognilive semantics, semantics, and and rrL.sCnted in the presentedm inthe therest restof of the the book book has has feet in both cognitive semantics, approaches ,o~llI li vc .pproaches 10 ItItconstitutes con lilulCS aaacognitive cognitive scmanti theory Iheory Lognitivt cognitive approachesto to grammar. grammar.It constitutes cognitive semantic semantic theory oncerned w,lh with meaning-construction mcaning-construuiun proesses. and nonJ' meanmg-con IrUllion processes, proce.ses. figurative figuralive and and nonnon .1.. as it.1it "is conI, linguistic.organization organization and mncerned of the Ihe key key aspects aspects of oflinguistic lingui lic knowledge, knowledge. and and concerned Wllh with some the key aspects of linguistic knowledge, andthe the concerned with some some of shallargue arguein indetail detail later inthe the ) m!>ohc nature nalure of language which, which.. shall argue in detail later laler in Ihe symbolic natureof of language language which, as as III shall ho0k, key role in in semanli( semantic compo composititionalily. tonality.Indeed, Indeed,compositionality compositionality h"nes mcognitive cOSllIllvelinguistics, hngUi II s.upon whichLCCM LC ' MTheory Thcorydraws dr.w antecedent theories and/or builds in order ndlo r bu,lds m to begin 10 give a sen of (i) ils di linctive conlributogive a sense senseofof(i)(i)itsitsdistinctive distinctivecontribucontribuand/or builds in order to begin to tII"ln, . and (ii) how it attempts synthesize sometimes divergent cognitive .and (ii) ( ii )how howit ilattempts altemp"toto 10 ynlh i7esometimes somelimesdivergent divergenlcognitive (ogllll.ve and synthesize l Iion, IOgu"l Ih . . . theories, inorder to begin tomove cognitive toaasingle single eon es.in In order to 10begin begmto moveto10 ingle"joined-up" "joined · up"cognitive . I( theories, inguistic IOgu"llC Ihcory I . 'd 'fi theory.. One One goal to provide . . ne goal goa isis , to 10provide prov, ea aunified Ulll edperspective, perspeclive.relating relatinglinlinunified perspective, relating linlinguistic theory. tigU"I" guistic . . h \lrUClur d guistic structure and n organi/at ionon onthe onehand, hand,and andmeaning meaning other. an organization l' stiocsithe org.10ll..dtlon on tthe eone one .1I1d meaningconstrueconstru ructureand um on the other. other.

h:.

s See ( .oldberg f 2006: db.

'ciiivarieties OfotCons' (onslru4(Ion (,r.&mm.ar, thedifferent 10)forftrdiscussion ofofthe 10) rut non ;1.11111114f.

~ ~1 ~

52 Si

___

INTRODUCTION

'NTROOUCTI~O~N ~

53 53

-

Meaning construCtiOn construction Meaning Meaning toaddress address Within cognitive havebeen beentwo twosignificant significant attemptsto Withon cognitive semantics semantic; there have haw been.',,'O ignifkant attempts attempt to add~ semantics there Within These relate to Mental Sp,kes the role role of language th role oflanguage language in meanmg con,tructlon. 1 h~ relate reiate to toMental iental Spaces Space, meaningconstruction. construction. These in meaning the and the more recent 1997), and the more (1994 1997), Theory. GillesFauconnier buconnier(1994. (1994. 1997). a~d the more re<:ent Theory, developed developed by Gilles Fauconnier (illcs Theory1 developed andMark Mark Turner Conceptual Blending developed byGilles GillcsFauconnier lauconnier and Conceptual Blending Theory, Theory. developed dewloped by by ("II fauconlller and 1arkTurner Turner (:onceptual Theory. (2ooz see whkhbuilds builds upon Mcntal (2001; see also also Coulson woo), 1000). which build,upon uponMental MentalSpaces pa," Theory. Theory. zooo),which also Coulson (A)UlSOfl (zooz for issuCs of MentalSpaces Spaces Theoryrepresents represents anattempt attemptto to account issues attempt nlS an an to.. ount for for I u~ of of Mental paces Theory repr in the the Anglo American reference on in discourse discourse which ha"e have proved problematic have provedproblematIC prohkmatk in reference di ou«;c which m the Anglo-American ng1o .Am~n an in which Mental Spaces Theory is that philosophy of language tradition. The novelty of Mental Spaces Theory is that oflanguage tradition. "\ he noveity of Mental SpacClo Theory' that philosophy philosophy of it provides way of of modelling modelling discourse discourse spaces—distinct itit provides provide aaaway way modelling di oursc in terms term of of mental mental spaces—distinct paces:-- aai network network of ofmental mentalspaces, pac • discourse proliferateas we think talk (see think and Figure which proliferate as we and talk talk(see (seeFigure Figure 3.2). 3. 1 ). of the Conceptual Blending The later development of of Conceptual Theory adopts aspects the The r development BlendingTheory Theoryadopts adopt!>aspects aspeet of oft~e The lat later development of creativity associassodarchitectureof ofMental MentalSpaces Spaces Theory in in order order to model the architecture of Mental Spa Clo Theory model the thecreativity creatiVIty a,;(ICIarchitecture ated with with meaning construction and the the use use of language language in in meaning ~eaningconstrucc?n tru ated tru tion and u of oflanguage ated with meaning meaning con construction own. theoretical machinery of tion as well as developing significant theoretical machinery of tion as a, well well a.is developing developong iglllficant theoretical machm ry of its ,tits own. own. lion conprimary both theories is that their However, what is common to both theories is that their primary focus conthemi i that primary focu, con However. However,what what i,iscommon common to the conceptual rather than than cerns compo mechanisms compositional that operate at the eptu~1rather ~ther ~hanat ..att cern itional mechanisms me hani m that thatoperate operateat theconceptual con primarily words,neither neither of of these theories the the lingu"tic level. In In other words, words. .ofthese t~ . theories theone isIisprimarily pru"anly the linguistic linguistic level. level. In other knowledge. including focused contribution focu!>Cd the nature of or contribution contnbutlon of oflinguistic \ongu"tlcknowledge, knowledge.including mdudmg focused on onthe thenature natureof of or processes—whatFauconnier Fauconnier refers refers to to as as words, word. meaning-con tructi n processes—what processes-what Fauconnier refer as words, to to meaning-construction meaning-construction ofboth both these theories important concern concern backstage cognition. instance, theories ba kstage cognition. I-or instance, in,tante. an an important illlponant concernof of boththese thcsc.'heon backstage cognition. For For in meaning conconis of in meaning i, mc<~anism and and processes p~oces m .meanmg con is the the importance importance of of conceptual mechanisms consider the following quotation: struction. By way of illustration, consider the following quotation: _struction. truction. By way of tration. con ,der the followmg quotat, n: of illu illustration, Base

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

.1'"

I\. , , ,l

(OGNITIVI (;()GNITIVE LINGUISTIC COGNITIVELINGUIs1I(s LINGUISTICS

________________________________________

...

spaces 3.2. FIGURE 3.2..AA lattice lattice of FIC.l'R'}.L lanile ufmental men'oJlspaces paces

.........

6O ",

-...

..

'0

it, is is hut the tip 1guage. 'tthe the iceberg ujge,• as As lholg .. ni!UJ~c .nas we U II. i but but the Ih tip tiPofof Ih iceberg Kebergofnt ofcognitive cognlll\' econstruction. lon,tructIOIl. As we use use it, unfolds.much much going on behind the scenes: New domains appear, links are are ta~"U~ unfold, mu hisisi going goingon onbehind behmdthe thescenes: en :New .~domains domainappear, ,ap~.u,linlu are Ourseunfolds, ji„ourse links • abstract Operate, internal structure spreads. Viewpoint f'lrt:t:'J. meaning truUurr eflwrges ('mcrg~ and and spreads, prtad. vicwroint torpedoJh"tract abstractmeanings meaningsopera't, operate, internal internal structure emerges and viewpoint shitting. tot us keep p shifting. htryJ.lY talk l.1lk olnd (Onlnlon",'n;t rC.l\4.lOlns,art upportcd by by reasoning are supported supported by focus ke keep shifting. Everyday talkand and..ommonscnse commonsense reasoning are „nJ lid h'k.U\ highly abstract, mental creations, which... I languagej .. . helps to guide. hut ",,,,,hie. highlpb trall. m ntJI
•

1witself not by dO<' ilitself If define. define. d oes nn'

(huummtr 199.r xxii--xxiii) II -xxiii) XXIII) (Fauonnicr xsii ( Fauconnier1994: 1994:

of of the most Ifor IIr lauconnier, I-.uconnier. some mo imponant.and and therefore therefore some some of ofthe the most mo t For Fauconnier,some someof of the the most mostt important, important, and therefore some aspects of meaning meaning construction constru..tionlie lie"behind the scenes," notinin IIIt
M deny conceptualization \lypoint pointisis i not nottototo denythe theimportance importanceof conceptuali/ationprocesses proc My point not deny the importance ofof conceptualization whkh and which \,h"h occur (ICcur "above" "above" the the I .e\ of oflanguage, languag •and and which whOthare arc If-evidently areself-evidently self-evidently which occur "above" the level level of language, cssential for meaning meaningconstruction, construction, isboth Fauconnier andTurner rightly < -.cntlal for meaning con truction. as as bothFauconnier Fauconnierand and Turnerrightly rightly essential for observe. Nor Nor do II deny deny that, in in relative relative terms. 'or do on term. lingui tic units unit serve rYetotoprompt prompt IIh'erve. terms, linguistic linguistic units serve prompt Observe. do deny that. that, for rich conceptualization prot . Nevertheless, evenh Ie • thus thu, far in the thedevelopdevclop . lur rich "I.h conceptualization conceptualization processes. protesses. Neverthekss, thusfar tarin the developfor fluentof ofcontemporary contemporary approaches meaningconstruction construction cognitive ment of contemporary approaches approa h to totomeaning meaning con truction inincognitive cognitive ment ofwords word in inmeaning-construction m ning-con tructionprocesses prot . has has been been IIIl·ui,tics. the the role of linguistics, the role role of words in meaning-construction processes has been underplayed. While the ;emantlc values valu associated aassociated -iated with with linguistic unit values withlinguistics linguisticsunits— Units-underplayed. While the the semantic semantic what concepts-are impoverished impoverished with with respect rC!>peel to tothe the what III refer refer a lexical lexical concepts—are refer to to as as lexical concepts—are impoverished respect the what 'unceptual lUnccptual knowledge knowledge structures tructur." to which they theyaflord affordaccess, ace •and and are are also also structures and are also conceptual knowledge to which which they afford access, ulilpoverished with with respect 'mpoveri,hed with r _Plxt to to the the conceptualizations conceptuali/.ation,to whichthey theygive giverise, ri!>C. the conceptualizations towhich which they give rise, impoverished respect they nevertheless neverthel s exhibit ignifi ant complexity complexity and and sophistication. phistication . and sophistication. they exhibit significant significant complexity My purpose in this ofthis thiscomplexity, the role 'Iy purpo;e in this book book is i to toexplore exploresonue someof of thi' complexity.and andthe th role My purpose this book is to explore some it Plays in interfacing with the II plays play, in in interfacing interfaling with the theconceptualization conceptualizationprocesses proces;e ofof bac~tage processes ofbackstage backstage It cognition, studied I.ognll,on. studied by scholars u h as aas Coulson (e.g .• 2000), 1000).Fauconnier, fauconnier. Coulson (e.g., (e.g. 2000), Fauconnier, Cognition, studiedby byscholars scholarssuch such lUrner, and others. IlIrncr. andother_ MTheory Theory c.n be thought ofas a aa theory Accordingly. I( ('NI theory Turner, others.. Accordongly. Accordingly, LCC LCCM Theoryian canbe be thought thought ot'.is of of frontstage III frontstage front tag cognition. cognition_ It rcpre...,n" an .111 attempt to study \ludy the compleXIty cognition. ItIt represents anattempt attemptto study thecomplexity complexityofof of of represents the semantic units units (lexical (lexical concepts) concepts) associated withlinguistic linguistic units such the semantic ",mantic umt con ept )associated associated with with lingui ti units unit!>such uchasas as the Words, and the central role they Word,. and and the the central tentral role role they they pI.w play in 111language language understanding. under\landing. Such Suth aa• words, play in language understanding. theory tht.'ury mll", of t:tllli"C, mc,h with d lhl'ory of b.lc.:k tdge l,.(}gnition. rhu . must, of Course. mesh with a theory of backstage cognition. Thus, theory must, of course, mesh with a theory of backstage cognition. Thus, the theory the to be be developed attemptsto remain consistent Consistent withwhat what we we now now the theory theory to bedeveloped developed attempts attempt. to remain con i tent with with

54 54 54

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

ideas,• set •• aaa model model dynamicand and temporary of discoursemeaning: meaning: aadynamic dynami andtemporary lemporary set sel of ofideas, idea mod Iof ofdiscourse discourse meaning: represented which an emergent represenled and partilioned in conceptual conceplualspace, pace.which whi hisis i an anemergent emergenl representedand andpartitioned partitioned in in conceptual space and communication, and mediated, ()fsituated ilualed communication, communicalion. and andmediated, medialed.inin In and evolving properly of andevolving evolvingproperty property of situated part, part. by language. language. part, by by language.

The between frontstage backstagetheories theoriesof ofcognition cognitionisiis The inleractionbetween belween frontst.Lge fronl lage and and backstage oockslag Iheorie of cognolion the interaction interaction and summarized 3.3. sum mariiedinin hgure summarized mFigure !'igure3.3. 3.3.

Lexical Lexicalrepresentation representation LeXICal representation frontstage cognition One frontstage cognition withan an account One ofthe Ihekey keyaspects aspecl associated a socia ledwith wilh anaccount accountofof of fronl5lage cognilion Oneof of the key aspects associated Part of the book. As relates isthe thesubject subject 10 lexical represenlalion. whichisis Ihe ubjcciofof ofPart PartIIII\Iof ofthe Ihehook. book.AN A relal relatesto tolexical lexicalrepresentation, representation,which we saw ininthe previous chapter, lexical representation constitutes (i) the representation (i) the we \.3W the previou\ ,hdpter. Icxi(dl rcprc\Cntdlion umstitute (i) the we saw in the previous chapter, lesical language users (symbolic inventory available language users (symbol i, knowledge as'ailahktoto inv nlory of oflinguistic linguisticknowledge knowledge available 10 langu.ge u~rs ( ymbolic inventory linguistic

55

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

I cognrtoon: the A cognition: A model model of of frontstage frontstage cognition: the nature linguistic knowledge, nalure of IIngUlsbc knowledge. conlext. nature of linguistic knowledge. context, context. lexical activation of of nonnonlexocallnlegraloon. actovaloon lexical integration, integration, and and activation linguistic knowledge, in ci IIngulslic knowledge. In service of linguistic knowledge. in service of prompting prompllng 01 promptingfor forprocesses processes of of backstage backstage cognition cognltoon cognition

Theory.Mental Mental Theories of of backstage backstage cognition (e.g.1Conceptual Conceptual Metaphor Theory, Theori of ba kslage cognilion (e.g.. nceplual Metaphor Melaphor Theory., Menial Theories cognition (e.g., Spaces Theory, and and Conceptual Conceptual Blending Theory) the following: following: Blending Theoryl Theory) involve involve the eplual Blending Ihe followms: Spaccs SpacesThcc)ry. Theory, and Con

The both andbackstage backstage approaches tocognition cognition isIis ofbolh fronl lag and 00 kslage approaches approa h to 10 cognolion Th ult,male aim aIm of the ultimate ultimate aim of both frontstage frontstage to 10 achieve Ihe following: to achieve .i.hicve the thefollowing:

55 55

AAmodel mealllng model ofdiscourse discourse meaning J model01of discourse meaning

the relalion relationship between lexical lexical forms forms and and semantic structure, ••• the Ihe hip between belween manti structure, IruClure. . relationship lexical the nalur nature of Ihe the relationship relationship holding between between semanticstructure structure (inrelallon hip holding belween semantic ~manll IruClure (in(m ••• the Ihe nature of the (inhering in hering in inthe the Linguistk linguistic system) and conceptual structure in and con conceptual structure henng Ihe lingui II system) y leml and eplual Mru 'IUre (inhering in the Ihe hering in conceptual system), conceptual system), conceplual y lem I. . ' the principles principles of of lexical lexical composition composition that that serve serve tointegrate integrate lexical con• •• the Ih composllion Ihal ~rve to 10 mlegrale lexical lexl(al concon cepts and facilitate facilitate theselective selective activation of of conceptual conceptual structure, fa ililale the Ihe sel hve a
integrationof of the non-linguistic facilitate conceptual of Ihe non-Iinguislic principles that Ihal facilitate facililale conceplual integration inlegralion non-linguistic principles principles that •• the structure prompted by language, lruclure as aas prompled for by bylanguage1 language. structure prompted for the integration of background non-linguistic knowledge structures, e.g., of background ba kground non-linguistic non.linguislicknowledge knowledgestructures, lruclures, e.g., e.g.• •• the Ihe inlegrahon integration of conceptual frames, in service of the construction of sophisticated and novel conceptual frames, rvice ofthecon IruClion of sophisticated phi licaled and novel con eplual frames, in in service of the construction completion), structures (what Fauconnier refer to to ,ts as pattern and Turner IruClurcs (whal Fauconni" and and Turner refer 10 as pallem completion). complelionl. structures (what Fauconnier and the dynamic conceptualizations(what (whatFauconnier Fauconnier Ihe dynamIC con Irual of ofconceptualizations conceplualizalion (whal I'au onnoer and and dynamic construal construal of ••• the Turner refer referto tovariously variously as elaboration or running elaboration or the blend) Turner refer 10 variou Iy as as running the the blend) bl ndl

COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS (O(,NI11VI. lINGUISTICS COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS

-

INTRODUCTION ENTRODt'( lION INTRODUCTION

roc •• 01 F r u.uiu

interaction H The interaction inl ..action ofof fronl lageand andbackstage ba kstage approaches approach to 10 cognition cognition 3.3.. The offrontstagc frontstage and backstage approaches to

knowledge tohow how this interfaces with non-linguistic 10 howthis Ihisinterfaces inlerfaceswith wilhnon-linguistic non linguistic unol,). and (ii) knowledge knowledge as aasto units), and and (ii) (ii units), knowledge in the conceptual system (cognitive models). models). in the Ihe conceptual conceplua) system y lem (cognitive (cognllive model ). knowledge knowledge modelled A key key aspect a peel of oflexical lexica) representation repr=nlalion is i semantic manlicstructure, IruClure. modelled modelledinin key aspect lexical representation is semantic structure, A hallnurk of lenm of of lexical lexi al concepts—the concepl - Ihesubject ubjcciofof haplers 666and and 7.'. The Th hallmark hallmark of of terms lexical concepts—the subject ofChapters Chapters and7. The terms mJny lexical con cpl. and and key aspect aspecl of ofsemantic semanli structure, lru lure.concerns concerns many lexical lexical concepts, concepts, and aa key of semantic structure, concerils many key aspect knowledgeof ofthe theother otherwords wordsand andconstructions constructions withwhich whichaaagiven given lexical knowledge Ihe olher word and con lruclion with with givenlexical lexical knowledge of the discussion flyusi. in (s) to offlying, Jlyltlg. in examples examples (i) (I) to 10 c"neepl can can co-occur. co-occur. Indeed, Indeed. in the Ihe discussion discu ion of concept Indeed, in concept can in examples (4) in the Iheprevious prevIouschapter, chapler.we wesaw sawthat Ihaldistinct di linCllexical lexicalconcepts oncepl associated a ialed (.i) in in the previous chapter. saw that distinct (4) we lexical concepts associated in distinct dislinctways waY' in interms termsof oftheir theirselectional selectiona)tendenlendenwith Ihi form form pattern pattern in 'sith this this form pattern in terms of their sekctional tendenwith in distinct ways with. As noted, lLIes—for ie, ~ r example, exampl • the the mantic arguments argumenl they Ihey co-occur co-occur with. wilh. As A noted, nOled. example, the semantic semantic arguments they cies—for II use use the profile to to refer to semantic structure ofthis this sort. The u'C the Ihe term lerm lexi I profile 10 refer refer to 10semantic semanlicstructure tructure of of Ihi sort. sort.The The term lexical approach tothe thelexical lexicalprofile profiledeveloped developedinin inLCCM LCCM Theorybuilds builds upon the 10 Ihe lexical profil developed LC M Theory build upon uponthe the approa h to approach theory of lexical Cognitive linguistic of Principled Polysemy, Poly my.aacognitive ognilivelinguistic Iingui Ii theory Ih ryofoflexical lexical earlier theory Iheory earlier theory of of Principled Principled earlier Polysemy, representation,developed developedinin intwo twohook book-length treatments by Andrea Tyler and IwO book.lenglh trealmenl by byAndrea AndreaTyler Tylerand and represenlalion. developed representation, length treatments myself(Evans (Evans 'tyler and and Evans zoos). mY'Clf (Evan 20o4a; 2oo4a; Tyler Tyler and Evans Evan 2003). 20031. myself 2003) IEvan vans 2001, I heearliest earliestwork work on Ofl Principled Polyserny (e.g., The earliesl work onPrincipled Prin ipledPolysemy Polysemy(e.g., (e.g.•Tyler Tylerand andEvans 2001.2003) The 2003) particles ftl
lS~6

____

OGNITlVF LIN(U15II(5 LINGUISTIC (O6NITIVE COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS

INTRODUCTION____________________________________

'NTRODUCT~I~O~N

cognitive lexical lexical ""manlic semantics,• particularly work inincognitive semantks, partkularly the work parllCularly Ihe early pioneering pltmeering work of of Claudia Brugman and and George George Lakoff in in Iheir their work work on on the English preposition laudia Brugman corge Lakoff lakoffin Ihe English Engli h preposition prepo ilion Claudia their Brugmanand andlakoff lakoff 1988; lakoff 1987). For instance, Dominick Sandra [)omink'k lor in over ((Brugman oo'rr 1988; 1987), i'or lance. Dominick Sandra 1988; LakofT Likoff Lakoff oi'er (1998),aaa ppsycholinguist, psycholinguist, challenged cognitive lexical lexical !>Cmantici semanticists todevelop develop lexkal semantkists (1998). y holinguisi. chall nged cognitive cognilive I to 10 devel p (1998), challenged clearded decision principles that that make make semantic clear ion principl Ihal make seman lie network nelwork analyses analyses objective objective and and clear decision principles verifiable,and andthus thusavoid avoid what what he he referred polysemy referred III to as fallacy. Fhe verifiable. Ihu~ a,'oid whal he referred a the Ih polysemy poly myfallacy. fallacy. The The and verifiable, fallacy relates to the following fallacious reasoning: because a lexical item fallacious reasoning: lexical item fallacy Ihe following following fallaciou rca;oning: becau a lexical ilem fallacy relal relates 10 to the exhibits a novel meaning in context, context, each distinct semantic contribution contribution is is exhibil novel meaning in conlexi. each ea h distinct di lin I semantic semanlic conlribulion i exhibits a novel due to a distinct underlying sense stored in memory. According to Sandra this to Sandra this due Iinct underlying sense ~Iored Ihi, due 10" to a di distinct stored in memory. According 10 reasoning is fallacious as it does not follow that all or even many distinct all or even that all reasonmg even many many distinct di linll reasoning is falla ious a il docs not follow Ihal instances associaled associated wilh with aa lexical lexical item item provide provide evidence evidence for distinct senses inslances lexical ilem provide evidence for distinct di linct senses n , instances associated with stored in in semantic semantic memory. Lakoff, work by by Brugman Brugman ~Iored m manli memory. memory. Indeed, Indeed. work Brugman and and Lakoff. lakofT. which which Indeed, work stored serves 10 to proliferate the number number of over, for for in instance, with serv proliferale the number of ofsenses !>Cnses associated aialed with wllh over, over. lance. serves to can be be criticized criticized on similar similar grounds to of lexical semantics that can CTilicized on imilar grounds grounds 10 models model of oflexical lexical semantics mantics that Ihal can constitute Sense Enumerative Lexicons, discussed in Chapter I. Indeed, this discussed in ( hapter i. Indeed, con~lilUI Lcxkons. discussed in 'hapler I. Indeed. this thi, coflstitUtCSen SenseEnumerative Inumcrative Lexicons, is the tack I will take in the next chapter, where I the model briefly review of is k I will where II briefly review Ih model of is Ihe the la tack will lake take III in Ihe the nexl next chapler. thapter, where word meaning word Brugman.Lakoff, lakofT. and and olhers. word meaning proposed proposed by by Brugman, Brugman, Lakoff, and others. others. Tyler and 1, in the earlier phase of research on Principled Polysemy adTyler in the Ihe earlier phase pha of rcsearCrve ddetermine lennine what whal counts ounl as as dislin I sense n (i.e., (i.e,. aa lexical concept—a time lexicalcon concept—a term that that was was used used for for the the first firstI lime time in in the the context context of of lelCical epl-a term lerm Ihal wa for the fir in conlext Principled loo4a), and Polysemyin Ivans 2oo4a). 2004a). and and thus bePrin ipled Polysemy Poly""my ininEvans [van thu should hould distinguish di lingui h bebe tween senses stored in semantic memory, and context-dependent meancontext-dependent meanIween sen lored m senses stored in semanlic semantic memory. memory, and conlelCl-dependenl ings ing constructed constructed "online," ings "online," and and •• they they should prototypical or sense associated with Ihcy should hould establish lablish the Ihe prototypical prolotypical or orcentral cenlral sense sen associated a ialed with wilhaaa the particular This poinl point isi important particular semantic manli nelw rk. Thl Importanl because because cognitive cognilive network. important cognitive semanticists semanticists have not not always alwaysagreed agreedabout about the the central central senses senses of semantic manlicisl have have nOI always agreed aboul Ihe ofsemantic semanlic categories. '987) argued categories.For for example, c\.Lmpk, whileLakoff Laloff arguedthat thatthe thecentral central sense sense calegories. For example. while lakoff((1987) (1987) argued thai sen'" for over ABOVE-ACROSS hasargued arguedmore more the -A( ROSS meaning,Kreitzer l(reitzcr (1997) for over o.'rr is iis the Ih AHOVI ABOVE-ACRO S meaning, meaning. Kreilzer (1997) has has recently recently that that it itil is is an ABOVE recenlly Ihal i an ABOVE meaning. meaning. In our ofof 3e'marstus olEnglish EnglishPrepositions, Prepositions1Tyler Tylerand andIIIsought sought In OUI our 2003 2003 book Tilt Selllall"cs Englisll PreposillOllS, ughl use Semantics 2003hook book The to provide decision principles that could be applied to the entire class of principles that that could could be applied to provide provide decision deci ion principl applied to the the entire entire class cia of English Engli h prepositions. prepo itlon . Here Ilere III will will briefly briefly oUlline the principles pnnClpleswe proposedinin in Fnglish prepositions. Here will brieflyoutline outlinethe principles weproposed that work for the first of these issues: how to determine what counts as that work for the fir t of th issues: that issues: how to determine determine what what counts counts as a distinct lexical concept associated with a given prepositional form. concept aassociated with aa given given prrpo prepositional form. distinct lexical lexi al concept iated with itional form. We provided two criteria for determining whether a particular ided two criteria for determining whether sense ofaa We provided two criteria whether.a particular sense n of preposition counts as a distinct lexical tont:L.1n: lexical (om.:ept: concept: preposition prcpo Ilion counts (ounb as a aJ diMinlt lexical i.I.i. For ror ~n~ to lounl a distinct, di\tmc..t. ititmust must involve m"'(llve aa meaning meaning that that isis not not For aa sense senseto tocount countas as

purely spatial configuration holding holding between purely.spatial patial in in nature, nature. and/or and/or aa spatial ,p.lt ..1configuration holdlllgbetween

57 57 57

from the (I) Ihe I·igure and Referen e Object Ob,e.! (RO) that distllllt from from the the the hgure Figure(n (F)and andReference Reference Object(RU) (RO) that thatisiis distinct distinct the with that preposition; preposition; and other n conventionally aassociated iated with prepo ition; and other senses senses conventionally associated with "n., There There that arc are context-independent: instances of of the the sense sense that are context-independent: context-independent: must also also be be instance There must the distinct sense could not be interred lI"tanc in which di tmct sen ould inferred anoth 1istancCs in which he inferredfrom from another anotherr instances which the distinct sense .. "''' and ontext in in which which itil occurs. oc urs. sense and the context 5CUSC

,

consider theutterances utterances in in((I) (t) and (2): (2): 1<' the criteria applied. ider the utleranc (2): how these criteria are are applied1 applied, con consider i) and we how l „ 'C" (II

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

(2

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

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

Johnnailed nailed lohn nailed a board board over the hoi in in the the ceiling cceiling iling the hole John

not consistent consistent spatial configuration configuration between In <'(3), 1). the spatial ~patial configuralion RO is iis not consi ten I with with and R() RO between the Frand In board is actually below the AntlVb meaning meanmg in (I) and (2); in (3) (3)the Ih board hoardisISactually a -tuallybelow the th hole the meaning in in(1) (i) and and (2); (i); in in hole the ABOVE this sense: part ceiling. In In addition. there is aaanon-spatial non-spatial aspect a peel to tothis !hi sense: sen :part part in the ceiling. In addition, addition, there is is non-spatial aspect to in ceiling. to COVERING, COVERINI. becausethe RO relates nl the meaning meanmgassociated a iatedwith withover over in in (3) (3) relates rclates to cov, RING. because because the RO olthe over of the meaning associated I his COVERING ( OVERIN(imeaning meaningis not II,,' '1OIe) is obscured ob ured from view view by by the the F. r. This This COVlRIN(; meanlllg iis not nOI obscured hole) is (((the the hole) this non-spatial aspectinin .pparent exampl (1) (t) and (2). (2). The Thepresence presence of ofthis thi non-spatial non- pati.1aspect apparent III in examples (i) and presence apparent examples the first first assessment criterion, which which means we can Ihe sense ..,nseof oowin meet. the firsl aassessment ment criterion, criterion. whichmeans meanswe wecan (j) in (3) the of over (3) meets establish whetherthe the n.ow lI""ider the -ondcriterion. criterion. so.we mustestablish tabli hwhether fl''Wconsider considerthe thesecond second criterion.In Indoing doingso, so, wemust now "online." (OVfRING meaning context-independent con tru ted"online." ((WERIN;meaning meaningisisiscontext-independent context-independentororconstructed constructed COVERING (3) cannot be be computed computed in Tyler and argued that thai the the meaning meaning of ofover over in in (3) (3) cannot computed Tier and Tyler andIIIargued argued that the meaning over online, therefore context-independent. context-independent. In other words, the knowledge nnline. and and isistherefore contexl independent.In Inother otherwords, word~.the th knowledge knowledge online, allow us us to infer KING that over oo'cr in (3) (3) has has an an ABOVE ABove meaning meaning does notallow u to toinfer inferaaa:ovF OVERING that over in AROVI meaningdoes doesnot has COVERING elaboratethis thispoint, point,Tyler fylerand and the context context supplied _uppliedby by(3). (3).To Toelaborate claborat thi point. Tyler supplied 1w meaning from from the meaning derivable Provided aa different provided difTerenl example which the th (ovi:KIN(; COVPRING meaning meaning isis isderivable derivable different example in in which which the COVERING 1II.provided from context. context. Consider Consider example example(4). (4). from tablecloth the table table ( ~ ) The Thetablecloth tabledothisis i over over the (4)

with—the R() (the contactwith—the with- th RO RO (the (II" and in in contact above—and tableeloth), isis In(4), (.), the In (4). (II ..tablecloth), rllll/re/oril). i above—and aile" (the theFIF (the In by the table or obscured covert-d or oh.... ured by hythe tabletable(aWe). The interpretation that the the table table). '"ille}. 'IThe he interpretation interprelation that thetable tabl isis covered

It s CO(NITIVI 1IN( COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS

INTRODUCTION 58 5$INTK(H)UI;TION

language eniai,r .F)ignueraotfiv language to model model the the of cognitive cognitive linguistics has has been been to the t he ma)or successes of one relatively recently of the the human human imagination. imagination.Until Until relatively recently and richness richness of co mplexityand generally, it was either more generally, it in linguistics linguistics and and in incognitive cognitivescience science more was assumed assumed either in not peripheral to to cognition cognition or or that that it it could not that thatthe thehuman human imagination imagination was was peripheral has provided provided an an 'l'he cognitive cognitive linguistics linguistics enterprise enterprise has systematically studied. studied. The he systematically he and has hasbeen beeninfluential influentialin in arguing arguing approach human imagination, imagination, and approach to to studying studying human

imagination. atwork work in in human human imagination. that thatlanguage language reveals reveals systematic processes processes at have argued argued that that such processesare arecentral central to to the the way way we we ognitive linguists Cognitive linguists have such processes think. think.

want I wantaacigarette cigarette II want want aa beer beer want a a hamburger II want hamburger II want want aa pizza pii'ia

The point of the Principled Polysemy approach was to determine the sense The point of the Principled Polvsemy approach was to determine the sense lexical forms, associated units—i.e.. words, qua qua lexical forms, have have associated Units ---i.e.,lexical lexicalconcepts—that concepts—that words, model with versionofofPrincipled Principled Polysemy Polysemymodel with them. them. Thus, Thus,the thedifficulty difficulty with with the theversion developed andEvans Evans (iooi, (tool, 2003) 2003) is that that itit could could not not in in fact factdo dothis, this, developedby byTyler lykr and sought to to isolate isolate as necessarilyenters entersinto into any any given given meaning. meaning. It It sought ascontext context necessarily meaning definition, impossibl•. 6 meaningfrom trom context, context, which which is, is, by by definition, In Principled Polysemy Polysemy (Evans (Evanszoo4a, 2oo4a1Zoos) zoos)I Ideveloped developed In aa later later version version of 0 Principled criteria that reformulated the methodology for identifying distinct lexical criteria that reformulated the methodology for identifying distinctlexical concepts. allowedfor for the the critical critical role of context context in in conconcepts.The Thereformulation reformulation allowed tributing to word word meaning meaning by of context contextinto into the thedecision decision tributing to by building building the the notion notion of principles, criteria These criteriaoperationoperationprinuples, rather rather than than by by attempting attempting to to exclude excludeit.it.These alized context in in terms terms of andgrammatical grammaticalselectional allied utterance utteraik' context of the thesemantic senianikand tendencies, andgrammatical grammatical tendencies,which whichisistotosay, say,the therange rangeofofsemantic semanticarguments argumentsand constructions broad classes classesofofmeaning meaningtypes typesco-occur, co-occur,as as constructions with with which which broad I'hislater laterwork workimproves improves illustrated Chapter z.L This in Chapter illustrated in in the the discussion discussionofofflying flying in the for andforms formsthe thebasis basis forthe the thecriteria criteriafor for identifying identifying distinct distinctlexical lexicalconcepts, and ► lvsemv as l'nntipkdP I'uhwmv as • See Evans ttorthtisming) fora discussion 4,1of14 mu- of ofthe drawbacks ofofPrincipled a ' 5cc' Evans presented in 'Eyler and Evans 12cio31.

presented in Tyler and Evans

59

( IM Theory.' Theory.' II report report lexical concept identification procedure procedure developed developed in in L.l LCCM issueof ofpolysemy polysemyfrom fromthe theLCCM l.L( M this in in Chapter Chapter77, and andaddress address the the issue o n this on perspective in in Chapter Chapter & &

table, the table, cloth can be inferred from the fact that the tablecloth tablecloth is above the cloth can be inferred from the tact that the together with with our our encyclopaedic encyclopaedic knowledge knowledge that tablecloths are are larger larger than than that tablecloths together higher tables and the fact that thatwe we typkally typicallyview viewtables tables from from aa vantage vantage point point higher tahks and the COVERING associthan the top of the table.This Thismeans means that that the the meaning of :ovFKINt; than the top of the tahk. lexical concept concept exhibited, exhibited. ABOVE lexical (4) can can be be inferred from the theAROVE over in in (4) ated with withover inferred from ated together with encyclopaedic knowledge. This type of of inference inferenceis is not notpossible possible together with encyclopaedic knowledge. This type md the R() in (3) because because the relation holding holdingbetween between the the IF and RO is is one the spatial spatial relation in below—The board below board is below that would normally be encoded by expression below—The by the the expression that would normally be encoded given our our typical ceilings. relation to ceilings. thehole hole in in the the ceiling— ceiling— given age point point in relation typkal vantage ilu' over in in meaningof ofover Accordingto toTyler Tylerand andEvans Evans(lnu%) (2oo3) then, then, the the COVERING OvEILINI.; meaning According over. associatedwith with over. (3) must therefore be be stored lexical concept associated stored as as aa distinct distinct lexical (3) must The problem problem with with the the perspective of Principled Principled perspective provided provided by the model of The Polysemy,as as just justsketched, sketched,isisthat thatititisisnot notalways always dear clear how how one one goes goes about about Polysemy, determining whether whether aa meaning meaning is by or or independent independent of context. is contributed contributed by determining use of any After all, as I observed in the opening After all, as I observed in the opening chapter, any given instance of use of any in which whichitit isis wordwill willalways alwaysrepresent representaa distinct distinctmeaning meaning given given the context in word in the examples below is want in embedded. For For instance, instance,the the meaning meaning of of want embedded. desire being being exexnecessarily distinct ineach each example because the desire example precisely precisely because necessarilY distinct in ofuse: use: pressed relates sort and and thus thus is is unique unique on on each each occasion of pressed relates to to aa different different sort (s) a. I a. b. h. c. c. d. d.

59

•

4 4

thought has has been been approached, approached1in in I'hc role role of of imagination imagination in in human human thought The relatively stable stable knowledge knowledgestructures structures tognitive by way way of of positing positing relatively cognitive linguistics1 linguistics, by Theseknowledge knowledgestrucstrucwhich held to to inhere inhere in in long-term long-term memory. memory. These which are are held conceptualmetaphors metaphors((Lakoff tures tures are are termed termed conceptual Lakoff and and Johnson Johnson i98o, 1980,1999) 1999) with reasonably robust empirand 1mre claimed to have psychological reality, and are claimed to have psychological reality, with reasonably robust empir2008). In In addaddical support support (see (see Boroditsky ical Koroditsky2000; 2000; Casasanto Casasanto and and Boroditsky loroditsky 2008). manipulated by byvirtue virtue of of ition, conceptual ition, conceptualmetaphors metaphorsare are held held to to be be manipulated serviceofofbackstage backstage .onceptual integration integration networks becoming established establishedininservice conceptual networks becoming Grady Fauconnierand andTurner Turner 199g, 1998, 2002; Grady cognition as above (see (seeFauconnicr cognition as discussed discussed above and processes processeshave have been been 1997,2005). 2005).The Theway wayininwhich which these thesestructures structures and 1997, figurative studied has has predominantly predominantly been to examine examine systematicities systematicitiesin infigurative studied been to language,particularly particularly in in the study of of conceptual conceptualmetaphors. metaphors.George GeorgeLakoff Lakoff language, the study and and Mark Mark Johnson, the proponents proponents of of the the study study of of conceptual conceptualmetaphor metaphorand and Johnson, the ConceptualMetaphor MetaphorTheory, Theory,argue arguethat thatfigurative figurativelanguage language the architects architects of Conceptual the is aj consequence ofthe theexistence existenceofofa auniversal universalset setofofpre-linguistic pre-linguisticprimary primary IS consequence of and aa languagelanguageseealso alsoGrady Grady 1997), 1997), and ntelaphors(Lakoff (Likoff and metaphors and Johnson Johnson 1999; see bothof ofwhich whichmap map set of of compound compound (or (or complex) specific set complex) metaphors, metaphors, both referredto to structure from from more domains of of conceptual conceptualstructure, structure,referred structure more concrete concrete domains assource sourcedomains, domains,onto ontoless lesseasily easils'apprehended apprehendedaspects aspectsofofconceptual conceptualstrucstrucas ture, referred referred to to as as target target domains. domains.Together Iogethcr these theseknowledge knowledgestructures structuresare are ture, held to to give give riseboth rise bothtotothe theproductive productiveuse useofoffigurative figurative language languageas aswell wellas astoto held suchas aspoetic poeticmetaphor, metaphor,for forinstance instance(see (see Lakoffand and more creative creative aspects, such more Lakoff turner 1989).

4

Theory in in terms terms of of Despitethe theimportance importance of of Conceptual Metaphor Theory Despite fordeeply deeplyingrained ingrainedsystematicities systematkitiesininconceptual conceptualstructure, structure,ititisis accounting for profileofofa alexical kxKaIconcept. oncrpt.whkh whkhisisto say knowkdgc relating arguein inChapter baptet7; that that the the lexical profile II argue to say knowledge relating concept motivatesa agiven gwen in order to idc'ntst to its sdctjon tendelKies, bc' Jqiloyc'd its In sties lion tendencies, ',All he dcrloyed in order to identify which leskal tiiikcpt motivates identifying disisnit but 'rmantkaUv prtwidrs a methodokigy for '11th of use in Instance of use in context. This provides a nwthodoksgy for identifying distinct but se lihmik aily related

associated with the s.ansc k,rm.

relatdxiconpsatedwih%uxform.

_____

60 60

of conceptual potential within within themultifaceted multifaceted field \\c ,,,InnthlOk mantil.: space pace aas withm thinkof of semantic space asthe the multifaceted fieldof of conceptual conceptual potential potential we ca think unfold; a semantic structure can then "itldl th.,uitht conl.:qltuollilAlUon unfold; mantic structure \trudure un then be ~ which thought thought and and conceptualization unfold; aa semantic can then he space. in semantic ",h.lr,ldl"rl/l-tl olas a•a location Icxallon or 10 'mJntll.: space. pol4..e. tcri,ed as location or oraa a umhguration configuration in characterized (ibid. 76) (ibid. 76)

"0

•• See. trounce. EvansI(1Ot44':"h.)) lsonor .h. ch.si ~. for jut ,",t.ana.i-n St'c. br nst.Inte. Fvans forthcoming I. et al. tt)fthtl)flhlflg). See, for instanie. Sinha •• 5ct, t aL ~.for furIfl%tafl(C. In I~~.Silva II .... "nN rt .11. l1ho.um.nl) SsIva SinbJ

r..

61 61

characteriied ... e1113111h. units UOlI arc dcrlltti relative rd.;Jtl~r to lOgOlI!\lC domJIn!\., .lnd any umlt"Jlt or concept or relativeto tocognitive cognitive domains, domains, and and .my any concept V+Iemantic unitsare arelhu characterized of an function as a domain for this purpose... The meaning "'nl,\,kJ~ ... \" tern can c~n '" The an asaa d~lmalll domain for forthl') thispurpo purpose... The meaning meaning of of an 5system stem can function function ~ kno,d edge it lye domains. involves spec itKations in many ci ,pre: ~lcUl (,«Ifiatlon 10 in many many cogmu~e cognitive domam domains.. ion typl(Jlly involves specifications ttypically vpiJIIY lO\lol~ express (rlll,/. 6)) (thid. 1987:6j) 63) ibid. 19117;

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

Grammar Grammar The J totogrammar, grammar,particularly particularly Cognitive Cognitiv waysfrom from other other cognitive approaches grammar, Grammar (1.angacker, e.g., 2oo8), .• 2008). and Cognitive Con truction Grammar Grammar Grammar (Langacker. e.g Grammar (Langacker. e.g., 2008),and andCognitive CognitiveConstruction Construction Grammar (Goldberg, e.g., sharp distinction drawnin in e.g.. ioo6). The The first relates to the the (Goldberg. e.g .• 2006). 20(6). The first fir t relates relat'" to to the sharp harp distinction di tmction drawn drawn LCCM Theory between semantic and L.CCM theory between structure conceptual structure, 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. in the previous chapter, and in more detail in Part II of the hook. Ihe book. discu sed m Ihe previou chapter. and in more detail in Part II For instance, one criticism that has been levelled at Langacker's (1987, 1991a) For mstance. one one criticism "itici,m that has has been been levelled at Langacker's Langacker' (1987.199'") Cognitive Cognitive Grammar Grammar relates the relationship between semantic structure Cogntllv relates to to the Ih relationship relation hip between betweensemantic semanticstructure tructure and conceptual structure. Langacker argues that semantic structure and conceptual as enand conceptual structure. tructure. Langacker L.lngacker argues argu that semantic mantic structure structureas asenen· coded in language "is" conceptual structure. For instance, in Cognitive coded In in language lor inst.IIhc, coded languJg~ "i"is" .. conceptual con ~pt~JI structure. tru(lurc. For in'tanu:, in in Cognitive Cogniti\'c Grammar, semantic structure is, in large part, equated with non-linguistic Grammar, semantIc semanticstructure structureIis, in large large part. part, equated equated with with non-linguistic Grammar. •m non linguistic or encyclopaedic knowledge. This is also true of the approach approachtotolexical lexical or encyclopaedic n ydopaedlc knowledge. of the the approach lexical knowledge.Thi This iis also also true true Of representation as reported in proposed by Alan Cruse, Croft and Cruse Croft and rrepresentation pr ntation proposed a, reported reportl'ti in Croft and Cruse Cruse proposedbybyAlan Man (ru Cru'e,• .is (2004). By way of illustration consider the following representative quotations (2004). By wayofillu trationconsider con id rthe thefollowing followingrepresentative representativequotat quotaIOflS lions way of illustration from Langacker. from Langacker. ker.

COGNITIVE TICS CO(,NII1VE COGNITIVE lINGUI LINGUISTICS

-

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

I he' term lOll\.cplUai structure lrulturr will wilitle applitd indiscriminately indl~nmH\alely to 10any Joysuch ulhentity entityI Ii.e., i.t.. structure will he applied be applied The min conceptual I whether in th(,u~hl • I..oaxepts. ptrl..cptlon images. menial experience txptri nle in in general', gmer-tli.whether whether thoughts, concepts, perceptions. perceptions,• images, images, and and mental mental experience defined as a concepnature. A semantic structure is then hn~ul'u", or non hngubl" in nature. A mantic tructUrt i then ddlncd a a concep~ linguistic or or nonlinguiMic non-linguistic in nature. A semantic structure is then defined as a concepof a linguistic IU<11 tholt fUlKtioru. as aas the \4:mantil pole pol of of;l hngu~t".:expression. C' p \Ion. Hence lIelKe the semantk semantic pole a linguistic expression. Hence structure that that functions t u al !llrudun: mu.'1 onLeptualszations shaped for symbolic purposes lll.lIlli", structures tnn.turn arc art regarded rcpnJcd as hapcd for purpo are regarded for symbolk symbolic purposes conceptualizations shaped semantic as cOIlf.:cptualiullon of ..... '\ rJI0 8 to dictat organization. according to the the dictates dictates oflinguistic of linguistic linguistic organhiation. organization. indiscriminately to any such entity ji.e.,

(d,,,/. 911) IiI',tl. (ibid. 98) 98 )

•

4

that the semantic material— ,,'hat i that thaI the the semantic scmanll material— matenalt.angacker appears have in mind What Langacker Langackerappear appearstoto tohave havein in mind is is formally refers to as a prcdkation—associInformally the meaning, formally refers refer to as a aa predication—associpredi ation-a iinformally the what he he formally informally the meaning, meaning, what of directly to the form, atloJ lexical form, form. i.e., i.e .• aaa word, word.relates relates directly d" ,tly to the contents content of of ated with. with withaa lexical i.e., word, relates to the conceptual structure relates to a diverse c(lnceptual IruClure. In In principle.lhi conceplualstructure IruClurerelates relalesto toaadiverse diver conceptual structure. In principle, principle, this this conceptual conceptual structure. knowledge1 whatLangacker Langacker refers of non-Iinguhtic knowledge.what what Langackerrefers refers to to and body and ,",phi,tlCated sophisticatedbody bodyof ofnon-linguistic non-linguistkknowledge, and sophisticated meaning a, matrix. Take. for for instance, in tance. the the word word untie. Imde. The meaning of of IIlIde. asaaadomain domainmatrix. matrix. Take, uncle, uncle. The meaning of uncle, as domain instance, encyclopaedic function of of the the vast body (ln thi view, view. i potentially potentially aaa function function th vast va Ibody bodyofofencyclopaedic encyd paedic on this this on view, is is potentially uncle. Inaddition additionto to mean to to he be someone's someone' uncle. uncle. In In addition to knowledge Lnowkdge we we have of what what itit means sornctiiies knowledge we have have of of what means be uncle's sibling, this also the 'IX'<-ilic relalionship holding between the child ofuncle's uncle' sibling, ibling,this thi also also spe.if mcrelationship relationshipholding holdingbetween betweenthe thechild child of of the specific familial relations, the mdude, detailed knowledge relating 10 marital relations, relalion •familial familialrelations, relalion •the the includes detailed detailedknowledge knowledgerelating relatingto tomarital relations, includes assodated with uncles, as well as ,,"'ial \I.ltu, ofofuncles, uncles. the types of behaviour associatedwith withuncles, unci as • aswell wellas as sos,. ial status uncles,the thetypes typesof ofbehaviours behaviours associated social status of uncles individual knowledge given individual with to und IIldividual knowledge any given individual individual may may have have with with respect respect to touncles individual knowledge any given may have respect for Langacker they have have known. Yel while this knowledge i encyclopaedic, encycJopaedi it • ititisis ifor forLangacker Langacker haveknown. known. Yet Yet while while this knowledgeisis they form. Langackcr's 1'.1rt semanticstructure, "ructure.i.e., i.e .•directly directlyencoded encodedby byaaalexi fom,.Langacker's Langacker' part itof directly by part ofsemantic semantic structure, i.e., encoded lexicalalform. putative linguistic wayof ofseparating par tingputative pUlativelinguistic Iingui Ii argumen i that that there there is noprincipled principledssav .trgtimentt is is that isI; no no principled of separating argument there way non-linguistic representation. from non-linguistic non-lingui ticsemantic semanticrepresentation. representalion. from semantic principled On the contrary. I argue in detail inPart PartII thatthere Ihereis dearand andprincipled principled (.)nthe contrary, contrary,II argue in detail in in Part IIIIthat that isi aaaclear clear On there outlinesofof such distinction the be nude. made.I IIsketched ketchedthe ofsuch uchaaadistinction di ttnclioninin inthe th d""'1
'

Kirs..,Inuela al. at. ( forthcoming 1. thereview rcvicwininItarwlou '° See the

62 62 61

COGNITIVE IJN(,IJISTI( (:OGNITIVP. LINGUI TI S S COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

clariticaOne way in in which the present ne way on which whi hthe thepresent pre 'nt proposals proposalscan canbe Ixinterpreted interpretedisisas aaclarifica darifica one tion on the nature of of the interface Ixtween semantic semanticstructure tru tureand conceptual tion of the interface between between structure and conceptual the nature tion approach adopted scm.intics approach structure, and and aa correctiv corrective on the encydopaedic encyclopaedic semantics approa h adopted ,tructllre, structure, .orrective on 1.CCNITheory Theorysuggests suggests thatrather in cogmtive cognitive linguistics. In specific pecificterms, term,LCCM LCCM Theory uggest,that that rather in lingui ti . In In specific terms, encoded Language being equated with than the the semantic semantic equated %vith than mantic representation representationencoded encodedbybylanguage languagbeing Ixing equated with than representation semantic structure takesaaadistinct distinctform. form. Specifically, conceptual structure, conceptual stnl ture, semantic mantic structure strll ture takes tak", distinct form.Specifically, peeifically, in lanlansemantic structure, unlike conceptual conceptual structure, structure, is encoded in scmanll tructure, unlike conceptual tructur, is i directly dir -tly encoded In Ian refer to as highly elaborate form: what I 1 refer to guage, takes a specialized pecialized and highly elaborate elaborate form: form: what I refer as guage, and and takes encode highly concepts, they encode are'concepts1 lexical concept. lexical concepts concept art' art concept, en ode aaahighly lexical concepts. concepts. While lexical concepts lexical While lexical specializedfor forbeing being schematic fornl form of semantic semantic representation1 representation, schematic of representation, one one that that isis i specialized 'peeialized for Ixong scheniatic form of that directly encoded encoded directly en oded in and and externalized externalized via language. In In contrast, contrast, conceptual conceptual via language. language. contrast, which I model in terms terms of the structure takes aaa qualitatively qualitativelydistinct distinct form, form, which model in ofthe the tructure takes takes term of structure theoretical con construct of the model. the cognitive model. model. theoretical truct of Langacker equates with In other words, the encyclopaedic In other words, word, the the encyclopaedic encyclopaedic knowledge knowledgethat thatLangacker Langackerequates equat with with knowledge LCCM Theory, what what isis the semantic expressions, of lingui ti expressions1 exp ion, isiisnot, not, L MTheory, the mantic pole pol of of linguistic linguistic not,ininLCCM semantic structure the range range of of by semantic semantic structure. Rather, semanti meant by manti stru ture. Rather, tructur relates relat to the th range of structure. conventionally associated associated information that information that thatlexical lexical forms formsare are conventionally conventionally associated purely linguistic information are and 7. 7. which is isi detailed in Chapters Chapters 66 and and 7. with, which detailed in conceptualstructure. structure. In addition, lexicalconcepts concepts provideaccess access In addition,lexical oncepts provide a ces sites ites to conceptual tructure. sites to conceptual Langacker says says something suggesting that somethingapparently apparently similar, similar, words Langacker ys something imilar, suggesting that words word provide provide conceptual structure. however, appears to mean mean access" to conceptual conceptual structure. structure. However, I!owever, he he appears appear to mean ""points poont of access" something quite As noted, word meanings quite different. difterent. Langackcr's something quit different. As noted, on onLangacker's Langa ker' view view word wordmeaningc meaning. relate directly directly to and and thereby, in part. part, constitute encyclopaedic part,constitute constituteencyclopaedic encyclopaedic knowledge, knowledge, relate thereby, in directly to knowledge (i.e., semantic qua conceptual structure. In LCCM Theory, lexical concepts (i.e., qua con eptual structur . In 1J . M Theory, lexhal concept (j.e., semantic scmantic conceptual structure. LC(;M structure) are are quit quite distinct distinctfrom fromthe non-linguistic conceptual structure) ar distinct from thenon-linguistic non -lingui tic*..onceptual on eptual knowledge knowledg to to quite inindetail which we willsee seein detailininPart Part II access, asaswe will we will detail Part IIII of of whi h they potentially potentially afford afford access, acc ,as the hook. th book.

The ininin which The second second way which L((MMTheory theorydiffers ditkrs other cognitive way whi hLCCM LC Theory differ from from other othercognitive ognit"e Th -ond way approaches to can Ix be with approachesto to grammar grammar can be approached approachedwith with respect to Cognitive Cognitive ConConapproach grammar approached rrespect peel to struction Grammar developed version ofConstruction (onstruction Grammar inthe the of Construction Grammardeveloped devel ped in truction Grammar: rammar: the version ver ion of U :cM position that work of of Adele Ad Ie Goldberg Goldlxrg (1995, (1995, 2006). LCCM LC M Theory Theory adopts adopts the position po ition that that lexical concepts concepts are areassociated associatedwith withall alllinguistic linguistic units. Lexical concepts are all lingui tic units. units.Lexical Lexicalconcepts concept are are lexical concept with then fused, to produce produce lexical conceptual unil whi h are are then then interpreted, interpreted, tused, to produce conceptual units units which interpreted, the which an characterization from from the whi i to to say ythey Iheyreceive r . ive an say they receive aninformational informationalcharacterization characterization from whichh is cognitive access. models to to which which afford Thisview viewisis consistent with cognitive models which they they afford afford access. acc . This This i consistent consi tenlwith the general position advocatedin inCognitive Cognitive Construction Grammar. th general gen ral position po ition advocated advocated in ognitive Construction Con tructl nGrammar. Grammar. As A we w of language, saw in discussing basis saw the previous previou chapter chapter in in discussing di u ing the the symbolic symbolIC basis ba i of oflanguage, language, saw in in the (sentence-level) (senlen e-Ievel) constructions conslruction are held to to have have aa semantic manlic value value independent independenl (sentence-level) constructions are independent 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 words constructions have meaning in their right. Moreover, constructions can be (used. For inst.ince, the their own own right. right. Moreover, Moreover, constructions con truction can be fused. fu.,ro. For I-orinstance, in tance,the the which can he fused ditransitive construction involves aa schematic ditran itive construction con truction involves schemati meaning meamng which whi h can canbe Ixfused fused ditransitive schematk which it. This is with the the meaning m aning of of ondividuallingui tic units unit which constitute con tllute it. It. This Thi is i meaning ofthe theindividual individuallinguistic linguistk main diflerente is in terms of similar to the position to be developed here. The main difference is in terms of Ix developed dev loped her. dIfference is on Imllar po ilion to be similar here.Th [he focus and detail. focus and and detail. focu

63

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

1'""

I.i.i. examining eXJmining the range range of of lexical lexi al concepts, concept, qua qutl semanti examining and describing the concepts, qua semantic semantic units, associated with a given language, unit , a socialed wilh a given language, units, associated with the these lexical conceptsafford afford ace accessto non-linguistic conceptual II. al concept lingui tic conceptual way th these lexi lexical concepts afford access totonon non-linguistic ii. ii. the way servi e of of dderiving riving what what rrckr fer to toas a an an knowledge tructur in knowledge structures structures inservice service ofderiving whatIIIrefer as an intormational a situated interpretation, informalional characterizalion: that Ihal i ,a itualed interpretation, interprelalion, and and informational characterization: characterization: that is, is, can combine in in service service of III. lexical concepts concept service of of in which whichthese these lexical lexical concepts can iii. iii. the way in prompting ofmeaning meaningconstruction: construction: is, hkkstage prompting for proc of meaning constru lIon: that that is, i ,backstage batkstage forprocesses processes of cognilion. cognition. Fhc approa approach taken here, here,10 to emphasize emphasite lexi lexical conccpts—the semantic pole Ihe h taken al concepts—the on ept Ihesemantic manlicpole pole The approach taken here, to of ,ymbolic symbolic units, units, rather rather formal pole—stems from the that ralher than Ihan the Ihe formal pole-- lems from Ihe view view that Ihal the the pole—stems primarily the for availf""m are Jre primarily "vehi I "for makingsemantic semanti representations representation availavailforms the "vehicles" "vehicles" formaking making semantic representations for communicative (i.e., (I.e., intersubjective) inlersubjective) purposes. purpo . Indeed, make this thi ahle for able for purposes. to make Indeed, to theterm termphonological phonological vehicle vehicle for pclint explicit, explicil, III henceforth henceforth use u the Ihe lerm vehicle for point henceforth use vehicle (or vehicle lexi al form. fornl .ItIt Itisis i the thesemantic semanticunits unil themselves, themselves,the the h"rt), to refer refer to given lexical the short), refer to aa given form. the semantic units themselves, concepts, whose whose ability ability to lexieal concepts, who abililY affordaccess a ces to to conceptual con eptualknowledge1 knowledge, and and lexical to afford afford access to conceptual knowledge, to be he combined in in aaa range range of ways, ways, that provide provide the the essential componentof of Ix combined range of of way , that Ihat Ihe essential ntial component componenl of the mental mental deployed language usersininin service servke constructing the mental grammar grammar deployed deployed by by language language users USC" scrvi e of of constructing con tructing mcalling. Thu , the present approa h totothe the tudyofofgrammar grammarexhibits exh,b,l,aaa meaning. Thus, thepresent presentapproach approach thestudy study granimar exhibits meaning. Thus, difference in emphasis emphasisfrom fromthat thatof ofCognitive Cognitive Construction Grammar, and differe nce in from Ihal of CogniliveConstruction Con truclionGrammar, Grammar,and difference in moreformal formal indeed otherversions versionsof (onstruction (;rammar, including including the ondl'C
Summary Summary In this this chapter have situated situated LCCM ;M Theory lheorv in linguistics In th" t hapter II have I.e .M IIIthe Ihelarger larger cognitive cognitIvelinguistics IongulSti in in the larger cognitive enterpriseof of which which itItit is is cnterpri i aapart. Ixgan by byintroducing inlroducing cognilivelinguistics, linguisll , part. IIIbegan began introducing cognitive cognitive linguistics, enterprise and by by briefly briefly reviewing reviewing its its primary primary commitments and guiding assumptions: commitmentsand andguiding guidingassumptions: a umption: and (Commitment. ommitment. n()tably the Generalization Generalization Commitment alld the the Cognitive CognitiveCommitment. Generalization (:oniriiitrncnt and notably II argued argued argued that Ihal LCCM LC M Theory Theoryrepresents represents a cognitive semantic semanllC theory, Iheory, concon that LCCM represents theory, conaa cognitive semantic cerned aas as it it is is with the meaning construction, and the i with the nature nature of ofmeaning, m aning,meaning meaningconstruction, construction, and and the the cemed cerned Il.eCM CCM between literal .and relatioll,hip between between literal hteral and figurative figurative language language and and thought. thought. LCCM relationship figurative language and lheory is also useson onthe thenature of 1heory is i also aaa cognitive cognitiv theory of ofgrammar1 grammar, as .5 itit focuses focu"" on the nature of of cognitive theory theory as grammar, semantics of grammar, lexical representation, and the the semantics semanti of of grammar, both in term of lexical rcpr~ntation, th glammar, both bothin terms termsof lexical representation, and the

64 64

INI INTRODUCTION

way in in which which lexical lexical representations repr"",ntatlon, are ar fused (u>Cd or or composed, composed. giving givingrise risetoto to way fused composed, rise way larger units of language. oflanguage. language. II also al considered con id r dthe th way whi hLCCM unit of also considered theway way which LCCMTheory Theory larger units inininwhich serves tobuild build on on antecedent antecedent theoriesinincognitive cognitivelinguistics. erve<; to to build antecedent theories throrie<; linguistic..InInsoMldoing, doing, serves I ( CM ,uggested that that LCCM LCC 1 Theory Theory provides providl'S aa frontstage front tage theory throry of ofmeaning meaning fronistage theory of meaning III suggested construction, which must interfacewith whIChmust mu tinterface withan an aaccount countof ofthe so·calledbackstage ba kstage con truction.which anaccount of theso-called so-called backstage construction, the processesinvolved. involved.IIIalso alsosuggested suggested thatLCCM 1.C(M\ITheory proccssc> involved. also -uggested that LC Theoryserves ~rves a aaacorrective mrrecti,-e servesas corrective processes that on previous approaches to relationship between semantic approach. to the rdation hlp betweell ~mantic tructure and nil previou, structureand on previous approaches to the relationship between semantic structure conceptual structure in cognitive con eptual structure tructure in cognitive linguistics, linguisti •an anissue i u addressed addressed ininfurther further linguistics, an issue further conceptual detail in in Chapter Chapter partitular, in this chapter detail Chapter 9. 9- In In particular, particular. thi chapter II argued argued for for aaprincipled principled argued principled in this betweensemantic semantic the di>tlll
44 Word meaning meaning meaningin inLCCM lCCM in LCCM Theory Theory outset of the thebook hook wordmeanings .. ~,crH-d at the outset out ..t of of bookthat thatword meaning are arc protean nature: meanings areprotean proteaninIn innature: nature: III observed %vords appeartototoexhibit exhibit(often (often significant) variation in their semantic I\\",h ignificant) variation manticcontricontriwords.lppear appear exhibit (often semantic contribution Aitchison strikingly utterances. Aslean Jean Aitchison strikinglyputs putsit: it:"Word 'Word meanings meanings hut ion across aero utterances. utterances. As A lean Aitchison _trikingly puts it: "Word meanings bution cannot Flutter be pinned pinned down, down, as they were dead insects. Instead, they flutter ,.11111"t be ~e pinned down. as a,ifififthey theywere weredead deadinsects. lIl"xt,.Instead, In\lead.they they 39-4o). around (Aitchison 1994: ,iround elusively like butterflies" this chapter elUSIvely like lik live live butterflies" butterflie<;"(Aitchison (Aitchison$994: '994:39—40). 39-40). In In this thi chapter amuml I argue argue as as follows: the key to developing an account of the protean nature asfollows: follows: the key to developing an account of of the protean nature of of of words, a' as exhibited as exhibited exhibited in toprovide provide ript ivelv in meaning meaning construction, mn truction. isis i to provideaaadescriptively de\Criptively adequate account provide access adequateaccount accountof of(1) (i) the to, of (i) the sorts sorts of ofknowledge knowledg that that words wordsprovide provideaccess ace to, to. .Iul"luate and (ii) ( ii)an anaccount account of of word meanings, and the knowledge structures to and an account ofhow how word wordmeanings, mcaning •and andthe theknowledge knowledg structures tructuresto which they afford access, are integrated (or composed). composed). aec <. are compo>ed). Nly main main purpose purpose in in this this chapter to present very general overview ~Iy purpo thi chapter chapterisis i to topresent presentaaa very very general overviewof of th oVerview of the the architectureof of LCCM Theory,and andin inparticular, particular, the approach ar.Ige tdil of the theory which which are arc presented presented in Parts II II are III ofthe and Ill of and III of the book. book. chapter begins, begins, in in the some The chapter begins. the next se<:tion. by by briefly briefly reviewing some meprevious prevIous next section, section, 1w briefly reviewing reviewing previous approaches to word approaches word meaning. I argue that the difficulty with these approaches, meaning. I that the difficulty WIththese th approaches, approach dPl'roach", to mealling. difficultywith horn the from the present perspective, is that (i) they fail to recognize that from the present perspective. fail torecognize recognize that that semantic semanti perspective,isisthat that(i) (i) they fail semantic representation must include semantic stricture (linguistic knowledge) representation must must include semantic aswell well representation semantic structure (linguistic (lingui tic knowledge) knowledg )as as well as conceptual structure (non-linguistic knowledge), and (ii) they are not usagea, knowledge). (ii)thes they are not not usageuCetion section turn to aa discussion (200-\). the subsequent sub<.equent di -u ,ion of of developed sectionII tum turn to discussion of the usage-based the usage-based Theory, before employing the perspective that that infOrms II ((:CM rhl,(lry. the u'>.lge-b.t>ed perspective perspectIve IIlfnnn LCCM before employing el11l'loylllg the the theory, before specific proposals developed there as a basis for introducing the outlines speuhc proposals devdoptd there basis for for inlrtxluung introducing propo'>.ll devcioped there as as a hash outline<; of of 'p,-xillc

I'''''''.

66 hh

WORD IN IN LCCM THEORY WORDMEANING MEANIN6 IAMUIEORY

INTRODUCTION

present an an illustration illustrationofofhow howLCCM R CMTheory Theoryworks worksininlet ins the theory. Finally, II present of aLcounting accounting for fk)rthe therole rok of )t words in language languageunderstanding. understanding. of words in

Previousapproaches approachestotoword wordmeaning meaning Previous Until relatively rclatkdv recently, representationtypically typkallv failed failedtoto Until recently,models models of of semantic semantic representation observe that word meaning is subject to the sort 1)1 variationin in language languageuse use observe that word meaning is subject to the sort of variation described in Chapter i. Thus, prior to lexical semanticists semanticistsoften often to the the 198os, 198os, lexical described in Chapter L Thus, prior assumed that the semantic semanticcontribution contribution of ofaaword word was was aaconsequence conscquenteof ofaa assumed that the stableand andrelatively relativelyrigid rigid knowledge knowledgestructure structure(Allwtxxl 2oo3; loo;; Harder I larder 2009). stable 2(109). More recently, linguists have begun to attempt to provide theories of word More recently, linguists have begun to attempt to provide theories of word meaningwhich whichare arccompatible compatiblewith withthe thevariation variationininmeaning meaningobserved. observed.There There meaning have been beenat atleast leastthree threesorts sortsofofaccounts ao.ountsthat that have havebeen beeninvoked invokedby byscholars have who recognize that word meaning is proteanin innature, nature, and andthus thuswho whotake take who recognise that word meaning is protean issue with the view of word meaning adopted underliteralism. literalism.I Iwill will characcharacissue with the view of word meaning adopted under terize these three approaches as follows: terize these three approaches as follows: perspective.This Thisinvolves involvespositing positingaavast vastnumnumi.i. The The sense-enumerative sense-enumerative perspective. ber assodated with with aagiven givenlexical lexicalform, form, which which ber of of distinct distinctsenses senses associated attempts to exhaust exhaust the the possibilities possibilitiesthat that actually actually occur occur in in language. language. attempts to ii. The abstract underlying semantic representation perspective. perspective. This This sort sort ii. The abstract underlying semantic representation of approach employs cognitive and/or linguistic "dcv k cs"(including (including of approach employs cognitive and/or linguistic "devices" context) that operate on relatively abstract (in the senseofofunderundercontext) that operate on relatively abstract (in the sense specified) underlying semantic/lexical entries entries in in order to to generate generatesursurspecified) underlying semantic/lexical c interpretations of words. face interpretations of words. iii. The plus pragmatic pragmatic principles principles perspective. perspective.This This approach approach iii. Thesemantics semantics plus assumes relatively stable stable underlying underlying senia nt ic/lexical entries entries (semantic s) assumes relatively semantic/lexical (semantics) together with specific specificprinciples/rules irincipks/ruks of of interpretation interpretation (pragmatics). (pragmati s). together with II briefly in slightly slightly more more detail, detail, by by focusing focusing brieflyreview revieweach eachofofthese these perspectives perspectives in on a well-known exemplar. on a well-known exemplar. The proliferation of distinct sense sense The sense-enumerative sense-enumerativeapproach approach posits posits aa proliferation of distinct units associated with given form, form, which which arc to he be stored storedin in the themental mental units associated with a a given are held held to

lexicon. representative example example is is the the study study of of the the English English lexicon. A A well-known well-known representative preposition over by Lakoff (is88; Lakofi 1987), preposition over by Brugman Brugman and and Lakoff (1988; see see aIM) also Lakoff 1987), briefly briefly discussed in the previous chapter. Lakoff' and Brugman. in their various discussed in the previous chapter. Lakoff and Brugman, in their various for a highly granular repository of publications on on the the topic, topic, argue argue for a highly granular mental mental repository of sense units, positing a large number of distinct senses associated with the sense units, positing a large number of distinct senses associated with the lexical I,ikotl (1987) refers to as lexical form form over. over. This This approach as the approach Lakoff refers to the full-specificafull-specification att.ount. 11w this specific version tion account. The difficulties associated with with this specific version of of this this general lowever, as has general approach approachhave havebeen been outlined outlined in in detail detailelsewhere.1 elsewhere.' IHowever, Srr, for Insialht, Krr,t,rr

and ' See. for instante, grottier 1 1 997 1 : lyki "rYkr And I '4118 I 2 ► io hir a (2006: ch. to) for a review.

(1006:

'

►

l•Vanddoise VJ Mk'

1990 );and and Evansjp4 and(jrri•n t;reen

•

67 67

pointed out out by by Pustejovsky 0990 any anysense-enumerative been pointed sense-enumerativeapproach approachisis nlikely to predict the the range range of of senses senses associated to be be able able to to fully fully predi..t associatedwith witheven evena a u 'hisfollows word.I word. This followsas asany anygiven givenusage usageofofan anindividual individuallexical lexicalitem itemwill will unique, and thus provide a subtle context-dependent meaning always be be unique, and thus provide a subtle context dependent meaning this is is the case n turn, turn, this caseas asdistinct distinctinstances instancesofofuse useoften oftencorrelate correlate distinction. IIn with what I have referred to as distinct selectional tendencies in terms tendenck's in termsofof with what I have referred to as distinct 2 For patterns.2 Forinstance, instance,even eventhe theexpression expression II want, as exemcollocational patterns. exemversus II want involve a beer versus Want a lified in in the the utterances utterances II want wan:a acigarette., pplified cigarette, involve different different kinds kinds of of semantic arguments argumentsand andthus thustwo twodistinct distinctsemantic semanticcontricontriwant. Informally, Informally, the the sort sort of of "want" "want involved butions involvedisisofofaadifferent differentkind kind tnitiofls of tvant. case. The range of semantic arguments with which any lexical item can each case. Ihe range of semantic arguments with which any lexical item can in each in co-occur will full-specification will always always far far outnumber even the the most most detailed detailed full—spec ific.ition or sense-enumerative accounts available. As part of the task of the or sense-enumerative accounts available. As part of the task of thelexical semanticist semanticist is is to to be beable abletotoaccount accountfor forthe therange rangeofofsemantic semanticarguments argumentswith with which a form can be combined, adopting a sense-enumerative sense-enumerative approach form can approach leads, effect,to toinfinite infinitepolysemy. polysemy.Some Some scholars, kids, inineffect, scholars, including including Sandra Sandra (1998) (1998) and Sinha and Kuteva (1995), have haveroundly roundly criticized criticized this this tendency, tendency,arguing arguing that it it amounts amounts to aa methodological methodologicalfailure.' failure.' The second secondperspective perspectiveproposes proposesthe thefollowing. following.Rather Ratherthan thanexpanding expandingthe the number of of distinct distinctsenses senses that number that must must be bestored storedin in the thelexicon, lexicon,the thelexical lexicalentry entry itself can be he made more abstract and thus more flexible. This might include made more abstract more flexible. This might include adding various semanti.. semantic dimensions or "slots" to the the lexical which can can be dimensions or "slots' to lexical entry entr which be differentiallyselected selectedfor forbased based on on the linguistic differentially linguistic context which which combines combineswith with the lexical entry in question, and and the the ways in in which which lexical lexical entries entriesare arecombined, combined, or coerced coerced into example of of such such an approach isisthat or into behaving. behaving. A A well -known known example that of of Pustejovsky (1995). In In his his account, account, Pusteiovsky Pustejovsky argues Pustcpovsky argues for for relatively reLatively abstract abstract meta-entries. Although lexical meta-entries. Although abstract in nature, nature, these thesemeta-entries meta-entricscontain contain more potential for detail and thus far more flexibility than has traditionally been more for far flexibility than has traditionally been associated with as advocated associated with lexical lexical entries, entries,particularly particularly as advocatedinincomputational computationaland and formalapproaches approaches to to lexical lexical semantics, semantics, with one or two notable exceptions (e.g., formal with one or two notable exceptions (e.g., Thisisisachieved achieved1w by positing positing so-called so-called Sperber and Wilson 2(102). Carston2002). This 1995; ('irston Sperber qualia roles roles associated associated with These qualia qualia with any any given given meta-entry. meta-entry. These qualia roles, roles, which which have have unspecified values in unspecified in the underlying underlying meta-entry, meta-entry, relate, relate, at at least least for for nouns, nouns,to to notions such such as material type, type, and and so forth. forth. (;enerativc Generativedevices devices notions as purpose, purpose, origin, origin, material roles, while while aa operate on the the value value of the qualia roles, operate the meta-entry meta-entry in in order to fill till the given qualia qualia role role need need not ilwavs alwayshe be filled tilledin. in.The Theadvantage advantage of of this this approach approach is is given that thatititisisnot notstatic staticlexical lexicalcntncs entriesthat thatcombine combine in inmeaning meaning .onstruction, construction, which which is is the the difficulty difficulty with with a sense-enumerative sense-enumerativeperspective. perspective.Rather, Rather,meaning meaningconstruc'onstrucvalues for for and and combining combining tionoccurs, occurs, on this account, lion account, by byvirtue virtue of of filling filling in values qualia roles. roles. This This goes goes some qualia of someway waytowards towardsaccounting accounting for for the the protean protean nature nature of situated word wordmeaning. meaning. situated

I

See See Ilk) alsoPu51r4,%%kv Pustepovsky 199s.

Sandrahas hasdubbed dubbedthu this tendenss the the polyv.emy polysemy fallacy. Aswe we sawrn intIic theprcvbous previous hapter, Sandra t4lacy.

WORI) MFANIN(,INL(;CMIIIIORY WORD MEANING IN LCCM THEORY

INTRODUCTION INTROI)UCI ION

f1 8 68

thu it it is that drawbackof of Pustcovskvs Pustejovsky'sit.count, account,despite despiteits itsingenuity1 ingenuity, is significant drawback AA significant qualia structure structure is is is far far from from ckar clearthat thathis his proposal proposal for meta-entries for lexical kxkal meta entries with +paha is psychologically plausihk. plausible. While While psychologkal psychological validity ma maynot nothebe of of paramount sackaa computationallytractable tradable auount accountof of whoseek scientists who concerti for for cognitive scientists one of of semantic representation1 representation, and and the the way way in inwhich whichwords words combine—which is one semantic Pustejovsky'sultimate ultimateconcerns—the concerns—thegoal goalof ofthe thepresent present work workis is to to develop develop a meaning conpsychologically realistic realistic account account of scmantk semantic representation representation and meaning (;cneralization and Cognitive Comstruction,one one that thatisis consonant consonant with with the the Generalization structiofl, the previous previous chapter, chapter, and and one one that in the mitments of of cognitive cognitive linguistics linguistics discussed discussed in mitments findings from from psychology. psychology. recent findings is consonant with with recent The third thirdperspective1 perspective, the approach, assumes assumes plus pragmatics pragmati..s approach. The the semantics scmantks plus that while whilewords wordshave have the the semantic representations that they do, these theseunderunderthat pragmaticprinciples principles which which guide guidethe the specify for for meaning meaning in in context context due spccifr due to to pragmatic relativelywell-known well-known way they they are are applied in specific utterance utterance contexts. contexts.AArelatively way includes Herskovits's Herskovit.s (1986) account of of example of of this this general general perspective perspective includes (1986) account example spatial relations. argues that that what she she terms termsthe thesimple-relations simple-relations relations. Herskovits lkrskovits argues formal semantic fails Ofspatial spatialprepositions1 prepositions, as as presented in formal semantic accounts, accounts, fails model of and the the principles principles because itit underestimates because underestimates the the role role of of pragmatic knowledge and of language language use use which whichLanguage language users users deploy deploy when when using using Lexical lexical items such as as of prepositions. However, herselftakes takesaarather rathernarrow narrow view viewof ofwhat what prepositions. However, Herskovits Herskovits herself look like. like. More More the semantic representations representationsassociated associated with with prepositions prepositions look the semantic recent research, for instance by by Coventry Coventry and and (;arrod Garrod(2004), (2004), t)eanc Deane (zoos), (2005), tkr instance Tyler and Evans Evans (2003) (1003)and and Evans and (2004), Feist (forthcoming), Tyler Evans and Tyler Tyler (2004), leist (forthcoming)1 relation,preposi preposiVandeloise Vandeloise (e.g., (e.g.,1994), '994), suggests suggeststhat thatininaddition addition to to aa spatial spatial relation, Adoptingthis thisproposal proposal Lions alsoencode encode functional/qualitative functional/qualitativemeanings.4 meanings.' Adopting tion'. also makes positedby byHerskovits. Hcrskovits. makesredundant redundant many manyof ofthe thepragmatic pragmaticprinciples principlesposited eachof of these theseperspec perspecIn general terms, terms, there there are arc two twodifficulties difficulties common commonto toeach wordmeaning. meaning.Firstly, Firstly. Lives as they tives as they attempt attempt to to account accountfor for(situated) (situated)variation variationininword circumscribed each each of of the the accounts accountsassumes assumesthat thatword wordmeanings meaningsare arestable, stable,circumscribed identified—a knowledge knowkdge structures which can can he be(relatively) (relativel'.')straightforwardly straighttorwardly identified—a they problem problem also also true true of of the the view viewof ofword word meaning meaningunder underliteralism. literalism. That That is, is, they assume associatedwith withwords wordsare arerelatively relatively rigid, rigid1 assumethat that the the semantic semantic values values associated discrete sense senseunits, units,qua quamental mental entities. entities. As we we have have begun begun to to see seeininthe theprevious previous chapter, scholars who take an encyclopaedic perspective on linguistic semantics chapter. scholars who take an encyclopaedic perspective on linguistic have discrete body of ofcircumscribed circumscribed is less Lessa a discrete body have suggested suggestedthat that in in fact word meaning is knowledge. larger-scaleconceptual conceptual as points points of of access accesstotolarger-scale serve as knowledge. Rather, Rather, words serve vastin in scope, scope1asasI I knowledge knowledge structures, structures, cognitive ..ognitive models, models,which which are arepotentially vast access to words provide access towhat what argue of the hooks books On argue in in detail detail in in Part Part II II of On this this view, view, words of II first referred to, to, in in Chapter Chapter i,, as a semantic semanticpotential, potential. with with different different sorts of first referred knowledge knowledgebeing beingpotentially potentially activated. i.ha;'trt & spaii.iI partttles p.u1l.k'b inint:hapter ...'unlidot%pawl 1(1 M account ' I I develop an IC.t:M ( mw 211412. (gnU1993; t .ruse tam. Allwood 2003; Cron p.irti&uLsr. ,ec,ininpartit Forrelated rtLiIcd perspectives see. ' Fur

difficulty associated with the sketched above, above, The second difficulty associated with the three three perspectives perspectives sketched the second theirattempt attempttotohandle handlevariation variationininword wordmeaning meaningininIan— lanno twithstandingtheir of word word is that that they use, is they do donot notconstitute constituteusage-based usage-basedaccounts accounts of guage use, meaning. That is, they make attempt to to relate relate their their theoretical make no no serious meaning. That is, they serious attempt and thus thus how how words words derive derive from from and and the nature nature of of situated situated meaning, meaning, and c laims to the events.Nor Norare arethey theyconcerned concernedwith with how how words words sjinc tion 1ontextualized contextualized usage usage events. communicative intentions. intentions. arc used in in context context in in order orderto toexpress express localized localized communicative ,irc The semantic contribution contributionofofaaword, word,which whichisisto tosay. say, which which part partof ofits itssemantic semantic the semantic will always be a function of how it is being used in any any potential is is activated, will always be a function of how it is being used in thisincludes includesboth boththe thelinguistic linguistit saw in in Chapter Chapter t, i, this given given cofltcxt. context. As As we we saw .ontcxt—the surrounding surrounding words grammatical constructions—and the context—the words and and grammatical constructions—and the -linguistic context—including situated communicative communicativeintention intentionofof context—including the the situated estra e xtra-linguistic the semantic semantic the user. Thus, Thus, we werequire require an an account account of of the the language language user. the nature nature of the potential potential that thatwords wordsprovide provideaccess access to, to, and and an an account account of of how how this this semantic semantic potential is constrained by virtue of the way in which words are combined and potential is constrained by virtue of the way in which words are combined and their of use use(i.e., (i.e.,the thecognitive cognitiveoperations operations that taulitatedifferential differential their contexts contexts of that facilitate activation words semantic theoretical account account activation of of a a word's semantic potential). potential). Thus Thus, we we need need aa theoretical of andthe therole roleof ofthe thelanguage languageuser useras asan anintentional intentional agent agent who who of cOfltCXt, context, and employs language. in in part, part1 in in service service of of the the expression expressionof ofsituated situated communicommuniemploys language, 1995).6 cJtiVC intentions(see (see (lark 996; and Wilson Wilson 1995).6 cative intentions Clark 1996; Croft Croft200o; 2000; Sperber Sperber and

The potential of of words words The semantic semantic potential e.g.. Recent work work on on knowledge knowledge representation representation in in cognitive Recent cognitive psychology psychology (e.g., words Rarsalou 1999, 2003, 2003,2008; 2008; Barsalou Barsalou etet aL a!. forthcoming)' forthcoming)7 suggests suggeststhat thatwords Barsalou

provide access to simulators: simulators: large-scale coherent bodies of body-based body-based (e.g., (e.g.. provide access to large-scale coherent bodies of giverise risetotosimulasimulaperceptual, motoric, motoric, subjective, knowledge that that can give perceptual, subjective, etc.) etc.) knowledge horn this one reason reasonfor forthe theprotean proteannature natureof ofword word tions.' From this perspective, perspective, one meaning is is due dueto tothe thelarge largebody bodyofofnon-linguistic non-linguisticknowledge knowledgetotowhich which meaning words afford atlord access, simulationsthat thatarise. arise. access,and andthe thepotential potential for simulations words In recent developed aa language-processing language-processing In recent work, work,RoLf Rolf Zwaan Zwaan (2004) (2004) has has developed model which which is is concerned concerned with with modelling modelling how provides access accesstoto model how language language provides simulators and thus prompts prompts for for simulations. simulations. This I'his he he refers refersto toas asthe theImInisimulators, and thus consider the the use use of of the the lexical ICXIcdl mersed Experiencer Experiencer framework. framework. For instance, consider mersed For instance, item Item red red in in the the following following examples: examples:

(i) a. a. The teacher scrawled red inkallallover overthe thepupil's pupil'shomework homeworkexercise exercise (I) The teacher scrawled in in red ink h. The The red redsquirrel squirrel is is in in danger dangerof ofbecoming becomingextinct extinctininthe theBritish BritishIsles Isles b. ' This This is is an an issue issue II develop dc'w4op in in :barter haptcrii.ii. lot rdaird disussion the relationship rdatinn'hip hciwt,,n and stimuli sirnutaand dist For Mateda...(oUflts atimunts And ussion ot ol the betweenaspe'ts aspetts of of language language and

4

Zlatev hate' 2003.

69 69

I14fl$4ikCI aligatkel

and kas.hak (2002 tzooz): Kaschak andt denherg ( 2 01 )1 )); alsoliergen liergcnAnd and t 'hang (2000. t iknherg Nuns see ah., deriberg and hak and .Ifl(J Vigliotko et v a!. (loo..i). and simulationsare arcre-activanons rca(tjvations of of body-bawd body-basedstales, stairs.asasbriefly brieflydiscussed dis.tissi'dininChapter (hapterLi. Rc'iall that that simulations ▪ Recall

I

70

70

arr

INTRODUCTION INTROI)tCTION INTRODUCTION

Zwaanmakes makesthe thepoint pointthat thatin inlinguistic linguistic examplessuch such Zwaan that in lingui tic examples e""mpl uch aas (t), (I). whi h are Zwaan makes the point (i), which wnicrt indicativeof of those those he he u uses in in his his model, red d designates two different different sorts sorts of of two different uses designates indicative of hi model. model. red ignates two sensoryexperience experienceprecisely precisely becausethe the cont context constrains siImu experielke ",nsory preci Iy because beeau ..t con train the sort of of simulations derived derived by by language That is, lations derived by language use users. That den .... That Iis,• while while the the simulated imulated hue hue derived denved lations red in from the the use use of of red in ((ta) hue of simulation from the red 13) is i quite quite aa vivid vivid red, red. the the hue hue of ofthe thesimulai imulation from use prompted for for by by (ib) he closer to to aa dun/browny dun/browny In present ppr ' 01 prompted for by ((lb) Ib).isis likely likely to be be closer to. dun/ browny colour. colour. In red ha terms, red has.3 relatively largesemantic semantic potential. potential, whllh which relates has aa relatlV relatively term. retl Iy large relates to a range of terms, differentpo possible hues (one (one dimension dimension along different possible hues the colour colour spect Ibl hues dimension along along which whi h the colour spectrum pectrum dIfferent varies). That aspect of the word's potential which is activated is a consevaries).9That That aaspect of the the word' words potential peet of potential which which isis activated .ctivated is aa coi come varies).' quence, in part, of the way it is constrained by the utterance context, quence. in part. of the war quence. way it isi constrained con trained by by the the utterance utterance context, ontext.and and IO specifically bythe theutterance utterancecontext. context.' specifically the scene sceneevoked evokedby utterance context.'° pecifi ally the An important lesson lesson and indeed others who take An Ie n from the th work of of Zwaan, Zwaan. and ta ke An important what.1 will refer refer to what II will to aas a simulation simulation semantics approach to to language language underwhat will imul.tion semantics sem •.nties approach language underundc rstanding Bergen and and Chang coos), is standing and Chang that the semantic potential hang 2ooSL 2005). Iisthat that the semantic semanti potential potential assoa sotandlllg (e.g., (e.g.• Bergen ciated with with %%'ords words is primarily is primarilynon-linguistic non-linguistic nature.That 'I'hat is, is. the ciated non linguistic in ininnature. nature. That i •the thesemantic semantic potential of red is not "there" in the word itself. That is, whatever potential of red potential ret! iis not not "there" " there" in III the the word itself. itself. That is. whatever whatever red rcd Ihat is, red designates, we are not dealing with purely linguistic knowledge, as the same designates, we are as the same designates. with purely linguistic linguistic knowledge, knowledge. 35 form prompts for two very different sorts of form mental rehearsals of "redness." diffi rent sorts sort ofmental mentalrehearsals rehearsalsof of"redness." "redn""." form prompts prompt for for two two very very different Rather, red provides ace access to perceptual Rather, the the form form red knowRather. ret! provides per eptual information infornlatlon and and knowknow1I which or simulated." ledge, which which can can be he reconstructed reconstructed simulated.t' ledg~. ~an be reconstructed .or imulated. The .Thegeneral general perspective perspective by simulation provided by simulation scmantks is is adopted and and integrated integrated with the the perImulatlon semantics "'manllc I adopted adopted llltegrated with the perperproVIded spective of peetlVe of cogOlllve hngUlstlcs that central LCeM Theory. and develspective ofcognitive cognitivelinguistics linguisticsthat thatisiiscentral centraltototoLCCM l.('( MTheory, Theory.and anddeveldevdoped detail in Part II oped in in more more of the the hook. book. in Part Part 11 II of more detail detail in

Meaning Meaning M eaning and and use III now flOWturn turnto toaadiscussion the relationship between language use and now tum to discu ionofofthe th relationship relation hlpbetween betw nlanguage languag use u and meaning. I do so by adopting a version of the usage-based thesis employed adopting a ver Ion of the usage-based thesis in mea~l~g. Ido so . by adoptlllg th is employed in cognitive linguistics (as developed most notably by Langacker e.g., z000)," 2000),h2 cogmllve IICS (a n tably by by Langacker Langacker e.g .• 2000)." cognitive hngUl linguistics (as developed developed most notably which I present below. which I present below. whl(h below. Language use language: integral to to our our knowledge knowledge of language:our our knowledgeof oflanguage: ourlanguage tem u is iis integral languagesystem system (or (or mental mental grammar). The organization organi7ationof ofour grammar). The Th. organization of ourlanguage languagesystem sy temisisi intimately intimately our language system intimately related derIVes directly directly from, from. how how language language isis i actually actuallyused (Croft related to. and related to, and derives directly from, how language actually used(Croft (Croft woo; Langacker zoo3). 2000; Langa.cker Langacker2000; 2000;Tomasello Tomasdllo 2003).Through Throughprocesses processesof ofabstraction abstraction 2000; 2000; Toma 1102003). Through proc of ab tractionand and schematization z000), based on pattern recognition schematization (Langacker 200o), he~atlzallon (Langacker 2000). pattern recognition recognition and intentionand intentionreading abilities (Tomasello 1999, 2oo3), language users abilities ( Iomasdlo derive symbolic zooj), language users derive symbolic units. units. uni". «adlllS abliltl . (Tomasello 1999. 2003). These are relatively well-entrenched mental routines consisting of conventional relativelywell-entren well-entrenched routines consisting These are relallvely hed mental routin con i ting of of conventional conventional pairings form and meaning (Langacker 1987). pairings of of form and meaning (Langacker 1987). of fonn and meaning ( Langa ker 1987). • That h at ha% pointtthat has born been madc. nude, albeit in Thai language Iangu.agrserves scrvcstotoprompt promptfor forsimulations simulationsas11 a.1point inslightly slighib different terms, by a number of other stilialars. in partisular [Ursalou 11999). and See in parikular Barsalou diffcrcni terms, by a number ol other and Kas.hak and and tilenherg (;knbcrg Isom)), tzoo()l. "I See ussion tit Lonstrikting anal ofthe theimportant e ofO(Con%trUt*tng SeeZwaan Zwaan and andRadvansky Radvansky I iswal for kir di.. discusiton mddrawing drawing upon of spes:11% scene% and situations—fir Language understanding. 11)1 Language amI UiUJtM)fli— uponsituation situationmodels—knowledge modeli- —knowledge of ° For Is discussion lor dis4. ussionsee setRarsaksu K.arsalout1999). f 52 See /:vans and Green Om*: ch. 4) See Ivans and ;rrrn lzoo6: fm reyjew. fur a areview

4)

.

INL((:M III*ORY WORD IN LCCM L eMI THEORY TlIEORY WORI) WORD Mf.ANIN(i MEANING IN

-

to the the language user inasIIH ow ",c, cr. the of unit available available to th language language user u r masma ever, the range rangeof of symboli symbolic units units available the relationships. slates, underdetennine range of or situation, events, events, states, tat relationships, relation hip derdetermine the the range range of situations, situations, events, sive ly un seek that the user may may potentially potentially seek ,I dI other o,her ,nterpcr>onal the language language user seek interpersonal functions that the language an tnt ,c an' ,se 1,InSuaSe ",ullil. that language users rcason ,or this thl...is , that languageto toexpress express and andfulfil. fulfil. One One reason reason for for this is language users 'anguage i„ u evolving. No two continually ~ ,n io physical matrix 'hat.i hiftin.g and 0 two two ::: sociophysical matrix that thatis is continuallr continually shifting shifting and e~olving. evolving. No live i n a "IC given point in in time, are exactly ,uall un'. feehngs. relallon hIp. at any POlllt 10 time, lime.are areexactly exa t1y situations, feelings,or orrelationships1 relationships, atany any g,ven given point meanings1 about continually express unique meanings, "lIkC. We arc language to expr . unique meanings. about about We arc are contlllually continually using using language language to express a like . We While language has a nique relallonship uniqu ways. way. While While language languag has ha nique states states of of affairs affairsand andrelationships1 relationships,• in in unique unique u combined schcmas, or symbolic units which can be ~a r.uo~e made schema • or ymboli h can an be to rangeuf Ofready· ready-made schemas, symbolic unitswhi which be combined combined to to of ready-made a and the scenarios we may wish to refer to of and eexPfC" ntative range represefltatise press aa rcpr representative rangeof of th the !>Cenario scenarios we we may may wish wish to refer to and of human experiunderdetermine ,k",ribe. these nce rily und rdet rmine the human experiexpen describe,these these necessarily necessarily underdetermine the mutability mutability of of human tiestribe, language users can only by symbolic unit by language language users u r can can only only cnle ence. AClordongly. Accordingly,the thesymbolic symbolic units units employed employed by they Langackcrs e,er partiJll y sanction nction (in Langacker' s terms) ternlS) the situated SItuated way way in in which whi hthey they ever partially partially sanction (in Langacker terms) the the situated way in which ever coordinJre ((1996) 1996) observes, observ • language involves are used. As As Clark Clark(1996) observes, languageuse useinvolves involves solving solving aa coordincoordinused. ire u,ed. employ non-conventional ation problem. which language uscrs must non onventional in whkh language users must ation problem, 1ition problems in which language users must employ non-conventional typically employ strategies That is, is,•language language users users """Jonatlon trategies and devic . That That, u r typically typiGlllyemploy coordination strategies and devices. devices. employ units, including patterns of assem,he repertoire of of lingui ti units, units, including in ludong patterns pattern of ofassema mthe (on\'entional conventional repertoire of linguistic linguistic the which are themselves as word-order conventions, hling linguistic unit ((such u h as a word-order word order conventions, conv nti n •which whi hare themselves themselves linguistic units units (such bling meaning. which this siew, ways.'' On Onthis view, Iingui\li' non -conventional ways." ways." Vil~. meaning, meaning,which whichisis i~ linguistic unih), units), in non-conventional non-conventional isa consequence of combining a,,,,,ia,ed (or u ge event), event). is aa consequence consequen e of ofcombining associated with with th the utterance utterance (or (or usage usage event), is coordination in order to solve solvethe unit in in novel novel ways ways in order to theparticular particular coordination coordination the ,ymboli symbolic units communication. pruhlcm Jt hand. th reby facilitating facilitating communi ation. rrohlem ,,t problem at hand, hand, thereby thereby facilitating communication. of that one one reason reason for the protean nature We >aw previou section section that reason for for the the protean protean nature nature of of in the We saw in in the previous semantic potential potential to which "",J meaning arises ari from the the non-linguistic non ·lingui tic semantic semantic potential to towhich which word meaning meaning arises from from word arise, in range simulations tan arise. lex ical con epts ,,ftord afford access, a«ess. and th range r.lIIge of of simulations imulationsthat thatcan can arise.In In lexical concepts afford and the the concepts—the semantic semantic pole pole of "addition, Motion. aa second second reason reason arises arises as as lexical lexical concepts—the concepts--the semanti pole of of addition, second reason arises as lexical Utter,ymbo lic units—are units-are only ever ever realized reali,ed as as part of oflinguistic lingui ti utterances. utteran es.UtterUttersymbolic units—are only realized aspart of linguistic utterances. symbolic of an act definition) situated, and thus form part .• by . ituated. and thus thu,form part ofofan Inact ance. are arc necessarily nnecessarily ' rily (i.e., (i.e 1w ances (i.e., by definition) situated, give rise to of communication. communi ation. But in being being so sorealized, realized. lexical lexi .1 concepts con epts give give rise rise to to communication. But in realized, of in being so lexical concepts the linsee in in Part Part shall semantic contributions; a we weshall hall see see in Part II, II. the the linlin ontext. indu ed semantic .ontext-induccd contributions; as as we II, context-induced consists of'"bundles" bundles""of of different gu "tic content «(lIItent bylexical lex".ll concepts con iSIS of of"bundl different guistic content encoded encoded by by lexical conceptsconsists of different guistic this knowledge t}'f'C> oflingui tic knowledge. knowledge. Accordingly. different a peel of ofthis thi knowledge knowledg types of of linguistic linguistic knowledge.Accordingly, Accordingly,different ditkrent aspects types aspects of thisisis that lexical can become beeome active in in different different contexts. onte.ts.The consequen eofof ofthis i that thatlexical Ie ical contexts. The consequence consequence become active can Rather, the contextually contextually ill tow. 10/0. Rather, Rather. it only the contextually w nccpt are are never neveractually actuallyrealized re.li,ed in concepts realized in it is is only concepts languageuse. use. relevant aspects aspects which aspect which whi h surface unace in inlanguage u . relevant distincBorrowing an analogy from phonological theory, wecan canliken likenthe thedistincdi tinc. Borrowing Bo rrowing an an analogy analogy from from phonological theory, theory.we contextualized instantonceptson onehand, hand, andtheir theircontextualized instanloo n between lexical concepts concep" onone hand.and instan tlotì between lexical tion and on other as as akin akin to th distinction distinctionbetween betweenphonemes phonemesand and tiallon tiations on on the the other other as akin totothe the distinction between phonemes tiations representamental lexical concepts qua ju,t as phonemes.lexical lexicalconcepts concep" qua 'I'm mental representarepr nta aliophones. .tllophones. lust Just aswith with phonemes, allophones. based on tlofls never actually actually perceived. perceived. Rather, their existence existence inferred tlon, arc are never actuJlly pcr<elVc'tl. Rather, Rath r. their exi"ence isis i,inferred inferrc'tl based basedon on tions variability, and and commonalities, commonalities,•inin inword wordmeaning meaning across(situated) the variability, variability. and commonaloti word m aningacross aero (.(situated) ituated usage ) usage u>ag the this, then, the job of the event,. as a as Judged over many in"anc u . In In this, this. then, then. the the job jobofofthe the CVCflts, judgedover overmany nuns instances instances of of use. use. In events, judged of

-,d:

I

11

■

77

711

0 This 11 Th aaissue t uc is 11discussed dl wtNfurther lurthc-r l h.irll."fILii. IL This issuc is dmHusscd furtherinIn inChapter

"

I

72

72

INTRODUCTION lION INTRODUCTION

kxical semanticist semanticist toemploy lexical ",mantid t isis i to employ thesituated Ituatl.,)semantic manticcontribution contributionofof gIVen employthe situated semantic ofa aagiven given lexical by analogy word, word. analogy akin to allophone. in order to onfer the exi ten e of Ihe allophones,ininorder orderto infer inferthe theexistence cxistclkeofofthe the word, by analogy akin to allophones, underlying lexical lexical .oncepts—stored mental underlying lexical concepts—stored concept $lored mental mental schemas—akin hema -akin totophonemes. phonem • schemas—akin phonemes, underlying sanctionthe thesemantic semantic contributionswhich which which partially partially sanction '>Jnction the '>Cmanticcontributions contribution. whichsurface. surface. In In view surface. In view view which ofthis this distinction, in the remainder of the book of Ihisdistinction, di tinction.in inthe theremainder remaonderof ofthe th book bookI II will will refrain refraon from u ingthe the refrainfrom from using using the of term"word "word meaning." meaning." Rather, will refer refereither "word meaning."Rather, Rather. IIwill refer eilher theconstruct con tructofof ofthe th lexical lexic.1 either to to the the construct the lexical term —when I am referring to the underlying conccpt - when IIam amreferring referring to the underlying semantic '>Cmantic 'tru tur r.toto to semanticstructure—or, structure—or, concept—when the semantic contribution of the semantic ;em.ntic contribution ontributionof ofaaagiven given lingui ticform—when form - whenIIIam am referringtoto to givenlinguistic linguistic form—when amreferring referring the a situated instance of a lexical concept. in tance of ofa lexical concept. concept. ituated instance aa situated In view of the foregoing, In view view of of the the foregoing, foregOIng. we we are now III po ition totoprovide some ba Il weare arenow flowin inaaaposition position providesome somebask In distinctions with respect to meaning meaning and di tinctIon with rCl>pcct to meaning and and use uusethat that arecentral c nlraltoto lCe 1 thatare are central toLCCM LCCI.I distinctions respect Theory. Fir Firstt of Theory. of all. we weneed needtoto toprovide provid aa definition definitionof anutterance. utterance. Thi definition This is is" Theory. First of all, all, we need provide ofofan an utterance. This straightforward Ilessstraightforward traightfon>..d aa t. k than might assume. a ume. As ,I will defone U\dge task than one onemight assume. As willdefine defineit,it. it,aaausage usage less a task than one I Iwill eventor orutterance utterancehas hasaaaunit-like unit-like statusin inthat thatititrepresents event or utteranc ha unit like status Matus in that reprC5Cnts Ihe expr ionof of representsthe theexpression expression of event a coherent idea, making (at least partial) coherent idea, idea. making making (at Cat least lea\t partial) partial) use uuse e of of the conventions convention ofofthe the ofthe the conventions the aa coherent language—-inforinally, the languag informally. Ihe norm lingui lic behaviour behaviour in in aa aparticular particular behaviour in particular language—informally, the norms norms of of linguistic linguistic communit but see Croft (2o00). Iingui lic community, communily. but bUI \ee Croft Crofl Cl000). olher word.an an utteranceisis i otherwords, words, anutterance utterance linguistic see (boo). InInother somewhat discrete entity.However, However, om<whal discrete di rele entity. enlily. However. III use 05e Ih expr ion "unit-like" "unil.like" usethe the expressions expressions "unit-like" and and aaa somewhat "somewhat •"somewhat ...omewhat discrete" d,\(rele"because beeau", an an utterance nol ab",lulely di ·rele.nor nor anutterance utteranceisiisnot notan anabsolutely absolutchdiscrete, discrete, noraaa discrete" because precisely identifiable identifiable unit. unit. This This follows preci;ely identiliabl unit. Thi follows folloW5 as aasutterances utteran e5involve involvegrammatical grammalical utterances grammatical precisely forms such word order order forms uch as a word order and and lexical lexical items, ilem lexical concepts, concepl •speech speechsounds, sound,. items,•lexical lexical concepts, speech sounds, forms such and patterns of intonation such pattern, ,uch as a pitch pilch COnIOuf\.slight 'lighlpauses, pau~ and accelerallon as pitch contours, contours, slight and accelerations accelerations patterns of of inlonalion intonation such pauses, and decderations, and soforth. While these properties and and so so forth. While Whil these IhC5Cproperties pr perti converge convergeon ondiscretedi\(releon discreteand deceleralions. decelerations, and ness and units, they do not nand Ihey do nOI co-occur co·occur fixedpatterns, patterns.and Ihereforedo donot nol co-occurin infixed fixed patterns, andtherefore therefore not ness and unily. unity, they do not Provide a set of criteria for provide a ",I of crileria for colleclively idenlifying an utteran«. In thi. identifying anutterance. utterance.In Inthis this provide a set of criteria for collectively identifying an utterances differ the related rrespect, peel. utteranc differ from Ihe r laled nOlion of a ntence. notion of a sentence. respect, utterances differ from the related notion of a sentence. A sentence, asdefined definedinin parti particular A ular by by formal formallingui t •isis i an an abstract abstract entily. formal linguists, linguists, an abstract entity. entity. A <entence. sentence, as as defined in particular In other words, it is an ideali,jtion that has In olher word,. It i an id.ali1.Jlion Ihal has delermimle properti .... often determinateproperties, properties, often often In other words, it is an idealization that has determinate stated in terms of taled in grammallC.1 structure. tructure. For For example. example. definition of(an Can structure. one definition definition of of (an stated in ternl terms of of grammatical For example, one one Inglish) might con Engli h) sentence sentence i t of Ihe c>NPPVP. VI'. ofofthe SS S English) sentencemighl mightconsist consist theformula: formula: The notion notion of of aa sentence, whilebased basedon onprototypical prototypical patterns The ",nlenee. while while b.l\l.,) on prolotypical patterns found found in patterns found in in The notion of a sentence, utterances, is not the same asan anutterance. utterance. Utterances typically typically occur utterance. an utteran e. Utterances Utteranc typically OCcur sponponutterances,i,is not not the the same same aas taneously, and often do not to the laneou Iy. and conform to 10 the Ih grammaticality grammaticality requirements requiremenl of of. requirements taneously, andoften often do do nol not conform aa well-formed sentence as understood in formal linguistic ~ell formed ",ntence a, undef\l(xld in formallingui\lic thl'ory. I'or example. theory. For For example, well-formed sentence as understood in formal linguistic theory. in terms of structure, an utterance on lerm, of 'Iructure. an utterance may con i t of a ingle word C H;.~. may consist of a single word (Hi!), in terms of structure, an utterance may consist of a single word (Hi!), aaa phra phrase phrase (No way!), an incomplite sentence C(No '0 Imy!). an incomplete ",ntence C Did YOII pilI l/or , .. n. or a ntenee you put the... way!), an incomplete sentence (Did you put the... ?), or that oraasentence sentence thai that contains errors" of pronunciation (onlJin "error,," of pronunciation or grammar btxau\e the peakcr 1\ tirl'ti. grammar because the speaker speaker isistired, tired, contains "errors" of pronunciation or grammar because the distracted, or eXClled. excited, and so on. While much of di;tracted. and so on. While much of formailingui ti has been formal linguistics has been been distracted, or excited, and so on. While much of formal concerned with modelling the concerned the properties properti offangu,'ge Ihat enable enable us uus to to proxluce properties of language that to produce produce concerned wilh with modelling modelling the of language that well formed grammatically well formed \Cntencl .... utterance "ftcn exhihll grad d gramsentences, utterances often exhibit graded grammatically well-formed sentences, utterances often exhibit graded gramgrammatic&litv (see Langacker malicality .ngocker 1987:;ee al", han and (,rcen 1(06). In short, hort. whil 1987; see also Ivans and (ren 20()6). maticality (( seeILangacker while 1987; see also Evans and Green 20 o6). In short, while can be precisely and narrowly defined, aaa sentence <enlence can be preci>ely and defined. an ullerance cannot be. an utterance annot sentence can be precisely and narrowly defined, an utterance cannot be. be. \Vhik sentelhes represent the structure with \Vhilc 'nl Ihe \(xiJll'll With uttcr. While\Cntcnu,\ sentences repr pical uttertitterrepresent the\tru(turc structureJassociated withaaa prntntypkal prototypical ance, utterantes represent specific md unique instances of language JnlC. UtlcranlC rcpn."\Cnt pt.*f,;ifil and uniqu in\tJI1'-l: of IJnguage u~. Once ance, utterances represent specific and unique instances of languageUsc. use.On(e Once

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

7373

is given meaning, meanmg, context, and phonetic realization, realization. ititbecomes lltxome aa a Il h..'.H:e i\ ken) utterance. Accordingly, as I am concerned with an account lexical .... ,kcn ) utterance. utterance. Accordingly. I amconcerned concerned with withan an account accounlofof oflexica] \wrdingly, asasI am lexical ( •,po n h i · 1'1" d · . h sentation and meaning construction that reflects how language is used, it• itIt repre lrl''ot,.' ntJtioll and In meaning me.mmg (on\trw,:tlon tthat at reflects rc lXl\ how ow language .1nguage is I used, u\CtI· is::IU ultimately the utterance, rather then thenthe idealized notionofof the ltllll,ltcly the Ihe utterance, utterance. rather ~ather Ihen the idealized idealoled notion nOllon ofthe Ihesentence, \entence. sentence, ith which I am concerned in the present work. I am concerned in the present work. ,,'th IIhith J 111 the prC5Cnt work. w ith }wing provided (qualified) definition ofof ananutterance, provided this (qualified) definition of IIJ' 1118 prnvidedthis this (qualofied) definilion utterance.we weare arenow nowinIfl inaaa Living utterance, we are flOW position distinguish meaning from lexical representation. My claim that I"",tion totodistinguish di ~ingui hmeaning meaningfrom fro~lexical lexicalrepresentation. repre ntJlion.My Myclaim d~imisis "that that distinction between lexical representation and meaning is that the th,' n..ential distinction dl linctlon between between lexical leXIcal representation repr.... ntatlon and meanons is I that Ihat and meaning the essential while meaning is a property of the utterance, lexical representations consist while meaning IIhlk meaning isI aa property of oflhe utterance. lexical representations repre..entation, c(1n,i,1 of the utterance, uiflsistof of the mental abstractions which we infer must be stored as part of the language mental abstractions h we Ih,' Illenlal abstra tio", whit which we infer infermust mu tbe bestored ,toredas aspart partofofthe thelaliguago.' language user's knowledge of language: symbolic units, together with the range knowledge of of language: language:symbolic symbolic unit. units, logether together with with the uusers a\ knowledge the range range of of of cognitive models, the semantic potential, to which a lexical concept affords Lognutivemodels. models,Ihe the\emanlic semanticpot potential, to which a lexical "'~I1II1VC ntial. to lexical concept coneept affords affords lexical representation involves structures of distinct access. IlIen( knce,• lexical structures of distinct types .I"e" . Hence, lexical representation represenlalion involves involVe!> )!ructur ... of dislincttypes 1ype5 which system inhere in two two distinct representational systems: thelinguistic linguistic II hich inhere inhere in IWOdistinct di tinctrepresentational representationalsystems: YSlem:the lingui tic. y lem system and the conceptual system. The interaction of these distinct types of struc.ind the conceptual 'Y'tem. system.Th The interaction interaction of these distinct types .11ll1 Ihe coneeptual Ihe di\linct t)'PC' of structru tures gives rise to meaning associated with an utterance. The meaning assotures gives ri\e rise to to mcaning meaning associated with an utterance. Ill .." gIve, a sociated with utterance. The The meaning 01 aning assoa~) ­ conception. will refer to as a with an utterance I ciated lOa ted wilh an utterance utterance II will will refer refer to to as a a conception. conception. 1

I

,

for An architecture the role An architecture architecture for for the role of of words words meaning meaning in mea ning construction construction

The conclusions emerge from the (ondu conclusions rhe ion to to emerge from the the previous previou discussion di u ion suggest ugse5t aaa number of suggest number of of We require requirements for a theory of lexical and compositional semantics. r'(luirements for a theory oflexi(al lexical and requiremenl andcompositional compo,ilional ",manlics. require semantics. We We require both an account of lexical representation and a theory of semantic composboth an hOlh an account of of lexical lexical representation reprC'>Cntatlon and a theory of ofsemantit >emantic compos(ompo ition, which which together ition, contribute to ltiun. which together togelher should hould contribute toaaadescriptively d riplivelyadequate adequate and and descriptively adequate and require We realistic of meaning psychologically reali realisti.. account of I',ychologically tic aecounl cun;truction. We require require aaa meaning construction. construction. theory of lexical thc~lry lexical representation repre>ent.ltlon which which providCl> aaadescriptively dC!>er appear appear users appear to

4. 1

possess. We also require an account which provides aJa means means of of possess. Weal", alsorequire requirean anaccounl accountwhich which provide. provides I'" \C". We meam undef\\.nding of understanding understanding how lexical lexical representations interface with conceptual knowledge, how representations le"ical rep ...... ntation interface inlerfalC with conceptual conceplu,li knowledge, knowledge. which which whichisi, isto10 to their semantic potential. That is, we require a theory that shows how the say, say,their their ;emanlic semantic potenlial. potential. That is, \dy. i • we we require a theory that shows how how the Ihe

linguisticand andconceptual conceptual systems interact in to produce semantic linguistic and conceplual .systems y tem interact 10 produce proldULC semantic \emantic interact in in order order to representations. We also require an account of how lexical representations, representations repre..entatiun . We al'><, require an an alcount of how lexical lexOlal representations, repre\Cnlation>. of how together wilh with Ihe the informational together informational characterizations together informational characterization derived from the thesemantic semanti characterizationsderived derivedfrom the semantic potentialavailable, available,combine combine in in order order 10 to provide provide situated meanings, is, potential combine in I'otential available, provide situated situated meanings, meaning. that thai is, is. to that conceptions. Finally, Finally, as Ihe the .. semantic contributions '-onteptions. the semantic contributions associated "'nccplion,. J.inally. as a, mantic c"nlrihuli,,", a""x:iated with word,are arc assotiatedwith with words words are functionof ofspecific specific utterances, and thus thus usage aaa function fun, and Ihu aa consequence consequence of ofdiscrete discrele usage usage consequence of discrete events,the theaccount accountdeveloped developed of of lexical c\cIils, event. the d(c.:ouni dcveloped or lexical Ie iedl representation rcprc ntJtion and and semantic 'Cl1lJntic com(om representation semantic As the two aspects of the thoroughlyusage-based usage-based in in nature. positionmust musthe bethoroughly Position p,"ition mu,t be Ihtlroughly u\Jge·ba\Cd nature. As A, the two IWO aspects a,pec" of Ih of the presentaaa summary summary of the the architecarchitectheoryIIIpresent presentare are relalively relativelycomplex. complex. II present theory prc;enl pre;ent ummary of the archilecare relatively complex, of arc argued for in detail in Parts II turebelow. below.All Alloflhe thecomtru," constructs inlroduced introduced are ture below. All ofofthe constructs introduced lure Part II are argued argued for for in tlet,liI detail in Parts andIII IIIof ofthe thehook. book. and Ill and of Ihe Il<xll..

_4

- ---

INTROI)t(:TII'N INTRODUCTION

THEORY WORD MiANIN(, IN IN LCCM t(( M THEORY WORD MEANING

75

concept integration

LCCM LCCM theory

representation (symbolic (symbolic LCCM theory theory consists consists of (I) (1)an an account account of lexical representation and cognitive tognitive models) and and (ii) (ii) an an account account of of semantic semanticcomposition: composition: units and units or, in in my my terms, terms, activates, or, integration of of lexical concepts in a way which activates, integration through the cognitive models modelsto towhich which aagiven givenlexical lexical provides anaccess access route through provides an s..onceptaffords affordsaccess. acCCSS. This serve to highlight particularattributes— attributes— concept This cancan serve to highlight particular u)gmtsvemodel, model,such suchasasproperties—and properties—andstructural structuralinvariinvariaspects of a cognitive ants—relations holding attributes—of a given cognitive model. model. holding between attributes—of As noted above, above,the thefundamental fundamental assumption assumptionisisthat thatmeaning—more conception—is aa property property of an utterance—a utterance—a situated situated instance instance technically a conception—is in part, part, by cognitive cognitive operations operationswhich which apply apply to to of language use—which arises, in kxkal concepts to the lexical lexical representations representations—lexical conceptsand andthe the cognitive cognitive models models to which lexical sites—deployed by by language language users. users. which lexical concepts concepts provkle provide.iccess access sites—deployed Thus, meaning meaning arises arisesby byvirtue virtueof oflanguage languageusers usersforming forminginterpretations interpretations based on on the the lexical lexical concepts conceptsemployed, employed,the theway waylexical lexical concepts conceptsare arecomcombased bined, and the access routesthrough through the the sets setsof ofcognitive cognitive models—the models—the bined, access routes cognitive model protilc—accessed by aa given given lexical lexical concept. concept. Moreover, Moreover, profile—accessed by theseinterpretations interpretations are are always alwaysguided guidedby bylinguistic linguisticand andextra-linguistic extra-linguistic these t()IltCXt.14 context."

meaning construction construction process takes takes place place by by gnreadtiiaotned meaning txic he :tic:::if: at :11; t e'rmediated

11W

scmantk composition. This process involves Iwo component pro-

1tuc of semantic composition. This process involves two component proselectionand and(ii) (ii) fusion. fusion. Lexical Lexkal concept sekct ion i) lexical lexical concept concept selection concept selection cs ((I) cvei rs,Isue: with each the most most appropriate appropriate lexical lexical concepts concepts associated associated with each invo lves selecting the

1wutterance, utterance, discourse, discourse,and andextra-linguistic cxtra-linguistii. vehicle in an utterance, utterance guided by appropriateness or of the selected lexical concept is a c ontext. The appropriateness or otherwise of the selected lexical concept is a of aaconception. conception.This Thisisis semanticacceptability acceptability of function of semanticality—the semantic of discussed in ('h1ipter Chapter u. 13.Fusion, Fusion,the thesecond secondcompositional compositionalprocess, process, consists consists of in tandem: tandem:(i) (i) further constituent which are held to occur in two further constituentprocesses processes which the lexical concept integration and (ii) interpretation. Integration Integration involves involves the lexical concept driven by Lwlinguistic linguistic knowledge knowledge(lexical (lexical construction construction of larger lexical entities, driven units, which which 1I term units, are are concepts). term lexical lexical conceptual conceptual units, coIKcpts). These These larger larger lexical units, That is, is, the thelarger larger unit unit receives receiveswhat whatI Iearlier earlierreferred referredto toas as then interpreted. then interpreted. That nformational characterization. parts of of the the cognitive cognitive model model an informational characterization..",s As such, such, those those parts thelarger larger profiles potential) associated with each eachlexical lexicalconcept conceptininthe profiles (semantic (semantic potential) associated with in keeping keeping with with the the larger larger unit. unit. Put Put unit are interpreted interpreted in inaa way that that is is in unit are which serve serve to to another way, way, integration integration provides provides (linguistic) (linguistic) instructions instructions which •,,uiihcr interpreted,and and various lexical lexical concepts concepts are collectively determine how the various coUectively interpreted,

representation Lexical representation LCCM Theory

LCCM Theory languageincludes includes(i) (i)symbolic symbolicunits, units, LCCM Theory holds holds that that knowledge knowledge of language and (ii) 'svmbolk units (ii) cognitive cognitive models. models. Symbolic unitsconsist consist of of bipolar bipolarassemblies assemblies of form, what, noted in in the previous previous chapter, chapter, 1I refer refer to to as asaaphonological phonologic.il form, what, as as noted vehicle (or (or vehicle), vehicle),and andaalexical lexicalconcept. concept.Lexical Icxkal concepts conceptsconstitute constitutelinguis linguisvehicle ticaHy encoded encoded concepts—that concepts—that is, is,highly highly schematic schematic knowledge knowledge encoded encodedin in aa tically form that can form that externali,cd via Lexical concepts conceptsare areconventionally conventionally can Lw he externalized via language. language. Lexical associated with vehicles vehiclesofofall allkinds kindsincluding including words—the words—the focus focusininthis thisbook— book— associated with bound idiomatic phrases, and grammatical grammatical constructions. constructions. AcAchound morphemes. morphemes, idiomatic phrases, and cordingly, by definition, definition, concern concern purely purely linguistic linguistic knowledge, cordingly, lexical lexical concepts, concepts, by as discussed discussed in in Chapters 66 and important part part of the lexical lexical and 7. 7. A second second important notion of the cognitive model, model, which which is aa large-scale large-scale representation is the notion non-linguisik knowledge provide coherent body of non-linguistic knowledge which which lexical lexical concepts concepts provide access sitesto. to.The Therange rangeof ofcognitive cognitive models modelswhich which are are accessed, accessed,either eitherdirectly directly access sites or indirecti by a lexical as noted notedabove, above,IIrefer refer to to as asaacognitive cognitivemodel model or indirectly by a lexical concept, as Individual cognitive consistofofattributes attributesand andstructural structuralinvariinvariprofile. Individual cognitive models models consist ants. ants."15These are developed developedininmore moredetail detailin in Chapters Chapters 99 and to. lo. These ideas ideas are

symbolic units

'' The rotc of of context in an The role

18

,crn.anh,j scrturitic

‘.ortipo‘ii n t%

.

'' See Ste Bamilou lanaloultyyzu. winbl; Bars( mu

85

I 1993). a al- 0993)-

it Various ;'osnts wo∎ril In nun(' tleJil at remit 1 in Part in Kul

composition

cognitive models

• •

•

lexical concept selection

I

I

I

tusan

I

•

vehicles

Ill III of of the hook. book

Semantic

Lexical representation

".

lexical concepts

/ •

lexical concept integration

semantic representaton semantic representation

overview 01 of the the architecture :M Theory l'ItiLlte 4.1. An overview architectureof of l(.( LCCM

interpretation

76 7t'

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

FRODUCTION INTROOUCTION I INTRODUCTION

thus, th ace route rout that ~ach indly,du,ll lexical wnceptaffords afIords thro ugh thus, the the access access routethat thateach eachindividual individuallexical lexkal((incept concept atIordsthrough model profile. wordwill willprovide pro profile. Ihe result result is that given itits cognitive cogniti\e model profil . The Th r""ult is i that that any any given given word word will provide cognitive unique activation activation of part OcCasU)fl aaa unique unique a semantic '>Cmanticpotential pot ntialononevery every occa ion of of part its semantic potential every occasion is every every utterance, and thus thus the resulting u<.e. Thi follows follow~ as as every utterance, utterance, and and thu the the resulting resulting conception, conception, ist use. This use. unique. Accordingly. this compositionahty radically different different A cordingly, thi view compo itionality isiisradically difTerent from from the the Accordingly, thisview view of of compositionality view rc<eiH'd !-regean which underpins underpJO Iiterali,m. While While Fregean. !-regean compositi compo IIi vkw which Iregean Frcgean vIew received Fregcan underpins literalism. compositionalitv assumes that each eachusage usageof wordrecruits recruitsstable, stable,context-independent context-indcp on.litya sum that that each usage ofofaaaword word recruit. stable, context·independent onality assumes information, LC M Theory Theory a ,ume, the th semantic semantic contribution contribution a soda ted contribution associated assotia information, LCCM LCCM Theoryassumes assumes vary slightly slightly with a word will vary every time time it it isi, with a word word will vary slightly every every time u\Cd. An An owrview of the with isused. used. Anoverview overview architecture in 4.1. ar hitettur is pr~nted in in Figure I'igure4.1. 4.1. architecture is presented presented

An An illustration In this provideaaanon-technical non-technical illustration of the relationslup In this section '(tion III provide provide non technical illustration illu tration of ofthe therelationship relation hip In this section octween lexk.1 concept and itits cognitive cognItive mod prohle, and the way waya n between concept and and its cognitive model modelI profile, profile, and the the way an between aa lexical concept an individual individual usage sanctioned peeific lexical lexical concept concept give rise rise to concept will will give individualusage usage sanctioned sanctioned by by aa specific lexical to aaa charactcri,at ion. This di tinlt informational informational characterimt charaCmantic potential- the cognitive cognitive model model the semanticpotential—the potential—the cognitive profile—to which afford prolile-to aflord access, ac<e ,which t the ene for for thedetailed detailed the scene scene forthe the detailed profile—to which they they afford which sets sets developmentof of the the theoretical theoretical constructs of of the the lexical lexical concept and the development the theoretical constructs constructs lexical concept concept and and the the development of ((1gl1ltive model in in the next part of the the book. book. cognitive model the next next part of book. lo begin, the following following four four utterances first discussed Chapter begin, con consider To be'llin, ider the the following fourutterances utteran .",first fi"tdiscussed di ussedininChapter hapter1:I:J. (2) 2)

a. Irance isis countryof ofoutstanding outstanding natural beauty h,m« i aaacountry country of oUl>tandingnatural natural beauty OC,lUty a. France h. !-rJnce I rance i, is one OOC theleading leadingnations nationsin theEuropean European Union Union b. nation ininthe the European Union France one ofofthe c. France beat New New Zealand in in the the 2007 2007Rugby RugbyWorld World Cup Cup 'ew Zealand th 2007 Rugby World France beat beat Zealand againstthe the EU constitution 2005 referendum dd.. !-rance EEU«In tllution in in the the2oo5 200Sreferendum referendum France votl'" voted agaimt against the constitution

of th theseexampl examplesthe thesemantic semanticcontribution contributionassociated withthe the form form In each these examples In each of <emantic contribution aassociated iated with with the France is France slightly distinct. distinct. That is, the semantic semantic contribution /-rlll'ff slightly i ,the mantic contribution (ontribution provided provided by is slightly the pros idedby France varies /-mllff va ric> across aero, the..,. didistitit lJJlct utterances. utterance,. The key ininsight 'ght of ofof LCCM varies distinct acrossthese thcse utterances. Thekey keyinsight I ((Ni LCCM Theory is that the reason for this variation is due Theory is that reason for for this thi variation isis due totodifferential differentialactivation activation reason differential activation non ·lingui,tic linguist i. knowledge structures, the cognitive cognitive model modelprofile, profile, to of non-linguistic knowledge structures, ,truttur , the th cognitive model prolile, whith to which which the lexical concept associated with affords a«"". concept associated a\Sotiate'" with WIth /-rlll,er and access. Thelinguistic linguistk and France afford, affords access. The non-linguistic that give non · linguistic processes proce give rise rise to tothis thi differential differential activation, non-linguistic processes that activation, which rise this relate, In part. to the diffcrcnc.: differences in in the the four tour linguistic linguistic contexts relate. hngUl til contexts (nnlcxt in In which /:,cmu in part, differences in which which France France is embedded represents programmatic Theory Theor highly complex. complex.LCCM ILCe ( iis emocdded are are highly 1 '1 hl,(lry represents repr< 'n" aaa programmatic attempt to identity the sorts of mechanisms involved in this activation attempt to identify id ntify the the son ofmechanisms methano m involved IIlvolved in this thisactivation activation :

process. thelexical lexical these examples concept (om" with the 4. In lhc~ cx.lmplc ulOlcrnoo with wilh thc Icxi.,;.)1 \.om.cpt cntionally examples II am these conventio,i.illy am concerned onventionally and as as shall with the vehide associated with aassociated SOliated wllh A, noted above, .bc,,·e, and a we we shall hall see vehicle Frtll'ff. in detail France. As see 111 prcXC~\.

SIEANING IN IN 1.CCM Ii ( 51 THEORY WORD MEANING 'EMORY

77

constitutes aaarelatively relatively complex complex body Ilater 'r ct hapters, h.lpte'" a lexical lexical concept «Incept constitutes ((lnstitute, relatively comple. body of of lexical in 101 '11'tit knowledg whkh foml aaarepresentational repr~ntJtional unit. identify these the identify these inowkdge linguistic knowledgewhich whichforms forms representational unit. III identify long""-ntational . 'd' I bel . concept). byproviding providing label in small '01tational units, units, I XI al concept), can ept), by by proVI JOg aaa label a in 111small ma II units, (the (the lexical rer rest within square brackets. concept associated with the the rel"'1a.1 1\ "'uare br.lket . Thus, Thu I..ical J>><xiJted with with ls within square brackets. Thus,, the lexical capit .al" ..... . «Ineept associated ! th as appears in in the the examples in (2) [FRANCE].. In In ."mn' which which appears appear exampl.", in 111 glo as ~ ffRAN:iJ. ['RANt' (i) III gloss /jrWht fo rm France horm . II property is potentiallyy addition, is that lexical concept concept affords affords access a,I.I,IO" n, aaJ key property i that thataaa lexical concept afford access ace"", to toaapotentially potentIa 1jd,t jon. cognitive models:its itscognitive cognitivemodel modelprofile. profile. Arobust robust finding e set of "",t of cognitive cognitive models: model" Its cOllnltne model pro hIe. AA robust finding findll1g Ilarg .,. led " h work in on knowledge representation that in cognitive cognitive psychology psychology 'nml co~niti~e psyc~ologyon onknowledge know gerepresentation reprco;entatlonisis I that t at recent work roW «<ent from representations which inhere inhere in while conceptual system, .h< representations whICh II1h re in 111 the can eptual system, . y tem, while whIle extremely extremely the which the conceptual the representations unstructured assembiage.16 Indeed recent research proan unstructured unstructured assemblage." a '>Cmblage.'·Indeed Indet'"recent relent r.",.arch proare not an co mplex, ,~)I 111,le'\ • arc . research .pro. evidence that rather knowledge being organized in vides compelling evidence that rather than knowledge being organized in tompelling evid nee that rather than knowledge bell1g o.'ganlzed 111 5jdes knowledge representation involves attributes, key aspect Iterms "''' "of lim of of attributes, attributes,aa key key aspect peet of ofknowledge knowledgerepresentation representationinvolves II1volves off lists aspects knowledge(e.g., (e.g., llarsalou th, rd.It,on> that oct ween discrete di"rete aspects .>peel of ofknowledge (e.g.,Barsalou Bar",lou the relations relations that hold hold between between kxkal to 1992a). My ~umption, assumption, concept provides access IQ~ld). i> that a lexical I~xicalconcept c.onceptprovides provid.",access ~""'>to toaaa it)921i). \ly N%v assumption, therefore, is 'ophisticated and and structured structured of non non-linguistic This body body of of sophisticated knowledge. "'l'hi\licated truClured body of .hngul tIC knowledge. knowl:<,g : This Thl .of iiuiwkdge LCCM posits knowledge modelininterms terms set of cognitive cognitive models. ~n. LCCM teeM Theory I heory posits PO"" site of the function of a given lexical concept is to provide an that part of aa given lexical concept isi to provide providean anaccess all site ite that part of the function of that model profile. profile. In In models provide coherIn aa tognltiv In addition, addition.as a cognitive cognitivemodels modelsprovide providecohercoherto cognitive model addition, as to andare arcinterlinked, interlinked, affording to bodi . of of interlinked,affording affordingaccess all"" to and tolllplex bodies of knowledge, knowledge,and ent and complex bodies access knowledge, other cognitive {ogniti,e models, and and thus, thu>, other other bodies bodi of ofcomplex complexknowledge, knowledg ,aaa other cognitive models, models, particular utterance to activat activateaasubset subset knowkdgewithin within parlOwlar utterance serve to ub<et of knowledge within particular utterance context context can can serve activate ofofknowledge which III refer as highlighting)7 ' lIlgle cogniti,e theprocess prOt >which refer to as highlighting." highlight ing.' refer to as a single cognitive model, model, the the process in (2), (z), the theinformational informational assoReturning exam 1'1.", in in (2), informationalcharacterization charaCleri1.alOonassoaSSG' Returning to to the examples examples geociated with fIRAN ii in in each these each these examples concerns "allod with [[FRANCE] f RANU! eachofof of th examples examplesconcerns concerns France Fran e as a aa geogea' ciated with !\rJphilallandma, (23), I'ranee enllty, state, in (2b), graphical landmass in (2a), (2.1),France FratKcaas asa apolitical politicalentity, entity, aa nation nation state, state,in in (2b), (2h), landmass in the fill who make makeup up the theFrench Frenchrugby rugbyteam teamin in (2c), (2c),and andin in(zd) (zd) Ihe een player> th hench (2C), and in (2d) fifteen players who who make up rugby team in that proportion proportion of electorate whovoted voted"non" "non when Ihat ofthe the French Fren h electorate electorate who who voted "non" whenpresented, presented,inin in of the when presented, to endorse endorse constitutionfor forthe the recent referendum, WIth with rete nt referendum, referendul11, the prul"'~ll to endorse aaaconstitution constllution the a recent with the the proposal distinct this Iluropean uro pean Union. Union. In order orderto toprovide providethese thesedistinct di>!in"interpretations1 II1terpretation •this thi European Union.In In order to provide these interpretations, lexical as an an access foraaacognitive cognitivemodel model profile Ie ical concept concept must rve aas an aaccess ces site itsitefor for cognitive model profile profile lexical conceptmust must serve that, tha t, al very least, lea t, includes II1dud.", the von of infornlatlon IndICatedininFigure !-igure least, includesthe thesort sortof ofinformation informationindicated indicated Figure that, at the the very 4. .t. This 4.2. an attempt attempt to to indicate indicate the of knowledge that 4!. IIhis hi, figure figure represents repre nt an indicat the th sort sort of ofknowledge knowledgethat figure represents an attempt must have have access access whenspeaking speaking andthinking thinkingabout about France. language users u\Cr. must hav ac "'" totowhen peaking and and thinking aboutFrance. France. 4.2, the lexical lexical concept (FRANt provides access toaaapotentially potentially In ligure 4.2, Ihe lexical concept (oncept!FRANCE' [I RANG !provide" actC\s to t(1 potentially In Figure Figure 4.z, the access number of large number large of knowledge knowledge structures. tructur.",. As each ea h cognitive cognitiv model consists can i t of of aa cognitive model consists each access toother other complex and and structured structured of knowledge provides cllmplex stru tured body of ofknowledge knowledge which which provides provides access a "" toto other complex sorts of knowledge. we can candistinguish distinguish between models whicharc arc ,ur" knowlt"'ge, we we can di t,ngui h between oct ween cognitive cognitivemodels model which are sorts IIf of knowledge, diretI accessed .I " etll y all"""'" cognitivemodels, mod I ,and Iho concept: primary primary coVlitive and those those directly accessed via via the lexical lexical concept: concept: models, cognitive models lirectlv mod I which which ub tructure of those tho which which are arcdirectly directly models which form form substructures those which are .tcccssed: secondarycognitiv cognitivemodels. models.These Ihese secondary cognitive models aetC ,,"': secondary model. rhl..,. secondary "",ondary cognitive mgni"\C models model accessed: secondary cognitive are indirectly Me IcxkJI are mdircltly indirectly al'~'\.Cti accessed via via the the lexical lexical (onccpt." concept." I

,It'"

I

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

17

"

II'RhIighling indetail dri..iiinIn nChapter Chaptrr H , hghhn,lI!.. 11 U inIn Jrl.lll C "It" Iii~ Highlighting isisdiscussed

cw

I mAke rnér thendary cognitivemodds 1rinlJry And and 1 ° 1I in. the UIK casetot kw*1w thedl-.tln..hun dioinokin lietween nimbi.,in in ampler ux t. ~ kl, ltv hd'ftftnprimary r"nwv 1J icciindAry

7

INTROIX' INTRO lll'( 'ION INTRODUCTION CONS CONSTITUTIONAL TITUTIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM SYSTEM SYSTEM

NATIONAL NATIONAL NATIONAL SPORTS SPOR TS SPORTS

GEOG GE OGRAPHICAL RAPHICAL GEOGRAPHICAL LANDMASS LANDMASS LANDMASS

I

WORD MEANING IN LCCM THEORY WORD MEANINC; MEAN IN(i IN WORD IN 1l ( 51 M TtIEO ThEORY RY

L

I

POLITICAL POUTICAL POLITICAL SYSTE SYSTEM M SYSTEM

the fundi funding ng structures stru tur these sports apply to to these th sports port in"'France, respect to these particular I r.onle.France's fran " international lr.IIKt', France's internatu)nal standing with mtern ation al standing tandi ngwith with respect r peet to these these particular partic ular sports themselves including the r"rt" and and andfurther further knowledge about the furth er knowledge s ports, knowledge about about the the sports port themselves them Iv including incl~ding the rules soso,on. is derived from rul," that th •• tgovern govern their that their prictke, and th orpractice, praCtIce,and and" on.This Thlknowledge This knowledge knowledg is• derived derived from direct experience and through cultural lar~e number numb er of number of sources including direct ofsources .1 J,,large soure including large indud ong dir"'t experience experience and and through throu gh cultural cultural

~n'l

social and economic andand constraints that apply to il and economic conditions 3 0111(1 ""iJI and onomconditions ic condi tion and on Iraint that apply constraints

CUISINE CUISINE CUISINE

NATION NATION NATION STATE STATE STATE

HOLIDAY HOliD AY HOLIDAY DEST DESTINATION INATION DESTINATION

I

FFRANCEJ (FRAN CEI [FRANCE]

FIGURE 4.2. Pania F,G .... 4." Partiall
The partial The partial cogno tiv model cognitive mod I profile profil pr presented nted in inFigure Figure Figur< 4.2 titutes aa constitutes The partial cognitive model profile presented constitutes 4.2 con structured tru
transmission. crao\rni\Sion. With POLITICAL. SYSTEM, \\'Ith r peet to With respect respect the to the th secondary onda ry cognitive cognitive model model ofof cognitive model of POLl POIITl<'A. rICA!. svsrlsI. Y HM, of further secondary cognitive models which I'gure4.2 4.2 illustrates Figure illu trate aaa sample figure 4.2 illustrates sample of further secondary mpl of furth er onda ry cognitive cognitive models model which which are accessed secondary cogni,.r< a<,C\'oed via via this this cognitive model. ire accessed thi cognitive cognllivemodel. mod I.In otherwords, Inother Other word, ,each each word co h secondary onda ry cogni cognimodels which it provides access ti"" ve model modelIhas has further (secondary) tive mod hasfurther furth er (secondary) ( onda ry)cognitive ogn. t" mod I wh"h cognitive flhodels which it provides provid attess ace a cognitive model accessed via the to. to.For for instance, h'. lorinstance, '"'tan ce, (FRENCH) (FRENUI)ELECTORATE llfCTORATE isisa i acognitive cognitivemodel modelaccessed accessed via via the th (FRENCH) POLITICAL SYSTEM. In turn the cognitive model cognitive 0< .iated with with th form associated with the form form France, Fmtlcr, which whi h relates rclat to geographical region, of the GECKAAPHparticular to aa particular particular geographical geographical region, regi n, derives d riv from derives activation from activation activation of of the the GfOGRAPII!CAL l( Al model. language users have knowI< At LANDMASS • ANnMA \ Cognitive cognitive model. cognitive model. That That is, i individual Individuallanguage is, individual language users users hJ\' have know know-ledge to the the physical aspects its terrain, and its relating I Jge relating reldting to the phvskal phy icalaspects of France, peets of ofFrance, Fraoce, including includmg its .ts terrain, terrain, and including and its geographical location. this example, serves to activate geographical location. g'~lgr aphicailocat ion. In In this the this example, example, the the utterance utteran e context context serves serves to activate utterance context activate this part part of th the cognitive cognitive model profile accessed by the lexical concept [FRANCE'. of the thi'p artof mgoo model protile li\'em odelp rofile acc accessedbythe by thelexi lexical alcon cept (i IrRA NuJ. j. In Inthe thesecond second example, the context serves to activate a differentRANd part of the .... "ond example, exam the utterance utterance pl ,th utteranc context ontext serves rv to altiva activate t a differ ent part of different tile cognitive modell profile to which the lexical concept [FRANCE] affords access. tOe cognitive tn«og nitiv e mode profileto profik towhich whichthe th lexical lexical concept con ptl.RA [ERA N NCEJ affords E) affords access. a , Inthis thisexample, example, the informational characterization relates to the the cognitive In thi example, the informational characterization chara cteri1.. tion relates relat cogni ti' to the cognitive modelof ofFrance as a aa pololi political entity. due to activation activation of the NATION model modd of IFrance raoce "' as political al entity. entity . Thi 1This hisiis is due due to activat.on of ofthe th NATION NAT'O N STATE cogni cognitive model. In the the example example in (2c) the use of France relates to the SLATE cognitive model. "ATE tive mode l. In the exam ple in in (lC) (ic) th the use u of Fratlcr relates of France relat to the the group of of fifteen fifteen French individuals who as a team group and thereby represent the gmup offift een French I'renc h individulls indiV Idual who whoplay play playa , as aa team team and and thergr aphicallaod landmass, m nor polili cal entity, enlity , aaanation natio n state, tate, nor to a group of of fifteen Fifteenrugby rugbyplayers players whohappen happen herepresenting representing the entire population of "IIeen rugby pla)'e " who happe n totobe be reprrs enllng the th entire ntir popu lation of of population trance. Rather, relatestotothat thatportion portion ofthe the French that voted IFrance. rance. Rathe Rather, r, it itrelates relat that portio n of of theFrench French electorate electo rate voted electorate that voted against against ratification theHi constitution referendum held in 2oos. "!:din t ratification ratific alion of ofof the cons(itutjC)n the I·EU con litulio n ininaaalcftrendum referendum held held in on 200s. whatisi isactivated activated hereis theILF( cognitive model. ELECTORATE -\ttordingly, \Accordingly, "",.dingly, what activa led here here iisthe th ELF(.T ORAT E cogni ti\' model. IORATE cognitive model. I his his example provides anelegant elegant illustration of the way in which Th • . List example lalast t exam pl provides provi des an an elega nt illu illustration the tratio n of of the way way in in which whi h Ictiv.,t ion of activation ofaacognitive cognitive modelserves serves to provi provide a situated situated interpretation of alllva llon of. Ulgnl live model modd rv to de a to provide a interpretation .tuate d int rprctJ lion of a lexical lexical concept bygiving givingrise toan an access through the semantic • lex"a l concept mnle pt by g.ving ririseto an a«cs . route rout through throu gh the the semantic route \eman ti potential. thisexample, interpretation requires thatan anace access route is Potential. InInthis poten tial. In thi eexample, ample, interpretation interp ret lion requires requi r that that rout i access route is established established through thecognitive cognitive modell profile profile accessed VIJ via the lexical cone,tahlo hed through Ihrou gh the the ,ognl live model mode profil e.kcesse(l de< 'oed via th lexil the lexicalJI",n ton cept(IkSNUI.j wayth.J1 thatis consistent withthe theIlexical concepts associated inina lcpt If[FRANCE) R.ANt t)m tl aWoly 1\iscon way that consistent with I lent With the xkallconcepts om,:c pt associated .. Mklo1 ted withthe theother otherlinguistic linguistic formsand andunits unitsininthe theutterance. utterance. Theinterpretation interpretation With wllh Iongui tic forms fornl and unilS the ullera n e. The interp I

J

79 79

sorts of sports French icass .1 aalarge . . C"toto large body knowledge concerning the lars body bodyofof ofknowledge knowledgeconcerning
HEADOF OF OF HEAD STATE STATE

ELECTORATE ELECTORATE ELECTORATE

79

.1

retali on

80 So

IN1RODUCT_~IO~~

______________________________________

-

INTRODUCTION

electorate, with the the do with exampk hjs ~Iated /-r'l/l" thi, example x.mpl has h. to to do theFrench Fren
.(,[J

CONSTITUTIONAL CONST1TUTIONAL SYSTEM

NATIONAL NATIONAL NATIONAL SPORT S SPORTS SPORTS

GEOGRAPHICAL GEOGRAPHICAL LANDMASS

ELECTORATE ELECTORATE

HEAD OF OF HEAD STATE

POLT1CAL POLITICAL POUTlCAL SYSTEM

CUISINE CUISINE

[I

NATiON NAT10N STATE

HOLIDAY DESTINATION DESTINATION

--

(FRANCE) [FRANCE] (FRANCE]

j

RAN( iI 1 In It RAN( bythe theinterpretation interpretationofof'FRANCE! in the utterroute established h(.l'RI Au.t: mutr loIbh hed by hy the 1Il1l"rrrctolUun ~. Ihr uller Iu.iiii 4.l. the utterFIGURE 4.3. ;. AWL'S, I rantc voted against thc fEU EU 1o,:stitutio" ao4.(' ~'tltt'fl nsmtl ttl" V constitution flltJflllutWtl France the ance J·"mu I

WORO MIANIN; IN IN LCCM WORD MEANING IN LCCM THEORY TIIEORY LCCM THEORY WORD

81 Si Si

UAN(;F.I affords direct IIFiboics1 ,RAN"I J afford d"c'. access.In theexamples examplesin in (zc) (2c) and inInthe in and (id) (id) which 1

otuitively feel feel more more figurative figurative in nature, nature, llltultlVely figurative natur • activation aactivation tivation involves IOvolv cognitive cognitive models models involves intuitively hypothesiicd to to provide provide which the h' "hi
Frequently asked asked questions Frequently developing andpresenting presenting L(CM Theory, both in In develop 109 and pr ntlOg LCCM LeCM Thcory. both latur." and andtalks talk;at at in lectures developing Theory, lectures talks at world. there of questions question that that have have variou venues around around the the world, world, there are are aa number number of questions that have various \·enue:. around rcpe.itediv been repeatedly been put put to me. At close of rqlCatedly At the dose of thl introductory part of ofthe the hook bookititit close ofthis thisintroductory introductory part part the book that III present ... ..,ms fitting fitting that prescnt few of ofthe th mo;tfrequently frcquentlyaddressed addre sedhere present aa few few themost most frequently addressed hereand and seems rehearse to them. This iis meant clarify some ofthe the rresponses pon to meant to help help clarify clarify some some of rehearsemy my responses to them. them. Thi outstanding issues 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. later hook. Q. Are lexical concepts universal? Are lexical lexical concepts concept universal? univer
Inrm ·;pccilic. That is, i • they tonshtutc th semantic semantic pole pole of ofaa symbolic unit-a constitute the form-specific. is, ssymbolic mLx)hcunit—a unit—a conventional form and and meaning. meaning. As As such, uch.lexical lexicalconcepts concept are are conventional pairing pairing lexical conventional pairing of of form form and meaning. As such concepts are ne,e"Jrily languagepe
Si 8.

INIKODUCTI4)N INTRODUCTION

kxical aaa gIVen al concept con cpt may imilar to kxical be broadly given lexi lexical concept may ~ broadly similar similar to (an)other (an)other lexical lexical concel't( concepts ) given aero language(s). across (a) language(s). relate employedin this andprevious previous Q. All the th linguistic Iingul ti examples examples employed employed inthis thi and previou chapters chapter relate reiate linguistic Q. All All the standard English, ratherr than than other varieties, languages, andtime time modem standard tandard English, Engli h. rather rath othervarieties, varieties. languages, languages. and and time to modern modern l. ;CM language in periods. Theory meant to address period. In vi w of of this, thi •isis LCCM LC M Theory Thcorymeant meant to toaddress address how howlanguage language in on periods. In In view this, just for generalcontribute contributes to to expressing expressmg meaningororis meantto toaccount general xpressing meaning i isitititmeant meanl 10 aacwunt counljust ju Ifor general contributes to meaning English? the situation itualion with wilhrespect r pectlO Engli h! with respect to English? later chapters A. The theory Iheory developed developed in laler chapler in the Ihe book book presents presenl an account accounl or of A. The developed hook presents of in later the pro essesininIlexical xocal representation represenlalion and semanli ompo ilion. While While the Ihe processes processes on lexical representation andsemantic semantic composition. universal,the thenature nature of of those those volved semanlic compo ition are are held held to 10 be ~ universal, universal. Ihe nalure of Iho volved in semantic be composition each varietyof ofaagiven given lexical wn epl is i. specific peeifi to 10 ea h language and indeed ea hvariety variely of lexical concepts is specific to each each languageand indeedeach universalnature nature ofmeaning meaning language. Ihcory accounl for Ihe universal unoversal nalure of of m aning language. Thus, the language.Thus. Thus, Ihe the theory theory does doesaccount accountfor for the the that the repository of lexical concepts is of lexical lexical concepts concepts is i con Iruction. while acknowledging that thai the repository repo ilory of construction, while acknowledging acknowledging construction, is possible to use one variety, language· pedfi . From perspective. po ible to 10 use u one onevariety, variely. From this perspective, perspective, il language-specific. From Ihi this itit iis possible standard English to lexi al concepts concepl of modernstandard landard English lngli h to 10 namely the Ihe language-specific language· pecific lexical lexical conceptsof ofmodern language-specific illustrate of meaning meaning construction. construction. iIIustrale the language-gen ral processes proc conslruclion. illustratethe thelanguage-general language-general processes of of

theclaim claimatatatthe theheart heart l( ;'M that Q. IsI there there any any inconsistency in on i teney in on the Ihe claim the heart ofof LC ' M Theory Theory that Ihal of LCCM Theory inconsistency in words have semantic units associated associatedwith with them them (lexical (lexical concepts) concepts) andyet yet word have seman Ii units units associaled wilh them concepts) and yel semantic Ihal Ihey nol have have meanings m anings associated associaled with wilh Ihem? associated with them? that they they do not not have whilewords words are A. In In fa I. this Ihis i not nol quite quilewhat whal 1I Iam am claiming. claimIng.IIargue argue that thai while word are arc Intact, fact, thisis is not quite am that of semantic semantic structure lruclure (lexical (lexical concepts), concepl ). meaning meaning as as aassociated ialed with unil associated with units units of of semantic structure meaning as with concepts), iiand do so using u ongthe Ih technical techni alterm lerm"conception"—concerns "conceplion" oncem aaa I1 define define using the technical term conception —concerns define it—and it—and do so so process. That is meaningresults fromintegration integration of of semantic compo Iii nal process. process. That Thai iis,•meaning meaning rresults ult from from inlegralion ofsemantic semantl< compositional bycontext. context. meaning conslruclion. guided by conic I. represenlation processes representations via via processes ofmeaning meaningconstruction, construction, guided guided processes of of make aa semantic semantic contribution, but hut always .issodated Thu word do make .. manti contribution, contribution. butthis thisisi always alwaysassociated a'>SOCiall-d Thus,• words with aa particular parli,"lar utterance. utteran e. II reserve reserve the Ih term "meaning" the conception concept Ion particular theterm term"meaning" "meaning" for for the the conception utterance. reserve withan anutterance, utterance,totowhich whichwords wordscontribute. contribute. II do do so soin orderto to so inorder aassociated iated with utterance. word associated with semantic theorie move away awayfrom from the the problematic problematic apparent in many move away probl matlC view apparent apparent in many semantic mantic theories theori from thatmeaning meaningconstruction construction results from the the operations Ofl wnstruction rresults ult from from the operations operation on on which a umes that that meanong which assumes assumes with words. A.s meanings. or atoms atom ofsemantic semanti structure tructureassociated associated with with words.As units or structure atoms of associated meanings, qua unit as thing: unit thong: aaunit unit I1 offer lightly diflerent different perspeclive. viewing meaning not as a aathing: offer.iaaslightly slightly differentperspective, perspective, viewing meaning not forms,but butrather rather as theresult result somethingwhich whichisisistied tiedto toindividual individualword of something which lied to indIvidual wordforms, form. ratheras a the rCloult something of a compositional compositional process, inconsistency. of proc •there there is i no no inconsistency. incon i teney. process, Q. LCCM Theory addressesmeaning meaningassociated a sooated with withindividual ondividualutterances. utterances, Q. LCCM ltCM Theory addresses with individual Theory addresses meaning associated utterances. which extended disYet ari from ituated exchanges, exchang • whi h is i to to say sayextended extendeddisdi Yet meaning meaning meaning arises from situated situated which is to say LCCM the level cou,....,. LC .M Theory ~ applied to meaning meaning above above the level of of the the course. course. Can Can LCCM Theorybe be applied applied to meaning above utterance? uttcranc.:c? the level the A. While IIam am concerned, con emed. in thi Lxx)k, book. with with meaning meanong at at the the level level of ofthe the A. While While am concerned, in this this book, meaning at with note thataa full account account of utterance ititis i.isimportant important to note notethat that J full full account of of (that i~. is, conceptions), utterance (thai is, conceptions), conceptions).it important to lion must must above the role of words worcJ, in in meaning meaning construction (on trm.tion I11U\t also .11\0address addrc meaning meaningabove the role meaning level. Such an account the level of the the utterance, utterance. that that is, i •at at the thediscourse di",our.c level. I vel. Such Such an an account a count isi that is, at the level

-

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

scope ofthis thisbook, hook, which seeks topresent presentthe thetheoretical theoreticalarchiarchikvond the Ix",nd thescope opeofof thl book.which wh"hseeks seekstoto present the theoretIcal archi of mustt include, include, at of L(;CM LCCM Theory.Neverthekss, Nevertheless, such an endeavour endeavour ..dure of LCCM Theory. Theory. evertheless. such su h an end avour must mu include. at ttecture very least, least. .in account of the interpersonal and interactional nature of th" H'ry least. an an ac ount of ofthe theinterpersonal interpersonal and and interactional interactIonal nature natur of of t he very for as Goffman (e.g., 1981) dl"m""'" aas studied, tudil-d. for for instance, on;tance. by by scholars ;cholar such ueh as a Goffman Goffman(e.g., (e.g .•1981) 1981) instance, discourse, as structural as studied by "ml (;umperz (e.g., (e.g.• 1982), 1982). the structural tructural aspects aspect of ofdiscourse, discourse. as a studied tudiedby by Gumperz (e.g., 1982), aspects and (;umperz (e.g., 1974),the thenature natureof ofmemory memoryconstraints constraints .• 1974), 1974). nature of memory constraint 'o,,,k,, Scheglnff. and Jefferson Jeffe,,"n (e.g sac ks, Schegloff, (e.g., and topic shifts, as addressed inthe thework work of of Chafe applied to discourse ." di;cour.c and and topic hift. as a addressed addressed in in th ofChafe Chafe a s "pplied work of construction in the ((e.g., ... g., 1994), 1994). the work ofZwaan truction of of situation ituation models model in in the the of Lwaan Zwaan on on the con models and the the role of backstage 1999), and "nnprehen ion of of discourse di 'ourse (e.g., (e.g.• 1999), 1999). therole roleof ofbackstage ba kstagecognition cognition co mprehension scholars such asLakoff Eakofland andJohnson Johnson(1980, (19&,1999), 1999), lauconnier as studied ,I' ,tudied by scholars 'holars such uch as as Lakoff and Joh""on (1980. 1999).Fauconnier I'auconnier 1997),Coulson Coulson(2000) (zooo)and andFauconnier Fauconnierand andTurner Turner (e.g., (e.g., 2002).IIIanticiantici(e.g., Coulson .• 1997), 1997). (2000) and Fauconnier and Turner (e.g .• 2002). 2002). antici(e.g theoryof offrontstage frontstagecognition cognitionwill will pate LCCM Theory, by by developing developing aa theory I' .• t< that LCCM L 'C 1 Theory, Theory. developing of (rontstag cognition WIll ",n< contribute fulleraccount a count of ofthe therole roleofoflanguage languagein di;course· inindiscoursediscourseserve to to contribute contribute to to aaa fuller fuller account of the language OJ,,-d aning construction. con truction. basedIII meaning construction. based meaning

toinvoke invokethe thenotion notion of simulation, which isi\somewhat somewhat 1\ it It necessary necClosary to invoke notion ofaasimulation, imulation. which whichis Mlmewhat necessary to Q. Is alien to the the linguist? linguist? developing theory of linguistic ali .. n to linguist? After After all, all. you you are are developing developing aatheory theory of oflinguistic linguistic alien rath r than theory of of mechanism involved involved in on knowledge knowledge 'mJntics. rather semantics, rather than aaa theory of brain brainmechanisms mechanisms knowledge rc:prc~ntJtion or semantic scmantic processing. processing. representation semantic processing. .\ctually, an an account account of of linguistic semantics will,ultimately, ultimatdv, have have to be he A. Actually. of linguistic semantics mantics will, will. ultimately. have to be A. Actually, account situated in in the processes thatform form the the basis for "tuatl-d the brain brain mechanisms mechanism and and processes proccsse that that form the basis ba i for for brain mechanisms meaning construction. The development of LCCM Theory is driven by the development of ofLCCM LCCM Theory is i driven driven by the Ill<Jmng meaning (on~tructlon. construction. The development psychologically plausible account account of meaning reqUIre aa.i psychologically psychologically plausible plausible account ofmeaning meaning premIse prenlise that require premise that we require instruction and language in marshalling marshalling linguistic resources on\truction Jnd the role role of oflanguage languJge in marshallinglinguistic Iingui Ii resources resources toto construction and the du exactly thi~. InInparticupJrti u larger-scaleattempt attempttotodo doexactly exactlythis. this.In partkuLCCM Theory represents represents aalarger.;cale larger-scale attempt lar, III argue in detail of the of the book that that by by taking taking account account of ofthe the lar. argue tail in lar, argue in in d detail in the the next next part part of the book role of art' an rule of simulations ill,ulJtion in inlanguage language underitanding. we able develop an an simulations in languageunderstandings understanding, we we .ue are able able to develop tlegaiit word meaning. cll'gJllt prole.tll nature of of word meaning. account of elegant .1((()unt of the protean protean

8S.I

INTRODUCTION ION eTlOS INTROUt(J

--

Summary Summary word perspectives Inthis this chapter chapter II1 have have reviewed a number on word In Ihi chapler number of of perspectives per peclives on word meaning meaning have reviewed In previous in previous which acknowledge acknowledge the the variability word meaning described whIch Ihe variabililY in in word word meaning m aning described described in in previou whkh the perspectives chapters. One of the main difficulties with all of the perspectives the main with all of chapler . One main ditliculties diffi ulties wilh of Ihe per peeliv briefly brodJy chapters. One of Ih level of conceptual reviewed is that they fail to explicitly provide a level of conceptual i.e.,.• to explicitly reviewed Ihal they they fail 10 explicilly provide aa level con eplual( (i.e., (I.e reviewed iis that sense units units they to non-linguistic) knowledgerepresentation representation10 to which which the non . IingUlslic)knowledge knowledge represenlalion which the Ihe sense '>Cn unilS they Ihey nonIingulstk) affordaccess. One of my my key key points points in of po it afford afford aaccess. c . One ne of key in this Ihi chapter Ch?pler has has been been to 10 suggest ugs. I posit of non-linguistic knowledge represenlevel of non·longul non—linguistit that .in an aaccount Ihal an counl which provides provIde .ta level'1of II knowledge representhat orderr 10 to a«OUnl .ttcouflt for for tation to to which which lexical concepts account is crucial lalion 10 wneepls afford atTord access a«cs\ is crudal in in ord lexkil concepts afh)rd tation ofwords words across utterthe observed observed variability in the the the observed variabilily Ihe semantic semanli contribution contribulion word across a ro utteruttervariability in semantic contributionofof the ances. II1 hav haveintroduced introduced an approo approach, Theory,which whichcan, can ininprinciple1 principle, approach, l.( CM C\l Theory, ances. have inlrodu ed an an h. LCCM L Theory. which can. principle. ances. handle the the sort sort1)1 of varialion variation observed, together with of observed, togetherwllh with principles principles of of composition composition handle Ihe ..orl of logelher principlcs wmpo. Ilion handle variation observed. knowwhich facilitate facilitate differential differential aactivation which tivalion of linguistic Iingui tic and non-linguistic non ·lingui lic knowkno"controversial claim that that words ledge. LCCM Theory advances advances Ihe the ledge. polenlially onlrover ial claim claim Ihal words words the potentially potentially controversial ledge. LCCM Theory advances of an utterance, not in fact have meaning. Meaning is held to be a function of an utterance, meanhig. Meaning is held held 10 to be be aa funclion function of an utterance. do nolon fall have have meaning. do not do in tact word,or orother other rather than thanaaa given given associated mental with aa word, rather Ihan given mental m ntal representation repres ntalion associated a ialed with wilh word. or other of linguistic ((i.e i.e., symbolic) unit. is, That is. Iingui lic (i.e., .• symbolic) symbolic) unit. That ThaI i •meaning meaning results r ult from from situated silualed acts am of of linguistic communication, ininwhich than being discrete which Language plays part1 communicalion. whIChlanguage languageplays play,aaapart, part.rather ratherthan Ihanbeing beingaaadiscrete discrele made whichcan canbe be assembled IIalso manipulated. In In also ""thing" thing"which which can beassembled assembled and and manipulated. manipulated. Inthis thischapter chapter1 alsomade mad "thing" with the the the C.l case for words, general, being being associated th for words, words. and and ymbolic units unit. in general, general. a iated with with the and symbolic symbolic unitsin the lexical concept construct of the lexical concept, a unit of semantic structure. A lexical concept colhept. aa unit on\lnICI of of the Ih le,ical concepl. unil of ofsemantic semanlic structure. Iruelure. A A lexical conccpl construct externalizedby by is a representation specialized for being encoded in and externalized for being in and is represenlation specialized peeialized for being encoded en oded in and eXlernalized by is aa representation language. Of course, an account of lexical representation would be incomplete of lexical representation incomplete language. Of represenlalion would be incomplele Of cour><. course, an an a"ounl account oflexicdl conceptualstructure structureto towhich whichlexical lexical ton without considering wilhoul con idering the Ihe level level of ofconceptual wneeplual slruclure 10 whICh I xl(alconlOn without considering the level cepts provide access. This level populated by what what are referred as eepts provid access. a c . Thi level is iis populated populaled by by whal are are referred referred to 10 as a This level cepts provide detail. cognitive models. Part 11 of the the book book addresses addresses lexicalrepresentation representation cognillve model .Part ParlH oflhe book addres lexical lexical repr nlationinindetail. delail. lognitive models. 11 of the meaning-construction meaning-construction processes In this chapter also In this Iho; chapter chapler III also also introduced, inlroduced. brieOy, the Ihe meaning· on Irucllonprocesses prOt ,c'" introduted, briefly, which make conceptuallevels levelsofof ofrepresentation representationinin which make make use use of ofthe thesemantic manli and andconceptual conceptual levels represenlalion use the semantic and lexical service meaning.These These involvean anaccount accountofof ofhow howlexical '>Crvice of ilualed utterance The ..involve Involve an accounl lexical service of 1)1situated situatedutterance utterance meaning. mediated concepts utterances concepl\ ar inlegraled 'pecilic utterances utt rances (i.e., (i.e .• linguistically Iingui"ically mediated mc'tliJled conceptsare areintegrated integrated in specific present usage thesecond second keobjective objective LCCMTheory Theoryisistotopresent usage events). Thus. Ih ondkey key objectiveofofLCCM pr nl usageevents). events).Thus, Thus, the compatible with the account of an account of semantic composition which is compatible with the account of Ilion which is is compalible wilh Ih a counl of (If semanlic semantic compo composition an accounl of ofPart I'art Ill the book. lexical lexlcdl represenlalion Ihesubject ubjecl of Part Ill III of ofthe Ihebook. bool. Leucal representation representation developed. developed.This Ihis isis the

Part Part II

Lexical Lexical Lexical Representation Representation

* IP

✓

4

six lexical I hI' parI Ihe book book is mad up upof chaplersand andaddresses addr leXICal his part This part of of the the book isi made made up ofof sixsixchapters chapters and addresses lexical representation the substrate deployedin inlinguisticlinguistic «prc-enlalion. lexical ub lrale deployed linguislic· representation. Lexical Lexical represenlalion representation iis is Ihe the substrate communication, alh medialed and i subject ubJecl toto 10the IheCompI)sitional compo ilionalprocesses proc ally mediated mediatedcommunication. communication,and andisis subject the compositional processes rc uhong in con tru lion-processesthat Ihat are addressed addressed ininPart Part III of resulting thatare addressedin PartIII Ill of resulting in meaning meaning construction—processes construction—processes Ihe lexi al representation represenlalion represenlalion Iwo the lexical types found found in in two two the book. book. Lexical representation involves involves representation representation Iypes types found systems: thelinguistic linguistic system andthe theconceptual conceptual systeni. Thefirst first dt1tint t 'yslem d"lind ; Ihe Iingui tic system y lem and and Ihe con eplual system. sy.lem.The The firsl distinct systems: the tour chapters II address the representations found in in the the linguistic linguistic Illur chaplers in Part 11 addr the Iinguisti four in Part address the the representation representations found found system.Th Thefinal finaltwo twochapters, chapters,Chapters Chapters and to in deal deal representations w,tcm. tw chapter. harters 999 and 10 deal with with representations representation system. The and found in The first first chapter, Chapter 5, Illund on conceptual system. Y"em. The fir t chapter, chapter. Chapter 5. makes thecase case s, makes the the case found in the the tonceptual system. for the being comprised comprised symbolic units. fur the linguistic Iingui ti system y tem being comprised of ofsymbolic ymbolicunits. units.This Thi chapter chapter This for the linguistic system .Iddre,-es ymbolic units. units. Chapter Chapter 666 focuses focuses on on the ofthe the iddresscsthe thenature natureof of symbolic symbolic the nature nature of of addresses the nature of focuses the semantic structure encoded encodedby bysymbolic symbohcunits. units.InInparticular, particular, semantic struc",mJntic by symbolic unit. partICular.semantic semanti structru · semantic ,tructure structure ture is in terms which are made up of bundlesof of lure t rm of oflexical Ie i al concepts con epts which whi h are are made up of ofbundles of ture is modelled modelled in terms of lexical concepts ditkrent types content. Chapter dilferent types of of Iingui tic content. conlent.Chapter hapler 77 provides provid an overview of of many provides an an overview of many many different of hnguistic linguistic of types associated withlexical lexicalconcepts. concepts. III the Ihe key hoy properties and types associated associated with wllh concept.InIn and knowledge knowledge types particular, this indetail detailthe ofthe thelexical lexical profile PJrtl~ular. thi chapteralso also addresses addresses in in detail thenature natureofof lexi alprofile profile particular, this thapter associated withthe thelexical lexicalconcept. concept. thelight lightofof ofthe thefirst first three chapters a"<>Cla ted wllh leXICal con ept. In InInthe the light the fir tthree threechapters hapter inin associated with Part Pitt I'm II, II .(;hapter (hapter inve,tigates the th status . tatu. and and nature ofpolysemy polysemyininLCCM LCCM status andnature natureof polysemy LCC\1 11, Chapter888investigates investigates the achieved byvirtue virtue of of aa case Itheory. hc·ory. This Thos is i achieved a hleved by by virtue of tudy of of the Cngh h prepositions prepo iti n casestudy study ofthe theEnglish English prepositions Theory. in, on, and and at. at. Chapter (:haptcr g9 provides an overview overview of of conceptual structure, III. on, 011. at. Chapter provides an ofconceptual conceptualstructure, structure,based based based )fl J of ent w lin a.1 review revIew of recent recent work work on knowledg representation representatIoninincognitive cognitivepsychI' Y hh onknowledge knowledge representation cognitive psyi on uliigv. It also re-evaluates the thesis thesis encyclopaedk semantics incognitive cognitive uJ.lgy: It It also re-evaluates rc·evaluates the th I of ofencyclopaedic encydopaedicsemantics semanticsinon cognitiv ology. linguistics. Chapter Iongul tIC. Chapter .hapter to 10 addres . the of the cognitive model. whi io addresses addresses theconstruct constructof ofthe thecognitive cognitivemodel, model,which whichh linguistics. is held to embody conceptual " held held to embody embody conceptual (onceptual structure trulture for forpurposes purpo. . of ace via VO.lrepresenrepresen structure for via rcpresenIs purposes ofofaccess access tation s tiitioflsfrom from the the linguistic tatulOs the linguistic Iingui tic system. ystcm. It ItItdoes ddoessosoin oninthe the light Ihenature natureofof of system. thelight lightofofthe the nature ,oncept ual structure IrUClure developed developed in hapter 9.9lonceptual inChapter Chapter conceptual developed

5

Symbolic units

IMF

unit: the conventional associassoci'Phis concerned with with the the symbolic unit: Ihis chapter is concerned form—and aasemantic semanticunit—a unit—a betweenaavehicle—a vehide—a phonological phonologkal form—and ation .itiofl between represcnInLCCM l(( M Theory. lexical concept.' In Theory,the the symbolic unit is the type of represenIC\k.Il concept.' hypothesizedto topopulate populatethe thelinguistic Linguisticsystem. system. l.C.M Theory Theory tation that is hypothesized LCCM theview viewofofthe thelinguistic linguistic assumes a constructional view of grammar. That is, is the thesymbolic symbolic thesis, thesis,as asdiscussed discussedininChapter Chapterz. InIn system adopted here assumes assumes the view of this, my ins' presentation presentationof ofthe thenature natureand andstructure structureof ofthe thesymbolic symbolicunit unit synthesis of of some someofofthe thekey keyideas ideasdrawn drawnfrom from in this this chapter chapter involves involves a synthesis (onstructiofl Grammar,2 Grammar.t as well well as as Cognitive Granimari Construction Grammar, 2as

The existence existenceof ofsymbolic symbolicunits: units: idioms idioms Perhaps themost mostwell well-known argumentsfor forthe thesymbolic symbolicunit unit constituting constituting known arguments Perhaps the -

basic form form of representation in the linguistic system comefrom from the the the basic system come I ilimore and Paul Kay Kay (e.g., (e.g.,Fillmore I ilimore cieta!. 1988; pioneering work work of Charles ( 1988; pioneering Fillmore In this r.athcr book.IIuse usethe theterm term symbolkunit unit"-(Langackcr thuschapter. chapter.and andin inthe therem rest oldies of thisbook. ' In "symbolic (Langacker 19871 rather the perhaps perhapsmore more1;4)m:ikon commonterm term"construction"---in "(Onstruttion —in cognitive do so soas asdifferent different than the cognitive linguistics. linguistks. II do theterm term "COnstruction" Lognitme•linguisticapproaches approachestotogrammar grammarhave have employed employed the -construction" in slightly ways. For instanc. Goldberg 2006), in her theory of Cognitute Constuxtion Grammar. lion Grammar. different ways. For instance. (kildberg I 1995..1006 I. in her theory of Cognitive I :onstrik use. the term term "construction - to ILISC% torefer refer to to any any conventional t; onvrn num symbolic I symbolicassembly assembly indudung including simpkx cat/Ic ATI, as .a.s well well as i)mple2 symbolic suth as 'A11111441c assemblies. assemblies, such as eeitittarj, as more cortipkit symbolicassemblies assemblies such as the soSOditr.ansituve construction construction discussed histheory theoryofofCognitive (ognitive discussedininChapter Chapter 1. L In In contrast. in in his sailed ditransinve symbolic ,ramtnar. Lingackcr (of complex complex symbolic 107, aoo8) term "construction "construction'- for Grammar, Lingacker(e.g.. (e.g.. 19147. 2nott) reserves reserves the term (ognitiveGrammar, (irammar. the used to to reler refer to simplex and the term term"symbolic wmholk unit unit - isis used hs both both simple.% and awnihil•s. InInCognitive follow 1..ingacker L*nga&kcr in term symbolic symbolic unit Unitto torefer referto toany any crimples bipolar bipolar assemblies. assemblies. II tolkiw in deploying the trim )flsentui,n.albipolar bipolarassemble .isscnthltinvolving involving form (orm and semantic structure. comeentional sentantic structure. 1 Construction 2 Construction IGrammar (amityof oftheories—construction theones—ionstnactk,n grammars grammars—associated with :ranunar is is in in fact fact a lamas -associated with work the pioneering MA irk c,i number •11 ...holm %who o( aa number of scholars developedaanumber numberof ofdistinct distinct theism's theoriesof of who hays ha ► r drYtiOlpeti cons4n1Cthfil grammar. these Int 2006; Lakttt sndudc granintar. Thew lutic (ognitive(onstruction .Irgniiiret:onstruction Grammar Grammar ((ioklherg ioldberg iws, 2006; I .ikuiti 191tj GrammarL(Bergen and I.Chang zoo;),Radical RadicalConstruction (onstrultion Grammar (grammar 1967).Fmhodied Embodied Construction I onstruction (irammar Bergen and hang zoos). 21)02), Sign Sign.buased ConstructionGrammar GrammarI (Brenier ( ( -roft sour). •hased Construction Werner and Michaelis 2ooes; Sag 2oo7). ioo6; Sag 2007).and and ttrnIicst.on) Grammarr 1111rnore (Fillmore tla a!. Unification) Construction Construction Grammar Mi hadis inoi; Kay and !Amore I al. him; Kay tiora., Michaelis Michaelis and Lambrecht Vochilethere therearc are important important points of and Lambri.. ht KKR, Whik of thsvrgetke divergence across alrI)ss these thew Various various approaches .q'pruachcs (see ties Goldberg Goldberg2006: 2006:ch. ch.101. ,o).they they are are broadly broadly similar similar in leastthey they all all in key key respests. respects. Not least assumethe thesymbolic symbolicthesisthesis. The theory ( ognitive (onsiruction(iramniar• which whichisiscentrally centrallyplaced placed assume The theory of of Cognitive Construction within and Within andinformed inforni•tlby bythe thecognitive cognitivelinguistics linguisticstradition, tradition.isisthe theparticular particularversion versionofofConstruction (instruction 'Irarnmar which, hAs the most mostinfluential influentiali.iinstruitional cunstruitional it anima r whic h. along along with (ognitive t. ogninw (;ranimar. Ca-Ammar. hasbeen twit the 4 11 1/ritAth for the the development developmentiitof IC' .M M liseory. Tiwory. i'sjsa.199111, 1999. sewn). b'. Langacker Cognitive(:rarnrnar Grammar has been developed by 200$). ' Cognitive Langacker (1987. 19910. -

■

(

K,8

-

88 $8

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

ESENT ATION I [X.CA l REPR LEXICAL. R1I1KI5INIATI0N

-------

Kay and Fillmore i999). Whileititis uncontroversial inhnguistks linguistics thatthe the the that i,tie that longu 10 tmve "ial in unwn Whil it iis uncontroversial I-illmore 1m) . While and lilImorC K.1y and Kay lexical item (i.e., the word) constitutes symbolic now classik in their cia ic nowclassiL Iheirnow 10 their unit, unit. in ymboli unit, titut aaa symbolic con word ) constitutes th word) (i.e .• the item (i.e., lexical item lexical 1988 paper, Fillmore, Kay, and O'Connor sought extend thisperspective perspective to to JY, idiosyncratic. tosay, i to whichisis atic. which idiom unit. i, ymbolic unit, Ih symbolic is idiomat, the blur the more traditional di distinction adopted in linguistics between Ihe between the hngu i t, between 10 linguistics ed in adopt tincti on adopted tradll lonal

more traditional distinction the more blur the blur lexicon—traditionally therepo repository the arbitrary arbitrary and the idio ynthe idiosynand arbitr ary and the itory ofofthe the repository I xicon -trad ition ally the cratic—and the grammar_traditionally grammar—traditionallythe the rule-governed rule-governed component of onen t of ·gove rned comp rul the gram mar- traditionally the cratie - and the cratic—and

linguistic knowledge.' knowledg .' lie knowledge.4 lingui linguistic In their 1988 paper Fillmore, Kay, Kay,and and O'Co O'Connor challenge will callU what III will nge what chaUe nnorchallenge Fillmore, Kay, and O'Connor paper Fillmore, 1988 paper their1988 In their the words plus rules model model modd (,ene rative model 'itand .,d Generative thestandard by bythe standard umed by •assumed mode l assumed rule model plu rules word plus the the words advocated in various versions, in the work of Chomsky (e.g., 1965, 1981, 1981. 1965.1981, (e.g.,1965, Chom ky(e.g., of (homsky the work of on. in versions, in the vario us versi ated 10 advoc advocated in various 1995) and others. According to to thi this mode model, the be can be properties language can oflanguage pr perti of the properties l, the this model, rding to .... Acco 1995) and othe others. According accounted for by a system of "words where the words are the the the word are the words rules' where the rul ," where and rules," "wor d and of "words and y tem of by aa system nted for by a"ou accounted individual lexical items in subject to d to subje are subject word and these these wordss are arc th..., words n, and lexl(o peaker's lexicon, the speaker's in the speaker's lexicon, it 01 in lexi al items indiv iduallexical individual rules of different types within the language system. govern Phonological rules govern rul govern ologicalrules Phon ystem. Phonological languagesystem. thelanguage withi nthe type> within ent types differ of rul rules of different the assembly of complex strings sounds. a m rules govern govern assemth assemn the gover rul SyntacII rules of sounds..Syntactic tring of lex strings comp complex of wund a ;emb ly of the assembly of bly of words into grammatical structures such as sentences, while wh,1 sent n •while phrases and md sentences, and phra a phrases ueh as trudu r such grammatical matic al structures gram mto word bly of of words into semantic rules assign a semantic cordi ngtoto thesentence, sentence, aaccording nten e.according to the retati on to interp interpretation mant , interpretation ign aa semantic ntic rules assign sema semantic the principle of compositionality as in 10 w in we saw literalism. saw A we lit rali m. As by literalism. advocated by as advocated compositionality advocated o Itionahty as comp ipl of princ th the principle of Chapter t, this gives rise to propo propositional meaning, ing semantic meaning mean mant ic meaning Iy semantic pur purely meaning. aa purely llIonalmeaning1 giv nrise to ter i,I.thi Chap Chapter this gives to propositional that is independent of context. rules,, rul mant icrules, andsemantic syntactic semantic yntacticand ion to addit In context. In Inaddition addition tosyntactic indep enden t of context. i independent that is speakers also have knowledge itional propo map thatmap mappropositional propositional that prineipl that pragm ati principles of ledg of of pragmatic pragmatic principles peake ... also speakers also hav haveknow knowledge meaning unto context, and inferinferrelevantinferdrawing therelevant relevant ingthe draw heare rin10 th hearer guidethe xt. and andguide the hearer indrawing ing onto mean meaning onto conte context, ences. Crucially, this approach semantics, and nti •and sema yntax.semantics, thatsyntax, in that lar in modular that syntax, modu i modular appro ach is this approach is enc ences.. rucially. thi phonology are encapsulated one communicate onC with one unica le with comm only that subsystems that only only communicate ub y,tem that encap "Iated subsystems arc encapsulated ology arc' phon phonology another via linking rules.. This words repr ntl-d i,represented modelIisis represented mod of type rul plu s plus words plusrules rulestype typeof ofmodel rul Thi er via anoth another via linkin linkingg rules. This word by the diagram in Figure 5.1. Figur 5.1. am in by by the the diagr diagram in Figure 5.'. This model of speakerr knowledge whatisiisregular regular in regularin10 what for what accou nts for onlyaccounts ledg only knowledge accounts peake of l mode Thi This model of spe.Lker know He kicked the bucket), language, and leaves aside expressions (e.g., bucket), l), He l"I.L, kickedIII,,' the bllcle (e.g .• He e pr ion (e.g.1 allcexpressions idiomatic id,om ide idiomatic age. and langu Language, and leaves leaves aaside which, according to Fillmore et ndix "appe ofan an"appendix "appendix tatu ofoCan th ..the ha 504). (1988: 504),have have thestatus status (1988: 504), al. (1988: 'aL or. .eta!. to hllm Fillmore h, a ordm g to whi which, to the grammar." In other words, only only model.the plusrule rulemodel, model, theonly rul plu word plus Ihe words in , in other other words words, in the the words gram mar." In the grammar." to to the In complex units that are canno properties cannottbebe rtiescannot pmpe whoseproperties tho whose uethose whol wholeare are those whose tored whole ar<stored lex unit comp complex units that are stored predicted on the basis ofofthe ofof the According to rdingto10 Acco gram mar.According thegrammar. regular rules of the grammar. rules arrules regul theregular ba i of the ted on predi predicted on th the basis large, Fillmore a al., this appendix Ihoumanythouthoumany igningmany aassigning cfTl'
..Utik'd • ItRralI the .... u

nM o( ,heihc ks,)tv"

SYMBOLIC UNIT~ SYM8 01lC UNIIS

SYMBOLIC UNITS

89

89

LEXICON

SYNTAX

PHONOLOGY PHONOLOGY OLOGY PHON

II

I

NTICS SEMA SEMANTICS

y lem Imgul III system Ihe linguistic of modd IK.t'KF i.,. rul rlu "orm The 5.1. The htitTRE \.1. The words words plus plus rules rules model model of of the the linguistic 111,1'" the words word the words perhaps the gram mar. the ofgrammars mode l of the model p ititit isi, the of then mar. then gram th the rules rul rules of of the the grammar. grammar, then perhJ perhaps is the model of grammar, Ihe which is at fault. fault. atfault. i at whi h is themselv • which expr ion themselves, plus theexpressions than the rathe r than model, rather plus rules rules model, model, rather than the expressions themselves, rul plu rathe r a!. to focus on the the irregular. rather focu on to focus ed to (;kcn Fillmore decid al. decided ., Fillmore et prem i • Fillmore Given this premise, thi premise, .. n this et al. (;i decided the irregular, rather representations. In so \(1 of linguistic r prc.".,ntation . In Iingui tic representations. oflinguistic model of than in th ir model l1g their buildl regular, III the regular, Ih.1I1 than the regular, in building building their model so the idiomatic expressions rather than the than the ralhe r than expr ion rather doing, by focusing focusing (in idiom ati expressions onidiomatic focu illS on began by they began . they doing, they began dOll1g of language. guage . oflan mpp.mrntl rule-governed ntences of governed sentences entlyvrule· apparently rule-governed sentences language. appar hit, what idiom a idioms to as referrrd to arc referred whatare Ihe words Ithat, a\Sum that, modelassumes rul", model plu rules word ; plus The words plus rules model assumes what are referred to as idioms— "work th know ing the by knowing 'mply by out" simply rk out" "w expressions that a language user cannot cannot canno t "work language user that expressions a language out" simply by knowing the expr ion that simply excep tion. as exceptions. Ii ted as vocabulary imply listed languag~r simply grammar and the the vocabulary of ulary of vocab grammar mma r and gra of aaa language—are language—are listed as exceptions. developing their constructional of accou nt of con tructi onal account their The tack tack taken taken by LwFillmore Fillmore ci al. a!. in dcveloping their in developing til. et orc et I-illm by taken lalk The The constructional account of argued d these . so-called exceptions. They argue tion.They excep the linguistic system tobegin beginwith withthese ' liedexceptions. th with begin to y tem isiIsto ti system lingui the so-called argued the linguistic principled way, the "ex "exceptions" then eptio n ," then forthe way,for ipledway, prin that ififif it itit is toaccount, account, ac ount.ininaaprincipled po ible to is possible that is possible "exceptions," then Ihat naturally from an ut language should fall out out natur ally from dfl fall houldfall .in account account of the the regular regular guag eshould oflan a peet of regular aspects ofth nt of an aspects language out naturally from an Jcwu an account theirregular. irregular. irregular, ofthe nt of a"ou account a!., reached two impo important and rtant and two rea hed two .• reached al rl al., In their their work on idioms. lillmore ci ore et Fillm idiom .Fillmore on idioms, work on their work In In important and grammatical display sonic regular matic al gram regulargrammatical ;omeregular influential conclusions. Firstly. idioms dodisplay di playsome idiom ,do l'ir tly. idioms cond u,ion .Firstly, m,al conclusions. ,nflue influential how they do and and ddon't conform rm to confo n't confinm do they do properties, and can classified how based on da itied based be classified can be rti • and properties, can he based on how they and don't to prope and hence are not always fully Iways not arc hence and regular semantic and gr.immatical patterns1 rn. patte al mati gram and grammatical patterns, and hence are not always fully ;ema ntic and regular semantic regular idioms can be accommodated accom moda led beaccommodated canhe idiom predictable from Se.:ondly. idioms ubpa rt.Secondly1 theirsubparts. from their I'rl-dillable from predictable their subparts. Secondly, can jettison the words plus rule plu rules wordsplus th words onthe Jettis within model of the linguistic system ifwe wejettison y temifif lingui ticsystem thelinguistic ofthe mod Iof a model n aa withi within rules model, which holds that that which l.which mode model. Inits its place, theyproposed proposed const ructio nalmodel, propo sedaaconstructional pia e,they it place, In l. In mode model. holds that bipolar assemblies a mbli b'pol arassemblies unit: thelinguistic linguistic system madeup upentirely entirely ofsymbolic symbolic units:bipolar olilunits: symb ntirelyofof up made 'Y temisiismade >licsystem IlIlgui the the perspective is more parsimoimo par moreparsimoper peetiveis imore (orconstructions) constructions) ofform form and meaning. Thisperspective Thi 01 ning.This andmeaning. formand tructi on )ofof con (~r (or Ratherr than Rathe reaw n.Rather ingreason. niuiusthan thanthe thewords words plusrules rules model forthe thefollowing following reason. follow the I for mod rul plu splus word Ihe than nious model for than n,ou rules, with the idioms idiom Ihe of representations: words pius with • rul plu word assuming two : repre;cnlaloon words plus rules, with the idioms type ofofrepresentations: IW()types assuming a \umin g two Grammar advocated advtx aledbyby maradvocated Gram being akin to words, the model Construction Con Irucli onGrammar of l (if modeof Ihemodel words,the akin totowords, being akin being Construction unit_ ymboli units. _symbolic posited just a single kind of repr ntalio n: ofrepresentation: ingle Fillmore t't posited a!. po iled al. rt ore et 1-,lIm Fillmore justiu a I. single kind of representation: symbolic units. theoretical machinery can be be held held 10 to can l1ery can ma,hl elicJI machinery Ihem Inshort, short, they argue thatthe the same >Jllletheoretical Ihesame argu that Iheyargue hon, they In In be held to idiomatic units of the linguistic system. \yMem . 1I0gu l\11( Ihe unit .uu.:units for both regular and idium dndidiomatic rq;ulJrand bothregular forboth countfor .:a.ictnunt account ofotthe linguistic system.

90

90

-

LEXICAL LEXt At REPRESENTATION REPRF. ENTATION LEXICAL

In developing Fillmore et elia!. developing their their account, aaccount, (ount,Fillmore fillmore rlal. /II. developed developed aa typology typology of idiom typokgv of ofidiomidio In expressions based on on four fourmain main parameters, each atic expressions expr ion based based four mainparameters, each of whichI IIbriefly bri fly eachof ofwhich atic di-;cuss below: discuss below: discuss

SYMBOLIC SYMBOLIC UNITS UNITS UNITS

91 91

because the' l'eaus are are' substantive idioms most or an JnJ ,p,l/the lirebeans brallS are substantive substant" idiom because beeau most orall allof ofthe thesubstanubstan all of the substanjilt'd spill

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

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

protlLlct 1VC. pnl<.luc.:tive.

understand e. doesn't vred doesn't understandwomen general, letalone alonethe theunique uniquecreature Iii) 1taa. Fred doesn't understand womeniningeneral. general,letlet alone the uniqu lc. tiFFred creature 1:( 17 that IloUy Golightly i Holly that is IS [JollyGolightly Golightly HoUy wa h up, let let alone I lolk' can't wash alone cook cook b. h. Holly wouldn't describe describe predicament as as c. I wouldn't holly's amusing,let letalone alone hilarious hilarious c. wouldn't d ribe Holly's I lolly' predicament a amusing, alone hilariou

Decodingand andencoding encoding Decoding and encodIngidioms idioms Decoding l)ecoding idioms the buckethave haveto be D oding idioms idiom like like kick kick the lilt bucket b"ck,., decoded or "learnt whole" in in the th~ be decoded decodedor or"learnt "learntwhole" in the like kick Decoding sensethat thatthe thesemantic semanticcontribution contribution of of the the expression sen that the semantic contribut,on of expres;ion cannot cannothe beworked worked out outon on he (in sense first hearing. hearing. encoding idioms like wide wide first ontra t, encoding idiom wuleawake aWdkr be understood understood awake may be first hearing. In In contrast, contrast, encoding idioms thefirst first hearing: hearing: theadjective adjective wide wide functions functions on the hearing: the wi,le functi n as as a degree dcgr modifier, and it is , degreemodifier, modifier, and and it is on possible that awake". po ,ble to to work work out out that that this thi expression expression means m ns "completely ',omplet Iyawake". IlowC\.r, possible this expression means "completely awake: However, However, the speaker speaker wouki not not he beable ableto topredict predictthis this isiisthe theconventional conventionalway peaker would nat to predict thi the conventional w.yof encoding way the would ofofencoding partkular ide.t thereisiisnothing nothinginIII inthe the"rules" "rules" •aa particular part,cular idea In other other words, words,there there nothing "rul."," idea in in the the language. language. In of English Inglish of this expression of In&li hthat thatenables speaker to predict the theexistence exi tence of ofthis thi expression expr. ,onas a, as of that enablesaa speaker speaker to predict predict the existence opposed to, say, narrow awake, narrow asleep, opposed to, say, say, lIarrow awake,narrow lIarrowasleep, aslerp. or WIde alert. En oding idioms idiom~ alert. Encoding narrow or wide wide alert. Encoding opposed also include include expressions thatare areperfectly perfectlyregular, regular.but butjust justthappen happentotorepresent also in lude expressions expr i n that that are perfectly regular, but ju represent represent also way of saying something. For For example, the the w.y of ofsaying saying something. Forexample, example,the theexpression expr . ion dnvlIIg driving the conventional conventional way driving Ilicence hence'is encodingidiom idiomin thesense licellce idiom inthe n that that represent the convenli nalway sense thatitititrepresents representsthe theconventional conventional way isisan ananencoding encoding ofdescribinga that could be be (hutisiisnot) not)called aIled aa driving of document that that could be (but (but not) called dnvlllg pcrlllil dri vingpermit permit or of describing aadocument or aaa driving dot utnent (Taylor dnvlIIg ,100·"lIIelll 547). driving document (Taylor 2002: 2002: 547). Grammatical versusextragrammatical extragrammatical extra grammatical idioms Grammatical versus idioms Grammat, al idioms idiom are expressions expression that that usualrules ofgrammar. grammar. (;rarnmatical that obey obeythe theusual usual rulesofof grammar. Grammatical idiomsare are expressions For example, in the the grammatical grammatical idiom For idiomspill Spll/ Il,ebeans, beall" aa verb tak aa noun noun verb takes For example, example, in in idiom spillthe the beans, phrase complement. phr.", omplement. In extragrammati,al idiom such of a/I contrast, cxtragrammatkalidioms idiomssuch suchaas is /11/ phrase complement. In contr3.~t, all of of contrast, extragrammatical sudden donot not obey obey the usual usual rules su,ldell not u ual rules rules of grammar. thi expression, exp' ion, the th grammar. In sudden do do obey the the of grammar. In this this expression, quantifier all is followed by prepo ition phrase, phr. ,where e pc
Idioms with and without pragmatic point Id,ams with withaut pragmatic pragmaticpoint paint

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

II • A Kt iF si. 51. 1>i DistUnc.:tlOru J So'. In Idiom inctions in in idiom idiom types I)istinctsons tspes

AI,.

a

it

Substantive versus formal SubstantIve formalidioms id,ams idioms Substantive versus

The The di tin tionisis i between between.substantive ub tantive and and formal formal idioms. idioms. Substantive ub. tantive The third thirddistinction distinction between substantive idioms ,diom are ally filled, which means mea", that they have have fixed itel'" as a, that they they have fixed lexical lexical items items as idioms are are lexi lexically filled, which which means part their mop does example, ki(k the part of compo itlon. For example, kick Ilrr 1II0p dQCl, not have the me have' same part of their composition. For example, kick the mop does not have the communicative communicative function askick kick lire buckrt,and and spil/ lire bramdoes does have spilli/u' thebeans beans andspill communicativefunction functionasas kickthe thebucket, bucket, does not not have have the same communicative func.:tion function 3\ I4oth as Ihe pili the 'lit clUI",pagllr. lWd-.f' Aick the Roth kid. spill the champagne. champagne. Both l'ucke't kick ,IIr the bucket the\.,lme same(ommunic.:.llive communicative function as .spill

II

r.

Idiom type Id,om Iype Idiom type

Semantic structure Semantic Scm~ntl( tru ture

Example F.xampk

IDecoding )ecoding Il<.;ooong

kit* the kick the kic! Ih, bucket bucket

(;rammatical Grammatical Gr<Jmmalical I1·Extra-grammatical xtragran)matitjl ~lril · 8r~mm.ltiul Sulhl.lnllv(' substantive •urnial lornul formal

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

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

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

IEncoding Inwding i ng

Whieaawake wide waLe

,h,

spill the the beans beans spill all of of aIIa iUtftl,." sudden all of spill the pill beans spIll "the .. beans beallS the "let alone" "let alone" the "'et ~Ion(''' construction Ci)nstruction con lrUdion How do? Jhow low do ,10 y.ou )'(111 Ilo? do you by atllllllrg~ and iarg large l'y and by

92 92

RPM SYMBOLIC UNITS

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

matical (a preposition is

IC UNiTS

with an adjective), md

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

The symbolic unit as the basis of the linguistic

system The symbolic unit as the basis of the linguistic system ILiving accounted for the

exceptions, idiomatk expressions, terms Having accounted forturn the exceptions, idiomatic expressions, ininterms ofof the synibolic thesis, we to the next stage in devdoping the symbolic unit symbolic we turn to next stage in developing the symbolic unit asas the basisthesis, for rcpresent1it ionthe in the linguistic system. This involves applying the the basis for representation in the linguistic system. This involves applying the perspective to all that is regular: the

rulc-governedcomponent, component, constructional perspective to allplus thatrules is regular: the rule-governed or the "syntax," of the words model. or the "syntax," of theinfluential words plus rules model. One of the most devdopments in this area has been Adele One of the most influential developments in this area has been Adele (;oldherg's work. most notably her landmark Influencedboth both Goldberg's most notably her landmark 1995 books Influenced k the workwork, of Fillmore and Kay and by the early work of George Iakoff on by work of Fillmore and Kay and by the early work of George Lakoff on thethe symbolic basis of language,6 Goldberg developed theory of( Mnstruction 6 Goldberg developed aatheory of Construction the symbolic basis of language, Grammar that Mnlght to extend the approach Fillmoreand and Grammar sought idiomatk to extend the constructional approach ofolFillmore KIIV from that 'irregular" constructions to "regular" constructions. In Kay idiomatic constructions to "regular" constructions. In orderfrom to do"irregular" this, Goldberg focused on verb argument constructions. other order do this, on verb argument constructions. InInother woids,toand .msGoldberg we s1iw infocused Chapter 2, she examined ordinary clause-level words, and as we saw in Chapter 2, she examined ordinary clause-level sentences such as tramnsitives and ditransitives and built Construction sentences such transitives and ditransitives and built aaConstruction Grammar on theaspatterns she found there. Grammar on the patterns she found there. The central thesis of Goldberg's theory of Cognitive Construction Grammar Thesentence-level central thesis of Goldberg's theory of Cognitive Construction Grammar is that "themselves carry meaning, indcpendenth is that "themselves carry meaning, independently of the sentence-level words in theconstructions sentence" (Goldberg i). According to this view, view, of the words in the sentence" (Goldberg 1995: 1). According to units in present tcrms——are themselves this theoretical constructions—symbolic units in present terms—are themselves theoretical primitives, rather than epiphenomemia" (Chomsky 1991: 417). primitives, rather than "taxonomic epiphenomena" (Chomsky 1991: 417). As Goldberg observes, the issue of argument structure alternations his As Goldberg observes, the issue of argument structure alternations has received a considerable amount of attention in contemporary work in unreceivedlo a illustrate, considerable amount of attention in contemporary work in linguistIcs. .onsider the examples in (z) and guistics. To illustrate, consider the examples in (2) and (3).

(i) a. Fred brought Holly Golightly some breakfast

( 2) a. Golightly some breakfast h.Fred Fredbrought brought Holly some breakt,m.t to Holly Golightly h. Fred brought some breakfast to Holly Golightly (3) 'Fred brought the table some breakfast (3) a. •Fred brought the table some breakfast b. Fred brought some breakfast to the table h. Fred brought some breakfast to the table As these examples illustrate, the ditransitive verb l'ring As these examples types. illustrate, the ditransitive verb bringcan canoccur occurin intwo two diflerent construction lxarnpks like (ia) and (3a) are termed ditransidifferent construction Examples like (2a) and (3a) are termed ditransitive or (double object)types. constructions because the verb is tive or objects. (double In object) constructions because the verb isfollowed followedby bytwo two nominal cxampks (2h) and (3h), which is termed the prepositional nominal objects. In examples (2b) and (3b), which is termed the prepositional construction (Goldberg 19)5: 8), the indirect (Holly (;olightiv or construction (Goldberg 1995: 8), the indirect object (Holly Golightly or the is instead represented by a preposition phrase (PP). The table) is instead represented by a preposition phrase (PP). Thepoint pointof of (.uldbrrg

u,i

(.nldhcrg

ti1L&ifl

hrr

(,rsnnfljr. I .4 ddherg 12 ► 0n) in whs. h roldbers revises crrt.rin aspek Is of her earlier theoryo(of ' See also was (11'4111111/f Construction in i study 01 • GOldheig was influenced in particular by Lakoffs (1987) caw study of there constructions_

'

4

93 93

interest here fact that the prepositional construction hererelates relatestotothe the fact thatwhile while the prepositional construction or inanimate (3b), the double 1 110 Ws the therecipient recipientto tobe heeither eitheranimate animate(2h) (zb) or inanimate (3h), the double (compare (2a) with (3a)). The o bject construction requires requiresthat thatititbe beanimate animate (compare (ia) with The from these differences are best ; ism, that thatarises arIses fromthis thisobservation observationis how is how these differences are best inin the model of of thethe linguistic system. Goldberg argues that the ca ptured mpttirt'd the model linguistic systeul. Goldberg argues that the most explanatory semantic restrictions directly explanatoryaccount account associates associatesthese these restrictions directly with the than stating the information thegrammatical grammaticalconstruction constructionitself, itself,rather rather than stating the information inaflthe is, and as we saw in Chapter 2, thelexical lexicalentries entriesofofindividual individualverbs. verbs.That That is, and as we s.mw in Chapter ;oldberg argues for instance, constitutes a (;1)Idherg arguesthat thatthe theditransitive ditransitjvc construction, construction, for instance, constitutes a symbolic unit items which happen to fill it. In so 5%'fnbolic unitindependently independentlyofofthe thelexical lexial items which happen to fill it. In doing unit, which consists of a convendoingshe sheclaims claimsthat thatitit represents representsaabipolar bipolar unit, which consists of a conventional arrangement, with a semantic structure tIoIhIIvehicle, vehicle,aaspecifiable specifiablesyntactic sntactic arrangement, with a semantic structure which which she glosses glosses as: as: xx CAUSES YVTO to RECEIVE RHEl Vi Z. Z. Goldberg argues that symbolic unit is associated with the (oldherg argues that the the ditransitive ditransitive symbolic unit is associated with the syntactic frameisis, (sum v oBt gave Holly /lowers), where both i l I (e.g., syntactic frame iv 08% oap2JJ (e.g., Fred Fred game Holly/lowers), where both objects arc is not associated with are noun noun phrases phrases (NPs). (NPs).The Theditransitive ditransitive unit unit is not associated with PPI I (e.g., Fred gave flowers v NP the Holly), which the syntactic syntacticframe frame INP (NP Iv NP PPJ J (e.g., Fred gave tlowers to to Holly), which identifies the distinct distinct prepositional These two symbolic units idcntitis the preposition1il symbolic symbolic unit. unit. These two symbolic units are of form and semantic strucire distinct—although distinct —although related related by by shared shared aspects aspects of form and semantic structure—because difference semantic structure signifies, ttire—bccause any 1mnv differenceinineither eithervehicle vehicle or or semanti structure signifies, in symbolic unit. in Cognitive Construction Construction Grammar, Grammar, aa distinct distinct unit. Goldberglists lists a a number specific to the ditransitive ('oldbt'rg number of of properties properties that that are are speci& to the ditransitive symbolic unit, which cannot be predicted either from the individual words unit, which cannot be predicted either from the individual words that till the symbolic symbolic unit, unit, or or from other symbolic units in the language. The th1u till the other symbolic units in the language. [he propertiesof of the the ditransitjve ditransitive symbolic unit are summarized Table 5.2. rroperties symbolic unit arc summarizedin in Table 5.2. Inmore more recent recent work work which whichcomplements complements that of Goldberg, William Croft In that of Goldberg, Croft (2002)has hasdeveloped developed a a constructional constructional account of language William informed by (2oo.') account of language informed by research researchon onthe thegrammatical grammaticaldiversity diversity across the world's languages. This the world's languages. This approach,which whichhe he terms terms Radical Grammar, is noteworthy approach, Radical Construction Construction Grammar, is noteworthy for forcompletely completelyeliminating eliminating syntax (rules relating to word order), and gramsyntax (rules relating to word order), and grammaticalcategories categories(such (suchas assubject subjectand and object) from the model of linguistic matical object) from the model of linguisti representation developed.In Inparticular, particular,Croft Croft argues that the symbolic unit representat ion developed.

argues that the symbolic unit

sm i

T TABLE

199S) 1995)

S2.

Properties

theEnglish English symbolic unit: ditransitive construction (601,11-berg ofofthe symbolic unit: ditrjnsjijve

The English ditransitive: X

(C .oldbcrg

CAUSES

COMTIbilICS TRANSI FR WIllalliks

Y

TO RECEIVE Z

that cannot be attributed to the lexical verb

'4 m,rnljc., that cannot he attributed to the lexical verb ihe The(iOAi GOAL argumentmust mustbe beanimate animate(RECIPIENT (RECIPIENT rather than PATIENT) argument rather than IWO Two non-predicativeNPs NPsarc areIkens'd licensedinin post-verbal positionPA1IINI) post-verbal position the TheonstrJcti,n constructionlinks links RE role with oat function RI IPIINT role with function the role Thestaj sump role must filledwith with a volitional AGENT, who intends TRANSFER must bebefilled a volitional *(.I-N I. who intentk TRANSFER

94 94

SYMBOII(: SYMBOLIC UNItS UNITS

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION REPRESENTATION LEXICAl

thegrammar, grammar,and andmay may unit ininthe ( i.e.,the the "construction") is the the only onlyprimitive primitive unit (i.e., of form, form, and and either either specific specificor or or complex in terms of therefore be either simplex sirnpkx or thatgrammatical grammatical schematic in terms of its semantic schematk scmantk structure. This means meansthat gralnlu.Ltical asnoun flOUfland andverb, verb,or orgrammatical categories--for example, word classes classes such as categones—for object—have no independent independent status, status, but but arc are functions such as as subject subject and object—have functions whichthey they occur. occur. This This does does defined in relation to the the symbolic symbolicunits unitswithin within which not mean mean that tI)r instance, instance, do donot not exist, exist,but but that that word word classes classes word classes, for not that word divisions that that have haveany anyreality reality independent independentof ofthe the cannot be be categorized cannot categorized into into divisions whatmakes niakesRadical Radkal units that that make make up up aa given given language. Hence, symbolic units Hence,what Construction Grammar Grammar radical radical isis the the position that that the the symbolic symbolic unit unitbecomes becomes hut the the only only constituconstitunot only only the representation but not the primary primary form of linguistic representation system. ent of the the linguistic linguistk system. types of word wordclasses classes that From this this perspective1 perspective, itit is to be From be expected expectedthat that the types we observe one language totoanother might Language another mightbebesignificantly significantlydifferent. different. we observe from from one this cross-linguistic cross-linguistic Moreover, because no universal Wold word classes classes are Moreover, because .tre posited, posited, this argues therefore argues variation is not only unproblematic variation unproblematic but but predicted. predicted.Croft Croft therefore word classes, classes,as asassumed, assumed, against the against thetraditional traditional distributional approach to word for instance, instance, in in traditional traditional grammar, structuralism, and the the Generative Generativeparaparasymlx)licunits, units,and and digm. Instead, (Croft arguesininlavour favour1)1 of language-specific language-specific symbolic roll argues and favour of of symbolic symbolic unit-specific unit-specific elements elements (grammatical subparts) and in favour components components (semantic (semantic subparts). subparts).

Giventhe thefundamental fundamentalstatus status of the symbolic (iven symbolic unit unit in Radical ConstrucConstruction Grammar, Grammar, the the only syntactic relations admitted admitted are are the thepart-whole part-whole svntictk relations that hold between between the the symbolic symbolic unit unit as asaawhole wholeand andthe thesyntactic Inother otherwords, words,the themodel modeldoes does not recognize elements elements that that fill fill it. In recognize grammatgrammatical relations (grammatical (grammatical functions) functions) such such as subject and and object object as ashaving having symbolic units. units. Instead, Instead.to tothe the any independent independent reality reality outside outside of of individual individual symbolic units, these these also also emerge from from symbolic symbolic units, extent that that grammatical functions emerge epiphenomena. In In this model, model, conconhave the status of construction-specific epiphenomena. stituency is is conceived conceivedininterms termsofofgrouping, grouping,where wheregrammatical grammaticalunits unitsare are receive aa identified interms termsof ofcontiguity contiguityand andprosodic prosodicunity1 unity,and andheads heads receive identified in semantic semanticcharacterization characterizationas asprimary primary information-bearing information-bearing units or PIBUs (Croft ((;roft 2002.: 258). zs8)!7 adopted In sum, the the defining defining feature leature of ofconstructional constructionalapproaches, asasadopted

41■.•

95 95

Symbohc unit Symbolic unit

Syntactic properties Vehicle

Morphological properties Phonological properties

Symbolic Symbolic correspondence correspondence

Semantic properties Pragmatic properties

41111+0■11■

Semantic Semantic structure structure

Discourse-functional properties

h.I'RI

5.2. Anatomy of a symbolic unit (adapted from Croft Croft 2002: 2002: iS) i$)

I i s.j. TABLE 5.3. Taxonomy Taxonomy

of symbolic symbolic units units (adapted (adapted from from Croft Croft 2002: of 2002: 17) 17) I radition.il Traditional name name

Example

Complex and (mostly) schematic and (mostly) Complex and

Syntax

bt'-TENSFVERB-en VlRB-(fl NP be-TENSE

4 ► mplexbut (umpkx butLx)und bound

Morphology

lvpc of symbolic unit unit Type of symbolic

pet. ihc %pecific

by NP/f ACTION

FROM FROM PERSPECTIVE OF OP PATIENTI PATIENT'

Idiom

pUll-TENSE pull-TENSE NP'S NP'S kg/ITO ieg/ITO TEASE TEASE AS AS A A JOKE

I

NOUN 's/IMORE THANONE ONI OF 01 NOUN-S/( MORE THAN SOMETHING SOMETHING',

VFkII-1ENSI/ITIMEREFERENCE RtI i-MINi FWITH Wilil VERB-TENSE/]TIME RESPIt T TO II) CODING TIME] IIMEJ RESPECT Not THIN., NOUNITHING), VERK/ITI 'IPORALLY GROUNDED GMOUNI)1I) VERB/TEMPORALLY IELATIONjI RELATION

Morn,c and schematic Atomic

Word classes Word classes

Atomic and specific specific

Lexical items Lexical items thei[THEI, JUPtlp(11(JVMPERJ jumperiliumPeR1

by LCCM Theory,isisthat thataasymbolic symbolic unit unitas as aa whole constitutes R CNI Theory, constitutes aaconventional conventional assembly vehicle, and and semantic semantic structure, structure, aa lexical lexical concept1 concept, in assemblyof of form, form, aa vehicle, Ifl the same constituting sameway wayas asaalexical lexicalitem itemisisconceived conceivedasas constitutinga asymbolic symbolicunit unit in the received received view view of of the thelexicon. lexicon.The Thetypes typesofofdistinct distinctsymbolic symbolicunits units unit is presented in presented in of aa symbolic unit arc presented presented in in Figure 5.2. The anatomy of Table l'able 5.3.

The The non-reductive non-reductive nature nature of of symbolic symbolic units units

s.j$7) whathe herefer,. to .1 as II hi% flohOfl notion I% 101.111,014:kcit's lc.,,-.19117) notionolofthe the head head hcln$ bring what Langackcrs (c.g.. tS Jo.11ogousIt) the profile determinant pro6le determinant. the

An An important accountsofofthe thelinguistic linguisticsystem— svsteni— important feature feature of constructional accounts to, by bylinguists, linguists. as asthe the"grammar" "grammar"—is their nonwhat is generally referred to, is their nonreductjvc nature. Following Langacker (19$;-) reductive (1987) II assume that that OflC of the the factors one of in%olvedininthe theestablishment establishmentofofa asymbolic symbolicunit unitisisfrequency: frequency:if ifa aparticular involved particular —

ii

LeXICAL REPR[S[ TAllON REPRESINIA1 ION LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

SYMBOLIC UNITS SYMBOIl(' UNITS

ofanan statusofof achievesthe thestatus structure recurs lingui,tic structure tru,ture recurs rew" sufficiently ,ufli(lently frequently, frequently. itit achieves aOrne ymboli cOmeto come instances (Langacker1987) 19$7)of othermore moreabstract abstractunits, units,which whkh unit arc are instances in tan (Langacker (Langacker 1987) ofofother other mor .b,tract units. which units units such as schemas.To Toillustrate, illustrate,consider consider prepositions (P)such Langacker 10 illu~trate. con ider prepositions prepo ition (P) su h Langackcr refers Langacker refers to to as as schema. schemas. arecombined ..omhincdwith with aacomplement complement phrase and in, in, ., to, on, and III. which which arc are combined with compl ment noun nnoun unphrase phra (NP) ((NP) P) on, and as to as cxampk (4h (4), the NI'Pis isisbracketed. bracketed. to form prepo It",n phrase phra (PP). (1'1'). In example example (4).the theNP bracketed. form aaa preposition preposition phrase (PP).In to

0".

4

(4) (me) a.totofowl Imel (4) a.a. (4) b. (the noor) I). on on (Ithe the (loon flood b. c. in in (the garage) I(the thegarage] garagej c.

•

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

97 97 97

acquisition acquisition of an an infinitely infinitely acqui itlon of of infinitelycreative creativ system 'y tem of oflanguage languagecan can onlybe beplausibly pIau Ibly system language canonly be accounted for accounted ofofprin principles. small andefficient efficientset set of principles. Inparticular, particular,the accountedfor forby byaasmall malland and efficient set iples.InIn partIcular. thewords words the words plus rules model seeks to eliminate redundancy: the same information plus rules model seeks to eliminate redundancy: plu rllles model <eeks to redllndanthe thesystem 'y,tem nonnon. OflC place. place, as parsimonious. According to this view, the fact that the expressions in (4) parsimonious.. According to this parsimoniou thi view, view. the the fact fact that that the the expressions expr ion in in (4)are are are predictable from the predictable from the more abstract symbolic unit means that these instances predictable the more abstract ab tra t symtx)lic ymbolic unit unit means mean that that these th ... instances 111 tanc be eliminatedfrom fromthe the linguistic can "built (.m he be eliminated eliminated from thelinguistic lingui ticsystem, y tern.and and "built fromscratch" scra"h"each ach system, and "builtfrom from scratch" each time they are used. In time lime they they are are used. used. In the th words word plus plu rules rul model, model.the theonly onlyconstruction con tructionthat that model, only Construction that would be be storedin inthe thelinguistic linguistic would would be stored stored in the linglli tksystem y temisisisthe theabstract ab tractschema. schema.However, Ilowever. tho; system abstract schema. However,this this schema schematic meaning, and would "hema would would lack lack schematic s..hematic meaning, meaning. and would instead m tead have hav the thestatus tatu of of instead the stdtUs of an aboutwhat whatkinds kinds of vehicles be combined to make an "instruction" "instruction" an "instruction" about about what kinds of ofvehicles vehi les can can be combined to make can be combined to make grammatical units. In words plus rule model, then, grammatical the rule ~rammatical units. In the word plu rule model, model. then, th n.what here calling calling what III am am here here calling schema is actually a rule. While schemas aa schema is actually a rule. While schemas are derived from language use ..... hema is actually a rule. While s.chema are from language languag use useand arc derived from and thus incorporate semantic thus incorporate semantic structure—a lexical concept—rules arc minimally thu incorporate semantic structurc—a structure--a lexical lexical concept—rules concept-rules are are minimally specified structural representations specified structural that predict the greatest '(>t amount amount of of mfor. predict ofinforinformation possible in the po ible in the most economicalway waypossible. pos ibl . most economical economical way possible.

The structure of of symbolic symbolic units units exical concepts Lexical concepts are aSMlCiated associated vehicles, II exical concept. vehi les. aa consequence consequence of theirstatus tatu as as associated with with vehicles, consequenceof oftheir status as the semantic bipolar symbolic semanticpole pok of As the the vehicles the semantic pole of bipolar bipolar symbolic ymbolk units. unit. A an he be complex, complex. units. As vehicles can can be complex, made made simpler vehicles, up of simpler vehicles, lexical concepts can be simpler or more complex. made of impler vehi I • con epts can be simpler impl r or more compl x. concepts complex. Moreover, just as Moreover, just as a vehicle can he construed as having part-whole organizabe con construed having part-whol part-whole org.iniia~Ioreover. iu t a a vehicle c1iti can be trued aas having organiza tion, so tiofl, S4) too too lexical concepts have part-whole organization. lion. Ml lexical concepts concep" have whole organi,ation. In other other words, word. havepart part-whole organiiation. In words, there are relations are relation~ relations that that hold hold there arr hold between between distinct distin symbolic units. unit .'9 To To illustrate, illu trat • between distinctt symbolic Units.' illustrate, consider the following examples: following (on ider followingexamples: examples: 4' ( 5) (S)

d10

a. Vehicle: a. Vrhlde: ""France" f'mt"t" ILexical cxical l.exi al concept: concept: (FRAN .) Ii[FRANCE] RANIJ h. h. Vehicle: Vehicle: b. Vehicle: kickFINITE "NP ""NP P kic/.FI ITFI the l/of bucket" llllckfl" Lexical concept: concept: (AN IAN ANIMATE Lexical ANIMATE ENTITY rims] ENTITY OIFS) I ITY I)II'SJ c. Vehicle: c. Vehi Ie: "NP VERB NP NP NP" FINITE ""NP p FINITE F1 IT[ VERB P" NP" concept: (TIIIN(; '\kalal concept: IILexical exi concept: [THING X X THING TO RECEIVE THING 11 ITIIING x CAUSES CAl!\fS YTO TORF(F1VE Rf.(:fIVI THING TflIN(. I) AISES Till TIIiN,(.YY iJ I

PNP

to rna

on the floor

In the garage

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

phonetically impli implicit vehicles—akin tothe the notion notion of of aa formal formal idiom—such implicit phonetically it vehicks—akin vehid -akin to the of formal idiom—such id,om -such as I:INITE as to indicate FINITE to indicatea finite'.onstructjon, construction,e.g., e.g., the nature nature the tense aa finite ., II ITt to indicate fin"e construction. e.g .• the the nature of the tense ten of the

.

units 1ft ( raft •' For foraAreview F'C'\'tC'W(.( 1htoink ..-okof01frequency fuqU('ncyanInthe tMstorage II.r.. ~ of pf ymholk. unit. ruft aiid and tt NliIt (lOno4l. of the ruse11004). 12004). review of the role of frequency in the storage of symbolic units sec ('rift and Cruie • For a

ItIt is necessary to make make mention of of the the formatting formatting conventions I(will will he It Iis necessary nee "'ry to make mention mention of formatting conventions convention be I will be deploying deploying in the in the rest of the chapter, the book. hook. III use use italiu italics to represent represent of the and the the book. deployong in the rest rest of chapter. and and use repr... nt italics to a phonetically phonetically overt overtvehicle, vehicle,such such as as Ironce, France, the the bucket, or kick-this kick—this is akin to to aa phonetically overt vehicle. such as Frallct. t/o. buckft. or iis akin to !'utker, kick—this akin the the notion notion off the sub substantive idiom discussed distussed the notion ofthr tantiv idiom di II sed above. above.II use u", capitals capitals torepresent represent use capitals to to represent

this ntis to arigatit.res(iq&l (t9P7)tofltcnI content requ.rrrnenl. requirement This Inus Inshtikl% holds In Il.mpk1-· the mtJy only conti'," entities •• Th .. corresisonds ""rnMroptood In 'I~") lOntnu noqUtrmlml h...aJ, thu 1that .... 1 thtperinissthle within 0) phonologital, semantic. and sviiiholk within the the grAttlmar GSM (a) ph000ltI$kal, therelations relations J""mmabit Within Ih.: mm...... rt"! III to'1l.lnlk. ...and nd svnthiilk. *vmbl.h" units; urut . 12) U) the n::Lthvn unfis; z) the Ih.at theschemas schein.i+ th.ri~nlltw rrprevrntthose thoseunits. thathc.&d hok1hn~ betwrenthem; them;..intl and (j(3)the t ..... 1htmo nd (\1 Ihr hemal th.i, th.1 un II

v .. rnw

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

the tnly entitcs

________

*EPKISLNIATION LEXI LREPRESENTATION REPRESENTATION LEXICAL \L

9$

UNITS SYMIIOLU (?NITS -_ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _SYMBOLIC ~Y!:!.~'!"OllC

whkh are arcphonetphonctInvolved. or p.which which sland ror "nounphrase." phrase."Vehicles Vehlcl .which whi
13 For 1987)." Forinstance, instance, Goldberg(2.006: le.g.. Langacker 1..lI1gacker 107). 1987)." I'or in'lance.Goldberg (2006: 21) 11) observes ob.crvcs that thaIthe Ihe zi) observes that the utterance utterancegiven givenin in(6) (6)isiismade madeup upof ofall allthe thesymbolic symbolic (7): (6) made up of all the ymboli units unitsinin(7): (7): uller.nce (o) dozen roses, her dozen roses, Nina sent hermother! mother! (((i) />1 A A dOlen ro~.Nina inasent sent her mOl her!

iJ. Thi This symbolk unit, by by virtue of lexical IHLAN( the lexical lexical concept on epl IIIgloss glo as a (FRANCO. IFRAN el. ymbolic unit, unit. by virtue vinu of the concept gloss as This symbolic of phonetically overt schicle, is lexicallv filled. concepts con i ling of ofaa phonetically phonelically overt oven vehicle, vehi Ie. is i lexically lexically filled. filled. Lexical Lexi alconcepts con epls consisting lexical paired wilh with
of symbolic units Integration of symbolic symbolic units Integration of one On of my central cenlral c
This is an in I 1M ttul more det"llln detail in PAI'l Part III. Ill. in that I Will will ..&.trn. In h.iptet u. Thll 11 In PIIIILULI, p.lrtkuLu (( turltt in muR' IL 1111% Is All Issue that I will address in more detail in Part III in particular o :hapter d.~ .•and nJ simple Imllk versus \,('Ou, wmrtn k.II...l1 mnpkz and .iniple 4., km-4 ciittiples k1,.al kzical IL will be disiussed in more detail in WOI..t"pt WIU lw dl u'ilt'\l m ""''-II' dn'II In
.

""The open venus Iht dl IlIkllun httW'ft'n InI('r""lIy t'p
II

99 99

UNITS'-_-:t99~

(7) Ditransitive a. (;) a. a. Dilransilivesymbolic ymbolicunit unil l)itransitive symbolic unit Topicaliyation symbolic h. b. Topicali1A1l1on symboli unol symbolicunit unit VP symbolic unit (. VP symbolic ymbolic unit unil c. d. d. NPP symbolic symbolic unit d. ymboli unit unil Ce.. Indefinite Indefiniledeterminer delerminersymbolic symboli unil Indefinite determiner symlx)licunit unit f.f.1. Plural unit Plural symbolic unit unil g. do:en, rose, rose, Nina, g. dozen, send, mother doze". ro$l', Nina, Nilla. send, $l'lId. lIIollorr symbolic symbolic units unil mother units Of course, my concern concernin inthis thishook theway Of course, course, my my concern in this book isiiswith with the on whi hunits unitsof ofsemantic semanli wayin inwhich which units of semantic slrUctLlre—lCXiCal concepls-are structure—lexical concepts—arecombined combined in in order order 10 to concepts—are 'Inlcture--Iexical combined order prompl for for the Iheconcon to prompt prompt for the construction of simulations. simulations. Nevertheless, lC(M Theory Theory tikes ,Iruellon of of Imulalions.Nevertheless, evenhel.,LCCM 1.«M Theorytakes lakes from from constructional construcllonal constructional approaches the appruu.iuhes theperspective perspectivethat that symbolic symbolic approaches Ihe perspe
Summary In In this have provided provided a this chapter chapter 1I have have a brief overview of of In Ihi chapler Ihe nalure lructure of of brief overview of the the nature nature and and structure structure the symbolic unit, the symbolic symbolic unit, developedin in constructional constructional Ihe unil, as aas developed developed in onstruclional accounts a counl of of Ihe linguistic linguislic accounts ofthe the Iinguistk system in in LCCM Theory the symbolic system in cognitive cognitive linguistics. linguistics.. In 'y>lem
iii,',
S

SFMANTU STRUCTURE I01 SEMANTIC 101 _____------------------------____~,~E~I~A~N~~ STRU uR~e~__~l~o~l -

6

LeXICal concept Lexical (semantic pole pole of of

-

symbolIC unit) unll) symbolic

Semantic structure structure

encodes encodes'

~'

factlltates access to: facilitates facilitates access to:

"""-

JE

of the the nature This concerned with developing an account account Thi chapter icon erned with developing an a.,,?unt of of the nature nature of ooff is cOnl.Crned with developing This chapter chara ter of ofSesemantic tru ture. In In particular, parti ular. II examine exanlln. the distinctive dl tlnctlV< character semantic examine the the distinctive character of sesemantic structure. structure. particular. conceptual structure. InI.CCM l( Cs1 Theory manti "rudure. contrasting contra ting it with with conceptual con«ptual structure. ,tructur .In In lC M'I hemy mantic structure, Theory mantk structure, construct of the the of the semantic tructure iis mod lied in terms terms of of the theoretical theoretical construct con tru t of of tho semantic modelled semantic structure structure also lays laysthe thefoundation foundationfor for the the lexical Ie ical con ept. lIence. thi chapter chapter also also lay foundation the lexical lexical Hence, this this lexical concept. hence, concept. lexical parikular on wncept. foeu IIlg in m particular on the the kmd ofcontent that itititencodes. encode,. concept, On thekind kindof content that that encodes. concept. focusing focusing in particular lexical concepts have The main mak. in in this this chapter chapter isis that that lexical I xical concepts concept have have The main claim that III make claim that that make this chapter encodeinformation information that that can be bipartite structure. Firstly. biportit. tructur<. Firstly, Fir, tly. kxkal lexical concept information that can canbe be, bipartite lexicalconcepts concepts encode information of direttly encoded in. and externalized externali1ed via, via.language. language. Hence, lienee ••information nfornlatlon of oj directly encoded in, in and externalized via, language. Hence, directly encoded information I refer to as thi i unique unique to tolanguage. language.This Thi relatively relativelystable stable information informatIonI Irefer refertotoasa this sort is language. This relatively stable discussed linguistic (as Iingui tic content. content. In addition, addition.aaasubset ubset of oflexical Ie i al concepts concepts (as (a discussed di u~ linguistic content. In In addition, subset concepts which is is below) serves serves. act , sites ites to repr","ntation.1 i non-linguistic non-Iingui" il sites to a.1representational representational type which serves as access structure—modelled in terms terms the construct construct of the m natur eptual structure—modelled tructure--mod lied in term of of the con tru t of ofthe th in nature: conceptual in nature:: con in information encoded encoded by cognitive cognitive .ncoded,by cogniti\'e cognitIVe Th non-linguistic non-lingui tic information information cognitive mode!. model) model)I The The non-linguistic directly refer to to aas as conceptual conceptualcont .ontent. Content of this type not directly models refer nt. Content of this thl type tn" isis I not doret tl y models II refer content. not encoded i not not.n odedinin illlanguage. language. encoded concept • whi h iis to say say itItit is encoded by by lexical concepts, which encoded encoded by lexical kxicil concepts, language. Thus, hence vui via language. can beaccessed acee sed by by lexical lexical concepts1 con ept •and and hence VIn Thu • Rather Rather ititcan canbe accessed concepts, linguistic meansthat they encode lingui tic ,tnl ture of lexical le,,,al concepts conlCpts means means that they they encodt' fIlCO./f the bipartIte bipartite structure lexkal the bipartite conceptual to aa potentially potentially unlimited array content facihtatt access access to to potentially unlimited array array of of conceptual oncepwal facilitate content and and lacilirate This situation 4. Thi (ontent-the semanti potential di u sed in inChapter Chapter 4itualion is i, semantic potential discussed discussed Chapter content—the semantic .. summarizedin ligure summ.lmed in Figure I-igure6.1. 6.1. summariied 6.1. In Ih next nexl section, lion. which whi h synthesizes synlh Il and and bUIlds on byLeonard Leonard which synthesizes andbuilds buildson onwork workby by In the the section, Talmy 2000), laythe thefoundation foundation for for an account of semantic structure. lay Ihe foundalion foran anaccount a countof ofsemantic semanli structure. lru lure. TJlmy •. g.• 2000). Ta!my((e.g., (e.g., i000l, IIIlay of hi, approach to 10 semantic manll( representation, represenlalion. TaImy 'IJlmy Iwo level, of In semantic representation. Talmyargues arguesfor fortwo twolevels k'ds of In his his approach argues for representation facilitated schematic leveland andaaarich richlevel. level.After Afterr represenlalion fa ilitated by by language: language: a schematic hemati level level and rich levCparation separation of level of of representation represenlation in fact relates relales to the 1:,lmy\ Talmy's separationof oftwo twolevels levels representation in fact fact distinction linguistic content hand and conceptual Ih one onehand handand andconceptual cone plual di tinctIon between belween lie conlent distinction between lingui linguistic content on on the the one examine the distinction I sections 1 examine the distinction contenl the other. other. InIn Insubsequent ,ubsequenl sct.tions section I examine the di lin tion content on the content other. subsequent and conceptual content in detail, detail, as well as the basis for belween Iingul\I" and conceplual wntcnl detail ... well as ., the Ihe basis ha, i for ,for between linguistic and conceptual content in as well between examination of of the distinct distinct the di distinction. present fairly detailed examination Ih tinction. Finally, l'inally.IIIpresent present aaa fairly fairly detailed delalled exammatlon ofthe dlStln" distinction. linally, concept. argue that the the lexical IYflCS Iingui"i content.n oded by by the lexi al concept. con cpt. II argue argue that Ihat Ihe types of of linguistic linguistic content encoded content encoded types of

linQuistic JongUIStoc linguistic content (semantic structure) (semantIC (semantic structure)

content conceptual content contenl structure) (conceptual structure) structure)

Ihe IFii;tTRE U.\ 'RI Rf tu. blPUlllt Iru4.lurtofofaaalexical luiulconcept umctpt 6.1.The Thebipartite bipartitestructure structure lexical concept Iu(,L

kxic.il concept can be best best thought thought of of as asaaa bundle bundle of difterent lexical concept can lexical anIN: be thought as bundl. of different different types tYflCS of of types hngui\tk (ontent. linguistic linguistic content.

Rich versus versusschematic schematic content content Rich

II

language the According Talmy (2000) central design d ign feature feature of of language languag. isiisthat that the the According to to Talmy Talmy(zooo) (2000) aaa central central design conceptsexpressed expressed aredivided dividedinto intotwo two subsystems. subsystems. Aswe wefirst firstt saw saw in concepts wncept expr sed are divided into two subsy.tem . As As we fir saw in Chapter z Talmy this in terms the 2, Tal my characterizes characleri= what he he refers refer to 10 as a the the (Chapter hapler 2, Talmy characterizesthis thisin in ternls terms of of what what he as grammatical two serve ub ystem and and I xical subsystem. ubsy tem. These Th twosubsystems ub ystem serve serve grammaticalsubsystem subsystem andlexical lexical subsystem. These two subsystems express theexperiential experientialcomplex—what complex—what Talmyrefers rckrs to to as as the to express expr, the the experiential complex. -whal Talmy Talmy refer a the th cognitive cognitive 'I hat aa speaker speaker attempts in Ih listener by virtue of of represent.tion representation—that representation—that attempts to to evoke evokein inthe thelistener listenerby byvirtue of attempts deploying concepts expressed the grammatical del'l ying language. language. The range rang of ofconcepts con .pt expressed .xpr~ by bythe thegrammatical grammatical deploying subsystem highlyrestricted cross-linguistically, providing aa basic ,ub ystem is i ishighly highly rrestricted lri ted cross-linguistically, ero -Iingui, tically. providing providing basi frameframebask framesubsystem work for the the structuring of the experiential complex language work for Ihe structuring strucluringof ofthe Iheexperiential experientialcomplex (omplexthat thailanguage languageusers usersseek seek evoke their 10 evoke evok. in in their their interlocutors. interlocutor.Put Putanother anotherway, way.the thelexical lexi .1concepts conerpt associas ito interlocutors. Put another way, the lexical concepts associub, ystem have hav schematic content providingaaa ated wilh the the grammatical grammatical subsystem ned with have schematiccontent, content,. providing providing ated with the grammatical subsystem ,tru(tunng functi n. Ihus, Thu the • the th lexical lexi alconcepts concepts with WIthschematic hemali content (onlentpropro, structuring content prostructuring function. function. Thus, lexical concepts with schematic side "scaffolding" SO so speak, aero acrosswhich whichthe therich content associated associated with VIde aa "scaffoldins" ririch h content content as iated with with vide "scaffolding" so to speak. speak, across the lexkal concepts of of the the lexical lexical subsystem subs canbe bedraped. In lex; al concepts of Ihe ub ystem tem can draped. In Incontradistincontradi tin· the lexical IiuU associated with so-called lexical subsysto this, thi •the thelexical lexicalconcepts concepl associated associated with withthe theso-called so-calledlexical lexi(alsubsyssub y" tion to lexical concepts tem lem provide provid rich rich content, content. giving ri to thedetails detail (rather (ralherthan thanstructural tructural tern provide giving rise rise to the the details (rather than structural aspects)of ofthe thecognitive cognitive representation. lalmy expresses of th cognitive representation. representation. Talmy Talmy expresses this Ihi. idea in th aspects) expresses thisidea ideain in the the following way:

.'pect )

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

(Tiilmv (hlmy 21). Talmy 2000: 21). (onceptual structure

i,i

the

subiet of Chapter

1)2 102

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

SEMANTIC SEMANTICSTRUCTURE sIRUCTURE TRUCTURE

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

102

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

Animportant important aspect ofTalmy's lalmy's work work is the thatthe the An important aspect a pe
A".f

-

vehicles ( 'Iosed-class vehicles

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

J

J

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

.er er

the the.'

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

-

-

-

103

eu. LAMEht. I ~I . Schematic St:helll.llltcontent lOn1tnl.1 "".,ltaJwith Withclosed-class dc)~ ·d vehicles w:hld co,lt'nt associated associated with closed-class vchkks

flOUfl,verb, verb,adjective, adjective,and adverb. noun. verb. adjective. andadverb. adverb. noun, the concepts expressed closed-class vehiclesencode While the ron",ptsexpressed expressed by byclosed-class dosed -cia vehicles vehicles encodeschematic schematicconcon. conWhile tent, they they are ttre nevertheless essentialfor brthe expression ofthe the cognitive representent. are nevertheless neverth I - essential essential for the expression expr ionofof th cognitive cognitiverepresenrep' n tent, To make make this point point the following following analysis of the tation. To make this point clear, dear. consider followingsemantic semanticanalysis analy is of ofthe the tation. clear, consider the semantic rangeof of openopen-and andclosed-class closed-class elements which comprise the utterance in(1): (1: range open and closed -de elements elements which comprise the utterance (I): range of which comprise the utterance inin

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

103

lexical class: noun (for kxial dass: (for waiter/customer) Inka) d .flOUfl (for M'mlfTkwto",") grammatical relation: ltrJmmalll..J) relation : subject ubja:1 (for (for relation: subject (for wast(r) wflIttr) waiter) grammatital object gr.immatkal relation: relation: oh, gr.mUllJlical rdoltion: ohj It (for (for customers) c" tomm)

.Itivt' \oic~ active voice through oIdl\'t voice(Clhrough (through

verb nrb verb form) form)

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

Introduces Inlroduc aareferent ref~rent which Ihehearer hearerisiis Introduces referent which the the hearer held held tto be be unable readily identity hold to btunable unabletotoreadily readilyidentify idenllfy (from context or preceding discourse) (from distourse) (from Context con lUI or or preceding pra:rdlOg di ounc) Designates a unitary instantiation of the l)csignates a unitary instantiation ign.lI 01 uOItuy 10 lantialion ot ofthe the referent referent rd rent Introduces Inlrodu(t\ aaoJ referent reftrent which thchearer hc.u risIS Introduces referent which the the hearer is held to be able to readily identify (from hdd to held to be bt able .ble to readily readIly identify Identify (from context or preceding discourse) context or conlext or preceding prrctdlOg discourse) di5(.ou~) Designates l)esignates multipleinstantiations instantiations ofaaa ( Ign.11 multiple mul1lplc in I01ntiJlion of of referent rc~ renl referent Designates Designates perfornwr of of Designat performer perform« ofaaparticular parllcular particular action or activity action adion or activity oU1Ivily Designates as an event (as I)esignates entity entity as an (~ignJt enllty.J~ an event n'cnl (as (as one one possibility) po ,b,loty) possibility) Designates as Designates entity as Designates entity entlly as an obi«t (as (a one one an object ohiect (as one possibility) I"',,;h,loty) possibility) Designates Do,snat enllty aasbeing btlllg the primary or Designatesentity entity as beingthe theprimary or focal in a designated relationship focalI entity entity in a designated relationship entity in a d ignat
r.

I AI' ABI FF6.1. 6.2. Rich 6.2. Rich conlent content a associated open-class 1TABLE Rl(h Content associated with open-class i;;utd with optn -cia vehicles

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

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

(2) thecustomers (listOUU'l'S A waiter wmlcr cn'
Walter waiter "'.lIlec

While uHerance (2) IIlvolves exactly exactly the the same same closed-class closed-cla~ elements, element. elements, Whilethe the utterance utterance in in (2) (2) involves involves the same closed-class and hence schematic and the cognitive cognitive representation representation evoked evoked by hy (t), the cognitive and hence hence schemati schematiccontent content aas as (I). (0, the representation evoked by (.!) radically different.According Atording to (2) iis radically radi ally different. Talmy. thi, beeau", the the content content content (2) is different. According to Talmy, Talmy,this thisisi~ isbecause because the evoked evoked "ieal subsystem—the ub,y tem-the example (2) involv different open evoked by bythe theIlexical lexical subsystem—the examplein in(2) (z) involves involves different differentOpeflopenclass vehicles from the example cia vehi I .. from the exam 1' 1 in (I) involves different than (i)—involves very ditlerent content class vehicles from the example in (t )—involves very different content than than that associated with schematic shematic that ""-iated with encoded hy the theclosed-cLiss d,,\Cd ·d.l vehicles. vchlll . thata associated with schematic content contentencoded encoded by by the closed-class vehicles. The lexical ub y tem relates relat totothings. thlllg •peoples people. place. of events, properties of Thelexical lexicalsubsystem subsystem relatesto things, people,places, places, events. events, propertIes properties of things, and so on. The grammatical subsystem thing. 50 The grammatical suhsystem on the other hand r lat the other hand relates to things, and so on. The grammatical subsystem on the other hand relates to content having to do with topologial of spate (onlt'nt topologi,~l1 3\J>C1..:1. time. and numher aspectsof of \Jl.U:C, space,time, time, and and ntiiiiher number topologicalaspects contenthaVing having10 to do do with with (discussed in further detail below), whether a pice of information (di U'sed III further detail below). wheth r a piece of IIlfomlation is is old piece of information isold old or or (discussed in further detail below), whether a

Serve

-".

ustomer UstOflier lU tOI11("'

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

new,and and whether whether the the speaker speaker iis providing providing information and new. th 'peaker info rmation or or requesting requesting informforinformation requesting information and mation and so on, as illustrated by (3) in which information is being so on, mation and 50 on. as illustrated illu trat
customers? soled the (3) Which waiter Which seried CUstOmers' (3) Which wajfrr waolcr tn'
104 .04 1 04

LEXICAl LEXI 'AL REPRISENTATION REPRESENTATION

-

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

•Fhe closed-class .. vehicles have discussed Ihu thus far have Theclosed-class do!>Ctl·da hid",I IIhave ha'ediscussed di"u\!>CtI haveanan overlphonetic phonelle .inovert overt phonetic The vehicles thus tar have realization. 1I0wever. ea eachh of Ihe examples exampl discussed di -ussed also alcnl present aa ThImy-style analysis in order 10 illustrate Tables 6.• and lalmY·Slyle analr i .n illu!>lralethe Ihe the Tables 6.1 and 6.2 present a Talmy-style analysis in order totoillustrate distinction in hemalic versus versu rich content. Onlenl. The The tables lables are are based based on Ihe dislinCl.on in schematic onthe the distinction in schematic versus rich content. The tables are based on example ex.impk in (2). (2). example As is is in evident from aa comparison As evidenl from compari;on of of "[abies and 6.2, 6.2. there Ihere is i, aaaclear dcar l'abks 6'.i.• and clear there is and 6.2, As is evident from a comparison of Tables 6.1 distinction between conlenl associated associated with with closed"er;u dislinction belw n the nature nalure off th thecontent content closed-versus versus distinction between the nature of the associated with closedopen-class vehicles.While Whik the open-clas \'Chicles. Ihe number numberof ofclosed-class c1osed·c1 vehi les required 10 evoke 'oke vehicles requiredto to open-class vehicles. While the number of closed-class vehicles required evoke the experiential complex designated by Ihc experienlial complex d"'ignaled by (2) are more more numerous, numerous, they Ihey relate rela le to 10 (i) are they relate to arc more numerous, the experiential complex designated by (2) structural aspects of the scene, and serve to relate different lructural a pect of Ihe <eene. and rYe 10 relate differenl aspects of th aspectsofofthe the structural aspects of the scene, and serve to relate different aspects COGNITIVE REPRESENTATION: COGNITIVE COGNITIVE REPRESENTATION:

expeflential complex evoked The expenenbal The experiential complex evoked by language

[

GRAMMATICAl. SUBSYSTEM

GRAMMATICAL SUBSYSTEM dehneates structural propert.es dellneales slructural properties delineates structural properties the COOllllwe cognitive represenlabon of !he representation

of the cognitive representation

by language

LEXICAL. LEXICAl LEXICAL

SUBSYSTEM SUBSYSTEM

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

CLOSED-CLASS ELEMENTS Cl.OSED-CI.ASS ELEM NTS

CLOSED-CLASS ELEMENTS associated with SChemahc schematic aSSOClaled Wllh associated with schematic content conlenl

content

OPEN-CI.ASS OPEN-CLASSELEMENTS ELEMENTS

associated Wllh neh conlenl assoc.aled associated with withrich richcontent content

of the in the he.l'.' 6.2. 6.2. The rht' bifurcation hifun.•l1IHn In Iht' f"pro. Ion nf Iht' &ognitive U)~nHI"(, rrprnenl.ttlOn 10 IA, .1 'RE 6.2. The bifurcation in the expression of the tognitive representation inIn language I,JOguoige language

STRUCTURE I l( STRL( I LIRE __ ----------____________SEMANTIC ~~~~~~~~ __~.o~s 105 los

cognitive vehicles, but the representation. contrast, thereare arefewer feweropen-class .,,!!nill'lance. hape. siu. concerning substance, shape, size, and so forth. This distinction is summarized in Figure 6.2. 1iiid 0,(' 54)fonh. forth.Thi Thisdidistinction ,,,1<1 linaion is i summarized ummarizcd in in Figure Figure 6.2.

Recasting Recasting thedistinction distinctionbetween betweenrich Recasting the the distinction richversus versusschematic schematic versus schematic content LCCM terms contentinin inLCCM LCCM terms Having rich content, ing considered considered Talmy's distinction distinction 11.1\ IIlg con .deredTalmy's Talmy's di IInclionbetween hemalicversus versu betweenschematic schematic versus rich rich conl~nl. content, II now address the way in which this insight is recast by LCCM Theory. now address addressIhe theway wayininwhich which Ihis this in insight nnw ighl js i recast recasl by I.I.e .M1 Theory. Theory.As Aswe we .\s 2, LCCM Theory makes a principled distinction between saw in Chapter ( I ( M Theory '-1\\ in in Chapter Chapler 1, l.eeM Theory make a principled principled distinction dislinclionbetween belween makes a semantic structure on one hand, and conceptual structure on the structure on on one 'tlry systems y;lems Ihal informalion relating relaling to 10 the Ihe to the external environment and the human individuals' interaction with the envireternal environment and the human human individual' individuals' interaction interaction with wilh the Ihe envir envire, lerna I environ men I and Ihe onment—as well as proprioception—the systems that recruit information onment_as well as pruprioception_the nnmenl -as well a prol'rioceplion -Ih~ systems ,y\lem, that Ihal recruit rccruil information infonnalion relatthg to the relating to the motor aspects of the body's own functioning—and motor .'IX'<.ls of of the rclalmg 10 Ihe 1Il01l)r Ihe hodvs body' own functioning—and funllioning-and subjective subjeclive subjective experience—which includes experiences ranging from emotions, temporal experience__which nperien c--which includes in ludes experiences experienc ranging lemporal ranging from emolion,. emotions, temporal and other and other cognitive states, to the visceral sense (see liarsalou 1999). Concepcognitive states, to the Jnd mher cognilive Sial"'. 10 Ihe visceral vi eral \cn sense (\CC (see Bar",lou Barsalou '999). 1999). ('..oncepConceptLIJl content tualconlenl content prov.des provides records records of of perceptual states, in the sense just provides of lual record, perceplual \1.1 • in Ihe sen..., jusl given. perceptual states, in the sense just given. given. Accordingly, analogue in incharacter. character.That Thatis, conceptual conlenl content encodes encodes (Cordingly. iliti,isanalogu~ character. Thai iis, • conceptual conceplual content encodes information informationthat that parallels parallelsIhe the multimodal body-based (perceptual, themuhimodal multimotjil body-based .nfonnalion Ihal parallels body·ba<ed (perceplual. motoric, mOloric. (perceptual, motoric, subjective, etc.) experience that it constitutes a representation of. 2 As such. such, etc.) experience that con Inul aa representation repTl'SCnlalion of.2 of.1 As ub,edi,'c. elc.) Ihal il it constitutes As such, conceptual conceptualstructure structure notsuitable suitable for forbeing beingencoded encoded in language. all, not conceplual Iruaur~ isisnOI suilable for being en oded in languag~. After After all. language. Alter all, language language as a representational system consisting of symbolic units is simply as a y,lem cO",isling of symbolic units uni" is i simply ,imply language a, a rel'rC>Cnlal.onal system consisting of flOt equipped not equipped to directly encode the rich, multimodal character of senseto directly nUl equipped 10 dlrcclly encode ~ncodc the Ihe rich, rich. multiinodiJ muhm,odal character charJller of of sen sense-_ perceptory andsubjective subjective experience.While Whilelexical lexicalcon concepts do nol not encod encode lerceptory and and ubjcchv experience. lexical epl do perceplory experience. While concepts do not encode multimodalinformation information of this this sort, sort, as as suggested in in Part IIof of thebook hook Ihey they do do 'nultimodal muhimodal informal ion of of Ihis '>t,n. as ,ugge\led suggested in I'ar! Part I of Ihe the they do provide provided((C access10 to(Olltent contentof of this this sort. sort. provide thi, ,orl. access to content of contrast, schematiccontent contentdiscussed InIncontrast, byTalmy Talmyis notan ananalogu analogue In COnira I. the Ihtheschematic cOnlenl didiscussed ussed by i isnot nOI an analogue representation representationof ofmulti multimodal experience. Rather, it rcpre represents anJh,trdl.tion abstraction modal experience. representation muhimod.11 cxpericn( . Rather, R.:lthcr, cnl an an it represents ract ion the mult onceptual contentiiis not an exact record statesth.at that arc captured. Rather. it is ofofthethc rnuhnnodai %latcs , (.(In..q'tu.d (.onlml u. nut .In n.a...1 r«unJ (.1 mUhlll14oJ..J t.ln that Art' art urtuk'd IYthrr. itII ._ is rewhat attenuated. See Barsalou i t999) for dis.ussion. "mcwhat .illenuiicd. Scr Hjrsalou ·rnrwtut ,mmWlh"\J ~ B..ruktu (I"",) Inr dl WQon for .14 )

SEMANTI(. sTRU(:TukE SEMANTIC STRUCTURE

REPRESENTATION ILEXICAL EXI( At RI!PRESI NTATION

106 io6

over multiniodal multimodal content content of of various various sorts, sorts, provided providedin inaa form that can be over of this this kind kind directly encoded encoded in in language, language, i.e., i.e., by kxk.Il lexicalconcepts. concepts. Content Content of directly part of of the the forms part constituteswhat whatI I refer refer to as linguistic and forms content, and linguistic content, information encoded encoded by by a a lexical concept. information of the the cognitive cognitive While the distinction between rich rich and and schematic aspects of representationprovides providesevidence evidence for for the the distinction distinction in in linguistic and conceprcprescntatli)tl tual content content just just outlined, outlined, the distinction in in open-class open-c Lissand andclosed-class closed-class tual the distinction vehicles provides provides evidence evidence for foraaclosely closely related related distinction in the nature nature of vehicles typesprovides provides the associated associated lexical concepts. concepts.'3 The The distinction distinction in in vehicle types the (Josed-class evidence that lexical concepts distinctcategories. Closed-class concepts fall tall into into two two distinct which are are specialized specialized for for encodencodvehicles are vehicles are associated associated with with lexical lexical concepts concepts which ing linguistic content. Lexical concepts of this sort I refer to as closed-class I refer to .is closed-class content. Lexical concepts of ing Open-class vehicles, vehicles, while while also also encoding linguistic linguistic content, content, lexical concepts. Open-class lexical arc, in in addition, addition, specialized specialized for for serving serving as as access accesssites sitesto toconceptual conceptualcontent. content. arc, concepts(if of this this sort sort II refer referto toas as open-class open-class lexical lexical concepts. ILexical exical concepts In sum, sum, the the distinction distinction between lexicalconcepts conceptsversus versusclosedclosedIn between open-class open classlexical class lexical lexical concepts embodies the lexical concepts the bipartite organization of lexical concepts class introduced at at the the outset outsetof ofthe thechapter, chapter,asascaptured capturedininFigure ligure6.3. 6.3.To loreiterate, reiterate, encode linguistic content, I hypothesize I hypothesiie while concepts encode linguistic while both both types typesof oflexical kxkil concepts afford access that access to to conceptual content. The that only open-class lexical lexical concepts concepts afford distinction between and "afford "afford access" access" is critical distinction between"encode" "encode and critical here. here. Linguistic Linguistic content is encoded encoded by by lexical lexical concepts preciselybecause becausethis thisisisthe thecontent content content is s.oncepts precisely which makes up lexical lexical concepts. concepts. However, However,conceptual conceptualcontent, content,as aswe wehave have begun see above, above, and as we will md .is will see seein inmore more detail detail in in the the next next section, is begun to to see associated with cognitive model, with aa different different representational representational type, the cognitive model,which whichisis non-linguistic non-linguistic in in nature. nature. Thus, Thus, conceptual conceptual content content isisnot notdirectly directlyencoded encodedinin language, although the linguistic system has developed developed the the means means to to access access

kcy terms terms in in 1.CCM it M Theory of key Theory rAst t 6.3. A summary of icrm

paired with closed-class vehicle vehde

encodes encodes linguistic content content

paired with wth open-class vehicle vehde

provides access access site sde to to conceptual conceptual content cor4ent

associated with FIGURE distinction in in content content associated with lexical lexicalconcepts concepts FIGURF6.3. i.;. The The distinction

thethr .1%uktJ1ed lexeLAI whichNcrve ..t•flt•is.1%veht, le, tut101 h is %%inbuilt unéu kxical wish Air irc nhidc made up up01 ol forms fiirrnswhich Recall tthat ,orkepts corn eI't

ICs&flptiofl Description

The comprising aa language, language, The collection collection of Ofsymbolic symbolic Units units comprising and and the the various various relationships relationships holding holding between between them. them. Ic A conventional pairing of a phonological form or A conventional pairing of a phonological form or vehk vehicle tivnibolic unit and and aa semantic semantic element. element. The The semantic element that that is is paired paired with with aa phonologicai phonological semantic element Ilexical concept unit. a svniholi vehicle in vehicle in a symbolic unit. 1 he typcofofcontent contentencoded encodedbybya alexical kxkalconcept. oncept. 1This his content The type iiigulstiC Linguistic bedirectly directly content a highly highly schematic schematic type type that that can be content is is of of a encoded encoded in in language. language. knowledgecaptured captured from from The eptual system The body body of of non-linguistic knowledge Conceptual system multimodal derives from from multimodal experience. experience. This This knowledge knowledge derives sensory-motor experience, proprioception, propnoceptson, and and sensory-motor experience, subjective experience. subjective experience. The in the the ognitive model The representational representational form form that that knowledge knowledge in .ognitive conceptual system takes, as modelled in l.( (Ni Theory. Theory. conceptual system takes, as modelled in LCCM Consists ol frames frames which give rise rise to to aa potentially potentially Consists of which give unlimited set simulations. unlimited set of of simulations. knowledge encoded encoded by by aa cognitive cognitive The nature (it ( :oI'keptual ► nceptual content The nature of the the knowledge model. model. The primary substrate linguistically mediated mediated representation inital representation The primary substrate deployed deployed in in linguistically meaning construction, and and modelled modelled in in terms terms of of meaning construction, symbolic units units and and cognitive models. cognitive models. symbolic Thesemantic semantic dimension dimension of representations, Semantic represefltatK)fl Semanti. representation The of lexical lexical representations, consisting of semantic structure and conceptualstructure. structure. consisting of semantic structure and conceptual That part part of representation encoded encoded by by the the Semantic structure structure Semantic That of semantic semantic representation linguistic system. system. Semantic Semanticstructure structure is is modelled, modelled,in in linguistic system L i ngu ist k.svStCffl

1

•

I

structure Conceptual structure

LEXICAL LEXICAL CONCEPT CONCEPT

107 107

-

by lexical IA CM llieory, LCCM Theory, by lexical concepts. That part part of the semantic semantic representation representation encoded encodedby bythe the That of the conceptual system. (ionccptual structure is modelled, in conceptual system. Conceptual structure is modelled, in L( CM Theory, models. LCCM Theory, by by cognitive cognitive models.

conceptual content content via via association associationareas, areas,discussed discussed in in more more detail detail in in Chapter Chapter conceptual lu. Table Table 6.3 provides a summary summary of the way way some someofofthe thekey keyterms termsintroduced introduced to. provides a of the so far arc used in i( ( M Theory. so far are used in LCCM Theory. Before concluding of the the important to Before concluding this thissection, section,itit is is important to spell spell out out one of consequences of of the the distinction distinction between between lexical lexicalconcepts conceptstypes typesidentified. identified. consequences As pointed pointed out thebifurcation bifurcationbetween betweenopenopen-and andclosedclosedout by by Croft Croft (2007), As (l0°7), the classvehicles vehiclesand andhence hencethe thecontent contentversus versusstructuring structuringdistinction, distinction,as.Isprepreclass sented by byTalmy, Talmy,isisproblematic problematicififwe weassume assumethat thatthere thereisisa asharp sharp distinction distinction sented vehicles. Rather, Rather, the between openbetween open-and and closed-class closed classvehicles. between the distinction between the lexical lexicaland andgrammatical grammaticalsubsystems subsystemsshould shouldbebethought thoughtof ofmore moreas asaa the

108 io$ 108

SEMANTIC TRUCTUR£ SEMANTU SEMANTIC STRUCTURE

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION LEXI AL REPRE ENTATION LEXICAL

distinction continuum.' Hence, while while IImake make sharp distinctionbetween between dosed- and
The distinction distinction between between linguistic The linguistic The distinction content and conceptual conceptual content conceptual content and In order orderto toobtain obtainaaamore moredetailed detailedsense sense of the between thenature natur In order to obt.1II thr distinction di~tinetion between between the nature of linguistic and conceptual content, consider the expression given in (4): consider expression given in oflinguistic the (4): of Linguistic and conceptual content. content, (4) (4)

• a

a

a red red ball in the the aa th box box red ball ball in

",,/1,

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

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

<..

of th the o lupter thelexicon-grammar continuuminIn int. l(:haptcr L FIFor 4 ,",," ..II the t~ dissussion d. u ton of t)1 lht kkzston-gr.immar lI.un ar"mnu.r continuum ulnlmuum h.ar1tr 11. urr shwussion dl UtUOn of (II Iht ofthe Recall e for it setnature of the t. ontinnum holding open vehicles some reasons (or vehideiand RltUrT huk!.n, hc1:Wft1l .00 dnwd nhtdt\ andsom l~ reason. ~~~un relr itItsee W"t holding between between (Ipm open-and anddosed-class nature (If of thtthe I..onttnuum continuum

t(.mlnrr ;mum and I. (.cntner (2001). and I3orodstsky MiBoroditskv Ilun-.llw..y (loot (lOOt) di.. ussion has grammatkalilation: ''lklnf The theevolution evolutionof ni of Krainmatitaliiatnm: forthe theproses. of,.I IIneda u Inh.&.lml''' lion for furthtJ'n... .... mm.IK.&huleon the tMC"Vt.luilunl" has unplk awns 11wforegoing foregoing class vehicles and lexical c oncepts. It has md kxical slosed - Class concepts. iiIt ~been been we0 tilt% rrpm upon and from open-cLiss dOlnl ~la. vehicles ,ch ... ,".nd kll~.1cork ""'IlLCVt Ilrm 4..Uu \('hl..Jn .100 lux-.alI.."lkcrt b«nwell wdI doecd-djss andlexical of documented theloss involveswhat whathas hasbeen beentermed tcrmcdsemantic '.mantst bleaching: dc"urnmtnJ tNt grammaricalisarion ,r.amm.ttl.. .I1W11Iun involves IOwl ",holt tw. '-"«n Inmrd wmanhc blnchina: the ttl< ... ofof documentedthat that to the rush ur sontentful aspe4ts of semantic representation. as vein. les es olve from being openaccess evolve from being open Ok ~ 1 t.lwman111.. rcrrncDl.l1lnno" or u'n1~"'tlul contentlul aspeits of wnunftc reprrieflt.it1°fl. as VchK~ nl,I\'(' In.m ht-Inll t'l1iftl ascss Id to 1M the rk.hh nr Iheory. gramn t$4.IIl141ft,fl rcsults th'th al... of ,,1 lC "( I St I 'rht~lry how.. wampum's-di/4mm results 1144th \1.1. toh' l,,-,nat.Dosed-.lass. d..tr\J \u From Ifrom Runthe dwoperspettor f""' I II\~ ut "..mnliltk.
•

-

"JU

dia

109 Ul9 109

can he heprompted prompted for for ",tclU. As \uSOCi.ted le~ lexical associatedwith with thevehi the vehicles class lexical lexical concepts concepts suPPER I and lexical concepts, concepts, designating ,I'pprr these lexical oncepts, designating dipper and champagne respectively. respectively. Both Both these these and c/Jampaglle slipper physicalentlti entities, relateto to the thedomain domain of of space. sptce. so doing,they they facilitate ph)",ical • relate of pace. In In so sodoing, theyfacilitate fa ilitatr physical entities, relate to the domain relates to knOW(si IPPFRJ Jiccess .. e ,to complex conceptual content.I SLI IsIIPP' inMance. relates rd.tes to to knowtocomplex complexconceptual conceptualcontent. for instance, knowPPERRII for access to ledgehaving havingto to do dowith with aa type type ot footwear, worn in restricted context ledge do with. typeof offootwear, footwear, worn worn in inaaarestricted restri ted context context ledge having to and typically, typically, is based on of theday. day. Such Su h knowledge knowledge is i based based on Jnd typically, at at particular times times and at particular particular timesof ofthe the day. Such knowledge personal experiencesthat is, i is, •experience experience which i personal per",n.1 Jh tr.cting acro. abstracting acrossepi'>Odic episodicexperiences—that experiences—that experience whihisis abstracting across episodic which md situated, situated, including personal observation—as well well as cultural experience— experience— and ituated. including including per n.lobscrvation-a wellas ascultural cultural e perienceand personal observation—as knowledge gleaned through through narrative, narrative, knowledge knowledge gleaned through narrativ. story, tory. and and so on. As A such, uch, knowledge knowledge knowledge gleaned story, andso so on. on. As such, (II thi sort ~rt is i~ extremely extremelyrich III nature, nature. and and hence hene< is is conc ptual-that is, i , nonof this this sort is rich in is conceptual—that conceptual—that is, non of in nature, and hence lingui tic-innature. natur.Similarly, imilarly.the thelexical lexicalconcept conceptLCHAMPAGNEI, ICHAMPAGNE). relates relates to linguistic—in to !CHAMPAGNE', linguistic—in nature. Similarly, the lexical concept relates concerning an an alcoholic beverage, of part icular type, type, served and ofaaaparticular particular type,served rvedand and knowledge concerning concerning an alcoholic alcoholi beverage, beverage.of knowledge drunk in III a particul.rway, w.y. for forparticular particularreasons, reason. and and in IIIparticular particularvenues. venu .. particular reasons, and in particular venues. drunk in a• particular particular way, for ~lIniiariy. thi of knowledg constitutes constitutesconceptual conceptualcontent. content. Similarly, this conceptual content. Similarly, this sort sort of of knowledge knowledge constitutes onicpts also also encode linguistic content. For In addition. both both lexical le.ical concepts concept also encode en ode linguistic linguistic content. content.For For In In addition, addition, both lexical ., hall see sec below, below. they are both nominal lexical lexi .1concepts, can epts. in'tance. and Instance, and as is we shall see below,they theyare areboth both nominal nominal lexical instance, and we shall concepts, entity whichisis whICh mean they they thing(cf. (d.Langacker Langaeker19871—an 1987)-3n entity which i which means means theyrefer refer to to aaathing thing (cf. Langacker 1987)—an which Langacker's terms)— III some conceptual domain Langa ker' terms)— term )held to to relate to a•a region region relate to region in in some someconceptual conceptualdomain domain( (in held in Langacker's r.ther than encoding ncodlllg aaarelation, relation •• nd hence henc constituting constituting rel.tionallexical lexical rather than than encoding relation, and hence constitutingaarelational relational lexical rather and concept.This This distinction distinction isi discussed discussed later. Thi di tin lionis di ussedlater. later. concept. Moreover,both both 'SLIPPER! IslippEki aspects Moreover. both IsIIPPfR)and andI(IIAMPA6NI-I (UIA IP"';NI)encode encode different different. peet of of Moreover, and ICIIAMI•AGNE1 encode different aspects iooo).Plexity I'kxity the the category plexity plexity (Talmy ('IJlmy woo). 20()(»). 1'leXltyisisiaa•category c.tegorythat thatrelates rdat (C) th the category category the category that relates totothe although as is and domain ofboth 11M •• nd SPACE, \PA( l. although although a~ it con
110 no

SEMANTIC 5IKUt TIRE SEMANTIC STRUCTURE

ILEXICAL I-Xl(AI REPRESENTATION

the plural plural undergo integration [SLIPPER] can undergo t,ict that thit (SI IPPEKI can integration with the comes from the fact tomes contrast, In contrast, slippers. In asin inslippers. vchkk -s, -s, as lexical concept concept as encoded lexical encoded by by the the vehicle that itit HAMPAGNEIencodes encodesmultiplex multiplex structure, structure, evidenced by the fact that IcliAMPAGNEI

k

in other other words, words,the the cannot be he integrated lexical concept. In integrated with with the plural plural lexical determines, nature of of the the plexity plexity encoded by each each of of these theselexical lexical concepts conceptsdetermines, nature undergo other lexical lexical concepts conceptswith with which which they they can canundergo in parts part, the the range range of in of other integration.

assoaated Now let's ion of the lexical concepts concepts associated Now lets turn turn to to aa brief brief consideration thi% Returning to our example example in in (4), (.). above, with closed-class vehicles. vehicles. Returning above, this with arc associated assodated with with the the lexical lexical the, which are s, in, in, and the, includes the vehicles: a, IHEI respectively. here, briefly, briefly, on respectively. II focus here, [AI, [ENCLOSURE], and [THE) concepts (AJ, In fact, we in. In associated with in. [ENCLOSURE] the lexical lexical concept I ostREJ associated one of these, the concept LENt

ihapter.6 disk ussionwhich whichfollows followsin in aalater later chapter.' need, at need, at this this point, point, to anticipate a discussion NCL0SUREJ enenlexical concept concept It(ENCLOSURE] Firstly,itit is is important important to to note note that the lexical Firstly, highlyschematic schematicspatial spatialinforinforcodes codeslinguistic linguist it.content. content.That Thatis, is,ititprovides provideshighly to size or distance, provide precise precise geometric geometric details relating to mation: it it fails In to provide shape or substance. This refer to as as being being magnitude-, magnitude-, shape-, shape- and and subsubshape or substance. This II refer below. This This next section, section, below. the next stance-neutral—to be be discussed discussedinindetail detailinin the entity,the theFigure Figure lexical concept specifies between one lesical specifies aarelationship relationship holding holding between oneentity, followingTyler Tyler and and Evans bans (2003) as aa (F), and aa second (2oo3) as secondentity entitywhich whichII refer refer to, to. following

specificsthat that aa bounded landmark.' landmark.7 The The lexical lexical concept conceptIENct.osuREI lENt I(15UREJ specifies boundary, bounded houndedlandmark landmarkmust musthave havethe thestructural strutural properties propertiesinterior, interior, boundary, landmark (LM), (LM), such and exterior, and that the F must be such he smaller smaller than than the the landmark However,beyond beyondthis thisschematic schematictopological topological that the L.M LM encloses encloses the that the the E However, theprecise precise information specifies no information itit specifies noperceptual perceptualinformation informationrelating relatingto tothe spatialrelationship, relationship, for for example1 nature of the FI or example, or LM, LM, nor to the precise precisespatial there must be belocated, located,whether whether there in terms of where, where, in in the the bounded bounded LM, I NI, the theFI must he contact between the F and LM, I Nh and so so on. on. must be I and conceptual Empirical evidence for Empirical evidence for the dissociation dissociation between betweenlinguistic linguistk and and conceptual neuropsychologicalwork workrelating relating to to content comes comesfrom from psycholinguistic psvt. holinguistic and and neuropsychological suggest that (2001) suggest et a!. al. (zoo,) representations representations for for space. space.For Forinstance, instance,Munnich Munnich et of there are divergences divergences between perceptual encoding encoding of between the the linguistic linguistic and perceptual captured spatial location, and and that that the language-specific language-specificsemantic semanticstructures structurescaptured by, for instance, prepositions--and prepositions—andother otherclosed-class dosed-classspatial spatialmarkers—are markers—are employed whenaalanguage language user user has to package employed primarily primarily when package aaspatial spatial represenrepresensimilaridea ideaisis tation in a a form form that thatcafl canbe be easily easily expressed expressed in tation in in words. words.AA similar is (forthcoming)who whoargue argue that thatspatial spatial language language is al. (forthcoming) advocated advocatedby byLandau landau et a a!. of aa different formatfrom fromconceptual conceptualrepresentation representationof ofspace, space, and serves different format servestoto of .incept, thiIexkal tOIKCpt. the phenomenon of given linguistic he a assist wirdwith with more mine than ' AAgnrcn hnguisti form can an be oisatcd thanone "ni Irxt.al in is a soiiated with English vehitk the polvsemy, introduied introducedin in Chaptcr Chapter 2. we will will see seein in (hapter Charier the English vehit le in is as' 4 +(lain' with i. As we Ii't aa dikussu4'n of (listussion of that is is %eletted- see Chapter t Kipter IIii for aa range Thelexical kzical concept t.oniept that rangeoflitlexical kskaI concepts. The as I(t Nt I ll ■ Unt tistit selection in 14) 4 II refer rikr I.,toas sc4eit,on—sn wrn.intis, isis akin akin to to the the The of aa(hounded (boundedi► landniark. landmark,asasI use I uieit itwith withrespect respit to to spatial semantics, notion of 11w notion 2. object (R()) introduced introduced in Chapter 2. notion noI,on of of reference object

III 111

enhahlce ourrepresentational representationalpower rxwer of of space. space.Further Further evidence evidence for for the the disdise nh ance our tint.tion study by by Kemmerer Kemmerer and Tranel Tranel tinction comes comes from a neurt)psvchological neuropsychological study themeaning,s (2000) shows that 't,Oo) which which shows that the meanings of oflocative locativeprepositions prepositionscan canhe beselect select-non-linguistit. spatial task ively impaired impaired depending depending upon the nature of the non-linguistic being engagedin. in.In Inaamore morerecent recentstudy, study,Tranel irancl and and Kemmerer Kemmerer (2004) (2004) be ing engaged that subjects with lesions lesionsininthe theleft leftinterior interiorprefrontal prefrontal additionally found found that subjects with and the the left left inferior inferior parietal defectiveon on brain region region and parietal region region while while severely severely defective l'rjifl tests involving involving the use useof oflocative locativeprepositions prepositionswere wererobustly robustlyintact intacton onnonnontests linguistic skills. This This is linguistic tests tests involving involvingvisuo-spatial visuo-spatialand andvisuo—constructional visuo-constructional skills. for suggestive that that diticrent differentbrain brainprotesses processes and/or and/orregions regions are responsible responsible for semantic and conceptual representations representations of of space. space.

The nature nature of of linguistic linguistic content As the the property property common commonto to all all lexical lexicalconcepts onepts isisthat linguistic thatthey they encode encode linguistic content, outline the the nature nature of of linguistic linguistic content content in in more more L- ontent, in in this this section section II outline detail. the information information available available to to aa language language detail. Linguistic Linguistic content content concerns concerns the user, another way, way, itit represents representsthe theinformational informational user, encoded by language. Put another form that conceptual onceptual structure structure takes takesfor for dirt'tt form direct representation representation in inlanguage. language. That is, linguistic linguistic content form that be encoded encodedininaaformat formatthat that is is That content takes aa form that can be auditory stream (or case of of externalized in an auditory (or a manual gestural stream in in the the case signed language), which which is is severely severelytime-pressured—which time-pressured—which is is the the case casewith with signed language), language. Suchaaformat formatpresumably presumablyrequires requiresfiltering filtering out out the the complexity complexity language. Such associated with with the range of multim(xlal multimodal experiences —in the defined associated experiences—in the sense sense defined above.There Ihere are a number number of of distinct distinct features features associated .tssotiatedwith withlinguistic linguistic above. are a content. These Theseinclude includethe thefollowing, following,all allof ofwhich, which,except exceptthe thelexical lexicalprofile, profile, content. are ire examined examined in in detail detail below: below: • parameterization parameterization nature • non-analogue non-analogue nature • topological topological reference reference • restricted restrictedset setof ofdomains domains and and categories categories • aadistinction distinctionbetween between nominal nominal and relational relational lexical lexical t.oncepts concepts •• referentjaiitv referentiality •• pragmatic point pragmatic point •• lexical profile lexical profiles A A lexical concept—a unit unit of of semantic semanticstructure—can structure—canbe bethought thoughtofofasasaa lexical concept—a bundle of different typesof ofhighly highly schematic schematit.content contentwhich whichisisthereby therebyspespebundle of different types

for being encoded encoded in in language. language.As Assuch, such,semantic semanticstructure structureprovides providesaa cialized for distinct representational format which is. as1Ihave haveargued, argued,highly highly schematic schematic distinct representational format which is, as the rich perceptual basis of conceptual vis-a-vis the rich basis of conceptual structure. One One consequence consequence

'

thenext nestchapter. chapter. address this thisaspect aspect of oflingussta& linguistic content ininthe • II address

SEMANI IC STRUC I URI

LFXIC'Al._REPRFSINTATION

have more than I'resent, ('r,·>cIlI . and and I'ulure.Some Some languages language have have more more than Ihanthree Ihreeparameters, paramel r • Present, andFuture. Future. Some languages three parameters, ji5tinguishing additionally Remote Past from Recent Past, for instance. distinguishing The JI>longui hlllg additionally addilionally Remote Remote Past Pasl from Irom Recent Recenl Past, Pa I. for for instance. in Ian e.The Th African language: anguage with the most parameters thus tar reported is an lIJllg"ag a nguage with wilh the Ihe most moslparameters param ler thus Ihu far farreported reportedisi,an anAfrican Africanlanguage: language: with eleven. Crucially, parameters are encoded by mileke-1)schaing lia ke () hang with wllh eleven. eI en. Crucially, ruoall. parameters f,arameter> are encoded enu><.led by byspecific Jl<' encoded Lw linguistic content serve to "strip away" most of the differences encoded en«><.Ied by by linguistic IingUl Ii content eonlenl serve rYe to 10"strip " Iripaway" away" most mo Iofofthe Ih differences differen highly limited apparent in the original experience, thereby reducing it to a apparent in in the Jpparenl Ih original original experience, e"peri nee. thereby Iherroy reducing redu ing it II to 10 aahighly highlylimited limiled number of parameters. para meIer>. numl",r of parameters. number

Language isi of Ih hIghly schematic hemalic nature nalureof ofthe Ihecontent conlenl directly dirt"t1yentoded <.Iedin10language languageis the highly nature of the content directly encoded of she highly sd ofIhal be to1.0be be languag exhibits < hibll representational repr nlalional Limitations. Iimitalion .However, lIowever. this Ihl is that language limitations. However, this isi to that language exhibits representational representatiOnal eXl'<'led. given the Ihe inherent mherenl limitations limllalion ofo~language lang"a!;eas a aaarepresentational repr~nlaho,nal language ,ts expected, given expected1 given the inherent limitations of formal. which which must mu I encode enu><.le content conlenlin10a •time-pressured 11m pre... uredauditory-physical auditory, ph~ Kal format, time-pressured auditory-physical formal, which must encode content in a the argum argument the linguistic system evolved 'tream- in Chapter hapl
-

advantage of rich representations 'rvice of Linguisikalty hngui hully mediated medlaled communicallon service linguistically mediated communication. cimmunicatiofl. . service of

Parameterilation Parameterization ParometeflZatlofl

The first fir I key tic conlenll addr is iis that of parametcrizatiofl. parameterization, key feature feature oflingui of linguistic content I address address parameterization. that of The first key feature of linguistic content I be represented in terms terms One way in which whith knowledge, knowledg •in ingeneral general terms, term. can can be berepresented reprc nted isis i in lerm, One way in which knowledge1 in general terms, reflect the the complexity of experience. of richly inflected inflected nuanc Ihal serve serve to 10 reflect reflecl Ihe c(llllpleXlty of ofexperience. experiente. nuances that that of richly richly to of inflected three, or 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 content by adopting as paramel as parameters. Linguistic content serves to parameterizatiOfl.Parameters Parameters are laller lralesy. which i to 10say. say. to 10 mployparameterization. parameteriution. Paramelersare arc latter strategy, which is to say, toemploy employ Latter strategy1 which is ode. information that Ihal aa lexical onc pI serves '>Crvev to 10 encode. hente part oflhe hence part of the bundle of of information lexical concept serves to encode. hence part of the bundle of information that .' of expressions expressions that III trale Ihi con ider the Ihe complex comple range range of of expre "on that Ihalaaa To illu this nOhon. notion, consider complex range To illustrate illustrate this notion, consider the in order orderto 10"locate" "Iexale" Ih mselv with wilh language uuserr might mighl employ, employ. in in English, Engli h. in "locate" themselves themselves with language user might employ1 in English1 in order to lim. thereby Iherroy facilitating fatllilJling time lime reference. reference. Anyone of Ihe following following r Jl<'ct 10 respect to time, reference.Any Any one oneof of the the respect to time, thereby facilitating time today, /lIIllIary. January, 2oo8, 200& could conctill); ,/Oi5 ...eek. this "';5 1110111',. ,'ns quarter, I/I",r,er. ",; )'ellr. this minute, quarter,this this month, month,this this this week, week, this lIIi,IIl,e. minute', this this hour1 today, this this era,this /",11 <ellllll")' ,Ins century1 Ulllllr); this '/115 ,...", ..1. the ,/oe 8,1, I/"Y ofthe '/It 11111111/,. ,/ouera, era. '/11' mouth,this half century, this century, period, the 8th 8thday dayof themonth, period, century,. this

,//u

half 1I"lItllmllm. A potentially polentially unlimiled , Iof of finerand and finerdistincdi hncand offiner andfiner distincpotentiallyunlimited unlimitedset millennium, and and so so on. on. A A ago, I1I /","r hour hOUr .j44 ~colIIl ago, ~collll5 ago, Ilon\ can additionally addihonally be mad (e.g.1 (e,g,.,iI second ago, tions (e.g., second ago, agO. 22 seconds be made made tions can can additionally be reflecting temporal ""mll(51111.1 J seconds ecolllis ago. ofl mp",al days ago, etc.), retlecllllg reflecting any any manner mannerof oftemporal 22litlp ago, minutes ago elc.). Cit.), agog2 days IIgo, and 33SCL minutes and di lin lion we mighl care 10 make. distinctions make. distinctions wemight might care careto tomake. I. pJrameleri7ahon hy alllhe po ,ibl permupermu, In the possible possible permuIn contra contrast, parameterization (unclion functions by bydividing dividing all all the In contrast, pararnetcri/Jtion functions small set of of talion rcl.lting to a gi\cn category. such uch;l\ rcrcrcn(C~t IOU) ol small mJII set \Ct tations as into such js time time reference, reference, into aa given category, tat ionsrelating relating to a given thePast, Past, divi ion: parameters, paramelers. paramelel'> .Ii linguish between belween the Ihe Pa I. divisions: Such might might distinguish distinguish between divisions: parameters. Such Such parameters parameters mighl in system in the basis for for lant • and 'on pa l. Indeed. iis Ihe i forth len •system y lelll III this past. Indeed, instance, and the Indeed, Ihl this is the b. basis for the the tense tense for in instance, andth theNon Non-past. IEnglish, h. aas traled by Ihe following: illustrated following: Ingli nglish, asillu illustrated bythe thefollowing: -

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

b.

reference:Past Past versus rngli\h ju,t two pdrdmctCf\ tlOlt rc(efcm:e: Pd t versus \(I'U English clluxlc" encodes just that relate relatetototime timereference: justtwo twoparameter% parametersth.u that rel.lte English and manifests binary 'un pa'l. hy ththeexamples example (~). Ihu andthus thus manofe,1 manifestsaahmary binary in exhibited past, a, asasexhihill"tl Non examples111 in(6), (6), and Non-paste exhibitedby bythe have threeparameters: parameters: Past, di,lmction. Som languages, languast>. such uch as aasFrench, IIrench. ha" three para meIer>. Past, Pa t. distinction. three rench,have distinction. Some Sonic languages1 such -

"3

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

Non-analogue Non·anologue

content relates torecords records of multimodal multimodal captured dirAs \ , conceptual " In"plual content conlenl relates relalev to 10 r 'ord of of muhlmooal states lalev captured caplured dirdlr' states from a variety of experience types including sense perception1 proprioCt.tl ectly eclly from aa variety variely of of experience experience types Iypes including sense sen perception, perceplion. proprioproprio-

4MP

ception,. and and subjettive itil therefore of perceptual states ception, experience, therefore consists cepllon and subjective ubll"live experience, expenen«. it Ihereforet.onsists con" I of ofperceptual perceplualstates ;tal recorded in analogue fashion: in a format that is similar to the perceptual recorded fa hion: in in a format lormal that Ihal isi~ similar imilar to IIIthe Iheperceptual perceplual reco rded in analogue analogue fashion: experiences that gave rise to them. Indeed, there k a good deal of evidence, in 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 ienceliterature, literature, that that sensory-motor representations. for example, the neuroscience the Ihe neum 'icncc lileralure. Ihal sensory-motor ",n""Y' molorrepresentations, repre'>Cnlation\.for forexample, example. are stored stored in the same areas of sensory-motor cortex that process sensoryare 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. (PulvermUller 2003). motor experience experienc (Pulvermuller1999, 1999, Zoo;). 100.\). experience (PulvermUller 1999, argue that that hngui linguistic content is is so highlyschematic schematicinin innature nature In tOnlra,l. In contrast, III .rgue In Ihal lie content (Onlenl i\ so \(, highly hlghlyhemalic nalure argue linguistic that it is non-analogue. it takes a tormat that is not analogous to the multi-. 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 experiene experiencesIhallll that itit is isaaa.. schematization of.Hence, Hence,due dueto thereduction reductionof of modal experiences that schematization of m.><.Ial hemalil.ation of. Hence. due 10tothe Ihe reduction of perceptual onfomlalion information to parameters, this gives rise rich perceptual information to highly impoverished m h perceplual 10highly highlyimpoverished impoveri,hl-dparameters, parameler>.this Ihi gives gi,evrise ri • to a qualitatively very different type of information from the kind captured by 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 structure. To illustrate, take the parameters Past and Non past 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 above. These parameters are highly disuissed with respect to example 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 abstractionsdrawn drawnfrom fromthe complex rangeof of temporalrelationrelation-. "schematic hcmallc abstractions ab;traClion front Ihthecomplex compl xrange rang of temporal relalion temporal ofnow: now:our our ships that hold hold hclwccn between our our experience experienceof ofpast, past, andour our experience experience that between h,p, Ihal our experience of pa I. and ourexperi nce of of now: our ,ships temporal location location as asexperiencing centresof oftonstiousness. Temporalexperiexperi-. temporal consciousness. Temporal Icmfltlrall,,,alion a,. eexperiencing perientlng centres tenlr of (on IOU nt> ,1cmporalexperi ence, formof ofsubjective subjettive experience,isi,isextremely extremelyrich richinin inperceptual perceptual ence, • a• aform fom. of ubleeli,c experience, experience. eXlremely rich perceplualterms Iterms rm encc (Ivans Yet the parameters Past and Non past are not rich at all. (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, of the observation that linguistic An important An important consequence n import,]"t lonM."tluc'."nlc of the the observation ob 'r"\'Jtlun that thJI linguistic Iingul\lk content luntent isiis non-analogue natureis thefollowing. following.II1claim claimthat thatlinguistic linguistic contentdoes non-analogue non' analogue ininnature nalure iisthe Ihe following. daim Ihal lingui IIC content COnlenl .Idoes notgive giverise, directly.to tosimulations. simulations. Rythis this II I do do not not mean mean thatlingulingu-. not n01 give ririse, • directly, directl)'. 10 imulation , By Ily.'hi not m an that Ihal lingu to simulations, for instance, as part ofan an istic content cannot cannot contribute content Iistic li t: (ontent (d"nnt ulOtnhule to simulations, 1n'IUI.lhnn . for lor instance, in Idnf.:c. as J\ part pdrl of of ;jill utterance."The meaningfr—coflccpt ions—which arisefrom fromutterances utterances are utterance. uttcrancl:. IThe he meanings—conceptions—which mt.·anin~ ~unu·pllun whi{..h arise n from utt rJIu,c are ilrc

114 1 14

114

-------

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

LEX1CM

SIMAN1U SIRUCTURF SEMANTIC STRUCTURE

"

provides the pc the the totality totalityof o(our ourexperiences ex~rien of our experiences totality potential in present terms—which "comprises the The degree of diffuseness will depend With ntllyor orevent" event"((Iblil. 39). The degree of o(diffuseness diffu!>en will depend depend ibid. 39). with a certain entity with a certain entity or event" (ibid. representations ofthe the rang of o(issues i u including in ludingthe thefrequency (requ neyof o(the therepresentations repr ntation ofo( the upon a0 range upon a range of issues including the frequency of the entity, thi case c redness, rron ,aero relevant cognitive models model in inthe th language languag~ in language entity, in this across relevant models entity, in this case redness, 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, the given referent, of our interaction system, recency user's utterance context hay seen, n, in the the examples exampl in in (s) (s)aaspecific peeifi utterance unerancecontext context and so on. As we have and so on. As we have seen, in the examples in (5) a discrete rv to con train the the diffuse diffu activation activationof o( thereferent referent giving giving riseto toaadiscrete di -rete serves constrain ofthe giving rise rise to serves to constrain the diffuse activation semantic o(semantic mantic imulation. This Thi narrowing narrowingprocess pro.: involves involv different processes priX simulation. This narrowing process processes of involves different different of simulation. essence, Pan III III o(the the book."' book.'· InesseflCC, nee, the inability mability of ompo ition, discussed di ussed in composition, of In book.'° In in Part Part Ill of the composition1 discussed in directlyevoke evoke lingui tic content—and content-and hence hence closed-class do~-cI lexi al concepts—to con epts--todirectly directly evoke linguistic content—and closed-classlexical lexical concepts—to linguistic hence concepts not .simulations Imulatiom is i\ anothcr way o( dosro ·da lexical lexical concepts con epts do do not closed-class saying that that closed-class simulations is another another way way of of saying (aeilital< a.gives give ri,c is accessed accessed viaopen-class open-cLasslexical lexicalconcepts, concepts, conceptual content content which which is likelyto give to ~"eptually ri h aspects aspect o( e~rience, 0assuch uch (ii) likely to give gh of experience1and, and,as such(ii) (ii)isiislikely ofexperience, to (i) (I) perceptually perceptually rich rich ri~ \imulation dire
kxkal ,cnce, while while conceptual content, to which open-class concepts < I",nen«, whil conieptual onceptual content, cont nt. to to which which open-dass open-da lexical lexicalconu'pts onceI'I> relates to precise, metric distinctions. ttJ"hlate -.aIlltrtci ii'i tai t.ne caeees relates to to pr precise, at< s, relat i • metric m tric distinctions. di"lnoion . illustrate consider the closed-class associated To consider lexical concepts III illustrate IlIu,trate con ider the the closed-class clo~ cI lexical I icalconcepts con cpt associated a iatro with the withthe the vehicles this and that. These lexical concepts encode a distincdemonstrative vehlCl this ,IllS and that. ,hnt. These Th lexical concepts concept encode encooe aa distincdi hnc,Ie","n trativ vehicles the speaker1 glossed as (1 lilsI,I. between an entity construed as proximal to glossed as as (Till Inns], t;on between between an entity construed as a proximal to the speaker, peaker. glossed tiOfl tion as versus anentity entityconstrued construed as distal, glossed verLI5 ,
specialized

TopologICal reference Topological Topologicalreference reference encoded Cflu)ded the A (urther reductIVe parameten .... of of the highly reductive consequencee o( further consequen natureo( of t~ the parameters parametersencodt lvi' nature A further consequence of the highly Talmy (e.g., 2(00). woo), as ontent, fir t pointro by thatthcy provide thatthey theyprovide provide asaslinguistic pointed byTalmy Talmy (e.g., (e.g.1 zooo),isiisthat first pointed totolw linguisticcontent, content,first reference. topological (eren rather Euclidean rence. That mnt nt Thatiis, is,linguistic linguisticcontent content reference. Euclidean ref< topological rreference reference ratherthan thanEuclidean sensory-motor, ncoo schematic matic aaspects pee" of sen",ry propri,,,,epl;,"". and ,ubje
115 115 115

that one!" "Sit on this this chair not that one!" (; ) "Sit "Sit on thi chair hair not nOlthat one!" (7) that isis asked In Inthis thisutterance, utterance,the thechair chair thatthe theaddressee addressee being asked to sitIIon on the one th" ullerance.th chairthallhe ddr i being ll<'inga kroto tosit onisisi the th OflC on "this chair" as opposed to "that one". Nevertheless, the joser to the speaker: closer opposed toto"that ",!'cr to the speaker: peaker: "this chair" hair" as oppo~ "thatone". one': Nevertheless, 'cverthe! •the the not rely upon precise metric does between ITulsi versus [TIIATI distinction d"tindion between between ITHIsJ (Till 1versus ver u (THATI ITIIATI ddoes not rely rely upon upon precise preci metric metric

details the exact distance from the speaker, in terms details such as ulh as a the the exact ex. t distance di tan e from (rom the th speaker, peaker. in in terms term ofof o(metres. metr • dCd·classlexical lexical concepts con cpt provide providetopological topological longui,tic content and thus thu closed-class reference. In contrast, the open-class lexical concepts facilitate aciess to reference. In contrast, ontrast. the the open-class o~n-da lexical I xi,.1 concepts con epts facilitate (a ilitat access a ces to to rckrcnce. In colkeptual content, and hence can be employed to express metric details of 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 distance giving rise rise toEuclidean Fuclidean reference, illustrated by (8): (8): di,tance giving ri.e to to Euclide.nreference, referenc •asaasillustrated illu tratroby by distance

WU'

PIP

metresaway awayfrom fromme!" me!" the chair (8) "Sit on 2.54 metres metres away (rom me!" (R on the th chair chair 2.54 involves open-class open-class lexicalconcepts conceptsrather ratherthan than The expression "2.54 metres".. involv Inc expression expr Ion "2.54 "2.54 metr o~nlass lexical lexical concepts rather than The metres" involves closed-class lexical concepts, and serves to evoke the chair precisely. closed-class con ept •and and serves servC'l totoevoke evokethe thechair chairprecisely. precisely. d,ht'tl cia lexical concepts, 'Fhe parameters enuxied as linguistic content exhibit rangeof ofother other encoded aas hngui linguistic content exhibit exhibit aarange , The I ~~ parameters p.ram ter ~nmdro tic content range o( other Euclidean neutralities: notably with Euclidean neutralities: notably with withrespect to the the domains domains of Eu hd an neutraliti : notably rrespect peet to to domain of o(SPACI PACE and and SPACE I 1511. In terms of SPACE, sI'ACE, addition to to being beingmagnitude-neutral, magnitude-neutral, dosed-class Tts,tu.. Interm terms o( of 11 II In ,PAt l. ininaddition magnitude· neutral. closed-class clo>Cd la liillustrate illustrate concepts are aIM) shape-neutral and substance-neutral. lexical conc concepts lexlt.1 pt are also al\O shape-neutral ha~-neutral and .ndsubstance-neutral. ub tan e-neutral.To To Iliu trate the examples below, adapted from those used by Talmy: th examples exampl below, ll<'low. adapted adaptro from fromthose tho used ~bybyTalmy: Talmy: con ider the consider Shape-nneutrality Shape-neutrality ShallC utrality a. IIIzigzagged iigzaggedthrough throughthe theforest forestt (9) a. a. zig23SSro through the (or h. The The road road circled through through the the h. b. The road circled circled through the forest (ore t forest

Ihe lexical lexical concept associated with through through in in conceptglossed glossedasOJ> asITRANsEcrioN1 The with Ihe lexical concept glo~ (nAN EClIONI associated associated with ,hrough In rnotu)fl trajectory theseexampl examplesis shape-neutral.That Thatis, theshape shape ofthe themotion these examples trajectory th"", ; isshape-neutral. hape·neutral. i is, . the the hape of o( the motion tra,ectory derives not not from from TRANS I•t nON Ihut hut from (Torn ual content ontent accessed via derives not (TRANSECTIONI dCrlvc\ from I (TRAN" (,liON) frum conceptual c.:onc.;cptu.l1 umt nl accessed .lClt:. \Cd via via but theopen open-class lexical conceptassociated associatedwith withthe theverb verb Zlgznggc
Substanceneutrality Sub tance-neutrality Substance-neutrality the la",r laserbeam beampassed throughthe thewondowl window/steel sheet/planet's crust The laser Ihe Iccl sheet/planet's heel/planel" crust cru t ppassed • ..>Cd through window/steel

116 116 116

LEXICAL REPRE [ TATION LI XI( Al REPRESENTATION LEXICAL

SI 51 SEMANTIC STRUCTURE 117 STRUCTURE ___ ----------------____________~~~~!T~R~U ~CT ~U~R~____~ 1~ 17

1"".1

through deploysthe The example in (10) .galOdeploys deploy \SOCiatedwith with throusl, Ilrrougll thelexical lexicalconcept conceptassociated The example examplein in(to) (in)again again The substancefTRANSICTIONJ. In this this case, that III gloss glo s as a ITRANSECTION1. (nAN ECYION]. In In thi case, case. ITRANSECTION1 (UAN ~(''TION] is iis substanceub ta~ egloss a' that substances ofany anykind. kind. neutral: it it can can be be applied applied to land mario involving involving substances mb tanc of of any klOd. be applied tolandmarks landmarks neutral: the Jpp$ication ofthis thisclosed-class closed- da~ Jjss lexical lexical conceptdoes dot'snot notrequire requireor or lienee. the th application appli ation of ofthl do'>ed lexical concept concept docs not rcquir or Hence, Rather, the the permissible permissible set of of substances substan.es sprcify aaa particular particular substance. substan«. Rather, Rather. pemll ible set set of ub tanc isis is particular specify substance. the substances that laser beam can penetrate based ofthe therange rang ofofsubstances sub tanc that thataaalaser laserbeam beamcan canpenetrate, pen trate.based based function aa function funt lion of structure associated with via the the openopenon conceptual conceptualstructure tructureassociated a~iated with withlaser la'>Crbeams, beam.as a accessed ac<e>sed via via open on laser beams, as accessed cia lexical concept conceptILASER (LA lR HEAMI. REA t]. class lexical (LASER BEAM]. class concept linguistic to encode encode of the domain of of TIME, TIMF. linguistic Iingui tic content content also rve> to encooe In terms term of the domain domain also serves serves In terms Theory tense systems are reference. As As we we saw above, in LCCM A5 w saw ~w above, abov •in LCC 1 Theory Thcory tense ten systems y,temsare arc reference. topological reference.

After all, the the reduction reduction does \Her all, all. th redu tion to to content content that that does d(\C not notdirectly gIVerise risetotosimula;imula . directly give give rise siinula results in a reduction that, for tions results in a reduction that, for some domains such as lion; a reduction that. some domains domain such uch as as COLOUR, OLO R. may may Lions r ult some COlOIR, eliminate the essential essential characterof ofthe theinformation information thereby d ll"IOate the th ntial character character of the information thereby making making unin thereby makingititituninuninterpretable. A second second that ""me some domains terpretable. A -ond reason rea""n is i that domain do do not relate in ubiqui . domains not relate relate in aaubiquiubiquitous way to humank relevant tous lU u, way way to the the humanly humanly relevant scenes scenes that that language serves to encooe. scenes thatlanguage languageserves servesto toencode. encode.For For instance, categories to 1nstance,cOItcgori categoriesthat thatrelate relate10 to the the domain domain of 51(5k 11l,1.lIlee. thai rciate Ihe domain orMFI)IAFVAL MflllAfVAl M 1t'\ICOL()(iY, or MEDIAEVAL USICOL(X1Y, or 01 wen to 1ess less e%eI) p1irametersthat that relate relate to esoteric domains domains such e, cn parameters parameter rclate Ie ; esoteric domain uchas a\IAWI LOVlor orJOURNEYS 10 RNEY LOVE Or JOURNEYS are as experience arc not as a ubiquitous ubiquitou in in human humanexperience experienceas as parameters parameters relating to domain as parametersrelating relatingto to domains domains SPACE, Js TIME, MOTION, such and \lH. h as 3~ SPACE, PAC-f, TI~n. tOTION, and JndMFNTAI. IENTAI STATES. STATI:". MENTAL STATES. range of •Fhc range encoded The of domains by linguistic linguistic domain encoded encooed by lingui;tic content content appears appears to to behighly highly appears tobe be restricted. already intimated. intimated, domains encoded encoded As already intimated, domains linguistic re\tncted. A encooed in in linguistic lingui tic content contentinininTIME, SPACE, MOTION, and Jude I IMI. SPACE, MENTAl. clude MENTAL du deTIMF. PM F. MOTION, MOTION. MLNTAl STATES. . TAT! s.ln tothe therestricted rC\tricted InInaddition addition STATES. additionto restricted sCt of domains set encoded, linguistic content also features onlyaasmall domain encoded, ncooed. linguistic IingUl ti content contentalso alsofeatures fcatur only only smallnumber number ,,·t number otcategones within each each domain.To in illustrate, illustrate, consider of categories of categories within within ea h domain. domain. To illu trate. consider con ideraafew few of categorfewof ofthe thecategor1ltegork's ,issOt iated withthe domainTIME: iisii ie, associated .1,-"",iated ththedomain domain TIME: ies with (

conceived terms of paramcterization. In English there arc two such parameived in in terms term of ofparameterization. parameterization.In In English English there there are are two two such uch paramparamcon conceived Theseparameters parametersarc aretime-neutral time-neutralwith withrespect eter : Past Pa t ve"u on -past. These These paramete" are time-neutral with respecttoto versus Non-past. Non-past. eters: versus I udidean reference, reference. Indeed, precise [udidean reference. and hence hence provide topological topological reference. reference. Indeed, Indeed.precise preci'C Euclidean reference, metric details, we saw earlier, can can only be be expressed expressed byvirtue virtue of of open-class metri detail. as a we we saw w earlier, earlier. expr sed by by virtu ofopen-class open-cia metric details, as lexial concepts to conceptual conceptual structure, as illustrated lexical concept whkh whichfacilitate fa ilitateaccess acee ~ to con eptual structure, tructure. as asillustrated illu trated concepts which facilitate access by following e ampl tthe hefollowing followingexamples: exampks by the

l)omain: TIME Domain: TIME TIME Category: Time reference reference Category: Time referen e a. He Hekkkedthcball lie kicked kicked the the ball ball a. h. h. He Hekicks kicks the the ball ball b. ball

(11 ) a.•a..Two Twodays da days ago ago ((ii) it) I heday div before yesterday b. The day before yesterday y terday The before b. c. Forty-eight hours ago ago Forty-eight hours hours ago c. Fern-eight

(12)

and categories A restrided set of of domains and andcategories categories A restricted

Category: Boundedness Roundedness (:ategory: Category: Boundedn a. 1I0lly Hollyha.s has Holly (13) a. (13) ha left len th party left the the party h. leaving the b. Holly b. Hollyisi leaving leaving the the party party

ofparameterization parametenzationi,is isthat that the the range range of of domains, domains, and and the the A on<equence of parameteri/(lme open -da concept, facilitate facilitate which open open-class to which For instance, instance, some domain_ domains in uI(flR, do ce<;,. such such a.s as COLOUR. do notappear appear at lerm, of 10 aaccess, donot not appear at all all in in terms terms of of linguistic linguistic content in access, COLOUR, other language. is,iis,there I·Iiiglish ngli,horor any other language. That • there are no parameters.inin theseflsC <)\e. above, that to be straighttorwardh most) not that cm m,,,, ) domains domain' do do not notrelate relateto experiencethat thatcan canbebe "raightfo"yardly most) domains do relate totoexperience experience straightforwardly parameterized in parameteri1ed aa humanly humanly relevant rei 'ant was. way. There ar at lea t two two likely likely parameterizedin in a humanly relevant way. There Thereare are at at least least explanations for this. the nature of the domain in ,question may not eXpldllJtium. thi\. )-ir dr. the q,uc lion may molY not explanations for for this. Firstly, Firstly, the nJturt natureuf of the the dum.lin domain i~ in question digitizedparameters. lend llself 10 being l\Cing"reduced" ""reduced" reduced " to 10 highlyschematized "hemallll-d digitized dlSltlled parameter. lend itself itself to to being parameters. tohighly highly 1

•

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

Category: Pkxitv Category: Plexity PleXlty (14) a. Fred Fred (14 ) a. Fred coughed coughed Uniplex h. Fred toughed coughed for forio tominutes minutes Multiplex b. Fred Fred coughed 10 minut \MultIplex I u It i p1 ex The category that that II refer The category refer to as rhecategory referenc more traditionally referred to as a as time time reference referenceisismore moretraditionally traditionallyreferred referredto as tense. Eachcategory category exhibit. exhibits a small tense. Each exhibits small number of ten'C. Each ,mall number of ofparameters. parameter. As A already already noted. As alre.idv noted, noted, Inglmsh encodes justItwo English el1coo." encodes just two parameters: versus "l1gli,h ju parameters: Past Po tver us Non-past, on -past. as aisexhibited exhibitedby bythe the Past versus Non-past, by the examples in examples in (12), (12), and exampl in (11). thu manifests manifests aaa binary binary distinction. di tin tion. As A noted notedearlier, earlier. and thus thus manifests noted earlier, tither other languages other languages have have more more than than two two parameters param te"such uchas a French hench with thr •and and such as Frenchwith with three, three, Bamileke-Dschang with with eleven. Kamileke-lschang Ilanltleke-U"hang WItheleven. Of the other two categoriesillustrated, illustrated, these two categories categori iIIu trated. these theseare are normally treated as a relating Of the other arenormally normally treated treated as relating to what is commonls' what iis commonly commonly referred aspect. The referred aspect.Th rhc more usual refern.-d to to as J\ Moreet. u~ual terms term for uniplex and to what usual termsfor (or uniplex unipkx and multiplex, multiplex, as they relate to as they relate to TIME TIMF are "semelfactive" and "iterative" m ult'ple •• a they relate to TIM' are" melfacti.." and and "iterative" "iterative' respectively. r pectivcly. are "semelfactive" I'he examples ('3) The examples in are usually (13) are u ually referred to to as a perfective and imperfective imperfectiveaspect. aspect. Ille example> in (13) imperfective aspect. Some examples of Some examples of categories Some e,ampl of categories and para mete" associated •associated iated with wllh other domains domain .ategories and and parameters parameters with other other domains encoded in linguistic linguistic content encoded Iingui"i, wntent provided below: cn« lded in content arc ire areprovided below:

118

SEMANTI( SEMANTIC slRl.JCTt'RE STRUCTURE

REPRESENTATION ILEXICAL EXI(AI RFPRFSENTATION DOMAIN: SPACE SPAtI 1)OMAIN:

1)9 119

thespeaker's speaker'sbelief beliefthat that aa situation situation is counterfactual countcrtactual yet which encodes encodes the yet pos pos-

Parameter: Category: Number Category: Singular lostaaslipper slipper ( 1i) a.a.Holly Hollylost (is) Hollylost lostboth bothher herslippers slippers Plural Plural b. Holly

sihic. as in in aa language language such such as as Russian. s ible, as

Parameter: Parameter: (16) Category: Category:Unitizahility Unitizahility(or (orcountability) Unit t'nit slippers for for his his birthday birthday gave him slippers She gave a. She a. \lass She gave gave him himchampagne champagne for forhis hisbirthday birthday Mass b. She h. MOTION Domain:MOTION Domain: notion of 2000 not path(cf. (ct.Talmy's Falmys 2000 ion of (17) Category: Windowing of motion path (i7) Parameter: of attention) the "windowing" "windowing" of windowing plane Initial Initial windowing The crate crate fell tell out of the plane a. 11w Medialwindowing windowing The crate crate tell fellthrough throughthe theair air Medial b. b. The Final windowing fell into into the the ocean ocean c. The crate fell c.

bifurcation between between oflinguistic linguistic content content is is that that itit encodes aabifurcation aspect of Another aspect

ofthe thesort sortdiagrammed diagrammedin in Figure Figure 6.4, Withrespect respect to to a1 path path of of motion motion of With different portions of asevidenced evidenced linguistic content serves to of the paths path, as linguistl4. content serves to encode encodedifferent prepositional phrases headed, headed, respectrespectby lexical concepts associated .il s..onccpts associatedwith with the the prepositional Lw into. and iHtO. ively, Lw by out of, through, and ively.

Domain: MENTAL STATE STAll l)omiin: Parameter: Parameter: (18) Category:Mood Mood (iS) Category: Indicative a. She slippers Indicative She bought bought him him slippers Imperative h. Buy him slippers! mentalstate. state.English English The category category Mood Mood relates relatesto tothe thespeaker's speakersintention intentionor or mental

includingIndicative, Indicative, exhibits only three parameters parameters in in linguistic linguistic content: including ofparamparamImperative, Imperative1 and andSubjunctive. Subjunctive. However, However,cross-linguistically cross-linguistically aavariety variety of theAdmirative Admirative in languages languagessuch such eters eters belong belongtotothis thiscategory, category,ranging rangingfrom fromthe surprise,totothe theHypothetical, as as Bulgarian Bulgarian and Ukrainian, Ukrainian, which encodes surprise,

FIGURE F,(,URF6.4. 6.4. The path

fatling out out til of aa plane plane associated with with an object falling associated

versus relational \(r711fl(Jl versus Nominal relational

lexical relations ((Lingacker nominals and relations Langacker 1987). the Thedistinction distinction in in type type of lexical follows. Nominal lexical concepts are conceptually conceptually autonoautonoconcepts is as as follows. concepts arc arc independently identifiable, such as as mous: they relate to entities which are nious dependent:they they "chair",oror "shoe".In Incontrast, contrast,relations relations arc are conceptually conceptually dependent: thus"dependent" "dependent" are thus constitute a relation holding holding between between other entities, and are thoseother otherentities entitiesininorder orderto tofully fully determine determinethe thenature natureofofthe the relationon those ship. such as .isthe thefollowing: following: instance, in in an an utterance such ship. For instante, Max hid hid the the mobile mobile telephone telephone under the bed bed iv) Max iii)) shall gloss as the lexical assos.iatedwith withthe thevehicle vehicle hid, hid, which which II shall The lexical concept concept associated gloss as 1111)1, relates conceptuallyautonomous autonomouslexical lexicalconcepts wn&.cptsassociated .issociatedwith with ittoi, relates thethe conceptually establishing aa relationship relationship inintelqhone, and bed, establishing the mobi• telephone, the vehicles Max, mobile volving "hiding" autonomousparticipants participantsin in the the "hiding"between between the the conceptually conceptually autonomous conception: namely namelyI(MAXI kxkal concept conception: mAx Jand and (aEnJ. I isEni.Analogously, Analogously, the lexical concept assoassowith the lexical underestablishes establishes a spatial relation between between lexical ciated with the vehicle vehicle under with mobile , n ubileteleplst'ne concepts associated with telephone and and bed. bed. conceptually dependent dependentstructure structure of of relational relational lexical kxical concepts is The conceptually concepts is participantrole role(Gold(toldnk'delled,in inLCCM 1;CM Theory, modelled, Theory, in in terms terms of aa schematic participant exemplified in in (19) encodes encodesthree three as exemplified berg berg 1995). 1995). The The lexical lexicalconcept concept(HiDJ Imp) as sthcniatic participant roles.1' Therich richcontent contentrelating relatingtotothe theparticipant partkipant schematic roles." The concepnot specified specifiedin in linguistic linguisik content. roles isis not content. This This arises arises from from access access totoconcepstructure encodes encodesrich richcontent contentrelating relatingtoto tual structure. That That is, is, conceptual conceptual structure hiding: that who does doesthe thehiding hidingfor forparticular particular reasons, hiding: that ititinvolves involves someone someone who reasons, particular sort, hidden. NonNonand that an entity of a particular sort, often often an an object, is hidden. linguistic knowledge also also includes includes what what facilitates facilitates something somethingbeing beinghidden, hidden, linguistic such as asperceptual perceptualinaccessibility inaccessibilityofofthe theobject ohjetibring beinghidden hiddenand/or andlorits itsbeing being such placed in in aa novel novellocation. location.Conceptual (ouceptual structure also encodesinformation information placed also encodes relating to the motor involvedin inhiding, hiding, which which involves involvesmoving movingthe the motor processes processes involved object from from one location to to another. another. The The participant participant roles encodedas aspart partofof object one location roles encoded the the linguistic linguistic content notencode encodesuch suchdetails. details.Rather, Rather,what whatisis contentfor for(1111)1 (tool dodonot encodedisisaahighly highlyabstract abstractrepresentation, representation,derived derivedfrom fromthe therich richperceptual perceptual encoded serveto to details of of aa hiding hiding scenario. scenario.'2 As such such we we have have three that serve details 12 As three rides roles that \4)tkr that hid is assouated rdleziie" emma For with the the "ft-fictive that the hid is polysemous. " Noose is aIsd the vehick vehisk hid For instanse, hid also a+.04.isted with hides oneself, as in: Jnh,, hid,., It al 11th ksk cuntept. which .11 ticqit in in which ni en* irni utv it hide% oneself. is in blur had t ► i the wardrobe. This lettkal on, co. whi. lettkal cotkept whkh an h I ,.&hcnlatk emodes twi) slois as UVI partittpant rules I Om 45 I Itt-t Ittuvo. mid CM Mk% [WI) St bertha IIL ' Thescschematic 'nt cUt derived derived from from uinseptual moncrptual part asipani roksare arcnut-grated intcgrated with withthe therich rich sttititern 'pant roles I The hematic 11.1111‘ h.aptev structure in in aa process process referred retàrcd to dis& usedininc :hapter to as as interpretation. interpretation, discusses! structure

ii.

uo

lEXICAL

SEMANTIC SI-MANTIISTRUCTURE STRL;rURE

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

120

distinguish between betweenthe thethree threeentities entitiesinvolved involved at at the the most mostgeneral generallevel levelofof distinguish participant roles detail. These These participant roles are: are:Hider, Hider, Object, Object, and and Location." detail. just as as the the bifurcation in in lexical lexical concepts concepts discussed above—that above—thatholding holding lust between lexical lexical concepts soklv encode encodelinguistic Iinguistk content content and andthose those between concepts which solely which additionally additionally facilitate to conceptual conceptualcontent—corresponds content—correspondstotoa a which facilitate access access to distinction in in the the formal formal en&oding o lexical lexical concepts—the concepts—thedistinction distinctionbebedistinction encoding of tween openopen-and andclosed-class closed-classvehicles—so vehicles-- sotoo toothe thedistinction distinctionbetween betweennomnomtween inal and and relational relational lexical lexical concepts conceptshas hasaaformal formalreflex reflexininterms termsofoflinguistic linguistic inal vehicles. In In a for instance, instance,this thisdistinction distinction relates relatesto to vehicles. a language language such such as as English, for lexical concepts conceptsassociated associatedwith withwhat whatare arecommonly commonlyreferred referred to to as .*snouns nounsand and lexical

noun phrases phrases (nominals) (nominals) on on the the one one hand, hand, and and lexical lexical concepts associated noun concepts associated with other adverbs, with other lexical lexical forms. forms, including includingverbs, verbs, prepositions. prepositions, adjectives, adjectives, adverbs, verb forms forms such and non-finite non-finiteverb suchasasinfinitives infinitivesand andparticiples participks((relations) onthe the and relations) on other (see Langacker 19$7 for details). details). other (see Langacker 1987 for I ( CM Theory In view Iheory assumes every externally open In view of of the the foregoing, LCCM assumesthat that every externally open lexical concept, concept, i.e., i.e.,aalexical lexicalconcept conceptwhich, which,informally, informally, holds holdsat atthe thelevel levelofof lexical the encodeseither eithernominal nominalstructure structureororrelational relationalstrucstructhe phrase phrase or or below" encodes ture. suggestthat thatthis thisbifurcation bifurcation in in linguistic linguistic content content emerges emergesfrom fromperperture. II suggest ceptual experience, and hence relates to highlysalient, salient,humanly humanlyrelevant, relevant, ceptual experience, and hence relates to aahighly dimension of embodied experience. dimension of embodied experience. The idea idea is is as asfollows. tillows. In In seminal work, Rnsih argued that that aspects .Ispettsofof The seminal work, Rosch (1978) (1978) argued perceptual giverise riseto toinevitable inevitable conflations conflations due dueto tocorrelations correlations or or perceptual experience experience give clumping of of the the perceptual perceptualarray. array.Building Building on Ofl this thisinsight, insight,Gentner Gentner(1982; (198Z see see clumping also C,entner and and lioroditsky Boroditskv 2001) 2001) posits posits that that objects and andanimate animate beings beingsare arc also Gentner thus as being beingindividuated individuated on on the the basis basisof ofperceptual perceptualexperience. experience.That that thus perceived perceived as is, ciltities such as these are non-relational, in that they emerge as coherent and is, entities such as these are non-relational, in that they emerge as coherent and discrete conceptual entities entities from from the discrete conceptual the perceptual-cognitive perceptual-cognitive sphere. sphere. (;entner refers to the claim that embodied experience to the the Gentner refers to the claim that embodied experiencegives gives rise rise to distinction between nominal versusrelational relational notions notionsas asthe theNatural NaturalPartiPartidistinction between nominal versus tions This states statesthat that"there "there are are in in the the experiential flow flow certain certain tions Hypothesis. Hypothesis. This highly cohesive of percepts perceptsthat thatare arcuniversally universallyconceptualized conceptualiied highly cohesive collections of .is objects, and . . . these tend to he lexicalized as nouns across languages" as objects, and... these tend to be lexicalized as nouns across languages" (Gentner i24). (Gentner 1982: 1982: 324). Given Natural Partitions it follows that certain certain notions notions Given the the Natural Partitions Hypothesis. Hypothesis, it follows that encoded by language language in in the the form form of of lexical conceptswill will arise arise from from distincdistincencoded by lexical concepts (ions apparent in of physical phvskal experience. rhose notions which notions which tions apparent in the the stream stream of experience. Those are likely to emerge most easily in the perceptual stream are those which are are likely to emerge most easily in the perceptual stream are those which are individuable. of individuation individuation is function of individuable.Hence, Hence,apparent apparentease ease of is a a function of percepperceptual coherence. According to Gentner and Boroditsky (iooi) there are two two tual coherence. According to Gentner and Boroditsky (20ot) there are factors which contribute to ease of individuation. The first factor relates to factors which contribute to ease of individuation. The first factor relates to

"objecthood." This relates relates to a stable "objecthood." This to the the maintenance maintenanceofofa stableperceppercepstructure l tual tru cture moving against a background. Hence, entities which tual structure moving against a background. hence, entities which can can rgo motion are likely to be highly individuable. Accordingly, animate 11ntkrgo motion are likely to be highly individuahk. n ei iitIt cuo animate ntities arc likely to be more easily individuated based on this criterion. eCfltIti&s are likely to be more easily individuated based on this criterion. The The second secondfactor factorrelates relatestotowhat whatGentner Gentncrand andBoroditsky Borodutskyrefer refertotoasasperceppercepThat is, i's. "[hi ighly coherent tual tual coherence. That coherent objects objects have havedensely denselyinterconnected interconnected representations" ► id. 222). 222). This representations (i (ibigL This means meansthat that the therange rangeand andnumber numberofofinternal internal links a given ve terms, greater links between betweencomponent componentparts partsofofa givenobject objectis,is,ininrelati relative terms, greater than than the with thenumber numberof ofcomponents componentsthat thatmake makeup upthe theobject. object.For forinstance, instance,aastool stool withaa seat legs has scat and and 'bur four legs has multiple multiple connections between between each eachcomponent, component,and andthese these are ire greater than the the total total number number of component componentparts. parts.AAsecond secondcontributing contributing issue to perceptual coherence concerns the well-forniedness of the issUC to perceptual coherence concerns the well-ft)rmedness of theoverall overall structure. instance, aasymmetrical structure. For instance, symmetricalstructure structure isismore morelikely likely to to be beperceived perceived as as perceptually perceptually coherent coherent than than one onewhich whichisisasymmetric. asymmetric. While many entities are based on are pre-individuated pre-individuatcd based onperceptual perceptual experience, experience, individuation constitutes aa continuum. For instance, animate individuation itself constitutes continuum. For instance, animateentities, entities, like inanimate entities, exhibit However, exhibit strong perceptual coherence. coherence. However,by 1w virtue of remaining perceptually stable entities are stable during during motion, motion, animate animate entities are more easily individuated. Conversely, amorphous objects easily individuated. objects such suchas assubstances substances are likely to be less easily individuated than discrete objects because likely to be less easily individuated becausethey theyare are lcss perceptually coherent. Figure Figure6.s less perceptually 6.5presents presentsthese these conclusions in the form of in the of Continuumas as applied applied to to physical physical entities. an lndividuability Individuahility Continuum By encoding a given entity entity as as aa nominal nominal lexical lexical concept, concept,linguistic linguistic content content serves to to provide a particular construal, one one which particular construal, which relates relatestotoindividuahility. individuahility. t.angacker Langacker (1987), in in his his Cognitive Grammar framework, framework, argues a similar cognitive (;ramniar arguesfor for a similar perspective. perspective. He He claims that that what whathe he refers refers to to as as nominal predications (nomnominal predications (nominal inal lexical lexical concepts concepts in present terms) terms) serve to designate designate aaregion: region:aadelimited delimited portion, portion, in in sonic some domain: aa coherent body of conceptual knowledge. coherent body of conceptual knowledge. This This very very general definition definition serves serves to distinguish the construal provided by nomto distinguish the construal provided by nominals from those of inals from those of relations, relations, which which are are concerned concerned with with the the relationships relationships between between regions of domains, rather thanthe theregions regions themselves. themselves. rather than Individuability Indivlduablifty

SELF-MOVING I SELF-MOVING

READILY READILY MOVED MOVED

in thi Uttefiute in (sy) rriuhs from the ont c pt. in the kith-Tame in tail) mull% loon the to

ii (or further dct.aik. 14 Sec Chapter u for further details. See

tonal ► p ► sitional

humans humans animals animals vehicles vehicles

STATIONARY STATIONARY

smallmobde mobile smail objects

complex complex structurally structurally cohesive cohesive

objects

diiui,ed

in Part Part III III ui mechanism. disused in of

44

I

" The the part'. ipant role, integrated with other kziial lexical with other [bc way in in whkh whkh the rolescntoded cntoJnl1w by ( int'l ► til arc integrated

lI(NIIL the the hook.

121 121

large amorphous large amorphous simple objects simple

objects —s

Il(iL'ILE FIGURE b.5. 6.5. The The Individuability Individuability("ontinuurn Continuumasasapplied applied to to physical physical enhitics entities (Adapted (Adapted 2001: 20) 230) from (entner Gentnerand andBoroditsky Boroditsky zoot: from

-

122 122 IU

lIXICAL KEPRFSFNTATION

-

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

instance, while [ ARJ and lorinstance, verydiffer different sor' of For in and FA prostoN different ('or Ian,•• while while (CAR) I( ul and II XPI 0"0, I represent rrepresent pr nl very nl sorts sort of

'I""

(it)

(21)

The darn exploded

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

--

Nevertheless, there is commonality in terms of the linguistic content that each Nevertheless, there iis commonalily commonality in terms of the linguistic that each everthel .Ihere mlerm oflhe lingui Ii content onlcnllhal each nominal lexical concept encodes. Each nominal is construed as encoding

nominal laical concepl en od . Each Ea h nominal n minal isicon Irued as encoding n oding nominal lexical concept encodes. construed content that has to do with individuability. In contrast, lexical concepts conlenl Ihal has ha to 10 do dowith wllhindividuahility. ondividuabililY. In Incontrast, onlra I. lexical lexical concepts cOnlepl content that which are conceptually dependent, such as those associated with verbal yewhich ar conceptually e. diverse, as evidenced. evidenced, for lexical which for example, example.by bythe Iherange rang of one italclasses da whieh encode relational lexical concepts. Nevertheless, there is a clear basis, based on encode relational relallonallaical con eplS.Nevertheless, " ..Ihel •there Ih reisi aaclear clearbasis, basi •based based on on lexical concepts. linguistic content, k)r distinguishing between those concepts which 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 concept u.l autonomy and those that exhibit dependency. exhibit «lIl
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 is that lexical serve to encode However, the defining feature to encode the Ilowev ... r. Ihe fcalure is i, that Ihal lexical l... x".1 concepts
123 123

Sam the ball 12 ) a.a.a. (22) mkicked kicked the ball Sam kicked theball b,h. Sam Ihoughl aboul peac b. Samthought thoughtabout aboutpeace peace c.c. Sam .Sam m walked 10 the park to the park c. walked to the park

The dam exploded

Thus, the essence of a nominal lexical concept is that the linguistic content 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 encoded conurns the schematic property of ifl(lividUability. In contrast, the of individuahility. In contrast, encoded concerns con em the Ih schematic hemali property properlyofindividuabilily.ln onlra I.the Ihe &I)nieptu.al to whfth nominals provide access may he dlvcrsc, as is conceptual ediverse, diverse. as d,is" evident by the examples, below (the nouns are underhned): evident
SlMANTI(;

in (lib), well relations entities -'pCJle" peace" on well relallon Ihal hold belween physical enlil, and in(ub). (22b),asas wellasaas relationsthat thathold holdbetween betweenphysical physical entities and and Jb,lract ,uch "ki ked" in in (lla) "Ihoughl aboul" in (ub), well hstract ideas, such as as "kicked" (22a) in (22b), as well j itv,tractid ideas, such "kicked" (na)and and"thought "thoughtabout" about" in (2h), as well relations, encoded by "to" in (22c). ." hemalicrelalion.aenlodedby .. \{)" in (ucl. highlyschematic schcmatk relations,as ,I s highly as encoded by "to in

lexical concepts1 the conceptconventionally .onventionallyassociated associatedwith withthe thelexical I lexi on pIS. the Ihe lexical lexical concept concepl ,0nvenlionaUy associaled wilh Ihelexical lexicalI concepts, vehicle explosion is distinct from the lexical uh'ept associated with to 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. That is, IS 4OfltCrfled with an event qua discrete 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, st'A(I and TIME. ihe relational lexical concept IEXPLOI)EJ, by contrast, [EXPLODE], by contrast, TIME. PA 'f and TI IE. The relational relall naI lexical lexical concept concepl IEXPLODEI. conlrasl. is" SPACE concerned with a particular process as it relates to a entity such acas • concerned with wilh aa particular parli ular process proc as a itil relates rdal to 10 aaspecific p«ificentity enlilysuch u h. darn, as in the event evoked by the following utterance: dam, as dam. a, in m the Ih event 'nl evoked 'oked by by the Ih following foUowmgutterance: utterance:

(20) (20)

SEMANTIC STRUCTURE

111

aSllhree linlilypes referen e encoded encoded by Ilexical XI al concepts. onlepl . IIiticlllify identify at three distinct types of identify all at least least threedi distinct types of of reference reference encodedby bylexical concepts. The to to as rhe first firsllype rcldl whal refer 10 notalional reference. rrf .. n e.Many 1any The first type type relates relates10 towhat whatIII will will refer to ... asddenotational denotational reference. Many lexical concepts totoindex leXical index phy ical entity enlily of some sort. whelher rralor or lexicalconcepl conceptsserve serve10 indexaaaphysical physical entityof ofsome somesort, sort,whether whetherreal real or imagined. lI11Jgined. In Ihi n, part pari of whal Ih lexical concepl as laled with wilh Ihe imagined. In In this this sense, sense, partof ofwhat whatthe thelexical lexicalconcepts conceptsassociated associated withthe the John and unicorn ,vehicles ...hides 10/111 rve to 10 iisto 10 ignal an inlenlion. on thc pari of and Ill11com unicorn serve serve todo dois tosignal signal anintention, intention. on onthe thepart partof of the totorefer to Ihe speaker. refer entity. whelher real or imagined. the speaker, speaker,10 refer10 toaagiven givenentity, entity,whether whetherreal realor orimagined. imagined. The Iype rer. r to 10 a cognitive cognilivereference. rrferrn e.This Thl rclal to10 reialively The second second type type III refer refer toas as cognitive reference. Thisrelates relates torelatively relatively abstract notions or d"'lra I notions idea that Ihal havc no no phy icalsubstance, ubstanee.whether whether rea!oror abstract or ideas ideas that have have flophysical physical substance, whetherreal real or imagined, and relate to lexical associated with forms such as ,magi ned. and r lale 10 lexical concepts con epts ialed with form uch a love. love, concepts associated with forms such as love, war, and sear, ... d" pi:ono/op; pl,ollology. forth. Hence, Ilencr. lexical (OnceI'I that Ihal serve rv to 10 cncodc phonology, and and so so forth. forth. Hence,lexical lexical concepts concepts that serve toencode encode cognitive refer wgnili''C rekrence referen e signal igna! an an intention, inlent,on. nthe Ihrpart partofof the peaker,to10 refertoto 10aaa intention,on on the part ofthe thespeaker, speaker, to refer non-physical non·ph ical idea. idea. refer Th third Ihird Iype III refer refer to 10 as a contextual onlrxlual reference. rderrn e.This Thi involv refercn( to 10 The third type as contextual reference. I hisinvolves involvesreference to an an dn entity enlily that Ihal is i present pr=nl in Ihr linguistic lingui Ii or or eXlra-linguisli discourse di ourse context. coniC I. present in the the linguistic or extra-linguistic extra-linguistic discourse context. Hence, reference of this this sort sort involves the encoding, Hencr. reference of Ihi rl involves involv the Ihr encoding, rncoding. by byaaa lexical I xi al concept, conerpl.of ofan an of by lexical concept, of an intention '.lIenl,on to 10 refer refer to 10 an an entity entilythat Ihalthe Ihraddressee addresseecan canrecover recoverfrom from (Onlexl. Intention entity that the addressee can recover fromcontext. context. One type reference. of ontrxlual reference refcren is i textual I lual reference. re~ r nee. One Oneform ~ rmof oftextual lexlual ()ne tIype vpeof ofcontextual contextual reference is textual One form of textual refcren e involves rderen e to 10 an entity enlity already menlioned. This Thi isis istraditionIradilion· reference involves reference reference to an entity already mentioned. reference mentioned. This traditionally termed anaphora. Thxtual reference thatrelates relatesto to an an entity yet ally termed lermed anaphora. anaphora. Textual Texlualreference referen e that Ihal relal 10 enllly yel to 10be be an entity yet to be mentioned textual menli ned is i termed I mledcataphora. calaphora.Examples Exampl ofof ofl xlualreference r ferenceare areprovided providedin in mentioned is teriiwd Examples textual reference are provided in Ihe examples exampl below. below. the examples the age (13) of i14 by by the the time he 8. (23) a.a. a.john ~hnisisismart. mart.He Hrhad hadaaareading rradlng age agr of Ihr time IImrhe he was wa just ju 18. John smart. He had reading was just 8. h. h. want to say this: b. III want wanl to 10say say just J"Sl this: Ihi : II love love you. ou. c. The The new target 2020 Thenew newtarget_to 13 01 to 10reduce redu ecarbon carbQnemissions emi ionsby by2o% 20%by by 2020 2020 will willbe be be c. emissions by 20% by will tough thing achieve. loughthing thingtoto 10achieve. a hieve. aatough In In theexamples examplesin in (23), thelexical lexical concepts associated forms he,this, this, Inthe Ihe exampi In(ij), (23).lhe lexi alconcepts (on epl associated ialedwith wilhthe Ihdorm '''.I/,is, the with the forms he, and thing and thingare I/,mgar peclalizedfor r. rreferring r ferringto10 olher enlili (underlined) inthe Ihetext. lexl. arespedalized specialized for referring toother otherentities entities ((underlined) underlined) in text. in the Thereare aremany manykinds kindsofoflexical lexical concepts which encode an intention to There There are many kind lexicalconcepts con epl which whi hencode en od an an intention inlrnlion to 10 signal signal contextual reference relates to extra-linguistic of ignal contextual (Onle lual reference refcren( as aas itit II relates reldles to 10 extra-linguistic Xlra lingui III context. conlrxl, Many 1anyof of context. Many these treated under the heading of these are often Ihcse are are often oflen treated Ir aled under under the Ihe heading hrading of ofdclxii. ddxi. Previous Previou research r r h deixis. Previous research has hasidentified identified of diverse sorts of deistic lexical concepts including has identified aaarange rangr range of ofdiverse diver sorts rts of of dei Ii lexical lexical concepts con el'l including in ludlng as spatial deixis, temporal referred to phenomena referred 10 d\ p81ial dei.i • lemporal d ixi • and social dei deixis,and social deixis Phenomena referred to as spatial deixis, temporal deixis. social deixis 1997;Lcvinson 1983). (fordetails delail see hllmor 1997; ILevinson In''ln 1983), (for details see lullmore Fillmore 1983).

_____________

1

-

REPRESENTATION ILEXICAL EXI AI REPRESENTATION REPRE F TAT ION Ll-xICAL

124 124

Pragmaticpaint point point Pragmatic

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

love for a. She She her lov love for for him him a. She declared declared her her a. 1939 yd 1939 Neville Chamberlain declared on Germany on dccLired war war on ('krrnany on September b. Nevilk b. 'evilleChamberlain Chamherlain dcdarc'tl war (;em13ny onSeptember Seplemher3rd 3rd h. Despite heing over Ihe the limil limit on the of dollars dollars c. E)cspitc being over limit on c. Despile Ihe amount amounl of of doll.u: in in cash cash c. eligible to she declarednothing nothing as as she eligible he taken laken inlO Ih country, coulllry. she hedeclared declared nOlhmg a she he eligible 10 to be be taken into into the the crossed the US border crossed the US US border cro sed Ihe

serves 10 to encode an an inlellllon intention to to provide provideinformation information in (2.\3) (24a) serves The use of drdllrrr/ill serv 10 provide informal ion (24a) to encooean encode red in The use of declared of a particular sort, with an above-average level of assertiveness. Hence, the level of assertiveness. Ilente. the of a partl(ular sort. wilh an anabove-average above· average level of a \CrtlVell ;. Ilen<e. Ihe sort, with (FORI IIlexical concept whi which sanctions this use of can be he glossed lexical h sanctions sanalon thi use of drdllrtd can can he glossed glossedasas as[FORTH[FO~TII. lexical concepl concept which this use of declared associated INFORMATIONAL. In contrast, RIGHT contrast, thelexical lexicalconcept oncept associated RI(.IIT IN. RMATIO AI ASSERTION AS~I RTION].J. In cOlllraSI. the Ihe lexl(al concepl assoclaled RI(;HT INFORMATIONAl or eitherchanges, with the use of Ih use of tirc/llre,/ in in (24b) (24b) relates relale. to 10 all a~rlion whicheither eilher challge..or IIr relates to an an assertion assertionwhich with the of declared otherwise state. (rucially, is the illocutionary otherwise revises, revises, an an insliluli nal state. lale. Crucially, ru ially. not nOI only onlyis isthe Iheillocutionary iUoculionary revises, aninstitutional institutional declared point the the use use responsihk poml di lincl from from the Ihe lexical lexical concept concepl responsible rcspoll ible for for the Ih u of of dedared dre/aml in in point distinct distinct from lexical coikept (24a), distinct too. This follows thecontext contextofofuse use for (2.\3). but bUllh conlexl of useisiisdistinct di;tintlloo. Thi.follows follow,asas asthe Ihe conlexlllf usefor for too.This but the the context contextof ofuse use the (ANNOUNCEMENT (24b) can can only be successfully Ihe IANNOUN(EMENT [ANNOUNCEMENTOF OFNEW NFW LEGAL STATU in (24b) (24b) can only onlybe hesuccessfully uce fuUy the OF NI WLEGAL LEGALSTATUS] s[AT(sJ] in deployed by suitably qualified participants. For instance, Neville Chamberlain instance Nevilk Chamberlain deployed deployed by Lwsuilably suitablyqualified qualified partidpalll~. participants. For in Ian ·e. eville Chamherlain September3rd 3rd was able to successfully deploy successfully deploythis this lexical lexical concept because on was fully deploy Ih" lexical concept (ollceplbecause l>ctaU\con OilSeptember Seplemher 3 rd was able able 10 to ,uet 1939 appointedPrime Prime Minister the 1939 when when he he declared d lared war, war. he W the Ihelegally appoinled PrimeMinister 1inisltrofof ofthe Ihe he declared war, he was was the legally appointed United Kingdom, and under the terms of the Royal Prerogative—powers of the Unlled Kingdom. and and under under the Ihe terms lerm of Ih Royal RoyalPrerogative—poWers Prerogativ power; United Kingdom. invested in the monarch and deployed by the Prime Minister on behalf the Minister on behalf the invcsled alld deployed deployed by the Ihe Prime Prime 1inister ollhehalfofof oflhe invested in in Ihe the mOllarch monarch and monarch—he monarch—bewas was legallyentitled entitledto totake takethe thecountry countrytoto war. monarch-he W legally legally enlilled 101m Ihe counlry 10war. war.

•

[MANTIC STRUCTURE SEMANTIC STRUCr(KE SEMANTIC STRUCTURE

115 llS

125

oncept I·mally. Ihe lexical el'l which sanctions Ihe uuseof of tirdllrrd (24 Finally, Finally,the thelexical lexicalcon concept whichsanctions sanctionsthe theuse ofdetlare'd decidingin in (24c) (24c)) .OODS relales 10 Ihe [ANNOUN lMENTOF Of OUTIARLF os AT AT CUSTOMS] U TOM] lexical Ilexical xieal relates L)UTIABLE relatesto tothe theIANNOUN(EMENT (ANNOUNCEMENT OF DUTIABLE G GOODS AT .oneepl. bolh I rm; of of illocutionary illoculionary point poinl and and context(s) cOlllexl(s) distinct illocutionary concept. This This iisis d,slina distinct both both in in terms terms of point and context(s) previously This lexical concept is "I uUM: from Ihe melllioned lexical concepts. on<epts. This This lexical lexical concept con<epl is i~ from ofuse fromthe the previou~ly previously mentioned mentioned lexical lexical concepts. ,pecialized uuse in conlexl cu loms provision al international inlemallonal provision at at international specializedfor foruse in contexts contexts involving involving customs customs border Its communicative function to horder cn) ing.s. Its has wilh signalling ignalling as a to 10 bordercrossings. crossings. Itscommunicalive communicativefunaion function has has 10 to do do with with signalling as to goods being transported. or to transported good or caused he ported by by Ih perwn iissuing suing the Ihe goods hemg being Iran'ported. transported, orcaused caused 10 to be be Iran. transported bythe the person person issuing the declaration" in to restrictions restrictions on the nature "declaralion" in Ihis specific conlexl. wilh r pecllO reslriction onthe Ihenature nalure "declaration" inthis thisspecific specificcontext, context, with with respect respect to ,tnd/or that may be transported into the the country which and/or amounl of good that Ihal may may be he transported Iransported into inlo Ihe country counlry which which and/or amount amount of of goods goods establishes theCUSlom customsprovision, provision,and/or and/or tax tax payable onparticular particular goods. ,.."abli,he. provi,ion. alld/or lax payable payable on on partl(ular good .. establishes Ihe the customs goods. present in Table Table 6.4 summary of of the the Based u ion. II present presenl in 6.4 aaa summary summary of the Based on the Rasedon on th the foregoing foregoing di discussion, of the linguistic key components pragmatic part ~cy pragmalic point poinl Ihalare areencoded encooed a part parI of of the Ihe linguistic lingui Ii key(omponenl~ components of of pragmatic pointthat that are encoded as as associated lImlenl of each of Ihe three Ihrcc lexical lexi 31 concepls. Mu h of of Ihe content conlenl associated a;sodaled (Intent of the three lexical concepts. Much Much of the the content content of each each of the concepts. with comes from the wilh Ihelhree lexical concepl fordeclared drclared from con eplual content conlenl withthe thethree threelexical lexicalconcepts concepts for for declared comes comes from the conceptual conceptual content That is, is. as lexical conceptshave havebipartite bipartitestrucstruc10 whi ·h they Iheyafford affordaccess. aetes . That Thai i •as 3\ lexical lexi al concepts concepls have bipartile .Iru . to to which which they afford access. with aaa rich rich semantic potential. however, lure. Ihey are each each associated asso
Pragmaticpoint point for for three three lexical kxicaj concepts of declared Jedared Pragmatic concepts of Setting Seiling Setting

I.e ital concept (on(cpt lexical Lexical concept

-

Illocutionary point Partidpanl(s) Illocutionary Illoculionarypoint poinl Participant(s)

M.ike statement LIRKiIITINFORMATIONAL INIOKMAI toNAl.Unrestricted UnrestrittedUnrestricted Unresirkied II t-clRIItRI(.11T INIORMATHlNAI Unrnlrit..:lrtl Unr Irilo.trtl Make 1.JkC'statement tJlC'mC'nt [FORTHRIGHT Hence. while "IIItItis 'W\~r1h innature. ~.nnrh. I1Inlhere heftthat ttul 1"'Iul"!\;content (ontmtis~schematic k.hnn.lll-..inIn n.tlUft.Hence, UCfk.t.while whtk thatlinguistic linguistic isworth worthre-emphasizing re-emphasizing herr declaring a state of war. for example. involves being able rumple. involves being .ihk making a speech act I Searle 19691. sue h as a state ,,t war. for ~umrk, Uln,lvn '-'lnl ahktoto m .. \;'m,,.a 'lKUh lk.has ill declaring dn.l.Jnn"" l.1tt elf W.U, fur tl' making speech....ct' ISark (Scark I~ '. suh (luau,. .inci and call upon highly detailed !iodic-s of conceptual knowledge relating to the sorts oft.( SCsten.arios knowledge rrlatrng to the ull urun hi hly I.ktAIW bt~1 ,,, UIOU,.ttul ~nol~&..-J,(' rnlythe ttl< most m.. ,.-nc-rl ~ 1'>r\.1 including ",duJm. "hrnlolll( participantsinvolved, involved. linguistic content involves only the most information concerning the types 014:officio in which r particular lexical concept can Is deployed, particuLar kucal concept tan be deployed, the mrmm"t",n "or,,-"TU", the ...h. the information COflCCffl$fl5 theIYrft types(If of""ntnt context In in ""hl which a r--nk.w"r kt.I ... ~1 UU"-rJ't un ~ dc-pluynl.the

" It

I

nature and hold andthe thecondition. conditionswhich wtn'.h must "",Iur~of (.fthe theparticipants r~n"'l""nt involved Inu.),,n wh ... hmust mu thold. hcokl

n.alurc oldie p.arlitipants

I

ASSERI IONI A\ UllIO. ASSERTION Unrestricted Restricted Di-NEW NIW I ANNO~NCEM£NT OF NEW Unr Iricltd Restricted R tn trd [ANNOUNCEMENT OF Unrestricted l(;AL STATUS' SITATl'S) 1I f(~Al LEGAL Restrkttd IANN(lllNC MlNlI OF 01 m ITlAS' f Rest R trktrtl Re"llnUN UI 1)111*101 ANN()UN I SIEN ricted I ANNOUNCEMENT Dtrt Restricted

1S1

(001)S AT IC\iSTO (STOPtSj GOOD AT ATCUSTOMS' GOODS

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

Change officialstate state "hangC'official offidal statC' Change

Make official statement 1.Jkrofficial oflluJIstatement 1.. lement Make

126 '26

LFXI(AL LEXI ALRFPKFSFNTATION REPRE FNTATIOS LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

the same same in the chara..terization. much in in (24b) gives rise ririse to to. characterization. much me informational characterization, (14h) gives gives to aa rich rich informational in (z4b) discussed in Chapter 4. way to France France discussed di usse
Summary the nature nature of of been concerned ,in account account of This has been concerned with developing an Thi' hapter has ofthe th~ naturenf chapter This chapter andcontrasting contrasting with It with with semanti tructur<. relating relating to linguistic system, ystem. and and contra5tong itit structure, semantic relating to the the linguistic linguistic semantic structure, conceptual system. system. conceptual structure, stru..ture, the the representational representational format of the conceptual conceptual structure. representational format format of the th conceptual conceptual. y te~. mainclaim claim of the II nuxlel model semantic manti structure tructure in terms terms of of lexical concept. concept. The Themain nwn cla im the lexical structure concepts havebipartite bipartitestructure: lexicalconcepts that that I made mad was con eptshave have bipartite structure:lexical concept concepts was that that lexical concepts and externalized externalized via directly encoded encoded encode informationthat that can can be en ode information information th.t be directly en oded in and .nd externalized via via he directly encode and which which isi, language. This This information. information, which language. information,whih which iis is unique uniqueto tolanguage, language, language. unique la.n.guage. and and whic~ is oflexical lexical refer to linguistic relativelystable, stable, IIIrefer referto to as aslinguisti linguisticcontent. content.In In addition, addition, aa subset subset relatively stable. In addition. ubset of of lexi al conceptual lexical concepts—serve as access sites to concepts-serv •as access access sites ites to conceptual concepts-()pen-cla concepts—open-class concepts—open-class lexical concepts—serve theoretial construct terms of the theoretical term of the theoretical construct structure. structure. model conceptual structure structure in terms construct structure. I1model The nonchapter. The detailin inaaalater of the the cognitive cognitive mod addressed in in detail detail in laterchapter. The nonnon· cc)gnitivemodel, model,I. addressed referto toas as conceptual models linguistic information linguisti by cognitive cognitive models models IIrefer refer t." a~conceptual conceptual information encoded by lexicalconcepts, concepts,which which isto tosay '.ivy ititII isis encoded This is content. This Thi' bk not not directly directly encoded en oded by by lexical lexical concept. whl h isI' to " by lexical lexical conupts. and language. Rather Rather beaccessed accessed not encoded encoded in '" language. Rather itititcan canbe a cessed by lexi .1 concepts, con epts. and in language. hence Thus,• the bipartite concepts means language. bipartite structure tructure of oflexical lexical concepts concept means mean hen e via language. Thu structure of via language. hence linguistic content and and [t1C//"'"e facilitate access that they ,"eo
7 Lexical concepts Lexical concepts Lexical his (hapter is concerned an overview overview ofthe themain mainproperties II hI' erned with providing prOViding an overview of of th maon properties This chapter icon ..ind characteristics characteristics .1nd characteri ti of lexical serv to complement and of lexical lexical concepts. concepts. A As such. such, it serves serves to complement complementthe the study of the tontent encoded study ,tudy lingui tic content encoded by by lexical lexi al concepts con epts in in previou, the linguistic linguistic encoded by lexical inthe theprevious previous This chapter sections. The first provides of two main main sections. sextions.The Thefirst first provides provid an an
The nature of of lexical lexical concepts concepts starting point this chapter is 1y starting tarting point thi chapter briefly survey urvey aa number of the the most most My point in in this is to to briefly briefly survey number of the most not able properties properties of lexical concepts. These of lexical concepts. These Th. are areas follow and andare areaddressed addressed notable as follows follows ill more detail detail below: 111 below: in more •• lexical lexical concepts of mental grammar lexi al concepts con epts are ofmental grammar are elements elements of ••• lexical lexical concepts Ie ical san tion instances in tanc of of language language use sanction instances language use sanction •• lexical concepts are vehicle-specific lexical concepts lexical concept are are vehiclepecific vehicle-specific • lexical concepts are languagelexical concepts lexical concept are language-sl>ecific ific language-specific •• vehicles vehicles are not are not lexical concept-specific vehid notlelic.1 - peell; lexical concept concept-specific •• lexical lexical concepts concepts are associated with different vehicle sociated with different are aassociated vehicle types types

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

128

LEXICAl REPRESENTATION

LEXICAL CONCEPTS (ONCIPTS

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

thefollowing folit wingexample: example: \,)%.1W L ► nsider the

becombined combined can be lexical concepts concepts can •• lexical for non-linguistic non-linguisticreprereprelexicalconcepts conceptshave have relativistic relativistic consequences for •• lexical st'fltjtfl)fl sentation

(2

to be the fundamental units of grammar. As such, lexical concepts arc to be the fundamental units of grammar. As such, lexical concepts arc

Lexical Lexical concepts (oncepts are are vehicle vehicle-specific specific -

(Langacker While the semantic contribution contribution of vehicle— (Langacker 1987). 1987). While the semantic of any any given given vehicle— word particular utterance utteranceisislicensed Ikensedby byaagiven given word or or linguistic linguistic expression—in expression—in aaparticular lexical the nature nature of of the the semantic semanticcontribution contribution associated associatedwith withthat that lexical concept, concept, the expression will always be aafunction function of of the theunique uniquecontext contextininwhich whichititisis expression will always be embedded. unique embedded. In In other otherwords, words,any anyusage usage of of aa given given vehicle constitutes constitutes aa unique

concept be sanctioning sanctioning aaparticular partkular use vehicle. This l'his state of affairs affairs concept may may be use of of aa vehicle. state of IIrefer which II first first fast which refertotoas as multiple multiplesanction. sanction. To To illustrate, illustrate, take take the the vehicle vehicle fast disttissed in (;hapter users discussed in Chapter t.i The Theway wayininwhich whichthis thisvehicle vehicleisisused used by by language language users often appears to assume often appears to assumeaa number numberofofdistinct distinctlexical lexicalconcepts, concepts, including includingthose those that can be glossed as IPERFORM SOMI Ac1jIOPJ) Qt'Ic taYl, as evidenced by as evidenced by that can be glossed as (PERFORM SOME ACT(ION) QUICKLY], (ia), and I REQUIRI IITI I TIMI I ION J.as Jsevidenced evidencedby by(1b): (ib): TIME10k FORCOMPLE COMPLETION], (la), and [REQUIRE ILITTLE She's a typist (1) a.a. She's a fast typist h. from b.Which Whichcourier couriercompany companywould wouldyou yourecommend recommendtotoget get aa package package from Brighton BrightontotoLondon Londonlast? fast?

lexical concepts Lexical concepts are are vehicle-specific. That That is, is, they are areconventionally conventionally associassociated vehicles. While perhaps, obvious that .iied with with specific linguistic vehicles. While itit is, is, perhaps, obvious thatthe the vehicles car would vehiclescat cat and and ear would be be associated associated with distinct lexical concepts, it with distinct lexical concepts, it isis perhaps less lessobvious obviousthat that the the vehicles vehicles sing sing and and sang sang would would also also be be associated associated with distinct distinct lexical lexical concepts. concepts. Nevertheless, Nevertheless,this this isisindeed indeed the the claim claimmade made by LCCM Theory,in in keeping keeping with lc(;M Theory, withconstructional constructional approaches approachestotogrammar. grammar. A spells aadistinct •\ distinction in form spells distinct lexical lexical concept. concept. Notwithstanding this claim, some someapproaches approachestotolexical lexicalrepresentation representation make the assumption that vehicles such and ran, ran, and relate suchas as run run and and so so forth, forth, relate to essentially the same samesemantic semanticrepresentational representationalunit, unit,what whatisistraditionally traditionally referred to referred toas as a lexeme. Onthis thisaccount, account,vehicles vehicles such such as run and ran ran kxcme. on .is run and essentially provide equivalent equivalent semantic semantic content—the lexeme RUN—and RUN—and only content—the lexeme only differ in in terms terms of of the the grammatical grammatical information they encode, encode, which information they which isisheld heldtoto he n(rn-semantic non-semantic in in nature. nature. In In other other words, words,the thetraditional traditionalview viewattempts attemptstoto account k)r the the intuition intuition that the semantic account for vehicles such semantic units units associated iatcd with with vehicles such as these are closely related. as \I Theory LCCM Theoryaccounts accounts for run and and ran ran are arc associated for the the intuition intuition that that run iated with closely related with closely relatedsemantic semantic units in in the following following way. As we saw in way. As w' saw in the the previous previous chapter, chapter, lexical lexical concepts concepts have bipartite organization, encoding linhave bipartite organization, encoding linguistic guistic content and facilitating facilitating access access to to conceptual content. content. Hence, Hence,lexical lexical concepts as units of semantic structure can differ in at least one of two ways. structure can differ in at least one of two ways. Iirstly, Firstly,lexical lexicalconcepts concepts may may provide provide differential differential access access to to the the cognitive cognitive model model profile profileto to which which they they facilitate atcess. access. That is, they may provide access That is, they may provide ,k&ess at at (lifterent differentpoints points in in conceptual structure. Thesecond second way in which lexical structure. The way in which lexical concepts concepts may may differ differrelates relatesto to the the nature nature of of the the linguistic linguistic content content they they encode. encode. the Thedifference difference between the the lexical lexicalconcepts concepts .Iss4ltiated associated with rim and has ran has with rut: and ran lessto todo do with withaa difference difference in in terms of access to cognitive model profiles. terms of access to cognitive model profiles. Rather, Rather,the thedifference differencerelates relates to to linguistic linguistic encoding, encoding, in the nature natureof of in particular. particular, the the the parameters parameters relating relatingtototime timereference referenceencoded encoded by the respective lexical the respective lexical Theory, run concepts. IHence, run and and run LLCM ranare are assod.ited lence, in in LC( M Theory. associated with with distinct distinct access to lexical similar lexicalconcepts, concepts, which which facilitate access to similar Cognitive cognitive model profiles profiles but I

Lexical use Lexical concepts concepts sanction—which sanction—whichisistotosay say license—instances license—instances of of language language use

(;iven in language languageuse, use,but hutrather hither Giventhat thatlexical lexicalconcepts concepts do do not not occur in sanction is often often the the case casethat thatmore morethan than one onelexical lexical sanctioninstances instancesofofuse, use, itit is

We We need needaafast fastgarage garagefor for our our car, car, as aswe weleave leavethe theday dayafter altertomorrow tomorrow

a

Lexical concepts sanction sanction instances instances of of language language use use Lexical concepts

instantiation of semantic semantic instantiationofofaalexical lexicalconcept, concept,and andisis thus thus subject subject to to processes processes of composition—discussed Part III Ill ot specific context, context, composition—discussed ininPart ofthe the hook—due book—due to to the the specific which, semanticcontribution contnhution of of the the lexical lexical concept inin which, in in part, part, determines determines the the semantic question. question.

)

The examplein in (2) (2) appears appearsto tobe beaa"blend" I he example Thknd" of of both both the thelexical lexicalconcepts conceptswhich which sanction the theexamples examplesinin(1). (i). In In other words, the thesemantic semanticcontribution contribution of of fast fast involvesnuances nuancesrelating relating to A garage inin (2) involves toboth both these theselexical lexicalconcepts. umcepts. A garageisis required required in in which the mechanics mechanicscan canperform performthe therelevant relevantrepairs repairsquickly, quickly,and and which given that the car will which takes takeslittle little time time for for completion ofofrepairs, repairs, given that the car willbe be required required the theday dayafter aftertomorrow. tomorrow.

are elements elementsof of mental mentalgrammar grammar Lexical conceptss are Lexical are units units of of semantic semanticstructure. structure.That Thatis, is,they theyprovide providethe the lexical concepts are Lexical AsLCCM L(CM Theory bipolarsymbolic symbolicassembly. assembly.As Theoryadheres adherestoto semantic pole poleof ofaabipolar semantic symbolicunits unitsofofthe thesort sortdiscussed discussed Chapters archeld held the svmholic symbolic thesis, thesis, symbolic the ininChapter 5 are themselvesunits unitsofofmental mentalgrammar. grammar. themselves However, being beingunits unitsof ofmental mentalgrammar grammar lexical lexical concepts conceptsdo Jonot notarise ariseinin However, languageuse. usc.Rather, Rather,they theyare areunits unitsofoflinguistic linguisticknowledge knowledgeabstracted abstractedfrom from language across usage usageevents events(i.e., (i.e.,utterances) utterances)that thatencode encodelinguistic linguisticcontent Contentand and across facilitate access conceptual(i.e., (i.e.,non-linguistic) non-linguistic)knowledge. knowledge.Thus, Thus,aalexical lexical facilitate access totoconceptual conceptisisaaunit unitofoflinguistic knowledge knowledgethat thatpopulates populatesthe the"mental "mentalgramgramconcept mar" deriving use.In In Chapter Chapter 44 mar," derivingfrom fromcommonalities commonalitiesininpatterns patternsofoflanguage language use. II likened to phonemes phonemesininphonological phonologicaltheory. theory.Like like phonemes, likened lexical lexical concepts concepts to phonemes, lexical concepts arc abstractions over multiple instances of language use. lexical concepts are abstractions over multiple instances of language use.

129 129

I

11

rte

140

but

130

—

LI XICAL CONCEPTS CONCEPTS LEXICAL

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION LI

theirlinguistic linguistic Assuch such their enctxle a different bundle of linguistic content. As enLode a ditterent bundk of content is but not identical. similar but is similar

FAPLE7.1. 7.1.ICI:Wean korean lexical lem.sl contcpt.. TABLE their correspondence to to English English spatial spatial relations rdatitins concepts and and their [PLACEMENT ON ON rie ► lta (PLACEMENT

Corresponds to..... Corresponds to,

U0RI/ONTAL HORIZONTAL SURIAtFJ SURFACE]

Lexical concepts conceptsare are language-specific language specific Lexical vehu.k-specific kxk.d itmtepts An important corollary of the concepts are vehicle-specific the position position that that lexical An important by Thus, each each language, Ianguage by is that that lexical lexical concepts concepts are are necessarily language-specific. Thus, is populate the the language, language, language-specific vehicles which populate virtue of of comprising comprising language-specific virtue differlanguage-specific lexical of language-specific lexical concepts. AAdiffernecessarily provides an inventory of with the the ence in form in the the lexical lexical concept concept associated with results in in aa difkrence in ence in form results view,which whichholds holdsthat thataa vehicle. In short, what might he be dubbed the naive naïve view, vehicle. In short, vehicles for for encoding encoding language represents represents an an inventory inventoryof ofLanguage-specific language-specific vehicles language Theory. semanticunits unitsisisrejected rejeitedby byLCCM I.( :CMTheory. cross-linguistically identical cross-linguisticallY identical semantic whichtwo twounrelated unrelatedlanguages, languages, Toillustrate illustrate this this point, consider the way way in in which lo spatialrelationship. relationship.This Ihis English and and Korean, Korean, encode encode ostensibly the same spatial English and Bowerman and discussion is workof ofChoi Choland andBowerman Bowerman(1991; Bowerman discussion is based based on on the the work by the the utterances utterances for the the spatial spatial scenes evoked evoked by 2003). in Choi 2003). In order order to to prompt prompt for I PLACEMENTOF OFONE ONE ENTITY ENTITY glossasas that I Igloss (PLACEMFMT in English lexical concept that the English in (3), (i), the can Ise deployed. be deployed. with the the English inglish vehicle associated with vehicle put on can ONTO ANOTHER) ANO11IIki associated ONTO -

rwuchita I IUXTAPOSITION IIJXIAPOSITION

OF Snail IPLACEMINT !PLACEMENT OF

Corresponds Corresponds to... to...

APPAREL ON HEAD] IIEMIJ APPAREL ON

kk:ta IN rITIEs (FIT TWO TWO ENTITIES kkita (PIT

[PLACEMENT OF ONE INTITY ENTITY

ONTo e.g., put put ONTO AN01TIIFRI ANOTHER] e.g.. cup on on table

IPIA(FMENTOPONI [PLACEMENT OF ONE INrITY ENTITY ONTO ANOTHERJ ONTO ANOTHER] e.g., e.g., put put magnet on refrigerator on refrigerator PLACEMINT 01 I[PLACEMENT OFONE ONEENTITY ENTITY

ONJO III RJ e.g., e.g., ('sit ONTO ANOJ ANOTHER] put

(;orresponds Correspondsto... to...

I HIRJ 1 1GHTI Y TOGETHER]

hat hat on (Pm AC I MINT OF [PLACEMENT OF ONE ONE ENTITY ENTITY

ONI () ANOTH I RI] e.g., ONTO ANOTHER e.g., put ring ring on on finger/put top on on pen/put Lego block block on pen/put Lego Leg() 1.egd ► stack

While the situation just just described describedmakes makesthe thepoint pointclearly dearlythat thatlexical kxitiI concepts, While the situation concepts, as as vehicles, vehicles,are are language-specific language-specific(see (seeTable Table7.1), 7.i),my myclaim claimisisthat that more more as well well as mundane concept associated associated with with the the vehicle vehicle mundane examples, examples, for for instance, instance, the the lexical lexical concept cat in English and chat dia: in English and French arc lexical concepts concepts in French are also also distinct. distinct. This This follows follows as lexical have bipartite as discussed discussedin inthe theprevious previouschapter chapterand andas assummarsummarhave bipartite organization, as iicd below. Hence, even in in cases cases where where lexical lexical concepts concepts share share similar Linguistic ized below. Hence, even linguistic cross-linguistically,the thenature nature of ofthe theconceptual ionceptual structure structure to to which which content cross-linguistically, lexical concepts concepts afford afford access access will will always always he he distinct. distinct. This This follows fi1lowsas asthe the individindividlexical uals that make up distinct distinct linguistic linguistic communities communities have have divergent divergent bodies bodies of of uals that make up knowledge based on experiences experiencesthat that are are divergent divergent due due to to linguistic, cultural, cultural, knowledge based on md areal divergcnces.I and areal divergences.'

'PLACEMENT 01 OFONE ONE ENTITY ENTITY ONTO oNTO ANOTHER' ANOl tIER encodes The lexical lexicalconcept concept(PLACEMENT The ofsome somekind. kind.The Thereader reader placement of the figure in surface of contact with with aa surface in contact placement of the figure theonly only forgivenfor forthinking thinkingthat that this this isisthe familiar familiar only only with with English English might might be he forgiven However,the the be encoded encoded by by aa linguistic linguistk system. system. However, way these these spatial spatial scenes scenes can can be arecategorcategorThe English English examples examplesin in(3) are situation is very situation in in Korean Korean is very different. different. The achieved kinds in Korean. This is achieved ized into lexical lexicalconcepts conceptsof offour fourdifferent diflerent kinds ized into in (4): using the four disIIIKt distinct symbolic symbolicunits, units,as asin

a. vehicle: a. vehicle: lexical Lexicalconcept: concept: h. vehicle: vehicle: lexical lexical concept: concept: c. vehicle: vchkk: lexical lexical concept concept (I. vehicle: d. vehicle: lexical lexical concept: concept:

(orresponds Correspondsto... to...

01 OF 5tMFA( SURFACES] EsI

(3) a.a.She thecup cupon onthe thetable table Sheput putthe She put put the the magnet magnet on onthe therefrigerator refrigerator b. She b. She put put the hat on c. She She put put the the ring ring on on her her finger finger d. d. She She put put the top on the pen e. She c. stack 1. theLego Legoblock blockon onthe theLego Legostack Sheput put the 1. She

(4) (4)

Ui 131

Vehicles are not not lexical concept concept-specific specific -

Although lexical lexical concepts concepts are are vehicle-specific, vehicle-specific,aasingle singlevehicle vehiclecan canhe beconvenconvenAlthough tionally associated associated with with aa potentially potentially large Largenumber numberofofdistinct distinctlexical lexicalconcepts, concepts, tionally which may or may may not not be be semantically semantically related. related. Hence, Hence, vehicles vehicles are arc not not lexical lexical which may or Concept-specific. Lexical I concepts that that are are related, either in terms of of similar similar concept-specific. concepts linguistic content, or or in in terms terms of offacilitating access linguistic content, access to to related related cognitive cognitive model model profiles—by virtue virtue of of providing providing proximal proximal access sites sites to to conceptual conceptualcontent— content— profiles—by or both, are held to exhibit polysemyrelationship. relationship.For Forexample, example.ininthe the or both, are held to exhibit aapolysemy Utterances below belowin in(5), (s),the theform is associated form flying is utterances associated with with four four distinct distilkt lexical lexical Concepts,each eachofofwhich whichfacilitates facilitatesaccess accesstotodistinct, distinct,but hutclosely closelyrelated, concepts, related, cognitive model modelprofiles: profiles: cognitive

to 11011 ?k)htiJ El 'PLACEMENT SURFACE] (PLACIMENI ON HORIZONTAL IIOKIZONIAL SURFA(

pwuchitii pwuchita IIUXTAPOSITION SURFACES' ESI (IL7XTAPO%I IK)NOF 1)1 5(R)

ssuta HIADI [PLACEMENT OFAPPAREL APPARELON ON HEAD) (PLACEMINI OF kkita kki:a T(RE1111RI [FIT TWO IWo ENTITIES ENIITIFS TIGHTLY TOGETHER'

(III

NOP

The nature nature of ofconceptual structure slructurt and md ionic The comeof of the the factors factor %invohed is involvedinin providing at it with with it, distinct theindividual individusilevel. kvd. will willhe heexplored cxplorcdin'iiChapter (haptcrin.so. dictinitivrnevi, atatthe

—-----------

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

132 132

LEXI

SELF-PROPELLED AERODYNAMIC i'Ui)PEI I II) AEROI)YNAMIC (5) a. The plane/bird is flying (in the the (sill flying (in The plane/bird is a. (5) MOTION MOT ION J sky) sky) [OPERATIONUI OF IENTITY NTI1'Y CAPABI (AI'ABLIh. The The pilot pilot is is flying flying the the plane plane (in (in [OPERATION b. OFAIRODYNASIIC AERODYNAMICMOTIONI MOTION) OF thesky) sky) the [CONTROLOF OF uGIIrwEI(;HT LIGHTWEIGHTFNENc. The child is flying the kite in (CONTROl kite ((in c. The child is thing the TITY) the breeze) Tirvi the OF LIGHTWF ?( 1IT lft.tI iWEI(.H'! LI.The Theflag flagisis flying flying (in ( in the the breeze) breeze) [SUSPENSION 01

d.

OBJECT) OR, ECT I

Lexical concepts are associated with different vehicle vehicle types Lexical conceptS are associated with different As lexical concepts are are conventionally conventionallyassociated associated with a given given linguistic linguistic veyeAs kxical with aa wide wide hicle, it follows that lexical concepts are conventionally associated asMxiated with hide, it toilowS that lexical conccpls are with which which range of vehicle types. As we saw in Chapter 5,5, the the range range of vehicles vehicles with in Chapter range of vehicle types. As we saw

includephonetically phonetically overt yelexical concepts are conventionally associated include overt %L. lcxhal concepts are conventionally and phonetically phonetically implicit suchas asthe theditransitive ditransitive cat, ,iiid hides, such such as implicit vehicles, such hicks, as tat, Johnbaked baked Mary Mary aacake; gave cake; John gave e.g., John (SUBJECT VERB nail ORIIoB)2)1 01112), e.g., vehicle:(SUHIECT vehkk: vehicles that that have Mary the cake; John mused Mary the cake. Moreover, explicit vehicles Mary the' cake; Joliti refused Mary the cake. Moreover, explicit hound distinct lexical concepts conventionally associated associatedwith with them them include include bound distinct lexical concepts words, and morphemes, "simplex" words, "complex" or polymorphemic polyrnorphem' words, complex or simplex words, morphemes1 idiomatic expressions and phrases. Id mat ic expressions and phrases.

Lexical concepts structure Lexical concepts have have bipartite bipartite structure bipartiteorganization. organization. Lexical concepts concepts arc semanticstructure structurewith withbipartite are units units of of semantic conceptualstructure. structure. They encode linguistic content and facilitate access to conceptual They encode linguistic content and facilitate access to takesfor for inguistic content content represents represents the theform form that that conceptual conceptualstructure structuretakes Linguistic differentproperties properties direct thereare areaalarge largenumber numberofofdifferent direct encoding encoding in in language. language.There schematicor orskeletal skeletal encoded whichserve servetotoprovide provideaaschematic encodedby bylinguistic linguistic content content which variouscharacteristics characteristiCS representation can be cticodcdininlanguage. language.The t'hcvarious representation that that can be encoded previous theprevious involved, the majority of which detail ininthe which were were discussed discussedin in detail

involved, the majority of

chapter, chapter1include includethe thefollowing: following: parameterization •• parameteriiatiofl non-analogue ininnature •• non-analogue nature •• topological reference topok)gical reference restricted set set of •• restricted of domains domains and and categories Categories a distinction between nominal •• a distinction between nominaland relationallexical lexicalconcepts concepts andrelational •• referentiality referentiality •• pragmatic pragmatic point point lexical profile •• lexical profile sitestotoconceptual conceptual subset ofoflexical a subset In oncepts serve ser%t'as asaccess sites lexical concepts In addition, addition, a which informationtotowhich structure. Conceptual structure relates to non-linguistic information structure. Conceptual structure relates to

iixiesi CONCEPTS LEXICAL CONCEPTS

133 1 33

potentiallyafford afford access.The Thepotential potentialbody body of of non-Linguistk non-linguistic ic‘ i,-,1 1 conceptspotentially

of lexicalconcept's concept'ssemantic semantic potential, potential, isis modelled modelled in in terms terms of of aa set set of kn owledge:aalexical models. cognitive models. Recall Recall that that IIrefer refertotothe thebody bodyofofcognitive cognitivemodels models and and their their it model prohk. 3UCaI Concept, as the .15 .tLcesse(l by a given relationships , as accessed by a given lexical concept, as the cognitive model profile. Adesign designfeature featureofoflanguage languageisisthat thatititinvolves involvesaabifurcation bifurcationofoflexical lexicalconcepts concepts lexicalconcepts. concepts.While While into twotypes: types:open-class open-class lexical lexicalconcepts conceptsand andclosed-cLass dosed-class lexical i,no ode linguistic lexical concepts conceptswhich which facilitate facilitate encode linguistic content content ititisisonly onlyopen open -class -class lexical t h en' litboth structure. access tOto cOflceptthll conceptual structure. Lexical have an an encapsulation encapsulation function function Lexical concepts concepts have

function. This This is is ILexical exical concepts concepts provide providewhat what IIrefer refertotoas as an an encapsulation encapsulation function.

providing an site to to achieved by by virtue virtue of of open-class lexical concepts concepts providing anaccess access site informationally diffuse. diffuse. Lonceptual knowledge which which is is often often complex complexand andinformationally conceptual knowledge that words semantic unity, unity, and Ihis provides This provides the the illusion illusion that words have have semantic and that that itit isis complex body Lx)dyofofknowledge knowkdgcwhich which language which is language which is directly directlyencoding encoding the the complex site profile. Indeed, Indeed, what what II refer refer to to as as an anaccess site II refer model profile. refer to to as as aa cognitive model which is, is, in in fact, fact, made made up, up, typically, typically, of ofaa large large number numberofofassociation association areas areas which hold lexical L()ncept and the the conceptual conceptual system. system. hold between between aa single single open-class open-class lexical concept and Thus, encapsulation function function is function of Thus, the the encapsulation is aa function of two two distinct distinctsystems systems being being related such that the linguistic system provides a means of interfacing related such that the linguistic system provides a means of interfacing atat points with with the the knowledge knowledge"matrix" "matrix" that that is is conceptual conceptualstructure. structure.'2 specific points An example of the the encapsulation encapsulation function function of of lexical lexical concepts conceptscomes comesfrom from An example of the following following culture-specific culturespecific example from Korean Korean which which cannot cannot be heeasily easily the example from thelexical lexicalconcept concept This isisthe and/or simpk and/or simplyexpressed expressed in in another another language. language. This nunchi, which which might might be translated into into English English as as encoded by by the vehicle nunchi, encoded be translated "eye-measure." This lexical lexical concept concept relates relates to to the the idea ideathat that one oneshould shouldbe beable able eye-measure." This to judge judge how how others others are are feeling, feeling, such such as whether aa guest in one's home is is to as whether guest in one's home hungry or be in that the the guest guestisisnot not hungry or not, not, and and thus thus 1w in aa position position to to offer offer food food so so that entharrassedby byhaving havingto torequest requestit. it.Hence, Hence,the thelexical lexicalconcept conceptfacilitates facilitates embarrassed JtcCsStotocomplex complexideas ideas whichare aretypically typicallydiffusely difluselygrounded grounded in in an an intricate intriL ate access which cultural web web of of ideas ideasand andinformation. information.But Butby byvirtue virtueofofproviding providingaaunique unique cultural accesssite sitetotothis thiscomplex complexbody bodyofofconceptual conceptualcontent contentthe thelexical lexicalconcept concept access provides an anencapsulation encapsulationfunction. function. provides Lexical concepts concepts have haveaalexical lexicalprofile profile Lexical .\lany, perhaps perhaps most, most, lexical lexical concepts ..onLcptshave havea alexical lexicalprofile. profile.AAlexical lexicalprofile profile Many,

and Constitutesknowledge knowledgerelating relatingtotothe therange rangeofofother otherlexical lexicalconcepts and constitutes regularlyco-occurs. co-occurs.This This particular lexical lexical concept regularly vehicleswith with which which aaparticular vehicles ")flStitutes what what we wemight might refer refer to, to, informally, informally, as its use usepotential.' potential.' As Assuch, such, constitutes as its cxpkirrinin11101r morr&tail &tailinrnChAptet to. Ihcsc arc idea. gut Ih.itI Iexplore These nolsnnulitthe ux• ppok-niLal 5cr aho tor A n1.Ued. IlliCit (sw-.204 ► 3I tuna related. albeit distinct. notion ► tenttal of words. tier Alv ► Set !later (194.07. Aliwood (zoos). Allwood (2003).

________

1.\4 134

ii X U LEXICAL CONCEPTS (:ONcI P1 S

LEXICAl REPRESENTATION RIPRISINTATION LEXICAL

lexk.alprofile profileisisunique. unique.Moreover, Moreover unique,so sotoo tooits itslexical aas each concepl unique, '>0 100 il lexical prnfil uniqu . Morcovcr, concept isiisunique, as each lexical kxic,iI concept the linguistic stored part of Ihe relale:. lored as aaspart of the Ih linguistic lingui Ii Content conlenl 411i the to knowledge1 knowledge, stored content relates 10 profile relates the lexical lexical profile lexical concept. concept. by aa lexical concepl. encoded emodcd by lexical concepts andvehicles vehicleswith withwhich which lexical 1 he sorts of olher al concepts con piSand and .ehid wilh whi haaalexical lexical concept onc pi The of other lexical the of other lexl makeup upits itslexical lexicalprofile, profile, IIIlerm term selectional selectional co-occur, and which Ihereby make make up its lexical prnfile, selectional mik which thereby thereby can term can co-occur, cooccur, and profiles's selectional sekctional tenden lendencies, firsl introduced inlrodu edin inChapter Chapler1.L I. A Alexical lexical profil seleSOCialed. larger lexical lexical concept, concept, and hence isi associated. lexical concept's selectional selectionaltendencies tendencies restrictions of this this kind kind in in lexical Exlrem rc IriClion of oflhis in aaalexi 01 concept's concep!'s selectionallendencie, Extreme restrictions lexical

•

tendencieswhich whichare arewholly whollynon-restricted. non-restricted. are facl rare, rare, as as are arc lectionallendencies which are wholly non-reslricted. are in fact fact rare, are selectional selectional tendencies tendencies arc somewhat less rare Th ofrestricted r""lricled selectional seleclional tendencies lendenci", which which arc are somewhat '>Omewhalless I rare rare of restricted selectional The kind of instance, thelexical lexical relale are olherwi a collocations. collocalion. For instance, in Ian e, the Ihe relate 10 to wh.1 what are otherwise known as as collocations.For relate to what otherwise rancid, rotten, sour, following vehicles: vehicles: concepl associaled wilh lhe following vehid : stale, stale, rotten, .otten,sour, SOli., and rancid, rallcid, concepts associated associatedwith withthe thefollowing concepts applied to particular particular exhibit following restnctionS in terms as particular foodstuffs, food luff, exhibit exhibil the Ihe following followingrestrictions restriction in interms lern" as applied applied 10 to foodstuffs, the of Iheir selectional seleclionallendenci of their tendencies: their selectional tendencies::

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

• •

with that the In lerm of Ih examples in in(6) wesec see that Ihallhe lexicalconcepts conceptsassociated associaled with wilh In terms termsof ofthe theexamples (6)we we see the lexical lexical concepts associated quite distinct distinct rancid exhibil exhibit sour, and "1/I(itl Ihe vehides stale, stair, rotten, sour, SOli., quile dislincl sclectional leclional exhibit quite selectional the stale, rotten, the vehicles vehicles tendencies. The pattern pattern associated associated with each each canthus thusbe hesaid saidto10 tobe berestricted. lendenci pallern a"",ialed with wilh a hcan can Ihus be said be rrestricted. lricled. tendencies.. The A selectional lendency for forany anygiven given lexical lexical concept, concepl, for forconvenience, convenience, can can can A sekctional selectionaltendency tendency for any given lexical concept, for convenience, be divided into and formal formal selectional tenbe inlO semanli sekctional eJeclional tendencies I pllt < thlllg> put b.

(PI.A' f tENTllexical oncept ... Icct for (or ... manlie arguments argument that that can can he be The lexical concept concept selects for semantic semantic that be NI J lexical PLACEMENT( The((PIACEMI and .i location. location. In other ng, and and a other words, actor, aa thi thing, con trued as, J~. respectively. rC4illativciy. an an actor, allor, thillg. ItXdlion. In other words, word\. .onstrued construed as, respectively, concept involves involvesknowing what pa.t our knowledge con erning this lexical lexical concept involves knowingwhat what part of parto( ofour ourknowledge knowledge concerning concerning

ki n ds of of lexical lC\icJl concepts cJn co-occurwith. with.In Interms ~lIld, o( lexi al concepts concepts itititcan an co-occur CO·occur with. termsofo( (ormalselectional Ie 1I0nai Liti&ls terms offormal formal sekctional lexical our knowledge same tendencies, tenden ies, part ~art of o(our ourknowledge ~owledge of ofthe thesame sam lexical lexical concept con ptisisknowing knowingthe the concept the order inwhich which the the vehicles vehicles associated withthe theactor, actor,thing, thing, and and location ••1ir&lcr rder in III whICh the vehld associated as iated with with the actor, and location location coflceptsoccur, otcur, with with respect to the the vehicle lexical concepts respect Ie i,,11 conc.epts occur, r pecl to thevehicle vehide put pllt on. 011. That i , part of on. That That is, is, part part of k~nowledge no wledge involves knowing where where the IIlvolves knowing knowlllg where the Ihe actor, actor, thing, thing, and and location location slots lot are are actor, slots are located located relative to to the the vehicle. vehicle.Together Togetherthese thesetwo twotypes typesof t'tknowledge knowledgeform formthe h.... ted relative relative vehide. Together these two types of knowledge form th the lexical profile for the lexical A( EMIN rJ lexical concept.4 Ie 1(.1 profile prnfile for the the [PLACEMENT] (PtAU MENTlle.ical concept.'4 concept. needn't be restrictedto In formal selection tendencies In addition, addition, formal formalselection select!ontendencies lendend needn't needn'tbe berestricted toknowledge knowledge concerning the of order. can also knowledge 01 word word order. order. ItIt It can can also also include IIldude knowledge knowledge concerning concernlllg the thenature natureof ofthe the of the permissible vehicles that can can co-occur co-occur with with aa permissible vehicles that that can co-occur rcrnllwble vehicles a given gIVen lexical lexical concept. concept.For For given lexical concept. lor instance, and..again again adapting an an example example from Goldberg Goldberg instance, and the In,tanCe, and gain adapting adapting e.. mple from Goldberg (zoo6: (2006: 57), 57), the s7), the [LOCATED) lexical associated with the vehicle concept a.ssociated with the vehicle found finind I (l( AnDllexl al can cpt associated wilh vehicle [OIl11d exhibits exhibil aa distinct distinct formal selectional tendency from the I sdectional tendency from the tRIAl u/FoJ lexical REALIZED] lexical concept exhibited ">rIllal ...Icclional tendency the (REAlIzEOllexical by exhibited by by same vehicle: the same \Jme vehicle: vehicle:

ii

( R) $) (8)

•

El

135 135 135

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

[LOCATED] It U(ATIflJ (LOUTEDI

(REAlIZEDI

REAIIZEDJ I[REALIZED]

The lexical conceptselects selects fora object, All nJ lexical concept aa direct whilstthe the II REALIZED) I h~ (LOCATED) (I ()('ATfOllexical concept I t for for direct ohpect, object, whilst whilst REAlIlEDI REAIIZI l)j lexical leXIcal con ept selects lects for for a sentential ntential complement. complement. lexical concept concept selects complement. Thus far II have primarily Thus addressed the selectional tendencies J'hu far have primarily primarilyaddressed addressed the the selectional lectional tendencies tenden irs associated a 'Iated associated with lexical concepts with lexical lexical concepts on epts associated wllh vehi I that that have have overt phoneti iated with with vehicles vehicles have overt phonetic phonetic content. content. II now now briefly brieflyconsider consider the lexical profile associated con iderthe thelexical lexical profile profileassociated a iated with withlexical lexicalconcepts conceptsthat with lexical concepts that are ~nternally internally open. Recall that internally internally open internally open. Recall open arc Recall that open lexical lexical concepts concept are are paired with concepts arepaired pairedwith with vehicles which have have impliCIt implicit phonetic vehicles whICh which have implicit phonetic vehicles phonetic content, such su h as a the lexi 31 concept concept as the lexical lexical concept y TO I[THING [HUNGXxXCAUSES CAL Sis THING TIIIN THING Y ro RECEIVE RECEIVI llllNG CAUSE TO RECEIVE THING Z] zl conventionally conventionally paired paired with wilh zj the dltran ditransitive ditransitive vehicle. The The lexical lexical of such lexical concepts itive vehicle. vehide. Th Ie .. al profile profile of ofsuch u 'h lexical lexicalconcepts concept relates relates to to profile relates what what II refer refer to to aas as internal internalselect selectional whall refer to lectional tendencies.That 'J1lat is,as ajs the Ihelexical lexicalconcept concept internal lonal tendencies. Thatis, the lexical internally it can integrated with with other abstract is Iinternally open, it be integrated other less Iis .nternally open, can he oth rless I abstract ab traet lexical lexical concepts concept concepts paired with vehicles that do have with vehldes vehicles that do have phonetically paired With phonetically explicit explicit phonetic phonetICcontent. content.Yet, Yet, phonetic such lexical constrained in in certain ways, ,uch concept are constrained constrained incertain certainways, way,as aasspecified specified bythe Ihe such lexical concepts concepts are specifiedby thelexical lexical profile that forms profile that form forms part part of the linguistic content encoded pr file that pari of the the linguistic lingui ticcontent contenlencoded encoded by by the Ihe ITHING (TilING x the [THING X X (:A(sIs l111N; RI( CAUSES THINGYY I IVF THING 1 IIIN 7.1 (Al'"S TIliNG YTO TO RECEIVE Rf(flVE TIliNG lllexi<.11 In partieular, part of ofthe the lexical concept. concept. zJ concept.In Inparticular, particular, part knowledge captured knowledge capt~red captured by by lexical internally ~n~wledge I~xical profiles profiles for for internally internally open lexical lexi al concepts concepts involves which kind of lexicallv closed lexical concepts involves whl which lexically closed IIlyolv h. kind kllld oflexlCally dosed lexical con epl can can align wilh partiicuuConcepts canalign alignwith withparticupart lar slots in the lar slots in the the IIlternallycomplex internally oinplex complexvehicle. vehicle. For instance, the internally lar lot III vehide.For Forinstance, in t.ln e, in in terms term of of the(I1LIIN(i (Till G THING: terms ofthe X (At'sFs ITHING UIN(; vY X CAUSES Y TO RECEIVE X <.~u~,s TiliNG TO RE(.[IV' THING TiliNG zl lexical concept, its ItS lexical profile to RI(:EIVE ruIN(;Z1 zI lexical itslexical kxkal profile lexical concept, specifies that only specifiesthat that speafies only animate entities entities capable capabl of ofcausing cau ing transfer tran fer can can be inteintecapable of causing transfer canbe he N1Pi with the 3 1slot. grated with the N PI lot. Some Someo(the IIlternal Icctoonal tendend",. sociated t itmal tendencies slot. Some of of the the internal internalstk'c selectional tendencies associated ass c iated with this lexical with thi this .Iexical lexical concept concept aresummarized summariied in 'table with concept are ar ummari/ed in 'Idble 5..! 5.2 III Chapters. 50 in Chapter Chapter 5. There flow empirical 'There nowwell-established empirical evidence evidencee for Th re Iisisnow wwell-established II-establi hed empirical eviden (or the nOlion alexical lexical for the thenotion notionofofaa lexical profileJassociated profile 554 )c:iat edWIth with lexical lexical concepts. with Compelling profil lexieal (oncept>. Conipell Compelling evidence comes como fmm I ng evidence comesfrom from (

(2°440 for See(uldbcrg GtIldberg (woo) for (Iv, LI,sion of *It how how the item-based knowledge whit h itcni-b.iwd knowledge whKh profiki profiles of lettscal toth erts arc Me acquired. Illrld

lomprise. the the kXkal lexkal

136

-

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION lEXICAL_kEPRESINTATION

knowledge language whit.hreveals reveals thatpart partof ofthe the work in in corpus work in corpus linguistics linguistic, which whICh rev ,1\ that that part of th knowledge knowledgelanguage language work lexicalI what I am referring to as users have have of of words, u"'r~ word, for in tan e, includes indud what what IIam amreferring ..ferring to toasasaaalexical lexic for instance, includes of users have exploredin in the thework work of of profile. In In particular particular,this thisnotion notionhas has been In particular, thi notion ha been OCen empirically empirically in th work of profile. empirk ally explored profile. Hanks 1 )evdopiflg ideas ideas from Hanks Atkins(1987) (1987) who who uses the Atkin (1987) u the term "m Tag." Developing Developing idea from from lIankl. who uses theterm term"ID "II)Tag." lag." Atkins profile."Other other theterm (1996), Gries Gries (2oo9) employ (1<}96), employthe term"behavioural "behaviouralprofile." profile." Ot~er ,ries and and Divjak Divjak (2009) of the lexicalI the theoretical construct empirical workthat thatisiis.conMrnant consonant with lexical empiri .1 work work that con~nant with the th theoretical theoreltcal construct constru I of ofthe the,}"tc empirical (2009):her hernotion notionofof of"words "words profileisis isrepresented represented In in the the work workof of D~browska Dlbrowska (way): represented of (1~): her n~tlo~ word; profile in profile this perspective isI discussed discussed as construction." constructions." supports till other work that that supports upports this thl perspective per pectlveis dl ussed aas constructions. Still in Goldberg Goldberg (2006). (zoo6). In in (;oldberg associatedwith with not have lexical profile Finally, some concepts do not , which which must lack a referred "clause-level" cx kal concepts—traditionally refer to, as lexi al concepts—traditionally con epts-traditionallyreferred referred II refer as "clause-level" "clau -level" lexical refer to, informally, informally, as the "siniple to as as sentences"—such a, "independent "independent clauses," dau~," or or ahernatively" imple sentcnccs"—stich "'ntenc~"- uch as a, the the dauses," or alternatively alternatively "simple to observed lexical concept, observed zi lexical concept1 as [TIliNG x1CAUSES CAUSE TilING YY TO TO RECEIVE RE flV. THING TilING I[ lexical concept, as obserwd TI) K1.CEIVI (THINGX X THING ZI [TIIINC ALSIS THING how Il they they didn't, we we knowhow have aaalexical Ilexical xical profile. profile. they didn't, didn't, wewouldn't wouldn'tknow how above, do indeed indeed have have profile. IfIf symbolic combinedwith other,more morespecific, spoil c, symbolic such lexical concepts ,uch lex I al con ept~ could he combined combined with other, more specific, ymbolic such lexical concepts could be be well-formed utterance. in order order to to produce produce aawell-formed well formed utterance. utterance. units, units, in produce being externally doesnot not Finally, itit is is also also important to observe observe Finally, is also observe that that being beingexternally externallyclosed dosed does important to becombined combinedwith withother other imply, however, however, that aaa given lexical imply, how 'er, that given lexical lexical concept cannot annot be be combined with other imply. Afterall, all, the ditransitive lexical concepts lexical concept above abov the le,'el ofthe th utterance. utteranc.After After all,the th ditransitive d,tra""tive concepts abovethe thelevel lesdof of the utterance. lexical concepts to make more symbolic unit can be combined with other lexical concepts to make ymbolic unit can be be combined combined with other other I ical con epts to make more symbolic complex comple utterances: utterance;:

flowers, andshe she smelled rs,and hesmelled melled them. them. (9) Fred !'red Hollyflowers, flow Fredgave gaveHolly 1-loll

aJ referred to as as Traditionally an utterance utteranceof of the in (9) Traditionally utterance provided in (9) isiisreferred referred to to J; a Traditionally an an of the restricted restricted In sum, a lexical profile constitutes is specific toaaagiven given linguistic to its use it use use potential potentia! that that is isspecific peeific to given lingui tic knowledge knowledge relating relating to potential lexical expresses expr ..... sets set of of tendenci :patterns pallern ofof ofco-occurrence co-occurrence lexical concept. concept. It ItIt expresses sets oftendencies: tendencies: patterns kxtcal profile is apparent abstracted usage events. Moreover, as the lexical profile is ab tracted from u~ge ,ent. 1oroo,er, a th lexical profile i,apparent apparentinin from usage events. Moreover, as the identifying the language use, it that can serve language use, it provides provid aa a "footprint" "footprint" that thatcan canserve serv inin inidentifying id ntifyingthe the provides "footprint" language use, we As instance use. As such, pcxifi lexkJI (oncept tholt \anltion!t oJ gi,'cn in tJm,:c of u . A \uch, we specific specific lexical lexical concept concept that that sanctions sanctions aa given given instance of use. distinct"biometric" "biometricidentifier identifier might think think of ofthe thelexical lexicalprofile profileas a providing providing di"onct "blometric" identifier think lexical profile as providingaaadistinct particularly of polysemy, where for useful in cases isparticularly parti ularlyuseful u fulin incases ca of ofpolysemy, poly my,where where forea an analytical .malytical challenge challenge for the Ilngui begin be'Son (and end). end). Laterinin inthe th chapter hapter alway clear not always always cktr where

-

ILEXICAL EXICAL CONCEPTS CON EPTS

137 137 137

how IiI will illustrate the lexical lexical profile profil (an he he applied applied in In adducing addUCing distinct di tonct profile can be applied in adducing willillustrate illustrate.how how the the polysemous lexical concepts.In thenext nextchapter chapterIII will, polysemous a! concept. InInthe th next chapter will, among things, among other other things, things, polysemous lexl lexical concepts. A pply thl applY this Jpply methodologyto toaaacase ca study tudy of ofpolysemy. poly, my. this methodology to case of polysemy. Lexical concepts conceptscan can be be combined combined iLexical

One of Icxi al concepts concept, encodingaaalexical Ie italprofile profile a, part of their )nc ~on'iC(juence consequenceof oflexical lexical onceptsencoding lexical profileas aspart partof oftheir consequence linguistic Ionguts.tlC knowledge bundle bundle is i that that lexical lexicalt.oncepts oncept can can be ombined.While linguistic knowledge is that lexical concepts becombined. combined. While die lexl lexical schematictendencie, tendencies,Ilexical lexical concept combination the profileexpresses expresses .. i al con cpt combination combination lexicalI profile expresses schemati schematic tendencies, concept of Involv"" th ontegraltonof ofactual actual instances .on tan~ of ofspecific pe.:ili'lexical concept inin inaaaway way involves the the integration integration of actual instances lexical concepts concepts way tocombone combine both both the the linguistic linguistic by lexical that rYes to hngul tl content content encoded en odedby bylexical lexical concepts concept that serves serves to combine content encoded concepts and a subset the cognitive model profiles that each open-dass lexical ~ub ,t, of the cogoitive model profile that each open-class lexical and and a subset of the cognitive model profiles that each open-class lexical ionccpt .kcess to. The 'I'he general generalprocess processof wmhination of of fa Illlat ,ace general proc ofofcombination combination ofboth both lIUlcept concept facilitates facilitates access to. to. linguistic content isis referred to, in in LCCM and conceptual lingui tic and con eptual content i referred ..ferred to, L 'CM Theory, Theory, as fu ion. 1'heory,as asfusion. fusion. conceptual are There There are two two mechanisms mechanisms whichrelate relateto tothe thedifferent difkrent sorts mechani m which which rclate to the ditTerent ~rts of content sortsof ofcontent content associated with 1i xical concept: lingui>!ic of of I he mechanism The which governs the combination the various types of linguistic encoded by lexical lexical termed lexical IonguI~tl, conte~t oded by leXICal concepts conceph isis istermed termedlexical lexicalconcept contept concept linguistic content content en encoded concepts Integration. II1tl'graltOn. Tho> onvolv aaa process prtlC"" termed termed unpacking, unpa king. and and r"uh, in tn integration. This This involves involves termed unpacking, and results results in aaa word (or receiving (or other ?ther linguistic lingui ticexpression) expr ion) receiving r elving aa semantic semantic value. value. The The mechmcch\\ord mechword other linguistic expression) anism which relates way which conceptual way in in which whi h conceptual conceptual content contentis th naccessed ace \ed antsm whl h relates rclat to the the way content isI then then accessed anism which via lasslexical lexical concepts,following following lexical lexical 'Ia ope~ · da lexi al concepts, (()~cept., lexical concept concept integration, integration, i concept via open-c open-class iLl tegrat ion, isis termed interpretation. Thl This by lexical by lexical lexical concept concept integration, and termed, interpretation. onterpretalto? Iis guided gUided by concept integration, and and termed This is guided results in the theformation formation of ofan aninformational informationalcharacterization. charactcriijtion. rc uhs on formatIon of an informational haralteri1A1ltOn. The The combincombin . results in The combination of oflexical kxkal concepts of lexical concept~ resulting r~uhing in the formation \Cmantic.llywellwell . alton resultingin inthe theformation formationofofaaasemantically ation wellormed utterance lormed ulleran gives gIves nrise to a con eption. The The two two types types of ofmechanism m hani mthat that conception. types of mechanism that formed utterance gives rise give rise to fusion fusionare, are,in inLCCM I.( CM heory, constraint-based, gIve nrise to fu;.io~ are, in lC M ITheory, Theory. constraint-based, expressed expre, sed in in term give constraint-based, expressed interms terms of aaa set set of principles that facilitate and "I \Ct of ofprinciples pnnctples that that facilitate faciIttate and and govern govern th combination of lexical of the combination of lexical govern the of lexical concepts in in the construction of meaning.' th construction on truction of ofmeaning.% meaning.' Of Ofcourse, ~ourse, lexical le.xi al concepts can cpt are component of ymbolicunits. unit.They Theycan canhe he arc components componentsof ofsymbolic smbolic They can be Of course, lexical precisely because symbolic Units lUmbtned precisely Pfl'CI\Cly because heeau symbolic ,ymlxllic units Ulltt, can l.n be he combined. wmbined. One of combined One of of the the main main LCCM dalm of of LCCM LCCM lheory, Theory,inin inkeeping keepingwith withthe theconstructional con tructiona)approach approach to to claims Theory, keeping with the constructional approach to grammar presented presented inChapter (Chapter hapter 5, grammar 50 iis that ;ymboli units, units, and and hence hencelexical lexical grammar pr nted in in s, is that symbolic symbolic units, lexical and hence concepts, concepts,are arecombined combined in in nested nested fashion. In Part Part (oncept" Me combined nl... ted fashion. fa hion. In P.rt III of of bookIIIreferred referred to of the the book hook referred to this nested integration. By way way illustration, consider the following ~hl as a nested nested integration. integratio? By way of ofillustration, illu tration, consider consider the th following following this as utterance, based on onone onesimilar discussed inthe theprevious previous chapter: ba~ one ,similar Imllar discussed d,scu sed inin previo",chapter: chapter: llerance, based utterance, hid the mobile telephone 10) Maxhid hIdthe themobile III biletelephone telephone ((in) to) Max

lhe basic The insight is that there I'he b.,ic insight i",ight is i, that that there there are arc lea") three three distinct di;ttnct levcl of nflexical Icxical are(at (at least) least) distinct levels levels of lexical three wncept apparent in this this particular utterance. conlcpt apparent in thi particular Ulleranle. Proceeding Proceeding from from the the utterance. concept apparent Proceeding from most there is is lexical concept 010\1 abstract ah\lract level, I('\'cl. there there i\ aa .1 lexical lex;(dl concept con(cpt that that specifies pcrific an an a ymmctri level, anasymmetric asymmetric that Part subject ofPart of •' This I hi.is 11 the 1M suhieit su~tof nl p.. n III III of 411 the d~ lloc'Klk. thehook. book. This is the

-

-

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION REPRE ENTATION

to the this corresponds related entities. relationship holdingbetWetfl between Iwo two entities. e1alionship holding belween relaled nlllles. 'Ibis This correspond to 10 the Ih~ two related relationship other languages) manyother indeed many English ~nluilion Ihal many utterances ullerances in English Engli h (and (and indeed ind~ many olherlanguages) languag ) intuition that that many utterances in intuitiofl profiled rather than than another in aaaprofiled , 'ocal one entity, enlily. rather ralher Ihan another anolher in 10 profiled assign focal prominenc prominence 10 to one assign , .involves I I' " II as;ogn "focal prominenCe . linguist relationship ((Langa Langacker 107). A A profiled profiled relationship relationship involves relalion hip (tangacker ker1987). 1987). profIled relal~o.nshlp IOVO v aaa linguistically IOgUlsl1 a y relationship (TR) andthe the holdingbetween betweentwo twoentities, entities,.Ih thetrajector trijector encoded the oded relationship relalion hip holding belween Iwo enllll .. aJector(TR) (.TR)and and Ih en relationship encoded there is a that Ilandmark d lark (l.M). Thi correspond 10 Ih. inluillon thaI Ihere I a, subJecl} landmark ((tM). LM).l'his Thiscorresponds corresponds to to the the jntultion intuition that there is a subject/ symbolic units (in (in English). The :~':, Iry encoded ymbolic units unit (111 English). [nghsh). The Th object asym01 asymmetry encoded by senlence·levd sentence-level symbolic isvrnmetry OL))(It J . 'is 'ded'() is provided provided in (tt): (ii): symbolic unit in symbolic unil qu lion IS provl 10 II : symbolic unit in question

NPi" VERB PHRASE NP2" h'I Ie ""N13 PI1VERB V[RB PI" "NP vehicle ve (ii) (ill) II ) a.a.vehicle A TR TR IA (A PROFILED PROFILEL) REt AlIONSHIP b. lexical concept concepl JA PROFILED RELATIONSHIP RELATION IIIP HOLDS 1I0LD BETWEEN BETWEEN AA TR h. lexical b.

tExk:AL (ONCEPTS LEXICAL CONCEPTS

139 1139 39

concept which determines that k ".11 (on el" which whl{h determines delermin that Ihal the Ih lexical Ie lcal concept con cpt which which is construed concept the lexical colkept which isi construed construed as the patient patient focal prominence. Hence, J' being the pau.nl receives r«.lVes focal (ocal prominence. lien •• the Ihe pali nl aligns aligns with receives Hence, the patient patient aligns with slot associated with the the symbolic unit Ihe PI slot 101 associated associaled with with Ihe symbolic symboli unit unil provided prOVIded in(14). (14).I1Iformalize the the NPt provided in in (14). formalize Ill<' "passive" symbolic ymboli unit unll as as follows: follow: follows: the "passive"

II

(14 1.4 II

Iii

vehicle a. vehicle "NP, BE VERB, PPT by /Iy PI" "NP1 VERB+PPT "NPi BE VERB+PP'l by NP2" NPf' lexical concept al concept con epl [PRoFtun b. lexical lexi h. h. (PROFIlI I) RELA1 It)5s11lp INVO! VING AGEN IPROFILED RELA110NSIIIP INVOlVIN(J AGENT AND RELATIONSHIP INVOLVING AGENT ANI I AND PATIENI VIEWEI) PATIENT VIEWED VIEWED FROM FROM PERSI'FCTIVE PER PECTIVE OF OF PATIENT} PATIENT PERSPECTIVE OF PATIENT] PATIIN[J

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

ANI) AN ANO LM} AND AN LMJ I.M]

establishes thatthe the perspecAl neXI Ie I. there lablish that thaI theperspecperspecis aa lexical kxical concepl concept which whichestablishes At Ih. the next next level, level, concept At the there is that (it the agent. Hence, profiled relationship is viewed is live Ih i viewed viewed isi that Ihal of o(the Ih.agent. agent.Hence, llence. tive from from tive from which which the the profiled between an agent md Ihi lexical concepl encodes an aasymmetric ymmctric relationship relallon,hip ?<,ween an anagent agentand and this lexical concept encoties encodesan anasymmetric relitionship between this lexical rolewith withthat thatofo(TR ofTR FRand and the patient, and and in so doing serves to align align the the agent role aaa patient. doing serves serves.to ~h. agent role W1~ th~t and th. patient1 (ith). That IS, lexical concep.' concept provided provided in in (lib). patient rol role with that o(th. of the LM in the I.xlcal lexical concept patienl LM 111 provIded. 10 (lib).That Thatis, I'>. with thaI IM in the lexical concept concept in in (imb) stipulates the I=cal profil lexical 10 (lib) stipulates t.pul,ates that that the the the lexical profile encoded encoded by by the the lexical concept (lib) encoded the profiled .onstrued as agentive in internally iis construed construed as a agentive a~enllve in 111aaaprofiled profiled internally closed I.xical lexical concept concept that that is internally closed closed lexical provided the TR role. Hence, the lexical concept relationship is is integraled integrated with the Ih role. Hence, Hence.the Ihelexical Imealconcept con ,el'lprovided prOVIded relationship integrated wilh commonly referred to as active voice: in (lib) rclales to 10 what whal is commonlyreferred referred to 10as asactive acllve voice: VOl c: in (iib) (nb) relates what is more more commonly

Pl't "NPi NPZ" ""NP1 P, \'iR13-4-'lNS VIRB +T VERB+TN5 NP2" (11) a. vehicle vehi Ie 12) a. (12) ANt) A(;t i AND AGfNT A U PROFILED RELATIONSHIP INVOLVING INVOLVING AGENT RELAI1ONSIIIP (PRol liED RELATIONSHIP b. lexical concept concepl b. lexical h. lexical concept I(PROfiLED A(FNTJ PATI[NT VIEWED FROM PERSPECTIVE PER PECTIVE OF OF AGENT] AGENT} PATIENT VIEW I I) FROM FROM PERSPECTIVE PATIENT VIEWED role (12h)stipulates stipulates that the the agent agent The in (12b) (12b) lipulal that Ihallhe agenl role role for concept lexical profile profile (or for the lexical lexical coneepl concept in the lexical aligns with with aligns with NP2. aligns wilh with NPt NPi whilethe thepatient patient role role aligns align PI while whil. tho palienl align wilhNP2.. P2. . . those whkh are internally finally. Ihe Ihird level oflexical concepls involves Iho whICh II1lernally Finally, the the third thirdlevel level of of lexical concepts concepts involves those which are internally haveovert overt ..onventionallypaired paired with with vehicles that c10scd are hence hence conventionally conventionally paired wilh vehicles vehides that Ihal have have ovcrt closed, closed, and and are theserelate relate tolexical lexical uinecpts For ulleran« in in (to) (10) these Ihest rclate to 10 lexi 01 concepts concepl phone;ic phonetic conltnl. content. content. For For the the utterance utterance (io) mobile t('lt'pliont'. telephone. the, and and mol'ih' .~ialed wllh the Ihe vehicles: vchid tile. mO/II/e trlep/lolle. hid, hill, the, vehicles:: Mlu, Max, /1111. the .tssoaated with associated the lexical lexical concept in in as captured captured by While aasymmetric asymmetric focal prominence1 prominence, by the While ymmclric focal (ocal prominence. as a' caplured Ihe Icxic~ concept co~cepl in profiled) relationships1 the (Ilb) ~ alur< of o(all all linguistically lingui lically overt overt (i.e., (L•.• profiled) profiled)relationships. r
mobilephone washidden hidden by Max (13) Themobile mobil. phonewas hidd.nby byMax Max (13) The ('s)

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

to simulations. simulations. This contribute mnlrib ule to 10 imulation. This Thi follows (ollow as a semantic semanlicrepresentation represtnlationinvolves involves as semantic representation involves representations from from both Ihe Iingui lic and conceplual systems. sy tern. The The sill1u represenlalion representations from bolh both the the linguistic linguistic and conceptual conceptual svstenms. ThesimusimuLitions which whicharise arise can, can, in in turn, turn, lations serve lallons which arise can. in lurn. serve ' rve to to dynamically dynall1i ally updale con eplual dynamically update update conceptual conceptual structure. That is, language can contribute to the modification of "ruclure. That Ih modification modification of o(conceptual conceplual That i • languag. can can conlribul. contribute 10 to the conceptual As lexic ii concepts are language-specitk, ,'rullu re. A Icxi al con epts are are language-specific, language· pecifi •as aasdiscussed carli r. each ea h structure. As lexical concepts discussedearlier, earlier, each language is likely to affect the IJnguage iis likely affal the Ihc modification modification of o(conceptual on eplualstructure Irueturein inlanIan language likely 10 to affect of .onceptual structure in language-specific ways. 1hat one the • on. o( the the consequences o( thedisjunction di junetion guage-specificwa)'5. ways.That Thatiis, is, one of of consequences of ofthe the disjunction between the I,..,wcen Iinguisti and conceplual sy Icms posited posiled LCCM Theory Theory I betweenth.e the linguistic linguistic and conceptual conceptual systems systems posited in in LCCM LCCM I heorv isis the prediction that languages will differentially non-iingul ticrepresenrepresen Ihe prediction predlcllon that Ihal languages languages will will differenlially affect non-linguistic dilfcrcntially affect the non-linguistic represenLitton, i.e., conceptual structure. tation, i.e., Idllon. I.e .• conceptual con eptua! structure. lrueture. Hence, Hence. w. houldexpect expect 10 set relativistic relalivi tic Hence,we weshould should expect to to see effects of ellalS n n lingui II cognition.' cognilion .• effects o(language of language language on on non-linguistic A summary summary (lithe various characteristics Ihe various variou characteristics charalleristi associated associaled with wilh lexical lexical concepts con ep" is i A umll1ary o( of the lexical concepts is provided in Table prOVIded in Table 7.2. 7.2. provided Summary of of the the characteristics I "all 7·1. Sumrnuyof ,h.J~(tt'ri II of of lexical IC'XK.u l.OrKcpl 7.2. Summary lcilcal concepts

I i TAM IR

l'r 'perty Property Pmr
Detail Details

ILexical C\ic ii conlcpu concepts art Lui\.,)1 unll m n1al are (II mental concept% areUllits units of of mental gram mar grammar

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

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

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

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

lor 1++r influential 'pill urni irl trrllntrum which whit h Addressthe IN:notion notionof of lmttutqk relativity rcIatR'Ity we seeCiumper, (.umpcrzand and I 4.- Ninm,n (1996) i issooand and(icntner t ivntnerand and(s4dsn-Mcadow troldin-Meadow(2003). /imp.

140

-

LEXICAL LeXI At REPRESENTATION REPRE ENTATION

((ontinued) 7.2. '1 (:unlmuaJ) ,'.L I "au / TTAR .. (Continued)

Property Property I'mrerty

IDetails )etails I"'lail>

Lexical concepts sanction 1Lexi.d cxi... ~1 concepts c.:.onu=pl n..:tion instances of language In la",:~ of u instances of 13ngu~gt use

mental knowledge structures, qua mcntal mental nowledge structures, Lc 11.:..11 UlOU:pt knowlt.-dge trudur Lexical concepts,• qutJ concepts1 Lexical but rather rather are rircaliltd as don', ppcar 10 utteran •but ratherarc art realized don't appear appear don't in utterances, semantic contributions. As such, contextualized such, (on Ie tu.. li/cd ~m.lOtk contrihutlon . ulh , contc'xtualized they IiIkense license instances of language language use use ...en instances 10 lanl of 01 1.1Oguage u they

art' Lexical con concepts Lexical concepts tC'xlul epl are vehicle-specific pc iii ~IX'lfk vchid vehicle Lexical ILexical exiul concepts ...concepts on ...cpU are are language-specific I.nguase·
Lexicalconcept concepts arc are conventionally conventionally associated associated ltxical a iated with with a Lexical concepts specific vehicle specifc r«ifil vehicle \'Chide

Lexical (om:tpt concepts are Lexical cinepis are l.txial associated with different different ~associated 't(xiatcd with ditlcrenl vehicle types types \vehicle hId lyre Vehicles uc are \ehsdes ire not notlexical kxi.al \~chidc nOI Icxu.:.t1 ...concept-specific OIl1.:tpl pa;ih ... oncept - specific

l.exial ILexical ,elil.alconcepts ...concepts onleph have h.1VC bipartite structure hlp
an ...concepts onu;ph have hhave .. \c an .In function encapsulation encapsulation cnap ulalioo fundion

Lexical uxi..:~l lexical

concepts have Lexial 1.Lexical i... .11concepts con ... cpt have h,ne a lexical profile profile lexi,al

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

IF XICAI. (:0N EPTS 141 LEXf -At CONCEPTS CONC.EPT 141 LEXICAL 141 -----------------~~~~~~ Ic~iullOfk.ept infcwallonnd the at.tlvoltKlO ofaJ lexical oncq"t integration— and the activation a.tivaton of lexical concept integration—and of ubsct of th semantic manUl potential potenlialaccessed ac,"~ via Viol the the subset of the via subset potential accessed the open-class lexical optn·da, 10 the lh utterance-—a ullerolntt"--a open class Ini lexicalI (Of){.;Cpt concepts in utterance—a process termed interpretation. interpretation. Lexical pnx:c I "iul concept lOfk.qlt process~ fermed termed Lexical concept integration and and interpretation— Interprct..1Iloll-i:oIlClll\ely integration lIe t termed interpretation—collixtively termed fusion—arc fusio .lI"C governed go\"cmtd volri u constraints (on~trall1ts fusion—are governed by various constraints modelled of principles moddleJ on terms Imn, of of. "'I prjnupl modelled in ofaa set set of As are and A lexical lt~xlt,.;o1l concepts (;onctpt arc art language-specific, languag . pt.~lti,. and and concepts haxe ILexical C'xlIo. ..1um..:cpt have lexical concepts contribute to rdJI1\ i II( consequences (on~uen cs to simulations ~imulalion which which can can.serve rve to 10 contrihute rtI.itiSlstic relativistic consequences contribute to simulations which can serve modify 1M non hngui\lh,: modify conceptual «lOlCplUal structure, \lrulture,each eollh language language for noniinguistic non-linguistic conceptual structure, each language fir has relativistic tnc:d effectson onnon-linguistic non-linguistk hoi relativistic rdativlMIl: nnn·lingul,tit. reflrC'SeiltJt ion ((.·prt.~nt.llion effects r epresentation representation repr entation -

Each language,by by virtue of compri comprising languageh language. language1 byvirtue virtue of comprising ulh 109languagelanguage. populate the language, specific vehicles wh"h pc
access afford access afford olC,"C conceptsfacilitating facilitating access tti virtue of access By virtue 011lexical xlul concepts U)olCPI f,)(IIII.11108,)( ...a to tn By conceptual (ont,.;cptuaJ structure lru(turc they they serve n·t to 10encapsulate cnup Ul.lleoften often structure encapsulate complex and informationally diffuse ideas i niormationally ditTu idea" complcx and mformoluonally less 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 use U\C r trktcd lingui potential lexical. potential that that specific toaaagiven given lexial.ItIt pOlentlal th .. t is Iisspecific ~ific to to gh'en lexk.ll. coou.urn:nlo.C' s' urreflcc tendencies: patterns of 'cxpre • ......-t~ of tcndcot,.;i . Jldllcrn U) 'expresses' expresses'sets setsofof tendencies: patterns 1co-occurrence abstracted from 1mm usage wage events. events. Moreover, as as the abstracted ab\lr.Illcd tR)1l1 W3~ aenl\. Moreover, Morn)\er, the in language language profile is apparent apparent use, lexical profile;' profik lexIcal apramol in l.lJ1gu;ose use, ~. itit II in identifying scrvC in idenlltyll1~ identifying pnwide aa"footprint" ·foutprint" tholt can un serve 'Id\ provides provides "footprint" that concept that sanctions given the specific lexical concept that sanctions aa• given p«:dlt,.; Icxiu.l ... Ufk.qll thai \01",,"1101 SI\Cf1 the instanceof ofuse. use.As Assuch, such, mightthink think of of the the instance I""lan.:e of u. uch. we wwemight mlghl thInk ot 'biometric lexical providing profile oJ.as as pn"·ldlllg.1 providing aa distinct distinct 'bionietrie IOKoll profile pR)hle dl'lI"'-t 'btclmt1nt.:' identifier for each ksical concept for each lexical ctnwept tdcnuht."T h)r e-.K.h lexi....ll u'"'"-epl can be be lomblncd combined in various Lexical concepts t,.;,an combined uxical con(qtl in various variou Lexical service of activating semantic %•ars in predictabk ways in servie of activating pn'Ia .... .Jhlc way III M:fVlt,.;(' 0' at,.;uvoiItlllgsemantic \cf11anU ... predictable potential andthus thusfacilitating meaningconstruction. onstruction. )l(,tenll .. I.Jnd thu '0facilitating 1. . 1111.111118 meaning Illc4lnlllg UHl trudlun. potential and Combination of lexical concepts of lexical oncepis involves the involves CombllUlI(lO Ie k:4I1 ... om. pi IOvol\e the linguistic process termed integration InlrgrolUoll IinSUI tit,.; content—a Ulnfmt aprocess pn"k:..-: termed Icrnll"ti integration of linguistic

0'

A methodology methodology for for identifying identifying identifyinglexical lexical concepts concepts lexical concepts We now return return to to one \\c now relurn 10 one of of the Ihe key characlemlie Ih linguislic content (onlenl one the linguistic linguistic content now the key characteristicsof of the encodedby byaJalexical lexicalconcept: concept:its itslexical There arethree three reasons cn.:oded lexical concep!: its Ilexical xiealprofile. profile.There Thereare Ihr~reasons rea nsfor for encoded providing treatment this I'rowiding uch a relatively relalively detailed delalled treatment Irealmenl of ofthis Ihis issue iissue lOe here. here. Firstly, FiNly. III providing such such here. IIIU,lrale procedure by which distinct di lin(1 selectional seleclional tendencies lendeneie; (an he be illustrate the distinct selectional tendcnks can he illustrate Ihe the procedure by which employed 10 to identify identity distinct lexical concepts ,issociated withparticular particular employed idenlify distinct di lincl lexical lexical concepts conceplsassociated a socialed with wilh particular lexical forms. Secondly, as as word forms forms typically typically lexi(al a word form Iypically have have multiple mlOlliplelexical lexi alconcepts concepl muhipk lexical concepts lexical form. forms. Secondly. have conventionally associated associated withthem, them,identifying identifyingthe the ,omcnlionallya ·ialed with wilh Ihem. idenlifying Ihelexical lexicalprofiles profile;associated J; ·ialed lexkal profiles associated with instances of aa given wllh inSlance:. of vehideacross acro discrete discreleutterances ullerances serves rves to 10 disamgiven vehicle vehicle across discrete utterances serves todisamdisamwith instances higLiate i.oncepts associated with any .inv given ~iglO.lIe Ihe rang of of lexical concepts concepl associated a xialed with wilh any given given vehicle. vehi Ie.And And vehicle. biguate the range range of lexical thirdly, as profile Ihirdly. Jas the Ihe lexical profile prnfile is i an an important imporlanl part part of ofthe Ih linguistic lingui. liccontent Om of sele..lionallenden(iCl.! apply these Ih criteria enlena on sorts of of selectional sek(tional tendencies.' tendencies.' IIlhen then these criteriain in make these then apply order 10 to identify identify a number of ,)rder idenlify ofdistinct di linctlexical lexicalconcepts conceplsassociated associaledwith Wllh Iheopenopen· associated withthe the openorder to distinct lexical concepts class vehicles: vehicles: time, and tlving.a I do da vehid : time, IlIlIf. and firms.· \() ha
present

u.ntnt I (l IhoIl I uw

.00 rrt'ttnl

rrhnc-mt'"fll

Ibnlty. me n.amrln

nn. (~I ILt((-C flew context '.'ntcxt of 1st Theory. new MtTheo v. ol Note thatI Iuse use the the exampks of 'nt~that lht- same (If //mix In Chapter ( flying first lint introduced i.L '• Note same examples introduced in in Chapter 2.

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

h.rtt't

r,'nn.al INt

-

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

142

nature and range of the lexical conceptswith with which alexical lexicalconcept concept can nalure and range of Ih Ikxtl xicalconceptS concepts wllh which aa lexical concepl can the and range of co-occur or in which it can be embedded, orininthe the caseof ofan aninternally internally nature co-occur or in which itil can can be be embedded, embedded. or in Ihecase CiS<' of an inlernally or in open lexical concept, which occurwithin withinit. it. which occur open I xical con epl. Olcur wilhin it. kxscal concepts open • The Formal Selectional Criterion: Criterion: •• The The Formal Seleclional rilerion:definition encoded by a distinct lexical Formll lexical A distinct profile—by lexical by a distinct definition encoded A di.lincl lexical profileby definilion en oded by a dl lin I lexi al distinct lexical unique or highlydistinct distinctpatterns patternsin interms termsof of the the Aconcept—provides con epl_provides unique unique or highly di IIncl pallerns in ler~s of Ihe vehicles with which a lexical concept can co-occur or or within withinwhich which concept can vehi Ie wilh which a lexical lexical concepl can co-occur or wllhon whICh which a it can be embedded, or in the case of an internally open lexical lexkal vehicles internally open the case of an il c.n be embedded. or in Ihe case of an inlernally 01' n lexical embedded, or in be the nature of the alignment between vehicles and the itconcept, between vehides, and Ihe Ihe alignment alignmenl belween concepl. Ihe nalure of the theclosed nature internally lexical concepts that lexically fill fill the the internally internally

-

441

that lexically inlernally closed Ie ieal concepts con epls Ihal leXICally fill Ih onlernally lexkal internally closed open lexical concept. open concepl. open lexical concept. While successful application of only one of two criteria criteria will will normally of the the While u ce sful appli alion of only one one of Ihe two IWO crileria will nor.mally in the the be sufficient to point to the likelihood of a distinct lexical concept. concept, in While distinct lexical be .uflicienl 10 poinl 10 the Ihe likelihood of of aa di,lincl lexical concepl. on .Ihe point to be sufiuient to identifying the existence of a given requires final analysis, concept concept requires given lexical lexical of aa given final analy i • idenlifying Ihe eexistence iSlence of lexical concepl requIre identifying the converging evidence employing a number of lines of of support support and and deploydepky final of line's number of lines of supporl and deploy· convergong evidence employing a evidence employing a convergitig reprd1 ing a complementary set of methodologies. Recent work this regard, in Recent work in enl work in this Ihis regar~. ing a complemenlary I of melhodologie.. Re complemcntar\ set which analysis ing a can be used to support the evidence from fromlinguistic linguistic the evidence whICh can be used 10 upporl Ih evidence from Iinguisti .nalr'" used to 5upport which can below, be (sec presented include techniques from psycholinguistic testing (see psycholinguistic pre>cnled below. in Iud techniques lechnique from psycholingui Ii testing Ie long ( ee include presented below, tools and methodolomethodolo al. 1997) as well as corpus-based a al. e.g., Cuyckens corpus-based 1001 tools and e.g., Cuy,ken, ., w II as as corpus-based and melhodoloa!. t997) 1997) as well Cuyikens et e.g.1 gies (Gries 2006).

gie gies (Gries (Gries 2006). iooó). Lexical concepts for time LexlCol lime Lexical concepts for time Before being able to apply the two selectional criteria introduced, introduced,it itisisfirst first criteriajust lust select ional crtleria IIefore being .ble 10 .pply Ihe IwO selecllonal ju I inlroduced, il is fir I apply the two Refore being able to lexical necessary to develop a hypothesis as to the nature of the distinct nec~ry 10 develop. hypolhesis. 10 Ihe nature nalure of ofthe Ihedistinct d,slin Ilexical lexical to the develop a hypothesis as necessary to concepts involved in particular utterances. That is, how many lexical concepts lexical concepts how many That is, is, how many lexi .1 oncepl' concepl involved in particular parlicular uller.nc utterances.. Thai invol'ed the concepts are involved acrossinthe utterances to be examined? To this end, consider the examined? To this are involved aero the Ih utterances Ulleranc, 10 be examined? To Ihi end, end. consider consider the to be involved across are following examples which involve the form time:

form ""'''' Ih form following exam pi which involve the following examples

(15) Time flies when you're having fun

(t5) (15)

you're having fun Time flies flies when when you're

(t6) The time for a decision is getting closer decision getting do;cr (t6) ion iis gelling time for aa deci (*6) The lime (17) The old man's time 1= death1 is fast approaching approaching

(17) (17)

The old man's man' time lime L( The old

death) is fast dealh(os fa I approaching

(t8) Time flows on (forever) (IS) flows on (forever) lirne flows (*8) Time appear in the "subject" phrase phrase. These instances of the lexical form time all the "subject" in the" all appt.'.Ir time in'l.nces of Ihe lexical form /lllIt .11 .ppear in ubjecl" phr.to a Th""" the k\kal form These instances relates Moreover, the verbofphrase which complements the subject phrase relates to a subject phrase complements the Morcov r,lh verb phrase which complemenl' Ihe ,ub,ecl phr.se rdal"time 10 • verb phrase which Nioreover, the time motion event. Thus, motion is being ascribed totothe entities that the entities that being ascribed motion event. Thu . molion is being ascribed the cnlllies that ",,,t Thus, motion iseach example. In addition, thethe motion event. contributes in prompting for, in semantic semantiC example. In In addition, (ontrihulC in prompting for. inappears c.l(h example. addition, the semantiC ea.h in prompting for, to he distinct in each example. In in tontrihutes time contribution associated with distinct in each example. to Lw (ontribution a~iJted with tim£' appear, to he di\um:t in .u . h example. In appears iated with totoan assessment ofof temporal temporaL the first example in 15), time appears totorelate an assessment Ihe firsl example in (tS), appears 10 relate rel.te 10 an a menl of lemporal

'm"

the first example in (*s). time appears

EPTS U: XICAl itNt ONCEPTS LEXICAL CONCEPTS

143 1 43

",.,gn,l we might mlghl provisionally pmvi ionally gloss glo the the lexical lexi al concept con epl which which Thus, we ude. Th.u,. ma gnitude. Thus, we might provisionally gloss the lexical concept which ....,anetions nlllon . this Ihl, oninstance I,.n e of ofoftulle' /1111 as (DIJRATION(. In (*6) (16) the Ihe lexical lexical concept oncepl thisinstance timeasasLIUKATIONI. 1 ovakrioN1.This In (16) the lexical concept as the ,.llIllloOlng 'mIt mlghlbe beglossed glossed as a IMOMENTI. ( 10MENT(. Thi follows follows, Ihe concepcon eptime might concepsa nctioning time might he glossed as [MOMENT]. This follows as the temporal with the utterance as a whole relates to a spec lIun e a a whol relal 10 a peeifi lemporal tion.,\OClaled associatedwith with Ihtheulleran uon utterance as a whole relates to a specific temporal taken. Thu Thus,• th the conlrtbulion contribution of III11menl when d i ion is is to 10 be be laken. of when aa partICular particular decision moment when a particular decision is to be taken. Thus, the contribution of durational eLapse. hut rather not '11"" ininthis Ihis example appears nOI to 10 relate relale to 10 aa duralional elap • bUI rather aa exampleappears appears not to relate to a durational elapse, but rather a time thisexample which sanctions use of time d,,,-rcle (t7) Ihe lexical concepl nclion this Ihi discrete discreteon5lanl. instant.InIn(17) (17)the thelexical lexicalconcept conceptwhich which sanctions this uuse of of "'" time informs us k which extra-linguistk context JNlC.rs 10 relale 10 an evenl. whi h extra-lingul .. ic onleXI onform u to relate to an event, ppears to relate to an event, which extra-linguistic context informs us Iis a dealh. Thu • Ihe lexi~1 con el'l involved inv Ived here her might mighlbe beglossed glossed as as (FVLNTI. (EVE T(. death.Thus, Thus,the thelexical lexicalconcept concept involved here might be glossed as (EVENT]. whichh sanctions this use of time appears 10 to Inin(*8), (IS),lhe,leXI alconcept concepl iIIIIJlly, inalIv. in Finally, (18),the thelexial lexical conceptwhi whichsanclions sanctionsIhi thisuse useof of ,,,,,tappear time appears 2oo 4 bto earlier work (Evans 2004a, ) rdJle 10 an un ndong lemporal etap . In earlier work (Evan 2oo4 a•2004?') unending temporal elapse. in relate to an relate to an unending temporal elapse. In earlier work (Evans woo, 2oo4b) concept aassociated with time, I described de"-ribed Ihi ialed wilh tIIIlt. in in which whieh this as asIhe the"malrix" "matrix" lexical concepl I I described this as the "matrix" lexical concept associated with time, in which \\e under land lime 10 tilt evenl wilhin all other olherevents even I occur. Thu • time within which all understand timeto tobe he the the event we understand event within which all other events occur. Thus, lexical concept Ihe gloss w mighl apply to 10 describe d ribe the Ih lexi al con epl involved onvolved here here is i might apply the thegloss glosswe we might apply to describe the lexical concept involved here is I RIX1. ,ISIA I'tATRIXI. siATRIxj.

lexical concepts that distinct Indeed. Ihi preliminary analysis anal is suggests uggesl Ihal di linci lexical oncepl Indeed, Indeed, this this preliminary analysis suggests that distinct lexical concepts loo4a). of these each of Ih examples examples (see (see Evans Evan 2004")· in In IInderpon Ihe usages underpin of time underpinthe theusages usages of of time in in each of these examples (see Evans zoo4a). In ",der to 10 lesl this Ihi hypolh i. I apply apply the the sekctional seleclional criteria. criteria. For For aa distinct di linct order order totest test this hypothesis. hypothesis, I apply the selectional criteria. For a distinct confirmed, at leastI distinct Icm.lprofile (and hen e a di linct lexical I xi al toncept) concepl) to 10 he be confirmed. allea lexical lexical profile profile(and (andhence henceaa distinct lexical concept) to be confirmed, at least criteria must In order Ihese two IwO crileria mUSI apply. apply. In order to 10 confirm confirm whether whelher the Ihe une of t)flC of these these one of two criteria must apply. In order to confirm whether the in,lances '"lIt (tS) 10 (*8) (tS) inclusive inelu ive are are sanctioned sanctioned by by distinct di linct lexical lexical instafles of of time in (t5) (is) to to time in instances of in (i8) inclusive are sanctioned by distinct lexical (lriterion. To do this, let's "lIIccpls.1 begin by applying the Ihe Formal Fortnal Seleclional rilerion. To do Ihis.lel' concepts, II begin begin by by concepts, applying the Formal Selectional Criterion. To do this, let's which (on,ider Ihe kind of noun noun phrase phr in whi h each each use u of oftime' /I/l/f appears. II start Slarl by by consider the the kind kind of of noun phrase in which consider each use of time appears. 1 start by face of it, to be similar. in (in) on Ihe the face ofil.lo be similar. n~long Ihallhe exa~plesinon (IS) and and(*8) (tS)appear1 appear, on noting that that the examples noting the examples (15) and (18) appear, on the face of it, to be similar. .N.iiher ellher is I~ pie-modified pre- modIfied by by a determiner. delermoner. However, Ilowev.r. further furl her examples examples reveal reveal Neither is pre-moddied by aa determiner. However, further examples reveal of distinct lexial Iconcept thai what wh?11II have have hypothesized hypolhesized to 10be beaaadistinct di lin I II),RATIONI (OURATlON(lexi onceplof that what to be that have hypothesized [DURATION) lexical concept of determined by the 'Illoe as onin(15) (tS) can be be determined delermined by Ih definite definile article arliele when when the Iheassessment a menl t,rt:eas asin (ii) can time can be the definite article when the assessment lit temporal lemporal magnitude magnilude i specifi. peeifi rather ralher than Ihan generic, generic. while while the Ih use u that Ihal II of temporal of magnitude isisspecific rather than generic, while the use that Ilo lexical concept cannol cannot be. Ih LMATRIXI (MATRIX I Ie i al concepl be. To hypolh iz, I? be san tioned by the hypothesize to be sanctioned by the ImArRix1 lexical concept cannot be. To which are the following instances of time, ".'c , I hal Ihl IS Ihe case, Ihe following in lances ';/l/t, which are see that this is the case, consider see that this is the case, consider the following instances of time, which are similar to to those (is) and (18): "mllar 10those Iho;cinin(15) (IS)and and (18): (IS): similar

"'"t

(19) (2u) (20)

seemed 10 to fly During Ihe donner dale, Ih lime seemed

I)uring the the dinner dinner date, date,the thetime timeseemed to fly During Ihetime time flows on(forever) (forever) 'The limeflows flow on (fo
(nURATIONI (0 RATION (

[DURATION]

(MATRIX( (MA1RIXI [MATRIX)

be sanuioned Fhe asterisk (20) here indicates thata ausage usagethai that II hypolhesize hypothesize 10 to be The ."eri kin (20) here indicales Ihal usage nctioned The asterisk inin(20) here indicates that that I hypothesize to be sanctioned Ihe IMA1 ( IATRlx(lexit:al Ihe definite definile article. arlide In In by the RIXI lexical concepl conceptcannOI cannot CO-OlCur co-occur wilh with the by the [sum' lexical concept cannot co-occur with the definite article. In sanctioned the LInRAI10N1 contrast,an aninstance instanceofof oftime time I hypothesize to be an inslance lII"el hypolhesizeto10 , nctionedbyby by the contrast, I hypothesize bebesanctioned the 1 DURATION with the be. Indeed, Ih" this formal patterning 10 lc.l1concept con«pl canbe. be.Indeed, Indeed, pallemongappears appears consistent consislenl with Ihe lexical conceptcan lexical this formal patterning appears consistent with the lexical c ngll"ll(content conlenlencoded e~uxled by IheINIATRixl (MATRIX(lexical concepl. The (MAlRIX(lexical llngulstk content encoded Lw the (MA1RIXI lexical concept. Ihe(SIATRIXJ linguistic by the lexical concept. The (MATRIX) lexical oncepll hypotheslLed 10 relaltoto 10 a unique uniqu referent: ref< renl: the Ih event evenl which whichsubsumes >ubsum Concept hypothesized relate concept is is hypothesized to to relate aa unique referent: the event which subsumes associated wilh with all others, I>«ificalion whilh Ihe lexkal lexical concept
~~x~trasl,

(OURAlI~N(

144 144

LEXU:AL LEXICAL CONCFPTS CONCEPTS

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION lEXI At REPRE ENTATION LFXI( Al REPRI5FN1ATION

exhibit unique patterns in terms terms The (16) and (17) (17) also also exhibit exhibll unique patterns pattern in ttl tenm of of The examplesinin(16) 00 and and Fhe examples from the the examples formal sekctional selectional tend tendencies: tendencies: both from each other and and from formal selectional ncie : both from each each other olher from theexamples exampl inIn formal sanctioned the IMost hypothesized It)be besanctioned (IS) and The uuse of of "mt hypolh i,ed to to <;;In tionedbybythe Ih 'MOMENT] IMOME NT) time hypothesiied (is). (15) and and (18). (18).The Theuse of time' allowing count straighth)rwardly lexical concept concept appears appears to lexi",1 appe ,..10 traightforwardly as aa count ounl noun, noun, allowing lexical to pattern straightforwardly indefinitearticle, article, determination by the definite 01 delermination definile article, article, as a in in (16), (16), or or by by the theindefinite Indefinile arlicle,as determination in (21) (21) below: in (21) to make make decision IMo be forced to (21) A come when we'll be forced to make aa decision ded ion [MOMENT I 10 E T) time wiU willcome well be A time will (n) A (21) ,

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

(22) (22)

to fly fly time seemed seemed dinner date *During 'During date aa time seemed to 1)uring the dinner

[DURATION] (DURATION I IDURATIO]

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

(23)

approaching. His time (L=death) fast approaching. is Hi I =death' death I is i fast fasl approa hing.

Ihe time (2-1) I he time time for for dl"Cision hasgone/vanished/disappeared gonc!vanishcdJdi ppeared foraaadecision decisionhas has gone/vanished/disappeared (24 ) The

timefor decision racing towards us/fast approaching (2,) 'JFhe hetime ttme fordecision deci ionisis iracing racingtowards toward us/fast us/fa tapproaching approaching 05 ) The

time forfor. aa decision isisapproaching/getting approaching/getting closer/has arrived (Z~ 'JIhhetime timefor decisionis approaching/gellingcloser/has doser/ha arrived arriv<>d decision ( 26)) The lexical appears possess lexicalprofile profilewhich whichhrestricts restricts I h,' ( IEVENT] VI Tllexi appear to possess po lexical profile whi reslricts lexicalI concept appears aaalexical ihe The

concepts whichcan canco-occur co-occurwith withitilittototerminal terminal th,rJnge of motion lexical lexical concepts Cd on on the the (ii) the Ihus, of time in in (15) (18) inclusive, based on Sekctional Criterion and the Formal n",nlt( Sele with wllh di Ilnltlexical lexicalprofiles. profile..Table Tahle as if sanctioned by distinct lexical concepts '.j summarizes and formal sdectional which com7.3 ,ummarizes semantic lcetional tt.'ndcndes lend nci which om7.3 summarizes the the semantic semantic and and formal selectional tendencies comprise the lexical lcxk.il profiles considered. pri", the profiles for Ihe lexical lexical concejts concepl considered. considered. the lexical for the the concepts conceptsfor for flying flying Lexlcol Lexical concepts concepts

distinct all appear to have appear 10 have quite distinct Thu ubj I po ilion, these these uses use> of "me all have quite quile distind position1 uses of of time Thus, in subject subject position, Thus,,in formal selectional ional tendencies. tendencies. formal select lcetional tendenciesassociated with these these Let's nowturn turnto tothe semantic sckctional selectional tendencies l.et' now lum 10 thesemantic seleclionallendencies aassotiated sociated with wilh Ihl..., lets now point appising the the Semantic SekctionalCriterion. Criterion. The The point uuses by applying applying Ihe Semantic manti Selectional Selectional Criterion. pOlnl time. uses IIIlIt. time. II do so by encodedby thelexical lexical concept here thaI nature of of the Ihe motion mOlion event even Iencoded encoded bythe Ie icalconcept concept here iis is that that the the nature nature the motion event of the uses associated with the the verb-phrase vehicle for each distinct Ie is i, distinct distlncl for for each each of ofthe th uses u inin inaaa J5S()(iated with Ihe verb-phrase verb· phrase vehicle vehi compatibkwith with Moreover, the the choice choice motion-event significant way. Moreover, typeisiiscompatible compalible wilh signit cant way. choiceof ofmOlion·evenl motion-eventtype sanction thedistinct distinct lexical concepts concepts hypothesized the nature of concepl to san tionthe Ihe dislinct of the various lexical hypothesized to to sanction time. uses uses of of 'mIt. time. U\CS

underpins the the For instance, instance,,Ihe the lexicalconcepl concept which which IIsuggest suggest instanc InnATloN] lexical ugg I underpins underpin Ihe the (DURATION' previouswork work1IIrefer refer (IS), parti ular variant—which variant-which inprevious previou refer use (is). and the the particular particular variant—whichin useof of time in (15), relates to an COMPRESSION[ lexical concept, as it relates to (;OMPREs5IONI lexical concept, concepts as as it relales 10 an 10 as a the Ihe ITI 10 I lexical an [TEMPORAL to MI'ORAL COMPR. as the f TI MPO.AI proceeds more "quickly" than lemporal magnilude proceed,more more"quickly" "quilkly"than Ihan aassessment men I ofoftemporal assessment temporalmagnitude magnitudewhich whichproceeds encode motion usual 2oo4a)—co-occurs lexical concepts uusual ual (Evans (Evans lexi al concepts concept that that encode encode motion motton (Evans 2oo4a)-<0-occur loo4a)—co-ot.Lurs with with lexical by the theexample examplein (is).'9 In In events innature, nature, as evidenced evenl which are rapid nalure,as a evidenced evidenced by hy the example inin(t5). (IS)." events which which arc are rapid in concept appears contrast, I MOMENT[ IMo II NTllexical appe.r toIn contrasl, whal hypothesi,etotobeLw betheIh contrast, what what IIIhypothesize hypothesize the [MOMI Nil lexical concept possess a which profile which events tocopo lexical profile profil whi h allows allows a wider range rang of motion motion events events to co· a lexical in motion as as in (24), (24), rapid motion. as it. induding imperceptible .1\ in (14). rapid rJpid motion, motion •as .t in in occur occur with with it, it, including including imperceptible impcrceptibk motion (25), as terminal motion, in (26): (26): lerminal mOlion, as a, in (26): (25), and terminal rime t.111 Alui with -di with JSM 1.dt Ilwtemporal tcntpur.al lOIn v,ut
,.1

145 145

tuh

the lexical concepts with the sehicle timearc nominal noimnal in in <01I
J . The The plane/bird plane/bird is flying (in a. The plane/bird is flying flying (in a.

F I) NAMIC: MO(sfU.PROPI Lli 0 Al ROIlVNAMIC MO [(SEIF-PROPELI SELF-PROPELLED AERODYNAMIC MO-

the sky) ky) h. The The pilot is is flying plane b. The pilot i flying flying the the plane plane h. the (in the the sky) ky) sky) c. The child child is is flying the the kite (. The child i flying the kite kile The the breeze) hree7e) (in the d. I he flag flag is is flying flYing the d . The living (in (in the the flag

lION] TION] TION]

breeze) breeze)

OPERAl iON 01: ENTITY CAPABI F OF [OPERATION OF ENTITY ENTITY CAPABLE CAPABLE 01 [OPERATION OF OF Al AI kOI)YNASIU ROIlYNAM ICMOTIONJ MOTION I AERODYNAMIC MOTION] ((ONTROL UGHTwEK;HTENTITY IN ii, ]I ICONTROL OF OF L1GHTWEIGIIT ENTITY [CONTROL OF LIGHTWEIGHT

Isusri NSION OF WEI(ilIT OB014ISUSPENSION SUSPENSION 01 IIGIITW[l(iIiT OB OFLJ6Hi LIGHTWEIGHT

ii'

I I~CTI JECT'

lor I orconvenience d the the lexical lexical concepts (oneept, which hypothe",eto10 conceptswhich whkh IIIhypothesize hypothesize to For convenience IIIhave provided the lexical sanction IICllon each each of Ihe uusesof of f/yillg alongside along,ide the Ihe examples. examples. These Thesedata, dala, and the eachof ofthe theuses of/lying the examples. l'hese data, and the the flying alongside glosses, glosses suggest that each each instance sanctionedby byaaadistinct distinct lexical glo '":', suggest ugg.• t that that .. (h instance in tanc is iissanctioned SJlIllioned by di tinct lexical lexical concept concepl •ISM)tiatedwith with the associated should expect to be lx' able to adduce J"(XI~led wllh the vehicle vehide flying. f/)"Illg. ItIf so, '>(1, hould expect expe.! to beable able to toadduce adduce so, we should ad distinct distinct with d,,_ ltnct lexical le~lCal protile profIle associated ..""idled with WIth each each use. use. Unlike (Lngli h) use.Unlike Unlikemany many(English) (English) lexical profile associated each nominal lexical lexicil grammatical feature js how concep", for for which which aaasalient salient grammatical grammatical feature feature is i how how nomlOal I xlcal colhepts. nominal concepts, for which salient the are determined, salient grammatical feature forrelational relational lexical they are Me determined, dctcnl1incd . a.1asalient \.Jlil·l1tgrammatical grolmm.ltic.:oll feature (colturefor rcldti0l1ol1lexical lexkJi they )l1(('I)ts,associated associated withverb verbforms, forms,isi\istransitivity. transitivity. \:onc.:cpt\,.1\ XIJtcd with with verb (orm" Irill1~itivity. concepts,

146

-

LEXICAL RLPKFSINTATION LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

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

Glo ('loss (DUaATION] 1)1 KATIONI [DURATION' two variants: \ananb ~ [ PROTRACTED PRO I R ACTED

I)L'MAT ION]I DURATION] VCR ATION [TEMPORAL. (TEMPORAL IIEMPOKAL

C::OMPRU\ION] COMPRESSION] (t)MPRESSIONI

(Mo Mi T] !MOMENT' (MOMENT]

IlEvi EVENT]

(MATltIX) 'TvIlk (MATRIX)

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

(.

boundar -event A boundary-.-.nl boundary-event some kind of som. some kind

is ilil

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

Mass noun; noun; M Mass

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

_n'"

(.In can

appear w .ppear with appear with definite article definite definrtc artldt and &Orne some and

quantihera qU.1nuficr quantifiers

(17) ( 27 )

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

??lk English Channel m Ie flew new the sparrow sparrowacross aero the the English English Channel hannel ??He flewthe across

Nev ·c\wtheless ••entities ntitl which can be construed constru
-

.;ouflt ount flOUn; nt>un~ Count noun: Ego-centred motion, (' [go-ccntred motion, Ego-centred mOlion. cannot take nine is take e.g., Hr time isis e.g .. Her fltr e.g., articles,• but hut can artlel un approaching... approorhltlg •.• approaching... be b
lie flew the homing pigeon ((z8) UI ) He lIeflew newthe thehoming homingpigeon pigeonacross a ro the the English hannel theEnglish InglishChannel Channel

',,,,t

on-terminal An unboundroelapse
147 147

Entities that arc arc not not self-propelled, self-propelled, that such as tennis halls, balls, cannot cannot be be used used in in this this I 1111<' Ih.ll are self propelled. such u has a tennis tenm balls. ,annot thi the' te'flflISball ballisis isflying flri,:t,'inin tile' the tennis I~..., lentlis ball f/YlIIg j"the '"~sky). sky). se ( •• 'lit sen concept The lexical concept which underlies the the use use I he lexical bieJI con cpt which whi h underlies u of ofjlvtnt,' f/YI/Ig in (sb): (Sb): (OPERATION 10PERATION (sb): 'OPERATION flying MOTION) restricted 10 ENTITY CAPABLE01 OFAEKOI)YNAMIC AERODYNAMICMOTION MOTION' I"F 1'111 Y IAI'AHI.E C:APABLE or AERODYNAMIC: I isiis restricted restricted operation by to by which and In h .an can bc beconstrued con trued as a an an agent, agent, and and moreover, morea .. r, to to entitiesthat that moreover, toentities entity whl which construed as an agent, an ifl
ot Notu", Nature off",", of formalI

Brief ddescription of Broer ripuon of Brief tonteflt con qtluaJ content conltnt conceptual

LEXICAL.CONCEPTS (ON(;EPTS LEXICAL

of the the use sanctioned In the case case of of use sanctioned CONTROL OF Oil In ease use.san tioned by the 'CONTROL ICONTROI OF LIGHTWEIGHT UGIITWEIGIIT 'NTITY) IGHTWEUI1ITENTITY] INTITY) kxkal 4oniept, as evidenced by the lexical concept, as evidenced by the use of use of flying in IexICJI eoncept. a. eVidenced ~y. of flying f/yi"g (5c), (sc), I "i al concept on ept (5c), this this lexical lexical concept are capable capabl. of of becomingairborne airborneby appe.rs restncted to entities entities that that are arc capable ofbecoming by appears to to he be restricted turbulence, and can an agent agent on on Iheground. ground. This Thi lexical lexical turbulence. and can be agent onthe the ground. This kxical turbulence, can be he controlled controlled by an appears to to be bespecialized specialiied objects like kites kites and andmodel/remotemodel/remotewneept appears appear. be pecialized for for objects object like Iik. model/remoteconcept controlled aeroplanes. controlled aeroplan . aeroplanes. Interestingly, as saw in our associated di u ion of ofthe th lexical lexicalconcepts on eptsassociated a iated . Inlerestingly. aas we I'.e Interestingly, we saw saw in in our our discussion discussion of lexical concepts vehiclefas: in examples with the first 10 in (i) to (%) :Uh Ihe vehicle vehl leftISt ~xamples .(1) .. rlier, particular in tances off/yl/lg 0) to earlier, particular instances of flying (3) earlier. instances appear to rely rely on on multiple multiple sanction. sanction. In the appear multiple th. following followingexample: .xample: ppear to rely the following example:

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

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

Formal H.nce. term of offormal r. rmalselectional lectional tendencies, t.ndencies. and hencethe Hence, in in terms terms formal and hence hence theFormal Hence, selectional tendencies, Sckt.tjonal Criterion, which lkense Selectional the hallmark of of the lexical lexi al concepts concepts which which license liccn'" Selectional Criterion. Criterion,the the hallmark hallmark ofthe the lexical concepts is the uses uses of f/YlIIg in (sa) and (id) (Sd)isisisthe thelack lackof ofaaadirect directobject—what object-what isi, the of flying (ia) and in (5a) (5d) the lack of direct uses traditionally verb. This contrasts contrastswith withthe thelextraditi nally rekrred referred to aas an intran itiv. verb. verb. This Thi contrasts with th. 1kx..traditionally referredto toas an intransitive . and and the the Semantic Semanllc Selectional Sck'Ctional must rely the Semantic rely on semantic selectional tendencies, criterion. (:rilcrion. Criterion. of these theselexical lexical conceptsis thatthey theystipulate stipulate distinct Th hallmark of of.a h of th= le"i al concepts con«pl. i isthat Ihal they IIpulatI ..... nction the me of f/YlIIg in (5a). (sa). lexical concept. cirncept, which. which, I suggest, MOTION) lexical stoTtosi] concept, which, sanctions sell-propelled aerodynamicmotion. capable If propell
N'

MI

•

this useappears appears bc partly sanctioned byboth both the thi, use use appears toto be partly sanctioned I(sit [LF· PKOPEllfn AFRO this to be partly sanctioned byby both the the 'SELF-PROPELLED I PROPELLIl) AEROAEROsiw DYNAMIC MOTION] and the the '-'YNA 11(: MOTION I and and the [CONTROL ICONTROl or UGIIl'WEIGIiT .NTITVI CONTROLOF OFLIGHTWEIGHT LICIIIWEUII I ENTITY] ENII iyj lexical concepts. It exhibits the concepts, It exhibits the formal formal selectional Lon ept . e>
.

148 148 14 8

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION LEXICAL

lendencies, relat to the Formal l-ormJI and SemanticSelectional SelectionJICriteria. Criteria.As relateto tothe Formal and Semantic Semantic Sekctional tendencies, ics. which which relate different way acros of the the"chick vehidepatterns pattern markedlydifferent different way wayacross aero the the each use of patternsinin inaaamarkedly markedly each each use conch WC ba~ applic."on ofthese th~ criteria, critena, we we can can conclude conclud utterJnces (5), based on onapplication application of in (s), (5), based these utterances in in each use and hence, hence, that tinct lexical underplll each ealh use uuseand and hen e,each each use u isis I indeed mdct:d that distinct underpins lexical profile protik undcrpins that aa di sanctioned tinct lexical lellical concept. concept. sanctioned by by aa di distinct distinct concept.

8

4

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

Polysemy

Summary oflexical has provided an an overview overview of of the the main properties This has provided an Thl chapter h. provided overview of the main main properties prop~rti~' of of lexic.1 This chapter argued that that lexical lexical concepts, concepts byvirtue virtue of of constituting concepl~. argued that leXICal oncept, by by virtue. of c~n~tltutlng units Ulllt, of uf concepts. concepts. II argued unit—are symbolicunit—are pok of tructure--th manti pole pole ofaasymbolic symbohc ulllt-arethereby therebycencen >cmanti semantic structure—the semantic the semantic semantic structure— co grammar. A, mental grammar. of. u>cr'~ mental gramm.r. uch, lexical concepts con«pt tral element> tralelements elements of of aa language user's As such, users and are areconventionally conventionally associated associated withaaalexkal sanction instances instan es of oflangualle are conventionally associatedwith with language lexical language and corollary of this is that are vehicle-specific. vehide-specific. A form. Accordingly1 Accordingly, form. Accordingly. they are vehicle·~pe<:ific. A corollary of ofthis thi isi that thatlexical lexical \Vhik lexical concepts mayencode en4'de concept> Jre ncee Jrily language-specific. language·'pe<:ific. lexicdl concepts conceph may md.y enwde concepts arc language-specific. While lexical are necessarily languages1 theywill willalways always related imilar linguistic Iingui tic content cont nt across aero languages, languas ,they WIll alway and hence they related and hencesimilar similar linguistic across semantic ofconceptual conceptualstructure: tructure: their theirsemantic semantic facilitate distinct facilitate acc access to to facilitate access toaadistinct distinctbody bodyof of conceptual Thi~ is i~ a consequence con quenc of of lexical concept, having bipartile trucl ure: potential. This consequence oflexical lexicalconcepts concepts having bipartitestructure: structure having bipartite of the encoding linguistic linguistic contents encoding Iingui tic content content while while facilitating fa ilitating access access to the the contents content of ofthe Ihe encoding facilitating access facilitating One consequence con~uen e of of lexi al concepts con eptsfacilitating facilita ting human conceptual system. system. One of lexical lexical concepts human conceptual consequence that they site-—consisting acee tru ture is i, Ihal they provide providean anaccess access site—consisting ite omi,ting access 10 totoconceptual provide an access access onceptual structure structure diffuse areas, tohe bediscussed discussedin (;hapter to—foraadiffuse multiple association of multiple multiple association a iation areas, .rea~, to 10 be di~ ininChapter hap.'er to—for Io-for difI~"" they provide encapsulation body of non-linguistic non.hnguisticknowledge. knowledge. As As such, ~uch, they theyprovide provld an anencapsulation encap ~llat lon body of non-linguistic knowledge. As such virtue of of lexical concepts providing shall see later, function. hall see ... later, iJl r, itit It is i,1by by virtue virlue oflexical lexical concepts concept providing prtlVldlllg aa function. r\S As we shall is site onthe theconceptual conceptualsystem systemthat thatwords wordsgive giverise riseto tothe theillusion illusion conceptual.ystem thai word~ give ri", to the illu,ion unique access ace site ite on access encoded of semantic unity. Anolher of mantic unity. importanlaspect a pe<:t ofthe lingui ti content encoded ncodl-d semantic Another important important aspect of the linguistic This constitutes knowledge relating relating to to by. I«icdl profile. Thi con tIt ute. knowledge In by a lexical lexical conlept concept "II is its lexical ",mantic and and fornlal tendencies: t ndencies: the th (typo of) lexicalconcepts concepl'and Jand nd the the semantic semantic and formal formal the (types (types of) lexical lexical concepts Moreover, as lexical co-occurs. Moreover, CO·OCCUN. 10reover,as asthe thelexical lexical vehid which aaa given con ept co-occurs. given lexical lexical concept concept vehicles with which vehicles with profile events itit data profile" ab tracted from from acro event>. il can can be be applied applied to10usage u\Jgedata ~d ta profileis is abstracted abstracted fromacross across, usage usage events, can usage concept is is sanctionin order order to to provide a to whether whether aa given lexical I xical concept i~ sanctionsanCllon provideevidence evidence as lexical vehide. The procedure for employingthe lexi al ing a particular parlicular usage usage of particular of aaa vehicle. vehicle.The Theprocedure procedurefor foremploying thelexical usage Formal thi way way was w. formalized formali/ed in in terms term, of ofthe IheSemantic Semanlicand .ndFormal hmll.1 profile prohie in in this was formaliied Semantic and profile in terms Sekctional Criteria. Criteria. The The application wasillustrated illustratedby byvirtue virtue of an of these Ihese was wa illu~trated by virtue ofan an Selectional Selectional Criteria. The application application of these and time, leXICal concepts concepts associated associaled with with the vehicle vehide time, rime, analy i of analysis of nominal nominal lexical associated with the the vehicle analysis of lexical concepts flying. relational lexic.1 lexical concepts associatedwith withthe theverbal verbalvehicle vehick /1'ing. fly",g. The The relalion.1 J""",idled with Ihe verbal vehide relational lexical concep!> concepts associated that give rise to !>ed Ih proce~ that thai give gi~e rise rise to chapter also briefly briefly addr addressed compositional processes chapter also briefly addressed the compo~ilional compositional the combination of in service service ofmeaning meaning construction. This Ihe oflexical lexical concepts concept in ",rvice of of me.ningconstruction. con lructlon.This Th" concepts particular issue is .ddr addressed detaillater, later,ininPart PartIII of the the book. book.Finally, Finally, it parlicular iissue ,ue i, sed inindetail del.ill.ler. P.rI IIIIll of Ihe book. I-in.lly, itil particular is addressed contribute, in in part, part, lexical coIKcpts concepts contribute. contribute, in simulations wa ,uggr ted that tholt lexical COllt.:cpt part, to to simulations ImuiJtiull\ was that dS as was suggested suggested as lexical to be he stored as as part of of conceptual structure, which can come to 10 be stored a part pari ofconceptual conceplual structure, lructure, they they thus thu have ha\e which can relativistic for non linguisticknowledge knowledgerepresentation. representation. relJtivj\tif.:" (nn\C"ll1cnu~\ 110n -lingui\tic rcprc\Cnt.uion. relativisticconsequences consequences for non-linguistic '

of polysemy: polysemy: the phenomenon whereby In this Ihi, chapter chapler 1I address address the i_issue ue of of poIY"'lllY: the th phenomenon ph nomen n whereby whereby aa In chapter the issue vehicle has hasmultiple multiple related sense-units associated withit. it. Polvsemy vehicle ha mulliple related sense-units nse·units associated a iated with with it.Polysemy Polysemy s.ingle iIIlltle ngle vehicle an important important topic language science. lraditionally,lexical lexial lexicalsernanseman· """lItUles important lopicininlanguage languagescience. science. Traditionally, constitutes an Traditionally, semanhave taken taken th the view view that polysemy a"surface" "surface" phenomenon: conseIKi'I' have that polysemy poly.emy isis i aa" urface" phenomenon: phenomenon:aaaconsecon ticists have taken the underlying mental to relatively abstract mentlatiom in specific ,pccifi( of use. The emergence of of cogni. ot use. use. l'he emergence of cognicogniplethora of of manifestations manifestations in specific contelCls contexts of emergence li,e manli ,aaabran h of cognitiv lingui ti with with" rkby byBrugman Brugman semantics, branch ofcognitive cognitwelinguistics, linguistics, withwork work by Brugman tive lexical lexical semantics, branch of and I (i98'), an .nd iakoff IAlkoff(1988) (1988) and Lakoff (1987). r on eptuali1edpolysemy polysemyas as being being an an Lakoff (198$)and andLakof Lakoff (tW), reconceptualiied reconceptualized polysemy as al word~ exhibit exhibilpolysemy poly.emy as a aa consequence (onsequ Il( "underlying" phenomenon. Thai is, i words "underlying" underlying"phenomenon. phenomenon. That That is, words exhibit polysemy as not a single single abstract mental representation, but because polysemy nol of of. ingle abstract abstract mental representcmy. Ihthelight light of IIk;C\l CCM Theory. Theory. Accordingly, Accordingly, this this chapter lh.pter can can be be he i.e. ininthe viewed as an an application application of of vit'wed as an application of some m of ofthe thetheoretical theorelicalmachinery machinery relating relating to to sonw of the theoretical machinery relating to as ",m.ntic de,-eloped in in the th last la Itwo twochapters. chaple.... senuntic structure two chapters. semantic structure developed developed Polysemy,in inLCCM LCCM Theory, Theory,relates relatesnot notto thevariation variationevident evident in in the I'olyscmy, LCCM rel.les totothe Ihe variation evident Ihe Polysemy, in Theory, not situated situated semanli semantic contribution contribution of ,ltu.ted of aaa word—which word-whi arises due du to thecomposcompo word—whichh arises due to the the compossemantic of Ihe book. book. Rather, Rather, polysemy polysemy LC M ilional principles considered con idered later laler itional principles later in in the the hook. Rather, polysemyinin inLCCM I.('CM itional principles considered I heory heory is i,is •a consequence consequen« of of. mgle vehicle .. hide being being aassociated sodatedwith with dislinlt -ITheory consequence ofaasingle single vehicle beingassociated withdistinct distinct lexical i.oncepts which are conccp~ whi hare mantically related. mantic relaledness i aaa lexi,al related. Semantic Semantic relatedness relatedness isis lexical concepts which are semantically related. matter and is is determined 1w thebipartite bipartitestructure structure of lexical m.tler degree and and i determined determined by by the the lructur of oflexical lexical matter of of degree degree concepts. The way «>neep". way in in which openclass ·dJ as aas well well as a closed-cLass clo!>ed -cia polysemous poly_ mou which open well open-class as closed-class lexical of hared or or overlapping lingui tic lexie.1 concept be rrelated laled is i isby by virtue concepts canhe berelated byvirtue virtueof ofshared shared oroverlapping overlappinglinguistic linguistic lexical concepts can Content,for instance in terms in tance in in terms terms of ofshared hared parameters. paramelers. The The second ,""ond way concern (Ontent. for instance content, way concerns concerns The second the conceptual structure lexical concepts the the conceptual .ifhird oflhe con
i'Ol YsiMi POI.YSEMY

Xi(5l

LEXICAI.MEPRESENTA1 REPRESENTATION ION

150

I I

sofa The The picture pictureisis over over the the sofa

The main main way way in in which whichII examine examine polvscmy polysemy in this chapter isis by by way of . 1 The detailcsuyofh"taelxicnpsoatedwihEngls study of the "state" kxkal concepts associated with the detailed in, on, on, and and at. at. Hence, Hence,II will will he prepositions in, be concerned concerned with withthe thesemantic prepositions relatedness in in the the linguisti. linguistic content content encoded encoded by by lexical lexical concepts associated relatedness with the the same same vehicle. vehicle. There There isis aa significant significant tradition tradition of employing employingpreposp with itional analyses analyses in in cognitive cognitive linguistics, and in other areas areas of cognitive sciitional ence—see of the the papers papers in in Evans and Chilton Chilton (forthcoming). ( forthcoming). One of of the Evans and - seemany many of encc main reasons reasons for for employing employing prepositions presut becausethey theyare arepresumably prepositions isisbecause main grounded in spatial interactions, and yet are highly polysemous in all lanin .11 grounded in spatial interactions, and yet are highly guages that that feature feature them. them. They They also give non ofnon-spatial give rise rise to to aa wide widerange range of gu1iges sense units units from ill theaspectual, aspectual,totothe theabstract. ToToillustrate, from the the temporal, temporal, totothe sense consider the divergence of the consider the conventional conventional semantic semanticcontributions contributionsassociated with with the the IEnglish preposition on: on: ated nglish preposition (')t)

L'he ball landed over over the the wall wall b.h. The The arrow flew over the target c. The arrow flew

heard itit on on the the radio II heard radio c. The house is on fire c. The house is on fire She arrived arrived on on time time d. d. She

AHOVE1 I 'ABOVE'

Till

DLI ION THE OTHER OTHERSI SIDE' I'ABOVE ABOVE AND AND BLYONDI BEYOND'

and andlanded landedin inthe thewoods woods over isis lvler and 2003), each each of of these these instances instances of of over According to to Tyler andEvans Evans(200), (zoos, 2003). on the theright right), but associated with with aa slightly slightly diticrent differentlexical lexical concept concept ((listed listed on ), but This illustrates illustratesthat that over over these are are nevertheless relatively relatively closely closely related. related. This these ihits polysemy. exhibits polysemy. twodistinct distinct lexical lexical to two Polysemy contrastswith withhomonymy, homonymy, which which relates relates to Polysemy contrasts example1the the vehicle vehicle bank bank concepts that that happen happen to to share share the the same same vehicle. vehicle. For example, L,nccpts unrelated: semanticallyunrelated: conceptsthat that are are otherwise otherwisesemantically different lexical relatestototWO two different lexical concepts relates two lexical concepts are are 1511* These two lexical concepts OFA A RIVER). RIVER). These (SI DE OF and I\ SN( IAL iNSTITUTION) FINANCIAL INSTITUTION I and I 41. but also svnchronically unrelated: unrelated: unrelated unrelated in current usage, not only only synchronically in current usage, but also historis..historicnot RIVER) has been in the English I SIDEOF OF RIVER' has been in the English unrelated. The The lexical lexical concept concept (SIDE ally unrelated. OldIcelandic keLindicword wordfor for"hill", longer, and and isisrelated relatedto tothe theOld language for for much longer, language was borrowed from Italian while the INSTITUTION] was borrowed from Italian (FINANCIAL INSTITUTION the lexical lexicalconcept concept(FINANCIAL changer'stable". table". onganally with withthe thesense: sense:"money "moneychanger's (via French) French) originally bg,ui baiita (via recognhiedthe the existence existenceof ofpolysemy, polysemy,itit While formal linguists have long recognized sensethat thatlexical lexical has generally viewed a "surface" beenbeen viewed as aas"surface" phenomenon, in in thethesense • has generally in" and lacking lackinginindetail—and detail—andare are"filled "tilledin" entries are are underspecitied—abstract and application of of certain certain kinds kinds of of lexical lexical either or by by the the application eitherLw by context (RuhI ( Ruhl1989), WO, or to this this view, According to view, polysemy polysemy isis devices (Pustejovsky (Pustejovsky 1995). According generative devices singlerelatively relativelyabstract abstract seseepiphenomcnal. emerging emerging from from monosemy: monosemy:aasingle epiphenomenal, senses—suchas asthe the range range of of semansemanother senses—such mantic representation from which other ofcontext, context, the basis basis of with over—are over—are derived tic contributions associated with derived on on the by the the hearer, hearer, and and so so on. on. speaker intention, recognition of that that intention intention by principlewhen whenaccounting accountingfor forsemantic semantic ;\ monosemy account account is is plausible plausible in in principle A whicharc areall allspatial spatialinin contributions such such as as those thosein inthe theutterances utterancesin in(2), (2),which accountedfor forin interms termsof ofaasingle singleabstract abstract nature and could therefore be accounted nature alsoassociated associatedwith withaarange range semantic representation. representation. IHowever, lowcver. over over isis also spatial semantic (j). of non-spatial non-spatial lexical lexicalconcepts. .oncepts.Consider Consider example example(3). of

fl

a. The tahk "spatial" hook is is on on the the table The hook a. :spatial".. b. h.

151 151

"abstract" abstract 'I "state" state "temporal"

One of the main points of of interest interest for cognitive cognitivelinguists linguistsininstudying studyingthe the polyscmy of polysemy ofprepositions, prepositions,and andthe thetrajectory trajectory of ofthe theemergence emergenceofofnon-spatial non spatial semantic representations derived from historically earlier spatial ones, semantic representations derived from historically earlier spatial ones,relates relates to the thesis of embodied cognition briefly discussed in Chapter 3. In thesis of embodied ognition briefly discussed in Chapter 2 In particular, evidenu.' evidence that spatial representations give rise to related but more that representations give rise to related hut more abstract representations, as is evidenced preposiabstract representations. as is evidenced by by studying studying the the polysemy polysenwofofprepositions, provides compelling support for the foundational basis tions, provides compelling support for the foundational basis of of embodiment embodiment in terms of representations that that populate populate the the conceptual system a' as well wellas those that that populate the linguistic linguistic system. system.In Inthis thisspirit, spirit,this thischapter chapterbuilds builds towards and concludes concludes with with aa detailed detailedcase casestudy ctudyofofthe the"state" "state"lexical lexical concepts concepts of of several severalEnglish Englishprepositions: prepositions:lexical lexicalconcepts conceptswhich whichare arenonnonspatial spatial in in nature. nature.

iI

Polysemy Polysemy in in cognitive cognitive linguistics linguistics

(3)

While While both both polysemy giverise risetotolexical lexicalambiguity—two ambiguity—twooror polysemy and and homonymy homonymygive more the nature more lexical lexicalconcepts cont.eptsassociated associatedwith withaalexical lexicalitem item—the nature of the the ambiguity is different in each case. Polysemy is the phenomenon whereby Polysemy js the phenomenon wherebyaa ambiguity is different in each vehicle vehicleisisassociated assoiated with with two twoor ormore morelexical lexicalconcepts conceptsthat thatappear appeartoto be be semantically related. Consider the following examples containing the English containing the Fnglish semantically related. &)nsider the following preposition over. preposit ion over.

might of over over in in (3) might Whilethe thesemantic senunti. contribution associated associated with with the use of While unit I)Cglossed glossedasas"control", "control, itit is is difficult difficultto tosee seehow howaasingle singleabstract abstractsemantic semanti'.unit be this non-spatial could derive derivethe the three three spatial spatial lexical lexical concepts conceptsin in (2) (2) as well as this non-spatial could describeaa IcoNiRoI.I lexicalconcept. concept.After Afterall, all,the theutterance utterancein in(3) (3)does doesnot notdescribe (CONTROL. I lexical abstract space —buthas hasan anabstract in space—but spatial scene—lapse scene—laneisis not not located located above Iii,,. in spatial above him people. senserelating relatingto toaapower powerrelationship relationship between betweentwo twopeople. sense wouldbe beto to in (3) would over in One way wayofofanalysing analysingthe thesemantic semanticcontribution contributionofof over One unitassociated associatedwith withthe theform form over. treat itit as asaadistinct distinctand andunrelated unrelatedsemantic semantitunit over. treat symbolic a is a homon iii: in This would would amount amount to to the the claim claimthat that over over in (3) is a homonym: a symbolic This

► Immin (t07. 1007); I ' Sec Sep FV411% and (irrrn zoo6 int Jti 14 lohn&u AiM) 1K)7);'LA1641'1107); l.Lkutt l1yIcr 'nfki anmervicw: twrrvIcw;set5CCAu) I-v.in and ,reen I (ioo6t and Evans Lzoio3). For other views on embodiment •iee Cobb, 12oont: Vard.aetcial. iL 0990; Clark Lark(19951and Fv.rns (11M13). lor iihcr views on emboténwnt set (_.ibb* (2006);Varela For useful reviews see eeZaemke(ano3); Zaemkc (zoos);Wilson Wilson (w02). for useful

r.

Janehas hasaastrange strangepower powerover overhim him lane

152

POLYSEMY POLYSEMY

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

symbolic unit unit which to the symbolic which is hence unrelated unrelated to is distinct distinct and heIKe unit which is unit (2). A A second second possible possible analysis, analysis, which theuses uses evident evident in in (2). associated with with the singleabstract abstratt underu preserves the the mofloserny monosemy position, position, might might claim claim that that aa single preserves hut that lying semantic unit unitSaflctu)ns sanctions both the spatial and non-spatial non-spatial senses, senses, but ing semantic is metaphorical, metaphorical, and is while the thespatial spatialsenses senses are arc literal, literal,the thenon-spatial non-spatialsense sense is while interpreted by by applying applying pragmatic principles principks to retrieve the the speaker's ininterpreted tended meaning. In their their work work on on cognitive lexicalsemantics semanticsClaudia ClaudiaBrugman Brugman(1988; (1988;BrugBrugIn cognitivelexical stored as as a overisisstored man and and Lakoff 1988) and George Lakoff claimed that that over LakotT((1987) claimed man thanaasingle singleabstract abstract category of of distinct polysemous rather than polysemoiis sense senseunits, units, rather categorY reflects monosemoussense. sense. It follows from from this this position that polysemy It follows polysemyreflects monosemoUs semanticmemory memoryrather rather than than underlyingdistinctions distinctionsstored storedininlong—term long-term semantic underlying this earliest earliestwork work in in cognitive cognitive surfacecftect. effect.In Inthis thisrespects respect, this being a purely purely surfatc traditional and lexical semantics semantics diverged both 1mm from traditional and from from more more recent formal lexical developing the the position position that that approaches to approaches to word word meaning, meaning1ininparticular particular in developing andthat that!exit lexical orpolysemy is conceptual phenomenon, phenomenon, and al orpolvsemy is aa fundamentally fundamentally conceptual manifested in ganization at at the the mental mentallevel level determines determines polysemy polysemy as as itit isismanifested in ganization language use. influential, itit led ledto to While the work work of of Brugman Brugman and and LakoIf Lakoffhas has been been highly highly influential, referred to to as as the the in Chapter Chapter2., z I 1referred a perspective on lexical representation which, in Lakoff and and Brugman Brugman modmodSense Enumerative perspective. That is, Lakoff Sense EnumerativeLexicon lexicon perspective. elled word senses (i.e., concepts)ininterms termsofofwhat whatare areoften oftenreferred referredto to lexical concepts) word senses (i.e., lexical as assumption that that such such lexical lexical concepts conceptsarc are as semantic semanticnetworks, networks, making making the the assumption relatively stable knowledge structures deployed by language relatively stable language users usersininutterutterances. The difficulty withthis thisperspective perspectivelies lies in in the the observable observable fact that, as difficulty with as we protean:itit shifts shiftsinincontext. context.The the saw saw in in Part Part I of the book, word word meaning meaning isisprotean: beingaafunction functionof ofstored stored consequence of consequence oftreating treating situated situated word meaning as being word word senses isisthat word senses thataahuge hugenumber, number,perhaps perhapsan aninfinite infinite range range of of distinct distinct word senses sensesare arerequired, required,even evenfor forai single single vehicle. vehicle. Some oflexical lexicalrepresentation representation have have Some recent recent cognitive cognitive linguistic linguistic accounts of reacted difficulties with with the tack tack taken taken by 1wBrugman Brugman reacted against against some someof of the the clear difficulties and Lakoff. Such approaches approaches (e.g., (e.g., Allwood Croft and andCruse (ruse 2004; Lakoff. Such Allwood 2003; Croft with words words isis Zlatev 2003) argue argue that that the thesemantic semanticcontribution ..intrihution associated with senses, construed construed in in context. context.That That is, is,rather rather than than words wordshaving havingpre-specified senses, qua have what what has hasbeen beenvariously variouslytermed termeda a"meaning "meaningpotential" potential" qua Lakoff, Lakoff, they have potential (Allwo(xi 2oo3), a "purport" (Croft and Cruse 2004), or a "use potential" 2( )o3), a "purport" (Croft 2904), or a "use (ZIatev 2003). While (Zlatev 2uo3). While itit is not not entirely entirely clear what semantic semanticstructures structuresof ofthis this relate to the sort sort look like, the idea appears appears to to be bethat that semantic semanticstructures structuresrelate to the the wordsrelate, relate,based basedininpart, part,on on the range range of of potential potential knowledge knowledge to to which which words history of aa word's word's use, use, as well as history of as encompassing encompassingconceptual conceptualstructure. structure. Lakoff/ Two important issues arise from this. Firstly, and in contrast Two important issues arise from this. lirstly, and in contrasttotothe theLakoff/ representation,semantic semanticstructures structuresare .irenot notstable stable Brugman Brugman account account of of lexical representation, lakoif.Secondly, such and pre-defined suchapproaches approachc's pre-defined in in the way way envisaged envisagedby byLakoff. usage-basedinincharacter. character.The Thesemantic semanticcontribution contributionof ofaa are are thoroughgoingly thoroughgoingly usage-based

153 153

word is is always alwaysaafunction functionof ofaasituated situatedinterpretation interpretation in in aa unique unique s i vcn word Hence,aaword's word'ssemantic semantkcontribution, contribution,what whatCroft Croft and and of use. use. Hence, c ontext of its "sense-boundary," "sense-boundary," is is construed construedin incontext. context.AAfurther further (rUsC Cruse refer refer to to as as its approachesisisthat thatthe thetheoretical theoreticaldichotomy dkhotonly between between co nsequence of of such such approaches polvsemy versus monosemy monoscmy disappears. disappears.As Asllatev Zlatev( 2003) (loo3)points points out, out, from from this this polysemy versus modelled in in perspective, wondering wondering whether whether lcxkal lexicalrepresentations representations should should be be modelled is no no longer longer aa question questionworth worth other of terms of of one one or or other terms ofthese these two two extremes extremes is asking. After all, discrete as king. After all, semantic semantic structures structures are are not not in in and and of of themselves themselves discrete particular semantic contribution as asa.ifunction functiimof of CtlfltiCS, hut come come to to have entities, but have a a particular semantic contribution heir rrccise their precisecontext context of of use. use. The difficulty with aspointed pointedout outby byHarder harder The difficulty withthis thismore more recent recent perspective, perspective, as is that that itit places placesall allthe theresponsibility responsibility for (or meaning meaningconstruction constructionon on •0 ► 9), is language output (comprehension), (comprehension),but hut ignores ignores(or (orunderplays) undcrplays) the therole role of language output of the the input it runs risk of what Harder Ilarder refers usage input (production). (production). Ilence, Hence, it runs the the risk of what refers to to as as usage fundamentalism: the risk of instructions or or fundamentalism: the risk of eliminating eliminating the the role role of of words words as as instructions Ihat is, language users usersmust must have haveprepreprompts for prompts for meaning meaning construction.' That is, language existing mental representations representations of of some somesort sortin inorder order to to deploy deploywords wordsin in the the existing mental way they do. way In claimingthat thatlanguage languageprovides provides "instructions,"ininHarder's Harder's In essence, essence, claiming "instructions," (2009) terms termsdoes doesnot notlogically logicallyexclude cxdudethe theposition positionthat thatlinguistically linguisticallymedimedi(2009) ated meaning construction construition involves boundariesinin ated meaning involves the the construal construal of of sense sense boundaries are not nut mutually mutually exclusive. Indeed,LCCM LC( IM Theory Theory requires requires Ihe two are context. The exclusive. Indeed, both stable stable units units of of semantic semanticstructure—lexical structure—lexical concepts—which concepts—which encode encode both stable bundles bundlesof oflinguistic linguistic content, content, and and aameaning meaningpotential, potential,which whichconsists consists stable of lv ingnon-linguistic non-linguisticknowledge—a knowkdgc—a cognitive cognitive model model of dynamically evolving profile—and posits positsintegrative integrative and and interpretative interpretative processes whichensure ensure profile--and processes which that word in context—the context—the subject subjectof ofthe the that word "meanings" "meanings"are are always always construed construed in next part of the book.

The "state" "state" lexical of English English prepositions prepositions The lexical concepts concepts of The analytical analytical focus f(xus in chapter is is what what we wemight might loosely loosel The in the the remainder remainder of of the the chapter refer to to as as"state" "state" lexical lexk.il concepts. Inparticular, particular, II examine examinethe the"state" "state"lexical lexical refer concepts. In ,z, and and on. on. My Mv overtuncepis associated associatedwith with the theprepositional prepositional vehicles vehicles in, concepts in, at, overarching purpose is to provide a sense of the nature and st,itus of polysemy, as aa arching purpose is to provide a sense of the nature and status of polysemy, as phenomenon, fmm from the the perspective perspective of of I:CM ( CMTheory. Fheory.I Ido dothis thisby by way wayof of aa phenomenon, detailed illustration illustration employing employingthe the"state" "state"lexical concepts. Representative Representative detailed examplesare areprovided provided below: below: examples Wearc areininlove/shock/pain love/shocklpain ((-4) 4) We ef. We We are are in in aa room room cf.

'

in chapter ( the diu.u.suon in the Li.

I,

state sense sense "state" "spatial" sense "spatial" sense

-

154 IS4

((tj) S)

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

(6)

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

U~tJten "state" sense St state SCI1\C

.•"spatial" paliaJ" sense 'n~ "spatial"

•• aaa revealing revealing descriptive them analysisof ofthe the"state" "state" kxicalconcepts cunccpts of thee revealing dt's&riptive dcscflptlve analysis analy" of the" we"lexical lexical concept ofof the>e three including "state" which the kxical thrcc prepo.itional vehi I ,in ludingthe th way wayininwhich whi hthe the "state" tate"lexical lexical threeprepositional prepositionalvehicles, vehicles, including the concept( s) associated with one prepositional vehicle are distinct prepositional vehick are distinct from concept(s) a iated with concept(s) associated with one prepo itional ..hi Ie are di tin tfrom with other other prepositional prqxmitional the vehicles; lexie.11 ","<eptC a "xidtedwith prepo,itionalvehicles; vehide ; tate lexical the state state lexical concept(s) concept(s))associated •• aaarevealing revealing of the range of "state" lexical concepts within aaagiven of"state" lexit.il concepts within given revealing account a count of the rdogc or"\talc"lexical (OnceplS within given range account of distinct; that that is, some preposition somevehicles, vehicles, notably prepo ilion showing , howll1l1how howthey theyare arcdistinct; ~islinct:.that so!"e vehi Ics,notably notably preposition showing how they are than one distinct "state" distinct st.ite in lexical concept; ", and on Oil C:\hlhlt more l110re tate lexical lexl(.ll (ollf.:ept; more thJl1 than one niw cJl\l1m.1 on exhibit inand

!,'

POLYSEMY POLY EMY POLYSEMY

155 155 155

functional ••• an In count of of the spatio-geometric patio geometric and and functional fun tional knowledge knowledge encoded en oded an ajcc0Uflt account ofthe the spatio-geometric and knowledge encoded and a:, "spatial" lexical concepts associated with in, by the core" patial" I xical concepts iated with m, aI, o,r, 1w on; core "spatial" lexical concepts associated with in, at, and on; by the core of how each of the "state" kxical of this, arevealing revealing account aaccount count of ofhow each eo h of ofthe the" tate" lexical lexi al and in in view view of of this this,aa revealing "state" ••• and involved andrelated relatedto, to,the thecore core "spatial" by, and and related to, the core" patial" concept motivated Lw, concepts involved involved iis is motivated motivated by, "spatial" prepositional vehicle. lexical con eptsassociated aassociated iated with with each prepo itional vehicle. vehi Ie. kxkal concepts lexical concepts witheach each prepositional

"

and on on medIate mediate aa relation between human experienin, at, at, and relation between Inthese these exampl~ examples, II~ mediate In these all bct~ccn hU~lan cxi experien In exampks cer( s) and a particular state. While some of these expressions, for instance, to be for instance, Whik some these cer( ular state. tat. While some of oftheseexp .Ions,forms~~ e,t~be cer(s)) andaparti and a particular drawn"are areclearly clearlyidiomati idiomatic, thecontention contention of of cognitive cognitive clearly idiomatic, , Tersdrawn" "atdaggers (144, "at daggers , the the contentIon of cognttl~e lexical le ..",1 arc "at drawn" semantics is that while such expressions may he highly conventionalized, expressions may may be be hIghly highly conventionalized, and semantics onventlonahzed, and semantics isis that that whIle while such exprCMion thesource sourceof of the idiom accessible contemporary language be accessihk to contemporary contemporary language the m may may not not be beacc ible to to languageusers, users, the the source of the theidl idiom employed, is, at least, at is fact that at is. diachronically diachroniially fact iis employed, is, dia hronicallyat at least, I t, motivated. motivated. fact If th theperspective perspective ofTered offered by by cognitive cognitive lingui linguistics ti is is correct, correct, namely namely that that the the If perspective lithe and on on is sanctioned aa" "state" concept, then then there there is is one at, and use of of in, usc tioned by by a tate" Ilexical xi al concept, one sanctioned by is san on is use of IrI, in, at, importantissue that awaits awaits each lexical concepts of the the "state" "state" of ", t~te~ lexical I~xical concepts concep'\ Important iissue ue that await explanation: explanation: each ea h of important associated with the prepositional vehicles in (4)—(6) exhibit distinct patterns (4)—(h) exhibit distinct patterns in a~~iated ition.1 vehicles vehicles in (4),-(6) exhIbIt dl tinct patte"" in III associatedwith with the the prepo prepositional terms of their semantic selectional tendencies. For instance, the "state" lexical selectional tendencies. tendencies. For For in instance, the "state" term their semantic sem.ntic selection.1 tanee, the" tate" lexical terms of of their concept associated with in selects for co-occurring open-class lexical fur co-occurring co-occurring open-class concepts con cpt aassodatcd iated with open-cia lexical lexical concepts concept' selects for concept with IrI in select which access conceptual structure concerning emotional or psychological psychological conceptual structure con concerning emotional or psychologICal which a (eM con eptual structure ming emohon.1 which "force"such such as being being "in "in love", love","in "inpain", pain', and and so so on. on. and so on. In In contrast, open"force" uch as as contrast, the the openopcn~ being "in class lexical lexical concepts which co-occur with to have to to do, do,not notwith emotional class at have do, not with emotional class lexicalconcept conceptswhich whichco-occur co-occurwith with at a: have force but, with relations,such such as force rather, mutual (or (or interpersonal) interpersonal) relations, uchas asbeing being"at "at force but, but, rather, rather, with with mutual (or interpersonal) has selects concepts that war". Meanwhile, Meanwhile, on on select for lexical that relate relate to content content thathas ,var': all lexical concepts relate to cont ntthat ha selects for to activities, wellas as actionswhich which involve being to do do with with time-restricted tim -restri ted activities, activities, as aas well well a actions action whi hinvolve invol..being being tirne-rcstrkted currently active. These include being "on alert", "on duty', and so forth. That "on duty", and so forth. That currently achve. These lude being duty", and That currently active. These in include being "on "on alert", is, the types of co-occurring lexical concepts selected by each of the "state" each of the Iis,, the types of co-occurringlexical lexi alconcepts concepts selected selected by ea h of th "state" "tate" the types of co-occurring senses for these prepositions is of a quite different kind. This suggests, of aa quite as senses position is i of quite different difTerent kind. kind.This Thi suggests, ugg t.,as .. sensesfor for these these pr prepositions predicted by LCCM Theory, that each of the prepositional vehicles is associvehi. Ics predicted Theory, that that each each of of the the prepositional prepo~ition.1 vehi I i JssOCia\,\/,XI predicted by by lI ('(' .M M Theory, ated distinct lexical distinct lexical ated with tmct lexical whichaccordingly accordinglyexhibits exhibitsaaadistinct di tin tl xical ated with with aa di distinct lexical concept, concept, which accordingly exhibits profile, as manifested usage have' hitherto profil ,a manifested in u age patterns. pattern. Hence, Hence, although although hav hitherto hitherto profile, as manifested in usage patterns. Hence, althoughIIIhave applied to refer refer to the lexical concepts underpinthe the applied th label label "state" ""state" tate" to refer to to the th lexical lexi al concepts concept which whi h underpin underpin th.e applied the the label which specific in, at, on, itit at, and pecific instance in tanee of of th di tinctprepositional prepo itional vehicles, ,ehicl ,IrI, and on, all, It isis " specific instance ofthe thedistinct distinct prepositional vehicles, in, important to recognize that the so-called "state" lexical concepts are distinct, lexical concepts are distinct, recogniu that that the the so o;o-called tate" lexi al con cpt ar di tinct, Important to recogniie important to called ""state" as evidenced by their distinct selectional tendencies. tendencies.. ~ ed hy tm,t selectional . as eVlden evidenced bytheir theirdi distinct sekctional tenden" In view of this, in what follows 1 employ linguistic data in order to provide order to providc w I employ linguistic data in proVIdeaaa In view ofthi of this,, in what foil follows linguistic data reasonably detailed theory accounts reasonablydetailed detailedillustration illustration ofhow howLCCM M theory for the the Coinreasonably illu tration of of how 1L(( _eM theoryaccounts a count for th comcom· suggest suggest in, at, on. i and plexity of the closed-class "state" lexical concepts for I and a:, plexlty of ofthe the closed-class dosed ,da ""state" tate"lexic.1 ItI, aI, all. I ugge,t plexity lexical concept. .onccpts for for in, that LCCM theory facilitates the following: lCCM theory facilitates fa ilitates the following: that LCCM

I

-

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

of I here are claIms make, the findonSS presented There arc number that III make, There areaaanumber number of of claims claims that make,and and which whichthe the findings findingspresented presented -cTVe substantiate: serve to to substantiate:

■

the levelof of semantic semantic structure: •• I'olysemy I'olyscmy iis aaa phenomenon holds at at the th level of semanll structure: tru ture: that holds holds at Polysemy is phenomenon that As such such not aa "surface" "surface" phenomenon: of uch it iis not not "surface" phenom non: at the level at at the the level level of of lexical lexical concepts. concepts. As As itit is phenomenon: words. variation in in the the contribution aa matter of cont xtual variation the semantic semanti ntributi n of of words. word. semantic ccontribution of matter of of contextual contextual lexical concepts described, both within and We hall sec tate" lexi al concept described, both both within WIthin and and \Ve see that the" the "state" "state" We shall shall see that that the lexical concepts described, of their linguistic content: betwccn itional vehicles, vehicles, vary vary in terms of of their linguistic Iingui ti content: content: between prepositional in terms between prepo prepositional vehicles, terms polysemy parameters and their lexical profiles. Hence, Hen e, polysemy polysemy the their the nature nature of of their their parameters parameters and their lexical profiles. profiles. Hence, knowledge encoded encoded Lw lexical concepts relates tabl linguistic lingui ti knowledge en oded by bylexical Ie i al concepts con epts relates to the stable linguistic relates to to the stable prior prior to language use. u , . priorto tolanguage language use. lexical of new lexical con cpt arises from leXIcal concepts •• The The derivation of new lexical concepts arises from extant concepts The derivation of new lexical concepts arises from extant lexical concepts relating to situated instances of language of inferential processes, proc relatong to to situated ituated instances in tan es oflanguage by virtue of of language virtue of inferential inferential relating by virtu (2003) refer to such a mechanism as pragmatic use. Hopper Traugott uch a mechanism mechani m as a pragmatic use. Hopper and Traugoti (2003) use. Hopper and Traugott ( 2003) refer to such semanticunit unit is is strengthening: an an inferential inferential whereby strmgthening: an inferential process proc whereby new semantic semanti unit i strengthening process whereby aa new new bridging context abstractedfrom from an an extant extant semantic semantic unit,arising arising in aa• bridging context abstracted extant manti unit, unit, ari ing in on context abstracted from an which the new lexical concept concept (Evan 1000): a context ofuse u in in which which the the new newlexical (Evans and and Wilkins Wilkins zooo): context (Evans and Wilkins 2000): aa context of of use inference (oran an"invited inference:' Traugottand and emerg , as aasaaasituated ituated inference inferen e (or (or an "invitedinference," inferen e,"Traugott and emerges situated emerges holdsbetween between theextant extant Da her 2004). A polysemous polyvemou relationship relationshipthereby therebyholds betwccnthe extant I )asher 20th) A relationship thereby Dasher 2004). A polysemous LCCM Theory, theperspective perspectiveofof LC MTheory, Theory,aaa and the the derived derived lexical lexical concept. concept.From From the the perspective ofLCCM and of two two reasons: (i) due due to reanalysis of new lexical lexi concept arises for for one of two reasons: reasons: (i) (i) dueto toaaareanalysis reanalysisof of lexicalI concept tontept ,irises new arises one of site' toaaacognitive cognitivemodel model IInguisti ontent and/or and/or (ii). hift in a ite to to cognitiv model linguistic content content and/or (ii) (ii) aa shift shift in the theaccess a.. linguistic site profile lexical concept provides. profile that that the thederived derivedopen-class open-cia lexical lexical concept conceptprovides. provid , profile that the derived open-class lexical concepts associated withthe the prepInthe thecast caseofof ofthe theclosed-class c1osed - ]a lexical lexi al concepts concept associated associated with with theprepprep •• In In the case the closed-class ositional vehicles addressedin thischapter, chapter,the thederived derivedlexical kxi.al al concepts concepts osillonal vehicles vchi I addressed addressed ininthis thi chapter, the derived lexi ositional concepts encoded, from change in the nature of the Iingui tic content beingencoded, arise from from a a change changein in the thenature nature of of the thelinguistic linguistic content being being arise polysemous than aaa shift shift in inaccess ac ite. Specifically, pecifi ally, II argue argu that the polyscmou rather than site. Specifically, arguethat the polysemous rather than shift in access site. lexi.1 on epts arise arise due to parameters being beingencoded, en oded,giving giving lexical concepts concepts arisedue dueto tonew newparameters parameters encoded, givingrise rise lexical thefunctional duetotothe functional di tinctlexical lexicalconcepts. concepts.These Theseparameters parametersarise to distinct distinct These parameters arisedue to lexical concepts. propertiesin in situated language use. consequen es of of patio-typologi alproperties insituated situatedlanguage languageuse. u . consequences ofspatio-typological spatio-typological consequences and as a we w shall hallsee, sec,functional funcllonal parameter arise ari inferentially, That is, is, and is, and as we shall see, functionalparameters parameters arise inkrentially,aaa That inferentially, lexicalconcepts. concepts.Hence, Hence, the derivation antecedentspatial patiallexicaI concepts. Hen e,the the derivation consequ neeofof consequence ofantecedent spatial consequence lexical derivation of new new lexical lexical conceptsisiismotivated motivatedrather arbitrary.. of lexi al concepts concepts motivated rather than thanarbitrary. arbItrary of

Thefunctional nature of spatial semantics The functional nature natureof ofspatial spatialsemantics semantics The foraaa functional My purpose in 111 thi section ~tlon isis i toto tobriefly hriefly make make the the case CJSC fur fun
POLYSEMY 156

POLYSEMY

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

lEXICAL RFPRESFNTAIION

preposition.' By "spatial" I mean lexical concepts thatencode encodeaa spatio-top( spatio-top os By Spatlil I mCan lexical concepts that overininthe theexamples examplesinin(2), (2),abov above. logical relation ofsome some sort, sort,as as illustrated illustratedfor forover logical rdation By "functional"I Imean meanthe thefollowing. following. To understand how language language usc users understand how "fuflctioflal By employ the spatial spatial lexical lexicalconcept concept of of aa prepositional ak prepositional vehicle we must also employ the allow for non-spatial non-spatialparameters parameterswhich which form formpart partofofthe the linguistic linguistic conten content allow for encoded by the lexical concept. The use of the term "functional" is motivated "functional" Is encoded by the lexical concept. The us.., of the term by the observation that that such such non-spatial non-spatial parameters parameters are are aa functional functional conseby the quence of humanly relevant interactions interactions with with the the spatio-topological spatio-topological properties of humanly relevant qucnce in question. Moreover, the the way way spatial spatial lexical lexical concepts concepts are are ordinarily employed in question. by language users would appear to require such such aa functional functional understanding understanding if i by language users would appear to require spatial lexical concepts arc arc to to be he correctly correctly interpreted interpreted in in context. context. spatial lexical Providing a functional account is of further importance as the derived lexical Providing a ttIIKtiOflal account is of further importance as result from fromextant extant spatial spatial concepts—such as the "state" lexical concepts--which result concepts-—such as the "state" lexical lexical concepts, arise arise from humanly relevant relevant spatial spatial scenes scenes(Tyler (Tyler and and Evans Evans from humanly lexical 2003), in which the functional consequences—what I refer to as functional in which the functional consequences—what I refer to as functional categories—are more salient than the spatio-topological relation encodcd encoded by by categories—are more salient than the .ttio-topological the linguistic content of of the the spatial spatial lexical lexical concept. concept. Through the process Through the process of the linguistic content pragmatic strengthening, derived derived (i.e., ( i.e., functionally functionally motivated) motivated) lexical lexical concepts concepts praginatk arise. This involves new functional functional parameters parameters becoming added to the linguistic becoming added to the Linguistic arise. This involves new content of the derived lexical concept(s). content of the derived lexical concept(s). In her work, Annette I lerskovits (e.g., 1996, 1988) observes that, traditionIn her work, Annette lierskovits (e.g.1 1996, 1988) observes ally, work on spatial representation in language assumed that the "basic" ally, work on spatial representation in language assumed that the "basic" function of the spatial lexical concepts associated with prepositional vehicles vehicles function of the spatial lexical concepts associated with prepositional encode purely spatial relations.% The traditional view, which she terms the isis to the to encode purely spatial relations.' The traditional view, which she terms simple relations model, assumes that the semantic contribution of any given simple relations model, assumes that the semantic contribution of any given spatial use of a prepositional vehicle relates to spatio-geometric properties, spatial use of a prepositional vehicle relates to spatio-geometric properties, typically designating aa relation suchas asdimensions, dimensions,axes, axes,or or typically designating relation involving involving notions notions such proximity (e.g., Bennett Miller and Johnson-Laird 1976 for representative 1975; proximity (e.g., Bennett 197s: Miller and Johnson-Laird 1976 for representative examples). modelisisdescriptively descriptivelyinadequate. inadequate. examples).However, However,the thesimple simplerelations relationsmodel That is, the "simple" spatial relations posited are unable to account for the That is, the "simple" spatial relations posited are unabk to account for the range of spatial representations that prepositions ordinarily designate." range of spatial representations that prepositions ordinarily AA related, and influential, perspective has been presented by Vandeloise in related, and influential, perspective has been presented by Vandeloise in his work. Vandeloise (1991, of argues compellingly that ans' any account of 1994 ) argues compellingly that his work. Vandeloisc (1991, 1994) spatial lexical prepositionallexical spatial semantics semanticsthat thatleaves leavesout outthe thefunctional functionalnature natureofofprepositional concepts That employed. Thatis,is, forhow howthey theyare areactually actuallyemployed. conceptsfails failstotoproperly properlyaccount accountfor patio-topological relations functional spatio- topological relationshave have functi inalconsequences,es,consequences which physical andentities entitiesininour ourphysical whicharise arisefrom fromhow howwe weinteract interactwith withobjects and environment, example illustrate,take takethe themundane mundaneexample environment,and andininour ourdaily dailylives. lives.To Toillustrate, ofofaacup ofofcoffee. you move slowly hand.IfIfyou movethe thecup cupslowly cottee.Imagine Imagineholding holdingit itininyour yourhand.

Vandeloisc from Vandeloise IIt,LKF bottleor oraa tight light bulb? bulb? (adapted (adapted from s i. AA bottle 14,1 - 1(1 &i.

model.Sce tl1O(kI.

Herjktnits (t'U) for a survcy of

,,i thc

1 57

1994I

coffee moves along with the cup. This moves along with the cup. This with a bottom a follows t011ows as the cup is a container with a bottomand and sides sides and and thus thus constrains constrains referred within these boundaries. Tyler and I (2oo3) the location of any entity the location of any entity within these boundaries. Tyler and I (2003) referred surety." of bounded boundedlandmarks landmarksas as"location "locationwith withsurety." to this property of with aa cup container also The -dynamic properties The torte force-dynamic properties associated associated with cup as as aa container also illustrated by the semantic contribution of up in in linguistic content, show up content, as as illustrated by the semantic contribution of work Figure 8.1, Si, drawn the preposition preposition in. in. Consider Consider the thediagram diagramininFigure the drawn from from the the work of Vandeloise (1994). depictedininFigure Figure8.1 8.1could couldeither either Vandeloise observes observes that that the the image Vandeloise image depicted shows, we can use the bulb. As As example example (7) shows, tepresent aa bottle bottle or or aa light light bulb. represent we can use the and the (Figure) relation between the light bulb 'reposition in to describe the Preposition in to describe the relation between the light bull' (Figure) and the Object). (Reference Object ). socket (Reference

the coffee up up and and down, down, or or from fromside side to to side, side, the

(7) The bulb is is in in the the socket sotket The bulb (7)

relation between a bottle In contrast contrast however, however, we we cannot cannot use usein into todescribe describethe therelation In between a bottle that the utterance is and its cap, as illustrated by (8). The hash sign indicates and its cap, as illustrated by (8). The hash sign indicates that the utterance is semantically odd. odd. semantically (8) isTh• #Thc bottle bottle isisin in the thecap cap (8)

• • For more drtaikd arguments %0-C t vans I torthsoming a). drtaikd argumctlh sw I vans ' For 0. Feist and ter and ' See also CAtveritry and 4rrod 11004/, Ikanc 1200 mdFvans Iv.ms mdI ■tykt (1005). Icistforthsoming). (I (1004), 5cc aho t ovcnlry and (20031 for a relined perspesieve. (III .1 f I.iied thethc simple relat ► ons • See Herskovit%114M1 for a survey of some of the desstoptive inrdesphis rs ofi,1 ssmpk

157

between the figure Vanddoist points points out out that that the thespatial spatialrelation relationholding holdingbetween Vandeloise the figure and yet (I) and reference object (KU) in each of these utterances is idcntital, (F) and reference object (RO) in each of these utterances is identical, and yet semantically odd. Vandcloise while is a perfectly acceptable sentence (8) is while (7) is a perfectly acceptable sentence (8) is semantically odd. Vandeloise holdingbetween betweenthe theFFand andRO RUthat that suggests thatit itisisnot notthe thespatial spatialrelation relation holding suggests that relevant argues that the in. lie lieargues accountsfor forthe theacceptability acceptabilityororotherwise otherwiseofof in. accounts that the relevant the bull) factor is one ot force-dynamics: "(Wlhile the socket exerts a forceon onthe factor is one of force-dynamics: "I W I hile the socket exerts a force bulb curs withthe the tap and the bottle" anddetermines determinesitsitsposition, position,the theopposite oppositeoccurs and with cap and the bottle" and the III other words, not only is the position and (Vandeloise $994: $73). words, (Vandeloise 1994: 173). In other not only is the position the (contained hy being successful function of the bulb contingent on successful function of the bulb contingent on being in (contained by) thehe

________

158

-

-

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION LEXI AL REPRESFNTATION REPR ENTATION LF.XI(:AL

in Lexicalconcepts concepts associated associated with with in lexical In Lexical concepts

(9) (9)

and II iI!'
•

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

(to) Johnisiisininlove love (10) John (io) John

Parameter: Psychosomatic Parameter: Psychosomat state Parameler: Psychosomali k state lale

That is, the ENCLOSURE J lexical concept in (9) the use use of in in in (9) ThaI i ,the IheIENCIOSL'RI (>NCTO l'R"lle,i al con epl which whi nction the Ihe u of of", lexical concept whichh sanctions That is, encodes n od aaaschematic sehemali dimen ionabstracted ab Ira led from from sensory·molor experi neein in encodes schematicdimension dimension abstracted fromsensory-motor sensory-motor experience experience in which highly iscontained containedby theRO. RU.Notice Notice that the the relation relation encoded which the Ihe FIr is is conlained by the Ihe RO. 'oti ethat thallhe relalion encoded en odedisishighly the schematic says nature; nothing about whether there contact not hemali in in nature; nalure; itit il says says nothing nOlhing about aboul whether whelher there Ih re isis i contact conlaCI or ornot nol between the F and RO as in ( u nor whether the F represents part of the RO whether the F represents part of the RU bel ween Ihe between theI'I and and RO R() aasInin(II), (ii), nor whelher Ihe I represents part oflhe RO or not as in (12): or not nol as as in (12): ('2): (11) (II) Thflyflyisis iinin inthe Ihejar (i.e.,flying a.The The the jar(i.e., (i.e., flyingaround) around) (ii) a.a. b. The fly is in the jar (i.e., stationary b. The Th fly fly isis ininthe thejar jar(i.e., (i.e.,stationary lalionaryon onone oneinterior Inleriorsurface) urface) b. on OflC interior surface) (ti) a crack (12) There's aa crack Inthe Ihevase v~ There's trackinin the VJS' (ii)There's Indeed, RO, their Indeed,the theprecise precisespatio-topological spatio-topological natureofoflhe ofthe theF,r, F, RU,and and theirrelation relationIndeed,lhe preci palio·lopologi.1nature nalur< RO, and their relal,on ship is a function of the F and RO and their possible forms of interaction, possible forms of tion, hip iis aa funclion of the Ihe Frand RO and and their Iheir 1'0. ,ble form of inleraclion, ship function of and KU rather the abstract parameter encoded bythe the ralher Ihan the Iheabstract abMracl parameter param ler encoded encoded by Ih (ENCLOSURE] (, NUOWRE)I lexical Ikxkal xieal rather than than concept. This information derives from the semantic potential accessed the semantic potential accessed via con«pl. derives from Ihe semanlic polenlial accessedvia concept. Thi~ This informallon information derives

159 159

and mediated by the compositional Ihe "pen ·cla epls, and as ilional propro class lexical as medialed mediatedby byIhe the compo compositional prolexical con concepts, and as t h e o pen-class the discussed later in the book. ,e 'C' di u sed laler in Ihe cesses discussed later in the book. concept encodes the parparIn (t,ntra I, the Ih YCIIO MAT,e STATEI TATEllexi al concepl Ihe STATE I lexical lexical concept encod encodes the Incontrast, contrast, the I(pPSYCHOSOMATIC In sihematic Jm laIc. This iis highly in nature. nalure. Psychosomatic state. Thisinformallon information is Psychosomatic state. This information highly schemalIC schematic in in nature. 111icter eler "ychosomalic a meter determine which IIhat hal is. i"is, Ihe parameler en oded does whi h sorts sorts of ofpsychop ychothe does not 'that the parameter parameterencoded encoded does nol not delermine determine which sorts of psychofunction of of the collocate with ".m.'li( Ihi lexical Thi i aa a function funClion ofthe Ihe 511iw11c states can can somatic ,Iales states cancollocale collocate with with this this lexical lexical concepl. concept. This This is is semantic selectional selectional knowledge relaling relating 10 to Ie profile: for In\lan ,knowledge Ih semantic semanl' seleclional kxic.Il icalprofile: profile:for for instance, instance, knowledge relating to the the lex".11 of associated with this tendencies Ihi lexical concepl, and hence hen e the Ihe range p ythe range range of of psyhence tendencies associaled associated wilh with this lexical lexicalconcept. concept, and and tendelKies with the .hn,nmalic lales which can co-occur co-occur with Ih IPsy(IIOsOMATIC (p Y 1I00MATI STATEJ STAHl states which can c hosomatic states which can CO-OCCur with the 'PSYCHOSOMATIC STATE] by a lexical concept Ie "JI (oncept. Hen«, Ihe parameters para meIer encoded encoded by by aa lexical lexical concept concepl lexical concept. lexical concept. hence, Hence, while while the the parameters (and hence semantic argudetermine po ible range of lexical concepts concepl (and hence hen«semantic semanlicarguarguthe determine Ihe the possible possible range of of lexical lexical concepts determine relating to the lexical profile provides information l11enl\) Ihal can Ih lexical lexical profile provides provides information in~ rmalion relating relaling to 10 ,ncnts) ments) that thatcan can co-occur, co-occur, the this lexical lexical concept. permissible which can can co-occur co-oct tir with with this Ihe range ,bl states tal which co-occur w,lh Ihis lexical concept. concepl. the range range of of permi permissible states which can the of

of socket,but butthe theocket socket also preventsIhe thebulb bulbfrom from succumbing to the the fl)fcc force rce of _kel, kel also Iso prevents prevenl from. u«umblng to 10 Ihe the socket, bUllhe gravityand andfalling fallingto theground. ground. In In contrast, the position position and ssucc fuI gravily 10tothe Ihe ground. conlrasl, Ihe po ilion and and successful falling gravitY and functioningof ofIhe thebollle bottle is not contrngent contingent on on being being in the cap. cap. Thi Thissu suggests cap. This the bottle not funclioning iis nol conllngenl illin the Ihe ugg Is tunctionmg that our knowledge of the functional consequences associated with what Jsstkiated with Ihal our knowledge knowledge of the Ihe functional funclional consequenc~ associaled w,lh whal itil that our meansto tobe beenclosed enclosed affttl affects Ihe the conlexlual contextual acceptabilily acceptability of of aa prepo preposition affects the contextual acceptability mean ilion such uch means 10 asin. in. as 01\ It'.

In th,~ this section analysis lexical concept. the"state" "state" In ion III present presenl an an LCCM LCCM analysis analy, of of the Ihe "slale" lexical lexi al cOl concept [.C(N1 present In this section associated with That is I argue that there is more than one distinct "state" in. there iis more more Ihan than one di distinct aassociated ialed wilh Ihal Ihere tinct" lale" in. ThaI Ihat iis, I argue that with i'L concept convenlionally conventionally as5()(ialed associated in. IiIabo also lexical concepl vehicle associatedwith with the the prepositional prepositional lexical w,th Ihe prepo ilional vehicle vehi Ie in. ilL lexical concept show how these these lexical concepts conceptsrelate relateto, to,and andare aremotivated motivated by, how how Ihese "state" ""state" lale" lexical concepl relale 10, and are mOlivaled by, by, the lhe show functional consequences attendant upon the range of spatial scenes which of spatial scenes wtucti functional consequences consequences allendanl Ihe range range of patial seen which attendant upon upon the sanctioned by the core spatial gloss in involve usages of lexical concept involve usages U5Jges of Ihe core core paliallexical con epl which which IIIgloss glt of ill in ~nctioned sanctioned by the as 'ENCLOSURE!. tENdtL Os('XI aas (EN suul. The two aspects of that will be focusing that I will on The two aaspects pttI of Iilinguistic nguislic content, contenl, in particular, particular,lhall wiU be be tocusing focusing on oflinguistic content,in below, in adducing distinctions between lexical concepts, are the lexical profile lexical protile profile below, In di~IIn(liom between between lexical lexical concepts con epl are are the Ih lexical below, in adducing distinctions and Ihe the parameters parameters encoded terms of parametets. and paramelers encoded en oded by by aa given given lexical lexical concept. concept. In In terms lerm of ofparameters, paramele~ the in, namely namely (E the prololypical prototypical spatial lexical concept concept associated associated with I[ENCLOSURE ENd osukEl Ihe palial lexical lexical conceplassocialed with i,~ .LOSU RE),I. the prototypical spatial with in, encodes Enclosure, as evidenced evidenced by the the exampk in ifl (9), (u), for encodes Ihe para meIer Enclosure, [nclo ure, as a~ eviden cd by Ihe ex.miple example in (9),for for encodes the the parameter parameter instance.e.In the STATE I lexical lexical conccpl-()ne concept—one concept—One of of the the instan Incontrast, contrasl,lhe (PSCYIIO MATI STATEJ STATBllexical of lhe instance. In contrast, the(PSCYHOSOMATIC IPSCYIIOSOMATR "state" lexical concepts associated with in—encodes the parameter PsychoPsycho "slale" lexical concepts conceplS associated associaled with in—encodes i'l--
POLYSEMY I'OLYSIMY POLYSEMY

f

IEN(;Lost'Kt I lexical .\, noled (ENClO UREllexi ..Iconcept con eplencodes encod palio-Iopological above, the 'ENCLOSURE' As flOtCd noted above,the lexical concept encodesaaaspatio-topological spatio-topological bounded schematic F, the entity entity enclosed, and relalion holding bel ween aaa schematic hematic F, F, Ihe enlity enclosed, and and aaa bounded bounded relation relation holding holdingbetween between the enclosed, themselves consist of nunytypes types even IJndmark, Ihe KU. RO. Bounded landmarks Ihem Iv consist con i of I of many Iypeseven even landmark, the landmark, the RO. Bounded landmarks themselves many which bounded landmark includes includes aninterior, interior, in everyday everyday experience. eexperience. perience. A A bounded landmark in Iud an an inlerior, which whi h in everyday A bounded volumetric interior further ub um an inleri surface, and and Ihe volumetric volumelric interior inleriorbounded bounded an interior interiorr surface, furthersubsumes subsumes an and the the bounded which canbe berigid, rigid,as by the Ihe inleriorsurface, surfa e. ItIt Italso also subsume aaa boundary, boundary, which whi hcan can be rigid, aisinin in by the interior interior surface. alsosubsumes subsumes boundary also has non-rigid, in plastic carrier The melal safe, safe, or non-rigid, as a in inaaaplastic pIa Ii carrier carrier bag. bag. The Th boundary boundaryalso alsohas ha a metal or non-rigid, as hag. permeability and degrees of olher ph ical characteristics characteri lics such su h as a permeability perm bilily and and degrees degrees of opacity, opacily. other physical other physical characteristics such as exterior: that region I-inally, the bounded landmark has, ha , by by definilion, an an exterior: eXlerior: that Ihal region region linally, the by definition, definition, an Finally, thebounded bounded landmark landmark has, part interior.Accordingly, which constitutes con tilul the th inverse inver of of thevolumetric volumetric inlerior. Accordingly,part parIofof of the inverse ofthe volumetricinterior. which constitutes spatin-topological attributes Ihe exlerior inelud the Ihe exterior exlerior surface. urface. The palio-Iopologi alattributes allribul the exterior exterior includes includes the exterior surface. Thespatio-topological the encoded inlinguistic linguisticcontent content Ju,1 described relate relale 10 endo ur . They are encoded encoded in in linguislic conlenlinin III just described described relate to They are are just to enclosure. enclosure. lerms of whal IIIrefer r fer to 10as asthe IheEnclosure Enclo ureparameter. parameler. terms of of what what refer as the Enclosure parameter. terms to involving enclosures, the A observed obearlier, rved earlier, du 10 inleraction involving en 10 ur ,the As earlier, due to human human interaction As observed due to human interaction involving enclosures, the cuts,isis associated with (lOS u)lexi alconcept. con epl,as as manifested lIlani~ ledin inusage usageevents, evenlS, i associated ialedwith wilh Ii(,ENCLOSURE! NuIosukEI lexical in usage lexical concept, as manifested Thatis, is, thereare areaaanumber numberofoffidentifiidentifinumber of functionalconsequences. consequences.That ThaI is,there are number idenlifia number number of of functional functional aa consequences. spatial scenes ably di lin I sorts sorl of offunctional fun lionalcategories calegoriesassociated a socialedwith palialscenes enes ably distinct distinct sorts of functional associated withspatial ably categories relation of Enclosure involving endo ure in in add ilion to 10the Ihespatio-topological spalio-Iopolog' .1relation relalionofofEnclosure En 10 ure nvolvi ngenclosure enclosure inaddition addition to the spatiotopological involving Occlusion, and Affecting JU I described. described. These ininclude lude Location Localion with urely, Occlusion, elu ion,and Affecting Affecting Just described.These Theseinclude Locationwith with Surety, Surety, just Figure 8.2. Condilion,summarized ummarized ininFigure Figure 8.2. 8.2. Conditions, summarized Conditions, for providing providing Location with Bounded landmarks landmarks that Ihal are specialized for providingaaaLocation Local ionwith wilh are specialized specialized that Bounded landmarks Bounded I hisfunctional functional category enSurely funClion are known known as as"containers." "conlainers." This This fun 1I0nal category calegory isis i enen Surety function function are are known as "containers." Surety the Location with coded in linguislic conlenl lermsofof whal referto10 IheLocation Localionwith wilh codedin inlinguistic linguisticcontent contentinin interms terms ofwhat whatI Irefer refer toasasthe coded by virtueofof Surety parameter.Conlainer Containersccan can provideaasupport support function Surely parameter. parameler. n provide provide.l upporl function funcllon by byvirtue virtue of Surety Containers 'I'his was locatingby byfixing fixing(i.e., (I.e.,holding andrestricting) restricting)the the locationofof ofthe the localing by fixing (i.e., holdingand and reslricling) Ih location localion IhF.ILThis Thi was w. locating socket example earlier. rated with with the the discussion ofthe thelight lightbulb bulbininthe the illu lraled wilh Ihe discussion discu ionofof Ihe Iighl Ihesocket sockel examplearlier. carli r. illustrated example (and escape), .is in the case of .mrestrict restrict Altem.lIlvcly, (;ont.1illcr"\can I..Jn r~lrict access olC(C (and escape). c. "aJ ), as 3\in the thecase ca~ of Alternatively, containers containers Alternatively, prisons and safes. prisonsand andsafes. safes. prisons

-

1(10 160

I ATION lEXICAL RfPRESENTATIO. LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

POLYSIMY POLY EMY POLYSEMY

iti. inguistit Content encoded byII. IiiNcI 1 1411Kt. ILinguistic r ,,,I f "-I, tngUI"lll content encoded rnU~ed by Nt LOSLHI Imum("l'a. jJTderiving tleri\ln& from p.lIl.)1scenes rnn.JnO derivingbruin troni spatial and spatial scenes and functional fUr'i\. U(lOOII categories catrgon

Enclosure Enclooure

Oockssion Occl usion QccIusoon

of spatial (colUl'\(. 'tlut,'nlcs flJi"al scene \(.cnr nsequent es of spatial scene humanly relevant interaction 411J A nd hum.!n)y rdev.mt interactIOn thh aspects of scene: sene: %soli aspects of of \\It J'p«1 tne

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

ri.'Iatsor,: relation: Spgitio-toptilogical 'Pl lt". tof't-'/ogudl ,t'iallOtJ.' njosurc Enclosure Indo ure! categories: i lust IFitactitmal un, II,'''''' categories: mlrgtmt~: IIlocation ,~ Jtiun with With Surety SUrtly (),JusIOfl llu.lu Ion Occlusion \tfC\. llng Conditions \.(lnditions Affecting I

Affecting Atteding Condilions Conritions ll(,l'llI 1. FIu.uR1 8.2, FIGURE

161 i6i 161

lingubllC content conttnt Linguistic IOSUREJ: 1* of [ENCLOSURE]: ofllN"o unl: encoded en oded as: a: as:

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

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

P.mJ",rltr. Parameter. Enclo urt Endosu re Enclosure Pdrtl",rtl'r: I'ara macr: Parameter: I,ocat (X.lllon With Surety ionwith with Surety Location I

( Occlusion -__Affecting Conditions_—ffi tong C.ondlllon Affecting Conditions

rel.Jtion: Endo ure relation: Enclosure Occlusion. consefunctional relates to Occlusion. The l>C(ond second functional fun tional category category mentioned mentIoned relates relates to Ocelu ion.AA Aconse«1II'" The the material opacity of due to the quen e of bounded landmarks, landmarks. due lh opacity opacity of the thematerial quence certain bounded of certain figure located on the volumetric which form the the boundary, boundary. is i. that that the the figure figure located located on onthe thevolumetric volumetri< which forms view. functional category category interior occluded. from view. view. This Thisfunctional category interiorisiisoccluded, occluded, and and hence hence hidden interior hidden from ririse to Ocelu ion parameter. parameter. gIves gives to the Occlusion Occlusion parameter. gives rise that of relates the The lhird category. that of Affecting Affecting Conditions, Condition. relates relates to to the The third third functional category, thereby affects fa environment which whichthereby therebyaffects affect tacttthat that an an endosur enclosure provides aa delimited that cndosure delimited environment prisoner held in the volumetric volum tric interior. interior. For Forinstance, in Lan e. aa prisoner prisoner held held in in lhe located on the F located For instance, on the the volumetric interior. subwindowless sound-proofedroom solitary windowl sound~proofed room isis i thereby therebysub-ub· solitary confinement confinement in in a windowless sound-proofed consequence ofthe the jected • particular sensory envIronment direct consequence consequence of of environment that isi aa direct ted to a particular sensory )ected whichh sfhe s/he is located. nature landmark in whi slhe is i located. located. of the nature of the bounded bounded landmark in which relevantways wayswith with the In word. by of interacting in in humanly relevant way with In other words, words, by virtue virtue of of interacting humanlyrelevant spatso-topological Enclosure, number of distint.t functional functional coflse_•patio-topological pallo, topological relation relation Enclosure, [n losure. aanumber number ofdistinct distinct functional consecon... • I hese distinct and identifiable categories. quenc ari • which formaliz di lin t and and identifiable identifiablecategories. categories.These Th . quences arise, as distinct quences arise, whichIII formalize formaliie as be parameters which which come come to functional categori -h mati parameters parameter to be be give rise to schematic functionalcategories categories give give rise which ENCLOS encoded th bundle of oflinguistic lingui ticcontent tOntentencoded encodedby bythe theI Ii[lNn 0' encoded as aspart part of of the NCLOSpart of linguistic content encoded by the LENCLOSUREI encodes the the uRE)lexi al concept. con ept.In Inessence, nce.lhe lexi alconcept concept[ENCLOSURE] (~N LOSURE) encodes th tiRE thelexical lexical lexical concept. In essence, the encodes URE [lexical akin spatio-topologial schematic of knowledge patio. topologicalrelation relationEnclosure, tn lo,ure.aaschematic hematicunit unitof ofknowledge knowledgeakin akintoto toaaa spatio-topological relation Enclosure, of distinct funcfuncparameter, and parameter. parameter - an IIIg from ofdistinct fune· parameter, and and the the parameters—-arising parameters—arising from the the encoding of This Affecting Conditions. This titional nal catcgories-Containment. clusion. and Affi (ting Condiuon . tional categories—Containment1 Occlusion, and Affecting categories—Containment. Occlusion, is summarized is ummarized in Table S.i. 8.1. 8.i. in Table Polysemy f(lHowing way. the multIplicity of paramo Pulysemyemerges emergesin thefollowing followingway. way.Due L)uetotothe themultiplicity multiplicityof of paramparamemerges ininthe conditions, a parameter eter oded by ingl Ie i al con cpt. under ertain condition encoded by aa single single lexical concept, under certain eters en encoded lexical concept, conditions, •aa parameter ofuse use become (or parameters) i, particularly partICularly ... lielllln given context ontextof of usecan ccan nbecome that is is particularly salient parameters) that in aa given its reanalyscdJas asJaatli,linct distinctsen sense-unit, giving rise rise to to a01a new newlexical lexical conceptin inits rcanJly~ -unit. glvmg ri\C new lexi 011 concept concept ih reanalysed distinct sense-unit, giving that the (FNCLOSUREJ lexical [ENCLOSURE' own right. not mean, mean. for for instance, in tane<. that the th [lNUOSURE) oWfl right. right. This own This does does not from conteni. Conditions parameter from its 10 ... , th Affecting Condition par. meter it linguistic lingui ti< content. content. concept concept loses losesthe theAffecting Affecting Conditions become established as the tOIC Rather. p.uameter can tJ..-..omeestablished establishedas a,the thecore lore Rather, the the Affecting Conditions theAffecting AffectingCond,tion, Conditionsparameter parametercan .anbecome parameter of otaaa new lexical concept. concept. parameter new lexical

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

. ■1

in this linguistic in support support the position that In thi; section present lingui ti evidence evidence upport of ofthe theposition po itionthat that In section II present present linguistic evidence in ioJ encode1J encodes number of of distinct distinctt parameters. parameters. Thatis, is, N( [051' I oS~R.1 of di5tin parameter. That That i • II provide provide (I 11-Nci.ostntEl encodes aa number number disjunction the linguistic e\ Idence for for. )unctlon in onthe thenature natureof ofthis thi aspect • peet of ofthe the linguistic lingui ti content evidence for aa dl disjunction in the nature of this aspect content encoded by [ENCLOSURE]. cn~oded by (EN LO URE). As A my my claim claim relating relating to th emergence emergen e of ofnew new of new relating to the the emergence lexical Ie",al concepts. hen e polysemy, poly.emy. rests rests U h aa disjunction, di jun tion. itit isiis on disjunction, lexical concepts, concepts, and andhence hence polysemy, rests on on such important before proceeding further. II illust.o briefly brieflyprovide providethe th evidence evidencebefore beforeproceeding proceedingfurther. further. illusoonportant important to to briefly provide the evidence trate this below which which reveal thedisjunction disjunction between the trate WIth whichreveal reveal the di junctionbetween betweenthe the trate thl this with withthe the examples examples below I-nclosure_ Location with uretyparameters p.rameter encoded en odedby by!i[([NCLml'Rr). Enclosure and and Location NCLOSURIJ. withSurety Surety parameters encoded by ENCLOSURE'. ACCllrdongly. con ider the the following followingexamples: examples: Accordingly, consider following Accordingly, consider examples: ((13) 1.'.1) 1) The Thetoy toyisiisin the box box in the the

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

Ro

'Ihee ' the example is, The example in( (13) (i's) is, II suggest, suggest, consequenceof ofthe two parameters: .ampI e in III I)) ' I.I uggest. aaa consequence consequence of thetwo twoparameters: parameter: Inclosure 'that In~lo,ure and and L",.ltoClIl Surety. That iis,• by by virtue of of being being located located in located in Enclosure and Location Location with with Surety. Surety. Thatis, by the interior interior the of the the FFis isi thereby enclosed. portion landmark, ~rtlon of ofthe ~hebounded bounded landmark, landmark. the theF therebyenclosed. endosed. the onteroor portion Nioreover, by by vIrtue virtue ofbeong of the Moreover. en losed. the th FIFisiis located located with urety: ifififlhe boxis is Moreover, virtue of being being enclosed, enclosed, the box locatedwith with surety: surety: box is fliuved, so aIM) the I-—the moved, so also Fr-the the toy—as on()Vl'C.!. .Iso is iis the to That i •Location L",ation That is, is, Location a direct consequence. consequence. That ith Surety is I entailed ntalled by by Enclosure. Fndo ure. with Evidencefor for thinking thinking that the Location Evidence thinking hidence th.tthe Location with withSurety Suretyand and Enclosure Enclo ureparameters parameters Enclosure parameters are, are, nevertheless, nevertheless, distinct units knowledge encoded encoded distinct part of I arc. n".nhel ", di\lincenes onvolvong enclosure. th from scenes involving partial enclosure. In the spatial scenes involving partial In the examples examples in in (14), ('4), the Fr is partially enclosed by the the houndedlandmark: only partially enclosed by exampl {t4).the i only partiallyendosed th. bounded bounded landmark:only only univ the base ut the bulb bulb is enclosed endosed by the socket of as illustratedI in the base b.", of bulb" cnd",,'C.! by ">eket as ., illustrated ill"'trat in Figure Ilgure 8.1 8.1 above; .hove; Figure 8.i above; only the and enclosed only the stem, tem •• nd not not the the whole flower, Jl(lWer. is is enclosed endo\Cd by the vase vase (see ("'" hgure 8 3)' vase (seeFigure Figure 8.3); 8.3); by the hand (see Figure umbrella handle isi enclosed enclosed and only the the umbrella umbrella handle handleis en losed by bythe thehand hand(see (seeFigure rigure8.4). 8.4).Indeed. Ind~: 8.4). —

- J'

162

.62 1(52

POLYSEMY POLYSEMY POLYSEMY

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION ILEXI( EXI AL REPRESENTATION

163 .63 163

partially cap——although ~\ endosed by the capalthough aaccess c to its contents con~ents are. are. bs, I",ong be i ng pa~iall~ partiallyenclosed enclosedby bythe the cap—although to its losure applies, but location with surety Ikn , in a situation .tualoon where whe .. partial part.al en 10 ure apphes, but locat.on w.lh urety Hence LC ,in aa situation where partial enclosure applies, but location with surety NctOSUREI lexicalconcept conceptassociated associatedwith with in ,,(lC' th. (ENCLO uRFI lellical associated with", cannot bc the lexical concept I [ENCLOSURE] in cannot cannot be be not, the doe s not, with Surety paramThis reveals that the absence of the 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 involving only etc<, /II cannot bcapplied applirdtotospatial patialscenes en involving only partial parlialenclosure. en 10 ure. jnnot be eter, in cannot be applied to spatial scenes involving only partial enclosure. have discovered that the the Enclosure Enclosure parameter entails entails Location Location '" the En 10 ure parameter parameter entail tar we we have have discoverrd discovered that that So rdr far seen that r, we in patialscenes seen whi h there there is i no no "oth Moreover, Surety. with surety. Surety.Morcov Moreover, wehave haveseen seen that thatin inspatial spatial scenes in in which which there is no the to with yet there is (partial) .nd U", as aas in th. spatial spatial scene ene to h>eJtion urety, yet location with withsurety1 surety, yet lhere there is is (partial) (partial)enclosure, enclosure, in the spatial scene refers, the the uuse of the the(ENCLOSURE fEN( .0suREllexical i osiREI lexical "h"h refers, the (EN apply. use ofth. of I lexicalconcept conceptcannot cannot apply. apply. %%'hkh (8) refers, which (8) (8) examine IA)cation with location with withSurety uretyparameter parametercan can be be \\'e whether the the Location We must We llIust must next next examin examine whether the Surety parameter can be parameter. If we can can posit posit that employed of th. Enclosure Endo u .. parameter. parame,"r. If If so, so, we can po it that lhal employed independently independently of of the the Enclosure so, we distinct which wIrH tinct lexical lexi al concept. concept, which which we we can can glo as (LOCATOON there there j di there i
> 4

r.

FIGURE 8.3. FIGl'R &). $3.

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

pear the basket (Is) Thepear pcarisis i inin inthe thebasket ba kel (is) I's) The

06 0,° 1 ,

6 0

o

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

in in his his hand ", lu.s hand Ilaml

image—is not enclosed by In thi example, ellJmpl., the the pear—in pear-in lh. erntre of of the image—is image-i not not.n losod by by In this this pear—in the the centre centre of the the enclosed fruit are ba ket, aas iis supported upported by by other fruit; tho supporting supportingfruit fruit arc arc the by other otherfruit; fruit; although the the basket, basket, as itit is supported although the enclosedby by the the basket. basket. Yet,the theform form in in can be to this cndo<ed by the ba ket. Yet, form 11/ bc applied applied to to this thi spatial patia]scene, seene, as as enclosed Yet, the can be spatial scene, as is due due to to WITHSURETY] sL'RErYI lexical i, in (15). ('5). 1II argue thi duo to aaa [LOCATION (LOCAT.ON WITH WITI. UR£TVIIlexical xical is evident argue that that this evident in (15). argue that this is [LOCATION which sanctions sanctions thisparticular particular usage. usage. Whilethe the (ENCLOSURE] IFN,.osuRFI lex","
well involving partial, partial1 as the scenes spatial th reason that lhatlhe v.hid ill can can relate relale to to spatial patial scenes en involving involving partial,as aswell well the reason reason that the the vehicle vehicle in in can relate to with Surety. It is precisely as full, enclosure is due to the parameter of Location with Surety. It is precisely as ure iis du location with urety. It i precisely due to the parameter of Location as full, full, enclo endosure provide because the bounded I.N1 that partially encloses the partially enclose, the TR serves serves toprovide that part.ally endo the TR serv... to p",vide becau becauseththebounded boundedLM tM that instances. inthese these location in is is sanctioned ill sanctioned in th...instances. instances. location with withsurety uretythat that the thevehicle vehi I in with surety that the vehicle however, to there is no reason, however, to and (14), (13) (14), there is no reason, On the basis of the examples in On the the basis ha i of the .xamples however,to On of the examples in ('3) and ('4),the.. i dsstint.t be Locationwith withSurety Surety constitute be convinced convin ed that that Enclosure Endosure and and Location Location Suretyconstitute con,t.tutedistinct di,tind

be convinced that Enclosure and

encodedasas aspart partofof ofthe the parameters, and hence units of knowledge param
lI(,tkF Its. basket in the the basket FIGURE 8.5. The Thepear pear is is in

-

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION IlEXICAl EXI .At REP RfPRF fNTATION ISINTATION

164

lexical concept concept requires lexical RI I le,i
POLYSEMY POLYSEMY POLYSEMY

( I~ )

II0SOMAl i; SISTAll) ATEJ (l.e., (i.e., subjective/internal IpSYCIIOMlMATlC laiC) II'si( PSYCHOSOMATIC STATE) (i.e., ~ubjective/internal subjective/internal state) state) is shock/pain (over thebreak-up break-up of of the therelationship) relationship) a. John is i in in shock/pain hock/pain (over (ov r the of a. a. John John h. (with himself/the himself/the girl) 11. John is iis in in love love (with (wilh himself/the girl) gir\) h. John John love

( I~ )

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

165 165

I

[PROFE 10NAL STATEI TATE) (i.e., pro~ iona! activity activity habituaUyengaged in) activity habitually engaged in) IrRoIFSSI0NAL (PROFESSIONAL STATE] (i.e., professional professional habitually engaged in) a. He in banking banking J. He Heisis i in banking ( 20) a. h. b. She i in insuran e b. She She is in insurance insurance

in "State" lexical lexical concepts for in "State" lexical concepts concepts (or "State" arisefrom tr( in order how these now turn turn to to the lexical concepts, to see the "state" ""ate" \exi al con cpt, in in order to tosee see how howthese th arise arise from III flow now "state" lexical turn to the in. involving in. the spatial lexical concepts.. Consider Consider the al con<ept the following examples xamples involving involving "'. Ihe concepts. the spatiallexi spatial (16) a.a. isi_iningood lkisingoodhcdlth (16) lie goodhealth health a.He (io) The girl in love love 1). The The girl girl iis k in b. love John in c. troubl /debt John iis is in in trouble/debt trouble/debt c. John He's in banking I i.e., works works in in the banking industry) industrvl lie' in 111 banking hanking [i.e., I i.e., works th banking banking indu try) d. d. lie's

examplesin infact factrelate relate to While each relates ofsome kind, .."state" tate" of of some kind1 kind, these these examples campi in fact relate to to Whil ea h relates relat to While each to aa "state" (6a)—the physical cause,,aas .is in slightly "states": have different" tat ": those those that that have have aa phy_ ical cau in (16a)—the (16a)lhe lightly different slightly different "states": the physical state which is is consequence iiithe beong "in "in good health', health", which which i aaaconsequence conscquen« ofof Ih physical phy "al tate of state of being being "rn good or emoemocondition of body—those that of an an organism's organism's body—those body-tho that have have aa psychological ppsychological ychological or or emocondition of an organisms of a subjective state, tional cause, as in (16b)—the state is a consequence of a subjective state, tIonal cause, as (16b)- thestate lateisisaaconsequence conscquen e of a ubjective ,tale, tional cause, as in (i6b)—the manikstaiions—thoSC which may (or may not) have physical, i.e., whi h may (or may may not) not) have have physical1 phy i ai, ii.e., ... observable, ob rvable, manifestations—those mani~ -tations-th,,,e observable, which social! that have a social/interpersonal cause, as in (16c)—resulting in (ioc)—resulting from that have have aa social/interpersonal sociaUinterpcrsonal cause, cau ,as from social/ SOClaU as in (Ioc)-resulting from externally interpersonal onteraOrt sortsofof Mlrt of ofstates. tale. Hence, II n<e,there there are four distin semanllC quite different different sorts Hence, dealing theview viewthat that we are selectional selectional tendencies evidence, upporting the the view that we weare aredealing deahng selectional tendencies tendenciesin in evidence, evidence,supporting supporting thatthese these examples are with four distinct lexical profiles. In essence, four distinct di linctlexical lexicalprofiles. protile .In Inessence. ..sen<e,IIIargue arguethat that Iheseexamples example,are are with four argue associated with the prepsanctioned by four distinct "state" lexical concepts associated with the prep" late" lexical lexical con -el'l aSSO<.iated with the prepsanctioned by by four four di,tinct distinct "state" below ositional vehicle in. This is illustrated clearlyininthe the examples ill. This Thi is is illustrated iIIu trated more moreclearly th examples e~mpl below: below: o itional vehicle vehicle in. ositional more I[""Y"OLOG'CAI. PHYSIOLOGICAL STATE] bodily state) state) STATEJ (i.e.. bodily TAT!) (i.e., (i.e., bodily slale)

17) a.a. health (17) He'sininpoor/good poor/goodhealth a.He's He's ('7) h. inlabour labour WOflklflisi. is in h. Thewoman woman II. lahour b. The toncept appears in which WhIch to use U%C incontexts applarl in he I I 11 SI , The The[ IU. 4TlltHWwiln ' RiTyl .. TT tC"1.h•• llun.::t·rlilrrc: r to h'be be-restricted I'C'trktN to hl U in In ,-,.nlul in In whKh ivil kzkal WITH Thc1(OVATION jIAH losure. as clepktecl in Figure A. $ for instance. In tId Ifl I igure $.$ lof instafliC. In stew c aS 'he I~ lUluttun With uretyisIisan .In tnJll't'\.treside r uhof vfen endnum:·,.u ,it I'k tnt In Ilgu~ • ., fur III 1.l1'k.(" Inview v..-w result 4)1 anindirect the keLaiiiiie 101 .**I4)nwith withsurety b' 11cr stated as hkIIK,fl with Surely of this. the parameter encoded by this lexical concept might he better seated as limation with Surety .i'ncCpI mighi ,.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 this emutkd iii this. the parameler whether this kikalconcept evolve such tonccpiwill willevolve Alue to Enclosure. It It remains an empirical lexaal qUcllK)flas due' q~tI'>n Iiasto I"towhether .... hed"'tthis thll luh,..;a] Ulrk.C'J'1 WI" ~ulvt'such u..h remains an nnr1nuJquestion FnJosurc. It I'r'nYlfu.In due III to Fnd,~uft' contexts. . hat it can he employed in a wider range ot gth.al wider raneC' range cll ot .. unl I It (.In 1M •a wlJI"T ernplwed in he nnr1uyN can bethat it 7

I

In ion to ional tendencIes, the ••addition ddition to evidence based on semanti selectional tendencie ,the po ilion Inaddfl toevidence evidencebased basedon onsemantic semanticselect selectional tendencies, theI')OSitiOfl position that there mustI he he aaanumber numberof distinct lexicalconcepts concepts Ih.1t be number ofdistinct distinct" late" lexical concep ..associated associated that there there mu must "state" Wllh ill, along the lines lin captured caplured by by the the examples examples in (17) (17) to to (20) indu iv<,can can with (17) (20) inclusive, inclusive, can in, along %vith in, along the the lines captured by the examples in .ilso 1wdemon demonstrated byvirtue virtue of of ambiguities ambiguities associated associatedwith withan anutterance utterance of ... , be lrated by by virtue ambiguilic> associated with an utteran e of of ,II also lw demonstrated of the following following kind: kind: Ihe followong the (2 1) 121) (21)

She' She's in milk milk She\ in

(21) potentiallybe be interpreted interpreted as as relating relating to to aaa woman woman The F heutterance utterancein (ii) could relating The utterance inin(21) could potentially potentially be interpreted as to woman who is nursing baby, and thus thus lactating, lactating, or as relating to to aa woman who who iis nursing nur ing aa a baby, baby, and and Ihu la tating, or aasrelating relaling to a woman woman who who who or works in the the dairy industry. That given an appropriate extra-linguistic works 111 the dairy dairy industry. II1dustry. That Thai is. i ,given givenan anappropriate approprialeextra-linguistic eXIra linguist I works in is, an example such such thiscan canbe beinterpreted in at least two ways. The context, an .n example su h as aasthis this can be interpretedin inat atleast leasttwo twoways. way.The Th context, l"'lentlal for divergenl interpretations interpretation is iis aa consequence, in ininpart, part, of consequence, part,of ofour our potential for divergent divergent interpretations a consequence, knowledge that in knowledge that that ill has has aaa number numberof ofdistinct di tin lexical tlexical le"i alconcepts concept associated associaled knowledge has number of distinct concepts associated with the distinction between WIth it: it: what what isis is relevant relevant for for this thi example exampl is thedistinction di tinctionbetween betweenaaaI IPHYIPHYPHYwith it: what relevant for this example isi the sIoIo(;IcAL lexical and '''"o(;ICAL 5TATEJ STATE) lexical lexical concept concept and and aaaIIPROFISSIONAI 1,'ROF£SSlONAL STATII STATE)I lexical lexical SIOLOGICAL STATE) concept raorEssioNAL STATE lexical concept. Moreover, generated even when relatively mn«pt. Moreover, ambiguities ambiguilies can be generated generaled even even when when aaarelatively relatively concept. ambiguities can he he well-entrenched example e"ample employed. For For instance, in tance, even even examples e,,"mpl of ofthe the employed. For even examples of the well-entrenched example is is employed. instance, following kind: kind: f()lIowing following ((22) 22 ) (22)

he is iisin in lahour She in labour labour She

(23 ) (23)

lie" on love I()ve lie is in love He is in

canhe beinterpreted interpreted in alternate can be interpreted in alternate alternate ways. way. For in tance, (22) beinterpreted interpreted ways.For for instance, instance, (22)could couldbe he interpreted can asrelating relating to to childbirth childbirth or or to relallng 10 childbirth to aaaprofessional I'ro~ ional activity, a tlVily, e.g., the Ihe trade ity, e.g., the trade union union as to professional e.g., movement. Similarly, (23) (23) could could be be interpreted as as relating toan movement. Similarly, SImilarly, (23) could be interpreted as relating relatong to emolional anemotional emotional movement. stateor oraaaprofessional prokssional activity, 'late or pro~ ionalactivity, activity,e.g., e.g.,marriage-guidance marriage-guidan counselling. coun \ling.The e.g., marriage-guidance counselling. The state former reading possible byvirtue virtue of of assuming something akinto to forn.er reading is i\ pe."ihle by hy virlue of. uming something something akin akon 10 former reading is only possible assuming aa IIOSOMATIC sTAn-i tonceptwhich whichisisisdistinct distinctfrom from • IIPSY( IP\y(1I0'OMAT!( TAT! J lexical I lexical ,i al concept con«pt which distll1ct fromaaI[PRO) (PROI [IsPSYCHOSOMATIC STATE] PROFF.SSTAt I lexical lexical concept. concept. That is, bothlexical lexical concepts must ~'ONAL STATE) STATE lexical con cpt. That That iis., both holh lexical concepts concept must mu t exist eexist .. tifif SIONAL love" in this example. can be be interpreted in I(.ve" can C.1I1 be interpreted in 111 these Ih •ways way'in111this Ihl example. eumple. "love" these

J,

-

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

iIXIAIREFYTION

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

DerivatIon of t~ "state" lexical concepts Derivation of the "state" lexical concepts InIhi this section II(On"der consider how how the the "state" lexical concepts for for in exemplified In Ihc" laic"lexical Ie kalconcepts conlept for in //Iexemplified , emplifiedin in(17) (,7) "state" I consider how In thi" [ENCLOSURE] to (2o) inclusive may have been extended from the prototypical (i '. prototypkal 10 (20) inclu.sive indu IV. may may have h.. been Ix",n extended extended from frum the th pmlolypKaI (. Nt "hl"l to (20) concept. lexical concept. lexical lexical conCept. above that in previous work, Tyler and I (2003) argued that observed I1 ob'oCrved above Ihal in previous previou work, and II(ioo3) (200~)arguct arg~ed Ihal work, Tier Iykr and .mbove that in I observed polysemy derives from regular processes of semantic change, which in whkh poly.emyd ri, from from regular rrgular prtxe "', of ofsemantic ",manticchange chang, In whICh situIIU derises ated implicatures associated with a particular context can become reanalysed .ontext can ated impli aturr associated a sociated w.,h part •.ular conlext canbecome becomerean1 r anal .I with aa particular ated implicatures as .Ii distinct concepts present terms. That is, TTyler lrr and in "' IIncl sense-units—lexical 'n · uml Ie ical concepts concepl in 10 present pre nl terms. Icrm . That Thaiis, '. 'Tylc and distinct as argued for for aa u<,;tge·ba'oCd usage-based approach approach III to language language change, aa position position languag change, 1'O",.on adopted adupled II argued I argued for a usage-based approach to by LCCM Theory. byl MTheory. .. "lexical I' l.( .CM Theory. by of the "state" the emergence mate In lerm terms of an LCCM account of the In L( 1 .ccounl Ihe cmergence of th laic e .c.d of the emergence of LCCM in terms of anthe as arise in the concepts for in, concept> II', Ih trajectory Iraj lOry is iis as a follows. follow,. Situated S,'ua,ed implicatures implic.lur arise an, in III situated follows. concepts for which bridging contexts, as briefly discussed earlier. These are contexts in which a bridging contexts, conlext ,a brieflydiscussed di ~sed earlier. ~~~ier. These Th are contexts context in 10 whllh ,a bridging as briefly (EN usage sanctioned by the relevant "spatial" lexical concept, such as s(kh as the u;age sanctioned ndinned Lw by the Ih relevant relevanl "spatial" p.3l1al lexical I x"al concept, concepl,' u h a the Ihc ('(." usage cLostrad concept also implicature1 such a, CLO "RE)Ilexical xicalconcepl aiM)gives giv rise n'oCto 10aaasituated ,'ua,edimplicature, unplle.lure,such uC.has a an dn to situated lexical concept aIM) gives rise (1 oSL'KI I affecting condition. If the prepositional vehicle is repeatedly used in such aff, ling condition. condilion. If the prepositional prcpo il,ional s'ehicle vehicle, is i repeatedly r~pealedly used used in ~n ueh It the ,ittecting L)taa bridging conlexl contexts,,Ihc the give giverise tothe theformation formationofof bridging ilUaled implicature impllcalUre may.g.~ nriseto 10 the formal.on the situated situated implicature may may bridging cofltcXts, new parameter, or the the existing parameter Ihe detachment delaehmenl of of an an existing x. lingparameter parame!er as a the Ihecore corc new parameler, or new parameters or the detachment an parameterof of a new below thatbridging bridging cornexu new lexical I xical concept. con cpl. III argue arg~e below below that bndglOg contexts contexl parameter lexical concept. argue parameter of aa new involving the have given Affecting Conditions of Affecting Aff, IIOg Conditions .~nd,"o~ may may have have given g"en involving Ihe functional funclional category cal(!lory of category involving the rise to the formation of a number of related but distinct "state" parameters, "state" parameters, ri 10 Ihe formalion of a number of r lated bUI d. IIOli lale paramclcr rise to the formation (it a number of related but distinct and hence concepts. and hence lexical lexical concepts. con el" . , and hence lexical In order to trace the development of the functional category Affecting Affecting In ord r 10 trace the d vclopmcnl of Ihe cal(!lory Aff, ling the functional category In order to trace the development of Conditions, we consider spatial appropriate Condilion~ \'0 need needto 10 palialscenes en that thatmight mighlprovide approl,riale might provideappropriate (onditions, we need to (on>lder spatial bridging contexts. expressions: bridging onl xl . To To illustrate, illu Irale, consider con iderthe thefollowing ~following Uowingexpressions: expr ion: illustrate, consider bridging contexts. To

"",,,it,"

(24) a. in10 the (24) thedust du in the dustI (i4) a.a. in b. the sand

b. the sand sand in Ihe h. in

the snow c. c. in in sflOW in the the snow they While dust, "enclose," "enclose," While du I, sand, nd, and and snow noware arephysical phy i alentities enlili which whichcan can" ndo ...they they While dust, sand, and snoW are physical entities which can containers. cannot by,for in lance,containers. (~nla llle .... cannol normally normally fulfil Ihefunctions funclinn provided provided providedby, by, forinstance, instance, normallyfulfil fulfil the the functions cannot That is, they do not typically serve to locate with surety, exceptional exceptionalciri~ Ihey do lypKally serve rve 10 ur 'y, exeeptlllllal ur· Thai locate wilh with surety, do nOi not typkally to local That is. dust, cumstances such as quicksand and avalanches excepted. For instance, dust, For 10 instance, cum Ian uch as ksand and and avalanches , ..Ian h eexcepted. cepled. For lance, du I, quicksand cumstances such as qui structural sand, and snow, by virtue of enclosing, do not normally have the normally have thestructural ;and, nnw, by lo,ing, do have Ihe IruclUral of en enclosing, do nOl not normally sand,and and snow, by virlue virtue of transported (ci.a •a attributes that allow an entity to be supported and thus transported allribul UPP0rled and Ihu, Iran I'Oried(cf. (d. he supported and thus attributesIhal thatallow allowan anenllly entity III to be for bucket), do they normally theway wayaaaprison prisoncell does,for bu kel), nor nor r Iriel access acc in in Ihe way prison celldoes, doc for normallyrestrict restrict access inthe bucket), nor do do Ihey they normaUy instance. III tJnt:~. instance. Nevertheless, these examples exhibit patio topologicalpropprop'everthcl ,Ih"'" ,onle 01 Ihe 'palio'lopologicJI propexhibit some someof ofthe thespatio-topological Nevertheless, theseexampl examples emib., erties associated with the (ENCLOSURE! lexical concept. This is a consequence concept.Thi his isa xical concepl. • aconsequence con""!uenee erli a ialed wilh Ihe (.N<:LO uu)1lexical erties associated with the (INCLOSIRE! "bounded" landmarks: they associated with these of "bounded" landmarks: they providean an ofthe Iheproperties properlie, a,~ial''(\ landm.rks: Ih yprovide provid an associatedwilh with Ihe these"bounded" of the properties affecting condition, an environmental influence which affects our behaviour. influence Whllh which .dTat affects our our ~havlUur. behaviour. .tfk'ding (undition, ntdl mnucm:c ,.i,ndition, .:111 an cnvlrnnm environmental For instance, they determine the kinds of apparel we wear, and how we behave behave of apparel apparel \'oe we \'0wear, andhow how we we For in lanc ,Ihey delermm 3<, and behave determine Ihe thelund kindsof lor instance, they

POLYSEMY POl Y f.MY

POLYSEMY

167 167

So'" h n we ,\<' arc arc exposed xp<,'oCd to Inthe Ihedust/sandlsnow, du ,"and} now,and and on, As A such, such. these Ih..., we are exposed to the dust/sand/snow, and so on. on. As such, when Lx)th enclosure and affecting '''nle of ~ provide providebridging bridgingcontexts: (Onl XI ; both bolh enclosure ndo urr and andaffecting affecling ,titcxts" of contexts ofuse use provide bridging contexts: implicated, and either (or both) may be understood. are 'conditions :,nn, are bolh) may may he be understood. underslood."While Whil are implicaled. implicated, and and eilher either (or (or both) While dust can be wustrued as enclosures with as sand, snow, and such 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 L.\,Llllrk might rekr to there are other related examples of what we t><,undari,.", Iher are are other olher related relaled example whal we might mighl refer refer to 10as a examples of what as bo undaries, there of the nature of terms Conditions which are much less clear-cut in 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 involved: thehotlndarul's boundaries involved: Ih~ t><,undariel .molvcd: the

lSI

these

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

there existing that of in ".!\Se m lanc of ill are 'l3nClioned by virtue virtue of oflhere exi ling II suggest that these these instances instances in are suggestIlhallhe aresanctioned sanctioned by by virtue of there existing

forms part of the linguistic •a cd aas a core (ore component (omponenl of nf rarallldcr Affecling parameter AffectingCondil.on Umditions 10 to be re-analysed and wind are much less independent lexical concept. Clearly a storm independ nl lexical lexical con cpl. Clearly 'I r1y aa storm lorm and and wind wind are are much muchless I an an independent concept. provide prevailing conditions prototypically prn""ypically enclosures, endo ur • and and more salientl 'l3lienlly provide provide prevailing prevailingconditions (ondilion prototypically enclosures, and more more saliently such, As "hllh Ihereby constitute con ,,'u,e an an envimnmenl which which affects .ffecl us. u. As As such, uth,spatial palial which therciw thereby constitute an environment environment which affects us. prototypical enclosures have given rise to the funk scenes involvrng more given rise ri to 10 the Ih funcfunc-ene involving more prototypical prololypical enclosures en 10 ur have given scenes involving to the the formation of tional category Affecting lilln.11 cal (!lory Affecting Condilion which ha 10 Ihe formation formal ion of ofaaa tional category Affecting Conditions, Conditions,• which whichhas has led led to Conditions parameter in semantic memory. The distinct Affe ling Conditions Condil.on parameter parameler in in semantic manliememory. 01 mory.The Theexistence e i lenlC .1I,lInel Affecting distinct lexical concept, as evidenced by ot a• distinct coNnhlloNsI "' di linct (PREVAILIN( (PREVAII.NG CONDITIONS] co, O.T'ON ) lexical I xical concept, concepl. as as evidenced evidenced by by of [PREVAILING provides suggestive evidence that such a distinct in (25), eexamples ample in (l5). provides provide suggestive suggellive evidence evidence that Ihal such uch aadistinct di\linct Affecting Affecling examples ( ions parameter parameter C\ists. (nnditum parameterexists. c i\1 . Conditions associatedwilh with in eviargue that the the distinct "state" I argue argue that thai Ihe distinct di lin I"state" • lale"lexical lexi al concepts concept>associated aialed //I evi.lexical concepts with in than the parameter Atlccting Conditions, rather dencedin (17) to to (20) (20) denccd in (17) ('7) 10 (lO)encode encodethe Iheparameter paramelerAffecting AffeclingConditions, Condilion rather ,ralherthan Ihan denced "state" lexical concepts are what have referred to as nd<> ure.Indeed, Ind,,,,d.these Ih lexical lexicalconcepts conccpl are arcwhat whalIIIhave havereferred referredto 10as a "state" "we" IIntlosure. Enclosure. Indeed, these lexical (on concepts. asthe thestates statcs invokedall all provides in some sense, luical cpt , . Ih lal invoked invoked II provide, provide, in insome mesense, n affecting • affecting affecling lexical concepts, as and 10 nditions. Moreover, Moreover, all these "state" lexical concepts are wndilion" 10rrovcr, all all these Ihese"state" " lale" lexical lexical concepts conC that Ihal are non-spatial non· pali.,1in nalUre.such uch. lal . affecting such as to the the development of new lexical concepts. hi, leads leads 10 Ihe ddevelopment 'elopmenl of ofnew n lexical lexicalconcepts. con epl . IIbis Phis to Ihe first such "state" lexical concept relates thephysical physical condition of an The first firs! such uch" laiC" lexical lexical concept con el" relates relale; to 10tothe Ihe phy icalcondition condilion The "state" ofof anan organismwhich whichthus thusprovides providesan anaffecting affectingcondition. condition..Such Suchphysical physical conditions urgani,m whICh Ihu pmvid an aff,,,,'ing mndllion Such phy ical conditions cond.ti n organism includegood/ill good/ill health, health, pregnancy, and any any salient salient physical aspect otthe the indud goodJill heallh, pregnancy, pregnane),. and and any sallenl physical ph .caI aspect asp<.'CI of of th include organism's condition which affects and thus impacts on the organism's funcorgani 01' condition cond.,,,," which which affects affecl and andthus Ihu impacts imp.CI on onthe lheorganism's organi 01'funcfunc organism's ;u AL s i A ii I. In addition to loning.This kxkal concept I gloss ts 'IThis hi,lexical Ie ic.1 con cel"I gloas (PHYSIOLOGICAL a PHYSIOI (PIIY\I('IO(,I( AI STATE]. STAn). In In addition addilion to 10 "oning, tioning. concept I gloss environmentaland andphysical physical conditions, affecting affecting conditions can be caLised by envirunmenlal and ph leal conditions, condillon., afl,-':Imgconditions mndilionscan CJJ1be becaused causedbyby environmental psychosomaticstates, states, such grief, happiness, and sadness which are internal in p,ychosomalic lale<,such lIchasas llri f,happiness, happme ,and sadn which are inlemal psychosomatic grief, and sadness which are internal inin 'state" gives riseIn toaaapsycuosomivric Ipsy(:H)soMA1I( slATE) k-xkal kxkal concept nature. This This "state" n.lture. Jlw~" laiC" gl\\: Ip\y( IIU'Ot.tAII( STATE! 'lAnl ~om:cpl nature. gives ri...e rise to lexical concept interactions which give rise to social or within. in.In addition,social olassociated iated with WIth III. InInaddition, adthtlon, \Ol.I,JI interactions intera,uun.,which whll.h give gl\C rise ri totu social k.:1.t1 or or associated '

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

-supported or upheld by it.

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

168

Enclosure Endoou .. Enclosure

Occlusion OcclUSIOn Occlusion

POLYSEMY POLYSEMY POLY [MY

169 169

being, supported or upheld by it. I gloss prototypical Slo the Ihe prolotypicalspatial patiallexical lexical the prototypkal spatial lexical 1w ulg \llpported or upheld by il. II gloss with conventionally associated associated with 011 as [co TACT). This Thi serves to to associated with on on conc ept conventionally as [CONTACT'. Thisserves serves to ",.nl.e.: . , h S enco de Ie the Ihespatio-topological patio-lopologlCalrelation relJllllnContact Conlactand andthe I eparameter paramelerSupport, . upport, the patio-topological relation (ontact and the parameter Support, ,,"," . [ ) I . I derived the from the corresponding d"rO\<J frol11.'he curre pondmgfunctional funcllonal. calegory.The Th eXlCa functionalcategory. category. The(coNTAcTI (((ONTACT ( )N TACT Jlexical lexical J1 rived from sanctionsan an example exampleof of the following sort: sanctIon ofthe thefollowing followmgsort: c oncept I -" 1'1 sanctions

h<''''~'rt

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

l'" \.

6)i the apple onthe the table appl on thetable table theapple (2;~) te that No ','1,' Ihat evidence that the parameters Conta and arcboth bothenen · 's:iitc thatevidence evidencethat thatthe theparameters parametersContact (ontactt and andSupport Supportare are both enon can only co by the lexical concept IcoNTAcTI ",odcd ..ded led by hy the thc lexical I.,ical concept conccpt [<:UNTACT) CUIllC$ from the ~act thai 011 can an only unly ACTIcomes comesfrom fromthe thefact t.i.tthat that on felicitously be employed employed to to describe describespatial spatial s'.enes which both fdid tll usly be patialscenes en .ininwhich whIChboth bothparameters parameters are For instance, instance, if an an apple apple is apparent. For against aa wall by someone, the ,Jr,' apparent. ,Ipparenl. I'ur inslan e, if i held held against agam t a wall by by someone, 5O~,eone,the the utterance in (27) is semantically anomalous. the tittcr.Inu lowever, ififIflhe theapple apple affixed ullCmanticallyanomalous. anol11alous.IHowever, 1I0wever, appleisisISaffixed affixedtoto to the wall, for instance by glue, then (27) is entirely appropriate. th< wall, \\all, for in tan e by glue, then then (27) (27) is i entirely appropriate.

I

Affecting Affecting Conditions

127) onthe the wall (271 the theapple appleon Ihewall wall fPREvMIWIo

(PREVAIlNG [PREVAILING IONS) CXlNOOTIClO<sl CONDITIONS)

(PHYSI(IUlGlCAl I [PHYSIOLOGICAL STAlE) STATEI STATE)

(PSYCHOSOMATIC (f'SYCHOSOOIATIC ISOCIO-INTERPERSONAL (socoo-wn:APERSONAI. (PAOf£ IONAI. ISOCIO-INTERPERSCJPI&JU.1 (PROFESSIONAL (PSYCHOSOMATIC STATE) STATEI STATEI STATE I tTATEJ STATE) STATE) STATE]

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

Itx:u.:al conu."pli In .ti concepts conct Pts Iifor lexical for in

interpersonal to conditions inlerpersonal relation hip lead condilion which whichmay mayaffect affrct Ihe indi,iduaJ. affectthe theindividual. individual. interpersonal relationships relationships lead 10 to conditions Such induced affecting affectingcondilion conditionsmight mightinclude indude debts, Suci1 '><Xially Jff<'tl(iJled with wilh in. ilL gloss aas the STAIEJ kxkal wnept associated the (SM:10-INTERPERSONA1. STATE [ Ie in. lexical concept with Fin1illy, one's hjbittiil professional Finally, one'. habilual profe;sional activily provide an affecling condition hy activity provides by Finally, one's habitual professional activity provides an afkcting affecting condition condition by virtue of the physical and virtue of the phy ieal and SlXial interaction that are attendant upon uch social interactions interactions that that are are attendant attendant upon upon such such virtue of the physical and social activities. This provides activitie\. affc'ROIlS"O. Al STATI) ilL relalion hip between bel ween with in. glossed STATE) a~ialed associated WIth with in. The The relationship relationship between the Affecting Conditions functional category and the the range range of ofnon non-spatial - paliallexical the function Jcategory egory and the range lexical theAffecting AffectingCondition Conditions functional of non-spatial lexical .I)ncepts in discussed is ill d,\(u
Lexical concepts Lexicalconcepts concepts for for on on In this section deal, somewhat In lion 1Ii dcal, more briefly, con epl associated briefly, WIth with concepts associated InIhl this section deal, somewhat somewhat more with lexical lexical concepts with the prepositional vehicle with Ih vehid 011. on. with the prepositional vehicle on.

[owTAcrJ [ttlNIACJj and its parameters [CONTACT] and its parameters The spatial ott involves The patial relation relatIon deSlgn,'led hy Oil rclJloun ur the on InvolH cI)fltjct l'he spatial relationdesignated designatedby by involvesIhe therelation relationof of cont,1l1 contact or or proximity to the surLit.e of a RU, and so the functional proximity uriale of RO, and so so the the functional (unclional consequence consequence o( consequence of proximitytuto the the surface of a RO, of

That is, while the is in Ihat is, the apple appk is contact with the wall in both both scenarios, inthe the first i~ in III contact contact with with the th wall wall in bothscenarios, Stenario" in th~first firsl Ihal I , while while the apple scenario 54.enarioitititis theperson, person,rather ratherthan than the wall, at lordssupport, support, while while isthe the "elwin i;isthe the person, rather than the wall, wall, that that affords .ffllms support, whIleititIt is .J!> wall, and and the which employs the will, \\aII, the glue, glue, which whi h employs emplo the wall wall as a aa means mean of ofaffixing ~ffixing the the apple, apple, in In the means of affixing in the second. ><xond. lIence, (27) applies there is bothphysical phy ICal contact ontact second. Hence, Hence, the the example exampk in in (27) (27) applies when when there there isI both both phvsk.il contact between the F and the ItO, and when the latter has a role in supporting the former. hrameler, aas iliuMratl'tl by the following folluwing examples: examples: parameter, illustrated

(2$) (2$) (lH)

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

relatesto to that that part part of of the the body body which on relates In In the theexamples examplesinin(28), (a), the the use eumpl u of on Oil part body which which In the on all fours, provides support, rather than being concerned with contact. That is, Provides rather than being concerned with provide upport, ralher WIth contact. conlact. That That is, i on 011 all [Oil'S, fours, for for instance, does not mean instance, does nOI isi,in In 1< .. insl.lnce, mcan that Ihal something Mllllelhingis incontact colllaciwith allfours. four.;.Rather, Rather, withall all fours. Rather, the conventional conventional interpretation fours" provides the the means means of interpretat ion is the inlerpretation i that "all fours" upport. is that "all fours" provid provides of support. support.

(29) (19 ) ( 29)

[MEANS OF U1NVIYAN([) CONVEYANCE' 01 [IMIANS ... AN Of on foot/horseback foot/horseback a.a. on foot/horseba k b. on the bus h. on the Ihe bus hu~ b.

With rC$p<'C\ respectto to the theexample examplein in(29b), (29b), it it is respect to is worth worth pointing pointing out, out, With (29b), OUI, as aas Herskovits He kovil' Herskovits (1988) does, that if children were playing on a stationary bus, for instance, (1988) does, that if childrcn were !J 988) doc ... Ih,lt i( children w«e playing on Iln a stationary "allollarr bus, bu." for for instance, installcc,that Ihal that on the bus, had been abandoned, then it would not he appropriate to say but had been abandoned, then h
____________________

170

POt YSFMY POLY E tv POLYSEMY

LEXICAL REPRESENTATI REPRESENTATION LEXICAL N

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

,uritact - - - Contact

byO?I. on. by orr. by

171 171 171

Spatoalscenes Spatial scenes scenes - - - Support involving InvolvIng involving contact contact

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

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

Functional Functional Actioning Actlonlng Actioning

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

(ACTIVE STATE) STATEJ [ACTIVE STATE]

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

FiGuRE &7. 8.7. Fu;tiol·u.ulF &7. Parameters Paramrtrrs and their relation hipwith with"state" "state"lexical Irxi alconcepts conapt.sassociated associ.1ttd Parametersand andtheir theirrelationship relationship with "state" lexical concepts associated With (lit with O'i on

[[RATIONAL RATIONAL sUPPoRTI SUPPORT] IRATIONAL SUPPORT I on account of/on (33) on aaccount of/on purpose (33) ount of Ion purpose purpo

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

lexicalCOflCqfl concept ACTIVE lexical The [ACT The (ACTIVE TATEl/txiral conupt The lvi STATE]

a. ((34) \4 ) a. (34) h. b. c. c. (.

[A(TIVE 'ACTIVE which I gloss on, whkh for on, There iis just JU tOflC on "state" ";late" lexical con«pt for for orr, which glo as aas IA(.Tlv> There just one lcxittl concept ionccpt "state" lexical There is of lexical not from lexkal concept STATEI. con cpt derives d rives not from the the functional functional category ategory of of STATE). This This STATEI. this lexical Support. upport. Rather, Rather, pertain to a functional functional category category con eming"functional"functionalfunctional categoryconcerning toncerning Rather, itit pertains consequence of ol contact ity" or or "activity." "activity."Thai Thatis, in many many spatial spatial scenes, aa consequence isi "activily." iis, , in patial scenes, scene, of conlallIS ity" Th.it becomes that the the F, as a itititcomes com into intocontact contactwith witha aparticular aparticular particularsurface, urfa e,becomes become; the F, F, as comes into contact with surface, that functional. This category category Functional Actioning. confun tional. This Thi calegory II refer refer to as a Functional Funchonal Actioning. Actioning. Removing Removing Conconcontact, for tall precludes functional fun lional .tctioning. acti ning. Such -u h forms form of of contact, conlact, for forinstance, instance, tact precludes precludes functional actioning. salient invoke scenarios involving involving physical physical transmission, transmission, such as the the very as the very very salient salienl invoke enario onvolving physical Iran mi ion, such uch as electrical switchh"on" one electricilY. Many Many tim day we weplug-in plug-inororswitch swit "on"electrical electrical Mans times timesaaaday day we plug-in one of of electricity. betweenthe theelectrical appliances.. It isi by facilitating falllitating COnlact between theappliance applianceand andthe eleclrical appllane facilitating contact means circuit that an appliance applian e is i rendered fun tional.AA A"switch" provid a means mean, is rendered functional. functional. "switch"provides provides on"inin of facilitating of facilitating this thi contact, conla t, which whi h is i; why we employ the lem1"switch " witehon" on" in which is whywe weemploy employthe theterm term "switch s1'AI' 'ACTIVE suggest the lvF STATE] English. English. In other other words, words, olher word" II suggest uggest that thai the Ihe [Ad IAt.TOv, TAUI lexical lexical concept conlcpt Lngli h. In part of its Functional Actioning parameter aassociated ialed with orr encodes Fun tional Actioning Actioning parameter param ter as a; part part of ofits il> with on encodes aaaFunctional associated lexkal linguistic lexical content. i this thi which makesititdistinctive distin tiv from paliallexi,,1 linguistic content. content. ItIt isis this whichmakes m.tkes distinctive fromthe thespatial spatial concepts the previous examples. discussed on discussed of on orr di lI;lol'tl in inthe Iheprevious previo",examples. exampl . cone pt of lexical with on relates to The [ACTIVE Th IA TIn STATE] TATEI lexical lexical concept con epl associated a socialed with with on relates relales to lexical lexical STATE] The [ACTIVE be construed as "active" or concepts concept which concern tate that thai can an be construed con truedas "active" or colhcpts which which concernaaparticular particular state state that can the "functional," ol\ contrasted with "fum:tional," pcrhap\ normative scenario \4.:enJrio in which the the as (ontrJ\ted with Ja perhaps in which which described by instances of on state does not hold. In other words, states described by instances of on tate does nol hold. hold. In In other oth rwords, words, st,ttcs tal de;cribed by in tances orr does not temporally circumscribed and by this lexical concept are often temporally circumscribed and are often anclion.'tI Ihi' I xi,al concepl lemporally circum ribed sanctioned sanctioned .ites rihed period of time. time. Inthis, this, the thus endure for a prescribed or limited period Ih", Iomlled pcriod of tllne.In Ihi',the Ihestates laic, thus cndure endure br pr""ribed thatthe the "state" lexical colkepis referred to are referred to are quite quite distinct diMi"':t from from those tho_ that that the"state" ". tate"lexical lexilalconcepts com:ept distinct from those

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

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

Figure depicts Il:igure igure 8.7 t the the parameter parameter associated a ;ociated with WIth this thi lexical I xi al concept. concept. $.7 depl depicts associated lexical

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

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

I: the tilt prototypical prototypicallexical kxicalconcept COllupt concept for a: the prototypical forfor at at The lexical lexical which licenses spatial uses of at aflords The uses lex.!l:.ll concept ~OI1(CP~ which w~it.:h. h(;cn\C,.spatial pali.lI .u\C\ of at III affords affurd\ the most mo\t general general general expression localizattonin in space in English, the relation relation bet expression expre Ion of oflocalization loealowllon onspace paeein onEnglish, I ngl"h, expressing cexpressing pre-. ons the Ih relalion between between ween ICO - LOCATIONI: [CO-LOCATIO [c:o-i 0'ATIoNI:

410

172

POLYSEMY

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

173

POLYSEMY

51 REPRISFNTA'

kxkai a F and a point of space that it is contiguous or or proxiflial proximal with. with. This This lexical is of space that it I: and a point it is oneofofthe themost most a concept I gloss as lco-LOCATION). Consequently, one it is (co-IOCATIONI. as I concept polysemous of all English prepositions.lfldCCd, Indeed,this this kxical lexicalconcept conceptforfor at all l:nghsh piepOSitiOllS. ot forms a contrast set (Tyler and Evans zoo3)with withthe the'place' 'place'identifying identifyinglexical lexical and Evans contrast set rtoNI lexical cona associated with other prepositions. The (co_i forms lexical con— concepts OCATI0NI prepositions. The [co-Loc:A with other cept encodes the Co-location parameter, designating designating aa highly highly abstract spatial .ihstrat.t spatial Co-loCatiOfl parameter1 encodes the .cpt prCISCIY relation between the F and a place,when whenthe the relation relationisis not not more precisely and a between the I relation expressed by spatial lexical conceptsassociated associated with with the the following following prepospreposconcepts lexical by spatial all of which, at times, can be be expressed near, by, on, in, over, under, itional vehicles: near, under, all of whkh, at tinws, can by. on, in, over, lexicalconcept. concept. itional ICO-WCATIONI lexical paraphrased by thesituated situated use use of the oeATIt)N1 of the (.o t paraphrased by most the salient functional category associated with atatconstu constitutes Perhaps the functional category salient mostto as that of Practical Association. That is, Perhaps what I willthe refer functional Association. That is, aa functional of Practical as that refer It) will what I consequence of being to-located co-located with the F has some some particular RO K() is is that that the with aa particular being consequence of practical association with the referenceobject. object. Ibis Thisisisevidenced evidenced in the with the reference practical association following examples:

to be motivated by the tw 'state The "state"kxic.il lexicalConcepts concepts associated associated with withatatappear appear to he motivated by the two point-like entities functionalconsequence consequenceofofclosc closeproximity proximity between between two point-like entities The "state" g iv ingrise risetotothe theformation formationof of aa parameter: parameter:Practical Practical Association. Association. The "state" have arisen from specific contexts in which kXkJl concepts appear to lexical concepts appear to have arisen from specific contexts in which aa ii tion holds. ical ,t's practical association holds. lexical concept. the practical ase of the [STALl. 01 OF EXISTFN(;F1 InInthe the case of the [STATE EXISTENCE' lexical concept, the practical which associationresulting resultingfrom fromthe theco-location co-locationisisthe thestate stateof'ofexistence existence which holds. holds.That Thatis, is,there there isis aa practical practicalassociation associationwhich which holds holds between between aa given given of existence. entity and its state entity and its state of existence. I OF ML) I UAI. RF I ATIONSI, Ihe The second lexicalconcept conceptI I gloss gloss asas(STA1 [STATE OF MUTUAL RELATIONS), as cvidcnced evidenced1w by(u'). (37). this Thislexical lexical concept concept arises arises due due to to aa salient salient practical practical location of two entities involving mutual relafrom resulting .lsst)ciatiOfl association resulting from co-location of two entities involving mutual relawho must he tiofls. tions. lor For instance, instance, while while warfare warfareoften ofteninvolves involves combatants combatants who must he proximal "at war" proximal to to one one another, another, the the state state of of being being "at war" need need not, not,as asevidenced evidencedLw by Kingwhen the war" which held during 1939 the called "phoney theso so-called "phoney war" which held during 1939 when the United King"at war'', war", and troops don), France, dom, France, and andGermany Germanywere were officially officially "at and yet yet no no troops of mutual relations, indeengaged. at to to designate designate aa state state of engaged. Thus, Thus, the the use use of of at mutual relations, indei

■11

4

following examples:

(35) a. the man at the desk at the desk (35) a. h. the the man schoolboy at the bus stop stop the bus

the parameter of Practical pendent co-location,isisdue dueto tothe pendent of of spatio-topological spatio-topological co-location, parameter of Practical encoded by this being invoked as part of the linguistic Association being invoked as part of the linguistic content encoded by this encodes a state of a lexical concept. Put another way, this lexical concept lexical concept. Put another way, this lexical concept encodes a state of a particular of proximity. proximity. particular kind, kind, rather rather than than the the spatial spatial notion notion of relate to evaluFinally, states states pertaining pertaining to to external external circumstances circumstances may may relate Finally, to evalu-

h. the schoolboy at

In these examples, the relation that holds and the the RO R() isismore more holds between between the the FF and the relation that In these specific than a spatio-topological relation. That is, the example in (34a) spatsei-topologic'tl relation. That is, the example in (44 than a the' implies, and is understood to mean, that not only isis the theFFin inquestion, question. the that not only understood to mean, implies1 and is desk, but he isisalso hisdesk desk(or orat at man, in close proximity to his alsoworking workingat at his his desk, hut he JOSe proximity to ,pjan,in in a position to do so). Similarly, in (34b), in addition co—location least additionto tothe theco-location in (nb), in do so). Similarly, least in a this position to thebus bu relation, expression implies that the schoolboy schoolboyisis"waiting" "waiting" at at the that the expression implies relation, this content stop, presumably for a bus. In other ofthe the linguistic linguistic content other words, words, part part of presumably for a bus. in stops lexical concept appears to be derived from I lexical concept appears to be derivedfrom associated with the (Co-LOCATION neAl associated with the (.o scenes. functional consequences of spatial functional consequences ot spatial

associated with mutual relations. This is atiins concerning ations concerning circumstances associated with mutual relations. This is as (AFFECTIN EXTERNAl instantiated by bythe thelexical lexicalconcept conceptwhich which I gloss instantiated I gloss as [AFFECTING EXTERNAL relationship between the The examples in (38). as evidenced by the A Fly, STATED, as evidenced by the examples in (38). The relationship between the

IMO

Co4ocation

Co-location

The "state" lexical concepts for at The "state" lexical concepts for at

Spatsal scenes invotv*ng

Spatial scenes involving location

There are three distinct lexical concepts associated with the prepositional prepositionalvehicle vehicle distinct lexical concepts associated with the are three Ihere illustratedbelow: below git that might be described as relating Theseare areillustrated relatingtoto"states." "states."These at that might be described as (STATE OF EXISTENCE) (36)

(36)

FXISTENCE1

01 at(STATE rest/peace/ease/liberty at rest/peacc/ease/litWrlY is at peace (=dead') He stood at MC, or He (e.g., or lie' is at peace I dead

(e.g., He

at t'sC.

(37)

Practical Practical Associaflon Association

)

'STATE OF MUTUAL RELATIONS)

OF MUTUAL KEIATIONS1 at(STArE war/variance/strife/one/daggers drawn/l ► ggerheads

110

rile/one/daggers at war/variance/st US over the imposition of steel tariffs) The EU is at war with the (e.g., the I'S ;'er the imposition of steel tariffs) (e.g., Ihe EU is at war with

(38)

'AFFECTING EXTERNAL. STATE) I Xi I:KNAI STATE1

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

173

(STATEOF OFEXISTENCE] EXISTENCEI [STATE

(STATE OF MUTUAL RELATIONS)

(AFFECTING EXTERNAL

I

[STATE OF MUTUAL RELATIONS] [AFFECTING STATE I

their relationship with "'late" lexical concepts tier at andtheir &8.Parameters Parametersand FIGURE 8.8. relationship with "state" lexical concepts for at

171 174

Ki:PRI LEXI( Al. REPRESENTATION LEXICAL

the "state" "state" lexical concepts Practkal Association and the concepts is dia.. parameter pa, ameter of of Practical Association and

9

grammed in Figure 8.8.

Summary

Conceptual structure Conceptual structure

In this of polysemy this chapter chapterI1have haveaddressed addressed the the phenomenon phenomenon of polysemy in in the thelight light of ICCM Theory, polysenw I'heiiry. In to the thevariation I(;(;M Theory. varia LCCM In LCCM polysemy relates not not to in the the situated situated semantic contribution contribution of aa word. word. Rather, Rather, it is a evident in evident consequence 01 single vehicle vehicle being being associated associatedwith withdistinct distinctlexical concept of aa single coi ,. all related. related. Semantic Semantic relatedness relatedness isisaamatter matter of ofdegree degreeand which are semantk semantically by the the bipartite bipartite structure structure of lexical lexicalconcepts. concepts.The Theway is determined determined by wayininwhich open-class as well as as closed-class closed class polysemous polysemouslexical lexicalconcepts conceptscan canbe berelated rdated is

Theory isisthat that knowledge knowledgerepresentation representation defining assumption of LCCM Theory

A defining assumption of particular, ofmultiple multipleforms formsofofrepresentation. representation.InInparticular, in humans makes use of iii humans

which are necessary

assume that that there therearc are(at (atleast) least)two two distinct distinct core core systems which are necessary II .lsSuflW

content, for for instance instance in in terms terms of by virtue of shared or overlapping linguistic content, by

shared parameters. concerns the the nature nature of of the the conceptual conceptual parameters. The The second second way concerns structure afford potential access access to. to. II examexamstructure that thatopen-class open-class lexical lexical concepts afford ined polysemy by way way of of aa detailed detailed case study studyofofthe thespatial spatialand and"state" "state" lexical lexical associated with with the the English English prepositional prepositional vehicles vehicles in, on, and at. The concepts associated main conclusions arising from this case case study study are arc as as follows. follows. Firstly. the perspective offered here, here, particularly Firstly, particularly with with respect to to the the conconstruct of the lexical concept, allows us to establish in a reasonably precise way struct of allows us to establish in a reasonably precise way the nature of the distinction distinctionbetween betweenthe the"state" lexical the nature of the lexicalconcepts conceptsassociated associated with the vehicles vehicles in, on, and in on, and dat. That isis,given giventhat thatlexical lexicalconcepts conceptsare at. That are veh icle-

specific and moreover have have distinct distinct lexical lexicalprofiles—for profiles—forinstance instancethey theyhave have specific and distinct ionaltendencies—we tendencies—weare distinct scm1intk semantic select selectional areable abletotoquite quiteclearly ckarlv see see that "state" lexical (within and and between) between)prepositions prepositionsare the "state" lexical concepts (within aredistinct. distinct. Secondly, by by taking taking seriously seriously the the functional functional nature nature of of spatial spatial relations, relations, and and the ion of ofparameters: parameters: highly highly abstract ahst the format formation knowledge knowledge st structures ruct LI resspecialized specialiied for in language, language. this this allows allowsus ustotounderstand understand the the sorts sorts for being being directly directly encoded encoded in of functional functional motivations, motiv,uions,and andthus thusdistinctions, distinctions,between betweenthe the"state" "state"lexical lexkal concepts across across different diflerent prepositional prepositional vehicles. vehicles. concepts Thirdly, prepositional prepositional vehicles, vehicks, particularly particularly in in and and sir Thirdly, a: have more than than one one "state" with them. them. We We have have seen "state"lexical lexical concept concept associated with seen that that the theprototypprototypical spatial lexical ical spatial lexical concept concept associated associated with with aa given given vehicle is associated, associated, vehicle is typically, with with aa number number of of parameters, parameters, derived derived from from what I referred referred to to as as typically, functional categories. I(TCM analysis gives us us aa way way of of estabestabfunctional categories. Providing Providing an LCCM lishing the the sorts sorts of of distinctions distinct ionsthat thatexist existbetween lishing betweenthe the"state" "state" lexical lexicalconcepts concepts associated with the the same same vehicle. vehicle.That Ihat is, ssehave haveaameans meansofofunderstanding undtrstanding associated with is, we how are distinct—based distinct—based on on aa distinction distinctionin inparameters parameters how these these lexical lexical concepts are encoded. meansof ofempirically verifying verifyinghypotheses hypotheses as as to to encoded. We We also also have have aa means distinctions in the underlying underlying lexical lexical concepts which are are' assumed assumed to to sanction instances of use. use. This This is is due due to to the the construct construct of of the the lexical lexical profile. profile. In In this this chapter IIemployed tiotial tendencies, on chapter employedthe thenotion notionof ofsemantic semanticsdc... sclectional the onee of the' two types types of linguistic linguistic content which whichmake makeup upthe thelexical kxi._alprofile, profile,ininorder ordertoto clv distinct distinct lexical lexical concepts. concepts. distinguish between putativ putatively

rW

mediated commucommurepresentation and for linguistically mediated both for knowledge knowledge representation both for and aa conceptual system. Previous Previous chapters chapters in in nication: aa linguistic linguistic system system and conceptual system. nication: addressed the the first first of of these these systems, systems,and andhave havebeen been this part of the book have part of have addressed which takes takes the the form form of ofsymbolic symbolicunits, units, concerned with linguistic knowledge, knowledge, which Inthis thischapter, chapter, and and encompassing phonological vehicles vehicles and and lexical lexical concepts. concepts.In theconceptual conceptualsystem, system,the the the turn to to the the second second core core system: system:the the next, II turn repository of human concepts. broad terms, terms, with with conceptual conceptualstructure: structure: chapter 1I am concerned, in In this chapter in broad also concerned with the way in in organization of of concepts. I am also concerned with the way the nature and organi/ation the nature inservice serviceofofsituated situated which language interfaces with the conceptual system in in humans humans key feature feature of of knowledge knowledgerepresentation representation in meaning construction. A key order to to interacts with in order the linguistic linguistic system interacts with the the conceptual conceptual system system in is that that the the philosopher philosopher of of facilitateaccess access to to conceptual conceptualknowledge. knowledge. Indeed, Indeed, as as the taulitate observed: has observed: cognitive science scienceJesse JessePrinz Prinz(2oo2: (iooz: 14) 14) has cognitive different individuals individuals and and by by one one iiiii%t capableof ofbeing beingshared shared by by different ( must bcbecapable concepts concepts are are individual at at different differenttimes. times.This Ibisrequirement requirement... mustbe besatisfied if concepts individual ...must almostuniversally universally roles... itisisalmost to play some explanatory roles...it some of of their their most most important important explanatory inlinguistic linguistic communication. pivotal role role in assumed that concepts conepts play assumed that play aa pivotal

a

that linguistic linguistic Indeed, aa fundamental fundamental design design feature feature of of human human cognition cognition isisthat Indeed, control function, function,greatly greatlyincreasing increasing representations provide representatiOnS provide an an indexing indexing and and control system.However, However, flexibility of the human conceptual system. the uses and and flexibility the range range of of uses the this does does not not mean mean that that linguistic linguistic representations representations are are equivalent equivalent to to the this concepts which which populate populate the the conceptual conceptual system. system. concepts lignt's, continucontinuengrandes grander Iignes., I assume that the human stem is, human conceptual ssystem is, en suggestthat thatsuch suchan an ous OUSwith withthe theprimate primateconceptual conceptual system. system.Recent Recent findings suggest I lurlord 2007). Given (e.g., liarsalou 2oos; Hurford assumption is is not not unreasonable unreasonable (e.g., assumption the relatively relatively recent recent emergence emergente of oflanguage, language,and andthe thefar fargreater greaterantiquity antiquity of the assumethat that linguistic linguistic representations representations evolved evolved to to the conceptual system' IIassume indu& fromvarious perspectives include treatments trim of hspi ► k length *rralnwnli relevant I'wok-kngth sanq'k ► of rrkvani akar...ion, Aa%Ann liurford (zoo'), and . l)unb&r Msthen nald 1 199ii, I iunhar 1199e0. Mithen I iswe.). Ilurfnrd troo7). and I ► l)onald ($u91 ortall1is orKiflèb (2(M;), Ltzoo3). 1h kirby (zooj). ( hri'etian%cn and In collection ('I Renfrew 120071. See Jiso the (mamt collection of papers in Christainsen and Kirby tzoo3). also thc Rtnfrcw (2007). For

rt'

176

lEXI Al RfPRESENTA 110. LEXICAL. RIPKE%ENTATIOP4

LEXICA! laPRESENTAT1ON

-

formofot enhance the representations thatinhere ,omplement and CI111.1114.1: the existing eexisting i\tingform fo~m ofrepresentations repr"",ntatiomthat inhereinin L.I)mpkment and complement system, rather than duplicating duplkating them. The approach totoenthe conceptual conceptual system, sy tern. rather rather than than duplocatmg them: The Th~ approach ~pproaentation i.e.• concepts. concept. That iis,•itit has ha often oftenbeen ~~ aassumed umedthat -'hat <eman representations, equivalent to, to, oratatleast, least,not notsignificantly tit tructure is I equivalent equivalent tn. or or least. IgOlfi
envisioned byLCCM I (('M Theory. envi ioned by by leCM Theory. envisioned Theory. Future work I'uture imulation semantics ",mantic R'Veal (or even l'Ven all) may that some even all) Futurework workin insimulation simulation semantics may may reveal reveal that that "Ime some (or aspects of Barsalou's l4arsaloustheory theoryrequire require revi revision. And, in ion. And. important r pect. itit it is i, aspect. aspects of of Barsalou's theory require revision. And, in important importantrespects, respects, is of 'CM Theory not L .CM Theory that Barsalou' account ac ount stands stands test of test of of not aa requirement requirement of of L( LCCM Theory that that Rarsalou\ Barsalou's account stands the the test time. the time. for LC( ICCM1Theory. I hl'Ory.however, however. is i the thc perspective per pe""c that that aaa perspective time. What What is is important important for for LCCM Theory, however, is simulation plays at at least some role in imulation account t wme model of ofhow how knowledge knowledge" of how knowledge simulation account play. plays at lea least some role role in our our model model is represented in the mind. This commitment repre<ented in the mind. Thi commitment to a simulation type account a simulation-type account represented in the mind. This commitment to a simulation-type account follows for rt'asons. Firstly, finding' findings from from follow. rca",n . Firstly, l'irstly. fmm cognitive cognitivc linguistics lingui,tic.s provide pmvidc cognitive linguistk provide follows for for two two reasons. findings compelling and mind ompelling evidence language This being so. are embodied. an compelling evidence that that language language and and mind mind are are embodied. embodied. This Thisbeing beingso, so, an account of conceptual striiuure that is grounded in the account of conceptual ,tructur i the 'pecifi modalities of modalities of account of conceptual structure that is grounded in the specific modalities of

In fairness, tairncss. wr;mtlv(' IIngua%ts haverrunafll,'lIcrn rrImMiIYbeen bernI.un...nnni i.unurrned with with developing developing t ognitively •1 In In f.Jm t h..-a\(' "-'llh dt"Vdurm,l.ttp'utl\ I, realistic f(,""~.c rr.diMic cognitive "nt4UI linguists have primarily tonterned not of Iinguisuc haw hence, they Ikl.uunt 1... rqnnrnt.l1l1>n alwoIY' bern hral unJulv tM concerned with the beenunduhr unduly Ull'knnaJ concerned With with the attounts (If of 'mlm linguistic representation. tlC'n...r. Hence, the) they h..-a\ have nut not always .archltc(ture suth accounts the annot achieve ".tI.hlt(\.lu~ (,f the tM conteptual (urkq'hl.aJsystem. tnn However. UUWC'\ r, such Mkh ~1.(JUnl cannot c.tnnut _hlt'W pcschologital f"" hC1I'~.l1 pLitisi rl..ua plauo arthitetture of the of flntiinp Ufl they "lIltt mn.h ('nl h'l
-

CONCEPTUAL (ON( lPTIJALSTRUCTURE SIRU' I (RE ONC~PTUALSTRUCT~Rh

177 177

177

more plausible than ttln' he brain an simulation the brain anamodal amodalaccount. hralO isis i, more moreplausible plau\lbl than th.n.n aC(Qunt.Secondly, Secondly. "mulatlon Secondly, simulation such as Barsalou's, explicitly counts, such as Barsalou's, explicitly assume, and posit, that representations ac a,-Luunt , u h ~ BarsaJou' ,txplicitly assume, sume, and it, that representations repr ntalion and po posit, are componential. This is also a finding of LCCM Theory based ihis is also .If< of l.( lC •M1 Theory Theory based based on linguisti .irt' ,o01ponentia!. Thl i al
Embodied cognition cognition cognition heories ofknowledge knowledgerepresentation, representation,dominant dominantfor formuch thwries ofof II h""ie knowl<'tlgc rep"....,ntation. dominant for muchofof ofthe thetwentieth twentieth much the twentieth century, possess what Barsalou (e.g., 1999) refers to as an amodal character. what Barsalou (e.g., (e.g .• 1999) refers refer> to as 3 an character. ,pective on on knowledge knowledge recent revilw. review, refe" refers knowledge representation as as grounded grounded cognition cognition (as (as II noted representation as grounded Cognition noted in Chapter 2). 2). Work Work on on the th in Chapter Chapter 2). on the cognitive linguistics, especially of cognition embodied (or (or grounded) grounded) basis ba i of of cognition in cognitive cognitivelinguistics, lingui ti •especially especially cognition in in associated with the the work Lakoff and as a,,,,dated issotiated with George Lakoff ., theWork work of ofGeorge GeorgeLakoff l.lkoffand and Mark Johnson John"'n( (l.JkofT and andMark Johnson (Lakoff Johnson Johnson3980, too, 1999; 1999; Likoft Lakoff1987; 1987;Johnson Johnson 1987,2007) 2007)has hasemphasized emphasized the 1980. lakofll987; John n1987, 1987. 2007) has emphasized Johnson the role role ot sensory-motor experience, of sensory-motor experience, and hence perception—the processing of exterof .. nsary· motor experience. and hence hence perception-the processing of exterperception—the processing of external stimuli via nal stimuli via sensory (or modal) systems (vision, audition, olfaction, (or modal) n.1i ,timuli via sensory ",n lry (or modal) system', 'y.tem (vi\ion. audition, audition.olfactR)n, olf.1(tion. haphap tics, and tics, and gustation )—action—which provides motor information relating II". and gu,tatlon)-action-which provides provides motor information relating to to bodily states bodily states via proprioception—information about movements involving llOdily tates via proprioception—information proprioception-information about movement involving about movements Joints and muscles_—as well joints and muscles—as well as the vestibular system—which a the vesllbular yst m- which provides provides inforjoint. and mu",I<... -a well as vestibular svstem—which providesinforinfornlatu4)I1 as to position in mation as to position in space and motion trajectories.% m.lIion a po,ition in space pace and andmotion motion trajectories.' However, other cognitive However, other other cognitive cognitive scientists in addition, addition.subjective subjective Howcver. ientists have have argued that. in argued that, that, addition, subjective or introspective) experiences (or introspective) experiences are are ju" just a, as important for grounding grounding cognition. cognition. For For h" (ur iotro,,,,,,t "e) «periencc are asimpo"ant important for instance, E)amasjo Damasio (1994) (1994) in in his his review of of some IINance. D.m.,io hi, review of some of of hi, groundbreaking work on on some ofhis hisgroundbreaking gr()undbreak.ngwork on emotion emotionhas has emphasized a number of categories emotion ha emphasized mphasized a number of ofcategories categories of of feel inS' that ari from number of feelings feelings that arise arise from internal body internal body states. For instance, instance, states(emotions) (emotions) that that we we label label as as For IOtemal body states. tat"'. I'or in"an ••• body states 'tate, «n1<>IIOl1\) th.t wc lahel as Happiness, Sadness, IIlapl'ine,,, lappiness, Sadness, Anger, Fear, and[)isgust, Disgust,give giverise rise to to phenomenologicaiiy Sadness. Anger, Anger. lear, I·c.r. and and Oi'S"'t. give rise phenomenologically See I.aIotf 1141471lur bur.I detailedIriliquc . whine of of IUl.h slit hdisembodied disembodied accounts. for aa dl.-t..taJc..l deuikd • See \no lLAkOti ... ~ulrI11'lA7) Hltl'llK' tit dllC'mlluJIhIIh:(nunl review of the operation thettn sensory See Fyans itorthtoming ii) for Sct ivaas a h,rihcoming niethanitnis responsible for a review t ~ (VOlns Cfl.r1fk: •• mtnI b) I•• rol rn'k"W of (.1 the operation (lper"hclJl of (.101the t~ .ry nw...h.ulUln feo.r'ltlJlhk wnsory (or for sense perception. lur n~ peri.epnon. rc"n.C'phun

178

i'M -I-

CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURE

I EXICAL

real, in the sense of directly experienced feelings. I)amasio identities a further experienced feelings. I )amasio identities a of directly reJi, in the sens&' category of feeling, what he terms background backgroundfeelings1 feelings, whkh which dciii derive from he terms of feeling1 what internal body states. Background feelingsarise arisefrom. from, amongother other things, category among feelings states. internal body experience, which is to say the visceralsense—our interoceptive sense—ourfelt felt sense of is to s.W the expuciience1 which intcroceptive the internal organs and other internalbodily bodilystates. states. Other Other subjective SUbjective experiand other internal the internal ences, which arc directly felt, include various aspects aspects of temporal experience of temporal various include directly felt, are bodily states (circadian rhythms such as the wake-sleep cycle ), whichwhich arise from rhythms such as the states (circadiafl which arise from bodilyprocessing, as well as perceptual which is subserved by a wide wide range range of of neurowhich is subserved by a perceptual processing1 well as instantiated temporal mechanisms ( see Evans zooagi, 2(x)41) aslogically and refermechanism' (see Evans 200441, 20041' and instantiated temporal logkally ences therein), and consciousness (Chafe 1994; Grady 1997). 1997). Uence, Hence, and and as we cons&ioUsfless (Chafe 1994 (rady therein), and cnces shall see later when I discuss abstractconcepts1 concepts, cognition cognitionisis grounded grounded in both abstract when I discuss shall see later sensory-motor experience and subjective experience: experience experience of of internal internal subjective experience: experience and sensory -motor bodily and cognitive states, including emotion, mood, nuxid, and affect. and affect. states1 including emotion, bodily and contemporary In sum, accounts of embodied embodied (or (or grounded) grounded) cognition cognition accounts of In sum, contemporary assume that recordings of perceptual states form the basis of the representastates form the basis of the representareu)rdiflgS of perceptual assume that tions that populate the conceptual system. Further, conceptual system system Further, as as the the conceptual populate the conceptual system. tions that perception, as well as situated has, on this view, evolved in order to facilitate evolved in order to facilitate perception1 as well as situated has, on this view1 action (including social interaction), and necessary platform platform for for and provides provides the the necessary social interaction), actiofl higher-order cognitive operations such as categorization, and izat ion, inferencing, inferencing1 and such as higher-order cognitive operations states must be conceptualization (Barsalou et aL forthcoming), perceptual (Barsalou C, a!. forthcoming)1 perceptual states must be conceptualizatiOn recoverable. Many recent accounts of embodied cognition postulate that accounts of embodied cognhti°n postulate that recoverable. \lany recent recorded perceptual states are activated in in service service of variousfunctions functions of the the various recorded perceptual states are the conceptual system supports. As already noted earlier in the book, these already noted earlier in the book these supports. As the conceptual system to as simulations (e.g., Barsalou 1999, 2003; Gallese activations are referred Galksc and and simulation (e.g.1 I%arsalou 1999, activations are referred to as 2000; 2002; Glenberg and Kaschak Prinz Lakoff 2005; Kaschak and Glenberg and Gknberg 2000; Prinz zooz; Glenberg and Lakoff 2005; Kaschak view, a general2002; Zwaan 1999, 2004). Simulation represents, on this Simulation represents1 on this view, a general1999, 2004. zooz; /wun purpose computation performed by the brain in order to recover bodily states states performed by the brain in order to computation pUrpoSe and to perform operations deploying such multimodal states. As we shall see shall SCC deploying such multimodal states. As we and to perform operations below, multimodal states can be manipulated in simulations in inorder ordertoto states can be manipulated in simulations multimodal below, the recorded perceptual provide conceptualizations that are not present in that are not present in the recorded perceptual states themselves. For instance, phenomena such as analogical counterfactuals instance, phenomena such as analogical states themselves. are a case in point,For as when we say: in France, Bill Clinton would would never neverhave France, Bill Clinton when we case in point1 as beenaharmed by his affair with Monica Lewinsky." Conceptual 6 The Lcwinsky'6 The account accountofot(onceptual by his affair with Monica harmed been Blending Theory (Fauconnier 1997; Fauconnier 2002)represents represents Fauconnierand and'turner lurner2002) Blending Theory (Faucorinier 1997; one attempt to show how simulations deploy a range of existing knowledge deploy a range of existing knowledge show how simulations one attempt to representations in order to produce novel scenarios, categories, and inferences. and inferences.

179

(A)NCFi'IUAL

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

I

hl

1 79

- ------------be captured in memory, and to and other body-based states come perceptual and other lxxly-based states cometoto be captured in memory, and to simulations. It is well known from research on for (re)activatiofl 3s on he A vailable for (re)activation as simulations. It is well known from research experience1 the cognitive system can focus that during perceptual attention that during perceptual experience, the cognitive system can focus individual components of the stimulus array. For instance, attention on attention attention on individual components of the stimulus array. For instance, instance, its object, filtering out, focus on the colour of an can s electively focus on the colour of an object, filtering out, for instance, its iii ObjectS ((;arner 4974, 1978). and even the surrounding or texture, texture, and even the surrounding objects (Garner 1974, 1978). Jive, or attention, of PSS Theory is that, through The essential insight insight of PSS Theory is that, through selectiveexperience attention, from modality idual perceptual perceptualcomponents componentsderived derived from modality-specific experience mdiv i n dividual of the brain.' The fashion, in sensory-motor areas arerccI)rdCd, recorded,in inbottom-up bottom-up fashion, in sensory-motor areas of the brain.? The This means that it is not individual stored in schematic fashion. are This means that it is not individual c omponents are stored in schematic fashion. stored, but rather commonalities are abstracted across pcrLeptual states that are perceptual states that are stored, but rather commonalities arc abstracted across perceptual states providing individual memories (e.g., instances of specific instances of perceptual states providing individual memories (e.g., srt.citc and purr). In addition, knowledge is individualmemories memories for for ml, red, hot, hot, and purr). In addition, knowledge is captured perceptual state, including proprioception (e.g., lift, niti) from fromother othertypes types of of perceptual state, including proprioception (e.g., Barsalou run) hungry). Accordingly, compare. subjective experience (e.g., and subjective experience (e.g., compare, similar, hungry). Accordingly, Barsalou been the than has traditionally "perceptual" more widely uses the the term term "perceptual" more widely than has traditionally been the case.' perceptual smbols. They are memories Barsalou refers to .ts Ihese Theseschematic schematic memories Barsalou refers to as perceptual symbols. They are top-down fashion, they can be reactivated, or svnibols that, later, in symbols in in the thesense sense that, in top-down fashion, they can he reactivated,that or used to support the range of symbolic behaviour simulated, and can be simulated, and can he used to support the range of symbolic behaviours that subserve fully functional subserve aa fully functionalconceptual conceptual system. system. conceptual system as follows. Barsalou Perceptual symbols implement a Perceptual symbols implement a conceptual system as follows. Barsalou related components become organiied of similar similar and argues that argues that memories memories of and related components become This organized perceptual which exhibit coherence. of perceptual symbols into aa system into system of perceptual symbols which exhibit coherence. This perceptual frame. A frame is Jfl information structure symbol system he refers refers to symbol system he to as as a a frame. A frame is an information structure information perceptual symbols1 encoding large collections of of large collections of perceptual symbols, encoding information consisting of well as incorporating variability. Hence, a frame is stable stable over over time time as as well which is as incorporating variability. Hence, a frame coherent, representation of a particular entity. provides a unihed, and hence provides a unified, and hence coherent, representation a particular entity. components of that have a perceptual I-or instance, a frame involves numeroUs For instance, a frame involves numerous components perceptual that have asymbols perceptual that In addition, the basis, that are related in various ways. basis, that are related in various ways. In addition, the perceptualofsymbols that be combined in a range ways1 giving collectively comprise comprise the the frame frame can can be collectively combined in a range of ways, giving simulations. Hence, a system of perceptual rise to an infinite variety of rise to an infinite variety of simulations. Hence, a system of perceptual relatively stable knowledge matrix and givesrise risetotoboth bothaaframe: frame:aarelatively symbols gives stable knowledge matrixtoand simulations are referred as a Together the frame and dnamicsimulations. 9 Together, the frame and simulations arc referred to as a dynamic (;hapter 4). simulator(a(aterm termI1first firstintroduced introducedininChapter simulator 4).

representations in order to produce novel

Perceptual Symbol Systems

Perceptual Symbol Systems

The theory of Perceptual Symbol Systems (PSS Theory), presented in in Barsalou presented Rarsalou (PSS Theory)asas Perceptual Symbol Systems 01 The theory grounded cognition which aims to account for theory of (1999), is a how cognition whkh aims to account forhow

is a theory of grounded

and ncuminugin$ evidence whith supports the view that neur ps there ' There is iscompelling neuropsycholivical and evidence supports the view in nature. that gioundedneumimaging in the modalities, and which hente are rqsmeliiat ons are humanconciptual representations see human arc is grounded in the modalities, and hence are perceptual in nature. (for reviews groun4kd in sensory- iflot4If rqtions otihe brain I III iflstJfltC, For instance. categorical knowledge is grounded in sensory-motorI).amage regions of the brain (for reviews we sensors pIrtkUlaT er al.199s; Pulvermullet 1493 loo3). 1)ainagje totoa a (,asnobtiearl. Datitasi ► Joy; e,atnuni particular use the region in quc-st ion to sensory motor that region sctvC-5to141 impair theprocessing ofof regh in serves impair the categories that use the region in question to perceive physical v-zrmplars. exemplars. sense, whsk pointing the reader to in R.arsakiui more "peRcptuar I will hcrndorlh use 1' will hem (-forth use "perkeptual" inthe Ikitsaloti's more ink !mixt. sense, while pointing the reada to outset of 4. Ihipler the the prosi%415 outlined theprovisulnd Atatthe outset of the exampks ol trarnes are priWidfld in the nest th.apier. 1

-

6

this atialogiLal . ► untertaktual tram • Sit Evans and Green (2006: ch. 12) fora discussion of ol 1mmthethc this analgkaI br a iz) md GrccnBlending Theory. perspective Scr 01 t Antteptu.ti

KkndingThcOrY.

6

1)et.aakd I kthiled examples Or frames are prOlo' 'Jed III the nett

I So 180

-

I REPRESENTATION LEXICAL

Properties perceptual symbols symbols Properties of perceptual Perceptual symbols symbols are characterized characterized by key properties: Perceptual ymbol are ar~ charact~rized by six six key kqproperties: pro~rti~:

the brains in the perceptual synibols symbols • perceptual ~rceptual ymbol are ar neural neural representations rrepresentations pr ntations in thebrain's brain'

Il'o('ryySeth%

motor areas motor areas areas perceptual schematic perceptual symbols symbols are • ~rceptual symbol ar schematic ·hematic aredynamic. dynamic. not not rigid rigid perceptual symbols symbols are dynamic, • perceptual ~r
Perceptual symbols symbolsare areneural neuralrepresentations representationsin inthe thebrain's brain Perceptual representatIons in the braIn's symbols are sensory-motor areas sensory-motor areas

perceptual symbols In P ymbols constitute the records records of ofthe the neural neuralstates tate, In PSS PSS Theory. Theory, ~rceptual constitute the states that underlie perceptual perceptual experience experience (i.e., (i .. ,pert perception. proprioception. and that ept ion, proprioception, pro priocept ion,and and that underlie underlie perceptual experience (i.e., perception, subjective experience). Following Damasio L)amasio (1989), Barsalou argues that . Following I-ollowing Dama io (1989), (1989), Barsalou Bar.alou argues argues that that ub/eltlVe ex~rien(C) experience). convergence zonesserve serveto integrateinformation information from from sense periepconvergen e zones zones serve totointegrate integrate information from outside outsid sense sen percep~rcep convergence tion—for perceptual states relating to tion for example, example, perceptual ~rceptuaJ states tat .. relating rdating to tosubjective ub)eltiveexperience—in experienc III cxperieIhe—in tion—for example, sensory motor maps. sensory-motor map. lien e, subjective ubjective ex~rien e also giv~ ririseto to percep~ rcep subpcctlvL' experience alsogives givesrise percep Hence, experience tual symbol represented represented in in the brain's brain's sensory-motor sensory-motor ystem . represented in the sensor- motor systems. tual symbols systems.

Perceptual symbols symbols are schematic schematic Perceptual symbol; symbols arise arisefrom from abstracting abstracting across instances ofparticular particularperperPerceptual frolll alNracting across auo" instances in tanc ..ofof particular per symbols states toprovide provide memories memories ofpoints points similarity. Hence, perceptual provide m mori~ of of point ofof 01similarity. imilarity_Hence, lienee,perceptual ~rceptual tat .. to ceptual states symbols are are not not exactly exactly the same symbol ar~ xactly the ~me aasperceptual perceptual .states, tate, but but are rather 'IOmewhat sameas perceptualstates, hutare arerather rather somewhat somewhat symbols hcmat i memori memories of them. them. ·hematic .. of of schematic memories

CONCEPTUAl STRUCTURF CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURE

iSi 181

thevisual visual system, for instance. As thevisual visual the IICU", ·.lIl.lomyofof oflhe vi ualsystem, sy,lcm,for forinstance. in\lancc.As A isis ISwell wellestablished eestablished labli hedthe Ihe VI"lal no w-anatomy separates differentkinds kindsof ofvisual informationinto into distinct distinct types ,\ separa l~ differenl vivisual ual information inforn>ation 1Il10 di tinct types type> of of jem separates different kinds of ws,l
perceptual symbols need represent specific entities Perceptual need not notrepresent representspecific specificentities sviiihols same perceptual perceptual symbol symbol \, perceptual hemati representations, represenlations, the th same ~rceplual symbol As perceptual symbols symbols are are schematic schematic referents, for instance, instance, multipleinstances instances of purrororred. reL ,.111 r<pre.ent a variety of of referents, referents, for instan e. multiple muhipl in tan ofof p"rror rrd. .in represent can purr

Perceptual symbols symbols can be indeterminate indeterminate and Perceptual and generic generic symbolscan can be Perceptual symbolsen enctxle qualitativeaf> aswell wellaasasquantilative quantitativeinformation. information.This This !'a."plual symbol, ode qualitative qualttallVe informalion. Thi symbols encode as quantitative lollows as someneurons neuronsare arespecialized specialized forencoding encodingqualitative qualitativeinformation. information. lullow. a some ncuron are pecialized for for encoding qualilalive informallon. follows lor aaqualitative presence ofan anentity entitywithout without nrexample, e
Properties of simulators Properties simulators ~im ulalor are chara teriled by five five key kq properties: pro~rlies: Simulators arc characterized

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

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

Perceptual symbols symbolsare aredynamic, dynamic, not not rigid ngid Perceptual ngid symbols are dynamic, Perceptual Perceptual symbol tltute associative a~l<.iative pattern, of neuron,. The 1 hesubse,ub.. Perceptualsymbols symbols con constitute associativepatterns patterns of of neurons. neurons. The subsequent amendment of aa perceptual ~rceptual svnthol, symbol. by by virtue virtueof ofupdating1 updating.means meam quent amendment symbol, virtue of updating, means that connections between between neuron be reinstated rCin\IJICd in the same \JOle way wav that (onnCt.tion\ connections between neurons may may not be in the the same prior thann symbols constitute dynamic, dynamic, rather rather prior to to updating. updating.IHence, IIlence, nce, perceptual ~rceptual symbols ymbo" con,titute dynamic. rather than tha constitute rigid who character changes chang ongoing perceptual perceptual states tate, rigid repr ntation. whose perceptual states rigidrepresentations, representations, whose character character changes as ongoing arc in
Simulatof3 consist of of frames frames Simulators consist coherent constellations of perceptual symbols,,in in SlIllUlalors of coherent coherenl constellations con lellalion of ofperceptual ~rceplual.ymbol Simulators are comprised of symbols, in sensedescribed described above, above,which which are Ihe sense dcscnbed above, whi,h arc organized organlled inlOframes. frame .Frames ham ..are are largelarge· organized into into the largescalecoherent coherent knowledge knowledge structures scale of different described more 'Calc coherenl knowledg Iructur of differenl types, t~, as a described de.cribed in in more more different types, as detail delail in Ihe next nexI chapter. chapler. in the Frames are are multimodal, multimoda!, analogue analogue representations Frames are Frames analoguerepresentations representations Frames in(o'll(lr.lIC incorporate perceptual htllllC'\ pen.crILIJI symbols ymhol captured (Jpluret.l from fmlll across Jun !. the the sensory \Cn\Ory mo sensorymomoFrames incorporate from across dalities, introspection hence, thes dalilies, a\ well \\-ell as d~ introspection inlm\pcdion and Jno subjective \ubj«:tivc experience. experience. Hence, Ilem:e, they they arc are dalities, as as

182 t82

LFxI(;Ai NTATION LE.XI AlREPRESI RePRESENTATIO. LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

CONCEPTUAL STRU(TL'KE ON EPTUAl STRUCTURE TRUCTURE CONCEPTUAL

perceptualsymbols wmbols are mulllmodal in in nature. nature. In In addition, addition, as asthe th perceptual perceptual yrnbol are arerecordings rccord i ~&, of of multimodal as the ire they they constitute coflstitute analogue analoguerepresentations: rcpresentations th~ constitute represent~tl n :they th~are ~redirectl directlyy perceptual experience, they perceptual aperience, (both sensory grounded in in embodied embodied experience experien e (both sensory and subjective ub,ectIVe expenenc expcnence), and groundeimbxprnce(othsyadubjecivxprn1,ad of. form as as the experiences experiences have the the same form orm of. of. hence th same foml as the expen neesthey theyarc arc records rrecords helke have structured Frames are structured Frames are On the knowledge. On unstructured bodies Frames bodi ofperceptual perceptual knowledge. the concon Frames are are not not unstructured bodies of perceptual the discussed trary, they they are are highly highly structured structuredand and exhibit diverse types, as trary, and exhibitdiverse diver types. types, as a discussed di ussed ininthe th .trc trary, next chapter.

Simulators facilitate facilitate simulations SImulators simulations Simulators ofreactivating reactivating the recorded perceptual simulator provides A simulator imulator provides provides aa means mean of of reactivatingthe therecorded recordedperceptual perceptualstates. tate . means Simulations serve iimpl. rea tivation arc a simulations. .simulations. imulation. Simulations imulations serve serve to to impleThese These known as as These reactivations rcactivations are known discussed next. next. ment onceptualprocesses. proce ,a di>cussed ment conceptual conceptual processes, as discussed implement fully functional Simulators Implement fully functional functIonalconceptual conceptualprocesses processes variousperceptual perceptual states. sun A simulator imulator is not just record ofofvarious variou per eptual states. tat .AAsimulator simulator is not not justaaarecord record This isis achieved simulaimplements conceptual implement. fully functional conceptual conceptual abilities. abilities. This Thi i achieved achieved via viasimulaimula implements fully abilities. symbolsin inorder toproduce produce tion serv to combine combine perceptual perceptual symbols symbol in order to producenovel nm el tions,, which serve whkh serve Fhese activations which activation whi h subserve sub rv aa complex complex range range of ofconceptual con ptualprocesses. proccsso.These Th,,,,, which subserve processes. include following: include the the following:

(token ) can can be be matched matchedwith with fra m,,,, entities (tokens) can with frames frames Categorization: individual entiti tegorization: individual individual ••• Uitcgorization:

(types). be constr(ktcd from from Productivity: complexconcepts conceptscan can be simpler ones complex • Productivity: Productivity: complex concept' he constructed cOn\tructed from simpler impler ones novel ways. via simulations whichh combine setsof ofperceptual perceptual smholsininnovel via imulations which whi combinesets sets of per eptual symbols symbols novelways. way. combine perceptual symbols That iis,,perceptual ymbol are itional in that that they they can can combine (()m~ine That is, are compo compositional that they imagine aa circle. circle. Now Now improduce larger larger wholes. To illustrate this, thIS, cord. ow im,m illustrate this, imagine imagine to produce larger wholes.To ii) illustrate I henryposits p(5IIS agIO red circle. Now 'ow imagine imagin aa dotted dottedred red circle. circle.PSS PSS Theory Theory )X,,, h agine aa red red circle. dotted PSS circle and and that form aa red red circle you combined perceptual symbols yrnbols for for circle cirde perceptual symbols that to form combined perceptual perceptual vini added, added, inaddition, addition,aaaperceptual 10 form dotted red red circle, corcle, you you added, inin perceptual red. To red. form aa dotted the ymbol for for dots. dots. That That is, i , these these "additions" "addition arc transformations tran formations on on the the symbol 1'hat is. these "additions"" are are transformations obperceptual ymbol for Ie, akin the kind oftransformations tramformation obobperceptual symbol symbol forcir circle, akin to to the thekind kind of of transformations perceptual for circle, akin 1989; Shepard Shepard and and Cooper imagery (e.g., hnke 1989; 1989; rved 10 served in the the literature literature on imagery (e.g.,Finke served in Cooper 1982). deployedin in order order to to draw inferences Inferencing: simulations canbe be deployed • Inferencing: Inferen ing: simulations imulations can can be deployed in todraw drawinferences inference.

0"'"

regarding reg.uding aassociations \O(ialions of variou\ sorts. \tnts. regarding associations of various employed in order order to reason .ihout various Reason: simulations simulations can can be be emph.»'ed employed in • Reason: Reason: ~imulatiom~ to reason rea\On about about various volrioU!'t premise. stat affairs the basis ba i of of particular premise. premise. statesof of affairs affairs on the basis of aa particular states in order imagined or Choice: simulations can be deployed in order to create •• Choke: Chuke: simulations imulation\ can can he deployoo in order to to create crea te imagined imagined or or facilitate choice. M:cnario in order to radlilatc hokc. counterfactual counterfactual st.enarios scenarios in order facilitate choice.

18'. 183

f11(yclopaedlc semanticsrevisited revisited semantics revisited EEncyclopaedic n cyclopaedic semantics sections in this this chapter have have beenconcerned concernedwith withproviding providing aaa It, previou sections section in in thi chapter hav been been concerned with providing previous hc previoUS •IIhc of the the nature nature and organization organizationof ofconceptual conceptual structure inthe the nature and and organildtion of onceptualstructure tructurein10 overview of of bhrtJ rief ",ervlew hg!tt of recent recent work w rk in in cognitive cognitiv linguistics Iingui ti and, and,in inparticular, parti ular,cognitive cognitive work in cognitive linguistics and, in particular, cognitive light of light recent brktlv In this review the key aspects associated I""hology. thi . section, sectIon, 1I briefly brie~yreview r~viewthe thekey keyaspects a peel associated associated with with ps ychology. In of encyclopaedic first 111, the,,, of eneydopaedl semantics .. mantI first It"t presented 10Chapter Chapt r2.. 1. I do so 10 soin in the' thesis presented in in Chapter 2. of this approach later in the the order to ",der prepare the the ground revi ion of of this thi approach approach later later in the order to prepare prepare the ground ground for for a a revision revision hipter. in about the nature of conceptual of what we we now now know knowabout aboutthe thenature natur of ofconceptual con eptual ,h.lpter, the light inthe the light lightof ofwhat what we c hapter, ture. ..structure. trUl..turc.

""d

rhe thesis thesis of encyclopaedic semantics semantics The semantICs The

one of the central assumptions of IIhe he thesis th,,,is eneydopaedi semantics semanti of the the central central assumptions a umption of of The thesis of encyclopaedk encyclopaedic semantics iis on one and is for conducted '''t:nitivc lingui ti ,and i. fundamental fundamental for formuch muchresearch research that that isi conducted conducted cognitive linguistics, much sub-branches cognitive linguistics: semantics and ,\Othon ub·branches of of cognitive ognitiv linguistics: linguiMi .: cognitive cognitive semantics semanti . and within the two sub-branches Evan and Green 2006 a review). review). ulgnitive approaches to grammar grammar(see (seeEvans approaches to grammar Evans and Green Green cognitive (see 2oo6 for a Nlore researcher in cognitive linguistiss. Langacker (1987, ~lore than any any other other researcher researcher in in cognitive cognitivelinguistics, linguistics,Langacker Langacker(1987, (1987, More 19911, 2(XI8) 2008) has 200$) has been beenresponsible responsible forr developing the thesis thesis of encyclopaedk IWIII, ha respon ible for developing the the isof ofencyclopaedic neydopaedic semantks. He lie does this in adducing aa"conceptual" "conceptual" semantics underpins semantics. ",mJntics. H~ docs this thi in adducing "con eptual" semantics semantics that that underpins does encyclopaedic of Cognitive ognitiveGrammar. ,rammar. Langacker's Langacker's view of ofencyclopaedic eneyclopaedi semanseman hi, his thc(lrY theory of semanbasedon ontwo assumptions: (I; that the semantic structure to" "js based bJ\cd two assumptions: a umption: ((i) thatthe thesemantic semanticstructure truuureassociated a sociated tics is ) that associated with words conceptual structure,and and(ii) (ii)words words andother other ,\Oth dir tJy accesses aaccesses con eptual structure, tructure, word and other words directly directly conceptual and svniholic understood independently of the larger knowledge wmboli unit cannot be understood under tood independently independentlyof ofthe thelarger larger knowledge knowledg symbolic units units cannot be domains of conceptual .onceptual which conceptual knowledge, knowledge, to to which which ,trlllture" th eney lopaedi domain structures,the the entyclopaedic encyclopaedic knowledge, words serv words serve "points of of ofaccess." acc ." In In essence, essence,Langacker's Langaeker's claim i that that word, aas"points "point essence, Langackersclaim claimisis that serve as semantic structure to conceptual conceptual structure; ",mant" tructure iis equivalent rquivalent to con eptual structure; tructure; that that is, i , the the semantic . manltc h. semantic semantic structure structure associJted associatedwith withaalexical kxkal form form i. associated with tru ure. In In the the next next 'tructure lexical is conceptual conceptual structure. structure. the next is 'cllton, explor~ Ih details of this claim. claIm. section, explorethe thedetails detailsof ofthis claim. section, I1explore

r.

Profile/base organization Profile/bose organization in cognitive cognitive grammar grammar :\s briefly saw As we we briefly saw in in Chapter Chapter 2, in in Cognitive Cognitive Grammar structure A hapter 2, ognitive Grammar Grammar the the semantic structure tructure onventionally associated conventionally aSMlliated ymbolic unit. unot, stii.h such as aisaaword, word,isisI equated rquated unit, conventionally associated with with aa symbolic such word, equated with a subset of conceptual of conceptual structure. structur For Langacker, Langa ker, con eptual knowledge i with a subset of structure..For For conceptual knowledge isis conceptual urgani,ed domain: conceptual ofvarying varying levels levels of of complex.ity organized into domains: organized into domains: conceptual entities entities of of varying levels of complexity complexity and OrganiZation, which .lIld are organiled in terms term of ofaaahierarchical hierarchi al network of are organized organiicd in of hierarchical network of of and organization, organization. which are knowledge. The Th set of domain whi haaaword wordprovides proVidesaccess a cessisis i referred rreferred r. rred toto set of of domains domains to to which which word access The

as aaadomain domain matrix.1o matrix.'0 as as domain matrix.°

1r For example,, consider consider Forexample, exampl (onsider the the concept lOnccpt with wilh which wh"hthe theword wordform form kuuckk kIll/die is toncept with which the word form knuckle equated. This is understood understood with respect to the the domain AND, which which equated. Thi This concept is eqUJled. under tood with with respect re Pl'Ct to thedomain domain iiHAND, llANO, IS to say all the knowledge to say say all all the knowledge knowledge we concerning we have haveconcemong concerningwhat hand is: is: for its IIs to what aaahand hand for instance, in tan e, its instance, shap., its parts. how it functions, and so soon. on.In Inturn, the domain ,hJ}le. part\. how it functions, function. and M> on. In turn,the Ih domain shape, itits component component parts, RcaII Retail the ihr div.ussioninin h.iptrr

'..

C N EPTUALSTRUCTURE CON(IPIUALSIK('CTURE

—

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION LEXICAL REPRESENTATION_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __

18 ,1

REPRES£NTA~T.:: ' O~N

CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURE

tSS

185

exainpk ofofprofile/base organization is illustrated the \ Illore (omple profile/ba rated by by complex complexexample exampleof profile/baseorgani/.3hOn organizationi.is iliuM illustrated byIhe the lexical concept associated with the form uncle'. In Cognitive (ram,d.llional lexical concept associated with the form ""clf. In Cognitive Gramrelational lexical concept associated with the form uncle. In Cognitive Gramentity with profiles an with nl"'. Ih< vemanlic tru turt associated aSMXiatoo Imclf .n enlily with ai mar,the thesemantic semanticstructure structure associated with with uncle uncleprofiJ profiles an entity with a I hi his includes includes at lca\1 least the following ,,"11),1« matrix. Ihe following abstract ab lract dododomain oulip iexdomain domainmatrix. matrix.1This includes at at least the abstract domore AA,fl(lre

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

I11JIIl"": CifNEALOGY, PERSON, GENDER, GENDER, SEXUAL lXl,;AL INTIRCOURSE, I TERCOURSE, BIRTH, BIRTH, LIFE LIFE mains: GENEALOGY, PERSON, GENDER, SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, BIRTH, LIFE StIlLING RELATIONSHIP, i:,o. The RELATiU'4SIIiP, Lc\'ycLE, I •• I'ARE. T/C:III1D Rll.ATIOS IIIP, SIBLING SI8L1NC, RELATIONSHIP, RIIATIOS'illlP, EGO. f(iO. I'ARI'JTII Hill) RELATIONSHIP, PARENT/CHILD

The

number uncle' drawn from from ross aa number representation ~.,,< Ihe ~manlic for tor baselor forthe thesCflhlfltIC semantic repr"",ntation representation for for Imclf uncleisis isdrawn drawn fromaero across a number the conceived network of of FAMI! IAL RFLATIONS "I the" domains to provide the conceived network RELATION ofthese thesedomains domainsto toprovide provide the conceived network of FAMILIAL t1 FAMILIAL RELATIONS profiles an entity Il'),f<,enll-d in Figure Figure 9.1. 9.t. Against Again I this Ihisbase, base. uncle' I/Ilcle enlity related related to to r epresented in Figure 9.1. Against this base, uncle profiles an entity related to SIBlINGof of[(;o·s vt;o's mother mother or father. Ihe (.u bybyvirtue of being IAL~ "BIIN(. ,o 1w theI1-Go virtueof ofbeing being aaa MALE MALE SIBLING of EGO'S

mother or father.

(1) a. My hand has 14 knuckles has 14 i- knuckles •a.. Mv My hand ha knuckl b. *My arm has 14 knuckles knuckles b. cMv b. 'Myarm armhas has 14 14 knu kles

(I) (')

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

conceptual knowledge.

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

Basic Domain

Basic Domain L)omain &si4i:

Pre-conceptual Basis Basis P",·conceplual 8a>i I're-ct

UNCLE

inifl Visual and (proprioceptive) (proprioceptive)sensors sensors VI ual system; y trm; motion motion nd position ro~lllon \('O\(ln In Visual system; motion and position (proprit.xqlllvC) skin, (locatedinm inthe the kin. muscles, mwd •and andjoints; jomls;vestibular vvestibular lIbul"system y lem(located (Io
SPACE SPA( I-t; ItPAt

UNCLE

skin, muscles, and joints;

COLOUR

I

(OLOU UllOUR

PITCH

PITCH PIT<:H

TEMPI-RA !URI'

Tl MPfRATl'R I TIMPIKATIKE

PRESSURE

KF PRI\ l'Rt P1

PAIN

PAIN OIM"UR OOOl:.

ODOUR TIME

TIME TIll

EMOTION

IMOTION l.M01ION

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

Visual Vi ual system y I m Auditory system Auditory system AuditOry y t "' Tactile (touch) system Tactile (touth y.,tclll (touch)) system Pressure sensors in the skin, muscles and joints and ,oiflts Pre ,ure sensors n\.Or In kin. I1lU I .Inti Joint Pressure in the skin, Detection of tissue damage by nerves under the skin under the skin [)elation oftissue w. ur damage ,J.Jlnas by nnerves n. under the kin ion of Olfactory (smell) system Olf.
Or

EGO EGO EGO

the base against which the h.1 against ag.un Iwhich whkh Ihe emits' entity folmlh.1I netwtukwhich wh1l..hforms 10011\the Ih have I hefamilial familialnetwork netwt'rk which 9.1. The EIGURE 9.1. the entity

h"u_11 9.1. Th

profikd (Adapted (Adapted from l-v.ins and ndGreen (Jr n2oo6: 2006: 239) 239) cJt IgnOitedbybyuncle utl(l~isii profiled (Adolph.-dfrom fromEvans I·... olnand isprofiled uncle designated Green bob: 239)

186 i86

-

LEXICAL KF1'KISFNTAl REPRESENTATION LEXICAL tI)N

In certain respects1 respects, the the thesis thesis of of encydopaedic encyclopaedic semantics semantics developed developed by by lanay of extremdy useful gacker and andothers others inincognitive cognitive linguisiks linguistics provides an extremely useful way gacker relationship with with conceptual cor' thinkingabout about linguistic semantics and and its relationship thinking conceptualstructure structureserves structure. The claim that words directly encode encode conceptual structure. The to distinguish Cognitive Grammar and and other other cognitive cognitive linguistic accounts of to distinguish Cognitive ( ,tammar appft)acheSwhich whichassume, assume,lilt.. linguistic semantics and grammar grammar from from formal formal approaches linguistic semantics and reality"Out after reference reference to toan an objective obiectivereality literalism," that literalism,u that words words pattern pattern after cognitivelinguistic linguistictheories th there."In Inthis this then, then, Cognitive and cognitive CognitiveGrammar, (rammar, and there." perspective more generally take a representational rather than denotational perspective more generally take a representational rather than a semantic on semantic semantic representation. Moreover, by virtue of of assuming assuming that that semantic representation. Moreover, on onceptual knowledge, knowledge cogcogstructure encoded encoded by by language language directly directly activates conceptual structure businessof ofconducting conductinglinguistic linguistic nitive Linguistic linguistic theories get on on with with the the business nitive theories can can get without being being semantic analyses analyses that are claimed to be cognitively cognitively realistic, realistic, without semantic that are therepresentational representational unduly concerned concerned about about possible distinctions pOSSIL)k distinctionsbetween between the unduly format of of language language and systems. 12 format and other representational systems.'1 exists evidence evidencethat that the inc Yet while while such approach is is reasonable, reasonahk, there exists Yet such an an approach significantly representational formats formats in in the the linguist' linguistic and and conceptual conceptual systems systemssignificantly representational which points points for instance, instance, II reviewed reviewed linguistic linguistic evidence which 6, for diverge. In Chapter 6, diverge. associatedwith withlinguistic linguistic to bifurcation in inthe thenature nature of ofthe thecontent contentassociated to aa bifurcation Thisdisdisexpressions: the distinction distinction between schematic schematic and and rich rich content. This expressions: the variously lexicalpatterns patternsthat thatare arevariously tinction, and moreover, the the existence existence ofoflexical tinction, and moreover, points to tothe theview viewthat that termed "grammatical;' "functional," "functionaE" or or "closed-class," ". liised eLiss," points thatlanguage language there is something therepresentational representationalformat formatthat there is something distinct distinctabout aboutthe represented.' affords, vis-i-vis the theway wayininwhich whichconcepts conceptsare arerepresented." affords, visJ-Vis the appositetotoconfront confrontthe The of my my argument is that nowapposite that it isis now The thrust thrust of argument is reality—that linguistic andconceptual onceptualreprereprepossibility—I that linguistic and possibility—- Iwould wouldargue, argue, the the realitycognitively sentations diverge, precisely in order order to achieve achieve aa (genuinely) (genuinely)cognitively sentations diverge1 precisely in the realistic account of realistic accoUnt of language. language. Moreover, \loreover, such an account provides the andconceptual conceptual means way in in which whichsemantic semanticstructure structure and means for for investigating investigating the way theoryofofsemantic semantic structure interface,inin order to provide a joined-up joined-up theory structure interface, between the the linguistic linguisticand and concoflrepresentation: an account account of the interface between representation: an of the facilitatethe the ceptual will,I Isuggest, suggestadditionally additionallyfacilitate ceptual systems. systems. Such Suchan an account account will, Conceptual cognition—forexample exampleConceptual development development of oftheories theoriesof ofbackstage backstagecognition—for precisionthan than isis Blending thus be be stated stated with with greater greater precision Blending Theory—which Theory—which can thus possible possiblepresently. presently. "" Recall (hapter i.I. thediscussion inint.haptet Retailthe ot the the Neural NeuralTheory Ihcory01 of our.c. Recent irkunder underthe therubric of 13 ltecntwork arcexception% cxirpIiotls to to this thisofof► tourse. u There Thereare the a framework that takes seriously the language in a framework that taker seriously Language (NTL1 has has begun modellanguage in begun attempting attempting to to model generalstatement statementononthe the ni.ikeuse useof. of.For I-oraageneral various representational systems that brainappears appearstotomake thebrain thatthe rrprrientatiilnai For one attempt to sketch the hornialstm necessary toto 51(111 the form.siism attempt to 21104). I. 2004). For 'ii NTI.proiect tee N4(1111.1[11.1[0 Feldman andNarigranan Naravanan t see representationS with non-hnguitk model linguistic representations in the light of how they interface with non linguistic representations in the light 01110W the' mnterfaie

87 187

the interinterAccordingly,ininthis thissection sectionIIdeploy deploy.1a recent theory relating relating to the ,k jion between between the the linguistic and conceptual systems—the Theory of LanEhis theory theory is and Situated Situated Simulation Simulation (B1irsalou ( Barsalou cietal. guage g uage and aL forthcoming). forthcoming). This is, in fact, aa reformulation reformulation of, of, and and based based upon, I'SS PSS Theory presented above. Its distinctiveness way itit seeks seeksto toaccount accountfor forthe theinteraction interaction between between distinctiveness lies in the way onceptual and introduce this this account here hereininorder order tht the conceptual and linguistic linguistic systems. systems. II introduce bask (or developinginindetail detailthe theLCCM U (M perspective onthe thenature nature to provide a basis for developing perspective on to ,ind vis-à-vis the the linguistic linguistic system. system. and distinctiveness distinctiveness of the conceptual system, vis-à-vis As such, such, II seek seek to evaluate and and revise revise the the thesis thesis of encyclopaedic semantics presented presented in the previous section.

The distinctiveness of the linguistic and conceptual systems systems The distiflCtivetwss of the linguistic and In

CONCIPTUAI CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURE

41,

.41111 Language Language and and Situated Simulation Theory

.to

language Languageand andSituated SituatedSimulation SimulationTheory Theory (LASS (LASS Theory for short), as developed in Barsalou Barsalou et ul. al. forthcoming) is based based on, on, and and in in certain certain respects respects forthcoming) is revises, Barsalou's Bar'akni's theory dis theoryof of Perceptual Perceptual Symbol Symbol Systems ((PSS PSS Theory), disTheory holds that knowledge is made up of distinct types, cussed above. LASS Theory notably representations which inhere in a simulation system—that system—that isisaa /4 onceptual system system'4—and system. conceptual —and representations representations which which inhere inhere in in aa linguistic linguistic system. Crucially, the representations which make up each of these these two two systems systemsare areof of a wholly wholly different different format, format, and and hence hence the the systems systemsconstitute constitutedistinct distinctforms formsofof knowledge available to tothe the human human organism. organism. knowledge available PSS Theory, Theory, LASS LASS Theory Theory assumes assumes that that the conceptual system is is As with PSS Ofthe the made up of representations which are grounded grounded in in the the modal modal Systems systems of perceiving, from from action action and and brain. These representations are derived from perceiving, experience. To To illustrate, illustrate, take the example of of perceiving perceiving aacat. cat. from subjective experience. [he brain ionderived derivedfrom frommodalities modalitiesrelating relatingtoto The brain records records perceptual perceptual infkrrnat information vision,audition, audition,and andthe thesomatosensory sonutosensory system. system.This Thisprovides providesinformation information vision, relating to how cats look, look, sound, sound, and and feel. feel.In In addition, addition, as asthe thehuman human experiexperienter interacts with cats, for example, example,stroking strokingor orfeeding, feeding,information information encer relating to to appropriate appropriate and motor actions actions relating and relevant relevant actions actions is is captured from motor to and proprioception. The brain additionally records information relating to stibjective states such as the the experiencer's expericncer\ affective responsetotothe theinteraction interaction subjective states such as affective response with the the cat. cat. On On later later occasions, occasions,the theexperience, experience,ororexperiences, experiencs.which whichgave gave with rise one (or (or more) more)of ofthe theperceptual perceptualstates, states,can canbe besimulated simulatedininthe thesense sense rise to one described earlier. earlier. IHence, Ience, the the conceptual conceptual system systemisisanalogue analogueininnature, nature,asasthe the described representations that that populate populate itit are are captured captured directly directly from fromperceptual perceptualexperiexperirepresentations enceand andtherefore thereforehave haveaaperceptual perceptualcharacter." character." ence One reason reason for for thinking thinking that that the conceptual and linguistic linguistic systems systemsare are One distinct derives derivesfrom fromthe thefact factthat thatwhile whileother otherorganisms organismsmust musthave haveconceptual conceptual distinct

(Nfl)

Nil.

model hnguists& ftprt%efltatk)fl'.

see Changt 2005 (iooj). seeBergen Bergenand and(:hang 11 This Thisisaan anissue issuewe weshall shallrevisit resisitbelow. below.

4

14

shall ontinuc to trig use the theterm frrm"conceptual 'tonceptual%scum) system"rather rather !kin"simulation than 'sirnuiatu,nsystem," and and treat trrat t folic to

I I %ball t

the two twoasis•iroons-inoti.. synonymous. the ° gjvesrise rise10 tofeatUvatttms rcattnati ms ofilperceptual preciselybecause becausethe theconceptual conceptualsystem gives perceptual stales. . " ItItis precisely namely simulations, simuLat ions,that thatit itisisreferred rrfrnrcdto.to,ininI ASS I ASS iheory.asasaasimulation simulationcv.teni. namely Theory,

_________

CON(IPIUAL SI KtC1UKL 188

I EXICAL RI PRFSFNTATION

representations, only humans possess language. Recent research research in pri mal. represefltat iOflS, only humans possess language. Recent nolgyrevascntiuopes,bthumandoerpits across species, both human and other ology reveals weltertermsofhcnpualytem.Hrfod(z7),instacervw of the onceptual system. I lurlord (2007), fir instance, revitterms of evidence which suggests that other species, andparticularly particularly primates, suggests that other species1and ofconstruct evidence rich representations of the world around them, including the ability rich representatiOnS of the world around them, including thi to refer to objects, to represent entities in in their theirabsence, absence, to to remember p ast objects1 to represent entities to refer to elements o propositional thought. thought. Rarsalou events, and also appear to have elements off propositional nd also appear to have cveflts, (zoos) also reports on recent findings in which evidence has emerged that (2005) also reports on recent findings in which evidence has Macaque monkeys have a modality-specific circuit in their brains for reprea modality-speciti circuit in their brains Macaque monkeys have knowledge associated with with social social knowledge. conceptual knowledge senting conceptual knowledge Rarsalou associated senling argues that this finding shows striking striking parallels parallels with with human human conceptual col argues that this finding shows representations: macaques appear to represent represent conceptual conceptual knowledge knowledge in in m o macaques appear to -dalityspecfw, arstohecfumans.Iotherwd, ways, as appears to be the case for humans. In other words, is good evidence supporting the view that there is continuity between the is good evidence supporting the view that there is continuity between conceptual systems exhibited by humans and other primates. tonceptual systems exhibited by humans and other primates. Rarsalou et al. (forthcoming) argue that the conceptual system that evolved Rarsalou et al. (forthcoming) argue that the conceptual system that in humans and other primates did so in order to process non-linguistic in humans and other primates did so in order to process non-li stimuli, notably perceptual, motor, and introspective dimensions of experistimuli, notably perceptual motor, and introspective dimensions of ence. This being the case, it makes sense that the relatively recent emergence of This being the case, it makes sense that the relatively recent emergence language in modern humans—full-blown language is likely to only have language in modern humans—full-blown language is likely to only emerged in the last 100,00o years"—relates to a system which is distinct emerged in the last 20,000 yearsl6.__rcLites to a system which is from that of the evolutionarily more ancient conceptual system. from that oF the evolutionanly more ancient conceptual system. According to LASS Theory, the linguistic system evolved in order to According to I ASS Theory. the linguistic system evolved in order provide an executive control function with respect to the conceptual system. provide an executive control function with respect to the conceptual That is, the representations which populate the linguistic system involve That is, the representations which populate the linguistic system linguistic vehicles—which might be auditory, signcd—an(l orthographic,or or signed—and linguistic vehicles—which might be auditory1orthographic, encode the thetheoretical theoreticalconstruct constrUctofofthe encodeselectional sekctional tendencies, tendencies, in in the the sense senseofofthe lexical profile developed in Chapter 6. 17 In addition, linguistic representations lexical profile developed in Chapter 6)' In addition, linguistic representations serve to index representations in the conceptual system with which they are serve to index representations in the conceptual system with which they are associated. associated. LASS Theory makes two specific proposals with respect to lexical processing LASS Theory makes two specific proposals with respect to lexical and knowledge representation which are noteworthy. Firstly, lirstly,LASS LASSTheory Theory and knowledge representation which are noteworthy. claims that the time course in terms of activation thelinguistic linguisticversus versus claims that the time course in terms of activationofofthe conceptual representations exhibit distinct and non-simultaneouspatterns. patterns conceptual representations exhibit distinct andnon-simultaneous This follows, as argued by Rarsalou et A, precisely because there are two distinct This follows, as argued by Barsalou et giL, precisely because there are two systems: while they interface, the two systems involve distinct trajectories systems: while thes interface, the two systems involve distinct of activation. In particular, LASS Theory assumes that when a word is perceived, of activation. In particular, LASS Theory assumes that when a word is the linguistic system (LS) becomes engaged immediately in order to categorize the the linguistic system (IS) becomes engaged immediately in order to categorize the linguistic representation. An associated simulation in the conceptual system (CS) linguistic representation. An .issociated simulation in the conceptual s stem (CS) becomes engaged slightly later, with the activation of the linguistic system becomes engaged slightly later, with the activation of the linguistic system 116

Moduli I1996I, Renfrew Set. I he following for ch.. ussion: Hurling 1 zoo;I. lohansson I20051. RciitrcW 24)US). Mithcn

the k4lnwing tnt

Kurling

19*).

' set (24)07). 17 On this account. semantic structure is .04 in1CWhJi mote impoverished than is claimed by LCCM scmanhst slrtKturc Is somewhat more impoverished than is claimed by It( 51 U On this Theorr —about which I will have more to say later in the chapter.

Theory ---about which I will have nl4ire to

189

CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURE

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

Lict in the shaptcr.

AA 4

LS

CS

C

I V

y

Time Time knowledge .issodand he respective activationof of linguistic linguistic and conceptual knowledge associThe respective activation systems in the processing of a word (adapted the linguistic linguistic and and conceptual systems in the processing of a word (adapted me d with the BarsaloU et a!. forthcoming) Ii(tom Rarsalou et aL forthcoming) , RE (}2. 1: 14 ,t KI

illustrated in Figure 9.Z where l'his is illustrated peakingbefore beforethe theassociated associated simulation. simulation. This in Figure 9.2, where (z Conceptual System and lahdkd LS Linguistic System) and CS peaks, labelled LS(=( Linguistic CS (= Conceptual the the respective respective pe-aks, System) are aredepicted depicted as as being being non-simultaneous. non-simultaneous. processing involves a shallow, or 14.arsalou ci a!. argue that lexical lexical processing involves a shallow, or Secondly, Rarsalou et al. argue that processing t,i4.s, such ial, level superficial, level ol of processing. processing. 'lhat That is, is, for for many many lexical lexical processing tasks, such takes place solely in the linguistic as lexical lexical association association tasks, tasks, processing processing takes place solely in the linguistic the vehicles fur, purr1 and the prime prime cat system. For Ior instance, willgenerate generate the vehicles fur, purr, and cat will system. instance, the due to statist Ic.d are due I ,\SS Theory Theory predicts predicts that that such such lexical lexical associations associations are to statistical pet. LASS That is, part of linguistic representations.15 relations which relations whicharc areencoded encoded as as part part of linguistic representations." That is, part with the other words with regarding words to do do with of the the knowledge knowledge we we have have regarding of words has has to the other words with oi.curs—thC lexical protik. Put another way, the which a vehicle commonly commonly co-occurs--the co which lexical profile. Put another way, the lexical associations of this kind arc not due claim made made by by LASS LASS Theory 1'heory is is that that lexical claim associations of this kind are not due which retrieves conceptualinformation. 19 to "deep" conceptual processing1 to "deep" conceptual processing, which retrieves conceptual represcfltatil)flal thereare aretwo twobasic basicrepresentational In sum, sum, LASS LASS Theory Theory claims claims that that there In conceptual systelil. linguistic system, system,and andthe theconceptual (among others), others), the the linguistic systems (among system, These systems underpin knowledge the latter grounded in the modalities. the latter grounded in the modalities. These systems underpin knowledge facilitated meaning meaningconstruction. construction. essingininservice serviceofoflinguistically linguistically facilitated processing

conceptual structure Therelationship relationshipbetween betweensematic sematicstructure structureand andconceptual The structure inLCCM LCCMtheory theory in above, diverge from the Ihe proposals proposalsdeveloped developedby byRarsalou Barsalou etci at, a!.,described describedabove, diverge from the The linguistics. After all, thesis of encyclopaedic semantics assumed in cognitive thesis of encyclopaedic semantics assumed in cognitive linguistics. After all, conceptual systems1 while that the thelinguistic linguisticand andconceptual LASSTheory Theory argues argues that LASS systems, while they and difkrent types (and types of representation different Interact, involve interact, involve different types of representation and different types (and levds of of processing. processing. levels) Print(forthcoming) andPrim See also Borodãtsky ' I See also flor ► ditsky And

tot dis&ussion of related 1sues.

of related issues. for discussion typc'i ol knowledge i,ihcring in on rd,c' the position that situated tnmmunitatiflfl ' relies on distinct types of is in '• The position that situated communication ssitti i,iher ..i,nu%tcfltinhering sys*enl. knowledge the lingUIstk and representational systems: the linguistic and conceptual system, is consistent with distinct representational other For instanc. there is cmpuical litetature,tor totwhich there ipproahes thecognitive cov%itivc psvhoiogyliterature, psychology is empirical support. For instance. appr oaches ininthe t)ual (oding Theory (1971. the key claims ot Pan io's someofolthe withsome insistentwith LASSTheory The*'rs isisconsistent key claim. of Paiviti% MIA Coding Theory Iii971. i9116). LASS

190

-

LEXICAL XICAL REPRESENTATION

Ilowev r. one one of ofthe th consequences con~uenc of ofLASS LASS Theory Thoory lhat much much01 ofwhat what that much of what Iheory isi that However, of the consequences LASS of However, linguistic normallythinkofa mantic structure tructurriis removed rrmovrd from from the lhdingui tic Iingui t normally the linguists think of as as semantic semantic linguistic removed from structure normally think of linguists stripped of semantk 'y,tem. In the Iingui tic system y tern we w are ar left left with with vehicles vehid stripped tripprd of ofsemantic mantic vehicks system. the linguistic with kit system. y" for for the the statisikally tati tIC.tIlyestablished tabll hl-dassociations 'iation between between vehicles— vehides(ontent. content, save the statistically established associations between for content, the lexical le"i al profile profile ininpresent present term. n this thi accOunt, a count. the thelingui ticsystem tern has ha linguistic lexical presentterms, terms. on On this account, linguistic system the representation,. which whichare arc pale pal reflections retl ,tion of oflhe bipolarassem a m Iml\Overi hrd representations, of the bipolar bipolar the assemimpoverished representations pale reflections

191 191 191

linguistic 5aving referring ■ ing this .... thi isI that thai the Ihe level level of ofknowledge knowledge IIIhave have been been referring referringto toas a linguistic lingu"tic ,a ying of knowledge have been to as and ,.onteflt format that directly bylanguage, languag •and and content assumes a urn aa format formal that can can be be encoded encoded directly dir t1yby content assumes that can be encoded by language, hence, inheres not not in in the the conceptual system, system, hutrather rather the the linguistic Ihe conceptual y tern. but hut the linguistic lingui ticsystem. tern. hence. inhere hence, inheres system. IE

III bli involving phonologi(al vehicle vehid and and manti structure tructure developed developrd in blies involving phonological developed vehicle and semantic scmantit structure in hues involving aa phonological argue, correctly, correctly, IIIsubmit, submit, thatsimuLit simulations— previou chapters. Barsalou Barsal u a(I al. argue, argue. correctly. ubmit. that that imulationset aL ions— previous the br ad and butter. so !>O to speak, peak. of of con truction on titute aaa the bread bread and so to speak, ofmeaning meaningconstruction—constitute construction—constitute the and butter, butter, to wmputation which arises ari from aa different different representational repre:.entational type that type than than that that computation which arises from found language.Language1 Language. they they uggest. serves rYes to to index index and and prompt for index andprompt for foundin inlanguage. language. Language, theysuggest, suggest, serves found II1lUlation •but bUI does docs not not directly dir t1yencode n odethe theperceptual perceptualrecords, records. perceprecords,the theperceppercepsimulations, but does encode simulations, directly the perceptual tual ymbol. upon whi h simulations imulation arc re based. based. In ding. plac what tual symbols1 symbols, based. In so so doing, doing, they they place place what upon which which simulations the"ri h content" content" iatrd with wilhlanguage language II referred referrrd to. in earlier chapters. as referredto, to,in inearlier earlierchapters, chapters,as as the the "rich "rich content"associated associated with language in (one ptual system. y tern. So So far far so SO good. Ilowever. semantic manticrepresentation reprC>entatlon in the the conceptual conceptual good.However, However, semantic representation So far so hematIC content." ont nt." A have argued, .rgurd. of the .Iso Involves""schematic also involves involves content." As II have have As argued, one oneof ofthe theimportant important also finding emerge from from empirical empirical work work on onlinguistic linguisti semantics manti by byscholars h lars emerge work on linguistic semantics findings to emerge scholars Ititsown own right.'"' u h as ningful in in Talmy and Langacker islhat thatgrammar grammariisism meaningful inits own right.20 right." such asTalmy I1tlmyand andLangackerl Lmgacker is that grammar meaningful Thal to the th "rich "rich conlent"that thatlanguage languageprompts promptsfor, ~ r.languag That is. is, III in addition to language language rich content" content" prompts for, language to the hemallc content—recall content-recall the discu ion of ofTalmy' nOlion encod •alevel encodes a of encodes levelof ofschematic schematic content—recallthe thediscussion discussion ofTalmy's Talmy'snotion notion in the way the Cognitive Representation is represented of the bifurcation bifurcation III th way the og"'tiv Repr nlatlon i r pr nted vi. bifurcation in the way the Cognitive Representation represented via via language. my claim iisthat lhat while LAS . Thoory iis correct orrect to language, in Hence, Theory 6. language, in Chapter Chapter 6. 6. Ilence. Hence,my myclaim claim is that while while LASS LASS Theory is correct e the ontenl" in th conceptual lem. and in terms lerm of of pia place the "rich content" inthe the conceptual conceptual system, place the"rich "rich content" system, andidentify identifyitit in terms of record tates-for example, eumpl •the Ituatrdperceptual perceptualexperience e peri nlC records of (it perceptual states—for example, the situated situated perceptual experience aiated the vvehicle hide red reJ ar not frfrom m linguistic IIngul tICrepresentation, represenlallon. but but associated associatedwith with the thevehicle ret!arises arisesnot notfrom linguistic representation, hut representation-thi iisnot not the thewhole lory. rather rather is based based on rather is i5 basedon onconceptual conceptualrepresentation—this representation—thisis wholestory. story. A 'u.,w ininprevious previou chapters. there Iisan an additional Ilevel el of of As discussed As di discussed previouschapters, chapters,there thereis anadditional additionallevel ofrelatively relatively of multifacetrd. knowledge knowledg directly directlyencoded encodrd by bylanguage. languag . nrich, h. in the th sense nsc of the sense encoded language. rich, of multifaceted, multifaceted, directly qua lheoretical truct represents rrp"""n an auempt to charcharThe theoretical construct represents anattempt attempt to theoretical con The lexical concept concept qua aeterile knowledg . The Th lingui tic content cont nt that thal mak up up the acterize this level acterizethi this level levelof ofknowledge. knowledge. Thelinguistic linguistic content thatmakes makes upthe the lexi al concept I highly 'h malic. and h n e i non-analogue. in the sen lexical concept is highly schematic, schematic, and hence hence is non-analogue, in in the the sense sense il i hYPOlh ized not lO directly prompl ~ r imulalion . Another way of that that it is hypothesized hypothesized nottotodirectly directlyprompt promptfor for simulations. simulations.Another way of of

on then, thethe thesis ofof encyclopaedic Onmy my,Iwunt ."ount then. the lh.,i ofencyclopaedic encydopal',hsemantics, 'mantiu,discussed dl 'u;cd On my account then, thesis semantics, discussed .above, oversimplifiesmatters. matters. It between linguistic and al>ove.oversimplifi matters. ItIt blurs blurs the boundari between between linguistic lingui tic and and above, oversimplifies the boundaries boundaries conceptual While marking ","ceptual knowledge. knowledge. While m.uklngsuch uchboundaries boundari.,may maynot nothe benecessary neces .... ry conceptual knowledge. marking such boundaries may not be necessary Grammar, which ultimately with in Cognitive for instance, instance, is concerned III Cognilive Grammar, Grammar. for in".nce. which which is i ultimately ultimately concerned concerned with with such a situation accounting for formal properties of linguistic organization1 IingUi li organization, organizallon. such uch aa situation Ituation a(Counling formal properties properti of linguistic accounting for formal role of language in is unsatisfactory when attempting to account for the i, unyti factory when .(((lunt for the the role role ofoflanguage languagein in is unsatisfactory when attempting attempting to to account meaning construction, and specifically, the apparent variation in word meaning (on truction. and peeifically. the the apparent apparent variation vuiation in in word word meaning construction, and specifically, la "meanings" aero contexts contexl ofuse. u . " meanings" meanll1g ..across across contexts of of use. 11wc!.Jim claimat atthe theheart heartofleC ofLCCM IA ( M Theory, and one enshrined in in the thedistinction distinction claim of Theory, and and one one enshrined The allhe heart 1 Thoory. d~tinclion between two foundational foundational theoretical construus—the lcxkal and h.:tween itits two lWO foundational theoretical theoretical constructs—the con truct the lexical I xical concept conceptand and between its concept been treated as two cognitive that what in cognitive cognitive linguistics, has, linguistics, cognitiv model—is mod I-i that that what what has, ha in cognitivelingui ti been beentreated trratrd as 3!> two lwo of semantic sttructure--schemati rod urc—schcmatic qualitatively distinct, albeit related, aspects That is, while a subset of lexical concepts facilitate access to cognitive models-an whil ub~l of oflexical lexical concepts concept facilitate facilitate access ace to tocognitive cognitivemodels—an model an while a subset indirect association. This insight is drawn from LASS Theory. In the next in ighl is is drawn drawn from from LASS LA Theory. Theory. In In the next next indirecl ialion. Thi indirect aassociation. This insight chapter II lurn turn on proposals proposals chapter turnto toaaa consideration consideration ofthe thecognitive cognitivemodel model—based of th cognitiv mod I—based based on propo!>J1 (hapter to con\id ration of by Barsalou (e.g.. 1999)—which is the theoretical construct that heldto to 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 iisheld held populate the the conceptual conceptual system, system, and to to which which open-class lexicalconcepts concepts are populate y lem. and and 10 which open-class open·c1 lexical con ept are hypothesized to facilitate 2' hypothesized access. hypolh i1ed to 10 facilitate fd,ilitat access.2' a c ."

=

•" Indeed. IndtN. tiw J'ln'J."n.1Ivt lhAl LanJ~ dually tfk.oda tt..htm.Ilk meaning me ...,u,.of(II the .... ndI Ihave .... ¥t'been h«n meaning ofthe thekind kind have been Indeed.the theperspective perspectivethat thatLanguage language directly directly encodes encodesschematic dtknhma. In 1M contest of mlkh of twmlJdh-«nIUry tmcuutk hAt b«n I tn.tlmy nullur describing, in the context of much of twentieth-century linguistics, has been a relatively minor describing, in the of much of twentieth-century linguistics, has been a rc4ativdy mmor rtnrn:tn~. y f(my). Ion,). with ,,"llh hi, mflumtw aIJUmtnl fur thedissociation dJ -.a.hun perspective, until recently. \Uk.(, Since (hum I ihoinsky withhis hisinfluential influentialarguments argumentsfor forthe dissociation Since perspective, unh] until r~rndy.

hc1W«n wnunl.... h.u h«n u'mm(1H UlUmtthat Ihltgraniniatkal .,.'n1nulk.llIstructure, lflk.tUR'. between grammar andsemant semantics. hasbeen berncommon commonto10 toassume assume that grammatical .tructutr. between l1&mnw grammar .nJ and Its, Itil it has lnuwlc:J "t hn,ul~lk.lurm .. d, llrkl In the 11m 01 Marti K'l"r.hk '",m I1\lnll ... k",}wIN~ knowledge of linguistic forms, is distinct —in the sense of being separable from • semantic knowledge. ol linguistic forms. is distinct—in the scnsc of being separable from—.emanti knowledge. Ont tht (lutlMkllRl contnbuhuru ofLangac.ker's I...anp4.kr' wurlr.. 10 show tlul Lk.h" One of work, for instance, has been aa toshow showthat thatsuch such been to One of ofthe theoutstanding outstandingcontributions contributionsof of Langacker's work, fur for UUUrk.r, instance, h.u hasbttn view vW'W .. UWnt'l'tUl.. (nnsidn' dw vdlli &n opIcW and a~ Whl Iht lurmt1 b" vnb Iht LtItI'T It" is erroneous. Consider the vehicles ecplolle and exploocm. While the former is a verb the latter is While the 'rmer 11 .1 verb the latter isaa view is c'tmneous. Conssde't the vehicles explode and noun llw tr.tlhOl".) VtrW h hftn hi assumr ltwl "'Ih lorn "" ... t .. t unw WInUItK Ir\ktUll' noun. The traditional view has been to assume that both forms encode the same semantic the same semanticstructure structure that both forms floUfl. The traditiotul view has been to two forms. Langacker, in .00 1.11 I'T only In ltw vnt&lk Inf""",,,hun t!k.,J,N tty Itw Iwu I .. rm l.anpktr. In u.nl~l, rJUO I and differ only in the syntactic information encoded by the 01)ntrAst, argues by the two fornis. .ingacker, in tonhrast. argues and differ only in the syntactic information du, thnt vdu~.kI do I:ont .... In trrnu (If tt~r IImYnl Th .. f .. 'lonn. ht rna P-aJnrNtK.al ibis follows as he assumes grammatical that these vehicles do contrast in terms of their semantics. This follows as he assumes grammatical i.c'iiiantlts. that these vehicles dii contrail in terms of their semantic basis. verbal vehicles, as vehicles, such Ultlhr1n nk .... class t..ILasshave n..vt'" I«.r I ..Ianptkcr. n ..... ~. verbal vnNl vduda. lk-h" categories such evl, k. such as ~,,~Jt'. havea aM"flWntK semanticN basis.For ForLingacker, categoriesItkh" suchas aslexical kiucal and landmark fin his terms). As such they (in his Landmark lrrms. encode " ('~I,J.· .. h"n .nJ hc-",,(' , ... h.-nwlk. tr''''"tnt .nJ t..OO"ur" 1m hi Irnn). At tkh d"" '1'(' aa rd SthrIllatic trapectin As such they arc arc relation and henceaa schematic tfaiett'r and rrtation and hence wnctptu.uy dt"J"tI'kI~1 In .. "nlr I n .. minaI wt\kks II ('. nnun I .. rm,) nkoJ( Iht rn.lutypk. (s.c.. noun forms) encode things—prototypic. conceptually dependent. In contrast, nominal vehicks I i.e., noun forms) encode things-prototypk nominal conceptually dependent. In all,. phyUcai mtll ~ hnkr aft nun ""lIonal Ilw d .... "_,,n ul n"maw rd.aoonal k"k" be discussion of nominal and rc'Istional lexical ally physical entities and hence are non-relational. The discussion of nominal and relational lexical ally physical entities —and hence arc onlexical en"""" In 6 ..work un-. on (tn 1nh:aJclasses d.aun. . ■ ncepts in hapter e% bawdun on l.anJ*.NT·, lAngacker's J>tOftC""'1nJ pioneering work Chapter ei I isisblvd based on Lanpeker's osncepts inc(]writ.,

CONCEPTUAl ('O~CfPT At STRUCTURE STRUCTURE CONCEPTUAL

•

formsof(l( ofrepresentation representationthat that That said, a c.v caveat in order.To To claim thatthere thereare aretwo twodistinct 1"Thal is inIn order. claim that '1 Thollsaid, .. kJa.•caveat t.is (mkr Til ~wm due Ihr« ilrt two dl ll1klforms fnrm rqnutnt.ltton I"'-t givenw riseIlllm,ul tolinguistically linguistically mediatedconceptions conceptionsisIisnot nottotu toclaim claimthat thatwe wehave havemodular modularsystems which fail love rise to Jlw II .. ally mediated mnll.UN wn..rl'hon nut d.-urn lJut '" n..w m",duLir I tt'm which wt", ..hfail 1 .. 1 sos not mitclaiming claimingthat thatthe the ()\Itrut output of of UIM' one system serves.. as'"rul inputhi to&00100. another,ano..I andthe the output one to interact. ifltcf itt. That That is, to wtn-okt l'h .. I is. ... I1I am nnt ,-Lumint Itut Ill.I" ~system Irm serves wn tht as input to another, and are nul not visible visible to ltut that .. oft throttler. the (.IM other. Rather, and shall WC see In in Part not 10 that internal('J'f'htt&ttu operationsI,f ofn...h, rich system are of Rather, and as Inl(TRoII Inn arc yt IhW Il, the tt.lhrr... nd as '" we w.:..n...u 1ft' I'." each internal operations of we shall in Ill when I address semantic composition, the two systems interact in continuous and dynamic fashion 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 and hence hencesituated situatedmeaning meaningconstruction. construction. simulations in service in1rTVt(( scrske ••of of, producing producing simulations In rruduu"I mul.. hOlU and aOO hnkt litwln) mcamn, co .... ""'ltonn

191 142

—

LEXICAL. REPRE REPRESFNTATRIN LEXICAL ENTATION LEXI(AL

Summary Summary been concerned with In Ihi' ,hapler hccn concerned wilh in general general terms, lerm , the Ihe with outlining, in have been this chapter hapter 1II have In this IC'M Theory. I1 have also been ()flceptual structure structure nJIUre "rultureas a assumed a' umed by byLCCM le .M Theory. lbeory. hccn nature of of conccplUal conceptual as assumed Of nature concern«l th way way in inwhich whichlanguage languag interfaces interfa with wilh the th conceptual con cptua! .on.t'rned with interfaces with the conceptual concerned with the the way in which language construction. IIIargued argued that fundameaning construction. system in service service 'y,tem ~rvi, of of.situated ituated meaning meanmg construction. argued that Ihat aaafundafundahnguistk.representations representations thatlinguistic human ognition isisthat linguistic repr"",nl.tilln mentJI feature mental de>'gn design feature featureof ofhuman humancognition cognition design provide an indexing and control function with respect to the conceptual provide an indexing and and function with with respect r pect to 10 the th conceptual conceptual flexibility of the human increasing the range of the the human .system, y,tem, greatly greatly f uses u and flexibility flexibility of system, greatly increasing increasingthe the range range of of uses and doesmean meanthat linguistic representations this conceptual system. con«!'tual sy,tem. 1I0wever, this thi does d(~ mean thatlinguistic lingui"i representations reprc>cntation, system. However, However, corn.eptual which populate system. In equivalent to to the the concepts concepts art concepts which populate the the conceptual con eptual system. y tem. In are equivalent suggested representations, namely particular1 that linguistic linguistic namely symbolic symbolic ymholic particular, have suggested uggested that that lingui tic representations1 repre>entation ,namely particular, 1I have Ul1lt evolved and nhan,e the the exi tingform fornl repre Illaunits,, evolved to complement complement and and enhance enhance theexisting existing bull ofofrepresentaevolved to conceptual system, system, rather thanduplicating duplicating them. One tion that inhere in the conceptual sy tem, rather rath r than dupli ating them. One tions that the consequences c.insequences ofassuming twodistinct distinct systems: systems: linguistic and of the the conscquenu." of of aassuming uming two two distin'l lem : aaalinguistic lingui ti and and aaa need to revise revise the thesis conceplual Ihe need need to to revi the Ih thesis Ihesisofofencyclopaedic encyclopaedic conceptual sy,lem, system, ha has been been the conceptual semantics widely assumed assumedin incognitive cognitivelinguisli linguistics. In doing doing so, so,III built the s. In built Ofl Ihe semanti semantics widely widely assumed in cognitive linguistics. In on the 1wBarsalou Rarsalnu developed Systems (PSS Theory), Theory Perceplual Symbol ymhol.Systems y,lems (P55 Theory), developed developed by by BM lou Theory of Perceptual Perceptual to language languagein inthe theTheory Theory of of 1999, 2003), wilh respect rrespect peel to 10 languag inlh Theory 01 (e.g., 1999, 2003), and and \I its applical,on application with languag ilualed Simulation imulalion (LASS (LA Theory), developed developed by Barsalou Languageand and Situated Situated Simulation (LASS developed by Barsalou Iiarsalou Language and a!. (forlhconllng). rl al. (forthcoming). e'tr ail.

10 models Cognitive models is I hi chapter erned with outlining the Ihe construct of ofth cognitiv model. model. the cognitive This chapter icon is concerned concerned of the the perspective of the perspective perspective on on conceptual tru ture developed de"elopedininthe II do thi in light of conceptualstructure structure developed the do this this in light light I Ct M Theory previous Thct)ry cognitive model iis,, in broad terms, ternlS. preVIous lhapter. previouschapter. chapter. In In leeM LCCM Theoryaacognitive cognitivemodel model is, in broad broad terms, Rarsalou\ imilar to Barsalou's ofaaasimulator, simulator, which ,imilar Barsalou' (1999) (1999) notion of simulator. which encompasses en omp similar (t999) notion aa frame encompasses frame simulations, ,lIlll di'iCussed on detail below. below. The u of ofaai novel novel term, term. md simulation. I he use use of and simulations,discussed discussed in in more more detail detail below. novel term, cognitive for three done for thrcc reasons. reason. ·"cognitive ,ngniltve model," is done three reasons. this lirstly. understanding, it it is not clear to what extent units Units hr..tly. at at lage in iis not clear to what extent Untts Firstly, atthi this stage stage inour our understanding. of semantic (If .. manti structure—kxical tructure-Iexicalconcepts—facilitate con cpt -facilitateaccess a cess to the the conceptual conceptual conceptual semantic structure—lexical concepts—facilitate access system. For lor of "not "nott being being able to to put put 'y,tem. in tance. the the common experience of "n being able abl to system. Forinstance, instance, the common common experience experience of thoughts into into words:' thoughts into words," words."particularly particularlyas a applied appliedto tosubjective ub/cctiveexperiences, expenences.sugparticularly as applied to subjective experiences, sugto certain certain types type> of of geststhat thatthe the lingui linguistic system mayIxheles lesswell wellconnected onnected to types gl'\t tic system tem may may be gests linguistic less well conceptual representations ",neeptual repr=ntations than Indeed. point made made by by conceptual representationsthan thanothers. others.Indeed, Indeed,thi this is this is a point point made by Jackendoff It conceivable that some some aspects conceptual 'ackendolT (e.g .• 1992). 1992). i conceivable conceivabl that some aspects aspect ofof ofconceptual conceptual Iackendoff(e.g., (e.g., 1992). It It is structure may only be be partially ,truclme partially accessible ace . ible or even inaccessible to the lingui tic inaccessibleto tothe thelinguistic linguistic even inaccessible system. II introduce the the theoretical theoretical construct Onstruct cognitive model, then, 'y'lem. theoretical con trull of of the th cognitive cognttive model, model.then, then.toto system. distinguish thosesimulators simulators Cd on the perceptual perceptual basis—in basis· in the the Sy"em • Barsalou Bar lou iis primarily focused the Systems. Barsalou is primarily primarily focused on on the the perceptual wider sense wider sense as described describedin in the previous chapter—of chapter—of conceptual structure. .. n as described in chapter--ofconceptual conceptual structure. structure. wider the previous acknowledgesthat thatother other formsof ofinformation information are of information art likdy to feed feed into into acknowl«lges Ihat oth r forms form While he acknowledges arelikely likely to feed representations, he isisprimarily primarily exercised primarily exerci>Cd by accounting accounting for for the the conceptual represenlations, he conceptual representations, exercised the perceptualgrounding grounding of ot cognition. cognition. In In my perceptual grounding my account, a count, II explicitly explicitlyacknowledge acknowledge perccplUal account, acknowledge that non-perceptual) information may propo itional (i.e., (j.t., non-perceptual) non-perceptual) information may also also become becomeininthat propositional propositional (i.e., also become curporated in which supplements the perceptual informainform. c()rporated cognitive models, model" which which supplements upplement the theperceptual perceptualinformacorporated in cognitive tion present. SLIb propositional information is is likely lion already already present. prc\c1l1. Such Sw.: . h propositional propo itional information inrorm.llion i't likely likely totoaccrue a f..ruevia VIJ accrue via linguistically Iingui ti ally mediated mediated routes, including including narrative, narraltv~, exchange e",hange of ofnews, new and linguistically mediated routes, narrative, exchange news,,and gossip. lor these is useful distinguishh the the theoretical gossip. these reasons, go. ip. For For the.. reasons, re,lsons, itit is i. uuseful ..ful to to distinguish di\lingui the theoretical theoretical construct (on truet construct development here, here, by by applying applying the novel term term under here. hy .lpplying ternl cognitive cognitive model. under dc\dnpmcnt model. linally, while Theory in in the the previouschapter hapter to to illustrate illustrate Finally, while I Iemployed Finallr, whtl ~J11ploycd PSS Thl'Ory the previous previou. (h.pter ,IIU>lrate employed PSS simulationaccount of of conceptual conceptual structure structure could look look like, like, much what a simulation-style imulatlon stvk lyle account or com:eptuJI Irm:ture coultllook like. much what could

194 — 194

(

LEXICALkEPRISINTATION REPRESENTATION lEXI(:AI ENTATIO. lEXICAl. RfPRf

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

I

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

The world world model model

The world model knowledge representaBarsalou provides an theoryofof (oraaatheory Bar lou (1991) (1991) onlology for Iheory ofknowledge knowledgerepresentarepresenla(1991) providcs provides an an ontology ontology for Barsalou personS This comprises a person's model. model. I his comprises tion based on what he refers to as the world whal he h rrefers fers 10 lion based on to as asIh theworld world model. This compri aa person\ tion based on what individuals, beliefs the current beliefsrelate relateto toindividuals, beltefs about aboullhe urrenl.state laleof ofthe Iheworld. world.These Th"'"beliefs belief relale 10 individual, of the world. These beliefs about the current state thatpeople their current states and where they are located. Barsalou suggests that located. Ibrsalou suggests Iheir currenl states lal and and where they Ihey .,re ar< Io
19s 195

195

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

to be done. PSS remains are .irc workon onhow how people people represent representcon concrete objectsand andactions actions— – things things that that objects work reproenl relc ohjects and aClions Ihings Ihal arc .oncrete on how work perceptible. Other sortsof subjectiveand and cognillve cognitivestates states arc still still not well well cognitive I'ef(eplible. Iher sorts Mlrt; suhjeclive lales arc are. lill not nol well ofofsubjective perccptibk. Other what he what understood—a point acknowledged by Barsalou (1999) in referring to in refemng referring 10 whal he underslood-a poinl acknowledged by Rarsalou Bar.. lou ($999) (1999) 10 he KkflOWkdged by understooda point knowproceeds the terms"inlrospective "introspective.. experience." Aswork workproceeds, proceeds,Ihe the state state of our As lerms perience." A lale of our knowknowtRe expeflence. "ifltr()Sl terms to require likely to ledge, particularly particularlyrelaling relating10 to non non-perceptual knowledge, non-perceptual is pcf(cplual knowledge, ~nowledgc, i likely Itkely 10 require requi re ledge, to particularlY relating ledge1 takes place and the significant revisions of our account(s) of how simulation takes place, and of how simulation ignificanl rrevisions ision of accounl( ) of Imulallon lake. place, and the Ihe of our account(s) significant for using nature of other cognitive states. Accordingly, an additional reason for using Accordingly1 additional reasofl of cognilivestates. lales. Accordingly, an addilional reason for usi ng nalure other cognitive of olher nature from PSS the novel term cognitive model is is Theory to dissociate dissociate Ih novel lerm cognilive i to 10 dissociale LCCM Il.CCM C OM Theory Theory from from PSS cognitive model model novel term the of illustration, Theory. While I have employed PSS Theory for purposes of illustration. purposes heory for purposes of iIIuslralion, Theory. Whil I have employed P' PSS Theory Theory. While I have Theoryis notconlingenl contingent upon upon it. contingent \.LCCM . M Theory i isnot nol upon il. LC(TM

symbols In Ihi this section, I consider in more whichh perceptual detail the the way In on ider 10 tnor detail delaillhe way in in which whi perceptual symbols ymbtl" in more this seclion, lI consider In knowledge areorganized organized within within Ihe the conceplual conceptual system provide larger-scale conceptual system to provide are yslem to 10 prOVIde larger-scale knowledge knowledge are organized within the distinct of kinds of of I argue that there are a number number of distinct short, structures. In hort, II argue argue that Ihal there Iher arc arc aa number of di lincI kind Iruclurcs. In In short, structures. iated associated cognitive models—frames and the the possible possible setof ofsimulations simulations cogl1llive fram and Ihe po Ible set sel of imulalion asso a c ialed models—frames and cognitive model types in types with the frame—that populate the conceptual system. Di tinctions in in I~ with the frame—that framl'--Ihal populal Ihe conceptual conceplual system. yslem. Distinctions populate the with the that provide of cognitive models arise due to distinctions in the frames that provide distinctions in the frames of cogniliv models model arise arise due 10 di linction in Ihe fram Ihal provide due to of cognitive inthis this section the cognitive model with its organizational structure. Hence, Ih il organizational organizalional structure. Iru lure. Hence, lien e, in in Ihi section seclion model WIth with its the cognitive cognitive model on work II idenlify identify a a number number of frame types. I do so based on Barsalou's work on frames based on Ltarsalou's Iypes. 1I do so based Barsalou's work on frames frames of frame types. I identify a number offram 1993).' In general terms, frames frames can et In general terms, ,fram can 1991, 1992a; 1993).' In Rarsalou et al. 1993).1 ((e.g., .g., Barsalou Barsalou Barsalou rt al. generalleml can *992a Musalou (e.g., Rarstlou 1991, 199111; within each of be identified which relate to situations..Further, Further, Ihing and 10 silualion I'urther, within wllhin each each of of be relate 10 to things things and and to to situations. Lw idenlified identified which which relale relating to to sped11'these divisions relating which are episodic1 10specific specific Ihese broad broad ions there Ihere arc frames frames which which arc episodic, episodi ,relaling thereare frames these broad divi divisions generic1 relating types of experience and/or knowledge, and frames which are generic, relating and frames which are Iypes e perien( andlor knowledg ,and framcs which arc generic, relaling types of of experience knowto schematizations over of experience experience and/or know10 broadly similar imilar aspects a pect of of experien e and/or andlor knowsimilar overr broadly to schemalizallon ov below are ledge. The distinct models)identified identified ledge. linct frames frames (and (and hence hence cognitive cognilive model) id nlifiedbelow beloware arc hence cognitive models) ledge. The The di distinct frames epithings1 and individuals (episodic) and types (generic), which relate to things, and (generic)1 which to Ihings, and epitypes (generi ), whi h relate relale 10 individual (episodic) and and types individuals (episodic) sell-evidently, tositusitusituations and generic situations, which relate, self-evidently, sodic sodic ilualion and and generic generi situations, iluation, which relate, relal , self'evidenlly, to 10 ,itusodic situations individuals and and types1 ations. I begin theframes frames things: alion begm by by focusing focu ing on onthe Ihe fram for forthings: Ihings:individuals individuals andtypes, Iypes, ations.. II begin by focusing on situations. before discussion ofthe the frames for situations. of Iheframes fram for ilualion. before proceedIng wilh di u ion of before proceeding proceeding with with aa discussion

MoI)El" OGNITIVE MODEL COGNITIVE MODELS

•

find locations within a.nd rooms. 1They heyfurther furtherlocate locale enlilies withmthese Ih localoea andloealton locations wllhm withinrooms. rooms. they further locateentities entitieswithin within these locathe frames with temporal for tions, IIl1n, mtegrale palial framcs Itemporal mporal knowledge, knowledge, for instance, inslance, tions,and andintegrate integrate the. the spatial spatial frames with with knowledge, for instance, relating ofof various 54)115 including the 10tocycles cydes and lIme fram vanOll sorl Ihe season, Ihe rddllng relatingto cyclesand andtime timeframes frames of various sorts including includingthe theseasons, seasons, the calendar, and as year, monlh weeks, and and days, day, as a ealendar, lemporal tnlervals uchas calendar,and andtemporal temporalintervals intervalssuch such asyears, years,months, months,,weeks, weeks, and days, as well content-based temporal structures relating aasconlcn~ based lem,,?ral Iructures such su h .is a knowledge knowledg relating relatms to 10one's one' wellas content-based temporal structures such as knowledge to one's life and IIwn famIly members' member. daily rouline, development developmenl over over Ihe life life span, pan, own and and family family members' daily routine, routine, over the the span, stages in career career progr progression, andso so on. on.Temporal Temporal information information serves 10 ,Iages. lon, and on. Temporal serv to stages m in career progression, and so serves to world model and, organize past, present,and andfulure future informal information in IIrgatlllC t, presenl, ion in Ihe mod I and, and, organizepa past, present, and future information inthe the world model R.trsalou argues, doesso soorthogonally orthogonally10 to Ihe the core. Moreover, in Ilar .... lou argue., palial (ore. Ihi Barsalou argues,docs does so orthogonally to the sp.ttial spatial core. Moreover, Moreover, in this this world modd, people represent represenl other olher people's people' interactions interactions and and movements, movements, world. worldmodel, model,people people represent other people's interactions and movements, updating continuously. For [or while at work, person might updallng Ih Forinstance, inslan e, while while at al work, work, a person might mlghl updating the the model model CO~ltnuously. continuously. instance, aa person represent their partner's movements: going to returning home, or represenl Ihe hops, returning relurning hom, or or representIhel~ theirparln~r. partner'smovemenlS: movements:going going10 to the the shops, shops, home, their also represent Ihm chlldr~n a~I~'lles while at school, and so on.People Peopl~also alsorepresent repr<senl theirchildren's children'sactivities activitieswhile whileat atschool, school,and and so on. on. People other in olher ongotng actIVItIes taking ~aking place pIa ~ in in the Ihevarious variou regions region represented reproenled in in other ongoing ongoing activities activities taking place in the various regions represented meeting of their Ihel~ w~rld model. I'or o~e mlghl know know about aboul a meeling of ofaaa their world worldmodel. model. For For tnlance, instance, one one might might know about aa meeting taking in committee room room near near ones office, L'niversity Un". er Ily Exam Board plac~ commillee nearone's one' office, offic~, University Exam Board Board taktns taking place place tn in a a committee IIitit being belllg Tuesday afternoon, Prim Mini ler' Question Qu tion Time Tim~ taking lakingplace pIa e at al afternoon, Prime Prime Minister's Minister's Time at being hies&I.tv Tuesday afternoon, Question taking place the Ihe 1I0u of ofCommons, Common.' knowing—based knowtns.. · ba~ on on having havingread read today's loday'; newsnew . the house House of Commons, knowing—based on having read today's newspaper—that the Queen Queen is staying atWindsor Windsor Castle ('astle rather than paper-thaI Iiscurrently currently staying ta)'lng at al tie rather rather than than paper—that th~ the Queen currently repairs e, that Ihal Ben in London London is is currently currentlyundergoing undergoingrepairs repairs Butktngham Ruckingham Pala Buckingham Palace, that Big Big Ben Ben in London is undergoing and hence helke not on. and nol presently chiming, himing, and and so so not presently presently chiming, and so on. In the world model frames be distinguished which , In mod~I.lwO distincIkinds kind of oHrames can he be distinguished di lingui hed which the world model two two distinct distinct kinds of frames can can rclale Ihtngs: individuals tndlvldual and andtypes Iypes(Barsalou (BarsalouCt et aL al. 1993)2 1993).'2 Individuals Individual are arc relate 10 to things: things: individuals (Karsalou Individuals relate to and types et al. 1993). are frames Ihal that relate relate 10 to animate animate and and inanimate inanimate entities entitiesthat that are are held to persist fram.es rclal~ ani~13le and inanimale enlilies thaI ar~ held held to 10persist persi I frames that to continuously in the the environment. As such, individuals are central to the COnltnuou Iy in tn the environment. ~nvlronmenl. As As such, such, individuals individual are are central central to 10the the continuously ontology of of the world model. Individuals provide informaofthe Ihe world world model. model.Individuals IndiVIdual pr provide relatively stable labl informainforma onlology ontology o vide rel.itivclv relatively stable tion about about given entity:information information that isisboth both stable over time, well lIon aboul aa given gIven entity: enllly: tnfOrmalion that thaIis bolhstable labl over overtime, limeasas a well tion asincorporating incorporating episodic episodicinformation. information. Hence, Hence,the thenew newinformation informationfor for aaa as tncorporaling episodic informalion. Henc~, Ihe new informali~n as given individual is added to the frame thereby updating on an an ongoing given !\"~n individual tndi~idual. i~ added added to 10 the Iheframe fram thereby Ihereby updating updaling ititlIon anongoing ongoing is on basis. Anindividual individual updated based onencounters encounters withthe the entity ha\l . An An tndlvldual is is updated updaled based ba d on on en ounler with wilh Ih entity enlilyititil basis. is represents. Forinstance, the frame for"my "mycar" car"might mightinclude includethe the represenl '. For For tninstance, lanc~, the Ihe frame for "my car" mighl Ih~ petrol petrol represents. frame for petrol gauge readingthe thelast timeIIIinteracted interacted withit, it, and the fact that have noticed ~eadtng.lhe lalast Itime lime tnlera led with wilh iI,and andthe Ihefact factthat thaIIIIhave hav noticed nOli ed gauge reading gauge there is isan anoil oil leak, and that the car needs cleaning. Thisinformation informationisis Ihere I; .an OIlleak, leak,and andthat Ihalthe Ihecar arneeds need cleaning. cleaning.This This ",formalton I there merged intothe the frame to provide an updated representation. merg~dinto tnlO th~frame fram~to 10provide provid~an anupdated updaledrepresentation. represenlalion. merged the same may be encountered the world ((:ruci.,llv, rUClally, although Ihe same me individual individualmay maybe beencountered encounleredinin the Ihe world Crucially, although the onmany many occasions,often often inthe thesame sameday, day, termsof ofthe theworld worldmodel modelIall all the ~n ma~y.o
represent the world

totact refertotowhat whatI lam here frlm- "nkILkI" I prefrr the nunirl rt at (1 409011w the term till here calling - type." I prefer the andalso ahosock icc-ktoto avoid any w*th the tI)nstruct of Ic-mi "type and ini'ieintuitively intuitivelyAccessible term more any contusion with the construct

(i'rn)

I

, WA% Barsalou's SuYluu I work "''-Irkon "n frame fn,f1\d "',) was

Sarsalou" work on tramcs ()nip, t ihIc with it. with it11 '-4'm~h'-'k With

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

developed prior to Theory. dcvd pmcntofofPSS PSS Thcory,1• bul tOthe development

use term I donot notuse thecognitive model. model.Hence. Hence,I do the thethe term "model."

of

_____

196 196

196

l EXI AL REPRES[NTA liON

COGNITIVE MODELS COGNITIVE MODELS (o(;NITIvI M011 IS

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

relates to to a part individualisis merged intothe reiates particularindividual indi~idual i merged mergedinto (ran~efor (or thatentity. entity. the frame forthat en A s relates to aaparticular frame frame such. the for a particular such, th frame (or partIcular coUeague 10 lude info m(Ormati" colleague at at work work may include

such,teframopiculeagtworkmyincludefato

relating to to his hi or orher herlocation locationthe thelast la ttim intera tedwith withthem, them,and andso'" o~ an So on. relating time I Iinteracted In addition to individuals, Barsalou In addition to individuals, mdlvidual Barsalou , Bar!>3louetet11!. III. (1993) (t9\l3)argue arguethat that th reisis I another anoth thatthere there In inheres. in the world model. Thi frametype typewhich whichinheres inher type which I ref~ I his type of frame, whk.h frame in the world model. This type ofo(frame, frame, which I refer to aas type. jfl abstraction across frames to type,isIs I an an ab tra tlonacross aero frames (ram for forindividuals, individual,providing providinga aframe fram individuals, to as type, abstraction for a.1 type type of individual. As such, typesare for individual.As A ulh,types type are notconceptualized conceptuali7edasa,havin haVln arenot not conceptualuied for a type ofofindividual. such, g corresponding entities entities in in the world. corresponding world. For For example, whil individual fo~corespndigthworld.Fexamp,hitndvualfor while the individual "my car" car" in in the the world world model model corr torresponds "my pond totomy car inthe th world, world,the theframe frame mycar tarinin the world, the "my car" in the world model corresponds for "car" is a type, and relates to (or" ar" is i aa type, type, and and relates re/ates to aJa type ab,tl'llctedfrom fromacri, alTO typeof ofindividual, individual,abstracted abstracted from for "car" aa range range of of individuals. indIvidual. Hence, Hence, people und r tand their fram for types type.toto Hence,people peopleunderstand understand their frames framesfor for tYpes a range of individuals. inhere only in the world model, hut inhere in but not,crucially, cruciaUy,in inthe theworld worlditself. it If. trucially, in the world itself. inhere only in the world model, but not, One of the features olindividuals in Oneof ofthe thefeatures featuR'S of ofindividuah inthe theworld worldisis I that thatthey theychange change l'l<:allon. changelocation. location.InIn One individuals in model, this feature is captured captured in the world world model, model,thi terms of o(the phenomenon referredtoto in terms ofthe thephenomenon phenomenonreferred referred the this feature is captured in transcendence (Barsalouet a of aL 1993). I99;). a.istranscendence tran endence (Rarsalou (BaNlou el al. 19113). Iranscendence Tran enden e ha do with with the the has to with as Transcendence has to to do number and range of locations number and range range of oflocations Io.:ation,at at which whichindividuals indIvidual and andtypes typesare arerepresented. repR'SCntloJ. individuals number and For instance, colleague from work For in tan ,aaa colleague coUeague from from work will will berepresented representedatatwork. work.However, However, willbe represented work. For instance, work aa chance meeting at the local superm.irket chance meeting meeting at at the thelocal localsupermarket upermarket will ,viII n ure that that th individual individual willensure ensure thatthe the mdi a chance frame for the tolleague becomes additionally ~rame for bewmes additionally addllionaUystored tored at at the the supermarket uperolarketl(l(atitln stored supermarket location frame for the coUeague colleague becomes location in the world model. When the colleague goes In the w rid model. When the on vacallon to Paris, and nd aaa vacationto Paris, and sends sends in the world model. When the colleague goes on vacation postcard in to the office on the the vacation, theindividual individualisiisadditionally po tcard in the office office to to report report on thevacation, va ation,the addllionally additionally postcard in to to the stored as part of the Paris location tOfl'tf a, of th Pari, in model. the world model. stored as part of the Paris location in the world model. Barsalou al. (J9\lj) argu argue .. lou et ft al. tran endent frames frames for (or individual and and Bar for individuals individuals and Barsalou a al. (1993) argue that that transcendent transcendent frames types, while while beinglocated lojted at multiple types, muhipl sites it in in the the world world model, model become be'.:tlmc become types, while being being located at at multiple sites the world model, functionally deta detached funClion.lly hed from from the world model. That Iis,, they they give give'ri e to to aaa they giverise rise to functionally detached from the the world world model. model. That That is, level of information about the nature level mfomlatlon about nature of individuals and types, and the individualsand and types, types,and and the the level of of information about th the nature of individuals interactions they can engage in in which which become abstracted from the mteraCllon 10 which become become abstracted ab tralted from thespatial 'patlal the spatial interactions they they can can engage engage frames that form the frames of otherwords, word ,transcendence tore model. In In other other words, frames that that form form thc the core core of of the the world world model. transcendence gives rise to de-contextualiied glv me to de·contextuali7ed representation which form transcendent representations which form transcendent gives rise to de-contextualized representations which form transcendent taxonomies. For example, taxonomi For example, the type for for "heart" is aaa feature featur of ofall all mammals. mammal. the type type for "heart" is feature of all mammals. taxonomies.. For example, the is hence, its presence aJs part part the frame for num Ilencc, rous individuals individuals and and types t}1'" numerous and Hence, il\ its p,,'>Cnce presence as part of of the frame for numerous individuals types gives rise to transcendence. tranMOenden e. gIves nse gives rise to transcendence. This property property serves two functions. function. Firstly, Fir tly, transcendence transcendenc pro . Thi rv.. two transcendence proproThis property serves two important important functions. Firstly, an important means of organizing vld mean, th nature nature of of cntitic." in 10 about vides an Important important means of of organiling organizing belief, beliefs about about the the nature of entities entities in the world. It does so as it serves to capture capture the serves to capture similarities imilariti between between individual between individuals individuals theworld. world. ItIt ddoes so so aas it serves similarities and models. As such, and As uch, ititit facilitates facilitates inferen es. For in tance, we we can infer that that inferences. can infer inter that andmodel. models. As such, facilitates inferences. For instance, instance, we can lions have hearts on the hon ba I of knowing that all mammals mammal, po""" hearts. he.ut'. knowing that all mammals possess possess hearts. lions have havehear" heartson on th the basis basis of knowing all Secondly, transcendent taxonomies . Secondly, 'ondly,tran endenttaxonomies titute Important block.. tonstitute important transcendent taxonomiesmay maycon constitute important building building blocks blocks in the construction of the world model. This follows 10 the con tructlon of world model. Thi, follows "' tr,1O endent inforas transcendent inforin the construction of the world model. This follows as transcendent information can be inserted into frames for moll~on IndividllJI~ upon firsl ent:ount entounter.r. mationcan canbe hei"\Crled insertedinto into(r.lm frames fornew new individuals individualsUpon upon fIrst first encounter. For Instan instance, on encountering encountering an unfamiliar cat, information from I·or e, on from th model For instance, on encountering an unfamiliar cat, information fromthe theniodel model for cats is retrieved and copied, in order to form the for ca t i retrieved and copied, in order to (om. the basis (or the new basis for the flCW for cats is retrieved and copied, in order to form the basis for the new individual in the world model. This individual in model. Thi\ pr()u.~\ -.en:c: 10 minimi,e .:amount process serves to minimize the in the world model. This process serves to minimize the amount amount ofindividual learning .be,ut about entities before an be adequately o( learning new entiti"" belore they C,IO represented. represented. of learning about new entities before they can be adequately represented. relating to his or her loc1it ion the last time I interacted

a

197 197

197

SItuations ing briefly mo brieflydescribed describedthe theontology ontologyfor for individuals ".I\lng hriefly dcsuibed the (orindividuals individu.ls and types, I Inow now (iving and types, types, now nsider how situations are modelled from the perspective of Rarsalou's how situations are modelled ,,,Iln"dcr i Ituation modelled from the the perspective per pediv of BaNlou' Barsalous frames. The basic insight is that in addition to individuals n s ra k t io )n :lu on frames. The basic basic insight insight iIs that that in and ,,,,rk on frames. The 10 addition addition to to individuals indiVIdual and es, humans additionally represent situations, there being two kinds ivr t,I"". humans human additionally additionally represent repre nt situations, ituations, there there being bemg two two kinds kind ..ituation: episodic situations and generic situations. The distinction e lf"I "to.lt 8ituation: episodic ,ituation situations and and generi generic situation. situations. The distinction beIOl!: epi\t>dic diMinctionbebetween episodic and generic situations is orthogonal to the distinction between episodic and generic t,,«n generi situations ituation is i orthogonal to the distinction between between twCL'fl episodi he t() this s. 1ilividuals individuals ""I" Idual and types. types. is approach, of larger According this approach, situations situations are part \Lltu .• t"IO\, events event and and images—as imag asIIIdeploy deploythese theseterms—are term, ·aremental mentalrepresenrepr n representations. The notions of event, situation, and image are somewhat akin t.it ions. ThenOllon notionsof ofevent, event, situation, and Image image ar are \Omewhat somewhat akin akintoto tothe t.lI1<m . The ituation. and the (1975, 1982) and notions of scripts, scenes, and states developed in Schank notions of scripts, and states notion ripts, scenes, scenes, and tates developed developed in Shank hank(1975, (1975, 1982) 1982) and Schank and (1977), with the difference being that events, situations, s,.h.ink and Abelson xhank Abelson (1977), with the difference being that event, events, situation\, situations, perceptual and are and images are made up of perceptual symbols, and henc• images are arc made made up up of perceptual perceptual symbols, and hen hentee are per eplUaland and II1ldges ymbol ,and

arc perceptual and

thus thus embodied embodiedin innature. nature. thu\ embodied One of the key insights of the key in insights ofthis thisapproach approach isis that itit takes takes aa situated ights of of this approach I that thatlttak ituated cognition cognition One of situated perspective. That is, people's frames perspcttive. people's frames for individuals types per'ped lve. That iis,,people's fram for (or individuals and and types type. are are situated situatedand and local than being being de-contextuali7ed local rather than de-contextualized and universal. An 10 al rather rather and universal. An individual individual or or type type is sense that that it itit isis isrepresented represented i, situated ,ituated in in the the sense sen represented in in the ituation in in which which ititIt the situations situations in which occurs.For For instance, otturs. individual (I"ur\. For instance, instan e, the the individual mdividual frame frame for "mysofa" sofa" is represented asas a frame for "my "my sofa" isi represented represented living room. Hence, the frame for my sofa is related to the being located in my Hen e, the frame for my sofa is i related to the th my living room. Hence, 'II' situation frame for "my living room". Similarly, individuals and types are local ti.ition ,iluation frame forr "my "my living room". Similarly, ar local local Similarly, individual individuals and types are in the sense that they relate only to exemplars actually encountered, rather ill the thc;en that that they relate relate only to exemplars exemplar. actually a lUally encountered, en ountered, rather than being generalized to entities universally. For instance, than being generalized to entities universally. universally. For instance, the thetype typefor for"sofa" "sofa" "sofa" incorporates information relating only to sofas that have been encountered. Incorporates IIlcorporat information relating only to sofas sofas that have have been been encountered. In this this way, to knowledge In way, this this approach approach to representation In thIS way, this to knowledge knowledge representation repre:.entation assumes a urn"" that that the assumes that the the conceptual system system is directly conceptual directly grounded in i direC1ly in ituated action aClion interaClion. in situated situated action and and interaction. interaction. Barsalou (1993) propose that the mental representations et al. Barsalou ci a!. BJrsalou rt al. (1911)) propose propo. that representation they they refer that the mental representations theyrefer rekr to to as images are static spatial scenes (cf. Tyler and Evans 2003). These may .15 images are static spatial J, imag . are tatic patial en (cf. (cf. Tyler Tyler and Lvan 2003). 200j). These These ma may and lv.tns consist of frames for individuals and/or types, viewed from a particular Consist of frames for individuals and/or con I t of fram for individual types, viewed viewed from particular types, from a particular viewpoint, with a particular geometric, topological, and functional rt icula r geometric, topological, and functional viewpoint, with with aap.t particular functional relationrelation -. relation ship ship holding between them. Crucially, an image is composed of numerous holding between ,hip holdmg between them. Crucially, (ru ially, an image imag is i composed compo'lC(/ of numerous numerous perceptual symbols. For instance, a person may represent a picture hanging perceptual symbols. ymbol . For For instance, instan e, a person per n may may represent a picture pi ture hanging hanging on the wall above the sofa in their living room. on the wall above the sofa sofa in their living un wall above living room. room. A situation is comprised of a series of images. Hence, and image, A Situation toinpnsed of .i series images.. Hence, and as A ituation iis compri'lC(/ ora series of o(imag f1en e,and a with with an an image, image, as a situation may consist of a relatively stable set of individuals and types. a ."tuation situation may con lonsist of a relatively i t o( relatively stable table set types. The The set of of individuals individuals and and types. difference is that a situation, while occupying a relatively constant region of difference dIfference is i\ that a situation, while while occupying ouupyll1g a relatively relatively comlant o( constant region of space,iisisdynamic, dynamic,in inthe the sense sense that that entities entities may may interact interact and andmove move around, around, dynamic, in 'pJCC, Ihe M!n ellliliC'\ interact move that andthere thereis changeover overtime. time.For Forinstance, situationmight mightinvolve involve aa person person and i ischange I'or ininstance, tance, aasituation ituation might involv a person approachingthe theso(a, sofa,sitting sitting down, turning turningtheir theirhead head to to look look ,it at the picture sofa, down, approaching illing duwn, head at the picture picture on the wall, turning their head away again, sitting for a while before getting up On the wall, wall, turning turning their head On the hc.d away away again, sitting 'illing for (ur a while be(ore hcfore gelling getting up andmoving movingaway awayfrom fromthe the sofa. and moving fa.

r.

198

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

FXIeAL RI

~~ --~~~~~~~~~---------------------Anevenl eventcompri comprises aseries seriesof oftwo twoor ormore moresituations situations which are arc relaled related in in whiCh An of IwO or more ilualion which are An event -ornpiiSeS aa serie~ coherentfa fashion. Thekey keydiffi difference betweenan anevent event and and aa silualion situation is between (oherenl hion. The ren e belween evenl and i that Ihal fashion. The key difference an event involves a significant outcome, often involving a change in regions of change in In event evenl involves oulcome. often involving involving aa change in region or involves aasignificanl signilkant outcome, an inst spaceandlor and/orIhe theindividual individualsand/or and/ortypes types involved involved in in the event. For space andlor Iype involved m the Ihe event. evenl. For I'or instance, inslan"e. individuals and/or the space purchasing an event might involve a person going to a department store and purchasing 10 a ddepartment partmenl store lore and purcha ing aa an evenl mighl involve aa person per.on going to might involve an event picture,bnnging bringing it home in Iheir their tar, car,fetching fetching aa hammer and nail hammer and nail from piclure. car. felching nail from the Ihe bringing itil home in their piCtLlre1 garage, selecting a spot on the wall above the sofa to hang the picture, hang the pict wall above the sofa to Ihe wall above Ih sofa 10 hang Ihe piclure. garage. selecling aa spot pol on the garage1 selecting nail in the wall at the desired desired location, and hanging the picture hanging a knocking desired local location, knocking aa nail Ihe wall at al the Ihe ion. and hanging the Ihep1 pi lure the nail intable summarizing the differences between image, situation, sit ua A differences between image, above the sofa. above ummarizing the Ihe ditTerence:. bel ween image. ilualion. table summarizing above Ihe the sofa. sofa. A A lable mental representations representationsiis isprovided provided in in Tabl Table io.i. Lable 10.1. qua menial andevent event qua provided and evenl qua 10.1. mental represenlalion andAs observed above, there thereare are di distinct sorts of of frames relating toboth kith distinct A ob "ed above. are linCl sorts sorts of trames frames relating relaling to 10 bolh above, Ihere As observed episodic and and generic generic situations, which parallels the dislinction distinction between indithe distinction between whfth parallels episodic ilUaliom. which parallel Ihe belween indiindi episodic and generic situations, in viduals and Iypes. types. An episodi episodic silualion situation arises arises from situation in situation ari from perceiving per eiving a a sllualion in vidual viduals and and types. An An episodic frame constituting a mental representation of the qua the world. world, Ihe the situation situation constituting aa mental Ihe ilualion qua 'Iua frame consliluling menial represenlalion of Ihe the world, the perceived situation. Moreover, humans represent at the humans represent IOCalitl"' perceived ilualion. Moreover, Moreover. human represenl situations ilualion al Ihe locations perceived .situation. in their world model where the situation occurs. For instance, in the example For instance, in the in th ir world model where the iluallon occurs. For in lance. in Ihe example eumple the situation in their world theframe framc of Ih the situation picture above the sofa, of ilualion involving involving the the hanging hanging of ofaaapicture piclureabove above the Ihesofa, sofa.the the frame the hanging of of the situation for the episodic situation is linked to the frame for the conceptualizer's living for the for Ihe episodic episodic situation ilualion is i Linked linked 10 Ihe frame frJme the etln epilializer's living living to the for the room. On this account, and just as we saw with frames for individuals above, individuals with frames room. On On thi a counl. and and just ju Ias a we we saw w wilh frames ~forr individual above. this account, room. episodic situations are not wholly episodic. They alsoinclude includeaaapotentially potentially episodi ilualion are not nol wholly episodic. episodic. They also also include polenlially episodic situations large amounl amount of of generic This is is thephenomenon phenomenon of information. Thi~ This due to large generic information. mformallon. i~ due due to 10 the Ihe phenomenonofof large amount of generic transcendence, which cognitive genericknowledge knowledge can economy: generic tran endence. whi h facilitates facililate ogoilive economy: generi knowledgecan (an transcendence, which tjcilitates cognitive .ind be shared between related frames. As with frames for things—individuals and be shared hared belween frames. As As wilh with frames for things-individuals and be between relaled related frames. types, discussed above—frames for situations associated withtemporal temporal 1ypc5. u.sed above-frames iluallonsarc areassociated as ialedwith wilh lemporal discussed alx)ve—frarnesfor for situations are types, di knowledge structures such as those relating to daily routines, life periods, life those relating to daily routines, as those relatmg 10 routines. life period,. knowledge struClur such u h as knowledge structures hours of the day, and so on. hours of hour of the Ihe day, day. and so on. to cases two first example example relates to special There are There are Iwo peeial ..ascs ca of of episodic ilualion .The Thefirst firsl example relates rdale 10 of episodic episodiCsituations. situations. There are two special thathasn't hasnt situations. counterfactual counterfactual counterfactualsituation situation sitUatlI)fl counlerfaClua! ilualion .AA ilualionisisi aaasituation ilualionthat Ihal ha n' l A counlerfaClual counterfactual situations. and/or won't occur. These are often alternatives to episodic situations that episodic situations that often len alternatives ahemaliv to 10 episodic ilualions Ihal and/or won't won'l occur. occur. These These are are of have occurred or are likely to occur. The difference is the difference thatin have occur. The diffi r nce isthat thai inthe thecounterfactual counlerfJelUal have occurred occurred or or are are likely likely 10 to occur. and events TABLE 10.1. Features of images, situations, TAill 10.1 (-(a,urcs of 01 images, inug~. situations, l1uJilion. and and events nC'"I~ ioi. . Features Features of Images Features of of Images f.llures lOllS ---(i) a set of perceptual (i) a set1of of perceptual (ija J'Cr<eplual symbols symbols ymbol individuals (ii) represents represents individuals (ii) repr nlS Individuals and/or types and/or types Incllor IYJ'C> (iii) a

static spatial

(iii). palial (iii) configuration a IOtoe spatial <.:c:mfiguralion viewed from a a (iv) from (iv) viC'Wt."li viewed from. particular perspective perspective particular penl"«II\1e PolrtU.;UI.U

Features Features ofsituations situations FC'.uures of of ituation

Features Featuresof of events events

(i) (i) aa series series of images images (i). 'ri of of ,mag

(I) (i) ri of of twoor ormore morC' (i) aaaseries series oftwo more

situations situatiOns iluallon the dated (ii) depicts a relatively (ii) (ii) the ituation are oUrrelated rcl.1tcd (ii) thesituations situations are depicts •a relalively relatively (i,) (ii depicl in a coherent manner constant in aa coherent manner mdi · constant setof ofindi\.on l.Jnlset \('1 of indi viduals and/or types vidual'. and/or')'IX" jndJor vidual aa depicts some ( (IIi) (iii) the the situations lead (ill) Ihesituations Itu.uion lead leadtoto 10" signihdepict some SOIllCsignifiIgnih (iii) (iii) depicts significant cant significant outcome ignificantoutcome time cantchange changeover overtime canl dlOlnge OVCT time ininaarelatively (iv) occurs rdatRt'ly (IV) C)l.:l.un occurs In II rdau\dy (iv) 01of constant region region com'']"! constant r<Sltm of space pa<..

------~

O(.INITIVI MOI)ELS C()(,NITIVE MODlLS

-

COGNITIVE MODELS

199

199

ofofof an.11 abstraci f ,III' In Ih~ formOillon OI~lr.u.1 IIUOI"OIl Identifitation 11111<1.1. 10.2.Idmlltiullon Identificationofof(ommnn.alni commonalitiesin inthe theformation tOrtnation an abstrattsiIUatKrn situation cietaL Jflcr ~l'Qlou uL 1991) Barsalourl 1993) jttcr (AO'lIaiSaIOU ‘

-~-~--~~~--------------­

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

of 1they hqr share Imag . share ;Iia (ommon common number number of They of images. images. and/or individuals (II) Thqr share hJre common individuoll and/or types. They in) They share common individuals and/or types. types. each similar 1111 [he IThe he o)nfiguration (onfigural1on of mdivu.luollvtypo Imiln image Image of individualsitypes in configuration of individuals/types in C'.1c.:.h each similar image quahtatis dv the .1,-ro iluoltion isis qualitatively the mC'. acrosS across %ituJtiofls situations qualitatively thesame. same. images across situsimilar 1\) fonnation of individual~typn bet'" imilar images imag across aero itu· The transformations is )The Thetran transformations of individuals/types individuals/typesbetween betweenn similar situ•it ions is is qU.1lit.1u\dy qualitatively the ollion thC' me. ations is qualitatively the same. same. stale. culnunate \., Ithe he two two situations llU.1lion culminate lulminale in in aaol common common end end state. lolte. twi) vl The (IIi) (

and/types, their states, states, and Ihe the acl,ons Jctiofls Ihey they perform perform ,illlallon, tales. and perform ,ituatiOfl, the individuals the individual situation, Ihe individuals andllypo.lheir and/types, their and the actions they mental representhe 'Jry With respecllO Ih reali ilualion.which which is 10say, say. the Ihemental menialrepresenrepr nvarywith withrespect respect to to the the realis realis situation, situation, which isi to to say, likely to As with other l.tI'On of Ihe situation ,Iuallon which wh"h occllr i likely 10 occur.' ()(cur.' As As with wilh other olher tation tation of of the the situation which did did occur occur or or is is to occur.' particular location typically Irames. . are pa.rti ular location localion in Ih model. typically Iypically frames, these are I!nked linked 10 to frames, Ih these are linked to aaa particular in the the world world model, model, associatedwith withthe therealis realis situation. The IhJI assoc,aled Ihe location locallon associated assoclaled wilh Ihe reali situation. illlalion.The The that with the the location that associated associated wuh with countertactLlal Ihal ofprospective pro peeliv situations. ilualion .like I ikecounterfactual cOllnlerfaclual "".ond special ca..." ..ascisisthat thatof prospective situations. Like second .peeial special case haven'tI occurred, occurred, however, theyare are fuIh are silualions Ihal haven't haven' oc urred. however, however. they Ihey are fu\lluallon sit uatiofls these theseare arc situations situations that that situations ture-oriented, are predicted predicted to IlIre,orlenled. and hence hence are predi led to 10occur. occur. ture-oriented, and and hence includeepisodic episodic informaframes generic situations not , In ... frame Ilualion do do not nOl include includ epi'Kxlicinformainforma ' In lOnlra contrast, frames for for generic generic situations of abstracting away points of difference, ofabstracting ab lraClingaway awaypoints poinl ofofdifference, ditTerenc in • in I,on. Ralher they !hey develop develop by virtue lion. Rather they developby byvirtue virtueof tion. Rather for episodic order to 10 dl IIl1lh commonaliliesthat Ihalpersist persi Iinin indifferent diffi renlframes fram for forepisodic episodic to distill distill the commonalities that persist different frames order the commonalities above, generic situations sitUJtiOfls donot not 1ypc5. discussed di u.sed above, above. generic generi iluation do do nol "Iuallon lIke frames for for types, situations,. Like like frames situations. frames for types, that Bar 10u.1 al.(1993) (1993) propose propose that thai \,av. dlrecl counl rparts in in th world. world.Barsalou havedirect directcounterparts counterparts inthe the world. Barsalou aeta!. have al. (1993) propose episodicsitusituframes for generi ilualion are are formed when Iwo ormore moreepisodic silu, tranies for for aaa generic genericsituation situation areformed formedwhen whentwo twoor more frames presented Table 10.2.. allIIn har aaanumber number of commonalilies. Theseare ar presented presenledinininTable Tableio.2. 10.2. at ionsshare share numberof of commonalities. corn monalities.These These are ations related. Fhesccommonalties con'inionaltiesserve serveto indicatethat thattwo twoepisodic episodic situations are ,Ih<"" com~lona!lie serve 10toindicate indicale Ihallwo episodi situations ilualionsare arerelated. relaled. These episodic situationsin question are thenabstracted abstracted orderto toform formaaa I[he he episodic eplsodl situations ,iluation in question que lion are are then Ihen ab Iracled in ininorder order 10 The genericsituation sLtuationfor forthis thistype typeofof ofsituation. situation. I\cncric ,ilualion for thi' Iype ,iluallon. generic Cognitivemodels models Cogmtive Cognitive Asnoted notedabove, above,IIIuse usethe theterm termcognitive cognitivemodel modelto10 torefer referto toaaacoherent coherentbody bodyofof of A, nOled above. use Ihe lerm cosnilive model refer 10 coherent body As knowledge__consisting of a frame frame or related frames—and the potential knowiedge-co~si'ling relaledframes—and frames-and Ihe polelllial knowledge--consisting ofof a aframe oror related the potential forfor simulationsarising arisingfrom fromthis thisbody bodyofof ofknowledge. knowkdge.AAnumber numberofofdistinct distinct kinds "mulalllln, amlllg from Ihis body knowledge. di lin Ikinds kind simulations of frames can be identified, as discussed above. There are two types of frames fram can be identified, idenlified.as3 discussed di~u.sedabove. above.There are aretwo IwOtypes Iypoofof fram ofotframes frames that I have distinguished, those that represent things and those for events. :hal I have havedistinguished, dislingui hed. those Ih()sethat Ihalrepresent represenl things Ihing'and andthose Iho for for events. evenl . that I have identified two kinds of frames for things: individuals and types. [he ha"identified ,denl,fied two Iwokinds kllld ofofframes framesfor things: IhlllS individuals : individllal and types. Iype .The The I have hiswork workon onmenial mental spa. -s.Eauconnitt Fauconnicr(e.g.. te.y.1997) Ininho %p.a.c%,

the point that mental

makes the point that mental reprewntrtions a realis fC$)fe'cfltati4)nI by virtue of .&enJrs4" , .11%.ays emerge by virtue of constructing representations for .1 te.alls of CounIerf.ktu.11 .44.rn.mo of what is to reprrwntallons iaIcn are always reLiiiviud 54tfl.i1H" thatis.is,tountrtt.ettuAl scenarios an always rtiativizod kirturto. That

reality. asa.reality.

to raTersclilAiitins 411 what is taken

£ IXI(AL LEXI AtREPRESENTATION RlPRP. ENTATION LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

-'no 200 00

-

-

1

Cogn~ove Models Models Cognitive

COGNITIVE MODELS ~ 'T !! 'VF MOOFLS ____~2 ~ 0 ~ 1 (O(,\IIIVE MODELS 201 - ____ - ----- -----______________________~~OG~N 201

SU8

petrol

fuel

-

EVENTS EVENTS

THNGS THINGS

diesel

4 cyknd.r cytlflder

8nglO8

INDIVIDUALS INDIVIDUALS

TYPES TYPES

EPtSOOIC EPISODIC

SIlUAT10NS SITUATIONS

GENERIC GENERIC SITUATiONS SIlUAT10NS SITUATIONS

6 cyhnde cytIfIder

6 cytlflder

manual

transmission olcognitive 1(11. Types of T~ of cognitive model model FI6URE o.i. Types cognitive 1.FIGl'" n.cRE I10.1.

automatIC

and types typesisi; iscaptured capturedin terms of represenrdationship between relation~hip between individual and and types captured in terms term of ofrepresenrepre-.enrelationship between individuals individuals

situations, there being two typesof of events. event. fvent are of situations, ituation ,th rr being twotypes type of tations events. Events Events are are comprised comprised of tations of comprised there io.isummarizes summari/es situations. frame: epi\Odi( ;ttuations and generic genericsituations. ituations.Figure hgure10.1 10.1 ;ummari/e situ1itionsand Figure frame: episodic frame: episodic situations these th proposals. these proposals.

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

Frames consist of sets ot attributes attributes ham . «111"" dnd valu attribute concern ;ome attributesand andv.dues. values.. An An attribute attributeconcerns concernssoniC some sets of of Frames consist of;et; of of value is thespecification specification ofthat thataspect. aspect.For lor aaspect peel of given frame, while valu iisthe the pecification of of that aspect. ('or aspect of aa given given frame, frame, while aaa value example. in term terms of the vastly vast simplified framefor for (AR Figure of the vastlylvsimplified implified frame frame for l:AR depicted in Figur'. (·igure exampl depicted in CAR depicted example,, in in terms K).2, 10.2, N(JINI represent. CAR,.l ORIVI R,EVIL, J.l.'l:l,1RAN5 1 RANS represents one aspect of DRIVER, FUEL, TRANS do Okivik, CAR, as do 10.2, IENGINE representsone oneJSped aspect of of the the ('AR, MISSION, andWlIllLS. wIiii is. An attribute isi therefore aaconcept ... ION, and AnAn attribute that represent oone ne and WHEELS. attribute istherefore therefore aconcept conceptthat thatrepresents represents one MISSION, as aspect larger whole. Attribute dre represented repre... nted in in !'igur to. 10.2 oval aspect of aaa larger larger whole. whole. Attributes Attributes arc are represented in Figure Figure ovals.. as ovals. 10.2 a aspect of of subtypes Values are concepts which represent Value; ubordinate «In
ar .... nted.as 2 , (Crucially, rU
steet wheels F}u;LRE 1r,URE HU. io.z. fI',l' " 10.>'

,.,..

Frame for CAR CAR (adapted (adapted from Frame Barsalou Ffilme fnr from Barsalou B.lf\Jlou 1992a: 1992'" 3o). 301. 30).

also subtypes. For instance, PETROL IS to the the more specific al\O have subtypes. ubtypes. For instance, PETROL PfTROL i an an attribute attribut the more more specific pecifi is attribute to concepts UNLEADED PETROL LEADEDPETROL, PETROL, Of PETROL. IN IlAfli 0 PETROL (oncepts lJNlFAD[O PETROl and and liADFo LEAmD P£TROL, which whi h are are values value of ofPETROl.. values Attributes and.. values Attributes and values therefore superordinate superordinateand andsUbordinate subordinate concepts Attributl'> and alues are are supcmrdinate ;ubordinate concepts concepts arc therefore

within an attribute ithin ", thm 1in allrlbute taxonomy: taxonomy: subordinate ubordinate concepts, concept, or values,which whichare are concepts,or orvalues, values, are more specific, inherit properties from the superordinate concepts, or attriinherit prope"i from the superordinate concepts, more specific, pecific, Inherit concepts, or or attri attri-butes, which are more general. hute" whllh arc more general. In In addition, addition, attributes within aa frame In attribute within fram can can be be associated so<:iated with withtheir theirown own frame can be associated their OWfl attribute attribute frame, frame, providing an an embedded fra me, providing emh<'
202 202

LFXICAL REPRESENTATION

COGNITIVE MODELS

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

(0(,NITIVE MODELS

the idea that certain attributes

arccore, tore,ininthe the sense that they concerns the idea that certain attributes are sense that they Jcross recur .oflti'\ts.4 This frequently facilitate frame formation. frequently recur across contexts.' This can facilitate frame formation. Forlor instance,if ila particular value valuefor foran anattribute attributeisisnot notknown knownwhen whensetting setting instance, a particular upupa a new frame of the type individual, a value for a core attribute can be new frame of the type individual, a value for a core attribute can be ascribed based on the core attribute set retrieved from memory. ['or instance, imagine based on the core attribute set retrieved from memory. For instance, imagine your friend is proudly showing off his new bright red sports yOU.AAcore core your friend is proudly showing off his new bright red sports car totoyou. attribute of the I frame SPORI S (:Ak is i I!I 1. with the value P1 I Rot..Hence, the value PETROL. I lence, attribute of the type frame SPORTS CAR iS FUEL with eventhough thoughthere theremay maybebenonodirect directevidence evidence thatthe the cartakes takes fuel, even that car fuel, forfor instance,because becauseyou youhaven't haven'tnoticed noticedaapetrol petrolcap, cap,or or seen seenevidence evidenceofofa a instance, fuel tank, this is something that will be added to the frame for this individual. 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. and the value PETROL will be added as a consequence. Structural invariants Structural invariants According to Barsalou, "I .\ Ittributes in a frame arc not independent slots hut .According to Barsalou, "( Ai ttributes in a frame are not independent slots but are often related correlationally and conceptually (l41irsalou I992a 35). In often related correlationally and conceptually" (Barsalou i992a: 35). In are other words, attributes within a frame are related to one another in consistent 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, ways across exemplars: instances of a given frame in the world. For example, in most exemplars of the frame (;AK it is the driver who controls the speed of in most exemplars of the frame CAR it is the driver who controls the speed of the ENCINI. This relation holds across most instances of tars, irrespective 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 the values involved, and is therefore represented in the frame as a structural invariant: a more or less invariant relation between attributes DRIVER and invariant: a more or less invariant relation between attributes DRIVER and i N(.INE. In Figure o.i structural invariants are indicated by bold arrows. ENGINE. In Figure 10.2 structural invariants are indicated by bold arrows. Ilence, a structural invariant constitutes what (1992a) terms terms"a"a Hence, a structural invariant constitutes what Barsalou (1992a) normative truth" holding between attributes within aa frame. normative truth" holding between attributes within frame.

value. value.For lor instance, iflstathe, consider considerthe theexample exampleofofa a TRANSPORTATION TRA\SPORTATIONframe frameininjourneyinvolving involvinga apassenger volving aajourney for instance, being transpassengerinina taxi, a taxi, for instance, being transportedfrom fromone ported totoanother. In In this frame there is is a negative attribute onelocation location another. this frame there a negative attribute constraint which attributes whichholds holdsbetween betweenthe and DURATION. That is, the attributesSPEED SPEED and OURATION. That is, as the thevalue valuefor forthe theattribute becomes attribute SPEED SPEEDincreases increases(and (andtransportation transportation becomes faster), value forfor thethe attribute DURATION decreases. laster),sosothe the value attribute DURA i decreases. local localconstraints Constraints Fheseconstrain constrain sets These is, the setsof ofvalues valueslocally, locally, rather ratherthan than globally. globally. That That is, the presence value, while the presenceofofaagiven givenvalue valueentails entails the thepresence presenceofofa arelated related value, while the ,ibsenceofofone oneentails entailsthe theabsence absence ofofanother. absence another.For Forinstance, instalke,consider considera aframe frame VACATION. If for for VACATION, If the the attribute then this attribute ACTIVITY A( I IVITY has hasthe thevalue value SKIING, SKIING, then this requires requiresthat thatthe theattribute attribute HOLIDAY HOLII)AYDESTINATION 1)151 INATI0Nhas kis the the value value SKI RESORT. RESORT. Similarly, 'similarly, ifif the theattribute attribute ACTIVITY then the destinAcTIVITy has has the the value value SURFING, SURFIN(;, then the destination must have have the OCEAN BEACH. ition attribute attribute must thevalue value OCEAN BEACH.

Contextual factors (;ontextual Contextualfactors factors relate relateto to aspects to influence aspectsof of context context which which serve serve to attributevalues, values. For For instance, the activity attribute SKIING requires a SKI RESORT, instance, the activity of of SKIING requires a SKI RESORT, while increasing SPEED of travel reduces reduces the DURATION of the journey. As of travel the i)tRArION of the journey. As aspects of situations situations are aspects of context arerelated relatedrather rather than than being being independent, independent, context u)nstitutes constitutes aa factor which can can influence influence both both global global and and local local constraints. constraints.

( ;cal factors factors (;oal

Constraints and factors Constraints and factors

like structural invariants, constraints and factors are relations that hold Like structural invariants, constraints and factors are relations that hold between attributes, specifically, between attribute values. However, between attributes, or or more more specifically, between attribute values. I lowever, rather than capturing normative relations, constraints and factors give rise to rather than capturing normative relations, constraints and factors give rise to variability in the values associated with attributes. 1 his as values values in in a a variability in the values associated with attributes. This follows as given frame arc interdependent on the values associated with other attributes. 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. There are two kinds of constraints, which I briefly review below, and two factors. Ike constraints are global constraints and local constraints. The two factors are The constraints are global constraints and local constraints. The two factors are contextual factors and goal factors. I deal with each of these below.

contextual factors and goal factors. I deal with each of these below.

Global constraints

Global constraints

(aohal constraints serve to Ibis means Global constraints serve to constrainattribute attributevalues values globally. globally. This means that that a modification in OflC value entails a Proportional modihcation in a related

a modification in one value entails a proportional modification in a related as wril known,

203

in rzpcrwntc givr risc to

strrtigth in

11 • to .1%%4 k 'Alive strength in nternory: in experirnse give thus As is well givt-sknown, risc to Li .i ► rrelAtions sci of attributes. wtnch ezliibit attributes. which thus exhibit sssterriaticity.Set' See rdcrcnccs reterri, set of to COM Mt a iksurrrnse Barialou et algives I 'r initance. fir instant_ 11993) et Kirsalou

in

In Inaddition addition to to context, context, an an agent's agent's goal(s) goal(s) also that influences also provides provides aa factor factor that influences the the interaction interaction between values associated with related attributes. For instance,

associated with related attributes. For instance, frame,the theagent's agent'sgoal, goal, to to get get fit, to ensure WORK()t'T frame, fit, serves serves to ensure that thatthe the attribute attribute1 FXERTION forms forms part part of of the the frame. frame.

inaaPHYS1(:AI in PHYSICAL WORKOUT

Chaining Chainingwithin withinthe theconceptual conceptualsystem system In Inthis thissection section1I briefly briefly considerthe the phenomenon of of chaining chaining (Barsalou (Barsalou et al. et iiI. 1993; also 1 993; see sec alsoLikoff lakoff1987). 19$7).The The conceptual systemisis not not aa haphazard haphazard colkccolleconceptual system tK)n tionolofcognitive cognitive models. models. Rather, Rather,cognitive cognitivemodels models exhibit exhibit a range of often a range of often tumpkx complexinterconnecti()n, interconnections.As As suh, such,cognitive cognitivemodels models are linked in a web of are linked in a web of interconnections,ofofdiverse diversesorts: sorts:hence, hence, chaining. The consequence of this, h.iining. The this, ininterms termsof oflinguistic linguisticinteraction, interaction, is is that that access access sites established byoflexical sites established 1w lexical concepts conceptsprovide provideaadeep deepsemantic semantic potential for linguistically for purposes ofoflinguistically mediatedcommunication. communication. Illediated Chaining Chainingisisaaconsequene consequenceof of aa number number of of different differenttypes types of of interconnecinterconnec. tionsand andrelationships relationshipsholding holdingbetween betweenframes, frames. One such such interconnection tions interconnection

204 204

LEXI At REPRESENTATION REPRESENTATIO. IEXI( AL REPRISFNTATION LEXICAL

attributeframes, frames, distussed above. ari..e; du to the phenomenon phenomenonofofattribute attnbute framc>,discussed di 'U' dabove. above .. 1hat hat i to the the phenomenon arises That .iriscs due di embedded within within larger frames. lake fram are embedded embedded withonlarger largerframes. fram .Take Takethe theframe frame(:A14, CAR, disc d ,,,,u, i!d CAR, frames the frame frames are The kno type is attribute associated with this above. A salient attribu\< a sodated with thl' t)'P<' i u'IGINE. fNGINE. The The knowled knowled ENGINE. a bove. A salient attribute associated with this type is t1ICC namely of engln possessed posse sed by by on groupofofconceptualizers, conceptualiler,namely namely.car mec hanl, 1wone onegroup of car mechanics, of engines engines attir~ but subordinateattributes includesmany manysubordinate is highly complex, and this thi attribute attribu! includes includes subordl,nate att highly complex, complex and and this attribute is is highly themselves att butes arcthemselves values,,whICh whicharc ealh with correspondingvalues, valu are themselv subordinate ,subordinate ubordonateattributes attn each which eachwith withcorresponding way, framesubsumes subsumes multipleframes with further furthervalues, valu ,and \0 on. on. In thisway, way, aaaframe frame ub ume,multiple multiple Irame further and so so on.In inthis with values, and thelarger largerunits unitsof ofwhich whkhthey whi are embedded, embedded, capturing capturingaspects aspects of ofthe larger unit of which theyare are whichh are capturing which arc aspects subparts. ubpart . , subparts. from the the phenomenon arises from Another way in which which chaining chaining occurs o,curs arises anse'> the phenomenon phenomenon III Another way way in which occurs Another chaining models ffllr of cognitive transcenden e. Thi relat situated natur of cognlllve models mooels transcendenc. This to transcendence. This relates relatesto to the the situated situated nature nature of cognitive of this kind individuals and and types. Recall Recall that cognitive models models of ofthis thi kind kindare are things: individuals individual things: and types. types. Recall that cognitive cognitive models things models "llxated" , ituation . In In other other words, words, cognitive cogmllve models model, for forthings thlllS'arc arc "located" in "located" in situations. situations. In other words, cognitive encoun whichthey they are located in the world mooel at at the thepoints point atat atwhich theyare areencountered. ncountered. located in in the theworld world model model at the points located episodicand andgeneric genericsituations situations indudc lienee, cognitive mod I for for episodic episodic and senerk iluationsinclude include.'epre I lena', cognitive cognitive models models Hence, repr types. The greater the number of situations scntalillns for ondividual and types. The greater the number of Ituallo", III sentationsfor for individuals individuals and types. The greater the number of situations to serrations their transcendence transcendence which individual and andtypes typesare arclinked, linked,the th greater great rtheir their transcendenceisis i held held individuals are linked, the greater which individuals and types c is aaafunction functionof how to be. be. Hence, Ilence, transcendence Iran 'endence is i, function ofhow howinterconnected interconnectedcognitive cogniti,e he. Hence, transcendent' to the evenV models for for things things arc with for models lor thins' are tho for for situations, situalion , and and hence hence the events even" with with models with those those situations, and hence which they are are connected. which they they are connected. coinponential nature nature due to the the componential componential na ture of 01 Another molivallon forchaining chainingarises ari due motivation Another motivationfor for chaining arises due to to the arecomprised comprisedof ofsets models the onthat thatexist eXl\! Another way way in in which which chaining arises epkodic betwl..,n •• due due tIl, bnlJdly. the the distinction distinctionbetween betweenepisodic l1'i,,\dil between cognitive model models, dueto, to,broadly, broadly. the distinction between (ognitive cognitive models, between for \'CI"'\U\ lance, in teml ot (ognilhe models l1loJcI~ for tur versus genericcognitive cognitivemodel\. tnxlels.11.lr lor in versusgcneric generic cognitive models. For instance, in terms terms of of cognitive cognitive be thing>, types. While While individuals may be be things. we havethe thedistinctIon distinction individuals individuals and types. While individuals individuals may we have have the distinction individuals and types. may things, we the related 'haining mentillned in the the related to each other ba;cd basedon on Ihe the dinlen"on dimensionsof of chaining chaining mentioned mentioned in other on the dimensions each other related to to each it preceding paragraphs, tYpei isisrelatl'll relatedtoto to.111 allIhe theindIVIdual individuals fmm from which precl-dong It is"i" preceding paragraph,. paragraphs,aa atype type related all the individuals from which it situations that itIIit ion is related to to all all the r.formed. rmed. Similarly, Similarly, ituation iis relaled itualionsthat that formed. Similarly,aaageneric generic situation related the episodic episodic situations generic abstracted acro,s It) to provide provide aa generic ,,-,emble;, it has ha abstracted ab .. lracted aero" provid itu.ltinn, generic situation. situation. resembles, andfmm from which which it resembles, and and from which across to

COGNITIVE COGNITIVE SIOflELS COGNITIVPMODELS MOOl LS

205 205 20S

tth~ the inlera$Ji(ln between subset oflexical he interaction lexical interaction between bet"cen aaasubset Ub~l,ofof le"l.1concepts,
primary way in which which the the linguistic and I he he primary primary way in whICh th linguistic linguistic and conceptual conceptualsystems y tem interact interact isby by systems interact isis by rtue of access sitesintroduced informally virtue Of access sites—introduced informally earlier in the hook. An access ,orlue of a c , It ontrodu(ed onformally earlier earlier in in the the book. book. An An access ace ssite, as I use the term, is a theoretical ite, 11<. as J' II use the the term, term, isis a~ theoretical theoretical construct con\lnllitut set access site u)nstitutes theset set of association areas for of association areas for a given lexical concept. For example, and as we shall given "I a 'Iatlon are~ for aa giv n lexical I icaJ concept. con cpt. For For example, example, and and as a we w shall hall below, the lexical see lon 'tlVe hue hu throughout throughoutthe the its own distinctive distinctive hue throughout the onceptual system. system. All the conceptual the areas collectively form "lIllC~tUaJ. y t m. All All the association aassociation soclatlon areas areas collectively collectively form the the access acc site ite the access site for this lexkal for this lexical concept. concept. Yet gives rise rise to considerable considerable complexity, lor thl leXICal con ept. Yet Vet this thi gives ri to complexity.providprovid . complexity, providing atoess, ing access, as we shall see, see,to toaaalarge largesemantic semanticpotential. IIlg ace .... as as we shall shall large potential. The purpose of an an access site tofacilitate facilitate integration The of site J he purpose purpo of a? access a ite isiisto to integration of oflinguistic lingui ti and and integration of linguistic and rntent in order to provide conceptual content an integrated simulation. An intelIlnccpwal co~ten~ ,n order to proVIde an integrated simulation. im ulatio n. An inteintean integrated grated simulation is grated simulation is what I have referred to earlier grJ ted slmulallon I what II have hav referred referred to earlier in th book book as a aaa o.oncepcon ep' in the the concepas tion. Hence, the evolutionary tion. Hence, lIon. Hen e. the evolutionary evolutIonary motivation, motivation. on on this this account, account, for for the th linguistic lingui ti on this ,Icount, for the linguistic and conceptual to interact interactt iis in and conceptual conceptual svste.'ms systems to order to to make make use u ofof (onceptual and tem to intera in order order use ofconceptual conceptual inhering in the conceptual structure inhering in the system in ,truclure inh ring in the conceptual system sy.tem service linguistICally medimedi . in service of linguistically service of medilinguistically ated communication. ated communi communication. mechanism whereby i'he mechanism aled ation. The meehani, m whereby whereby composite compo ite semantic semantic structru. composite semantic strucIlIre;~ hi'linguistic " . from tures from the system to as interact with with conceptual conceptual y,tem interact onteract WIth ,"nceptual structure trucd in in the Ih by specific specificlexical kxial concepts conupts being the of perceived things and context things and situations. Rased on such patterns of use, con~e~1 01 perceIVed Ihing and situations. ituation,. Based Based on such .uch pallern ofuse, usc patterns of ,tatlstl al frequen I' a e t ted h' h ' . frequencies statistical frequencies are extracted which serve to are which toassociate associate concepts , re extracted x ra w IC serve serve to a SOClate lexical leXICal concept • lexical concepts ith the of the with theregions regions with Ih region of Ihe conceptual conceptual system y,tem where where the relevant things Ihing, and .lIld system wherethe therelevant relevant things and situations are are represented, giving rise represented,giving giving ri\C rise to to association association areas. ~~tuJtlon'i J~e. r~pr~\Cnled. 10 3\Mk:iation areas. JrCJ~. Access Ace. sites iles are arc sites are thus probabilistic, thus probabilistic, in the in the that the greater frequency with which which I.: probablh tIC. I.n the sense n that the greater gr~ter the the frequency frequ ney with whi h aaa e\I'cricn(es honing lexical language experiencesaaasank sanctioning lexical (nn concept and aa thing/situation 'Cpl .1Od ilUallon guage, user uuser r ex/>enenc san
conceptual systems systems Inte raction between the linguistic linguistic and and conceptual systems Interaction between the way in in whi,h which the and IIInow IUrn 10 (on\iderJtion uf Iingui\lu; and .lnd concep«m~cp turnto toaaaconsideration consideration of of the the W.ly way which the linguistic noW now turn the perspati%C of LCCM Theory, this concerns tual ystem interact. per pective of of LCCM Theory, Theory. this thi. concern> tualsystems systems interact. !rom From the perspective

Sec ftarsalou a1 aL al. (forthcoming) for discussion of (forthcoming) for rclated proposal. Sce also Horoditsks oiaa rdatcd

Prin, Prinz (torthcomingi. (forthcoming).

5cr also Romditsky and

1

416

-

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

IE I L RfPRESENTATION LIXICAL

206 Semantic potential Semantic potential of the chaining exhibited by theconceptual Semantic consequence conceptualsystem system"is that One exhibited by the One consequence of th chaining conceptual system i that chaining lexical concepts, of bythe being associated with access sites, facilitate access t o a

O(.NITIVL ttx,NIIIVI

MODElS 10DELS COGNITIVE MODELS

207 207

Ofof semantic unity The ,lIusion of semant,c rhe illusiOn The illusion semanticunity unity InInChapler 7 I d,scussed the encap ulation: aa property of of lexical lexical (;hapter discussed the notion of encapsulation: Chapter 71 1 discussed the notion of encapsulation: a property of lexical models—the semantic semantic concept . From the perspective of ofth body of of cognitive cognilive models--the the body epis. concepts. From the perspective of the body of cognitive models—the semantic potentially r"tenllalt." I. lexical xicalconeept potentially affords afford access, aces;. the Ihe encapsuen '1' u potcfltlJl—t0 concept potential—towhich whichaalexi.aI concept potentially affords access, the encapsuthe illusion of semantic lall f~nct,on of a lexical lex',:,1 concept provides provid th iIlu ion of ;emanti unity.· of on function lation lation function of a lexical concept provides the illusion of semantic unity.car 6 vehicle Aki associated with the vehide I'or IOst.n e. the lexical leXICal concept concept (ICARI a sociated wilh car instance, For instance, the lexical concept [CAR] associated with the vehicle car provides access acee to a wide arias array of different types types. including in luding cognitiv models model provides provides access to a wide array of different types, including cognitive models and model (e.g., Land Rover E)efender), (or makes (e.g .• Land Rover). models (e.g .• Rover Defender). and mod I (e.g., Rover), (e.g., Land Rover), for makes models (e.g., Land Rover Defender), and model on), as well as individuals types (e.g .• standard standard versus versu deluxe versions, versi n • and so on). as well a individual types types(e.g., (e.g., standard versus deluxe versions, and so on), as well as individuals James (e.g .• "my car". "my neighbour's ne'ghbour', ar'·. "the l)Bs DBS Aston A ton \1.irtin" Martin" used used by by'ame "my (e.g., "my car", "my neighbour's car", "the 1)B5 Aston Martin" used the by James the range of situations relevant Ilon~ ~e film film Goldjillger). relevant to the types types Bond inin..the BondIn the film(;tildfinger), Goldfinger),and and the range of situations relevant to the types and Ind,vldual represented. represenled. That is, is. the lexical lexical concept (:AR1 Ic..a\ serves as a an an and andindividuals individuals represented. That is, the lexical concept [c:AR] serves as an models associated with cars. .Ittes; ite toall all the spetiah1ed cognilive model associated with car . accesssite siteto allthe thespecializcd specializedcognitive cognitive models associated with cars. encapsulation1 concept II refer to thi phenomenon as as encap ulation. as a lexical lexical con ept serves serves to Irefer referto tothis thisphenomenon phenomenon as encapsulation, as a lexical concept serves to rel.te a div.erse range of of cognitive models, model. establishing tabh hing a degree degree of of unity unity across aero relate relate adiverse diverse range of cognitive models, establishing a degree of unity across linguistically mediated Ihe cognlllve models mod I. on question. qu tion. It is i by virtue virtue of hnguisti ally med,ated the thecognitive cognitive models ifl in question. It is by virtue of linguistically mediated similarity than to exhibit greater similanty encapsulation that cognitive model appear than models encapsUlatiOn that encapsulation that cognitive models appear to exhibit greater similarity than refer to as semantic unity. Ihey othenyi . This is a the illusion ,/Il1sioll of of semanti unity. is what what II refer they would would otherwise. otherwise. This to as the

sites, facilitate access associated with access Ione xic.I concept~. by being ace it. fadhtate a c pi ,to largesmnticpo.Ide,nfthmairso eptan being a~iated onceptsi by for the kxicalsemantic potential. Indeed. on of of the main large th~ main reasons rea~n for the p.rot •• n n potential. Indeed, nature of word meanings, the starting pointfor forthe thepresent present enquiry enquiry (i large semantiC starting point nature of word meanin~. the start 109 pomt for the present enqUiry (10 meanings. the of word Chapter1),isduolgbyfcneptualkowdg,h"tenial nature knowledge, the conceptual Chapter I). iis due to the large body of con eptual knowledge. the "potential" the large body due to access to. Chapter i), facilitate which they facilitate which they facihtate acee . chapter1 To they illustrate, let'saccess brieflyto. consider an example from an an earlier earlier chapter, the which example from an To illustrate. let', brieny con ider an example earher chapter. consider an briefly To(10 do so. so, reconsider reconsiderthe the lexical concept Ikt's RFD) associated with the vehicle red.To lo with lex teal concept I REO I aassociated sa<:iated with the vehide mi. To do .0. recon idcr the .oflCept lexical following utterances: utterances: following Ullerances: It ) a. The teacher scrawled in red ink all over the pupil's homework exercise homework ink all (WCI the the pupil's a. The teacher scrawled in red ink allover pupil' homework exeRi", red scrawkd in The teacher red squirrel is in danger of becoming extinct BritishIsles lsks a.b. The extinct in in the the British

b. The red squirrel i in danger of becoming extinct in the Brill h hlc b. The red squirrel is in danger The lexical concept [RFD' facilitates access to a bewildering bewildering number distinct number of The lexical conceptlRf 01 fa ihtat.,; a,,<» to a bewlldenng number of di'tl\ltt facilitates nmdels in in perceptual vast number number of of cognitive models The lexical symbols which contribute to a vast perceptual ymbols which contribute va t number of cognitive cognitive model 10 which contribute to a perceptual symbols the conceptual system of any language user of of English. To To get get aa sense of the language user of English. the con eptual system tem of any language Engh h. To get a sen of the of any semantic potential involved, consider all the individuals and types that that aa the conceptual individuals and consider all all the individual and types ~mantic potential involved, involved. con;ider type' that • potential single person will represent in their world model that feature the perceptual sciThIfltit perceptual world model that feature single person will represent in their thetr world feature the the perceptual will represent single state I person gloss as red. gloss red. red ~tate I glo aas wi. Limiting ourselves to types we might list Royal Mail post boxes, red state I might list Limillng our Ive to type> we we might list Royal Royal Mail loil post po t boxes, box~. red ourselves to types Limitingfoxes, roses, blood, lipstick, Santa Claus's clothes, throat. squirrels, throat, clothes,aaarobin's robin's Santa squirrel •• foxe • ro • blood. hp ti k. lau' dothes. robm's thn ... t. blood, lipstick. squirrels. foxes, red strawberries, theroses, red stop sign, tomatoes, red traffic lights, the theRed RedCross, Cross.red red traffic lights1 trawberri~. the red stop stop,sign, ign. tomatoes. red traffic light. the Red ro • red tomatoes, strawberries, the red ink, the flag of St George, celebrity carpets, Babybel wax, chilli chillipeppers, peppers1 liabybel cheese cheese wax, ink. the nag of St George. celebrity .rpets. B.bybel ch~ wax. chilli pePI'''''' George, ink, engines, the flag of StChinese flag, red wine, fire, henna, fire the and so on. Notice Noticethat thatthe the henna, and so on. fire engines. the th Chinese 'hin flag, nag. red wine, wine. tire, fire. henna. and so on. otice th.tthe vary from person, person1 fire engines, hue associated with these types may represented from person personto to may vary repr~nted hue associated with may vary from per.on to.per,?n. these types represented hue experience, and so on. Nevertheless, imagine based on cultural we can imagine Nevertheless, we ba;OO on cultural experience. antI ' > (1 everth Ie>.'. we can Imagm" experience. and so on. to evoke the based onincultural thecolour colour contexts which we would apply the vehicle red in order order to evoke context in whi h we we would apply the vehide wi in ord r to evoke the colour which would contexts inwith these types. associated associated withwe thee types. a""",iated with th~ types. In addition, have further situations, both episodic and generic, generic,that that episodic and situations. both In addition. we have further ituations. epi.o<\ic and generic. that have further in addition, we that involve the individuals and types which include a perceptual symbol that perceptual symbol which include a perceptual ymbol that inv Ive the individuals and types whi h in Iud individuals and types the symbols is unique to the is unique to red. However, each of these perceptual Iinvolve asthe perceptual symbols IIgloss glos~ as mi. However. each th perceptual symbol i unique to the each of these red. however, gloss as and/or After individual type and hence the situation ofof which it it forms part. After which forms part. situation individual and/or type and , ituation which it f~rn1\ p.rt. Aftc.r hence the individual andlor type all, it is the generic situation in which a teacher scrawls red ink on a apupil's red ink on teacher scrawls all. i the th generic generic situation in which whi h a teach r scrawls red mk on a evoked pupIl, all, itit is exercise book, evoking a different perceptual symbol than the one evoked than the one perceptual symbol exercise book. different ymbol than the one evoked evoking aa different exercise book, evoking lexical when we simulate a red squirrel scurrying up a tree. Nevertheless, thethe lexical scurrying up a tree. Neverthelc55 when we ,imulate a red squirrel \Curryll1g everthel<». the lexteal red squirrel when we simulate a access to,to,both. both.Put Put [RED] is associated with, and hence facilitates concept tacilitates accesS concept IREO\ iis associated a iated with. hence facilitates a"C;; to. both. Put with, and hence conceptway, (kiul from another the semantic potential for the lexical concept [RED) from (kEncomes comes the lexical concept another way. the mantic potential the lexical con eptlREo\ comes from semantic for . another way, the of perceptual symbols that are encoded the diverse range byby these cognitivt cognitive encoded these symbols that are the dIve"" range of perceptual, ymhoh Ihat Jr" encoded by these cognlllY< [RED] facilitates the diverse range of perceptual facilitatemodels,anythr.Moev,ispclybaue tsdy because 1111.1)1 it is model. and many other . Moreo"r. II i, preci~ly beeau (awl facililal~ others. Moreover, red exhibits such variation models, andamany variatioflinin access diverse potential that the vehicle vchIClCred redexhibit exhibits such ace totosuch uch a diver polenliallhal Ihe vehide uch varialion 10 potential that the sw..h abediverse very different simulations access to simulationswe WC used, as exhibited by the can the way it the very ditkrent Ihe way II can be u ....-d. as a exhlblled hy Ihe very different ,imulallon we exhibited by used, the way can be in the examples in (1). achieve forit"red" in (I). (i). achieve Ihe examples example, in achieve for for "red" in the

-

illusion of semantic unity.

r.

models Primary versus secondary cognitive models models versus Primary versus secondary cognitive The rang of of cognitive agnitive model th semantic semantl potential—to potential-to which whi h aa lexical Ie i al modds—thc range The range The of cognitive models—the semantic potential—to which a lexical model protile—a term con ept facilitates facilitat a c II refer to as its it cognitive model profil~ term II first fir t concept concept facilitates access access I refer to as its cognitive model profile—a term I first earlier in this introduced in in Chapter hapter 4 As we saw earher thi chapter. chapter. in in discussing di u ing the the introduced in Chapter introduced 4. As we saw earlier in this chapter, in discussing the model profile profik nature haining within the the conceptual con eptual system. y.tem. the th cognitive cognitive model nature of of chaining nature of chaining within the conceptual system, the cognitive modelisprofile knowledge: conc conceptual I not an unstructured unstr~ tur~ inventory inventory of knowledge: ptual structure tructur i highly highly is not an unstructured inventory of knowledge: conceptual structure cognitive is highly ot a lexical concept's ,tructured. dlStlngu, h between between two two aspects a pect of lexical concept' cognitive structured. II distinguish structured. I distinguish between two aspects of a lexical concept's cognitive model profile, model profile: the th primary primary cognitive cognitive profile. and the the secondary secondary cogcog' modd profile: profile: model the primary cognitive model profile, and the secondary cogintroduced Chapter nltlve modelprofile—terms profile-t rrn also introdu dinin inChapter Chapter 4 nitivemodel profile—terms alsointroduced nitive 4. ,The primary cognitive model profile consists of of all those tho cognitive cognitive models models The wgnitivc The primary cognitive model profile consists of all those cognitive models with which le,ical con eptisi directly directly associated: a socialed: the the association associationare1ts areas which which whichaaalexical kxkalconcept tolkept with which is directly associated: the association areas which prohle primary cognitive make. up its its access a c~ site. ite. 1-lence, Hen .e~ the primary ognitive model model profile may may makeup make its access site. Hence, the primary cognitive model profile may be made site con t,tute many discrete d,screte cognitive cogOltlve models—as model an access ace ite may be made constitute constitute many discrete cognitive models—as an access site may be made across various lip of of many many di tlllct association a ',allon areas—dispersed area ispersed aero variou regions region up up of many distinct association areas—dispersed across various regions modds which w,thlll the the conceptual cO.n. eptual system.7 ystem! The cognitive cognitive model which make mak up up the the within within the conceptual system.' The cognitive models which make up theas models, refer to as primary cognitive cogOltlve model profile profile I refer a primary cognitive models. as primarycognitive cognitive primary model profile IIrefer to as primary cognitive models, as WC JIM) SJW inChapter Chapter 4.-s. we al~ winIIIChapter 4 we also saw cognitive model profile In contrast. the th secondary secondary cognitive profile consi t. of of all all those Iho incontrast, contrast, In the secondary cognitive model profile consists models—with of all those refer to as secondary cognitive ".'odel what II refer • ondary cogOltive models--with cognitivemodels—what models-—what cognitive I refer to as secondary cognitive models—with models associated. Hence, whICh lexlC.1 cone pt is i< not 3S'>(luated. Ilence. secondary cognitive (agnitive model whicha alexical lexical concept which concept is not associated. Hence, secondary cognitive models model.I. Put another do not not ompri part of of the the access alle site ite of a cognitive mod anotherway, way. dodo not comprise part of the access site of a cognitive model. Put another way, • Soft ill'
1"1. lur diii dlkU ,un.

£k4) lUr,.ikuet at (lorthscorning) tor discussion. • See also listrsalou in of an ,7 As w nrhn In 1M lhe rM.l,un (It.1n"'''' As w(' we saw earlier on tlw dl u .n uf the

J

iignstive mOI.k1 sui,dds With with which site, the U'tt01tl"'C' 111~.lhc whll.h of an access sale. the cognitive models with whit h ' As we saw e.uher in ihe .11,4ussion of the notion prababalistkalk "a k~~ u..1Kt'f'1 is II asat,iiiated .... Wln),uC' arc t ..NI!~hcJ rnoh.ah,h~ .... ~Uy. kiucal ..onccpt

lexical I;oncept is associated Arc estaNished

206

(;o(;NIIIVICOGNITIVEMO1)ELS MODELS

LI xIi:AL REPRISE NTATION LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

207

Semantic potential Semantic

The illusion illusion of semantic unity unity The

by the the conceptual conceptual system system is is that chaining exhibited exhibited by consequence of One consequence of the chaining One facilitate access lexical concepts, by being being associated associated with withaccess access sites, facilitate access 10 to a lexical one of of the the main main reasons reasonsfor for the theprotean large semantic semantic potential. potential. Indeed, one word meanings. thestarting starting point point for for the enquiry (in nature of word meanings, the the present present enquiry conceptualknowledge, knowledgethe the"potential" "potent Chapter i), 1),is is due due to the (:hapter the large largebody both of of conceptual access to. to. which they facilitate access consider an an example examplefrom froman anearlier earlierchapter, cnapter,t To To illustrate, illustrate, let's lets briefly brieti consider reconsider t he red. To To do so, so, reconsider lexical concept colkepi (RI nJ associated [RED' associated with with the the vehicle vehicle red. following following utterances:

thenotion notionof ofencapsulation: encapsulation:aaproperty propertyof oflexical lexical In Chapter discussed the chapter 77 I discussed ,oriccpts. From concepts. Fromthe the perspective perspective of of the the body body of of cognitive cognitive models—the models—the semantic p4)tential—to which a lexical concept concept potentially potentially affords theencapsupotential—to which affords access, access, the ofaalexical l.ition provides the the illusion illusion of of semantic semanticunity!. unity.' lation function function of lexical concept concept provides ICARI associated lOr instance, concept ((:ARJ with the the vehicle vehicle car For instance, the lexical concept associated with air provides access accesstotoaawide widearray arrayof ofdifferent different types, types, including including cognitive models models fir Land Rover Defender), Defender), and and model model makes(e.g., (e.g., Land Land Rover), Rover), models models (e.g., (e.g., Land formakes types (e.g., standard standard versus versus deluxe deluxeversions, versions,and andso soon), on),asaswell wellasasindividuals individuals types (e.g., "my car", "my AstonMartin" \l.irtin" used (e.g., "my "my neighbour's neighbour's car", "the "the1)145 I)B5 Aston used by by James lames Bond in range of of situations situations relevant relevant to the the types types Goldfinger), and the range in the film filmGoldfin'5't'r), and individuals represented. represented. That That is, is, the the lexical kxic.il concept serves as as an an concept (CARl IcArti serves and with cars. cars. specialised cognitive cognitive models models associated associated with access site to all the specialiied II refer servesto to referto tothis thisphenomenon phenomenonas as encapsulation, encapsulation, as as a lexical concept serves rdate of unity unity across relateaa diverse diverse range range of of cognitive cognitive models, models, establishing establishing aa degree of across byvirtue virtueofoflinguistically linguistically mediated mediated models in in question. question. It It isisby the cognitive models encapsulation that cognitive models models appear appearto toexhibit exhibit greater greater similarity similarity than encapsulation that they would otherwise. This is what I refer refer to to as as the illusion illusion of ofsemantic semantic Unity. unity.

homeworkexercise teacher scrawled red ink overthe thepupil's pupik homework exercise The teacher scrawled in in red ink allallover The (i)) a. a.

h. b. The red squirrel squirrel kis in in danger danger o1hecoming of becoming extinct extinct in in the the British British Isles Isles to aabewildering bewilderingnumber numberof ofdistinct distinct facilitatesaccess access to R E iI DI facilit,itt's The lexical concept (RI symbols which which contribute contnbute to a vast vast number number of of cognitive cognitive models modelsin in perceptual symbols of any language user user of of English. To ofthe the the conceptual system of To get a sense sense of individuals and and types types that that aa semantic potential potential involved, consider all semantic all the the individuals single personwill will represent representinintheir theirworld world model mixiel that that feature feature the theperceptual perceptual single person red. state II gloss gloss as red. postboxes, boxes,red red limiting Limiting ourselves ourselves to to types typeswe wemight might list list Royal Royal Mail post squirrels, foxes, roses, roses,blood, blood,lipstick, lipstick, Santa SantaClaus's Claus'sclothes, clothes,aarobin's robin'sthroat, throat, squirrels, sign, tomatoes, tomatoes,red redtraffic traffic lights, the Red Cross, Cross, red red strawberries, the red stop sign, ink, celebrity carpets, wax,chilli chilli peppers, peppers, ink, the the flag flag of of St St George, George, celebrity carpets, Rahybd Babybel cheese cheese wax, fire the Chinese Chineseflag, flag,red redwine, wine,fire, tire, henna, henna,and andso soon. on.Notice Notie that that the tire engines, engines, the from person person to to person, person, associated with with these types may may vary from represented hue associated these types based on cultural cultural experience, canimagine imagine experience,and andso so on. on. Nevertheless, Nevertheless, Wt" we can contexts in in which which we we would would apply apply the the vehicle vehiclered red in in order order to to evoke evokethe thecolour colour contexts associated with these associated with these types. In that situations,both bothepisodic episodic and and generic, that In addition, addition, we we have further further situations, individuals and types types which which include include aaperceptual perceptualsynibol symbolthat that involve the individuals as red. However, However, each each of of these theseperceptual perceptual symbols symbols is is unique unique to the II gloss gloss as individual and/or hencethe thesituation situationofofwhich whichititforms formspart. part.After After individual and/or type and hence scrawlsred redink inkon onaapupil's pupil's genericsituation situationin in which whichaateacher scrawls all, it is the generic exercisebook, book,evoking evokingaadifferent different perceptual symbol than the one evoked exercise one evoked we simulate simulate aa red red squirrel squirrel scurrying scurrying up thelexical lexical when we up aa tree. tree. Nevertheless, Nevertheless, the with, and to,both. both.Put Put concept [ RED]i5isassociated associated with, and hence hence facilitates access access to, concept[ (REDJ cømesfrom from way. the the semantic semanticpotential potentialfor forthe thelexical concept another way, RED] comes the diverse range of perceptual symbols that are by these thesecognitive cognitive arc encoded encoded by pretiselvbecause becauseIREo1 (RI uJfacilitates facilitates models, models,and andmany manyothers. others.Moreover, Moreover,ititisisprecisely the vehicle vehicle red red exhibits such such variation variation in accessto tosuch suchaadiverse diversepotential potentialthat that the access the way it can be he used, used,as asexhibited exhibitedby 1wthe thevery verydifferent diflerentsimulations simulationswe we "red" in in (i). the examples examples in achieve for "red" in the

Primary versus secondary secondary cognitive cognitive models models

The range of cognitive models—the models— thesemantic semanticpotential—to potential—towhich which aalexical lexical concept facilitates access accessI Irefer refertotoasasitsitscognitive cognitivemodel modelprofile—a profile—aterm termI Ifirst first concept facilitates introduced in Chapter 4. As we we saw sawearlier earlier in in this this chapter, in discussing the discussing the within the system,the thecognitive cognitivemodel modelprofile profile nature of chaining within the conceptual conceptual system, not an an unstructured unstructured inventory of knowledge: conceptual conceptual structure structure is is highly highly is not structured. lexical concept's concept's cognitive cognitive structured. IIdistinguish distinguishbetween between two twoaspects aspects of aa lexical model profile: profile: the primary primary cognitive cogmodel cognitive model model profile, profile, and and the secondary secondary cognitive also introduced introduced in in Chapter Chapter 4. nitive model profile—terms also he primary primarY cognitive model profile cognitive models models The profile consists consists of all those cognitive with is directly directly associated: the the association associationareas areaswhich which with which which aa lexical concept concept is make up its access site.Hence, Hence,the theprimary primarycognitive cognitivemodel modelprofile profile may may access site. constitute many discrete cognitive cognitive models—as sitemay may be bemade made constitute models—as an access access site up of many distinct association areas—dispersed across various regions of many distinct association areas—dispersed across regions within The cognitive cognitive models models which which make up withinthe theconceptual conceptualsystem.7 system.' The up the the primary primary cognitive models,asas primary cognitive cognitive model profile II refer refer to to as as primary cognitive models, we also also saw saw in in Chapter Chapter 4. 4. secondarycognitive cognitive model model profile profile consists of all all those those In contrast, the secondary consists of models—what II refer secondary cognitive cognitive models—with models—with cognitive models—what refer to to as as secondary which Hence,secondary secondarycognitive cognitivemodels models which aa lexical lexical concept concept is not not associated. associated. Hence, part of the access siteofotaacognitive cognitivemodel. model.Put Putanother anotherway, do not comprise part access site way, tindiscussion. See also aho Bjrsailou See Itarsalou cietaS. at fortlxi win%) tot thy notion of the notion Ill(II.in .lflaccess atceMsite. the theLot:Anti ► •1:models As we we saw saw earlier earlirr in the disc ussion Of withwhim. which models with h established probabilistically. are established are also kIkal concept isis associated Ia lexical •

-

I

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION lATIt)N

2 ►8

LF.Xl( Al KFPRF SIN CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM

ELECTORATE

HEAD OF STATE

FM

NAT IONAL SPORTS

POLITICAL SYSTEM

CUISINE

•

GEOGRAPHICAL LANDMASS

NATION STATE

HOLIDAY DESTINATION

t't,NiI lvi

M0L)ELS

COGNITIVE MODELS

209

209

models as ye models lach Eachofofthese thesecognit cognitive modelsprovides providesaccess access to to further furthercognitive cognitive models as resultof of chaining chaining within within the the onceptual conceptualsystem. system. the Thechained chainedcognitive cognitivemodels models 3result secondary cognitive the reasons described above, and constitute the ,risC for arise for the reasons described above, and constitute the secondary cognitive represented diagrammatically are represented models.While While the the primary primarycognitive cognitive models models are diagrammatically this in no way constitutes to one another in Figure 10.3, adjacent as adjacent to one another in Figure to.3, this in no way constitutes aa commitcommitof the conceptual system: alter all, the location to their actual location in ment to their actual location in the conceptual system; after all, the location of conceptual distributed throughout 1'rilflary primarycognitive cognitivemodels models may may he be distributed throughout the the conceptual sysexample. Equally1 while secondary secondary cognitive for example. tem,as asin inthe theCase case of of IREUI, (RED), for Equally, while cognitive organized hierarchically, with respect to the modeLs are diagrammed diagrammed as models are as being being organized hierarchically, with respect to the mode of 1rilthIry primarycognitive cognitivemodels modelsininaagiven givencognitive cognitivemodel modelprofile, profile,this this mode of models, representation representationserves servesto todistinguish distinguish scondary secondaryfrom fromprimary primarycognitive cognitive models, rather ratherthan thanconstituting constitutingaacommitment commitment to to how how primary primary and andsecondary secondarycognitive cognitive conceptual svstellL' RIds arc actually represented within the models are actually represented within the conceptual system.'' of the secondary cognitive models in the In in ligure Figure10.3, to.3, aa flavour flavour of of some some of the secondary cognitive models in the 1 is ognitive model ir IFRAN( cognitive modelprofile profileftfor [FRANCE' isgiven given by by virtue virtue of of the the various various set:ondary secondary model. STATE NATION models which are accessed via the cognitive models which are accessed via the NATION STATE cognitive model.

and CUISINE. For instance, these include NATIONAL SPORTS, ITI(AL SYSTEM, include NATIONAL SPORTS,P01 POLITICAL SYSTEM, and CUISINE. For instance, These

(FRANCE)

FiGuRE 113. Partial cognitive model !FRANCO E) model profile profile for for (FILAN( Ii(.UI1E

io.j. Partial cognitive

secondary cognitive models are those withrespect respecttotothe the are chained, chained, with that are secondary cognitive models are those that semanticpotential potent ialtoto primary cognitive models. Hence, they form part part of of the the semantic primary cognitive models. Hence, they form althoughthere thereisisnot not which a given lexical concept potentially affords access, although which a given lexical concept potentially atiords an established association conceptand andsecondary secondarycognicogni.ition between between the the lexical lexk IIconcept an established tive models. tive models. modelprofile profilefor for By way of illustration, let's reconsider the the cognitive cognitive model By way of illustration, kis reconsider partial in Chapter 4. The (FRANCE( first presented forthe thcvery verypartial Thediagram diagram for first presented in Chapter (I;KANI cognitive cognitivemodel modelisisprovided providedin inFigure Figure10.3. 10.3. FRANCE' consists The access site for the lexical concept I(I-RANCEI consistsofof(at (atthe thevery

The access site for the lexical

GEOGRAPHICAL least) the following cognitive models: AL. LANDMASS, LANDMASS, NATION kast) the following cognitive models: is, the linguistic system isisassociated associated STATE, and HOLIDAY DESTINATION. That STA1 i and 1101 11)AY t*STINATIt)N. hat is. the linguistic system with each of these sites in the conceptual concept (FRANCE) s stem:the thelexical lexical concept with each of these sites in the conceptualsystem: \lorefacilitating access to conceptual structure via thesecognitive cognitivemodels.* Morefacilitating access to conceptual structure viathese facilitates over, each of the three primary cognitive models modelstotowhich which (FRANCE] facilitates

nationalsports sportsofofparticular particular that in in France, France, the the French French engage in national we may know know that we may engage in others. As I football,rugby, rugby,athletics, .ithktics,and andso soon, on,rather ratherthan thanothers. types1 for instance, instance, football, types, for As I sporting nation the French observed in in Chapter Chapter 4, also know know that that as as aa sporting nation the French observed 4, we we m1iv may also of various kinds. That is1 we may take take part part in in international international sports sports competitions competitions of various kinds. That is, we may thesorts sortsofofsports ports French I have access Jcccss to to aa large large body body of of knowledge knowledgeconcerning concerningthe have knowledge of the funding st nictures people engage engagein. in.We Wemay ma also people also have have some some knowledge of the funding structures constraintsthat that apply applyto tothese thesesports sportsinin md social and economic economicconditions conditionsand andconstraints and social and with respect respect to to these theseparticular particular sports, sports1 France, France's France's international international standing France, standing with

themselves including the rules that

md further further knowledge about the the sports sports themselves including the rules that and knowledge about on)° govern their their practice, practice, and and so so on."' govern uniqueness of of the the access accesssite site The uniqueness The

with a number of primary

lexical concepts concepts are are typically While lexical While typically associated associated with a number of primary therebymake makeup up the the access site, the cognitive models—often models—often many—which many—which thereby cognitive access site, the whichaalexical lexicalconcept conceptisisassociated associatedisisunique. unique. C\dctnature nature of of the the access access site sitc with with which exact site.While Whilethe the Put another another way, way, no no two two lexical lexicalconcepts conceptsshare sharethe the same sameaccess accesssite. Put whichlexical lexicalconcepts conceptsfacilitate facilitateaccess accessmay may range of of primary primary cognitive cognitive models modelstotowhich range thisisisthat that hesimilar, similar, they they will willnever never be beexactly exactlythe thesame. same.The Theconsequence consequenceofofthis he

over, each of the three primary cognitive

t;Io(kA1)iII(AL direct access is an individual. That is, the ct)gfliti%Cmodel model GEOGRAPHICAL direct access is an individual. '[hat is, thecognitive coinciLANDMASS relates to knowledge about the thespecific specificgeographic geographicregion regioncoinciI ANI)MASS relates to knowledge about dent with the borders of the political similarly,NATION N lIONSTATE sTATE entityFrance. France. Similarly, dent with the borders (it the politicalentity DESTINATION relates to knowledge of the nation state France, while tioLiomr WAY nESI INATION relates to knowledge of the nation state France, while relates to knowledge about what it means to holiday in France. what it means to holiday in France.

relates to knowledge about

Theory • ognitise mood rs ItTle•ented ininIfCM barite! highlyabbreviated .&hhrrvialed It I. St Ihceryininhighly in CbaptcT 4. a to5niii%'e mudcl is capitals. flowerer, this gloss, e.g., tilMRAP ► ICALAL rectangular hen; with .1 gloss in small C4. lli,wrwr. this tim with a gloss in small fashion: a LANIIMAss friatcs to a mrilillattor: a trans which gives rise to limitless simulations. • As roActi

' As fashion: a

I ANIiM ASS relates to a

sàmulator a uranir which

and hence. it is not always clear where a rangeotti ways, ways.and interconnectedinina arange (ognitive modelsarc arcinterconnected tognitiw models hence, it is not always clear where embedded model begins md end'1. For instance, knowledge representations aretypically embedded tognitive model begins and ends. Fur instance. knowledge representations are ing rise to its own attribute attribute, and '1trutturr%. with in atinbute serving as a valik for arnither structures. with an attribute serving as a value for another attribute. and giving rise to its own attribute tounphi.iiitt by conceptual are mu ther with conrwtaons to other cognitive models. Matters tr.ime, with connection. to other cognitive models. Matters are Wither complicated by conceptual

long-term stable connections between ogmtnre models, as

servetotoestablish estabuichlong-term stable connections between t yititive models, as metaphors,which which serve metaphors, diUMCJ hapter is. tlis,ussed in Chapter is. prrtrptual in nature, in the sense assumed h', the thcbasis basisfor formuch muchofofthis thisknowledge knowledgeisisperceptual ,Vhikthe "' While in nature, in the sense assumed lis the basis h.m'. .i Synihils..ystems, Ssstcmns.much muthof4 this this information .iddut,4in.ilfs PerceptualSymbol ihci'rytitofPerceptual I henry entormaiu addit l ll ► has a priv ► 41.111•111.s1 kosts. linguisticallymediated mediatedcommunication. thesense sensethat thatititderives derivesfrom fromlinguistically ininthe

210

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION REPRESENTATION LEXICAL

COGNITIVE MODELS ((RiNITIVE MODELS

conu.pt has aa unique uniquecognitive cognitivemodel modelprofile, profile,asasthe theexact csactmake-up make-up each lexical concept each ofprimary PrimarYcognitive cognitivemodels modelsdetermines determineswhich whichchained chainedcognitive cognitivemodels modelsmake make of cognitivemodel modelprofile profikofofa agiven givenlexical kxkalconcept. concept.From Fromthe the up the the secondary cognitive up perspective of of the the linguistic Iinguistk system, this means meansthat thatthere therecan canbe heno notrue true perspective system, this lexicalconcepts. concepts.lb10illustrate, illustrate,consider considerthe thelexical lexicalconcepts synonymy between between lexical synonymy and (coAs-r1 associated which II gloss associatedwith withthe the vehicles vehi.ks shore short' and and !SHORE] and which gloss as as[SHOREI respectively. As Observed by Fillmore (1982), while the semantic represenroast, respectively. As observed by Fillmore (1982), while the semantic represencoast, tation for these these two two words words is is very sery similar, similar, it it is usnot notthe thesame. same.This Ihis follows, follows,in in tation for present terms, each of of these these lexical lexicalconcepts conceptsexhibits exhibitspartial partial overlap overlap in in present terms, as as while while each the primary primary cognitive models, there there are are also also distinctions. distinctions.For For instance, instance,both both the cognitive models, lexical concepts conceptsfacilitate facilitateaccess accesstotoaacognitive cognitivemodel modelprofile profilerelating relatingtotothe thestrip strip lexical of land land that that borders borders land each lexical lexicalconcept conceptaccesses accessesa a of land and and sea. sea. However, However, each model relating relating to cognitive model to aa generic generic situation situation from from which which this this land land region region isis cognitive viewed. In In the the case case of oft(SHORE' sIioREJ this sea-basedperspective, perspective,which whichisisto this concerns concerns aa sea-based to viewed. say, on board a ship. In contrast, (COASTJ does say, on hoard a ship. In contrast, (COAST I doesso so from from the perspective perspective of a landbased location. For this rea.son, a shore-to-shore trip is acrosswater waterwhile while based location. For this reasn, a shore-to-shore trip is across aa coast-to-coast coast-to-coast trip trip is is over over land. land. The development of cognitive cognitive models models The development of

Cognitive models, models, as as we we have have seen, seen,are are simulators simulators in in the the sense sense of of Barsalou Barsalou (e.g., Cognitive 1999). That is, they are located in the sensory-motor regions of the brain,and and 1999). That is, they are located in the sensory-motor regions of the brain, they consist of ofperceptual perceptual symbols: symbols:records recordsofofperceptual perceptualstates. states.However, I lowever, they consist cognitive models also alsoinvolve involveinformation informationfrom fromother othersources sources(Barsaluu (Bars.alou 1999), 1999), cognitive models which is incorporated into sensory-motor representations representations by virtue virtue of of converconverwhich is incorporated into sensory-motor gence In LCCM Theory that the output of of the the gence zones zones ((Damasio Damasio 1989). 1989). In Theory I assume that interaction and conceptual conceptual systems, systems,namely namelyconcepconcepinteraction between between the the linguistic linguistic and tions—linguistically mediated simulations—can simulations—can be be integrated integrated with withexisting existing tions—linguistically mediated cognitive models in in order order to to provide provide an an additional additional source source of of information infonnation cognitive models which serves to update relevant cognitive models. That That is, simulations simulationsare are which serves to update relevant cognitive models. perceptual in nature, albeit internally generated perceptual states. states. In In essence, essence, perceptual in nature, albeit internally generated perceptual linguistic interactions with the conceptual systemcan canmodify modifythe therepresentarepresentalinguistic interactions with the conceptual system tions held in the conceptual system,by byvirtue virtueof ofthe theproducts, products. simulations, simulations, tions held in the conceptual system, serving to modify the representational states which whichgenerated generatedthem themininthe thefirst first serving to modify the representational states plae. modify the the place.Simply Simplyput, put,linguistically linguisticallymediated mediated simulations simulations can serve to modify conceptual updating existing models.IIrefer refer to to non-modal non-niotlal conceptual system, system, 1w by updating existing cognitive cognitive models. modification modification of of this this sort sort as as propositional propositionalmodification.*1 modification." Relativistic of language language on on the theconceptual conceptualsystem system Relativistic effects effects of One lrnguistic indexing indexing of of the the conceptual conceptual system, system, and and One of of the the consequences of of linguistic

the system as as aa consequence, consequence, is is the the prediction prediction themodification modificationof of the the conceptual conceptual system that is linguistk relativity effects. That That is, is, linguistic relativity is thatwe weshould should expect expect relativistic relativistic effects. "

11

br a

Ste Boroditskv Borodatsky and Prinz Priru (forthcoming/ fora related proposal. prupnai. See

211 211

predicted by Theory. Recall Recall that byLLCM 1' M Theory. that lexical kxicalconcepts conceptsare arelanguage-specific. language-specific. each language Hence, linguistically language consists of aa unique Iknce, each unique set setofof linguistkallvencoded encoded (incepts. As Aslexical lexicalconcepts conceptshave haveunique uniqueaccess accesssites, sites,this thismeans meansthat thateach each language language interacts interacts with withthe theconceptual conceptualsystem systemininaalanguage-specific way. way.AsAs the the conceptual conceptual system systemcan canbe bemodified modifiedasasaaresult resultofofthe thesimulations simulationsarising arising

from from the the interaction interaction between betweenlanguage languageand andconceptual conceptualstructure, structure,LCCM l.( CM Theory Iheory predicts that speakers of different diflerent languages should should have have distinct distinct conceptual conceptual representations. representations. The The thesis thesis that that language can influence non-linguistic non-linguistic aspects aspectsof ofcognitive function function and and representation, representation, the linguistic relativity principle, principle, isis also alsocomcommonly Sapir–Whorf hypothesis monly referred referred to as the Sapir—Whorf hypothesisafter after the the two twotwentiethtwentiethcentury entury linguists, linguists, Edward Edward Sapir Sapir and and Benjamin Lee Lee Whorl, Whorf, who who advanced advanced versions of this principle. Classic Classic work work which which has has sought sought totoempirically empiricallytest test a version of of the the Sapir-Whorl Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has has been conducted conducted by by Lucy Lucy (1992). (1992). More recent empirical work has been conducted in the domains of Space (e.g., (e.g., Levinson and Time (e.g., Boroditsky woi). Their findings are suggestlesinson 2003) and 2(x)I). Their findings arc ive that language does indeed influence aspects lye that indeed influence aspects of ofnon-linguistic non-linguisticcognition." cognition.'2 LCCM Theorymakes makes aa proposal proposal which which might form part ICCM l1ieory part of an an account accountas astoto why this is so.

The emergence The emergence of concepts of non-interacting non-interacting lexical concepts In In this section, I1 briefly briefly consider consider why why there there is is aa bifurcation bifurcation in in lexical lexicalconcept concept

types, i.e., between open-class versus versus closed-class closed-class lexical lexicalconcepts. concepts.Language Language the interacting as a system comprising symbolic symbolic units, units, with with lexical lexicalconcepts conceptsas as the interacting evolved in order to facilitate elements with the conceptual system, system, evolved in order to facilitateaccess accesstoto the onceptual conceptual system. system. Two questions emerge iwo questions emergefrom fromthis: this:

Whyisisititthat thatnon-interacting non-interacting lexical lexical concepts • Why conceptsemerged? emerged? • How !low did did non-interacting non-interacting lexical lexical concepts emerge? emerge? That That is, is, what what is is the the trajectoryofofthe theemergence emergenceofofclosed closed-class trajectory -class lexical lexical concepts?" concepts?'3 Recent Recentwork workon ongrammaticalization——the grammaticalization—the study studyof ofthe theevolution evolution of ofcloseddoseddass classsymbolic symbolic units__suggests units—suggests that in their initial form linguistic representain their initial forni linguistic represcnta-

tions did did indeed take take the the form form of of open-class open-class lexical turns lexicalconcepts concepts (Heine (Ileine and and Kuteva br). Ileine Kuteva 2007). Heine and Kuteva argue that evidence evidence from from grammaticalization grammaticalization points to to aa number points numberofofstages stages in in the the emergence emergence of of closed-class closed-class symbolic symbolic units, units, and and hence hence grammar, grammar.which whichsuggest suggest that thatsuch such units units developed developed out of of open-class open-class elements. Indeed, Indeed, given given the the contention elements. contention provided provided here, here, that that the the linguistic linguistic "

Recentwork worktw byJanuary Januaryand andKako halm(zoo7) 120071h.is hascalled calledinto intoquestion question the the findinp findings reporied reported on on by by li ► roditsky(loni). (20011. Needless to to...s'.. say, further work is is required to empirically insystigaty the print iply bunher work iI1%t-stugatc the priiitipk of 4 I'ngun114. 1114411.t h.relativity. relativity. " In slightly different terms.these thew are are .ilso also the Lentralquestions qoystions asked asked by by Leonard Leonard filmy difterent terms. almy (1000) (wont in in his his work. work.

" In

ill

212

c(x;NITIvE MOI)EL" COGNITIVE MODELS

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

LEXICAL

system emerged in order to provide access to the conceptual system1 system, itii is to I system emerged in order to provide access to the expected that thatopen-class open-class lexical lexical concepts should should have have emerged first. first. But wh at expected then motivates the development of closed-class In other closed-class lexical lexical concepts? In then motivates the development of words, what drives the process of grammaticalization? ion? words, what drives the process of grammatiealizal A plausiblesolution solutionseems seems to tohe be that thatas as language language developed into irno a fully A plausible fledged system, independent of the conceptual conceptual system, system, its specialiia its specialization tledged system, independent of the lexical concepts, which which encode encode schematic and are arc borne borne by schematiclinguistic linguisticcontent ontent and physicalvehicles, vehicles, whether whethersigned signedor ororal—allowed oral—allowed it it to fulfil fulfil aa function function that physical better facilitated the linguistic system's primary function: to interact with the better facilitated the linguistic system's primary function: to interact with conceptual system. system. In other words, some Lexical lexical concepts words, some concepts specialized specialized for conceptual in other encoding solely and hence hencelost lostthe theability ability to serve serve as asaccess encoding solely linguistic linguistic content, content, and sites and hence interact with the conceptual system. Yet, by developing in this sites and hence interact with the onceptual system. Yet, by developing in way, the linguistic system was able to develop greater precision in the way it way, the linguistic system was able to develop greater precision in the way interacted with the conceptual system develop greater greater control c and thereby thereby develop interacted with the conceptual stem and over the integrated simulations, the conceptions, it was able to give rise to. over the integrated simulations, the conceptions1 it was able to give nse by providing providing a a skeletal This came about, as II shall argueininChapter Chapter 12, u. by •lhis came about, as shallargue framework,through throughthe theprocess process of of lexical lexical concept conceptintegration, integrationsthereby therety propro framework, viding more moreprecise precise guidance guidance and simulations. and hence hencemore morefinely finely nuanced nuanced simulations. viding That is, the the development development of of grammar— grammar—closed-class symbolic symbolic units—faciliunits—-facili that is, tated the the exercise exercise of over the the conceptual conceptual system. system. This This is tated of greater greater control control over 14 achieved by integrated lexical lexical concepts, with with unit-like unit-like status, statuQ4 achieved by providing providing integrated which form the input for the process of interpretation: the development ofwhicformtenpuhocsfinterpa:hdvlomentf linguistically mediated simulations, simulations, as Chapter13. linguistically mediated as described describedininChapter

also Moore ioo6). durationand andsimultaneity simultaneityfeel feellike like(Fvans (Evans2004a; 2oo4ir,see see also Moore zoo6). be i ndeed,as as Barsalou Barsalou(1999) (1999)has has argued,1' argued," abstract abstract concepts concepts arc are likely likelyto to be I will provide an 1CCM inpart, part,ininterms termsof ofinherent inherent content. I will provide an LCCM co nstituted,in for time oflexical lexicalconcepts concepts for time in in Chapter Chapter is. is. a ccountof

SummarY Summary

if*

of the detail, the [his [hischapter chapterhas has developed, developed, in in some some detail, the theoretical theoretical construct construct of the which is aa unit unit of of conceptual conceptual structure structure which ,)gnhtive model. The The cognitive cognitive model model is c ognitivemodel. frames—and gives rise to a consists of of aa trame—or frame—or related related and/or and/or embedded embedded frames—and gives rise to a have complex complex structure. structure. This 'I'his potentially potentiallylimitless limitlessset set of of simulations. simulations. Frames Frames have of frames: frames: frames frames for for in detail hapterhas has examined examined in detail the the nature nature of of two two types types of lexical consubset of of $exk.al concepts—open-class lexical things things and and situations. situations. .\ A subset lexical concepts—open-class conmodels, what is referred to as a cognitive access to cognitive cepts—facilitate access to cognitive models, what is referred to as a cognitive models: primary cognitive of primary profile COflsIsts model model profile. profile. A A cognitive cognitive model model profile consists of cognitive models: established which aa lexical lexical concept is associated, associated, established the with which the cognitive cognitive models models with concept is of this sort constitute what is referred to, in through Cognitive models throughusage. usage. Cognitive models of this sort constitute what is referred to, in addition, the cognitive lheorv, ILCCM ( ( Theory,.is asthe the accesssite siteof ofaa lexical lexical concept. concept. In In addition, the cognitive cognitive models. These arc all those model model profile profileconsists consists of of secondary secondary cognitive models. These are all those theprimary primary cognitive cognitive models modelsby byvirtue virtue cognitive which are are related related to to the cognitive models models which unitsofofconceptual conceptualstructure structurewhich which of chaining. chaining. Cognitive Cognitive models modelsconstitute u)nstitutCunits of and as a the linguistic linguistic system. are acccssibk are accessible to to the system. Hence, Hence, lexical lexical concepts, concepts, and as a provide an indirect means of giving rise consequencethe the linguistic linguistic system. consequence system, provide an indirect means of giving rise

It)simulations. simulations. to

Abstract Abstract concepts concepts Before concluding this to very very briefly briefly address address the theissuk issUC it is is important important to this chapter, it Before of concepts relate modelsfor for notions notions abstract concepts. concepts. Abstract Abstract concepts relate to to cognitive models of abstract such as JUSTICE, TRUTH, LOVE, such as as these these i iso. Notions such and,of of course, course, TIME. such as IL. sII(:F, TRUth, I OVE,and, have Lakoffand andJohnson Johnson(1980, (1980, havebeen beenlabelled labelledabstract abstractby by scholars scholarssuch suchas asLakoff 1999) they Barsalou1999), asasthey 1999)and andby 1wother otherscholars scholarsininother othertraditions traditions(e.g., (e.g.,Barsalou are Congrounded in in sensory sensorymotor motor experience. experience.In InConareheld heldnot notto to be be directly directly grounded ceptual Theory,for forinstance, instance,such such concepts concepts are often assumed assumedtotobe be ceptualMetaphor \ktaphor Theory, are often structured experi structured largely Largelyininterms termsofofcontent contentderived derivedfrom fromsensory-motor sensory-motorexperience, rather CflcC, ratherthan thaninintheir theirown oWflterms. terms. However, a number of scholars ofthe thecontent contentofot However, a number of scholarshave haveemphasized emphasiiedthat thatpart partof so-called what we wemight might refer refer to, to1 likelytotoinclude indud what concepts is is likely so-called abstract concepts informally, as inherent content, arising from what Barsalou refers to asjs what Barsalou refers to informally, as inherent content, arising from introspective referred experience. have referredtotoasassubjective subjectiveexperience. introspective experience, experience, and and I Ihave After and so M) After all, all, while while temporal temporal concepts conceptssuch such as asDURATION, flukAl ION,SIMULTANEITY, and on perceptualinformation informationderived derivedfrom fromsensorysensoryonare arestructured structuredininterms termsofofperceptual derives from our direct experience of motor experience, their essence what derives tri'in our direct experience of what motor experiences their essence ois ,,AL tweed on "4"A.A. in Chapter

II-

U.

213

ahn► ILarMIou and Wienur hasting. " Sec Sec .oIs4 liaruoloto .ork11Ar sentm• flaming.

200i).

I

Part Part III III Semantic Semantic Compositionality Semantic Compositionality concerned with book1 which which .\This part book. whl h consists con i ts of ofthree threechapters1 chapters. iS erned with with I hI his part part of of the the book, consists of three chapters, isicon concerned simulations. This language in in facilitating facilitating exploring role of orIanguage facilitating simulations. imulation. This Thi ifl cxplonng exploring in in more more detail detail the the role role of language interaction between in,olv proc aas well well as a interaction between Iingui tic linguistic involves between linguistic involves purely purely Iinguisti linguisticprocesses processes as as linguistic arc lexical coninvolved are on · ,structures tructures and con eptual structures. tructures.The The processes involved IIlvolved are lexical lexical constructures and conceptual conceptual structures. Theprocesses processes in language (Cpt fusion. Lexical concept con eptselection selectionisisi the theprocess1 proc •in in language languag cept selection selection and and fusion. fusion. Lexical Lexical concept selection the process, assodmostt appropriate appropriate lexical 1110 lexical concepts concept associassoci understanding. understanding, of identifying understanding, of of identifying the the most lexical concepts which populate populate given utterance. This is Jted vehi les which populate aaa given given utterance. utterance. This Thi is i vehicles .ttcd with the ated WIth with the phonological vehicles the lexical concepts the subject of of hapter ii. II.Once Onceselection selection has hasoccurred, occurred. the thelexical lexicalconcepts concept has occurred, the the subject of Chapter Chapter it. Once selection itself in two fusion. \11U\t be integrated: integrated: the proc of fu ion. Fusion Fu ion manifests manifest itself itself in in two two must must he be integrated: the process process of fusion. Fusion manifests integration concept integration1 involves distinct form . The The first, first. lexical lexical concept con ept integration, integration. involves involv the theintegration integration distinct forms. the This isis of linguistic content content associated associated with with theselected selected lexical lexical concepts. concepts. This i the the associated with the of linguistic the selected concepts lexical occurred, uhjcct of hapter i2.. 11. Once nce this thi ha urred. the th open-class open la lexical lexi al concepts con epts subject subject of Chapter Chapter 12. Once thishas has oc occurred, the open-class guided by the output of \Crve ubset of the.. mantic potential1 potential. guided guided by by the the output output of of of their their semantic serve to to activate activate aaa subset subset of semantic potential, the interpretation referred to to as lexical concept integration. This Thi process1 proc •referred referred a interpretation, interpretation.isis isthe the integration. lexical lexical concept integration. This process, 13. subject of Chapter Chapter hapter 13. IJ. ,ubjcct of

11 11 Lexical concept selection selection As we saw saw in in the the previous previous part part of the book, the the linguistic linguistic system system consists Consistsof of symbolic units: between phonological units: conventional pairings between phonological vehicles vehiclesand and lexical concepts. As As a vehicle may potentially potentially be be associated associated with lcxkal wncepts. vehick may withaalarge large number of of distinct distinct lexical concepts, number concepts,for for instance, nstance, as as seen seenwith with the the prepospreposlanguage understanding on, and and a: at th in Chapter 8, language itional vehicles in, on, itional vehkles understanding involves involves aa process whereby an an appropriate appropriate lexical concept is is identified. identified. This process process of of lexical concept identification I refer to as lexical concept selection, or selection kxital concept identification I refer to as lexical concept selection, or selection allthe the lexical lexical concepts associated with for short.' Of Of all given vehicle, tor short.' with aa given vehicle, what what loosely to makes makes one oneappropriate, appropriate, rather rather than another, can canbe beattributed attributed loosely to the the notion of of context, context, although although this this subsumes subsumesaanumber numberof of more more specific specificfactors factors that influence influence lexical lexical concept concept selection, selection, as aswe weshall shall see seeininlater latersections. sections. Selection proceeds concepts associated proceedsby by identifying identifying the lexical concepts associatedwith with each each vehicle in inaa given given utterance. utterance. Once Once this this has has taken taken place, place, the output output of of selection, selection, vehide which is is to to say say the the range range 1)1 of lexical which lexicalconcepts conceptsidentified, identified, are are subject subject to to fusion, fusion, aa compositional process of of semantic semanticintegration. integration. Fusion Fusion involves involvesaafurther furthertwo two processes: a compositional process that applies to semantic structure, which rocesses: a compositional process that applies to semantic structure, which is is to say say linguistic linguistic content. content.This ThisI Irefer rekr to as aslexical lexicalconcept conceptintegration integration(Chapter (Chapter ti), and 12,, andresults resultsin in each eachlexical lexical concept concept receiving receiving aasemantic semanticvalue. value.The The next next the semantic semantic values values of all all open-class open-class lexical concepts step is for for the concepts to to undergo undergo aa furtherprocess process of semantic composition which further which II refer referto toas asinterpretation. interpretation. This between these these lexical and Fhjs results in in interaction interaction between lexical concepts concepts andconceptual conceptual structurevia viaaccess access sites, informational characterization structure sites,in in order order to derive an an informational characterization of relevant lexical of each each relevant lexical concept. Crucially, concept. Crucially, the the nature nature of of the the interpretations interpretations achieved, and hence which of an an open-class lexical concept's achieved, which aspects of concept's cognitive cognitive model profile becomes activated, is a consequence of the output of model profile becomes activated, is a consequence of the output oflexical lexical concept integration. The and result is a conception: a simulation achieved concept integration. The end result is a simulation achieved by by virtue of selection and the subsequent compositional processes./ virtue of selection and the subsequent [he notion notionof utselection wkit son discussed in ' The in the thepresent presentchapter chapterisis onhogonalto tothe thenotion notion of of unction n in(iKqiier ChapterLi.Sck(t,flfl SelectionrcLitcs relates to itkntitkation identification of an an appropriate appropriate letkal concepttrorn from the the kikal iMnlcpt prrspc,tiscolofLiiiguagr languageundcrstandsng, understanding. i.e.. comprehension.SanOinn sanction relates to the the way way in in which a P('f'pctive rriatrs to a Partic kdrr instance ot of use use &s the ezastent, existence of of aalCILIt.11 1 1. I!fence the use of of the the term term i. motivated motivated by by the kxk.&I 4.0111kr1 concept. Icntc the sanction situates suis.ors things fromthe thepevlspettls'c perspective of the producer. nu.!pan. the most part.PIam ant concerned with with things from IanOs.,n produter. For br the thSt tiVol •li

Iangu..51, tind•t.tanilins.

NItimitigh destrified in in this thisand andsubwi1ucnt suhx.luent chapters art.iif..,,ned 'Moonedby by Ahhougti thethe oinipisitioti.il pr•te.ws desanhed ..hapters are hoithlig,from 'rump. ps ► ■hoánguisuci, Theory is not a psycholinguisik theory. That is. it does not make hndinp holinguistii.‘,11 I ( ( M Theory Is not a I's'ytbobnguis*k theory. That is, it does not make spr.111.cLaims claims about about the the detaik detailsofofLanguage Language procecsing issues. Rather. Rather. itit is an attempt attempt ti, to ikselop develop aa specitic is an

-—

si MANTIC CoM POSITIONAI ITY

SEMANTI(

'1$

LEXIO AL t:ON( ii'T

2*9

SELL-I TION

LEXICAL CONCEPT SELECTION

219

Selection in meaning construction

Selection in meaning construction Recall that the motivation for the development of LCCM Theory is to account

of L(( NI Theory is to the devck)pment for the semanticfor variation exhibited by words incontexts contextsofofuse use. The thatinherent the motivation in exhibited by words specific problem that I variation seek to account for is how wordstake takeon onaa specific for the inherent semantic how words account for is sceL to of use. That is, in this book we are ultimatel) reading in any givenI context problem speuth in this book we are ultimai of use. their That specific given context concerned with how words obtain context-bound interpretreading in .tny context-bound interpretobtain their how words ation. Selection is the first step in serving to narrow down, so to speak,the th• concerned with down, so to speak1 in serving to narrow firsta step reading associated with context-bound word. Selection is the ation. with aabout the processword. One asMxiated way of thinking involved in arriving atthe thespecific specific reading involved in arriving at about the given process achieves in any utterance, and about the perspective of thinking reading a word One way and about the perspective given utterance, any in follows. A word form has a range of distinct lexical as word achieves adopted is reading a here, a range of distinct lexical word form has A instance, in exhibits extensive conceptshere, associated with it. For extensive polysemy, as as follows. adopted polysemy as in exhibits Forlexical instance, This concept potential must be narrowed to 8. • it. with describedassociated in Chapter concepts potential must be narrowed to concept lexical This (typically)ina Chapter single lexical concept. This process of narrowing is a consequence described narrowing is a consequence lexical concept. ibis process of of lexical concept (typicallY) a single selection. selection. To illustrate, the following examples involving the prepositional of lexical conceptconsider examples involving the prepositional the following L.onsidcI vehicle in: To illustrate,

IIn

lexical concept lexical concept

reading

potential

words Narrowing in the situated interpretation of I u.uItF FIGUREu.i. 11.1. Narrowing in the situated interpretation of words

Semantic composition

vehicle in (1)

(')

Lexical concept selection

a. The kitten is in the box in the box flag is is flapping in the wind The kitten b. The a. in the wind flapping Johnflag is in c. is love b. The c. John is in love

In each of these examples, a distinct lexical concept is selected for. The lexical The lexk.tl lexical concept is selected for. examples1 a distinct CONDITIONS! concepts for in selected are !ENCLOSURE! for (la), !PREVAILING In each it these for (ia), IPkEVAILING CONL)ITIONSI selected are (INLOSUKII for (lb), and STATE( for (lc). concepts for finPSYCHOSOMATIC for (ic). factors to determine the of constraining forSelection (tb), andrelies on a numberSTATF1 constraining factors to determine the ot concept which relies concept: on a number appropriate lexical the lexical hest fits the conception fIts the concept jofl which best lexical tinder construction, discussedthe later in the chapter. Once a lexical appropriate lexical concept: has lexicalconcept concepthas chapter. Once a discussed later in the been selected, it must be integrated with other selected lexical concepts ofofthe under construction, the lexical with other selected be integrated utterance, and, if it is an open-class lexical concept, interpreted been selected, it must lightofof interpretedininthe thelight open-class lexical concept1 if it is an conceptual structure to which it affords access, and the other open-class utterance, and, and the other open-class which affords conceptual structure lexical concept(s) withto which it ithas been access, integrated. That is, the selected 1'hat is1 the been integrated. with whi*..h it hascompositional lexical undergoes the second process: namely fusion. lexicalconcept concept(s) compositional process: namely fusion. the second Once this has occurred, the word achieves what we might informally refer to lexical concept undergoes might informally refer to achieves what we occurred, the word asOnce a reading: this hasa situated interpretation, specific to the context ininwhich whichit itis embedded. Wea might think of the stages involved as involving passage situated as a reading: involved as involving passage of theasstages through an ever illustrated in Figure it.t, in in which embedded. We narrowing might thinkcone, which illustrated in Figure 11.1, narrowing cone, as compositional processes serve to restrict the potential of thethe word in order through an ever word in order the potential of serve to it makes tocompositional specify the semantic contribution to the utterance. processes

makes to the utterance. to specify the semantic contribution it► o ► .and meaning coristruc ikon that. in print wk. is

psykhol4qty Ali' plausible &cc omit Of kxk.,l representat t' that. in anlin seniority 'sttU(*K'tl t ■ filipos01011. For excellent Lomp.itibir with whet is known about the processes rep r"" insolved of k,Ikal 1-or ciudIcId In semantic 1nv4ihC'd reviews that .foal with pwcholinguistk processing see Iloilo( loos) and Whit my loss hie oI the goals with whist ii known about the Il.irlc' (zoo8) and Whitncy (ip#$). ()ne ot the goah aft hitecturr ,cc theoretical of It AIM Thei wy is In anvil ► IV a ognituontly robust which will give rise tote , ' ' fl. wtth psycholIlWuI%tiC pro to testabk deal Iwu which wtli reviews that predictions that an b' develop nibus* theoretical t to aempirical investigation by psyt

it tIM Theory is to

emIliriI4 7/• 7). and hans (200i

I van. see also Tyler tan be th.it and

'

Sec also

211 In ► %: Ch.

Fusion

sib

Lexical concept integration

Interpretation

of semantic coniposil on in [c(:M in LCCM Theory

h(,LKF ILl.Processes of semantic composition FIGURE 1L2.

selection and the other processes of meaning The relationship between The relationship between selection and the other processes of meaning Theory are diagrammed in Figure ii.z. construction in I .( NI construction in LCCM Theory are diagrammed in Figure it is 11.2. in is involved preliminary notion of what Having provided a Having provided a preliminary notion ofiswhat involvedapplies in selection, it is to in order what selection not. isSelection important to briefly say important to briefly say what selection isHowever, not. Selection order tohas lexicalinconcept once aapplies lexical distinguish between distinguish between lexical concepts. lexical concept has further narrow the whichHowever, apply in once orderato been identified, the processes been identified, the processes which apply in order to further narrow Hence,the while cons.ept integration and interpretation. reading arc lexical reading arc lexical concept integration and interpretation. Hence, while associated with in, in identify distinct lexical selection serves to selection serves to identify distinct lexical concepts associated with it:, in

______I______

118 2.18

•-•I \I ANTIC ( COMPOSITIONAIITY Ii( COMPOSlTlONAlITY SEMANTI

ILEXICAL l-XICAI CONCEPT FCTION CONCEPTSEt SELECTION

-

Ir----~_

Selection in meaning construction Selection Selection in meaning developmentof ofLCCM L(_CM account Recallthat motivation for the development development R""all ofL M Theory Theory isis to to account accou nt Kecall that the themotivation motivation for forthe theinherent inherent semanti words in in contexts of use. for the mherent by words in contexts context of ofUse. u .The The semantic variation exhibited by ftr how words take on specific specific problem problem that thatIIIseek seek to to account account specifi seek a count for for is i how how words word take take on onaaaspecific pe
lexical ieXlC8I lexical concept concept potenllal potential potential

•readirç

\ \

•

iituated fU.il1 II.'. ituattd interpretation Interpretation of ofwords word 1 it.t RE h1(;UKE ii.i. Narrowing RI 11.1. Narrowing in in the the situated interpretation of words

Semantic

composition composition

Lexical concept selection selecbon

(1) a.a. a.The Thekitten in the the box (I) kittenisis i in box (1) h. b. The flag nag is is flapping napping in the b. The The flag flapping in the wind wind c. John is cc. John John iis in in love love

lexit.tl In each each of of these these examples, aadistinct In each exam 1'1 ,a didistinct tinct lexical lexi al concept conceptisis i selected selectedfor. for.The Thelexical lexical examples1 lexical selected CONDITIONS] concepts in selected (ta),[PREVAILING I PREVAI lING C (:oNt)ITI0NS selected are OSURE on cpt for for are (tN UREI for for (ia), (la),(PREVAILING NOlTloN\1 are[ENCLOSURE] (i ' LO concepts for //I for (1b), and(PSYCHOSOMATI [PSYCHOSOMATIC SIATE1 for (tc). (ic). (Ib),and (PSYCHO OMATI STATE] TATEI for for (IC). for (ib), Selection relies on Selectionrelies relicson onaaanumber numberof constraining factors to determine the Selection number ofconstraining con trai ning factors factors to todetermine determine the the appropriate lexical concept: thelexk1Ll lexical appropriate concept which which best fits the conception appropria telexical lexi al concept: con cpt: the lexi al concept whl h hest best fits fit the conception con eption discussed construction, the chapter. chapter. Once lexicalconcept concept his under con truction, discussed discussed later later in in the Once aaalexical lexical con cpthas ha been selected, been ~Iected, selected,ititmust must beintegrated integratedwith withother other selected selected oncepts of of the mu t be be integrated with other lected lexical Ilexical xi al concepts concept ofthe the light of utterance, an open-class open lass lexical and, if ifif ititis lexicalconcept, concept, interpretedin in the the utterance, and, iisan an open-da lexical con cpt,interpreted interpreted thelight lightof of conceptual which affords access, and conceptual tru ture to which itititaffords afford access, acc ,and theother otheropen-class open-class conceptual structure structure to which and the the other open-class theselected selected lexical concept(s) with with which has been kxkal concept(s) integrated. That is, lexical concept(s) with which whi h ititithas hJSbeen beenintegrated. integrated. That is,the I""ted lexical concept undergoes the second compositional process: namely fusion. lexical undergoes the the "",ond secondcompo compositional namely fusio fusion. lexi al concept undergoes itional process: proc : namely n. Once this has occurred, the word achieves what we might informally refer to nce thi ha occurred, refer to Once this has occurred, the the word word achieves achieveswhat whatwwemight might informally informally refer which as a reading: a situated interpretation, specific to the context in which reading: a situated interpretation, specific to the context context in which ititIt isis aas aa reading: ituated interpretation, peCifie to i embedded. We of the stages involved asa involving passage embedded. might think of ofthe thestages tag""involved involveda,s involvingpassage pa \;Ige embedded.We We might might think think involving which through illustrated through er narrowing narrowing cone, cone, aas illu trated inininFigure Figur 11.1, whi h through an an ever ever narrowing cone,as illustrated Figure11.1, ii.i, ininwhich compositional processes serve to restrict the potential of the word in order compositional restrict thepotential potentialof ofthe theword word in in order compo itional processes proce<~ serve torestrict it makes to the utterance. to p""ify the the semantic semantic contribution (ontributlon itIt makes make,to the Ih utterance. utteran
1

I

rw ...

rnfk1rlc-.

andmeaning psychologically lexical and tomtits. train that. th.st, inprinciple, pnncsple. istt J""V'.tNl~Y pl.m.ihk Illkk (JUni (.(kx ... AIrepresentation ~nt .. lllIn.and meuunl(Or»lr\kbon tNt.inan 11i Ncaccount Atof '.cmJntk o .mr.:t'-Ilkon t Ion .. For involved In Sn leniantk I-or .umpatihle with u.mr-thl* With whit Iis known kll(lWn he.ut the Itwo processes rn",1ttIft involved IIMltvni In lftNntll.; hlr c,ueIlcnt "ruellirot ...('Dent known about .ihout thc with what what IS md II1nky Whitrwiit ( 1991). ()oc hie o ()nco(thcgo.mh f the goals reviews that daJ dealWith with(") mi. ht-l.nJU'lICk. holinguisik see f'f'\IlIt'W\ th.lt rnkntl"l t«Harley II .. rky lona) (: ....and , .. 00Whitney ",1utrwy olthr 1·...1' rcvicwsthat ingulsilt rots-sung rr whidi will of11:CM develop a sigmlicantly robusttheoretical of TIwory I to 10 dn-dup. '91.tk..&nti1robust nlbu.t lhrcwt~architecture .n.h.JtatuR'which .... hk.hwill .... LDgive I'\C:rise nittoIt>testable ttsl.lNt todcvclopa StTheory Ilicory isis vt 11.L'1 by PsYchtilinguots. psy'hutingukti.. predictions rrNa,"'h nni that tNt 'iUl bt ",uh,n., to 10 nnrlflo..aJ investigation ,f1\ tgilhun by try ~tw"'naul to empirical cmpirim4 uvcstsgatK)fl that can 4.41 he bc subject predidsiins

l.

• See and 1 1vans (loot: ch. Fv.sns 5cc also Tykr and ..also I"" 1)4er lyln.mJ \' •.,u hooJ. t..h 7). "7).

LI') 119 219

Fusion

~

Lexical LexlC8l concept concept integration Integration integration

Interpretation Interpretation Interpretation

Theory ILZ. Processes of semantic composition in LC( mantit composition compo ill nin 10LCCM LC 1Theory ThtOry FIGURE ILL Processes of of

relationship and the the other ofmeaning meaning The relationship relationship between between selection selection and the other otherprocesses processes of of meaning between processes constructionin inLCCM lC(MMTheory diagrammed inFigure Figure11.2. ii.i. construction in LC Theoryare arediagrammed diagrammedinin Figure 11.1_ construction Theory are Having provided aaa preliminary preliminary notion is I laving provided preliminary notion of ofwhat what is is involved involved in in selection, selection,itit is i Having notion of what is involved in selection, say what selection selection not.Selection Selectionapplies appliesinin inorder itliportant to Import"nt to briefly briefly say y what what \<1 tion is isisnot. not. Sel""tion applie ordertoto important to lexical However, once lexical concept has distinguish between between lexical lexical cont.cpts. con el'l . However, Ilowever, once on e aaa lexical lexical concept concept has ha distinguish between concepts. which apply applyin inorder orderto tofurther further narrow the been been identified, identified, id ntified, the Ihe processes processes which which apply in furthernarrow narrow the the the reading are arc lexical lexical concept integration and and interpretation. hence, while reading are lexical concept con ept integration integration and interpretation. interpretation. Hence, lienee, while while reading servesto identifydistinct distint lexical concepts associated with in, in. in in selection serves serves totoidentify identify di\tint:1 lexi 31 concepts con ept.sassociated a~iJtcdwith with selection lexical

,t.,

220 220 220

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY EMANTI(: COMPO ITIONALITY Ni IC (OMPOSITIONAIITY — SIMA

-

Francein in the theexamples examplesan (aro not apply applyto toFrance the exainpks (1), selection the.. examples in the ample:. in lectlOn does ddoes not to f"'"ef inin(1). the cxampks in (I). (i), which we we first met in in Chapter Chapter i:I: whi.h hapter I: whi*..h wefi",t first met met (2) (1) (2)

a. France of beauty natural outstanding natural a. country of outstanding natur.1 beauty he.uty Fr.uKe is is aaa country country of a. France" Franceisisisone oneof of the the leading leading nation, nations in the b. France b. le.ding the European European Union nion France one h. 2007 Rugby World Cup France beat New Zealand in the Cup 2007 Rugby World c. heat New ew Zealand in the 2007 Rugby c. France beat c. hance 2005 referendur referendum France voted againstthe thelU EUconstItution constitution in the 1005 d. ConstitUtiOn d. referendum lrancc voted against d. I'rance

sanctioned by the the same same le.ical lexical concept concept in This follows follows as the vehide vehicle France France iisis ... sanctioned Thi; aas the FrallCf nctioned by the ;ame in tollows vehicle This France provides a different semantic each of these examples. Hence, while while France provides a different each exampl . Hence, Ilence. while f"rdll t provides different seman II. each of of these examples. this is not of (2), utterances in consequence of contribution In in each each of of the (2), this i not aaa consequence contribution the utterances utteran es in (1). of in contribution selection, but but the the associated ass(xiated with constituent .ompOSitU)flal processes sclection. the two two constituent con;titu nt compositional compositional processes pr()( awxiated wIth selection, fusion, discussed in chapters. Accordingly, my my claim claim is is fu ion. di usscd In the next two chapters. chapter. Accordingly, Accordingly. my daim is that that fusion, discussed in the the next next two these exam examples, isisassociated single lexicalconcept, concept.with withaa France, In in th these examples1 with aa single frall(f. 1'1 • is aassociated iated with with ingle lexical lexical concept. with. in Frante. single aCtess access site site and aa single single coherent coherent cognitive In contrast,t.the the coherent cognitivemodel modelprofile. profile.In single ite and cogni",e model profile. Incontrast, contra th., single are associated with distinct lexical (t), the examples in in, in lexical instances of instan es of (,).are areassociated asso
Selection can can he be divided divided into into two two selection and narrow narrow distinct types: Selecllon two distinct di IInct types: type : broad broad selection election and Selection For selection. Broad lexical identification selection. Broad selection selection involves involv the the identification identifi ation of ofaalexical lexi .1concept. concept.For For involves instance, such as below: (ta) above, ha) above, above.reproduced reproduced below: helow: in tance. in in an an utteran e such uch as a (la) an utterance utterance instance, (ia) (Ia) Thekitten kitten isis I in thebox box in the (ia) The The the the has to select select lexical concept from amongst amongst the in from concept for for in ill among." the the hearer hearer the appropriate appropriate I ical ",nlept appropriate lexical select the hearer ha hjs to range of available lexical concepts—.is concepts—as we we have seen, highly polysemous polysemous range of availabl lexical concepts-as have seen, n. in in isiis highly polysemous available with a large number of distinct lexical concepts stored in semantic memory. with aa large tinct lexical lexical concepts tored in semantk manticmemory. memor)". Largenumher number of of di distinct concepts stored Typically, the language user will select a single lexical concept in order to buildaaa lexical concept in order tobuild build ·lyPic3lIy. the langu.ge user will will select a "ngl single le.ical Language user selection.In In conception. to single to as conception.This Thi thecanoni 31situation, ituation.which ref, as single ingle selection. selection. In Thisisiisthe thecanonical canonical situation, whichIIrefer referrto the example the the lexical from the kxical concept the example in (Ia) th hearer hearer selects I "thd' NU 0 uREllexical concept from from the the selects the [ENCLOSUREI example in in (la) (ia) the hearer lexical certain However,inin potentialassociated associated withthe thevehicle vehicle lexical concept concept potential potenllal a~iated with with the vchidein.in. Ill.However, Ilowever. incertain certain contexts This refer asmultiple multiple contexts more than onelexical lexical conceptcan canhe heselected. selected.This Thi I IIrefer ref, rtotoas as multipl COfltextsmore morethan thanone lexicalconcept concept can be selection: the aasingle of morethan con eptfor for. Singlevehicle. vehlde. lection: th I ·tion of selection: the selection selection ofmore thanone onelexical lexicalconcept concept for single There are at least two distinct types of multiple selection. This we first met first met lea" two di tinct types of multIple I ... tion. This we fiN metinIn In There are at There are at least two distinct types of multiple selection. Ihis an following examples examples involvingthe the vehicle fast an earlier chapter. chapter. Reconsider Recon ider the the following following examplesinvolving involving th vehicle vehidefast fiur. anearlier Reconsidei

(3) fast car (J) aa fast fa t car (4) fasttypist typistt (4) aa fast fast typi

[RAPID [kApirl PERFORMANCE PI*FORMAN(F OFACTIVITY' At tiviryl IRAPIO PFRIOR tANCl OF Of ACIIVITVI

(5) (5) aosafast (J\I decision dl*t.i\iOIl decision fast

I(RfQl'IRI' RuguIRES LITTLE. TIME FOR COMPI.FTIoNI I tiLE TIMI TIONI [KEQtIkI5 IlIllll n tI FOR fOR CI)MI'I.l (OM11111lONI

IRAPID RAPIIl LOCOMOTION' l()( OMOTION I RAPIO i wOMOTION I

AFC lexical ■ 41 4,01r1tri•ls thcv do All that kited with arcdosed-class ontl'tI they not have with an •• Krt. R«,II thlth ,,"kill U'nar' ..atM,tlatcd k..,lnJ whh in ,".r~ ddrnedcLii. ..M"!.I..... lexical tnKaJconcepts UHk.qtl Ihc-ydo d-Ilint 0011hive h.1~ kikal conicpI% Retail thatASacICX1 the 1.41114ertMil lIw LunCt-phul tontcplual iytem. site to an oK, "1(' hi the nn

All .14,...C1.■ 141C to

LEXICAl CONCEPT ION LEXICAL (:ON EPT SELECt SELECTION LEXICAL CONCEPT SELECTION

221 121

221

I" each each these xamples. aa tinct lexical lexical concept Iis seletted, selected. aas a di distinct selected,as eachof of these these examples, examples, distinct lexicalconcept concept for for fast fast is utterance.However, However, glosses nextto to each ""licated th glo next toeach ea hutterance. Howev r. indicatedby by the the lexical lexical concept concept glosses next .1' ky (1995) his di u ion ofof ofJasr, fast. follOwing Pustejovsky indicated indicatedby by Pustejov Pustejovsky (1995)ininhis hisdiscussion discussion fast, the the following following ,is Indicated of the fRAplo PEREORMANCI OF ACTIVITTI eexample ample appear to he a blend of the I RAPIIl PLR'ORMAN :ti or A ,"vITVI and appears appears to be be a blend of 'RAPID PERFORMANCE OF ACTIVITY Iand and I I ION] lexical concepts: iTIME iso FOR I[REQUIRE ~I QUIRE LITTLE FORCOMPI COMPLETIONlle"i al concepts: IITTLI LITTLE TIMe FOR COMPLETION] lexical concepts: i

the (((,) M We We garage car. day after (or our our a fast need aa We need garage for for our car, car, as as we we leave leave th the day day alter after tomorrow tomorrow fast garage

speakers willordinarily ordinanly most that most Ithat h.lt iis• to tru t the mo t native native speakers peaker will WIU ordinarily conception construct the conceptIon conception that to con That of fast Jerive. this utterance. this thi use of m to involve lexi",1 seems to involve involve two lexical derive, fast seems lexical derive, based basedon on this thisutterance, utterance, thisuse use mechanics derived relates to a garage whose ","cepts. That is, the reading d rived relates to a garage who m hani are concepts. concepts. That is, the reading derived relates to garage whose mechanics are todo do so. Alter time rapidly, little time able the repairs repairs rapidly, rapIdly. and takes little Iittl tim to to doso. so.After After able to to carry carry out out the and that that takes takes .,hle whose mechanics worked would be to no no purpose purpose all. garage t would purpose iflithe if the the all, all,aaagarage garage whose whose mechanics mechanics worked worked~fast fast wouldhe be to to couldn't question in question garage SO the mechanics in qu tioncouldn't couldn't garagealso alsohad had aabacklog backlog of of work workso so that that the the mechanics mechanics kind I refer this !lei the repairs repairs without delay. Multiple Multipl selection refer to to as as repairs without delay. Multiple selection get get to to the without delay. selection of of this kind II refer to as instance of aaa ;ingl tan e multiple multipl lection. That iis,• there iis aaa single ingle instance onstance of instance single single in instance multiple selection. selection. That is, there is single concepts. multiple lexical vehicle. i.e.• fast. in (6) whi h requires requir selection lection of multiple lexical concepts. concepts. which requires selection ofofmultiple fast, in (6) which vehicle, i.e., refer to as as multiple instance The ...:ond type type of multiple multiple selection selection III refer rcrer to a multiple multipleinstance instance The second type of multiple second selection vehicle occurs or is is implicated multiple selection. Thi occurs when aaa single vehide occurs ()( urs or or I implicated Impli ated multiple Thisoccurs occurs when when single vehicle multiple selection. selection. This distinct lexical concepts on multIple tim in in aaa single ingle utterance utterance giving giving rise ri to to distinct di tinct lexical lexical concepts concept on multiple multiple times times in single elliptical utteralkes edch instance use. An example of ofthis thisarises ari in inelliptical ellipticalutterances utteran as a each instance instanceof of use. use.An An example example this arises in each of as following: exemplified Lw foUowong: the following: exemplified by the drivinglicence licence (,) Onthe th day daymy myoId dadexpired, e pired.so sodid did driving Ii en e the d1iv my olddad dad expired, SO didmy mydriving (7) On (7) old actual occurrence an actual expiret. an In tthis utterance. there there are tinct instances instances of of ""Plrtd: actual occurrence occurr nce utterance, are two two di distinct instances of (-wired: his utterance, are two distinct second of the the vehicle vehicle in in the the first first clause, clause. and and an impliedinstance instance in inthe thesecond secondoror the vehicle the first clause, and animplied implied instance in of instance of eUiptlcal dause: but uoder tood. instance instance of ofexpired. ""P",d. elliptical clause: clausewith withthe theomitted. omitted, but hut understood, understood, expired. elliptical clause: the the clause clause with the omitted, giving rise to distinct Moreover. each instance di tinct reading1 reading. giving giving rise rise to to aaa Moreover, each Moreover, each instance instance iis is associated associated with with aa distinct reading, related by (7) wherethe thetwo twoclauses clau are r laledby by humorous eff... t.lndeed. theexample exampl inin in((7) humorous effect. effect. the example where the two clauses arerelated humorous IIndeed, ndeed. the 7) where verb in each is an instance of the virtu of employing employing(or (orimplying) implying)the thesame meverb in each eachisi an instance in tanceofofthe 'irtue ofemploving virtue of (or implying) the same Later ofspeech speech known known a zeugma—I zeugma-I hall have have more more to tosay sayabout aboutzeugma zeugmalater figure of of speech known as as zeugma—l shall shall more to say zeugma figure have later mechanics of 111 th chapter chapter by hy way way of ofaaadetailed detailedcase c study tudyillustrating iUustrating th mechanics m hani ofof in the the chapter by way of detailed ..ase study illustratingthe the in involving death, whileinin an event event involving selection.In In th first fir clause expired ""Plrtll relates relates to to an involvingdeath, death.while expired firsttclause selection, in the the selection. individual'sright righttoto to expiry expiry of the theterm for whichhan anindividual's the second, second. ""P",drelat expiryofthe termfor forwhi relates to second, expired expiredrelates the of which an there drive on on the the public highway was sanctioned "licensed." That is is, thepublic publi highway highwaywas wassanctioned sanctionedoror"licensed." "Ii<ensed."'That is,there ther are are drive drive instanceselecting distinct lexical concepts. inst.n es of of explretl.each selectingdistinct dl tinctlexical lexicalconcepts. concept . multiple instances each instance multiple of expired, multiple instances selection. While Having addressed addressed broad broad lection IIInow now con idernarrow narrowselection. selection.While Whil addressed broadselection selection nowconsider consider Having selection 1)1 adistinct distinctlexical lexicalconcept conceptfrom fromamong among hroad scil'Ction concerns concern selection sel ... tion of of. lexical concept from amongaaa broad selection broad a distinct concepts associated witha a particuofpossible possiblelexical lexicalconcepts concept conventionally conventionallyassociated associatedwith with Jparticuparticu numher number of of possible number single lexical concept. concept. vehicle, selection involvesselection selectionwithin within aa single lar vehicle, vehi I •narrow narrow selection selection involves involv selection witl"" inglelexical oncept. lar hook,while tonvenienttoto speak ofthe thehook, book. whileititItisis i convenient convenient tospeak 'peakofof A we .,,'w ininthe th preVlou part of Aswe wesaw sawin theprevious previouspart of the As with them gloss lexical concepts C(}lKeptsasaasififthcy werediscrete di -reteentities, entlli .•and andtoto togloss glo them ,thelll wlIh a label, lahel. concepts ifthey theywere discrete entities, lexical with a alabel, constitute a complex array of different sorts diffi r ntsorts i crucial crucialto constitutea complex compl array x toremember rememberthat thatthey theyconstitute itit isis of different

222 112 III

LI.XI(A1.

of linguistic content.Thall, That is, alexi lexical conceptcompri comprisesaabundle bundleof ofdifferenl different of different oflingui lic conlenl. al concepl That is. a lexical content. oftypes linguiStic of knowledg knowledge. For instance, lexical concepts often encode encode encode multiple multiple lexkal Iypes of . ror Ian e, lexi al concepts con epl often multiple instance, l'or in of knowledge. types when discussing the 8 parameters.We We saw anIninstance ofthis this in. in Chapter discussing the Chapter 8 when of w an lance of Ihi ·hapler 8 when di u i.ng Ihe paramelers. instance We parameters lexicalconcepl conceptaassociated associated withthe the prepositional prepositional vehicle m. in. vchkk [ENCLOSURE] lexical with I ENCLOSURE) SOClaled with Ihe prepo Illonal vehKle kxical concept This lexical concept,II argued, argued, encod encodes (at (at least) two distinct parameters: lea.t) argued. encodes Thi' lexical concepl, (al Ie I) two IwO distinct di linct parameters. parameler.: concept. I This lexical Enclosure and Location with Surety. Which parameter is selected is a function function is Which parameter is Enclosure and local ion wilh urely. vv'luch para meIer is lceled I aa funcllon and L IKJIIOfl with Surety. ofconlext. context. For Forininstance, contexts involving involvingfull full enclosure, enclosure, such such as that in (8) (8) that in of lance, conlexts involving full enclosure, u h aas Ihal (8) instance, ofselect cofltCXt. For the Enclosure parameter, while contexts involving only partial enclosure, enclosure, involving only partial selecllhe Enclo ure parameter1 para meIer, while conlexl while con t t S involving only partial enclo ure, t the Enclosure as exhibited by the examples in (9), select the with Surety Surety parameter. the Location Location with a exhibiled by Ihe examples selcellhe location wilh urelYparameter. parameter. examples in in (9), (i), select as

exhibited by the

(8)

EPT si LE(:TI0N

LEXICAL CONCEPT SELECTION

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONAL ITY tP ITI(lNALlTY I IC CO ( 51EMANTI<"

The toy is in the box

Ihe box (8) The lOY toy iis in the

(y) a. The bulb is in the socket socket bulb is in the a. i is Ihthe sockel a. h. The The flower in vase b. The flower iis in the Ihe vase vase h. The c. The umbrella is in his hand his hand

(9) (9)

(. The umbrella is i in hi hand

In fact, fact, ilit iis likdy likely Ihal that narrow narrow seleclion selection relates relates 10 to aa gradienl gradient of selection to In relales of activation; activation; is likely that narrow it In fact, for example, instances of full enclosure may in fact activate both parameters, both parameters1 for exampl ,in lane of full enclosure enclosure may may in fact facl activate a livale bolh para meIer , of full for example1 instances with the Enclosure parameter achieving greater (or primary) activation. activation. This primary) greater (or primary) En 10 ure parameter para meIer achieving grealer a livalion. This Thi\ with the Enclosure with the serves to foreground the involvAnalogously1 contextsinvolvrves 10 foreground the Ihe Enclosure Enclo ure parameter. parameter. Analogously, Analogou Iy, contexts conlexts involvEnclosure parameter. SelVeS to ing partial enclosure suggest, in the the Location foregrounding Ihe foregrounding ~ regrounding of of the Ihe Location localion ing parlial en losure result, rresult, ult, I IIsuggest1 ugg I, in enclosure ing partial with Surety parameter.' urelY parameter.5 parameler.> with with Surety Selection types

123 llJ 223

this represented types discussed rhe Inin selection lcellon Iypes u....! in Ihi section secllon is represenled Fhc distinction Thedisllnclion distinctionin types di discussed in this section isI represented diJgrammalically Figure II. J.3. diagrammaticallyininFigure Figureii. t1.3. further phenomenon: Before Ihi ~Iion di usaa phenomenon: Before concluding Relineconcluding concludingthis thissection section II1 briefly brieflydiscuss discuss a further phenomenon: is that I LCCM key claim made by lC M Theory Iis that Ihal meaning meaning ,e1eclion revision. 5dcctiofl selectionrevision. revision.AAkey keyclaim claimmade made by by LCCM Theory meaning utterance-level meaning: ,onslruction-which i isto 10 say. of unerance-Ievel meaning: meaning: aaa the formation of of utterance-level construction—whichis to say, say, the the formallon formation of aa range of distinct ,nnceplion-Illvolves inlegralion rang of distinct -involves Ihe the recruitment conception—involves the recruilmenl recruitmentand andintegration integration of of a range oflinguistic distinct different sources. include IYI"'" infonnalion drawn from . These Th include Iingui IIc pes of types ofinformation informationdrawn drawn from from differenl different ;our< sources. These include linguistic selected for for in an utterance, (onlenl Ihe variou lexi al concepts conerpl selected in an an utterance, uneran e, encoded contentencoded encoded by by the the various various lexical lexical concepts selected for in profiles to which cognitive ,onceplual conlenl associaled wilh Ih ccognitive gnilive model model profiles profiles to 10 which the the 1onceptual conceptualcontent contentassociated associated with withthe the model which the potentially afford is well al concepts concept; polenllally affordau.ess, at< ,a well as a; various variou ..elecled 5elected open-classlexi IcxkJl selectedopen-class open-class lexical concepts potentially afford access, as well as various extra-linguistic context, aspect Ih discourse di ourse context, conlexl, extra-linguistic extra-lingui lie context, conlexl, including context, aspects of context aspectsof of conlexl context including including the the discourse knowledge—discUssed in greater and we mighl refer 10 a background background knowledge—discussed kn wledge-discu....! in in greater greater to and what and whal what we we might might refer to as as later chapters1 LCCM Theory Indeed, and and as as weshall shall see inlater ail below.b below." Indeed, and as we hall see seeinIII lalerchapters, chaplers,LCCM l.C -M Theory Theory del detail below' Indeed, in tandem, composition claims Ihal Ihe variou proc of semanlic ilion occur occur landem, claims processes Maimsthat thatthe thevarious various processesof ofsemantic semanticcompo composition occur in in tandem, itil is that and recursively, building Ihe conceplion. lienee, i to 10 be be expected expecled that Ihal aaa and ininbuilding and recursively, recursively,in buildingthe theconception. conception.Hence, Hence, it is to be expected (on«pllon is revised, revised, as asis further further incorporated. revised, further information coflccptiofl conception is is information isiis incorporated. due which conception can be revised is One which aaa conception conceplion can can be be revised revised is i due duetoto 10 revising revi ingwhich whi h One way in One way way in in which which revising this conselection revi revision. To illustrate lexical conerpl lecled: seleclion ion. To To iIIu lrale this Ihis process proc conconlexical lexicalconcept conceptisis isselected: selected: selection revision. illustrate process attested exchange: exchange: "der following attested anesled exchange: sider sider Ihe the following (10) (in) (to)

I.. Let's A. Let's leI'make make make a MARGARITA. i. A. a MARGARITA. l. Whal? B. What? What? z. B. 2. isabella. J. A. lunch ... ... Isabella. A. For For lunch ...for forIsabella. 3. I . B. oh, 4. B. plZL1. h, pizza! B. Oh, 4. pizza! 4. arrangements

Broad selection

Narrow selection

Multiple selection

Single selection

Single

SIngle enatance

instance

Foregrounding

Foregrounding

Multiple MuI\lpIe instance

instance

FIGURE 11.3. Selection types typcs ht.liRL ILl. SeIt(lion IYJlCS IlGulil 11.3. T itim.ately.

,.ornmi'n round. ~ the ttk dl u .n tlf ,oint ,omt aitiVitK5 ~tlHI~ .tnJ ..... umuLl1 ...n of «,I \.ommnn Jrtlund and th.. the accumulation '• Sec " 'wt.the discussion of of 'tomt activities and the MA. tirmil.ilittli of onumn ground, sek,tion a;'phcs that illustrates tt'uil k.s.kill Uln..q't tc'~U'ln .... thill thll eumpk .U""tr.lIn .rrl~to10cases Utft of tlf , ItIt Iis wt.rth uhln· this obscTvsng that • It is worth observing that this example illustrates that lexical kon.c-pt selection applies to cr." £5 of in ing to inst.intrs In%'I,Is as as well rnargh€riia and nsargantoi. hnrnonymy,;u n-Kkrkrd by ..... mel trW,..n, ... ~II '" to I~n mvolvlnl pol)'M'my, m ed by tvkknt homonvmv. a-s margarita. as well as to instancesvehick homonymy, as evidenced by margherita andaw.iciah'd invoking polysemy. as in ut thc prqiosati.'tIal with 1M 1M (,f the I~ distinct dL"hn..1 kssual k:u,",,1 u.n..rrtAVM N. hilted M.WINwith wllh r~ltt<.~1 vdu..lc In the l.,aw of the prepositional vehicle in.

na

this remains an empirical question, of course.

' tThimaieh. this rciflainl an cmptflCaI

speakers were discu discussing In Ihi attested anesled exchange, exchange, two lwospeakers peaker were were inglunch luncharrangements arrangem nts in this exchange, two In this attested discussing should have: two adults and two children Jnd specifically pecifically what whal each each person hould have: have: two Iwo children person should and specifically and what each adults and two children making had been talking about 2. The The previous day day speaker peaker AAhad hadbeen beentalking lalkingabout aboulmaking making aged and speaker aged666and and 2.2. The previous previous day aged hearing the exchange in (to), in In the Ihe exchange exchange in in (to), (10),upon uponhearing hearing margarila Ihe cocklail drink. In cocktail drink. margaritas:: the margaritas: the alcoholic alcoholic cocktail relate to the "MARGARFIA" person 13 look took Ihi this to relale 10 Ihe vehicletranscribed Iran ribedas a "MARGARITA" "MARGARITA" person Ihe vehicle transcribed as the vehicle the person BB took this to10relate to the type of a fact intended margherita, drink: rnargorita. margarita. However, Iiowever, person person A Aininfact facIintended inlended margherita, margl,trita, aa type Iype of of However, person A drink: margarita. orthographic repre"margarita" have distinct piZL1. While "margherila" and"margarita" "margarila" havedistinct di linctorthographic orthographi reprereprepizza.While While"margherita" "margherita" and and pizza. have phonological vehicle. Hence, lexical concept alvehicle. vehi Ie.Hence, lienee,lexical lexi alconcept concepl \enlallon Iheyshare share the Ihesame sam phonological phonologi sentations,,they they share the same sentations, selectionisisrequired. required. ",Icellon selection 13selected selectedthe thelexical lexical con concept (10.1) person epl Upon hearing Ihe uneran einin theutterance utterance in(io.i) (io.i)person person Upon hearing the BB selected theclarification, lexical concept given 11w uneran utterancee in line seeks OF ALCOHOLIC ORINK).The Th line222seeks seeksclarification, c1arificalion,given given IITVP. TYPE 0)Au:OIH)I IC DRINK]. !TYPE OF ALCOHOLIC utterance ininline A clarifies lunch. in line J person cocklail for forlunch. lunch.InIn personAA clarifi Ihe unu;ual nalure theunusual unusualnature natureofofmaking makingcocktails cocktails the line 3 person clarifies Isabella, a 2-year-old child, whose Ihal the Ihe"margherita" "margherila" is isintended inlendedfor forIsabella, Isabella,a a2-year-old 2-year-oldchild, whose who that the "inargherita" is intended fur that fact known by both A and B. Person favourile food i margherila pizzas, a fa I by bolh A and B. Person B favouritefood tuodisismargherita margheritapizzas, pinas,aafact known by both A and Ii. Person B 13 favourite selects the vehicle selects and instead revi the Ihe lexical con eplthat Ihallh vehideselects selectsfor, for,and In,leadselects sel I Ihenrevises then revises thelexical lexicalconcept concept thatthe then vehicle instead This is confirmed line ITVPOF OF PIZZA].This onfirmedininline line 4.7 Ihelexical lexicalconcept concept the lexical concept (TYPE 01PIZZAJ. (TYPE PIZZA). the is confirmed 4. 7

of touric.

the case

tUmrlt

,,"".,11

of the distinct lexical concepts

AI

b

224

.1FH.TIO N «(l~( l PI 11 XICA l (ONtI-I'T_sit

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY

EtA TIC CO.tP SEMANTIC

ITIO AlIIY

The nature of linguistically mediated communication

com mun icati on med iated communication lingu istlc ally mediated of linguistically natu re of The nature

LCCM Theory constitutes an attempt to accountfor formean meaning construction Irutll nn tat con ing constru 10 acC involv s Ioreover, ov r. discourse di ourse . Morc ofdiscourse. hunk s of larger hunks wilhi n larger nl occur ev events occul within inlen lion\. In tiIhe wurd . languesr,whovpaticulmnvetios.Ihwrd liv intentions. unica comm ular partic have ". who have partkutar u age langu language users, of Herbert Clark: "Language is used by individuals; al at particular times and lime and partic ular times by individuals indiv idual at particular u'Cd i uage "Lang Clark: "Language is used ; Clar\. rt Herbe of ofplaces herbert for particular purposes" (ibid. 1996: xi). In short, uusage events, and the e andlh 'ents, and gcevents, hort.usage Inshort, xi). In purpo • (ibId. (ibid. 1996: xi). ular purposes" partic C\ for pia places for particular words which populate them, arc not plucked out of of thin air. The cor conception ptu," conce The air. The thin air. oul of thin plu ked out not plucked Ihem . arc nol lale them, popu 'h whi word words whkh populate associated with a particular usage event is a function of of the communicative the comm UIllCdll,. On of the event iis aa fUntll function u g event parti< ularusage wllh ""iol edexpressed aintention associated with aa particular by a speaker and understood understood by by a aa hearer. another way. er way, PUI hearer. Put Put anoth another peake r and expressed by a speaker and unde r lood by hearer. expr tion mlen intention a conception is always situated and hence unique, ari arising in service of the rvicc oo f Ihe ing in servIce uniqu e. arising h nce unique1 Ituale d and hence alway situated i always is con<e plion aexpression a of a communicative intention, mediated, in re lurl< bythe theresources part.by inpart, part1 media ted. in inten lion. mediated, unica lIVe intention, aa comm of ion expr expression of communicative made available by language. But we cannot hope 10 to fully get to grips with the with the grips wUti 10 grips get to fully get cannotI hope to fully language. But we cannO by language. ble by availa made available nature of the linguistic resources available, and how they contribute til ontri bule to they contribute available, and how how they abl. and r< avail resources lingui lic rC\Ou the of e nalur nature the meaning-construction processes without, if only briefly, considering usage u g considering iderin g usage briefly. con only briefly, without, wilho ul. ifif only proc ·con lrull; on processes meaning_cOnstructiOn anmg m events as an outcome of situated linguistically mediated comm unica tIon. communication, medi aled communication, lingu i Ii lIy mediated iluale d linguistically of situated oulco me of n outcome as 'enl events as an namely, communicative events. The compositionall processes at of the heart of hearl of Ihe heart al the proc at comp o illona processes event . The compositional unica tive events. comm ly. namely, communicative name LCCM Theory, including lexical concept selection, assume a particular view " w partic ular view ume a particular leell n. assume conce pt selection, lexical concept inclu ding lexical Theor y.ofincluding 'M nature L((the ;M Theory, of language and its role in communication. In this section, ,tion. thi section, comm unica tion. In this in communication. and ilits role in langu age and oflanguage nalur e of the nature of the which represents an excursis of sorts, I spell out this perspective. In so doing, dOIng. perspeitive. pclliv . In soI doing, Ihl pel"i pell OUI t • I spell sorts, out this of'lOr ii of \Cnt an excul" excursis reprC which I draw represents in particular on the seminal work of HerbertrtClark (e.g., 1996). 1996). (e.g .• 1996). Clark (e.g., Clark

Tht'tl ry (on lilul I U M Theory L(

u:

Ilerbe al work the semin seminal work of Herbert parti ular on th I draw draw in particular

Joint activities

IIe$ /o;nl Joint OC/;\II activities

(lark argues that language users deploy language ininorder to do things. t>, . Thatis,is, thing>That ag in order deploy language order 10 to do things. y langu users deplo language users argues t1u1 that language argu lark language is primarily used for social purposes. For instance, we use language to language to age to u langu we use instance. we r-ur instance, sodal purposes. pUI'J'O'CS. For u;cd for ",xial rily used age iisprima language primarily langu engage in gossip, to get to know someone, to conduct business, to make a business, to make aa me \, 10 condu ct bu know someone, ;omc one. to conduct ip. 10 engage in gagossip, to get get 10 to know e inin CIlgilg purchase shop, to declare love, to propose marriage, to get married, to quarrd . ed. to age. 10 marriage1 togcl getmarri married, toquarrel, ~ marri lare love. in a shop. purchase shop. 10 to ddeclare love, to to pro propose ase purch to make up afterwards, to get divorced, and so on and so forth. Clark argues ( lark argue so forth. Clark and so divorced, and S
ing: follow following:

• Scriptedn•ss: while sonic activity types arc highly scripted, such asas ulh a a npled . such tivity highly scripted, ar highly Iype are ly types adl\i 1m at some " while while .""n{,I et/II', • marriage ceremony, others, such as a chance meeting inin a supermarket uperm arkct meeting a supermarket ng meeti

C such chance h.las .la ch.lI1L monYt other age c~rt' marriage ceremony, others,t ~u marri

LEXICAL CONCEPT SELECTION

us

225

•

I,WO IhNe two 'C'n these other .ittivities which hclw< Ii between which lie li alllvi other are unscripted. There arc There . pled unri arc between these two are unscripted. There are other activities which lie .,rc a• striptedness say that I . to ledne SOIly by langu age. callI one call teleph lance. aatelephone in en. For btl\'ie between. between. Forinstance, instance, telephone call is constituted solelyThe by language, degree linguistic in nature. 10 degree to The e. nalur in lic ngui match is primarily not nOlli rily prima i malch all foolb while a football while a football match is primarily not linguistic in nature. The degree to discourse is a aa d i o ur e 10 as referred to i referred Jg relies on language langu on reli y Clivil joint which which a joint activity which a joint activity relies on language is referred to as a discourse illustrated Table 11.1. Table11.1. continuum iIIu traledinin i illustrated nuum is Thi nuum . This continuum. conli continuum. This (onti continuum is in Table mi. wholly those that are coope rati, •• wh~lIycooperative1 are from thai range lie. range dllivi cr.IIIV fll.'. activities •• Co"p activities range from from Iho those that are whollyacooperative, Cooperativeness: purchase in instance, making In nature. in lance. makm g. pu«h lor c. For in ..... rial in adve are Ihat lolho to tothose those that that are are adversarial adversarial in nalu< nature. For instance, makingand a purchase in the shop both cu tome r and the hop Ihe customer it relies both the on reli on as coope rative as i cooperative hop is aashop shop is cooperative as il it relies on both the customer and the shop In coneffect the purchase. con In . d pu«h cooperatively in order to Ihe I ell III in ly ralive coope ing \i lanl work aassistant assistant working working cooperatively in order to effect the purchase. In conrather than least in sense, .dve..... rial. ralhe r Ihan i adversarial, n.isis on sense, in one leo;l in al least malch . at nni match, ttennis trasl. trist, match, at one adversarial, rather than trast, aaa tennis lose. their opponent(s) to . . 10 10 ) nent( oppo Iheir the players seek to cause ,au 10 k > player seek to cause their opponent( s) to lose. aas Ihe ralive . as coope cooperatives cooperative, the players the respectise variation relates to of III Ihe re.pe ct" rclat to varial ion relates ofvariation dime mion of final diniension Ihe ",""ft : the ••• (;'lI'f the final final dimension the respective Governance-. pa.rti lular Ill.partitular in joml a(\lvl ly. in Ih joint in the ed involv participants involved ipanl partic Ih of rol roles the roles of the participants involved in the joint activity, in particular Igmficancc term off significance in terms not in ced or not balan equal ly balanced ar equally rol are whetherr their Iheir roles whelh whether their roles are equally balanced or not in terms of significance I'or in lance. Ih actiVlly, For ofthe gll.1 of towards realizing the th goal rcali1ing the d realizing lowar ibullo n towards contr Jnd contribution and contribution instance, and goalegalitarian of the activity. both governance: bolh ance: n gover n ari. shop involves egalil el> mvolv hop in a in" a purlh a maki ng a a purchase in a shop involves egalitarian governance: making both equally in must work mul work equally I.n and the hopke eper. must Ihe shopkeepers Cll 10m rand Ihe partiC lp.nl • the participants, the customer customer and the shopkeeper, work equally in activities aul ocrat lC mvolv autocratic aCllvllle. involve \Omeactivities sale. Incontrast, contrast, some a I. some contr In . I .. Ihe effl'll 10 r ()td order to effect the the sale. In involve autocratic order to effect such in aa dominant, ant. uch as m el>pclially domm i especially partic ipanlms on participant whereby one gover nance . whereby governance1 whereby one participant is especially dominant, such as in a governance, university lecture. ledur c. univel"iilylecture. university

which serve constituent elements 10 M:rve to whllh nl clcm t tituen n o it activities also exhibit exhib abo liviti a joml ion. addil In addition,joint joint activities also exhibit constituent elements which serve to In addition, following: These inclu include ing: Ih follow d the Th truclu re.These wilh them Provide themwith withstructure. structure. de them prtlvi include the following: provide

carry involves two or more partiiipaflts who who carry

more parllClpanl IWOorormore involv two jointactivity activity actlVllyinvolves )Oinl opam"AAjoint Participafltf. PaNl participants whoconsiSt carry • • Participants: participants shop purchases the con ipant partic Ihe • . purch For instance, in a hop In. . lance m fllr ly. dcti" For instance, in a shop purchase, the participants consisti t oullh outthe theactivity. activitY. out the sales i lanl. aassistant. ,I<...assistant. andlh cu;to merand the customer and Ihecustomer ofthe of the esales

'SOl . continuum 1W6: So). !.Irk1996: (Aft('f' ((lark uum (After ~~~~ rt ii ks, radio r('POrl • r.dlO reports. iofls, n('v. 1'3rer ;)rude lO. newspaper.' 4.:0m erwtu ,lO Idcph Telephone conversations, newspaper artikles, radio reports,

umlln (After Clark 1996: 50). dl (IUne'continuum "l"h('discourse ILl. The The discourse "at IfiLl. IlUll TABLE ILI. --~~--~ .

Most ly linguistic 'lI ilngul ylinguistic \1u~tl Mostly •

•• •

:

t

and '.4) so on. and and so on. television reports1 tabloid news Face.to4acC ~4.: to f.,l,u' (elO\ rwtill " tcl("V1 Ie')n rcr
items Itl:m items demonstrations films,. coaching plays1,film ul.I4.h lng dCOlun tr.JluH l Business lions,. pl.1Y lr.. o 1.1100 8U'lo., ' transa& Business transactions, plays, films, coaching demonstrations two peciple moving g matihes.• tv. ') peaplC' movin Football matches, tennis m.ltl.h tcnni m.lt4.h IImatches, F(lutN Football tennis matches, two people moving lurniturt, making 10\:': g love mJkm love ure.making lurOil furniture, duct. waltzing. pI.iv*ng l'Laying violin sn • duet. Yo' "/mg. (".YIO l..Jh.h In a ng.a 'lluilo PI"~l

nof, hngul til. Playing a violin in a duet, waltting, playing catch In tlynon-linguistic Mostly Mostly =.---~

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

____ SFMANrIC (( O.1I'()SilR)NAI trY

joint activity, each participant takes on Activity 'Tiler • Actlv part icuI. r on particula tak on parllClpant takes ea h participant a tivity. each joint InInaaajoint ro/~s: In lly roles: ••Activity proceeds inin rvlc' publicroes.Thdtmnweachpritodsnevic parti ipant proceeds each partiipant howeach d termm how Th determine pubIi roI .These public of facilitating the joint joint activity. For instance, ent cv '"~ comm er iaI ev 10aaa commercial in .. nce. inin I-or iflstjflcC, aclivity. For th fa ilitatmg the of 1oint activity. of tacilitating thetransciouhpaseno,prtica ume th partl ipant assumes one participant h p. one purcha ininaashop1 u hasa aa purchase transactionsuch transaction roleof of seller, theother other of of cu customer. tom r. th lIer. the role other of customer. of seller, These are the mutually known goalswhah which result Public goals: • role the from the r uft Itfrom whi hresult goal ngoals know mutuallyknown the mutually arethe Th arc goal_. Ihese Public • • Public joint activity, such effecting purchase. purc h=. ingaaapurchase. effect aaseffecting u has jomt activity. such joint In addition, participants inaaa joint joint activity may Private harbo ur may harbour activitymay joint activity in participant in addition. participants In addition, g<.,/s: In ,'. goals: Pr;,·, •••Private which are unknown to the other participants(s). goals, private parti "pant \(. ). otherparticipants(s). the other to the unknown to arc unknown which arc goal. which te goals. priva advance aresoinprised of,and andadvance through, joint Jointactivi activities • Joint actions: /omt gh. l0lnt throu cethrougn advan and of. mpriscdof, ccomprised arc ti are • /01111 nct/ollS: Joint activities • Joint actions: actions. These These are are the the di discrete action comp components that make up jOint up aa joint make up that make onent that action rete action a tion . These discrete components are the .ictiflflS. the saks activity. I'or Forininstance, in makin making a purch purchase in aaa shop. shop, sales aassistant "'tan t sales the hop. the in a in in tance. in activity. For makinggaa purchase activity. instance, or customer may initia initiate the activity by enquiring as to to a It whether assistto whether wheth enquiringas by enquiring actiVity by the activity te the may cu tome r may or customer initiate or ance iis required, or can can be provided, deciding on the wantl'd. items wanted, the items on mg on decid the items provided. deciding be provided, or reqUired. or c an rcquired can be ance is confirming the price, exchanging return goods, produ gooru.produfor goods return for in for ent in paym ex hanging payment price. exchanging th payment in return confirming the confirming prke. cing and and receiving a receipt and finally closing the transaction. Each Each of tran lion. lach th transaction. do ing the finally dosing receipt and a receipt ing receiv ong and finally cing receiving a theseand discrete components constitutes a tion. joint action. con Iitut aaa joint onen ts constitutes comp point action. -rete di th components discrete these A joint activity of joint • Hierarchies: A (and allion (and lomt actions (mU of hierarchy 1)1 joint actions invoIvcs aaa hierarchy ty involves activi hierarchy Hi r"rcl,ies: A joint • Ilierarchit'r. point activity indeed other joint activities). That is, as we ofaaa exampleof theexample in example of seen in hav seen we have is,as Thatis, have seen inthe the activiti ). That joint d other indtt activities). we indeed other joint shop purchase, joint actions lead hierarchic I others.ininaaahierarchical to others, lead to hierarchical naturally lead action naturally joint naturally to others, purchase. joint hop purchase1 actions shop sequence: one canno cannott proceed the tiN i first anoth erisis first until another ty until allivi ne t activity the next to activity until another proct td to nce; one seque proceed to the next sequence: one cannot completed. Equally, lomt joint hierarchicsofof mvoIv scqu n involve involvehierarchies hierarchies ofjoint cyent sequences ded event exten Equally. extended leted. Equally1 comp extended event sequences completed. activities. activiti . • activities Procedures: Participants in aa joint and public and their hi 'e their aachieve a IIV/ty achieve theirpublic public joint activity ipant in dures: Parti •• Proce in a joint Procedures: Participants private goals by deploying procedures of various sorts. These include sorts. Th These indud includee various sorts. proce dur of various ying procedures deplo goal by te goals priva deploying private by using language as as other non-linguistic for. pteia liledfor, durtSspecialized proce procedures specialized for, -Iingui ti procedures well a well lansuag as lOS language uusing well aasother other non non-linguistic or adapted to, the joint activity question. foothall 10 tan e.inin infootball fOt)tLXIll I'orinstance, tlon.For qu activityinin joint question. For instaflcC, the adapted to. or the oint activity in or adapted to, non-linguistic procedures include are the nizedbybythe recog arcrecognized recognized whi tho which dethose inclu may procedur may include those whichh are ingui ti procedures non-I non-linguistic may laws of the game, kicking in hall the ing the pa wa •passing passing theball ball variou ways, in various hall th hall -kingthe ki u -h as game. such ofthe law kicking the ball in various ways, laws of the game1 such ,ts to team-mates, dribbling past opposing players, and those which are not, not. arc which e~ and ing pla)' pa t oppo ling past players1 and tho those which are not mate>. dribb to dribbling opposing to team team-mates, such as attempting to win free kicks in goal-scoring position virtu virtueofof ot by itionby aJ scoring po position byvirtue ks in fret win emp~ing.'o asatt such freeki kicks in ggoal-scoring such as attempting to win simulation, which isI totosay, have fouled. betn havebeen t ndingtoto pr fouled.. \JY.pretending pretending to have been fouled Imulallon. whICh simulation, which is to say. • Muses: A joint phases. activity involves a number of distinct (lark (lark pha . Clark tmct phases. er of distinct , aa numb a Iivity invol loint " A •• PI,"involves number of di joint activity Phases: A identifies three: identifi three: identifies three:

i. an entry the participants from not being tivitytoto aactivitY (0 joint the ininthe being not from go ipant go partic beingin thejoint jointactivity the mIry: I.i. an the partkip1tnts go from not an in it, as when a customer approaches a shopkeeper being to ask for help forhelp help hopkeeper to.."k ach a shopkeeper to mer appro aacu approaches to askfor inin.'t. ?ting being it, aan aswhen whenfor customer in selecting item purchase; ase; lectmg ananItem 10 purchase; in selecting itemfor for purch ii. the body the joint participants are engaged the ty: activi joint ththe ngaged in10in "pan t are engaged jointactivity; activity; parti I~-.dy: the the !!. _ parikipants are the themit: body. iii.ii.an go from being in the joint the participants activity to in11111. it.it. being not in ty 10 the 111 being theI"int jointactivi activity tonot notbeing being go from ipant> partic the exit: an III. from being in iii. an exit: the partkipants go dynamic • Dynamics: joint activities occur may they occur that n that the dynamic inininthe are thesense sense thatthey theymay mayoccur ti are aCllvi • • 1>yrIlItIllC<: joint joint activities are simultaneously with, or overlap, other joint activities. In addition they ion they addition they o,erla p. olher or otherloint joint aclivill"'. InInaddit ft.neou Iy With. Slmu simultaneously with, or may also feature a varying number of participants at different points in poinl ent rtl(lp ant at er ofofI'partiipaflts ng numb at differ different pointsinin aavaryi _ ~ ature alalso may varying number may kdure achievement of the activity's goal(s). the the achlcv m nt of Ihe aClivily' g""I( .). the achievement of the activity'S goal(s).

IFXI(AI(ONC1PT_SELI(,t ION

227

227 227

d Common grou nd groun onground Comm These which are cumulative ininnature. Th . proceed in incremental steps nature lati, cumu are which step. ental increm in incremental tdin in nature. :oceed steps which refers These are cumulative 1<>1111 activi ties proct oiot ground, to as common accumulate what Clark d. groun on comm 10 refers 1(.1nCntal steps serve to (lark what l a umula what ( :lark refers to as common ground, tep. \Crv serve to accumulate inacmental ental steps lI"rcm Clark, common groStalnaker gm on grolark. comm I'or . For (19]8) Sialnaker (1978). Richard Stalnaker fromRichard lenn wrowing termfrom from Richard (1978). For Clark, common wing aaaterm )'orn1 built up participants that is IS bUilt up ipants Ihat m partic betwe ledgebetween know d knowledge share ~he und ,on constitutes theshared shared knowledge between participants that is built up tilut the UI1.! activities (Jirk argue's that joint of a joint activity. ll activl jOll1t that during the course argu Clark y_ g lhe incrementally during the cours coursee of of a )Oint joint actlvit activity. (lark argues that joint activities 1-otally dunn ,n,rel11 ground. of common the tumulatiofl gmund. on ground. cumulali n of by aredriven drivenby bythe theaaccumulation ofcomm common dmen Jre ire ground: accumulation of common be adduced in the ground: on comm of n ulatio accum the Three stages can in ed addu be can tag Three stages can be adduced in the accumulation of common ground: I hre< bring

knowledge that participants bring participanl bring that participants lcdg that know the esthe involv Thi ••• Initial d:This groun the knowledge onground: ground: Thisinvolves involves comm Inilial Initialcommon common the point of entry activity1 and hold at mtry ofentry point of allhe hold activity. and with joint activity, in aa joint ing in engag beforeengaging withthem thembefore engaging and hold at the point them With assumptions of background knowledge includes the umption hackground assumptions of background set of theset ledge indud to Thi ty. This actiVi tothe theactivity. activity. This know knowledge includes have the set tbe 1o other, and their about each their and their other. and tach other, and parti ipants have that participants facts that andpresumed presumed facts that participants have about aboutthese each prtSumed facts and achieved will be goals1 a hi ·ed Winbeberoles. th will how these presumptions ptctive goals, theirrespective about mptions about presumptions about their their respective goals, their how achieved prC>u joint activity rol activityroles. joll1tactivity theirjoint about their including ,ump lions about aassumptions and assumptions ledge and know dingknowledge about knowledge II1du including activity, given point in a ,oint joint Ktivity AtAtany activity. j(11l11 a in state of the point givm any tivity: ••• Current a jomt the of laic of Current joint activity: At of any given point in arelates joint activity, nt state Curre to knowthe activity. This to knowrdat to Thi relates activity. This Ihe activity. participants of the tate of currentstate th current represmt the lpant represent participants represent the current state partl it is knowat. progressing md what stage how the activity is al. i it tage what and ing progr i llvity a the ledge how rning how the activity is progressing andthe concerning what stageevents it is at. ledge conce that various Participants also represent that nl tv u vario th nt events so tar: repr Iso ipanl •• Public Partl far: Participants 'ents so tar: Public events alsothe represent the various events that Publi joint activity. in realizing activity. joint activity. the joint have thus thus far far taken realizing the in realizing pIa e in thu have taken place place

the shop purchase event, and imagine

4

Imagll1 lets reconsider and imagine ev nt. and purcha event, hop purchase the shop of illustration, illustration, recon ider the let' ration. let's illust By way way of reconsider At the buy a pair of boots. shoe shop in order to the Atthe .At boots of pair a buy to order in p h that the customer enters a hot s enter r 10m cu Ihe that the customer enters a shoe shop in order to buy a pair of boots. Ihal order to enquire the customer, in approaches enquire ordertotoenquire ustomer. ininorder th customer, moment the shop approach the i tant approaches aassistant _hopassistant th shop moment ent the mom both the customer her purchase1 in effecting h r pur hase. both the cu lome r whether requires in i tance in aassistance requir assistance sh requires er she whether she effecting her purchase, both the knowledge customer wheth involves knowledge. This involv ledge large body of know Thi . ledge know and sales assistant hold a of body large hold a i tant hold a large body of knowledge. ..1 assistant and sales Thisofinvolves knowledge and about purchase footwear, involved in making about andabout footw ar.and purcha ofoffootwear, makingaaapurchase about the the procedures in ed in involv procedur involved Ihe procedures about making aboui sales assistant assumes For instance, the a um assl tantassumes I assistant Ihesales in tance.the eachother, other, including assumptions. I-or a umpt ion.For ding assumptions. II1du r. including oth each instance, each and the items of footwear, purchase anitem item or or items of footwear. and the an that the the customer wishes topurchase ase an purch 10 wishes to tome r wishes cu the customer that item or items of footwear, and the Ihal and otirs, assistaflu' available fur, and off< rlo m~r indicating them customer feet,felchi fetching boots and th cu lome r trying Ihem measuring thecustomer's bool ngboots feet. ,~tomer' feet, the measuring fetching and the customer trying themfor u"?g the meas confirming on pri price, payment the boots required1 for entfor paym e. on a decision on rming confi on, red. making requi boot the on decl Ionon the boots required, confirming on, on price, payment makll1gaadecision on.making of these the transaction. Each purchase1 anddo,in closing the:.e _ Fa hofof tran-'JclionEach Ih transaction. gthe theboots, boots, wrapping thepurchase, and a •and pURh the pingthe wrap •wrapping the closing these boot !he hierarchical of ways, and constitutes a proceed rangeoforways, hicrar,hi .11 (on lItut a hierarchical and constitutes way,and range joint tdininina..arange proct canproceed joint athon scan int actions JO ground the comfllofl current state of described above. The groun on comm th of lal nt sequence. as curre The . above rihtd d sequence, above. The current state reached, of the common ground d ~uen e. as described while participants which stage has been participant whileparticipants ,,:ached.while includesknowledge knowledge towhich htcnreached, hasbeen \lag has whichstage aastoto ledge as kn()w II1dud includes

226

226 226

—

AalYllyroles rolN: In In aa joint jOintactivity, .ctivny.each ~achparticipant partk'panttakes tak on onparticular partkul •o Actn'it;' Activity In rO!t'S eath partidpant takes on par publi roles. rol .These Th determine d~t~rmin how howeach ~ hparticipant parti ipantproceeds proc~inininservice rvt' public roles. These public determine how each participant proceeds offacilitating facih~ahng th~ joint jointactivity. actIVity. Iiir I'or in tJnc~.in commer"alevent~~ For instance, inina acommercial ilitating the joint instance, commercial of tranSOlctlOn such uch as purcha in 10 aJ shop, hop.one oneparticipant partiCipantassumt a um the the transaction such as aa purchase assumes transaction in shop, one participant rol~ of ofseller, lIer. the th~ other otherofofcustomer. eu tom r. role of role customer. Publicgoals: go,./" These Th are r~ the the mutually mutuallyknown knowngoals goal which whichresult r ultfrom fro mthe th Public •o public These known goals mutually jointactivity1 a tlVlty.such uthas tTeetingaJpurchase. purch.;e. • joint activity, such as effecting joint Pri,·atrgoals: goals: In In addition, addition. participants participant in in aaajoint jointactivity aClivitymay mayharbou ha rbourr •o Private In goals participants in joint activity oth rparticipants(s). participants( ). prlvat goals goals. which whl h are Jre unknown unknown to to the th other privategols,whcunktoehrpaicns(). private /01111 actions: aaiollS: lomnt /Oint activities achviti are comprised of. and advanc~ through.joint JOIOt •o Joint 'flint activities are arc comprised comprisedof, of,and andadvance advantethrough, through achon . These These are aare .. the Ihe. di rct~ action action component tha tmake makeup upaaajoint joint actions. These the discrete discrete action components componentsthat that make up joint 10 tance.in 10making makIOgaaapurchase purch inin inaaashop, hop.the thesales
actlvltl . activities. ivities. o• Procedurcs I'rocedurN: ipants in aa joint JOIOt activity a tlVity achieve a hi ve their their public pubhc and and Procedures Parti Participants in a joint activity achieve Participant. in their public and of various various sorts. MS. These Th include includ private ploying procedures procedur of private goals by by d deploying private goals goals These include uusing 109 languag~ non·lingui h procedures procedur specialized specialiledfor, for. language as well as other languageas aswell wellas asother othernon-linguistic non-linguistic procedures specialized for, or adapted to. the 10IOt achVlty in 10 question. qu tion. For Forinstance, in tan e inin football or adapted adapted to, to. the thejoint joint activity activity question. For instance, infootball football ..recognized reco~nized by th non lingui hc procedures procedur may may include include tho whi hare aare non-linguistic procedures may includethose thosewhich which recognizedby bythe the laws ofthe gam~. such a ki king th~ ball in variou ways. pa ing the ball laws of the game, such as askicking kicking the the hall ball in in various ways. ways, passing passingthe theball ball to t~am mat dribbling pa t opro ing playen. and those whi h re no t. to team-mates, past opposing opposing players, team-mites, dribbling dribbling past players. and and those thosewhich whichare arenot, not, ~uch ks in 'oring po Ition by by suchaas as.allemp~IOg.to attempting to win such attempting win free free ki kicks in goal-scoring position virtue kicks ingoal· goal-scoring position byvirtu virtueoof off :mulatlon •. whl h Iis to y. pretending ppretending .. tending to to hav~ been bttn fouled. simulation, which is to to say, say, to have have been fouled. fouled. o• IPhases: /10 ~s: A activity involves involves aaanumber number of di tinct pha"",. Clark Clark Phases A joint activity activity A JOint joint involves of distinct number of distinct phases. phases. Clark Identlfi Ihr identities identifies three: three:

I.i.i. an joint tlVity to to an emry., entry: th entry, the participant the participants go from not being in the participantsgo gofrom fromnOI not bring beingin inthe thejoint jointaactivity activity to beIOg n. J wh n J cu tomer approaches a hupkeeper to ask for help being 10 in it, as when in when aacustomer customerapproaches approachesaashopkeeper shopkeepertotoask askfor forhelp help 10 leehng an n m for purchase; in selecting selecting an item for purchase; an item for purchase; II.ii. ipant ar~ loint activity; the body: ii. th the participants are engaged ininth the thebo.ly. body.th theparti part kipants areengaged engaged10 thejoint jointactivity; activity; III. an 001: from being on the Joont Oktivny iii. an anexit: exit:th~ the partilipant. go from being in the joint activity the participantsgo go from being in the joint activityto beingin inIt. it. to not not being being in it. o••

IF XI(A1. CONCEPT CONCIPI SELECTION sIt 1(1 iON LEXICAL

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONAIITY COMPOSITIONALITY

I?rrtallllC"

;olOt activiti are dynamic i~inthe .th~ n that Dynamicsjoint jointactivities thesense activitiesare aredynamic dynamicin sense that th~ t)ynam:ts they may occur they may may occur occur Iy wnh. or overlap. olh« IOlnt alltvlh . In addition they Imuhancou simultaneously with, or overlap, other joint activities. In addition simultaneously with, or overlap3 other joInt activities. In additionthey they al", feature a varylOg number of parllclpant at dift; rent POInI 10 may may may also alsofeature featureaavarying varyingnumber numberofofparticipants participantsatatdifferent differentpoints pointsin in Ihe achlevem nt of Ih~. IIvny' goal(s). the the achievement achievementof ofthe theactivity's activity's goal(s). goal(s).

•

127 227

227

Common Common commonground ground cumulative in nature. These

are steps which xeed ininincremental incremental activities I,unlactivities Jctiviti proceed proceed incrementalsteps ,tcpswhich whichare are cumulative cumulahv~in innature. nature.These Th Joint lo^int

Is ground, serve to what Clark refers to as common common accumulate increriuntal stun InCr\' to accumulate accumulat what what Clark Clarkrefers refers to to. almmonground, ground.

Richard Stalnaker (1978). br Clark, (lark, rrowing aaa term For common gro(1978). F-or aark.common commongrogro horrowmg t built up und Clark argues that point activities icinentilly during the course of a joint activity. incrementally during the course of a joint activity. Clark argues that joint activities Ifl
partkipants bring ground: knowledge that Initial ••o Initial Initial common comm nground: ground:This Thisinvolves involvesthe th knowledge knowledg that thatparticipants parti ipan bring bnng activity, hold at the point point of entry with them before engaging and the with in joint Withthem thembefore beforeengaging ~ngagingin inaaajoint jointactivity, activily. and nd hold holdat atth~ pointof ofentry entry background assumptions assumptions This knowledge set of to the activity. includes the set of background activity. to the actIVity. Thi knowledge includes the set ofba
imagine reconsider the shop purchase event, By way way of of illustration, illustration, let's By way tUustration. I t' reconsider r on id r the th~ shop hoppurchase pur h event, ev nt, and and imagine Imagin~ the order to buy a pair of hoots. At hoots. that the shop in that the customer customer enters a shoe thJt th~ eust mer enters ~nt~rs aa shoe hoe shop hop in in order order to to buy buy aa pair pair of of boot . At At the the enquire approachesthe customer, orderto toenquire the shop shop assistant moment the th~ hop assistant a i~tant approaches approach ththecustomer, u tomer. in ininorder order to enqui .. purchase3 boththe thecustomer customer whetherr she requires in effecting whether she assistance in wheth h~ requires r~uir assistance i tan ~ 10 ~a ting her hherr purchase, purch • both both the customer knowledge.This Thisinvolves involves knowledge and sales sales .issistant hold aa large large body body of of knowledge. sales aassistant hold of knowledge. Thi involves knowledge knowledg dnd i tant hold larg purchase of footwear, andabout about about procedures involved in the procedures involved in making a purchase of footwear, and about th prOledures IOvolved in making a purcha of footwear. and about the sales sales assumes instance, For instance, each other, including including assumptions. For each other, the I assistant aassistant I tant assumes a urn eJ h other. in luding assumptions. I'or in tan ~. the items of footwear, and the that the customer wishes to purchase an item or that to purchase an item or items of footwear, an it~m or item of footwear. and nd the Ih that th u lomer wi h , 10 purch assistance assistant is available for, and oflers, customer assumes that the sales assistant is available for, and offers, assistance assumes that sales cu'tomer a ~umes thatth I a i tanl i av.il.bl for. nd otTen. J i tance Theseassumptions assumptions made effecting the selection and purchase purchase of of footwear. footwear. These in ~ft; selection ting th~ lection and purcha of footwear. Th umption made mad in ground. 'I'he joint by the participants represent the initial state of the common the particip.nls participants repre nlthe the intti.1 initial state common ground. tale ofth common ground. The Th~joint joint by Ihe of the the participants jointlyand and activity progr progresses by virtue progressesby byvirtu virtue of J
229 229

Ll XICAL(:oNs <.:ONtLPT l- P I sI St1LEGflON LIxI(:AL 228

-

228 —

SEMANTIC CONIPOSITIONALITY f 'ANTIC (·OMPOSITlON!A::.I~I:..:T.!Y______________ IIC (()MPOSII tONALITY

LEXICAL CONCEPT SELECTION

is resolved

Common Ground

Coinmon Ground Discourse Representation Textual Representation

Taxtual Repr......toon

Situational Representation

SfualJo"al Repr"""lloon

FIGURE 114. Common ground and the discourse representation rcprescfllatiflfl fl(.l'RI lL4- Common the discourse til OUI"\C rcpr~n',)tion tI(,t'KF 11.4. (ommofl ground and the

also represent knowledge relating to all the joint actions that have thus fat that have thus .tII the the joint actions aho rcpr"",nt knowledge relating to all joint action that have thu, far knowledge relating JIM) repres&flt occurred.

occurred. According to Clark, common ground accumulates by virtue of participants virtue of partiCipant accumulates of participant According to Clark. common ground accumulates by virtue to Clark, common maintaining a discourse representation. This consists of two other sorts of ot two other sorts representation. This mainlaining a di ourse representation. Thi con i t of two other >;ort, of maintaining a discourse representation. The first is a textual representation. During the joint activity. jornt representation. During During the ;Olllt representation. The first iis aall representation. a textual textual First of representation. l'hetrack participants keep the utterances issued and otherthe signals, attivll),. such such as issued and other other signals. participanto; keep track of th utteran i ued and ignal. uch as a of all the utterances participants keep track prosody, and so on, during the various joint actions. accompanying gestures, various joint actions. and 0;0 so on. on, during the ge turutterances ... proo;ody. the variou joint 'CtUIII'. aaccompanying companying gestures. The record of all the made constitutes the textual representation. InIn textual representation. The record of all the utteran es mad conslItut the textual repr"",ntatinn. In made The record ot all the utteraIKes addition, participants maintain a situational representation." This comprises This comprises addition. participan maintain a and ituational representation.' Thireferents compri of situational the addition, participants participants. the time, venue, physical environment, the referents (it physical environment, the the partiClp.nt,. the time. venue. and phy "al environment. the referent, of tinw, deployed, venue, the linguistic expressions the social commitments implied by the implied by the the social social commitments implied the ticexpressions expre Ions deployed. th by the the lingui linguisik participants' utterances—for example, the offer to help made by the sales made by the sales examplesththeoffer offer to help utterancc<-for example. help actions made by the sal participant • utterances—for participants' assistant—and the relationship between the various joint in accom joint .ictiofls in .ttC01U between the various "' i tant-theand the relatinn,hlp between variou the ;OIntcomponents ott ion in a«om assistant—and the relationship plishing joint activity. The relationship between ofolthe the ihe relationship between pll hing th joint .ctivity. Th relation hip between the component of the the pushing representation the joint discourse arc captured in Figure 11.4. captured in 11·4· di\(ourse ar captured inFigure Figure11.4. discourse representation are Joint actions Jointactivities JOint actions Joint

proceed by virtue of the joint actions which make them up, as

we

which niake them up, JOInt a(tiviti proceed by virtue of the point Jt,int .etion make them up. a., we we of the actions which Jointseen. activities proceedof byjoint virtue have The hallmark actions is that they require coordination between coordination between have secn. of i, actions is that that they requIre require (oordination bet,,
,,,0

See the related notions 411 the situation model (van Ihik and Kintsch KAI) and mental model 1911)) and mental model and (van model • ~ reLunt nuUnn, 01 t~ 111u.lhun n) ....ki h.n PII" and "'1111 h l.,al) .00 R)('nl.&J m".leI lohnson-Laird IstSti developed theidUatK)fl psycholinguistit: literature, and Addressed in slightly more t1inthe See INthe ICLI*Cd more and addressed h*eralure. detail in (:hapter t It"'mun IA,n)n.1913)dndnrcd Ih.:- I"'".hohntt\.l~h' hltnlIUfC'... nJ okWrnk'\! an wltf,hlly muK devek'prd in in the

,,*,,,

(Jnhniofl I .&ird ij delolll in (hotrt« detail Sn Chapter t\.

229

joint actions "dlnating theor action. In acllon the coordination coordination problem problem is rco;olved their actions. InInJoint the coordination problem is resolved ortiiiiating their actions. ioint actions i) kind of coordination coordination devices. ~~M, Irtue of of employing employing coordination devices. One On kind of oordination d vice• sirtue devices. One kind of coordination device, virtue of employing coordination 1w(iv is convent ion. .11,,1 the on empl yed by language. is conv ntion. .. , employed by language. the one one employed by language, is convention. conventional signalling and the represents a \ linguktic hngui tic system 'y tem (e.g .• lngli,h) represenh a conventIonal Ignalhng (e.g.. English) conventional signalling comprised A linguistic system (e.g., English) represents a system ,,,tcm that that facilitates fa ilitates coordination in in joint jointactions action,. This Thi~ Y tem is i comprised that facilitates coordination in joint actions.vehicles This system comprised and is lexical conassemblies comprising "~Isystem ,ymbolic units-bipolar a semblies c~mpri ing vehicles .a~d lexical c~n­ inbolic f symbolic units—bipolar assemblies comprising vehicles and lexical conlinguistic community. o _ whICh arc establi hed by cOlwentlon ifl a given ,cl't, III a gIven hnglll't" eommuOlty. established by cepts—whichare are established by convention in a given linguistic community. available lIowever. and as ob rved in Chapter hapter '", the range range of symbt)lic symboh units UOlt .avallable and as oItscrved the range of symbolic units available 4, of situations, I However, and as observed in Chapter underdetermifle the range t" the participants in joint underdetermine the range of sltuallon • actions parikitothe theparticipants participantsin injoint joint actions underdetermine the range of situations, functions that "cnt;. \tat • relallon,hips. and other interpersonal interper:.onal fun lion that partlCl relationships, and events,stdtCS. states, relationships, and other interpersonal functions that particiand fulfil. Language language rant. may potentially potentially seek seck to to use u language to to express expr , and fulfi~. language about pints pantsmay may potentially seek to use language to express and fulfil. Language unique u,c" are continually using Language language to express expr uOlque meaOlng. about continually using users usersare are continually using language to express unique meanings, about While each language unique tate> of of affairs .ffair and and relationships, relation hip. in in unique uniqueways. W.y>. WhIle ea h langu·1I unkjUC uniquestates states of affairs and relationships, in unique ways. While each language be comha, a range of "ready-made" schem ymbohc units UOl" which whICh can cal~ be com of "ready-made" has hasaarange range of "ready-made" schemas--symbolic units which can heundercomnecessarily actions—these actions-these necessanly underhined to facilitate coordination in ; int coordination in joint facilitate coordination in joint actions—these necessarily it, bined bined to to facilitate underLangacker puts experience. As human experience. As lang.eker put it. dctemline the mutability of human determine determinethe the mutability of human experience. As Langackerfor puts it, every unitary aa fixed .."Linguistic Linguisti COflVCfltjOfl convention cannot provide provid~ fi"~. unitary expression :x~r '. ion for 'ery 8 27$). "Linguistic convention cannot provide a fixed, unitary expression for every describe" (ibid. (onceivable situation that. peaker might mIght wish WI h to descnbe (IbId.1987: 1987: 17 ). that a speaker .onceivahle situation 278). (ibid. 1987: conceivable situation that a speaker might wish to describe" involves employing \, ( lark argues. in in order order to toovert. overcome this this.language languageuse use involv.es employing As t.onvcntioniil ways in As Clark Clarkargues1 argues, in order to overcome this, language use involves employing units in the conventional conventional repertoire repertoire of of symboliC ymbolic unit in non non- onventlona! way ~n the the conventional repertoire of symbolic units in non-conventional 1000).ways That in is, (see also order to overtom problem (see also Croft 1000). That I • coordination problems order overcome also Croft i000). is, whichThat surtate order to overcome coordination problems (see representations words to do not have table and fixed semantic representation whi h \urfa e stable and do not not have have stable and fixed semantic representations function words do which surface semantic variation, a each time they are used. used. Rather, Rather. words word exhibit mantic variation. a function each time time they they are are used. Rather, each words exhibit semantic variation, a function actions. in SeiVtt.c c't point rvi e of joint acti ns. . ,ituated language u in 'if,f situated language use semantic situated language use in service ofTheory, joint actions. nature of the protean Iirom rom the the perspective nf lCCM Theory. the protean nature of semanll of l.C(;M From the perspective perspective of LCCM Theory, the protean nature of semantic appropriate lexical selecting the represent.ti n iis,• in in parts part. aa function fun tion of (i) selecting the appropnate lelll al representation of lexical representation is, in part, a function of (i) selecting the due appropriate to (oncept. and (ii) deriving aa contextspecitic cont xt- pecific reading reading ~ue to the theprocesses pro< .. of concept. and (ii) facilitate concept, and (ii) deriving a context-specific reading due to the processes of lexical concept integration and interpretatiofl ",terpretation; aas lexical leXICal concepts concept faClhtate and i ntegrat iofl it at concept concept integration and interpretation; as lexical lexical concepts seiflantk facilitate aa vast access to the con eptualsystems y tern. and hence hen e possess po vast semanti potential. the conceptual tessto to the conceptual system, and hence possess a vast semantic access potential, of a conception. in service service of of the formation of a conception. thi, potential mu t be be narrowed in thispotential potentialmust mustbe this narrowed in service of the formation of a conception.

Factors in selection Factorsin inselection Factors in In lhl tion II provide provide aa brief brief overview overview of of some some of of the the main main fa tors in thissection I provide a brief overview of some of the main InInthis factors in in LCCM Theory. \election. Selection. like the the other compositional compo itionalprocesses pro< in LCCM selection. Selection, factors selection. Selection, like the other compositional processes in contextual LCCM Theory, main identify some of the i, guided by context. In order to identify o;om of the main contextual factors guidedby bycontext. cofltCXt.In order to identify some of the main contextual factors isisguided follows: discussioti as follow: di>cu ion involved.I divide I dividethe thediscussion involved, the involved, as afollows: • •

linguistic context, •• factors fa tor\ .s>
Sci tion IS i, j0lhienced influenced by both both these these di tinct type of context. 'selection Selection is influenced by both these distinct types of context.

- lowevcr, thesecond second part partof ofthe the

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY

2 io 0 23

.,IMANTI(COMPOSITIONMITY

2()

aafridge, IInw ·er. the Ihe ond part of the utterance utteranc rdal to 10. fridg •aaaspecific peeific I utterancerelates relates to fridge, specific hence, by definition I,,,,ation whichisis i designed d ignedfor forrefrigerating refrig ratongtoodstutts. food tuff. Hence, II nc • by ddefinition finition locationwhich designed for refrigerating foodstuffs. in which the 1Thi hisprompts prompts prompt for forselection I tionrevision, revi ion. in which whi h the the (tow )Ow LOW •a fridge fridge isis i cold. cold. This fridge cold. for selection revision, then gives rise to a reading s,PIRATUP1I concept ,,"PI RATlIR') lexical lexical lecled. This Tho. then Ihen gives gov ro readong lexical concept concept isisi selected. selected. This rise to a reading 4111 FRATUREI iiTv11 which the addressee's girlfriend is not an exciting location to which it 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 jn,n namely the (ridge, be sent, hut rather a cold hnuld be senl. ralh r aa cold namely the the fridge, fridg •in inorder ord rto tofetch fCICh should sent, but rather cold location. location, namely in order to fetch for WK1) Vodka typically concludes pork pie. the advertising .1 pork advert"ong campaign campaign for for WKI) WKD Vodka Vodkd typically typICally concludes conclude pork pie. pie. The advertising 'wicked') side?" In the (pronounced WKI) the slogan: "Have you got a '\lth logan: "liave WKD (pronounced (pronounced'wicked') 'wicked')side?" ide?"In Inthe the the slogan: "Have yyouu got aa WKI) with Ihe promoted1 this particular Original Vodka has been heavily ll'K ' '': where where WKD Original Vodka Vodka has ha been been heavily heavily promoted, promoted,this thi particular p rtieular VK where WKI) I he humour of the advert group. age under is ,ikoholic .Ii< Original Original Vodka. Vodka. The The presumablyaaapork goes nicely nicely ofofWKL) Original TFMPFRAT('RI) the in part, on the selection for plays, humour humour alo;o play in part, on the the selection I ·tion for for the the 'LOW (LOW TEMPERATURE' TEMPFRATl'RF) humouralso also plays, in part, lexical POSITIVE EVALUA i the I concept, while evoking lexical Ie,icdl evokin g the Ihe (POSITIVE )po ITIVI EVALUATION' 'VAlUATlO") lexical lexi al concept. (On cpt. concept. lexical conlepl, concept, while evoking evokes one is amusing, this is 54) because it 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 utterance it the addressee's girlfriend—onlv to revise lexical lexical on epl-advanlagenu to 10 the th addressee's addr • girlfriend—only girlfriend--ilnly to torevise revi itil lexical concept—advantageous advantageous—thereby revealing "wicked with another—which isis notadvantageous—thereby WIth i not advdntageou Ih rebyrevealing rev lingaaa"wicked "wickedside". ~id ': with another-which another—which context can be The I)iscourse context toUte'Xt ii. II. coli/ex, (aka common ground): ground): The Thc discourse di ou~ context context can can be be ii. Discourse (aka common ground): discourse grounds developed by Stalnaker (1978) equated with the construct of common con troll of ofcommon commonground, ground,developed developedbybyStalnaker Slainaker(1978) (1978) equated with the construct

Linguistic context context linguIstic canthink thinkolof oflinguistic linguistic context as involving levels. The We can Ihonk lingui Ik context conlexl. involvingthree Ihreelevels. level. The Thefirst fir Ilevel le\ ·1 isI involving three as that of the the primary concern of LCCM Theory.Above Above this this Ih utterance, utt rance. the Ih primary (tlncernof ofICCM I.C( 1Theory. th,s is" the Ihe Ihal that of the utterance, discourse level, which involves an arrangement of more than one, typically arrangement more than than one, on •tvp Iyplcally di our level. which onvolv discourse level, which involves an arrangement of moreevent. A speech event many, utteranc utterances.. Above the di-,,:ouN discourse level speech many. bove Ihe lev I is the Ihe speech pcc<:h pcech enl utteranCes. Above the discourse level is the speech event. A he Ihoughl thought of linguistic context, of as a the Ihc highest high""l level level of oflingui IIIcontext, conleXI.in inwhich whichmore morethan Ihan can be mon linguistR in which be thought olas the highest level of can one, sometimes distinct episodes ofdiscourse di ou~ are are embedded. mbedded. While WhIle one. somctim many many distinct di linct episodes episod of embedded of discourse arc OflC, sometimes many speech events mighl might be co-extensive ptc'Ch evenl co exlen lVe with Wllh events event. ofother olher sorts, rt. such suchasa a• speech events might be co-extensive with events of sometimes an event event isI entirely entirely constituted dinner party, party. >om lim an evenl is enmely constituted con liluledby bythe Ihespeech pee.hevent, e\cnl. dinner party, sometimes 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 whkh might lecture.9 In terms of the example ota dinner party, as in a several houri, hours, Ihi this may ,"",eral may consist on i I of ofaalarge large number numberofofseparate paralediscourses, di-..:our disco several hours, this may consist of a large number of separate involving different differenl configurations configuralions of ofparticipants parliClpanl as as they Iheyrange rang over different difkrenl involving different configurations of participants as they range over dii 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. topics, in different locations in the house or other venue of the dinner is not not simply aa monologue Similarly. Ilecture lur is is nOI imply. monologue involving involvingaaasingle inglcunbroken unbroken single unti Similarly, aa lecture simply monologue involving similarly, discursive unit. unit. Lectures Lectures often discursive unit. Leclur often oflcn involve invol.. questions, qu lion. and inl raclion between belween and interactions interactions involve members of of the lecturer, the lecturer may mcmbers Ihc audience audiencc and and the Ihcltcturcr. thc lecturer Itcturcr may may indulge indulg in in asides, a"d . and the lecturer, the members of the audience anecdotes, a lecture isi typically onlO separale parI with d i\lincl anecdol .... and leclure is Iypically organized organized withdistinct distinct typically organizedinto intoseparate separateparts parts anecdotes, and aa lecture event, qua speech speck and organizational structures. Iruclur .Hence, lIenc.even 'cnaal lure. 'Ilia pcc<:hh event, e\Cnl. themes Hence, even alecture, lecture, themes and organozational organi/ational structures. can be thought level,the the ofas as involving involvingdistinct di tinctdiscourse di ou~episodes. cplsod .Each Ea h level, level. Ihe can Ihoughl of can be thought of as involving distinct discourse episodes. lach utterance level, the discourse discourse level, and the the level of the utteran . 1.lh 'OU~ level, level. and thcllevel . loflhe peech event, evenl. provides provide of the speech speech event, provides utterancecllevel, the dl a contexl context which facilitates, in slightly different ways, lexical concept selection. faeililal • in on slightly lighlly differ nl ways, way .Ie ieal concept oncepl.selection. leclllln. different lexical which facilitates,

summariied as summarized and especially especiallyClark Clark (1996), (,ps'i), as (19'}6).. ummariled above. .bove. This Th,. includes on Iud knowledge knowledg above. This includes knowledge relates to the accumulated knowledge, "above the level of the utterance, and el of the Ihc utterance, uttcranec, and and relates relat to to the theaccumulated a cumulaledknowledge, knowledge, "above" "above" th the Ilevel the is shared by interlocutors due textual and and situational, situational, that and Ituallon31. that thaI isi shared . hJred by by interlocutors interlocutors du 10 the the .,,>th textual lextual both due to to the process of context serves to guide The di 'our context rv 10 guid the the process pr<xcs of of ongoing di -ou<'<. The ongoing discourse. discourse. The discourse context serves to guide lexical con concept selection. lexical pt selection. Iccti n. lexical concept reproducedbelow: below: illustrate, reconsider the exchange exchange in(to) (to)reproduced .. change in in (10) reproduced below: Ii, illustrate, illu trate. reconsider recon ider the th To

a context The utterance i. Utterance which I. V"crancecontext: roll/txt: Thc il If provides pr vid aa linguistic lingui Ii context conlcxlwhich provides linguistic context utterancee itself itself context: The utteran I. guides gUld seleclion. Thi linguistic lingui"i context conI xl includes includes all aspecl ofoflinguistic lilinguistic ngui'lic includesall allaspects aspects guides selection. selection. This This linguistic context information in aaa given lexical informalion thaI appear given utterance. utt rancc. These Th includ all Ihe lexIcal Theseinclude includeall allthe thelexical information that that appear appear in given utterance. concepts impli aled in in Ihe utteran e. as aaswell well aasfeatures fealur of prosody-rhythm. prosody—rhythm wellas featuresof ofprosody—rhythm, conceptsimplicated implicated inthe theutterance, utterance, stress, and intonation. To illustrate contextserves serves Ir • and oral the Ihe w y in in which utterance conlexl 'rv illustrate the way way inwhich whichutterance utterancecontext stress, and inlonalion. intonation. To illu to guide selection, consider 10 iderthe Ihc followingattested att ledexample: txample: example consider thefollowing following attested to guid guide selection. selection, can

A. Let'smake make aaa MARGARITA. (io) 1.I.i.A.A. (10) Lct' MARGARITA. (to) Let's MARGARITA. B. What? z. 2. B. What? Whal? 2. Isabella. forIsabella. . for j. A. For . .for 3. A. For lunch lun h ... Isabella. 3. lunch... B.Oh, Oh,pizza! piii.i! 4.4. B. Oh. pizza! 4.

(n) Send porkpie. pie. (11) ndyour yourgirlfriend girlfriendsomewhere somewhercreally really cool. thc fridge pork pic. reallycool, cool,the thefridge fudgefor fora.ta pork (ii) Send your girlfriend somewhere

to a reading in which addressee's girlfriend addr . girlfriend cxdling 1(k.:atiol1, perhal' on vacJtion. location,perhaps perhapson onvacation. vacation. addressee's girlfriendtotoan anexciting excitinglocation,

• Indeed, a perch islJintegral to to the event with which itIIis Indn:d. the the- degree dl"lfC't" to 10 which .....hl'-h. ,~hevent n't'nl ltv f'Wnl With Whkh IW' the event with which itl co-extensive isCC)-ftirn co.exten'ive event is1n1qt".I110 integral the degree to which a Indeed,to i99('): %et' correspond u.rrnp'n.J Id the dw diw dl nurse tUnt continuum ~lInhnuum :lark j( I..lark r~ .'IY6i. wr Lillie T~ II I i

'

to the dis.uric tontsnuunl

231

I

LIngUiSt?C context

The utterancc (11) derives d riv from from billboard adv rtl menl for for Ihc 31akopop opop billboardadvertisement advertisement forthe thealcopop The utterance utterance in in (it) (ii) derives fromaaabillboard the WKI) Vodka. The point WKI> Original inler I in Ihi' example relates rrelates 1.11"" to 10 Ihe inthis thisexample example tothe WKI) Original Original Vodka. Vodka.The Thepoinl point of of interest interest of the utterance leads 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 lexical concept selected for the vehicle cooL the first part of the utterance the userrIo totoselect thethe 'POSITIVE Ihe language Itctlh Ipo ITIVE EVALUATION) EVAlUATION) Ielexical ical concept. OOne nc EvAUATI0NIlexical concept. One select IposiTivE language uuser the languag rreason a In for Ihi follow from th Ielexical kal profile profile for Ihi lexical concept. ThaI lexicalconcept. concept.That Thatis,iis,• thelexical profilefor forthis thislexical reason for this this follows followsfrom fromthe lexical concept part of the knowledge we have of PosrriVE EVALUATION lexical concept IPOslTlve EVAI I VALUATION al conc pI is iis parI of the the (PoSITIVE ('ATIONjIIlexi part Oflhc of the knowledg knowledge w wehay haveoflhe to be that formal tendency really, Ihallh re is iisaaformal Itctionallendency for pre· modified by by rrall,; forcool coolto hepre-modified pre-mt)difled by really, thatthere there formalselectional selectional tendencyfor This leads (POSITIVE as in on the Ih expression e pr ion really rrally cooL ""01. Thi lead, selectoon thc Iposi I PO\lTIV I leadsto to selection selection of of the the i IVE as in the expression really cool. This EVALUATION' EVAlUATI 1') lexical lexi al concept. on ept. Hence, lIen«. Ihthefirst first of the utterance gives ririse ofthe theutterance utterancegives givesrise Hence,the firstpart partof I VALUATION J lexical concept. to a• reading reading in on which whi hthe Ihe adv rtisiisinterpreted interpreled ugg tongsending ndingthe Ihc interpretedasassuggesting suggesting sending the theadvert advert

CONCEPT SELFCTION

LEXICAL CONCEPT SELECTION

groundaccumulates, accumulates, Asis evidentinon inthis this exchange, asthe the common ISisevident evident thi exchange, exchange, as thecommon commonground ground aceumulal •itItit A As (TYPE 01 PIZZA I in becomesclear clearto tospeaker speaker thatperson personAAir Aisisreferring referring bccom clear to peaker BBBthat that person r. rringtototo (TYPE (TYPE OF PIZZA] PIZZA) in becomes OF KTAILI. Crucially, the ITRUS-FIAVOUR1 n line 1Ii rather ratherthan than 'CITRUS-FLAVOURED rather than (e ITRl'S IIAvm'RI n TEQUILA 1 'Ql·ll.A COCKTAIL]. e:oc kTAII). Crucially, .rucially, the the line theselection selectionofof ofthe the (lisioUrse itselfprovides providesthe thecontext context which facilitates ell 'OUrS< itself Itself pr
001

ri

SELFA.IION LEXICAL LEXICAL CONCEPT SELECTION

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY

242

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONAL ITY

THEsSTUDY OF Bo lecture on human anatomy anatomy will willselect select the the lexical lexical concept concept II liii I i 1)Y OF huni1tn lecture onwhen exposed to the same vehicle. In Inother otherwords, words,the thenature natureot of PARTS] pARTSI when exposed to the same vehick. speech eventcan canprovide provide aa context which facilitates facilitates lexical lexical concept concept sel eRi tmtext which event regardless of the utterance ordiscourse discourse contexts.

regardless of the utterance or

Extralinguistic context Extra!ingUiStiC context Extra-linguistic context is a complex construct which plays a significant role Extra-linguistic context is a complex construct which plays a signincant in the compositional process of However, for of interpretation. interpretation. However, for our our purposes pui in the compOSitional in lexical here two examples will suffice to illustrate its more limited function in here two examples will suffice to illustrate its more limited function concept selection. Firstly, example: Firstly, consider consider the the following followingexample:

(ii)

ihe woman approached

bar. Crucially, this 1 he phonological vehicle of interest in in this this utterance utterance is is bar. The phonological vehi..k of interest vehicle has a number of distinct lexical concepts associated with it, including vehicle has a number of distinct lexical concepts associated with it, md and [DEMARCATION OF [VENUE OF PURCHASE IN PUBLIC HOUSE] AREA RE HF OF AREA OF PURCHASE IN PUBLIC HOUSFI and SERVED FOR JUDGE IN COURT OF 1.Awl. Hence, relate to to aa I lAwl. Hence, this utterance could relate SERVFt) FOR to woman approaching a "bar" in a a public public house, house, presumably presumablyininorder order to woman approaching a "bare' in purchase alcohol, or to a woman approaching the area area where where the the judge judge isis purchase alcohol, or to a woman approaching the seated in a court of law. In an utterance such the as this, this, the the venue venue in in which whichthe seated in a court of law. In an uflerance such as utterance is made, which is to say the setting, provides the extra-linguistic utterance is made, which is to say the setting. provides the extra-linguistic context which lexical concept concept selection. selection. If 11uttered uttered in in aa pub, pub1the the which facilitates facilitates lexical lexical [VENUE PURCHASEIN IN P('BI PUBLIC IC of (viNut 01OF PURCHASE lexical concept concept selected selected will will be he that that of HOUSE).Li If uttered uttered in in or or near nearaa court courtof of law, law, the the lexical lexical concept concept selected selected will will he [DEMARCATION OF AREA RESERVED FOR JUDGE IN COURT OF LAW ]. be (IISIARCATION OF AREA RFSERVFI) FOR JUI)GF IN COURT OF LAWI. Now consider example: consider this this second example: NOW

(13) Satisfaction with every erection! (13) Satisfaction with evers' erection! The lexicalconcepts conceptsassociated associatedwith withit.it. 11w lexical lexicalvehicle vehicleerection ereaiorzhas hasa anumber numberofoflexical However, and scaffoldingcontractor, contractor,and sloganofofa ascaffolding However,this thisattested attestedphrase phraserepresents representsthe theslogan was seen on a company vehicle then,the thesetting setting belongingtotothe thecontractor. contractor.Here, here,then, was seen on a company vehiclebelonging lexical provides identitythe the lexical providesthe theextra-linguistic extra-linguisticcontext contextwhich whichisissufficient suffkicnttotoidentify concept in question: I ACT OF A MAN-MAI)F MAN-MADE VERTICAL STRUC1URFI. ASSEMBIIN( A VFRTI( Al STRUCTURE). concept in question: IA(T 01 ASSEMBLING

An illustration: declare An illustration: declare In this section I illustrate some of the issues relating to selection by examining an In this section 1 illustrate some of the issues relating to selection by examining an example of single-instance multiple selection selectioninvolving involvingthe thevehicle vehicle(War•."' de'tlare.'°

233

Wilde, the Irish

onsider the attributed to consider the following following example, example, attributed to Oscar Oscar Wilde, the Irish playin i8$2 wright,novelist, novelist,and andpoet, poet,when when questioned questionedat at US customs in 1$82:

1 have ( 1 4 l "I have nothing nothing to todeclare declare hut but my my genius."1' genius."' with it. l'he hasaanumber numberof ofdistinct distinctlexical lexical concepts concepts associated associated with it. Thevehicle vehicledeclare declarehas these: Toillustrate illustrateconsider considerjust justaatew few of of these: (1 ORTHRI('II I INFORMATIONAL ! FORTHRIGHT INFORMATIONAL ASSERTION]

( )

concept selection.

(t2) "The woman approached the thebar." bar."

233

undying love love for for her her lie wanted a.a. He wanted to to declare declare his his undying his innocence innocence b. h.The Theconvict convict wishes wishes to to declare declare his LF(;AL. STATUS) SI ATUSI NIW LEGAL ANNOUNCEMFNT OF OF NEW

I [ANNOUNCEMENT

116)

Chamberlain was wasforced forcedtotodeclare declarewar waron onGermany (ermanv on on a. a. Neville Neville Chamberlain September 1939 September 3rd 3rd 1939

law lhe Junta declare martial martial law h. h. The Junta is is set set to to declare

K('IIN(iJ (PRovisioN [PROVISION OF OF AN AN OFFICIAL OFFICIAL RULING]

winner l'he refereewill willdeclare declarehim himthe the winner 'I7) (v) a. a. The referee

theinmate inmate legally legallyinsane insane b. decidedtotodeclare deJare the h. i'he The judge judge decided thebuilding buildingtit fitfor forhabitation habitation buildinginspector inspectorwon't won't declare declare the The building c. The CUSTOMSI 6001)5 AT AT CUSTOMS] OF DUTIABLE 1)1' II %BLFGOODS ANNOUN( EMENT OF

I[ANNOUNCEMENT

'I a. 'I (Is) a.

(is)

to declare' declare' have nothing to have nothing

allocated

declare having havingmore morethan than his hisallocated h. The The traveller traveller was was forced forced to to declare b. allowance cigarette allowance

distinct lexical concepts associ-

licensed by distinct lexical concepts associlach of are licensed Each of the the examples examples above above are hasbipartite bipartiteorganorganis, as as aa lexical lexical concept has ated with with the the vehicle vehicle 1t'clarc. That is, declare. That ated to conceptual andfacilitating facilitating access to i/1ition,encoding encodinglinguistic linguisticcontent contentand conceptual ization, representation—each lexical concept assoitssemantic semanticrepresentation—each lexical concept assocontent—collectively its distinct lexical concept—involves distinct an open-class open classlexical ciated with with deciare—being an ciated described sitetotoconceptual conceptualcontent, content,asasdescribed linguisticcontent contentand andaaunique uniqueaccess site linguistic difference linguisticcontent, content,one oneobvious obviousdifference in Part Part II II of of the the book. book. In In terms terms of ot linguistic in (recall relates to totheir their pragmatic pragmatic point point (recall conceptsfor for declare declarerelates betweenthe thelexical concepts between assotiated consequencesassociated thesocial consequences thediscussion discussionininChapter (haptcr 6), 6),ininparticular particularthe the theycan canoccur occurand andthe theparticipart iciwitheach eachlexical lexicalconcept, concept.the thesettings settingsininwhich whichthey with eachofofthese theselexical lexicalconcepts concepts involved.In Interms termsof ofconceptual conceptualcontent, content,each pants involved. hasaaunique uniquesemantic semantic hasaaunique unique access accesssite. site.That Thatis, is,each eachlexical lexicalconcept toncepthas has largebody bodyofofnon-linguistic non-linguistic potential, facilitating facilitating access, access,potentially, potentially,to toaalarge potential, OF knowledge of of the the (IANNOUNEMFNT knowledge.For Forinstance, instance,part partof ofthe theknowledge knowledge. ANNOUNCEMENT OF

example of single-instance multiple

is based on SUggC'tK'fl. tot

this '° Note 11141 Js Wrilltle %ph itit. inin only hehe addressing the thetone tirm this► estion settksnI will I will 1 . /welt Lexical concepts associated with dedare. rather than tither related tomb. such asas as JctJrdarc.i detiare as.stxiatcd with driIau as concepts rather itun other related lorms. opposed to dedared differ in terms of tat kast) their linguistic content. as they encode different content, as they encode diftercifi least) their .'t opposed to .kclarcd differ in trims ot parainctrr• for the category Time reference.

I

paramdeT% fur the

1i,iw rdrrrn4c

the

Wilde quotation.

discussionininthis thissection is based on suggestions for analysing the Oscar Wilde quotation. discussion "° 11w term %twknt Kyle Jasniin. Itwsc were pmenscJ in an my graIu..testudent involving ens olving declare, by my graduate Kyle lasmin. These were presented in an unpublished term II) my I am grateful to Kyle for bringing this trier to to as as lasmin Iasnun (.ZuoJI). paperwhich whichIIrefer paper (loo81. I am grateful to Kyle for bringing this quotation to my attention. attention.

234

-

1J4~__~~ E.=t~A~N~T~IC~C~ 0~M~P~0~IT~I~0~N~A~L~IT~Y__________----------------— NEW LEGAL STATUS' lexical concept involves the

cognitive models, which I refer

i models, thelexical concept NEW LEGAL TATU jlexical concepl involv Ihecogmlive model. whith I rda concept involves to as individuals and types, with which this is associated. For lexical STATL w LEGAL associated. lexical with which 10 as individual and Iypes. wilh whi h this Ihi lexi al concept concepl is i associaled. ~or

instance, manyand people, particularly in the United Kingdom,will willknow know that the individuals types. .is the United in,lance. many people. particularly in Ihe niled Kingdom. will know is ableparticularlY to bring about a state of war betweenthetheU UK andIhallh. anoth er Prime Minister many peoples and K between of war about a state prime Minisler is abl 10 bringaboul a slaleofwarbeleclion (If selected for for in the lexical lexicalway. concept facilitated FORTHRIGHT ASSERTION] lexical concepts arc facilitated two uncept is ASSFRTION1 lexical can epl i fa( ihlalc-d Ihe (fORTHRIGHT INFORMATIONAL ASSERTloNjle"ical FORMfollows A TIONAL by context. as "my genius" is a property being IN This the linguistic I FORTHRIGHT beingascribed ascribed geniUS" is a property by linguislic conI xl. Thi follows as "my geniu .. i a property hcing ascribc'(\ This as "flY to an individual, namely Oscar Wilde, by Oscar Wilde. Accordingly, this by linguistic context. this Wilde. Oscar 10 an individual. namely OSCIr Wilde. by ar Wilde. Accordingly. Ihl counts as an informational assertion, and therefore guides the selection ofof to an individual, namely guides the selection and therefore of counts a an infonnalional assertion. and Iher fore guides Ihe selection assertion, the (FORTHRIGHT INFORMATIONAL ASSERTION J lexical concept associated counts as an informational lexical concept Ihe (IORTIIRIGIIT INfOR tATIONAL ERTIONj lexi al concepl associated INFORMATIONAL with both linguisticASand extra-linguistic context the declare. However, contextserve servetoto and hngu"ti, extra hngui. li( (onlexl \CrveAT10 wilh dedart. lIowever. bolh both linguistic select for theHowever, lexical concept: (ANNOUNCEMENT OF DUTIABLE GOODS with bxlorc. DUTIABLE GOODS AT MEN1 OF selecl Iheterms lexical con epl: context, (ANNOUNCl tENT Of DUTIABLE GOO'" AI CUSTOMS!. lexical In of concept: linguistic the (ANNOUNCEMENT OF DUTIABLE select for for the DUTIABLE fl'N(IMENT OF the LAN CUSTOMS(. In ,onlexl. Ihe (ANNOUN(:£ tENT Of DUTIABLf linguistic context, have GOODS AT CUSTOMS( concept collocates with the expression In lenll terms ofhnguisti oflexical expressionI I have with the (;()()l" AT (.U'TOM,j le"iwl concepl (ollocal~ wilh Ihe expr~ ion I cusIt)MSI nothing formslexical part ofconcept the lexical profile associated with lexical AT which lexical GOOL)S to, .isso,iated withthis this lexkal profile not/,,"g 10, which forms part of the lexical proftl a socialed wilh Ihi, \exical of the concept. In addition, the extra-linguistic context, a US customs post, serves nothing to, which posts servestoto aU US cu customs e'lralingui lie conleXI. a loms po. I. rv~ 10 concepl. In add ilion, Ihe linguistic facilitate of this this the lexical concept. The humour that derives from concept.selection In addition, from this that derives Theofhumour faeihlale sel«lion Ihi'on lexical conlep\. The Ihal lexical derin><;concepts from Ih" of this lexical concept. expression relies, in of part, the dual selection two distinct facilitate selection lexical of two distinCllexical distinct expr i n reli ,in on oflwo conlepls from a single instance. Moreover, thisselection usage provides evidence forfor Wilde's expression relies, in parI. part, on the dual WiIdC'S provides evidence from a ingle inslan •. Moreover, Ihi usage provides evidence for Wilde's this usage assertion regarding his genius. Oscar Wilde was well known for his wit and from a single instance. wit jrid known for his Wildc was well ... rtion regarding hi' geniu~. Oscar Wilde was well known for his wil and a his genius. clever wordplay. in asserting his genius he also provides evidence of it. .issertiofl regarding evidence ot it. also provide provides evidence h. abo of il. clever rting hi geniu he his genius clever wordplay. wordplay. In In aasserting

a

'"II'r

Summary

Summary This chapter has been concerned with lexical concept selection, or selection selection selection, or or seleclion with lexical concept Thl chapler ha heen concerned wilh lexical con el'l >eleclion, forFhis short. Selection involves the identification of the lexical concepts associchapter has been concepts identitic.Itutm of of the for with hurt. Selection Scll~tion involvc~ the idcntifit..Jtion the lexical Icxit:al COl1(('pt ated vehicle in a given utterance. Selection is is thus one of J~\()ll the involves for short.each of the Selection thus one given utterance. aled wilh each vehidecentral in aa given ult ranconstruction e. Seleclioninb LCCM Ihu~ one or Ihe compositional processes to meaning Theory. 'CM Theory.

meaning construction u)mll() itiono1tprocesses pnx c,c\ c('ntrat to 01 aning constru tion in in LC M Th('()ry· compositional

—-

-

SEMANTIC COM PoSITIoNALITY

t

llX1CAL (:ON( 111'! vT SU I ( "TION (ONt sit f.(TION II LEXICAL CONCEPT SELECTION

235 135 235

.-oncepts selection, whi whichh is Indeed. the Ihe oulpul of selection, I to 10 say conv nlionallya of,daled wllh of others "within"with a rathervehicle. than theNarrow range others conventionally associated involves scI selection selection Ihelexical ameconcept, phonological arrow of leclion involves lion "wilhin" a phonological vehicle. thethe same parameters from a same phonological vehicle. Narrow selection of involves selection "within" distinct examples the selection di linct parameler from ,Ingle le"ical ,oncepl, for exampl • Ihe seleclion of lexical concept1 for In single lexical concept, for example,encoded the selection ofgiven distinct parameters from lexical concept. of paramelel'> by a given lexic.l ,on epl. In .,,,,ongs the rang of parameters •,inongst range l the user mongst the range of parameters encoded by a given lexical concept. In Typically1 the language a .le\ecl a single ingle lexi concepl in order 10 buildTypically, conceplion. This i user Ihe lexical concept ill select a in certain will select a single lexical concept in order to build a conception. This is the sclcctjofl. However, ",.,oni al situation, ilualion. and and is b referred to 10 as a single ingle >eleclion. \Iowever, in certain referred to as canonical situation, andle"ical is referred to ascan single selection. However, in certain selected. This is concept be re~ rred 10 as ,,,,,Iexl mor< Ihan one concepl can hc lected. Thi i than lexical .ontcxt more for a single contexts more than one lexical concept can be selected. This is referred to as lexical of more than one multiple selecllon: Ihe \Cl«lion of more Ihan one lexical (oncepl for a ingl the selection multipiC selection: particular1 multipleFinally. selection: the selection of moreand than one lexical conceptIn for a single guided by context. \Chide. seleclion i influenced and guided by conlexl. In parti ular, is Finally1 devehicle. Finally, selection is influenced and guided by context. In particular, context were fJLlors associated a ialed wilh bolh lingui lie and and extra·lingui lie conlexl were d linguistic with both factors factors associated withcon bothIrain linguistic and extra-linguistic context were deselection. of selection. "bed which which serve serv 10 Ihe application applicalion of the to constrain

scribed which serve to constrain the application of selection.

LEXICAL LEXI At coN(:EP1 CONCEPT INTEGRATION

12

Lexical concept integration concept integration This with the the first first of of the thetwo This chapter is concerned with twoconstituent iollstitUefltprocesses

associated with fusion, namely lexical lexical concept conceptintegration. integration. Lexical Lexicalconcept integration For for short, integration, Of or integration shun, involves involves the integration 1)1 of the thelinguistic eflcfldedby h the hill lexical concepts content encoded full range of lexical conceptsininaaparticular particularutterance. u solely with with the the integration of Hence, integration integration isis concerned solely oflinguistic tontent, 1wthe thelinguistic linguistk context content, and and .,s as such such is guided by contextofofthe theutterance uttcrai rather than than any other sort sort of of context, for instance extra-linguistic context. context Integration applies once the lexical Integration applies concepts conceptsin inaagiven givenutterance utterancehave hav been sdected, based on the mechanism described selected, mechanism described ininthe theprevious previouschapter. chapter.Integramt tion involves what I rekr to linguisticcontent tion involves what I refer to as the unpacking' of the linguistic associated with the lexical associated with the lexical concepts concepts being beingintegrated integratedin inorder order for for integration integration to take Integration gives givesrise risetotothe theformation formationofoflexical to take place. Integration lexicalconceptual co units: integrated linguistic content. content. Once lexical concepts integrated units of linguistic conceptshave havebeen been integrated, integrated, those those lexical lexical concepts conceptswhich whichafford afford access to access to cognitive model model profiles. open-class profiles, open-class lexical lexical concepts, are then subject to the process of interarc then subject to the rrocess of interpretation. However, and as 1iswe weshall shallsee seeiningreater greater detail detail in in the the next nextchapter, chapter, the relationship between lexical concept the relationship between the mechanisms of lexical conceptintegration integrationand and interpretation is best characterized interpretation is best characterized as as constituting t.onstitutingaadynamic dynamicinterplay, interpl.iv,rather rather than two pr Cessesthat thatare are"blind" "blind" to to the the workings workingsofofeach eachother. than two discrete processes other.InIn part, this is a consequence of the part, this is a consequence of the way way fusion fusion proceeds: proceeds: lexical lexicalconceptual conceptualunits units I

in parts of of the the utterance utterance may in different parts mayundergo undergointerpretation interpretation prior prior toIt)

undergoing undergoing lexical concept concept integration integration with other other lexical lexicalconceptual conceptualunits units that make up the utterance. Aswe wesaw sawininChapters Chapters 6 and 7, As 7, the thc linguistic content encoded by aa lexical lexical distirht types of knowledge knowledgewhich whichisishighly concept constitutes a bundle of distinct highly in nature. The unpacking schematic in nature. The unpacking and integration of this schematic schematic knowknowledge serves ledge serves to provide scaffolding, so to speak, for structuring the so to speak. for structuring therich rich conceptual content content to towhich whichthe theopen-class conceptual lexical concepts afford access. InIn open-class lexical &onccpts afford short, the short, the linguist,.. linguistic content knowledge) which arises content ("grammatical" ("grammatical" knowledge) arisesfrom from lexkal con..eptual content lexical ..oIhept concept integration is essential for providing conceptual with content with structure, thereby informing the the nature of the informational characterizations nature of the informational characterizations which arise arise during during interpretation, as as we weshall shall see see in the next chapter.

to compositionality compositlonality in in cognitive cognitive previous approaches to previoUS approaches n guiStia Ii1ngUiStiCS hasbeen beenaddressed addressed head hnguistks. semantic compositionality has i n cognitive linguistics, cognitiveapapapproacheswhich whichmodel modelgrammar. grammar.2 Ihis follows follows as as cognitive 2 This „n by approaches as units units of of grammar assume assume the the symbolic thesis.' Consequently, as ' ,roaches to grammar of onsist of pairings of a phonological vehicle for (or form) with units of grammar consist ofgrammar grammar which which isisconcerned concernedwith with semantic structure then an account of also adadddressing the the combinatorial combinatorial potential of language, by necessity, also a,,jdrcssing compositioflality. dresses the the issue of semantic compositionality. the composittonalitythat that have havebeen beenmost mostinfluential influentialininthe The the accounts of compositionality of CogCogdevelopment of LCCM Theory are those associated with the theory of of 1.( and Cognitive (Langacker 1987, nitive Grammar WV, 1991a, tomb, 1999, 2008) and Grammar (Langacker

Both theories include acaczoob). Roth Grammar ((oldberg (Goldberg1995, 1995, 2006). Construction onstrUCti0fl Grammar structure—thecombinatorial combinatorialproperty propertyofofgrammar grammar counts ..ounts of of constituency constituency structure—the grammatical constituents, constituents, such which facilitates such .ts as flOUfl noun %S'hich facilitatesthe thebuilding buildingof ofgrammatical and sentences from noun, phrases from from nouns nouns and and determiners, determiners, and and clauses clauses and sentences from noun, phrases of preposition, and and verb verb phrases, phrases, and so on. Crucially, as both these theories of prepositiOn grammar assume assume the the symbol symbolic thesis, by virtue of dealing with ..iinstituency constituency grammar address compositionality. compositionality. and combinatorality, these theories also directly address and to aa distincdistincIn Cognitive Grammar Grammarsemanti.. semantic compositionality arises due to dependent lexical kxk1tl conceptually independent independent and and conceptually dependent tion between conceptually in the dependent lexical lexicalstructures structuresare arerelational relational in structures. Conceptually Conceptually dependent structures. (INIs)which which schematictrajectors trajectors (TRs) (TRs)and andlandmarks landmarks(LMs) sense that that they have schematic Thedistinction distinctionbetween between aIRand and form a TR torm part part of their semantic representation. The referstoto in focal focalprominence prominenceininwhat whatLangacker Langackerrefers an LM relates to a distinction in discussed earlier earlier in the the book. book. Profiling Profiling concerns concerns as a profiled trofiled relationship—as discussed relationship by virtueofof the attribution of of attention attentionto toaaparticular particularentity entityor orrelationship by virtue in (t): (i): encoding in language. language.To lo illustrate, consider the utterance in encoding in

t

Theboy boysmashed smashedthe the vase vase (I) The u) profiled which which The TR relates to to the the participant participant in the relationship being being profiled the -TR FR is the participant designated receives focal focalprominence. prominence.That Ihat is, in (i) the receives relationthe participant participant in the profiled profiled relationcontrast, the the LM isis the by the by boy. In contrast, the boy. correspondsto to which receives receivessecondary secondaryprominence. prominence.InIn(1) (i)the theLM tM corresponds ship which what counts ..ounts of this this is is that that what vast'. One consequence of the entity designated by the vase. bythe therelational relational aspart part of of linguistic linguisticcontent content by as a TR or an LM is encoded encoded as lexicalconcept concept(e.g., (e.g., smashed), smashed), rather rather than the or conceptually dependent lexical

to linguistics. linguistis. For kin in ForrnA to the position in tormal ti'rnial approakhes to stark tO the twisit situation %hind% Ibis situ..ition stands in'ii %tark This of omposi fV%ICW fir i Fora review of compost Ln and Mihidis (.reefl :IN*). See ICry and hin.harlistIorthLomingt and airrrrt review sec Fyans and review 2

hrstintroduLed the term I I ffint tcrm - unpackin( unpacking" in in Chapter Chapter 7.

S

237

► proAthr%iitogrammar. grammar. ionalaapproaches tstnaluty in in 4. liflOftk I1Hinal tionrhis. and s. the discusoon in in t Chapters hapters 3 and c, RtcaIt the

238

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONAL

SEM

1

",1<,').'

conceptually independent or nominal lexicalconce (e.g.,boy, boy, vase) .4 In boy, (e.g., pt (e.g., Ie ical concepts nomm al lexical mdep enden t or nominal ptually independent conce illustrate consider (2).

(2). con ider (2). illu trate consider illustrate (2) The vase fell fell Thev (2) vase fell (i) The

,II. ,. .

tothe theTR. TR.This Thisfollows followsas occupies the In this example the vase corresponds upi. th ()(c aasitititoccupies follow This to corr pond s to the TR. camp i the thi example In Inschematic this relational Ilexical concept associated with 'FR slot encoded by the relati iated with olSMK pt asMxiLted conce xlCalconcept onal kxkal the relational by the encod ed l"y lot encoded TR slot M:hematlC TR the schematic TRsand andLMs LMsencoded encoded the vehicle fell. Langacker referstotothe by ed by encod LM and h matic TRs refer langa cker refers the schematic [fll. langacker "ehid felL the the vehicle conceptually dependent lexical concepts aselabo elaboration sites (orc-Sites e-sites f"r e- ite for (or it (or ra tion sites a elaboration conce pt as lexical concepts depen dent lexical ptually dependent conce conceptually short ). and the tilling of these c-sites aselaboration. elaboration. From the perspective of pe .... l>e( tll~ of theperspective I romthe • labor atio n. Friiiri e- ,t as fillingofofth the tilling and the , and these c-sites hort) short), Cognitive Grammar, then, compositionality is a conse consequence of conc conceptually ptually conce of quenc e of comp o illonality is a consequence Gram mar, then, compositionality itiveGrammar, Cogn (:ognitive dependent lexical concepts becoming elaborated by nominal lexical concepts lexi I con« pt nomi nal lexical by nominal elabo rated1w bcxomingelaborated concept becoming I xi al concepts d nt lexical depen dependent autonomous. which are conceptually auton omou . are conceptually autonomous. which are which This is not the whole story, of course. account unt of acco reali ti account realistic cognitively realistic Any cognitively course. Any of course. tory, of cognitively whole story, the whole n t the i not Thi is This compositionality must provide an account of how how the level of semantic 'mantic ofsemantic level of th level how the of accou nt of an account provi d an mu\t provide o itiona lity must comp structure that is encoded by language, or or that of atio n of integr the from results from the the integration integration r ult from that results language, or that by languages encod ed by i encoded that is tru ·ture that structure grammatical structures, as in the case of elaboration gacker, n ofoflan th sense inthe in the sense ofLangacker, Langatker, ration in case of the case tructures, a in the of elabo elaboration mati al structures, gram grammatical interfaces with what I am referring to to as Cogm tlle In Cognitive nt. In conte conceptual content. Cognitive conceptual content. a conceptual referring to as am referring what II am ac with what interf Grammar, this latter level of semantic representation is broadly referred to referrl'tl to broad ly referred to i Inoadly senta tion is manti c repre of .. laller level level 1)1 semantic representation thi latter mar, this Gram Grammar, as encyclopaedic knowledge. Langacker argues that words directly encode ncode directly encode word directly cker argu Langacker argues that that words knowlroge. langa oparo i knowledge. eneyd encydopacdic as what I operationalize in terms of conceptual content. As we have seen, hav \Cen,5' we have A we nt. As ptual conte conceptual content. tionali7e 10in teml what operationaLize termsinof of conce what II opera Cognitive Grammar in terms terms of of domains, doma in ,coneptual ismd term of domains, Gram mar in itive Grammar Cogn modelled in Cognitive i modelled ont nt is ptual content conce conceptual with a word encoding a profile againstt some which of ub t of to aaa subset relat to whichh relates relates to subset of ba ,whic some base, again some profilee against base, encod ing aa profil with aa word encoding some domain or domains. Yet, not only is the notionn of ed ",,,k notworked innot worked doma ofaaadomain domain in. Yet, doma domains. Yet, not not only only i\ is the the notio notion of in or ome doma ..some domain or out in any great detail, it is not clear the at the integ ration at ofintegration ult of rresult th result integration at ho the d ar how , it iis not not clear how the great deta,l any great in any out in detail, linguistic (or grammatical) level then en dopa edil thi encyclopaedic with this this encyclopaedic inten ac with I then interfaces gram matic al) lev (or grammatical) level interfaces ti (or lingui linguistic knowledge at the level of an utterance in order to produce an ullera nc. anutteranceprodu ce an to produce order to in order utteranceullera nc 10 an utterance of an level of the at ledge know knowledge at the level level meaning: a conception. ption . ng: aa conce .. eI meam klevel meaning: conception. With respect to Cognitive Construction erg Goldb plifiroininGoldberg cxcm asexemplified exemplified Goldberg Grammar,as - nstructionGrammar, itiv Construction Grammar, as C.ogn re, and leverbs, example verbs, andsentence-level ultion!>, for I cI comtr en word betwe between word-level constructions, for =mp structions: verb-argument constructions. what what betweenwhat distinguish between bngdistinguishes Gold Goldberg distinguishes between tructions.Goldberg argument con : verbn to tructlO structions: verb-argument constructions. she refers as argument roles--the schematic the 'licall y phonl by edby encod thephonetically phoneticallY lot encoded hematicslots slots encoded by the c'llt rol h ref,· she refersto toJ:asargum argument roles— the the schematic implicit verb-argument constructions6—and participant hema hemattiit. theschematic rol ipant roles—the participant roles—argument Ulmt ructi om"- and partic verb·argument cit verb Impli implicit slots encoded by the schematic verb-argument o;itionality CompositioflaittY Comp ructIo n.Compositionality const constructions. rb-argumentconstructions. hematic vverb-argument the ed by encod lot slots encoded by the schematic arises from the integration—( ;01(11)cl-it uS\! uses the the term "fusion"—of the argumentrgumentfu ion"- (lfth thee argument term" erguses term "fusion"—of ation (;'lldb integr the from ari arises from the integration—-( oldberg level and participant-level roles. While this level of integration for count>for accounts for integratl(lnaccounts role'>. While 'While thi this 1",,1 level of of integration opmt · level roles. parti and level level and participant-level linguistic or grammatical information, this doesn't account for the rich level of rich level level of of nt for n't accou this ddoesn't account for the the rich atlon, thi atical mform gramm tic or Iingui linguistic or grammatical information, multimodal information which I refer totoasa\conceptual content. nt. l'lUaJ conte refer to as ((lncC conceptual content. which II refer nallo n whit.h l,ldal infon multimodal information multm ' Recall the discussion of the distinction between nominal and relational lexical

•'

hvlet

the

k omrpts in in the distinction between nominal and relational kxital concepts

.. ,luptn notion of domains WA.. discussed in Chapten 3 and Ho. See also h..i os and 6 mm • Lanitacker's (;haplcr 6. • IQ I Ihans .n..t 10. md ,rccn also (haptetsI 3J âfld U was dUc:lbWd Inin n"'rlCT ..n ,.1 • noCt ' I...anc;u. I't do.m.J'f I006: 4. h. -1 tor an flOIk'fl introductory livers sew. W ,'V('ntn .... 7)') 1uI.an dt the 1006 ((Zoo(,: introdIKIolY overview. • Recall discussion oflokl the..ry ditransilive construction in Chapter 3. tor anInln ( haptet,. wndru lVC' dltr..wf tlllh.: nn d","usu w•* RtuIlIt the ditransdsve (flfl ctJon Inm Uurtn Recall ihc discussion of

-

II xICAL

:ON(I-PT IN I I.GRATU)N

LEXICAL CONCEPT INTEGRATION

2j9 239

239

appealal thi ,appe for this, a coun t for an dopa edi account enencyclopaedic ananencyclopaedic hahas erghas (;oldb ,ker, (;oldbcrg WIth ,\As appealwith withwngJ Langacker, Goldberg account for this, to GoldsemanticsGold notionnofofframe ordin g to mant i' . Ac. , 191\5) or" (191\1 rillm totoFillmore" 1I1g ingto Fillmore's (1982, 1985)notio notion offram frame semantics. According to Golding construction is relativized relallYlzed tructl on I relativized a verb-argument argum ent con with fufuseswith each fuses that rb that vverb each berg, berg, eachverb that with aa verb· verb-argument construction isknowledge berg. of conceptual knowledge conce ptual knowledge body a body fram mant ic frame—a rich semantic totoaaa rich With peet to rrespect '\lth withrespect rich semantic frame—a body of of conceptual associated with the various qu lion. in question. yerb in varlou verbs latro with detail ptualdetails perce the totothe gto rdatin relating theperceptual perceptual detailsaassociated with th the various verbs in question. this is not clear how of I ,I of Langacker's account, itit i not dear how thi level nt, accou ker's langa with as with a ver, IInwc is not cleargrammatical how this level of i However, as with Langacker's account, itlinguistic Level, or al level, interfaces with the matic gram or ti lingui the WIth a inten n representation ntatio repr ledg knnw knowledge representation interfaces with the linguistic or grammatical level, rich the perceptually whereby structure from rich y ptuall perce the from r trultu by mechanisms are where are 01 am mech th what and and andwhat whatthe the mechanisms are whereby structure from the perceptually rich grammatical structures. incorporated tructu r . gram mati al structures. fused grammatical withfused orpor atro with bcxom fram ti frames semantic ,eman semantic framesbecomes becomes in incorporated with fused and Goldberg1 mode l th models Langacker ,oldb erg, the langa ker and hy oped by devel count developed aaccounts ththeaccounts totothe fair be ro lii Tohe hefair fairto developed by Langacker and ( ;oldbcrg, the models semantic with the details of mant I( of primarily concerned tail d the with emro eon rily developed were not prima not I ped wer a h deY theye theyeach each developed were not primarily concerned with the detailstoofdevelop semantic they attempting primarily exercised by all mplin g to d . lopaa by isrti exerc rily prima Rather, they were re w they r, Rathe ition. o cllmp cOfilPOSltIOfl. composition. Rather, they were primarily exercised byand attempting to develop a structure "gram linguistic organization (a "gramre (a tructu and n izatIo organ tie based account of gui oflin nt accou ba'ird ly ntieal 'Cllla semantically based account of linguistic organization and structure (a "gram, and the combinasuch as con constituent. the comb ina and ey, tituen could account for issues uch u i for nt accou could which , mJr) mar"), mar"),whit.h which could account for issues such as constituency, and the combinaTheory can then be of language. LC('M th n be can ry Theo M LC . guag oflan of the formal aspects peet a l forma the of rli prope tllrtal torial torialproperties properties of the formal aspects of language. LCCM Theory can then be perspectives procomplementing pro rescarch per pcctivco; protheresearch comp lem Illingthe re:.pcct ,a certam respects viewed, as d, in "CWe viewed, in certain certain respects, as complementing the research perspectives I ( CM1 of grammatical organutation. Lee organiTAtlon.LCCM gram matic alorganization. constructional ofgrammatical a count of con tructi onal accounts u'h constructional by such vided ,ided vided by by such accounts Cognitive Gram Con tructi on Gramitiv Construction and ,ramm ar and itiye Grammar Cogn s from differ Theory I heory differs Theory differs from Cognitive Cognitive Grammar and Cogn Cognitive Construction Gramrepresentation 'f semantic precisely with the nature repr ntatio n mant i representation tureo thena ith the pr isclyw nlern ed precisely ititlSlo isis t.oncerned that it Illar mar concerned with nature offsemanticits mar in in that that Moreover, given found ation al given it foundational over, More ition. o of semantic composition. comp I( mant of hani 01 th and the mechanics and the mechanics of semantic composition. Moreover, given itsconstitute foundational and conceptual structure di con titute distru ture constitute con cptua l structure semantic structure and conceptual ture and struc mant i structure .tssumptiOfl that semantic ~umpllon that Jassumption disof two distinct of proces itit follows that II posit di tinltprocesses two it po that follow n, ntallo repr of kind tinct kinds of tinct kinds of representation, it follows that I posit two distinct processes of of linguistit which relates to fusion fu. ion of lingO! IIc to fusion relates to which relates integ ration , which lexical concept conc pt integration, lexical concept compositIon: comp o ition: lexical composition: linguistic conceptual fusion of con eptua lofcontent. nt. conte of interpretations which concerns ion fu rn conce h whi on, retati interp and (lInte nt, and interpretation, which concerns fusion of conceptual content. content,

Fusion n Fusio Fusion

the of fusion, and the provide an overview and ion, fu of rview ov an d this section is to proyi i n sectio thi in purpo in this section is to provide an overview My My purpose purpose My of fusion,as and the interpretation specific integration and peeitic interp r tallonasa~specific andinterpretation rationand concept integ con cptintegration xical concept Ilexical of rol rolesof oflexical peetive roles rrespective respective of the chapter1 in the rema inder of the chapter, beforee proceeding1 the remainder prO<"t Both content. Rothsorts sorts nt,Both (ont content. of information, and both types of processes, are necessary for of a conceptIon. and thus the forma formation l ion of.l com.:_c pllon . the ofmeaning, meaning, JIuilh Ing.and mCJO truc.tiunofof (;on the theconstruction construction the thusu the formation of a conception. lexical concepts in the mteg integration of lexica PlS 10 l conc integration involves rallonofof the mvol , the rationinvolves tnteg ptintegration concc al concept Lexical t.oncept Lexic Lexical integration lexical concepts in lexical unit. Th. The lexical composite unit: a unit. oncep tualunit. l conceptual lexicaconceptual a lexical unit: o Iteunit: comp ordertotoproduce produce produ cea acomposite order order a lexical The lexical in the previous chapirt. tilikePt is Ihe other is lexical concept selection discussed in the pies sous c hapter. the other proses

240

t)NCF.PT IN ii t.RKI ION ItXi(AI. LEXICAL CONCEPT INTEGRATION

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY

COM POSITIONALITY

LEXICAL CONCEPT 1

LEXICAL CONCEPT 2

2.41 24 1

br the utterance represents a conception. informational intOrmational characterization for the utterance represents a conception. integration relates to the unpacking process ofof lexical (rucially, Crucially,the the process lexical concept integration relates to the unpacking

ofoflinguisik linguisticcontent. content.

LEXICAL CONCEPT INTEGRATION

hence integrated1 this results Once Oncelinguistic linguisticcontent contenthas hasbeen beenunpacked1 unpacked,and and hence integrated, this results achieving what I term a semantic value. Once aa thelexical lexicalconceptual conceptual unit unit achieving what 1 term a semantic value. Once ininthe conceptual unit has achieved a semantic value it is lexical lexicalconcept conceptandior and/orlexical lexical conceptual unit has achieved a semantic value it is

in a kxical conceptual subject on. Only subjectto tointerpretat interpretation. Onlyopen-dass open-classlexical lexicalconcepts concepts in a lexical conceptual of interpretation is that the lexical unit unitundergo undergointerpretation. interpretation.The Theoutcome outcome of interpretation is that the lexical informational characterization. concept concept or orlexical lexicalconceptual conceptual unit unitachieves achieves an an informational characterization. model profile i given lexical concept Thistakes takesplace place by by virtue virtueofofthe thecognitive cognitive model profile of a given lexical concept Fhis and hence undergoing matching.' Sec being another, and hence undergoing matching." See of another, with that that of being matched matched with oi fusion. Figure ILl for foraadiagrammatic diagrammaticrepresentatiOn representation of fusion. Figure 12.1

LEXICAL CONCEPTUAL UNIT

1

INTERPRETATION if applicable

if appbcable

concepts Internally Internallyopen openand and internally internallyclosed closed lexical lexical concepts

LEXICAL CONCEPTUAL UNIT LEXICAL CONCEPTUAL UNIT WITH INFORMATIONAL WITH INFORMATIONAL CHARACTERIZATION CHARACTERIZATION

LEXICAL CONCEPT 3

and one drawn from the

I

LEXICAL CONCEPTUAL CONCEPTU INTEGRATION

INTEGRATiON

COMPLEX LEXICAL COMPLEX LEXICAL CONCEPTUAL UNIT CONCEPTUAL UNIT INTERPRETATION INTERPRETATION if applicable

if applicable

1

REPEAT PROCESS PROCESS UNTIL REPEAT UNTIL THE ENTIRE ENTIRE THE UTTERANCE HAS UTTERANCE HAS UNDERGONE FUSION UNDERGONE FUSION

/1

COMPLEX LEXICAL CONCEPTUAL LEXICAL UNIT WITH CONCEPTUAL UNIT WITH INFORMATIONAL NI ORMAT1ONAL CHARACTERIZATION CHARACTFRIZATION

1 CONCEPTION

The essential insight insight of of lexical lexical concept concept integration1 integration, and one drawn from the associated with Cognitive Grammar and Cognitive work work on on compositionality compositionality associated with Cognitive Grammar and Cognitive lexical concepts are more Construction ConstructionGramniar, Grammar,isis the the following. following.Some Some lexical concepts arc more that cJIl be, informally, tilled and hence hencehave have"slots" slots that schematic than others, schematic than others, and can be, informally, "filled lexical concepts of this sort lexical concepts. Schematic in" in"by byless lessschematic schematic lexical concepts. Schematic lexical concepts of this sort internally open lexical concepts. Integration1 then, that II refer are are those those that refer to to as as internally open lexical concepts. Integration, then, internally open lexical concept being "filled-in" by a takes place by by virtue virtue of takes place of an an internally open lexical concept being "tilled-in" by a conterm an internally closed lexical conlessschematic schematic lexical lexical concept—what 1I term an internally closed lexical less all the slots available in an internintroduced in cept—terms introduced Once all the slots available in an internin Chapter Chapter s. s. Once cept—terms the lexical concept becomes havebeen been"filled-in," "tilled-in," the .dIV open open lexical lexical concept concept have ally lexical concept becomes is complete. internally closed, and integration internally closed, and integration is complete. is first necessary to rehearse some key Before illustrating illustrating this key Before this process process, itit is first necessary to rehearse some introduce some others. lcxkal in the book, and notionsintroduced introduced earlier earlier in the book, and introduce some others. Lexical notions vehicles, .t consequence of their status conventionally pairedwith with vehicles, concepts are are conventionally paired concepts a consequence of their status the vehicles can he complex1 made pok of svmLx)lic units. As asthe thesemantic semantic pole of symbolic units. As the vehicles can be complex, made as be simpler or timre complex. simplervehicles, vehicles,lexical lexial concepts can lx• upfrom from simpler up concepts can simpler or more complex. having part-whole organizavehicle can be construed as Moreover, just as a Moreover, just as a vehicle can be construed as having part-wholeliiorganizaillustrate, have part-whole organization. tion,9soso too lexicalconcepts concepts tion' too lexical have part-whole organization. To illustrate, examples of symbolic units: considerthe thefollowing followingexamples consider of symbolic units:

CONCEPTION

FIGURE 12.1. Stages in the

process of fusion 12.1. Stages in the process of fusion

(3)

"France" vehicle "France." a.a.vehicle (i h.lexical lexicalconcept tonceptI uitANcEi b.

HNITI ) the bucket"

conceptual unit then undergoes interpretation in order to produceaasituated situated unit then undergoes interpretatIOn in order toproduce reading: an informational characterization. Once this has occurred, the lexical Once this has occurred, the lexical reading: an informatIonal conceptual unit is integrated with other lexical concepts or lexical conceptual or lexical conceptual unit is integrated with other k\R.II units in the utterance, which, in turn, undergo interpretation. This process is which, in turn, undergo Iflterprctation. l'his process is units in the repeated until the entire utterance has undergone fusion. complete has undergone fUSIOn.The Fhe complete

repeated until the entire utterance

"NPkick( FINITE) the bucket" vehicle (.) a.a. vehicle "NP (4) AN ANIMAl I I N fITY 1)1151 ksialconcept oncept IAN ANIMATE ENTITY I)IESj h.h.lexical

in detail in the ned

in iflICiptdJII4bO .irr [ticnu% limustn. ni ■ I•hrrt1 on intrrpirtation ire casiaicred in detail in thr next thaptcr. • •11te t1 this point. (IroIt (2002) br h 12rw21 for dp.ku..non ut tin+ point. • Set Cr ►

2.42 242

Si SIAN IIC (UMPOSITI )NALITY

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY

a. vehicle

"NI', VERB(FINITE) \'FRB( II NFIl. N1 NP2 N (5) a. vehicle "NP1 1 2 NP3" b. lexical concept Ii lUNG tAUSISTHING 1 )iINt.YYTO TORECEIVE RECIIVI THING THING2110 h. lexical concept 'THING XXCAUSES In the the example exampleinin(3), (.i),the thevehicle vehiclerelates relatestotothe the kxicalitem item France Francewhich whkhi s In lexical conventionally paired with the lexical concept (FRANCE]. (i Thelinguistic linguisticcon- convetialyprdwhexicalonpt The tent is relatively impoverished, relating to a nominal entity. is,ininpart, pan,this tent is relatively impoverished, relating to a nominal entity. ItItis, linguistic content, in Conjunction with its lexical profile, whk h determine linguistic content, in conjunction with its lexical profile, which determines the ways in whkh this lexical concept can he combined with other kxicaJ ways in which this lexical concept can be combined with other lexical concepts. That is. thislexical lexicalconcept. concept,bybyvirtue virtueofofbeing being kxicallyfilled, filled,i s cepts. That is, this lexically internally closed: it has no internal spedflcat ion for the mtegration of interalycosd:hinteralpcfoheintgrafu lexical However, by virtue of having a lexical profile associatc lexical concepts. However, by virtue of having a lexical profile associated with with it, it is externally open." it, it is externally open." A class of lexical concepts which don't exhibit lexicalprofiles, profiles,and andhence A class of lexical concepts which don't exhibit lexical hence are externally dosed—as discussed in Chapter greetings, such as hello. are externally closed—as discussed in Chapter 7—are greetings, such as hello. That is, expressions such .is these, among others, constitute fully That is, expressions such as these, among others, constitute fully formed formed utterances in their own right. A similar although slightlydistinct distinctpattern pattern utterances in their own right. A similar although slightly is exhibited by lexical concepts which require a response of a certain kind. is exhibited by lexical concepts which require a response of a certain kind. Such lexical concepts which require an adjacent response of .i specified kind Such lexical concepts which require an adjacent response of a specified kind arc often referred to as adjacency pairs. For instance,a aquestion/answer question/answer arc often referred to as adjacency pairs. For instance, sequence constitutes an .Idjacency pair. The interrogative vehicle s'chicle isis convenconvensequence constitutes an adjacency pair. The interrogative tionally paired with an IINTERROGAl iviJ lexical concept, which which encodes tionally paired with an [INTERROGATIVE] lexical concept, encodes linguistk coflteflt.'2 In so then as the interrogative lexical concept concept signals signals linguistic content." In so far then as the interrogative lexical to the interlocutor that a response is required, it can he thought of as having a 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 linguistk Content. lexical profile: one that it, itself, stipulates as part of its linguistic content. The example in involvesthe thevehicle vehicle"NP "NPkickFINITE kickFlNi II the The example in (4) involves the bucket", which which relates to the IAN ANIMATI lily DIEsJ concept. Unlike the lexical relates to the [AN ANIMATE ENTITY DIES) lexical lexical concept. Unlike the lexical concept in (3b), this lexical concept is open:lexical lexicalconcept conceptinteinteconcept in (3b), this lexical concept is internally open: gration can occur internally is the lexical concept is not fully specified. The gration can occur internally as the lexical concept is not fully specified. The diagnostic as to whether a lexical concept is fully specified or not not relates relates to to diagnostic as to whether a lexical concept is fully specified or whether the lexical concept is filled with phonetically overt VCwhether the lexical concept is completely filled with phonetically overt vehides: the situation I rekr to as being Icxically hicles: the situation I refer to as being lexically filled.'' tilled.''In Interms termsof ofthe the lexical lexical concept in (4b), the lexically filled components arc restricted to the vehicles concept in (4h). the lexically filled components are restricted to the vehicles kick, bucket. kick, the, the, and and bucket. As remains internally internally open As such, such, this this lexical lexical concept concept remains Open as as its vehicle is only partially kxically filled. That is, and more precisely, isdy, the the its vehicle is only partially lexically tilled. That is, and more lexical concept is partially internally uallv leaves good deal lexical concept is partially internally open. open. This This act actually leaves aa good of deal of " Kc.&tl thir conventions first talks to represent Ja Itecall0% thecii lormatting convention% first introduced introduced in in Chapter Chapter jS. I I use use italics to represent phofletkalh form, such bucket, or kick. I use capitals to phonentally overt form, such as as France, represent phonencallv or Frame, the huiket, kick. I use capitals to represent phonetically iniplis.ii vehicles, such as FINIfl• to vehitles. such as I' INITF to indicat ethe the finite finitevehick. vehitle,e.g. e.g.the the nature naturrof ofthe the tense tense involved, invoked. or or NP. stands "noun phrase" NP, which stands for for - noun phrase " The kziai contept sek i isfor relational kzkal c0n4epti. as II The kxital concept !FRAMI Wick rn4lrd by for relational kxical tontepts, as evidenced by the theexamples examples (i) in (hapter i. and

where an the hook. in (1) in Chapter I. and elsewhere in the book. II Although the content by the IIPSTIPIitxiArIv,j II Although the linguistsc content encoded by the IINTtammari•i 1 let', concept concept isis highly highk nesertheks. &locs i.t WflUflIK i*rULIUr(. au ...hermitic. it nevertheless does consist of semantic structure. requiring, aS as ititdties dock, an informational resplinse. tesperme.

ks dscusrd in ( hapter

s.

" As discussed in t hapter S.

LEXICAL lEXICAL CONCEPT CONCEPTINTEGRATION IWI I( RATION

243 243

flexibility interms terms of other lexical concepts which tkxlbllity in lexkal Conceph whkhcan canhebeintegrated. integrated.For For instance, below: someofofthe thepossibilities possibilitiesare jnstance, some arepresented presented below: ( 6)

a. a.S/he S/hekick/s/ed kick/s/edthe thebucket b. b.S/he S/hewill willkick kickthe thebucket bucket

some such as as that in in (5b), areare fully internally Somelexical lexicalconcepts, concepts, such that (5b), fully internallyopen: open:allallthe the vehicles that make up the lexical concept are phonetically implicit. The example vehicles that make up the lexical concept are phonetically implicit. The example in in (5) (s) relates relatesto tothe theditransitive ditransitivesymbolic symbolicunit. unit.The The"ditransitive" '4ditransitive" lexical lexicalconcept concept in open as as itit is in (5b) (çb) is is fully fully internally internally open is made madeup upof ofsimpler simpkr lexical lexical concepts conceptsall allof of which which are are associated associatedwith withvehicles vehicleswhich whichare arephonetically phoneticallyimplicit. implicit. Hence, Hence,the the larger lexicalconcept concept is Lirger "ditransitive" "ditrinsitive" lexical is fully fully internally internally open. open. distinction relates to those lexical concepts AA further further distint.tion relates to those lcxkal concepts that that can canbe bedescribed described 14 An as internally simple versus those that are internally complex. as internally simple versus those that are internally complex.'4 An internally internally simple lexical concept is one that has no part-whole structure and simple lexical concept is OflC that has flo part-whole structure andhence hence cannot he beanalysed's analysed'' in in terms terms of of more more than than one lexical lexical concept. concept. An An example example France. associated with the form IFRANCEI associated with the form France. of such a lexical concept is (FRANCEJ However, simple is However, being being internally internally simple is not not the the same sameas asbeing beinginternally internallyclosed dosed is internally internally open open being being (or open). open).For For instance, instance,the thelexical lexicalconcept concept!THING' ITIIINiI is an abstract lexical lexical concept concept and hence hence one onethat that is is associated associatedwith withaavehicle vehicle this lexical Yet which is phonetically implicit, namely the vehicle NOUN. which is phonetically implicit, namely the vehicle NOUN. Yet this lexical concept concept isis internally internally simple. An example complex lexical An example of of an aninternally internally complex lexical concept concept is k,of of course course [THING (THIN; Xx as this 7.1 as CAUSES AUSIS 1THING UIN(; Y Y TO 10 RECEIVE Ric HVE TTHING zJ as in in (5b). (sb). This This follows follows as this lexical lexical concept is is made made up up of of abstract abstract lexical lexical concepts: lexical lexical concepts concepts which which are arc associated with vehicles, specifically specifically the the vehicles vehicles NP, associated with phonetically phonetically implicit implicit vehicles, NP, VERB, and andFINITE. FINII I. Finally,while whileboth bothcomplex complexvehicles vehicles and and their their associated associated internally linally, internally comcomplex lexical concepts each have part-whole structure, it doesn't always follow plex lexical concepts each have part-whole structure, it doesn't always follow there is is an isomorphic relationship relationship between between the t hat there that the part-whole part-whole organization organhi.It ion of complex vehicles and internally complex lexical concepts. A case (if complex vehicles and internally complex lexical concepts. A casein in point point is is the internally complex vehicle in (4b). The obligatory lexically filled comthe internally complex vehicle in (4h). The obligatory lexically filled components that formthe thevehicle vehicleassociated associated with this lexical lexical concept, concept, namely ponents that firm with this namely donot nothave have corresponding correspondinglexical lexicalconcepts concepts associated associated kick, the, and kick, and l'ucket bucket do are not, in in the the the l'uckt't bucket are not, and the kick and with them. them. Put Put another another way, with way, the the vehicles vehicles kick associated with with IAN ANIMATE ENTITY DIES] associated contextof ofthe thelexical lexicalconcept conceptIAN context ANIMATE ENTI n L)IESJ independent lexical lexicalconcepts. concepts. independent

""this firstintrudu4ed introduced in in l .hapter S Thisdistinction distinctionwas was first ""My My cLaim. claim. lulluwrng langacker(e.g.. fnII.'wing lsngicker

1987,1000). 2000i, 5 is that that kxicaI lexical contepts categorical 1917, incepts exhibit exhibit categorical modelled are the symbolic unitsoIwhkh of whichthey theyire arc components) arc moddkd relations. Hence. kikal concepts concepts (and (andthe rdati.ons. Hence. kxkal nholii. units components) While one type of categorical relation is semantic concepts.While one type of categorical relation is semantic termsof ofaanetwork networkofofrdatcd related kxical Ininterms kxical concepts. relatedness(wh,ih (whit h gives rise thephcnonicnon phenomenonofof potvseniy, polyseniv), another anothercunterns controls the the part part whole rcl.,teduwss gives rise totothe WtK)k kxical concept is and 'Witte ditransitive lethal concepts. libe l,. units ► structureexhibited exhibited by by symbolic symb structure units and bruir lexical concepts. Ihe ditransutsvr" kxaal s.onccpi is storedas asan anentrenched entrenched mental mental routine routinein inthe thegrammar, grammar.along alongwith withthe thecategorical categoricalreLations relations that that hold hold stored betweenit it and component kxical concepts bciwsrn md itSits component lexical concepts. .

244 244

SEMANTI(_(OMPosIIIosJALITy SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY

—

is not not to to say say This Iis that there therearen't aren't lexical kxi.al conc~pls This concepts(KR ktcRK(. Thi nOI.lo ay that thai .'here .ren·1 lexical (KI( (TIll I. 'nd concepts kJ,'THE', 1rIIEJ, I(BUCKETI Bu(;KI.TJwhl whkhh are are associated sucRETI which associated with the vehicles Wllh Ihe vehicles vehl les kick, kIck. tlof. and buck.t. ,. the, kick, the, bucker. For .lO\tdn . ( ) Or instance, C, con I' d er h t e utterance Ullerance in In 7: consider the (7): in (7):

—

( I" )

(7) Ihe buckel He kicked kicked the the bucket bucket (7) lie

interpretation 01(7) involves literal Inlerprelahon interpretation 01(7) The Illeral of (7) involves involv aa male indIvidualwho whokicks kicksaaabucket, bucl<.;'1 maleindividual individual who kicks in frustration. claim is is that perhap fru lration. Mv My i that Ihal this this reading reading isiissanctioned sanctioned by bythe Ih' perhaps in frustration. My claim independently existing independenllyexi ling"active" "a live" lexical lexical concept: concept:" e "active" lexical 16 (8) (8)

[PROFILED RI LATIONSHIP [PROFILEO RELATION IIIP INVOLVING INVOLVING PATIENT VIEWED VllWUl [PROFILED RELATIONSHIP INVOLVING AGENT AGENT AND AND PATIENT ANU PATIENT VII FROM ( TIVE OF I'IRSPI FRO I PERSPECTIVE PERSPECTIVE FROM AGENT! OF AGENTI AGINTJ

concept in The lexical in (8), the lexical The lexical concepl (8). like like the thelexical lexical concepts con ept in In (4b) and (5b).isisalso al;o concepts in(4b) (4b)and and(5b), (sb), ako internally internally complex. complex. The difference difference is Ihallhe Ie ieal con epl in in (8), (8). but bUI not nOl in In inlernally is that that the the lexical lexical concept (8), umcept but not in b (4h), instance, has part-wholestructure (4h),). for (4 for instance, in lance. has has part-whole part-whol Iruclureininwhich wbicbthere arcdiscrete di~rclelexical lexical struUure which thereare are lexical concepts the vehicles the, con epls associated associaled with wilh the Ih vehicles vehicles kick, kick, the, tloe. and bllcket. anolher wal'. bucket. Put another another way, bucket. PUI way, Put the "obligatory" the "obligatory" vehicles tlit' ry" vehicles vehi I kick kick and tlor bllcKrt have no scmanli Irullu;e the "obligal l'ucket the bucket have no semantic semanticstructure structure assosiated associated with them independently independently of the (AN assoclaled wllh Ihem independently of Ihe [AN ENTITY DIES] llIl Ile.ildl ANIMATI ENTITY IHEsJ lexical AN ANIMATE ANIMATE ENTITY lexical concept. which concept. Hen e. the lexical lexical concepl In (8), (8). which whi h licenses Iilicenses eoses the Ihe (wilh concept. Hence, concept in theexample example (with (with the "literal" reading) in Ihe (7). ha aacompletely complelely differenlle"i,al profile from that Ibdl the "lileral" "literal" reading) reading) in in (i), (7), ha has completely different lexical lexicalprofile profilefrom that associated with the lexical a;w(iall'tl Ihe lexical lelUcal concept concepl in (4b). (4b). This Thi determines d lermlnesthe Ihenature nalureof ofthe the (4h). This determines the associated wilh with the nature of the lexical con lexical epls (and hence h nce vehicles) vehicl ) which canbe inlegraledwith wilheach. each. concepts whichcan beintegrated integrated with each.

Principles lexical integration concept integration Principles of of lexical lexical concept concept integration Lexical I.c ,11 concept concept integral ion is is by aa number Lexical concepl inlegralion IS governed governed by number ofpri principle. wblCh II now now integration nciples, which nunther of of principles, address. address. Integration ~ddrcs; .. Inlegralion be Inlo two Iwo types: Iypes: internal inlernal lexical lexical concept concepl Integration can can he he divided into lexical concept integration, which applies to internally internally lexical integratIon. whICh applies apploes to 10 inlernally open openlexical lexiealconcepts, concepl • and is Ihe re ult integration, which and is the concepts. is theresult result of a lexical concepts internal of aa lexical lexi .1 concept's con epl\ internal inlernal selectional ",leclion.1 tendencies. lendencil .... '· The other olher concerns conccrn' 17 The tendencies.'' The other concerns external exlernallexi al concept concepl inlegralion.which whKhinvolves involve the Ihe Inlegrallon ofaaalexical lexical concept integration, integration, which involves theintegration external lexical lexical integrationof of lexical concept with its lexical concept with its lexical concepl specified ilits external sclectional tendenlenden. concepl wllh II lexical concepts specified by its external selectional selectional tendendes." Both sortsare are governed governed 1w thethree three cie ." Both BOlh sorts \Oris drc s,overned by by the Ihe IhrccPrinciples Pronciple l.exl(.1Concept Concepl cies." PrinciplesofofLexical Lexical Concept Integration, described in Inlegr.l~on. Ihis \eel ion. For I'or expository xpo Ilory purposes purpoM$ IIIillustrate illuslrale Integration, dc\Crobed. describedIn. in this this section. expository purposes illustrate application of the Principles applocahon Ih Principles PronClples of ofIntegration Inlegralion with withinternal inlernallexical lexicalconcept concepl application of the Integration with internal lexical concept integration. I I then deal, more briefly, briefly. with wilh external cXlcrnallcxic.1 conccpl inlegralion. Inlegrallon. Ilhen deal. more external lexical lexical concept integration.

Internal Internal lexical concept concept conceptintegration integration integratIon lexical Lexicalconcepl concept integration integration isis governed conctpt l.cxilal Inlegrdlion governed by the Ihe Principle Prin iple of of Lingui Ii Coherh r. Principle linguistic Linguistic ence.. This enc I hi Is . taled as a follows: follow: isI stated

"

01 ussion the diM .. Rn..lI1J "", u ,n "I ..mrl~ I(ii) 1.1)I in In h..lrh-,7. ., Recall IIIi' i1lw tpAtilin ofcexampk in4((iiaptrr litipter disusscd in tiiapter As disc uswti In l hapter ., A 1..11 uUitJ In (hal""7. '" ',. tt?II( And $ 1 Recall of tune flying In Recallthe thethscu%sson in t..h.apirr (( hapter ~ lh< d1 U In 01 "fflr and /fri,., turin' 7. in

I1(;RATION LEXICAL CONCEPT IN INTEGRATION

245 145 245

L.inguistk Coherence: Principle Pron Iple of of Linguistic Lingui lic Coherence: . integrated with A lexical lexicalcon concept that is internally open open may may only WIth aaa lexical epl that thai iis internally inlernally only be be integrated inlegrated with A concept lexical concept concepl with wilh whi h it il shares har schematk hemali coherence coheren e in in lerm of of lexkal concept schematic coherence in terms terms with which lexical conlent. linguistic content.

principle, the Principle of Schematic hI principle prin iple in (pi) (pI) relieson onaaasecond secondprinciple, prin iple.the IhePrinciple Principl of ofSchematic hemati I[his Fhis principle (pi) relies relies second (oherence: Coherence:

Principle Schcmatk Coherence: ofSchematic hemali Coherence: heren e: . . • Principl of 112] Principle therelations relations The conlenl associaled wllh nllh •participants, parllClpanls. and Ih relallon '11wcontent contentassociated associatedwith with entities, entities, participants1 and the The operations.. Ihem must must exhibit exhibil coherence coherence in fu ion operations. operalion holding between them in fusion fusion

fusionoperation—namely operation—namely The following. on (p2) entails enlails the Ih following. following.Any Anyfusion fusion o"."ratio~l name!y I'he pronciple Fhc principle principle in in (p2) (pi) Any exhibitalignment alignment lexical concepl inlegralion. and and interpretalion-must exhibit exhIbIt a"gnmentinin In concept integration, lexical integration1 and interpretation—must interpretation—must associated with with the the lexical concepts undergolerm Ihe schematic hemalic aspects a peel associated associaled wllh Ihelexical lexi alconcepts con eplsundergoundergo· terms of of the aspects ing ong the Ihe fusion fu ion operation. operatoon. .. . . these principles serveto toconstrain constrainintegration, integration, consider To iIIustrale th principl serve scrve 10 conslraln Inlegrallon.consider consIder To principles lo illustrate illustrate how these TIIkoU(,u TIPAEI TIMEI [RELATION ION EVOLVING Ihe onlernally openlexical lexicalconcept c nceplIRELA1 (RELATIO rvoo VING VING THROUGH TIIROU(.II TIME) the internally internallyopen lexical concept in(9): (9): a~socialed wilh the Ihe vehicle vehicle VERB, VLRB. represented, represenled. for convenoen e.in (9): represented1 for convenience, convenience, associated with associated "VERB" vehii.le (9) vehi Ie (9) a.a.vehicle IVOLVING THROU.II TIME( TIMII (RELATION EVOLVING EVOLVING TIIROUGII THROUGH TIME] (kILATR)N concept'RELATION lexical concept concepl h. lexical b. lexical lexicalIconcept, concept open integration proceeds Recalllb.1 prtXecd by virtue virtu of ofan an internally inlernally open pen lexical lexi con elll. Recall that inlegralion Re4:.111 that tilled byan internally lexical Instance the Ihe lexical lexical concepl in (9b) filledby aninternally Inlernallyclosed closedlexical I X1cal concept in for instance (9b) being beingtilled internally closed closedlexical lexical conceptcan canfill fill just concept. 'e\oertheless. not not just jusl inlernally lexicalconcept concepl filljust j.usl tincept. Nevertheless, Nevertheless, just any any internally lexicalconcept. concept. lor instance, instance, the internally closed lexical any internally internally dny inlemally open lexical lexical con Cpl. For For instance.the Iheinternally inlernallyclosed . lasedlexical leXIcal the lexical cannot be heintegrated integrated with concept (IKANCI UNU(I from inslance. be onlegraled WIth the th I X1cal concept (iIFRANC:E1 from(3b). (3b),for furinstances instance, cannOI cannot concept Coherence in Linguistic thePrinciple Principle concepl (9b). This Thi follows followsgiven giventhe PrincipleofofLinguistic Lingui ticCoherence herence in concept in (9b). follows given Recallthat thatthe thePrinciple Principle con)unction WIththe IhePrinciple Principleof ofSchematic -hemali Coherence. .oherene.RecallthatlhPronlple conjunction with Recall the Principle of Schematic Coherence. beingintegrated integrated share ofLingui lic Coherence reqUITe that Iballhe lexicalconcepts concepl~being Integral.edshare ~are of Linguistic Linguistk Coherencerequires requires thatthe thelexical leskal concepts of linguistic hemati coherence Ihe level le\oel of oflinguistic Iingui lie content. content. term of linguistic IongulSllc schematic at the level linguistic content.In Interms terms coherence al at nominal lexical toncept and conlent. Ihe lexical lexical concept (Oncepl 1(iRAN(:Ij (ruNn) con epl and as a such u h i.asNcE1isiisaaa lexical concept content, the to aJ thing, than that evolves through time. terms relalo Ihing. rather rather than Ihan aa relation that Ihal evolves 'olves Ihrough lIme. In terms ICrm~ of of relates 10 FRANCE lingui lic content, conlenl.lhere coherencethen Ihen '. E)a.nd content, there there is is no no schematic schematiccoherence thenbetween between (FU ,I] and linguistic I) encodes encodes [FRANCE] as TIiKO((1I (RILATIO. [VOIVE' TIIROl'(;1I TIM.) a (FuNul encod thing-like Ihlng Ioke EV4 n Vi [RELATION THAT THROUGHI1MF.1 TIME] as RI IA I IONTIIAT lIlA I EVOLVES As such, the the principle in contenl rather than Iban content coni nl which which isi relation-like. relallon like. As A such, such. th principle principle in in content than content which content rather and (REIAIIONI. (pI) prohibilsintegration inlegralion between (FRA . Eland (RELATIONI. (pi) (pi) prohibits prohibits integration between between 'FRANCE] (FRAN(FI and 'RELATION]. open conlra I.however, howescr.(FRANCI (I RAN( I I( can be inlegraled wilh Ihe internally inlernally open open In contrast, contrast, however, [FRANCE.] canhe beintegrated integratedwith with the the NOUN: vehicle lexical .oncept ITIIIN(1 [THING] encoded by Ilexical Olal concept conccpl ['"IN(;! by the Ihe vehicle vchld NOt)N: au: [

I

a.vehicle vehicle vehi Ie ((10) (to) to) a.a.

h. lexical lexical tonept h. Icxil.lilonlcpl b. concept

" 0 "NOUN" 'THING] ITIIIN(,l

level 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 lexical content. Iingui\tk (ontcnl. linguistic content.

246

246

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY

SEMANTIC COMPOStTIONALITY

—-

-

1LEXICAL EXICAL (:ON(1PT CONCEPTINTEGKATION INTEGRATION —

mightundergo undergo and(THINGJ (THING! might FRANCINow let'sconsider contexts in in which fFRAN i I1and kts considert.ontCxts such lexical concept integration. Such a context might mightinvolve involvethe the lull> fully ininsuch lexical concept integration. Such a context X CAUSES THING Y TO RECEIVE THING zJ, ternally open lexical concept (THING I IIIN(a X CAUSES THINt. Y TO kI(EIVI TIIIN( tI, f ternally OpCfl kxlLal in which relates to the semantic pole of the ditransitive vehicle, as represented in whkh relates to the ScflUfltIC pole of the ditransitive vehick, as represented can potenpoten(5) above. In the "ditransitive"lexical lexicalconcept concept in in (5b), FRANCE' can (c) above. In the lexical conupts conceptswhkh whichmake make up up the the T IIING I kxical tially he integrated with with any any of of the the 1(IIIINGI lie integrated tially larger lexical concept. That is, the lexical concept in (5h) is internally complex internally complex larger kxkal concept. That is, the lexical concept in and is comprised of three distinct (THING] lexical concepts: [THING X I, [THING and is comprised of three distinct (THINGI lexical concepts: (TIIIN(; xl, illustratehow how integration integration occurs, occurs, consider the (THING Z1. To better v 1. and [THIN( ii. lb betterillustrate and utterance below which which relates relates to to abstract abstract transfer: transfer:

utterance below

(i1) The 1940 armistice gave Germany France The 194() armistice gave (ermany France

(ii)

zJ. Bvvirtueofbeing [FRANCO is integrated with THING zj. By virtue of being In the example in ( 11 ), IIRAN('FI isintegratedwith In theeLimplein (ii). semantic integrated with this lexical concept, (FRAN( receivesaaparticular particular semantic integrated with this lexical concept1 [FRANCOEl receives value: namely, an entity which is subject to being transferred to (THING Y1. In value: namely, an entity which is subject to being transferred to ITHING Yl. in other words, while interpretation—discussed in the next chapter—is necessary other words, while interpretation—discussed in the next chapter—is necessary in order to understand that the entity designated by the vehicle France relates 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 usermay may he be a European nation state with all the complex knowledge a language able to draw upon relating to this particular nation, in the context of the the able to draw upon relating to this particular nation, in the context of utterance in (ii),the thesemantic semanticvalue valueassociated associated with France relates useof of France the use with the utterance in (ii), to an entity which is the object abstracttransfer. transfer. to an entity which is the objectofofabstract It is also important to note that the Principle of Linguistic Coherence can It is also important to note that the Principle of Linguistic Coherence can occur recursively. This applies until allinternally internally open openlexical lexical prindpk applies until all occur recursively. This principle concepts have undergone lexical concept integration such that they have integration such that they have concepts have undergone lexical achieved integration with a lexical concept associated with a phonetically achieved integration with a lexical concept associated with a phonetically overt vehicle. closed, and andthus thuscannot, cannot,by by As such such they they become becomeinternally internally closed, overt vehicle. As definition, undergo further internal lexical concept integration. definition, undergo further internal lexical concept integration. The of Linguistic LinguisticCoherence Coherence does does not random proceedin in a arandom The Principle Principle of not proceed fashion. proceeds in simpkr occurringinininternally internallysimpler anordered ordered way, way, occurring inan fashion. Rather Rather it it proceeds lexical complexlexical lexical Iexk1il concepts conceptsprior priortototaking takingplace placeininmore moreinternally internallycomplex concepts. is guaranteed guaranteed by thePrinciple Principleof ofOrdered Ordered Integration Integration inin by the concepts. This This is Internally Open Lexical LexicalConcepts: Concepts:

Internally Open

fp3) Principle of Ordered Integration in Internally Open Lexical Concepts: (p3) Principle of Ordered Integration in Internally Open Lexical concepts: Lexical internallysimsiniapplying totointernally integration takes takesplace plate by by applying conu.pt integration lexical concept pler lexical concepts before applying to internally more complex lexical concepts before applying to internally more complex lexical pIer concepts. concepts. What this integratedand and contentisisintegrated linguisticcontent ensurethat thatlinguistic doesisisensure principle does What thisprinciple hence unpacked "outwards," applying to internally simpler lexical concepts concepts hence unpacked "outwards," applying to internally simpler lexical first. For instance, in the that principleinin(p3) that (p3)ensures ensures (ii).the theprinciple first. lor instance, in theutterance inin(ii), individual lexical concepts thatpreserves preservesthe thepartpartintegratedinina away that conceptsare arcintegrated individual whole structure of internally concepts.That lexicalconcepts. i'hatis, is,the thelexical lexical internallycomplex complexlexical

whole structure of

247

247

the "ditransitive" "ditransitive" lexical in (5b) (sh) concepts concepts which which collectively collectively comprise comprise the lexical concept concept in lexical concepts internally open are areintegrated integratedasas follows. follows. The The simplest internally open lexical concepts the vehicle undergo undergointegration integrationfirst firstuntil untilthey they become become dosed. closed. l'or Forinstance, instance, the vehicle

associatedwith withthe thehighly highly abstract abstract lexical lexical inin(sa) (5a)consists consists of of three three NPs, NPs, associated concept IFIII) THING]: [SPECIFIED concept(SPFA

a.vehicle vehicle (Il) (ii) a.

"NI" "NP"

(SPECIFILD THIN(;l b. THING! h. lexical lexical concept concept (SPECIFIED

and can be tilled by a Vetthe the lexical concept in in (ii) (12)isisitself itselfextremely extremely abstract, abstract, and can be filled by a is provided1 range range of of more more specific specific lexical lexicalconcepts. concepts. One One such such lexical lexical concept concept is provided, together together with withits itsvehicle, vehicle, in in (13): (13): (13)

"DElI RMINER MO1)ilIER "DETERMINER MODIFIERNOUN" NOUN" ATTRIBUTEI lED TIIIN(; WITh A PARTU:LIIAR (SPIII concept [SPECIFIED THING WITH A PARTICULAR ATTRIBUTE] lexical concept b. b. lexical a. a. vehicle

three more ofthree consistingof itself internally internally complex, cornpkx, consisting (13) is in (13) The The lexical lexical concept concept in is itself more the internally 1-lence, vehicles. with distinct speciti. lexical concepts associated specific lexical concepts associated with distinct vehicles. Hence, the internally iatedwith with internally internally concept in in (13b) (13b) is is associated and abstract complex complex and abstract lexical lexical concept conceptsgiven givenin in (14): (14): but still simpler simpler but still abstract abstract lexical concepts (14)

a. i.

ii. h. i. 1. ii. ii. c. i. ii. ii.

vehicle vehicle lexical lexical concept concept vehicle vehicle lexical concept concept lexical vehicle vehicle concept lexical concept lexical

1)1.1 DETERMINER

(SPECIFICATION SPECIFICATION 1I

M()DIFII.R MODIFIER (Al II4I1tUTEI [ATTRIBUTE] NOUN NOUN

ITnINtI 'THING]

be integrated lexical concepts, concepts1and andsymbolic symbolitunits, units,can canhe turn, each In turn, In each of these these lexical integrated (11) For instance, given the utterance with a range of of other other lexical lexical concepts. concepts.For instance, given the utterance inin(it) with a range are thevehicles: vehicks: the', and armistice armistice are the lexical lexical concepts conceptsassociated associatedwith withthe the the, 1940, :sm and (5PEcIHcATI0NI,IATTRI(ArrkIintegrated. respectively, respectively,with with the the lexical lexical concepts concepts (SPECIFICATION], integrated, BUThI,and and(TitING1. (I nuTEI, 19 linguistic principlein in((p3) stipulatesthat thatthe thelinguistic Oncethis thishas hastaken takenplace, place,the theprinciple Once p3) stipulates lexical concepts eachofofthese thesenow nowinternally internally closed closedlexical content associated associatedwith with each content concepts of which these are with the more complex lexical concept can Lw integrated can be integrated with the more complex lexical concept of which these are giveninin(12), (iz), (sPF(IFIF.n THINIl, constituents, namely namely the the lexical lexical concept concept given constituents, (SPECIFIED THING', ofthis thisisisthat thatonce oncethe thelinguistic linguistic which has has the the form form NP. which NP. The The consequence consequence of unpacked1 the theselexical lexicalconcepts conceptshas hasbeen beenunpacked, contentassociated associatedwith witheach eachofofthese content the to OflC related individual lexical conccpts are result of the principle in (pi), the result of the principle in (p1), the individual lexical concepts are related to one 11)1 temporal cntitv

withtlw the%Thick vehidctwo typically relates to a tamp orAl entity. thoit thelexical corkro fated with i• Note that the with the rniern..lIy open I k'u&aI cnnccpl wtm.h 1w virtue .1 undergurng 4111Ulldentiving • InegrAIHM With owevcr.by virtue lowever, the internally open ATTRIllt ► TP I km al concept whit h king is iii that mults 1mm value gwen in ut, the kziaI largerkmal partofolthe thelarger tonuspart forms concept given in 113). the semantic value that results In rill 1111111416; king is of the value is attribute sort. Put .rnothct way. an attributeofof wtut.hisisananattnbutc entitywhich aninentity some sort. Put another way, an attribute semantic vallic is.oerced for the ocr ion). kw rrLited disussson it Mkhaetis with iq.o (sce onteptassociated with mu 4 we Michaelis 21roa tor related discussion iii (ix-noon). lexical concept

kr

kital

248 248

SEMAN ...:T.:.I=======:.:.. sEMANTIC (O\IPOSITIONALITY _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ SEMANTIC COMPOS1TIONALITY

tuhcrent unit. Put another way, theI I SPECIFIED sI'E( ii ill) anolher ,uch that Ihalthcy form coh renl unit. UOiI.Put Pulanother anotherway, way,lhe p[('Imll they form Iotm aa coherent that they another such the another concepts associated that the concept lexical concept ensures TiliNG I leu .1 con eplensures en ur that Ihal th lexical I xical concepts con epts associated associated with withthe the lexical THING] i IIIPJGI armistice function function as whole, serving serving to to provide provide the the vehid.", 1940, and amliSliet a aa whole, servrng 10 provid function armistice the, the 1940, vehicles lire, question, and that there is and "h mall content: eonlenl: that Ihalthere is a specific pccific thing in rn question, question, and that thai following following schematic quality with it-although it—although the the details detailsof ofthe thething thing itit has has aaa particular associated details of the thing particular quality associated associated with it—although particular qualily until the theapplication application and the the nature nature of 'ii the particular particular and Ihe parti ular quality quality are are pccified until unlillhe applicallon of are not not specified of interpretalion. of interpretation. Once process hastaken takenplace placefor for each eachof ofthe thelexical lexical concepts that make of the le"i al concepts con eptsthat that n e this thi process proc has has taken place for (:AU5ES V To TORECEIVE KI:EIvE THING THING 4 up the internally internally complex ITIiING x CAUSES CAU [ TiliNG Y TO REeElv. TIIIN(i Z] II [THING X THING Y complex ITHIN(; conceptswhich which make make up the concept given in in (5b), (sh), then then the lexical lexical (sb), then the lexi I concepts concept which make up the the lexical concept concept given given in lexical concept concept areint
LIXICAL I-PT LEXICAL CONI CON £PT INTEGRATION INTE.GRATION LEXICAL CONCEPT

249 249

discussed in in Chapter md flying and dnd jlylllg discussed Chapler 7. Specilically, external eXiernallexieal concepl integrarnlegra concept integralexical concept 7. Specifically, tion integration following: lion involves inv Iv integration inlegration of of the the following: r. 1I0wing: involves

• an or an internally inl rnallyclosed cI sed lexical lexical concept, concepl, or internally closed lexical concept, aninternally inlernallyopen openlexical I xicalconcept conceptthat thaihas hasbecome become closed, dueto to inlern.1 •■an closed,due tointernal internal internally lexical that has become lexical concept int
As with the ofinternal internal lexical concept integration, external lexical As with th process process of of inl rnal lexical I xical concept con eptintegration, iOlegr.tion,external externallexical lexical the process .oncept integration integration resultsrn in the the formation formation of of lexical conceptual unit, concepl integral ion result formation ofaaa lexical lexi al conceptual on eplual unit, unil, concept results in then subject subject to the 10the Ih process proc ofof ofinterpretation. inlerprelallon.To 10illustrate, Illu Irate,consider con id r whi h is i then ub,ecl to interpretation. ii', illustrate, consider which the (FRAN EJ concept [FRANCE] associated the EI associated 'aled with the the vehicle vehicle France Frallu in the followIhe lexical le"ical concept concepllfRAN the followFrance ing exchange: exchange:

(ii) a.1)o Do you know which country inhabitants (15) Doyou youknow knowwhich whichcountry countryitsitsinhabitants inhabitantsrefer referto a the thehexagon? hexagon? 115) a.a. refer totoas as the hexagon? b. France! Fran e! the lexical concept concept doesnot notundergo undergointegration integration In thi exchange, Ihe lexical con epl IFRANCEI If RAN EI dots does not undergo inlegration In this this exchange, the [FRANCE] of follow as a it ilit is i. a response respon 10 lion, and, and, in the Ihe lighl of any sort. Thi responseto toaaprior prior qu question, and,in thelight light This follows question, of this, achieves aninformational informationalcharacterization—an characterization—an interpretation—withof thi ,aachieves hieves an informalional chara lerizalion ·an interpretation—withrnlerprelalionwilh requiring out requiring requiring further furtherlexical lexicalconcept concepl integration. inl
Fran e isiisa•a geographi al region region (16) France geographical (i6) France geographical e"ampl, from fromthe Iheperspective perspecliveof ofthe th lexical lexicalconcept concepl(FRANCEJ, If RAN EI, this thi In thi example, In this this example, from the perspective of the lexical concept [FRANCO, undergoes external lexical lexical concept concept integration. IFRANCE) Thaiis, i ,II RANnl is iis integrated inlegrated eXlernallexical con cpt integration. inl
"

External lexical concept concept integration integration Extemallexical concept I xternal lexical External integration relates relates tothe therole role of of internally internally closed kxExlernalle ieal concept oneepl integration inlegralion relales to 10 lhe role inlernally I sed lexlexconcept of closed areintegrated integratedwith withlexical kxkal ical ical (Om.cpb concepts in in lexical lexical as they in Icxit:al wncept cont::ept integration,.1 they are are integrated \Vith IcxiuJ concept integration1 integration, concepts Wflccpts sanctioned sanctioned by their their lexical lexical of time concepts profile, for for instance instance the examples examples of coneepl nClioned by le~ .1 profiles profile, instance of lillie Irasnkf. nut>t to to physacal rhvutal bill .11htratt t r.m%kreclairs • 01 CUUnt', ihr lhrnature JUtutt01 vI the ltvtransfer trolnJtor rewt riot .... hI l'tty'lk:,,1tr.stiOcr. Iran kr.1)1st hut t.trikl tr~o'\kr · .a · "trance" troln ki' tran%kr: tramkr" t)f uourse. transfer:a u a osncqucn&c 04 iii sntrlprrtation. ■ ot or Fhá en 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. the kit ol arguments I-or detailed dctaikd presentation II for dttatlN rrnmLUlon of o( ulummhfor lurthe thtindependent uk.l~mlexistence "XI I~~ dllrallNliVC"on CZIS*CThe olthe the ditransitiviLimtu)flig For pitofthe ditransilore 'tfUitIOfl. 11995. o hon, see Goldberg trlk.ll<>n 1ft' lioklbrrt flt9't).

a.vehicle vehicle (17) a. vehicle (17) a. b. lexical lexical concept concept

"I )FFINFFI-NP,beFINITE bd-INITI IN[)EFINIl I - NP" "DEli Ill, NP, bdl ITE INDEFINITE-NP" INDlH ITE-NP" "DEFINITE-NP, OF A QI5AIITY TO AN AN [ATTRIBUTION IATTRIBUTION OF OF AQUALITY QUALITY AN ENTITY] ENTITY)

RAN(:FI is is integrated integrated with with the the In lerm of of deriving deroving aa conception conceplion for for(m6), (16), Ii[FRANCE] IfRAN('EI iOlegraled wilh Ihe In terms terms of deriving conception for (16), lexkal SPECIFIED lexical concept: lexi .1 concept: concept:(uNIQU,IUNIQUE PE IflEO THINGI, THINGI, which a ialed with wilh the is associated associated with the the UNIQUE SPECIFIED THING], which is vehicle provided in rather than the entire vehi I provided (18a) rather ralher than than the Ihe entire enlir IATTKIIIVI IATTRIBUTION A ION OF OF A A QUALITY QUALITY provided in (iSa) OW [ATTRIBUTION 10 AN TO AN ENTITY] toncept in TO I NTilYI lexical lexicdl c"neepl in (17h). (17b). concept (17b). (iS) (18) a. vehicle vehi Ie vehicle (18) a.

b. lexical lexial tu'Ihtpt b. icxildl concept uuu:ept h.

"I )FIINIII "DIll ITI' NP" P" "DEFINITE-NP" [UNIQUE uNIQUE T1IINGJ (l INIQl'I SPECIFIED \PFUIIl 0 1THINC] II INc.t I

OM POSITIO.:::N:::A:,:l;:.IT:,.Y= -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

SEMANTIC POSITK)NA I.ITY :.25~0:..._-';.: "::..':;.A:;.N,-,TI (A)M SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY 2510 25()

lEXICAl LEXI AL (ONCEPTINTEGkATI()N CON EPT INTEGRATION LEXICAL CONCEPT

FRANCE] with IFIII❑ '1111 It virlOe of Ihe integration Inlegrallon of IFMANC,I wilh the Ihe IspEciFiE I P£(:IFI>O .,) 1wvirtue virtue of of the the of IFKAN:EI ISPI is by It i, rIIINGI nominative"lexical part of of Ihe "predicate "prodic.le nominalive" lexical lexl al concepl whi h forms part kxici coCOn. lexical concept which part of the the "predicate nominative n_ lexical cept. receives asThem Themeor orSubject Subjectof ofaapredicatin pred ceps, that ]FRANCE] receivesilits its status Theme cepl, Ihal [FRANCEj I.MAN FI receives latu aas Subjecl of prodicallngg just .is that (THING] lexical presslon. Put concepts that PUI another anolher way, way, jusl as the Ih IITlIlNGllexi al concepts concepl Ihal form form exprsion.Putahwy,js e expressIon. the larger "ditransitive" concept (sb) encode dith part of the larger larger "ditransitive" "ditran ilive" lexical Ie ical concept concept in in(5b) (Sb)encode encodedifferential differenlial part of' of the content,ensuring ensuring that each ITIIINGI slot distinct, toe. by virtue conlenl, en uringthat Ihaleach ea h[THING] ITIIING] 101 js iis di linct, so so too, 100, by virtue lingul lie content, linguistic slot distinct, occupying the slot does in(16), (i6), achieves of II RANCEI Ihe P slot 101 it ilit does does in in (16), itilitachieves a hieves aaadistinct dlsllncl occupying the NP RAN( i J occupying [FRANCE] Ii semanik value achieved bythe the lexical vi -a-vis the Ihe semantic semanticvalue valueachieved achievodby thelexical lexicalconcept concepi semanlic semantic value, value, vis-à-vis vis-à-vis IGfOGRAPlIlCAL UGION]J in the same same utterance. ullerance. in the (GEOGRAPHICAL REGION] REGION Now consider slightly more complex example external ow let's lei' consider con ider aaa slightly lighlly more more complex compl..example exampleofof ofexternal eXlemalle .. cal lexical Thi concerns the integration inlegralion of of an an inlernally open open concepl inlegralion. This concept integration. integration. aninternally internally open Thisconcerns concerns lexical concept which, via internal internal concept integration, become lexi al con ept which. which, inlernal lexical lexical concept con epl integration, inlegralion, has ha becom becomee internally closed. involves Ihe "ditransitive" Th example involves "dilran ilive" lexical lexical concept concepl interalycosd.Thxmpe inlernally closed. The the "ditransitive" lexical concept given in (5b) (Sb) abov . (sb) above. above. To illuslrale, illustrate, con consider the following utterance To ider the Ihe following utterance: ulleran e: consider

e first, distinguished. distinguished. The first, e1islingul hed. Th The fir I, internal inlernal lexical leXICal con epl integration, inlegrallon, applies appli to 10 lexical concept integration, applies to internal Inlernally open lexical concepts, con pts, while while the the second, ond, external external lexical lexical concept con cpl internally open external lexical concept internally open lexical lexical concepts. while second, integration, involves integration ofan an internally inlernally closed closed lexical lexi al concept. on epl. Inlegralion, involves the Ihe integration inlegralion of internally lexical concept. integration, closed is influenced inOuenced by by the the lexical lexical profile profileof oflhe lexi alprofile profileassociated associalod Inlegralion is Integration lexkal the profile Integration profile of the lexical associated with concepts. Bothsorts sortsofof ofintegration integrationare inlernallyopen openand closed lexical lexical concepts. con epl .Both Both sorts inlegralion are with internally internally and closed closed 1w Principles Principles of governed by of Lexical Lexical Concept Concepl Inlegralion, of ofwhich whi hthree Ihreewere were governed Lexical (1rnceptIntegration, Integration, of which three were presented in the the chapter. chapter. Finally, as lexicalconcept concept integrationinvolves involves inteoncepl integration inlegralion involv inteinle presenlod in Ihe hapler. Finally, Finally, a.islexical presented of linguistic lingui lie content, conlenl, ititil isi primarily primarilyconcerned con ernod with wilh utterance ullerancecontext. conlext. gralion primarily utterance context. gration of content, concerned

gave Marya aabracelet bracelet (19) John gave Mary braceleland andhehegave gave Jane neeldace. gaveJane laneaanecklace. necklace. (19) John gave Mary

"ditransitive" being coordinated coordinatedby by In Ihi xampl two IWO "ditransitive" "duran iti,e"lexical concepts are are being coordinaled by In this this example lexicalconcepts concepts arc WITH Z Z I ION WITH OFY] yJ lexical lexical con concept ONJUNCTION ZBY BY ADDITION ADDITION OF OF Y] ept associated associatod with wilh the f(ONJUN( [[CONJUNCTION with lexical the vehicle atilt. and: (2o) (20)

a. vehi Ie "aud" a. vehicle "and" b. lexical kacal b. Ie .. alconcept concepl[CONJUNCTION I( ONJLNCTION WITII WITH Z BYADDITION AI)I)II'i( IN OF OFY] vi [
in 09) (19)illustrates illustrateswhat whatIII refer to The utterance in The ullerance in (19) iIIuslrales whal r fer to 10 as aas aa complex conceptual conceplU.I 81 unit. unil. Internal Inlernal lexical lexical concept con epl integration integralion gives gives rise rise 10 Iwointernally inlernally lexi Internal integration gives riseto totwo two internally lexical lexical concept closed dosed "ditran "ditransitive" dosed ilive" lexical lexi on cpt. By By virtue virtll of ofhaving having undergone underg ne internal internal "ditransitive" lexicalI toncepts. concepts. virtue undergone lexical concepl concept integration this gives rise totwo conceptual lexicalunits. units. Each lexical inlegralion Ihi gives gives rise ri to 10 twoconceptual concepluallexical units.Each E.cch concept integration lexical lexical conceptual Unitsisiisfurther further integrated integrated virtue of being of these Ihese lexical lexical conceptual conceplual units units inlegralod bby virtue virille ofbeing being these integrated wllh lexical concept concept in (iob). (mb).This 'l'his givcsrise riseto toaaamore on epl in (20b). Thisgives gives rise 10 morecomplex complex inlegralod Ihe lexical with the integrated unit. Inlegralod unil.

Summary This an overview overview Thi chapler has ha presented presenlod an an overview of oflexical lexical concept con cplintegration, inlegralion, concept integration,or or Ibis chapter chapter integration for offusion. ttisiofl. inlegrallon for horl, which i one one of ofthe Ihe two Iwo constituent consliluenlprocesses processesof of fusion. integration forshort1 short, which isis processes Integration Involv the integration integration 1w the of Ih linguistic linguisti content conlenlencoded en ododby bythe the Integralion integralion of Integration involves Ihe of the the linguistic content encoded (oncep" that Ihalmake an utterance. 1Il1erance. Integration Inlegraliontakes I.lk place placeby by variou concepts various lexical concepts that make place by make up up an the linguistic with each each lexical concept and unpacking Ih linguistic content associated conlenl associated a soclaled with wilh each lexical lexical concept concepl and anel unpacking lingui lie content integrating Inlegraling inlernally open—informally1 open- informally, more more abstract—lexical abSlra I- lexical concepts concepl integrating internally internally open—informally, more abstract—lexical concepts moreconcrete——lexical concrete informally,more with concepts. Ihe wuh inlernall closed—informally, closed Informally, con rei — lexi 31 concepts. con epl . The The with internally internally closed lexical contept that diagnostk isconventionally ionventionall paired diolgnu IiI.. for fur an abc,lfo1ll lexical lexi(.ll concept (ont: pi isis i that that itit isis conventiondJly paired diagnostic for an abstract abstract with that is phonetically implicit. types of integration were w.lh vehid that Ihal is is phonetically phonetically implicit. impli il. Two Two types Iypesof ofintegration inlegralionwere were with aa vehicle vehicle

251

—

1

—____________

INTERPRETATION INTERPRETATION INTERPRE1 A 1 ION

-

13 13

-

-

Interpretation Interpretation This chapler chapteraddresses addressesIh themechanism mechanism of interpretation, the la last of the the the Thi addresses mechani m of inlerprelallon. Ihe I of Ihe the of This chapter compositional operations the heartof ofLCCM ILCCM Theory.Interpretation Interpretation propro(ompo\llional al the Ih heart heart of ' ,M Theory. Theory. Inlerprelalion pro· operations at at Lompositional operalion vides the the compo compositional conceptual between semantk stru.ture and conceptual Ilional interface inlerfa e between bel ween semantic manllc structure Iruelur and conceplual vide interface vides Ih compositiirnal structure, facilitatingIhe thedeployment deployment ofconceptual conceptual content in service of the lruclure. facilitating facililaling deploym nl of of con eplual content conlenl in service service of of structure, linguistically mediatedmeaning meaning con construction. essential that construction. insight is that lingui lically mediated medialed meaning Iruction. The essential c.senlial insight in iShl is Ihal linguistkally involvesaaaprocess process III refer referto toas matching—brictly i nterpretationinvolves matching—briefly introducedin in inlerprelallon IIlvolves proc 10 aas malching -briefly introduced inlroduced III interpretation rekr the previous previous Matchingtakes takesplace place between the thecognitive cognitive model model Ih previou chapter. chapler. lak place between belwccn Ihe cognilive model hapter. Matching the profiles of the open-class lexical concepts which have undergone integration, undergone inlegralion. integration. ofthe Iheopen-c open -da con el'l whi h have undergone profil prohks ot lass lexical concepts and hence which result in a lexical conceptual unit. That is. interpretation conceptual unil. unit. ThaI That is, and hence whllh result in aa lexical conceplual is. interpretation inlerprelalmn and hence which result involves lexical concepts within the same lexical conceptual lexical conceplual conceptualunit. unit. As Ass the the involve. eplS within Ihe same sam lexical unil. Ihe involves lexical lexical con concepts within the formation of lexical conceptual units takes place recursively,serving servingto tointeinteof lexical lexi al conceptual con eplual units unil takes lakcs place pIa erecursively, recur-ively. serving 10 IIlle formal ion of formation grate IIllernally internally simpler lexical lexical takes place concepts first, so sotoo toointerpretation interpretation grale lexi aI concepts onccpt. first, firsl. \0 11K' inlerpr laliontakes lake.place place grate internally \impler simpler recursively, applying to each lexical unit once it has undergone conceptual once it has undergone ur ively. applying 10 each ea h lexical lexi al conceplual unil on e il has undergone rrecursively, applying to integration. Hence, interpretation guided by context—the outOutinterpretation is linguistic iis guided guided Lw by linguistic lingui ti context—the conlext-Ihe oulIIllegralion. integration. lien e. inlerprelalion come of lexical concept integration. In addition, interpretation is guided guided by In addilion. addition, interpretation come concepl integration. inlegralion. In inlerprelation is i guidedby by come of of lexical concept inferential processes relating to extra-linguistic context. Moreover, as with Moreover, as with eXlra-linguisli context. conlexl. Moreover. a wilh inferenlial proc relaling inferential processes relating 10 to extra-linguistic integration, interpretation is constrained by various principles, which will icon Irained by various variou principles, prin iples.which whi hwill will IIllegralion. rprelalion is interpretation constrained integration inl also he introduced and discussed. also be be inlroduced introduced md abo anddiscussed. discuS\Cd. In terms, ofofinlerprelalion interpretation attempt represents an attempt In more more general generallenns.lhe mechanism represenlsanan atlempl general terms,the themechanism mechanism of interpretationrepresents to whatprevious previous researchers havereferred referredto toas as 10 formali1e the Ihe way wayininwhich whichwhat whal previou researchers resear. Theoutoul kinds—for to produce come, then, language non-linguistic understanding, involvesthe theactivation activationof ofnon-linguistic com oflanguage under landing.involves involv the actIValion of non -lingui lie come,.Ihen. then, of of language understanding, representations, which arise due to prompts of the kind provided by lexkal represenlation Ih kind provided provided by bylexical lexical representations.which which arise arisedu due 10 to prompls prompts of the concept selection and integration, as described in the previous two chapters. Ihe previous two Iwo chapters. chaplers. coneepl seleclion as described de",ribt.-d in the concept select ion and and inlegrall(lIl. integration, as Before proceeding with the description of interpretation below, I reiterate interpretation below, II reiterate Befor riplion of inlerpr lalion below. reilerale Before proceeding proceedingwilh with Ih the ddescription the following. Once lexical concept integration has taken place, each has laken taken place, lexical Ihe following. Once Once lexk le.ic.ll place. each eachlexical the following. ml concepl concept inlegration integration ha concept receives a semantic value as part of an integrated lexical conceptual of an kxi..iI conceptual concept rC\:civt..~ aJ semantic \emanlic value v.lluc as 0'1\ part p.ut of .In integrated inlcgratl-d lexilJI (om:eptu.ll coniept receives unit. Interpretation proceeds by subjecting each open-class lexical each open open-class lexicalconcept concept Ullll. InlerpretJIIOn proceeds proceed by -da lexieal conccpl unit. Interpretation by subjecllllg subjeting each in a given lexical conceptual unit to the operation known as matching: the operation known as matching: in gi\'cn kxkal Ie kJI conceptual (om:cptual unit in a given unit to the operation known a matching: the cognitive model profiles of tonccpts model prohles two (or more) open Ihe profiles oftwo Iwo(or (ormore) more)open-class openclass da lexical , lexical lexkalconcepts con epl the <"!lOlll\c model undergo matching. The result is that each lexical conceptual unit receives conceptual unit receives an i> that Ihal each lexieal (oneeplual unil rec ivesan an und rgo matching. mal,hlllg. The result r ult is undergo

253 15J 253

1nlormational charat ILrI,ttion. Once Once all units Informalional Ihe lexieal conceplual an intOrmationalcharacleri1.dtion. characterization. Onceall allthe thelexical lexicalconceptual conceptual UOlIS units in in an an the utterance as utterance have hieved an lerizalion Ihe utleranc as a aaa an $flforflIJtK)flal utterancehave haveaachieved achieved an informalional informational chara characterization the utterance chara,..terization: informational il utterance-level utterance-level informational infornlalional characterization: characterizalion: aaa whole Ihereby receives whole thereby therebyreceives receives its its utterance-level
An illustration An illustration models to disdisInlerprelallon involves of cognilive di Interpretation the activation Interpretationinvolves involvesIhe theactlvalion activationof ofcognitive cognitive models models belonging belonging 10 to 11IlL! cognitive model profiles whit which are matched. The mal hingprocess proc _ gives gives tinct h are tinctcognitive cognitivemodel model profiles profiles which are matched. The The matching matching process gives lexical wncepts an informational informalional characten,ation. characteriz.llion. In Ihis way, way. the Ihe lexical lexical concepts concepls rise rise to an informational rise 10 characterization. In this this way, the mesubject result in "unified" inlerprelalion: a linguisticallymemesubject to matching matchingresult resultin inaaa"unified" "unified" interpretation: interpretation: subject 10 to matching aa linguistically informational dialed imulalion. lically mediated medialed imulalion (the (Ihe informational infornlalional diated ion. Thi This lingui linguistkally diated simuLit simulation. This linguistically mediated simulation simulation (the that facilicharaclerizalion) Ihen malched with wilh olherlexical lexical soncepts can epl that Ihalfacilifacili characterization) matched with other characterization) can can then then be be matched other lexical concepts cognitive model profile, profile, lale acc Ih';r unique cognitive cognilive model profile. until unlileach eachopen-class open-dass tate to their their unique tate access access 10 to unique until each open-class interpretation. an utterance ulleranee has ha undergone undergoneinterpretation. inlerprelallon. lexical concept undergone lexical concepl concept in in an an utterance has howinterpretation interpretatft)n proceeds, let's 10 provide an immediate immediale illustration iIIuslration ofhow inlerprelalionproceeds, proceeds,let's I I'S Ii) provide immediate illustration of of To provide an expressions (i)and and(2) (i) in in consider lraighlforward example. n iderthe ion in inin(1) (I) and (1) straightforward onsider the consider aaa straightforward example. (Consider the apr expressions model profiles for Ihe lighl of of the Ihe partial partial primary primary cognitive cognllive model model profiles profiles for for IFRAN(:EI [rRANce[ III the light the partial primary cognitive f FRANCE] in in Ir [NATIONI in Figure 13.3. hgure IJ.I. for [UGION] in I-igure IJ.l. and for [NATION] in hgure IJ.J. Figure for !REGION] IREGI0NI inFigure Figure 13.1, 13.1, for Figure13.2, 13.2, and for (NATION] in Figure 13.3. the (U) I) France, Fran e.lhelandma France, the landmass landmass (1)

(1) France. nalion France, Ihe the nation nation (a) France, (2) the informational characterdistinct informational receives of these Ihese examples examples France rrtlrlCf receives r eives aa distinct di;lincl IOformalionalcharacterharaclcrIn each each of France In these geographical area,while whilein10 in(2) (a) relates 10aaageographical geographi alarea, area. while (2)ititilrelates relalestoto 10aaa izalion. In In (0 (I)France Francerelates rclal to (i) France relates to ization. howititilis isisthat that each these polili al entity. entily. My My purpose purpose here here is iisto 10 iIIu Iral how Ihaleach eachofof ofthese Ihese political here toillustrate illustrate political entity. My purpose eive'sdistinct distinct iinlerprelations. nterpretat ioflS. ofFrance' Frail f receives di lin Iinterpretations. instances of of France RANCEI—See lexicalconcept concept hav seen seen in chaplers.the Ihelexical oncepl [FRANCE [FRAN e]-see As we we have have seenin inprevious previouschapters, chapters, the As ]—see least, to 13.1—affords access to conceptual content relating, at the very Figure IJ.Iafford access 10 con eplual conlenl relaling. allhe leasl. Figure 13.1—affords access to conceptual content relating, at the very least, to10 entity—including knowledge !'ranee geographical region. as polilical enlily-in ludingknowledge knowledge France aas asaaageographical geographicalregion, region, as asaaapolitical political entity—including France people andtheir their social relaling 10 the Ihe French French political polilicalsystem, y lem. the theFrench Frenchpeople peapl and and Iheirsocial social relating to to the French political the French relating system, andlanguage language andthe thenational national sports 10m and and practi es. their Iheir hi lOryand languageand and Ihe nalionalsports port cu customs andpractices, practices. theirhistory history customs holidaydestination, destination, with, 10France !'ran eas .saaaholiday desllllalion.with, wilh. engaged in. and so forlh , and to engagedin, in,and andso soforth—and forth—and to France as engaged GEOGRAPHICAL GEOGRAPHICAL GEOGRAPHICAL REGION REGION

I

NATION NATION STATE STATE

HOliDAY HOUDAY HOLIDAY DESTINATION DESTINATION

[FRANCE) IFRANCEI (FRANCE]

profik for t RANChJil Parti.iI primary primary FIGt:RI13.1. 13." Partial Pilrtl.lI pnm.1ryCognitt%C I.:ognltl\l('model modelprofile profile.'for for (FRAN( II(.tKI cognitive (FRANCE' FIGURE 13.1.

INT[RPRBTATION INTERPRETATION

COSt I'OSITlUNALITY SF SIAN I IC COMPOSITIONALITY SEMANTIC

254

I

GEOGRAPHICAL GEOGRAPHICAl REGION

PHYSICAL TERRAIN TERRAIN

"LANDMASS] [LANDMASS) ILANDMASSJ I LANDMASS] Partial pnmary Lognitivemodel profile for l-n.t" RI 13.1. 13.L Polnial primary cognitive (ogniliYc model profile profilefor forILANUMAsSI ILANllMA ~I FIGURE

POLITICAL POUTICAI. SYSTEM

PEOPLE PEOPlE

CUlTURE CULTURE

~

lANGUAGE LANGUAGE

HISTORY

profilefor forI NATION rrimary primary Cogrtilive modelprofile prom. [[NATION' ATlON) primarycognitive cognitivemodel

pos.sihk sorts of perhap i .po ibl. (or (o r perhaps,• knowledge knowledge relating to to the the sort of holiday activities it is possible knowkdge relating holidays typkal) as skiing skiing (in typical) engage in, in.in rran e.such u has kiing (in (inthe theAlps), Alp ).seaside sea Ide holidays holoday. typical)totoengage in ininFrance, France, such the Alps), seaside (on the Mediterranean Mediterranean coast), coast). Mediterranean on. coast), and so on. at the The lexi al concept concept 1I.ANIMA5sI—see 13.2- facilitates aaccess, cess. at Figure 13.2—facilitates LANDMASS]I-see —SCC rigure the lexical lexical [I LANDMA physical terrain—a primary inodds that relate to to aaa physical very lea t. to primary pnmary cognitive models that that relate relate phy teal terrain—a terratn-. very least, least, cognitive models landmass can behilly. hilly, mountainou mountainous,• may consist landma consi t of of plains, plain • woodland, woodland. and and so so can be he hilly, on—or to area. on-or toaageographical geographical area. area. very part tal primary primary ~or rigure 13.3relat relatesto verypartial partial primary cognitive cognitive model modelprofile profile for for Figure 13.3 13.3 relates totoaaavery cognitive This to cognitive cognitive INATIoNI. lex.ical concept, concept. the very veryleast, lea t. facilitates facilitates access acc to cogmtlve This lexical lexical concept, at at the very least, facilitates access NATION NATION]. Thi models having with aaa political politicalentity entityand andnation nationstate, tate.and andhence hence aaa models havingto to do dowith potitkal hence models having entity and nation state, people ((with with common common customs, customs, traditions, cu tom. traditions, traditIOn,. partICular political system, y tem. ai people people particular particular politkal political system, cui inc. and on).and andlanguage language((and/or (andlor languages). and and common cuisine, so on), on), and language and aacommon common and so and/or languages), languages), complex) history. history. (often complex) of the proc of matching, mat hing. whi..h which takes tak Interpretation works Interpretationworks worksby byvirtue virtueof ofthe theprocess process of matching, which take place between cognitive model model profiles profi] accessed a c sed by by the therelevant relevant lexical leJOcal place between the the cognitive profiles the relevant between accessed previous part seen the con epts which whi h are are subject to matching. mat hing.As A we wehave have seen seen in inthe theprevious part concepts which concepts of the "relevant" lalizedfor for of the book, book. the the"relevant" "relevant"lexical lex.icalconcepts oneept are arethose tho that thatare arcspec pedalized lexical concepts are those that are specialized which have semanhence, those and hence, hence. those thosewhich whichhave haveaaa semanseman· affording aaccess c to conceptual content, content. and alconcepts.' concept.. ttc a >dated with them. namely open -clas lexical lexi with them, them, namelyopen-class open-class lexical colkepts)' tic potential potential associated associated in (i) (I)and and (2), the relevant lexical concepts tenm of of the the examples exampl and(a), (2).the therelevant relevantlexical Ie icalconcepts oncept are arc In examples in In terms IFRANCEI.ILANDMAS ). and [NATION). involv establishing tablishing aa [NATION]. Interpretation involves [FRAN(;El, ILANnMAS5J, and LNATI0NI. [FRANCE], [LANDMASS], models in the cognitive model match between one one (or mor ) cognitive cognitive models mod I intnthe thecognitive cognitivemodel model match bctwccn match between OflC (or more) more) cognitive

Iheon pmlkh bleaching (or (or O(iC1fl.*fltiC thAt hit sequence«11th of this thatI.t Theory predicts that the the %mural,. ('hw .. Itistholt 111l:Ch4 ( M1 Thc .. ry J'l'nh .. t thu tNt the- process pn'fll..& of tlf kfn.lnlk. bleaching blc.kh1na (,r One \.{lR5C'qunKC I ()nr *1

IS

profiles with the the relevant profiles associated associated with a-'5OCi.ted with the relevant relevant lexical I Xlcal concept. This process proc serves serves to to serves lexical concepts. This For mod I . For ror instance, instiln e. in in the the example example in in (1), (I). aaa activate the the matched cognitive models. models. instance, (i), match i established tabli hed between between the primary cognitive model modelprofile profileassociated a iated match is established betweenthe theprimary primary cognitive model profile 1issotiated with I[LANDMASS], one of the cognitive andone oneof ofthe thecognitive cognitive models models to with ILANDMA5SJ,and LANOMAS I. and model to which whi h(IIFRANCE] rRANCEI affords afford RANCEJ of access. This of of course is aaccess. c . This i the cognitivemodel modelGFOIKAPHICAL GEOGRAPlllCAlREGION REGION which which is the cognitive cognitive model GEOGRAPHICAL REGION becomes activated. In example, the match place between ond example, e ample. the thematch matchtakes takesplace placebetween between beeom activated. lx-comes activated. In the the second primary Lognitive modelprofile profile to which .itlords cognitive model the primary cognittve profileto towhich whi hIINATIONI INATIoNI afford access a cess and the and the NATION I affords access NATION STATE NATiON STATE cognitivemodel to which IL'RAN(:EJ NATION TATE cognitive model to towhich whi h[FRANCE] IFRANce) affords aff< rd access. access. Hence, Hen • affords access. the reason reason for different difkrent readings of i.J in (i) the reason for for differentreadings readings of ofIFRAN IFRANUI (I)and and(2) (2)is becau the the 'FRANCE] the (1) and (2) isisbecause because concept in each each utterance receives distinctinformational informational charactercharacter lexical con concept lexical cpt in ea h utterance utteran e receives receives aaadistinct distinct tnfOml.tlonal chara ter· ization. In (i) an informational characterization ization. In (1) (I) interpretation interpretationresults result in in an aninformational tnformationalcharacterization characterizationfor for interpretation results [FRANCE] [FMANIJ landmass.. In In (z) (2) IFRAN EI relating relatingtotoFrance rran eas a geographical gcographicallandma (2)interpretation interpretation relating France as geographical landmass. resLilts in an informational characterization of rresults ul in informational characterizatIOn ofaaapolitical entity:France Fran ethe the politicalentity: entity: France the in an informational nation state. tate.

~

[NATION) "NATION' "'GCR. I).). Parll.1 Partial Partial Fu;URE FIGURE 13.3.

255

access to the loss of cognitive modd model profile profik. to a cognitive model tttTI\UlII~ll\ ~ in In lVamnlA1Ik:aJJD1Iun InH,h 1M" tl, k.. to. U,,"IIIW proli~. grirninatscalii.atu'n involves Jitenuation/ the in grarnmaticalitation

Governing Principles Principlesof ofInterpretation Interpretation Governing Principles of Interpretation analysis presentedfor forthe theinterpretation interpretation of of 'FRANC:El The analysis The analy is presented presented the interpretation of I. RANn) the previous previou Ej in previotis in the section exhibited asymmetry in th process proc s of of matching: While Whileall the section exhibited an an asymmetry asymmetry in in the the process ofmatching: matching: allthe the section exhibited primary listed for (LANIMASSJ and INATIONI cognitivemodels model listed Ii tedfor for ILANDMAS Iand and[NATION] INATION) are are activated activated primary cognitive cognitive models 'LANDMASS] in the interpretations interpretation presented presented to account for the semantic variationexhibexhlb to account accountfor thesemantic semanticvariation exhibited ited by by France, France, the primary Ited Frallce. cognitivemodels model toto towhich whichIFRANCEI "Iaffords a ess primarycognitive models which IIrRAN ERANCEI affordsaccess access undergo selectiveactivation—although activation—although as as wewill undergo selective activation-although as we we willsee see below ituation isi seebelow below the the situation slightly more complexthan than this. this. That is, is, the claimmade made byLCCM I.( Theiirv is is lightly more more complex this.That is.the theclaim madeby L ;CM eM Theory Theory I lightly that interpretation IFRAN( ii in that interpretation interpretati n of of[FRANCE] IrRANcelon (I) theGEOGRAPHICAL GEOGRAPlIlCAl REGION REGION in (i) (1)results results in the in the GEOGRAPHICAL REGION model being being activated activatedwhile while in in (2) (2) aaadifferent different model cognitive modd activated different cognitive cognitive model model cognitive model while receives what III refer receives what receives refer to as primary primaryactivation, activation.namely namelythe th NATION NATIONSTATI STA1£ refer to as as primary activation, namely the NATION STATE model. Simply Simply put, put, primary presented cognitive Simply put.not notall all of ofthe the primary primarycognitive ogmtivemodels model presented presented cognitive model. cognitive models are receive primary activation. activation. In In 13.1which which areaccessed accessed by by IFRAN(:EJ IFRAN el receive in Figure Figure ij.i 13.1 which by 'FRANCE] receive primary primary informal terms, the referent identified informal term.this thi follows follow as a the thereferent referentidentified id.ntifiedby byFrance' rmllceis terms, this follows France is the Theme or Subject of the expression: purpose of of the expression, which, ubject of expr ion: the th purpose purpo ofthe th expression, expr ion.which, whi h.more tech moretechtechnically, appositive in nature, is to identify aspect thereferent referent nieally. iis appo itive in nature. is to identify identify which whi h aspect a peet of ofthe referent of of appositive Franc( France Frallce we are concerned then does doc> the the process pro<: of ofmatching matchong are concerned concerned with. with. But of matching with. But how how then then does process "know" of the i~ subject of ofthe theexpression, expr ion.and and hen e which ""know" know" which which referent is whichreferent referent is the the subject subject expression, and hence hence activation? answer is due due cognitive model profile profileisisi to receiveselective selectiveactivation? activation? The The answer an wer is cognitive model profile totoreceive receive selective to the the output of of lexical concept integration:the thelexical lexkjlconceptual conceptual unit.InIn to th. output oflexical I.xicalconcept conceptintegration: integration: the lexical con ptualunit. unit. virtue of lexical other words. by virtue ofthe th lexical lexi aJ concepts concep"undergoing undergoing integration. the the undeigoingintegration, integration, other words, expression servesas toderive derivean aninterpretation which ininstruction truction to to derive an interpretation which whichtreats treats <xpr ion serves expression serves asasananinstruction France as as the the referent of Frame the expression: theentity that the r""'ff a~ th Subject Subject the expression: expre ion: the the entity that that the the referent of Subject of the expression is i about. .1ooUI. In LCCM LCCM Theory Ihl ofmatching, matching. with application of matching,in in keeping keeping with with In Theory this this asymmetric asymmetric application the output of by the the overarching overarchingprinciple principleof i'i interinter is governed by ofintegration, integration. is i governed by overarehing of onter. prctation relerred to as the Principle of (puided Matching. This pretation referred as the uided Matching. This can be stated pretatlon referred ., Ihe Prin ipl of Guided can be he as follows: as follows: follow: ,

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY

256

IINTERPRETATION TFRPRfTATION INTERPRItATION

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY

256

lS7 257 257

Prinupk of Guided Matching

( P4) Principle Printiple of ofGuided Guided Matching lalchlng Matching of cognitive modelsin Interpretationproceeds proceedsin waythai that Matching of cognitive model inininterpretation Inlerpretallon proceeds ininaaaway way MalChing of cognillv~ models that is with the output of lexkal i.onceptintegration. integration. compatible wilh with the iis compallbl~ Ihe output oulpul of oflexical lexical concept concepl inlegralion.

Ihisprinciple prinupk has has IWO twoimplications. implications.Firstly, Firstly, interpretationproceeds proceedsinin in the the This principle Thi ha two implicalions. hr tly. interpretation inlerpr order Jcternuned by the order in which lexical concepts undergo lexical 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 integrdtion, J5 (ktelfluned, in particular, by the principle given in conCept concept integration, determined, in by the tOntepl inlegralion...as delermlOed. 10 particular, partitular. by Ihe principle principl given gi,en in 10 (p3) in the previous chapter. That is, texkal concept integration proceeds by (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 lexkal concepts in "bottom-up" fashion, applying tointernally internaHv integrating Ilexical concepts in "bottom-up" inlegraling xkal concepl "bollom-up" fashion, fa hion, applying applying to 10 inlernally m pIer kxi. al ..oncepts before integrating more internally corn plexlexical lexical simpler lexical ((Jncel'l concepts before impler lexital before integrating inlegraling more more internally inlemally complex complex lexical The Principle of (;uided Matching ensures, accordingly,that thatthe the concepts. accordingly, con cpl. The Principle Principle of ofGuided Guided Matching Malchingensures, en ur ,accordingly, Ihal the matching process central to interpretation proceeds by virtueof ofinterpreting interpreting matching process central to interpretation cenlrallo inlerprelalion proceeds by virtue virtue of inlerpreting malChing proc relevant lexical concepts in the order in which theyundergo undergo lexical lexical concept relevant lexical lexical(Oncepl concepts in in Ihe the ord orderr in relevanl 10 which whlth they Ihey undergo I xical concept (Onterl integration. k make this point clear, thefollowing exampk 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 NON-VISUAL PHYSICAl PHYSICAL PHYSICAL PlEASURE PLEASURE PLEASURE

VISUAL VISUAl VISUAL PLEASURE PLEASURE

AESTHETIC AESTHETIC PLEASURE PLEASURE

[BEAUTIFUL) [BEAUTIFUL] Partial profile forfor ! BEAUTIFUL] l'I(,tO£ 1].4 promaryulSnllI\C mudd profile [.,AUII'UI) FIGURE 116URP13.4. 13.4. Puti.1 Partial primary primarycognitive cognitivemodel model profile for 'iii

GEOGRAPHICAL GEOGRAPHICAL REGION

NATION NATIONSTATE STATE

France is a beautiful t.ountrv

(3) France (3) I ran<eisi aabeautiful beauliful country counlry

Without further (extra. linguistic) context,the exampleinin in(3) likelyto to gi,e give ri\C rise Without further (eXira (extra-linguistic) give Withoul lingui ti )context, context, the th example example (3)isiislikely likely to rise to what I will term a "geographical area" concept iou:France, France,in inthis thisutterance, utterance, isis to what I will term conception: ternl a "geographical area" are.l" conception: irance. in thi~ ullerallle. 1 understood as referring to a specific geographical region of marked physical understood as understood a referring referring to aa specific pecifi geographical geographical region regi n of ofmarked markedphysical phy ieal beauty. The principle in (p4) guarantees that interpretation takes place in beauty. The The principle beauty. principle in (p4) (1'_1) guarantees guarant that that interpretation interpretallon takes takes place place in10 conjunction with lexical coukept integration. That in for instance, conjunction with with Ilexical concept mtegration. integration.That Thatis, conjunctIon 1(011 concept Iis in in (3), (3), for forinstance, i""tancc, ii-iij and Icot'NTRYI undergo lexical concept integration to provide [BEAUTIFUL) and (COUNTRY) [COUNTRY) undergo undergo lexical (8LAUTIfUL) I.xical concept integration integration to to provide provid an unpacked ISPE( FlEE) Ut ING Whit A PAR1ICLl.Ak ATTRIBUTEJ lexical THING WITH conan unpacked unpacked (,(SPECIFIED Pfnnrl> TilING WITII AAPARTICULAR PARTI( nAR ATTRIBUTE] ATTRIBI'Tf) lexical concon cept associated with the vehicle an cept associated MODIFIERNOUN NOUN (i.e., the vehicle vehide DETERMINER DFll RMI I R \IOI)IFIER MOl>IIIl-R OU (i.e., (i,e., an an cept a ""iated with the NP), prior to being integrated with the more complex lexical concept associated 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 nominative vehicle which compnses the entire utterance. with the predicate predicale nominative nominative vehicle vehide which whi hcomprises compri the theentire entireutterance. utterance. The rekvaiit concepts for interpretation in are The relevant lexical concepts for interpretation in (3) are !FRANCE], BEAUTII-1rdl"ant lexical wn«l1t; for interpn:tallon 10 (3) arc (FRA '( 1). IRLAUI (81AU1 FULl, and ICOUNTRYJ.2 The principle in (p4) ensures, 1BI•.AUTIFULJ and FUL I, and (COUNTRy).l [COUNTRY ]. 2 Th The principle then, that I(BEAIlTIFI!L) fULl. principle in in (P4) (P4) ensures, ensUfC>,then, then.that that BEAUTIFUL] and ((ouNTRyj arc in order to build an informational characIcauwritY] are subject matching «-OI'NTRY) ub)CAUTII UI) range rang from frolllassessments a ment relating relating totIVe theIllodel receiptthat or awareness of physical pleasure, particularly physical appearto the th receipt rec Ipt or orawareness awar n of ofphysical phy ,ealpleasure, pl=ure,particularly particularlyphysical phy iealappearappear· ances, often of a sexual nature, to the awareness of non-visual but physical 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, such as aural pkasure, as in the appreciation of mLIsIc, or pleasure 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, for instance. The lexical concept I II-ULJ also derived from touch, also derived from touth. for for instance. in tante. The The lexical lexical concept on«pl (BEAUTIFUL] (BEAIlTIFUL) affords to a cognitive model having to do with non-physical affords pleasure, aCH to aa cognitive cognitiv model mod I having having to 10 do with wilh non-physical non phy,icalpleasure, 1'1 .hure, afford access Nnic th)41

I

VCtUJC

hJs I ((OIININY%uI1I

Crt .i' k satedwith I Note~lhaltM thit the vehicle g- crialtrl'AIN41 his s ICOUNTITSIIII withii it which I .."., 1~Ih.ualull ,., IPllks..Kalu)ft( l>tuso.,wttd\llfllhltwh ... hisis .. no( .Isckctcd Fur in 11w ~"", not selected for in this utterianie. oot td«tcod tor til thq, Utt(1""~,

[COUNTRY) [COUNTRY] [COUNTRY( model profile for rl(,lTI 13.S. 1l.~. Puti~1 primary (ogn"i\ mood profile profile for forIcol'NTutYl {COL' TRY) FIGURE FIGURI 13.5.Partial Partialprimary primarycognitive cognitive model

appreciation of which II gloss glo AfSTfIETIC PLEASURE. PLEASL'RE. This Thi relat the appreciation appreciation of of AESTHETIC gloss as asAESTHETIC which PLEASURE. Thisrelates relates to to the the plea urr that thJt i\ non-physical non'phy\i{JI in in nature, natur ,\u{h a'the th appreciation appreciationof ofliterature, literature, pleasure thatis is non-physical such ileasure in nature, such as as the appreciation of literature, culture. or particular language, language. and and !>O forth. forth. In In contrast, contra t. the th lexical I "ical or culture, culture, or aaa particular particular language, and so so forth. In contrast, the lexical or NTRY) facilitates, fa ilitat • at very least, lea t. access a{{ to cognitive cognitive models model onccpt (co facilitates, at the the very very least, access to (COUNTRY] concept at to cognitive models conterningwhat what ititit means mean to 10he be. A110, STATE, TA 1[, relating to to knowledge knowledge concerning what aa NATION relating means to Lx' \ATION stA ii, and and aaa model relating relating to to a• (.IOGRAPHICAL L[()(;RAPIII(;ALAREA. AHA. AREA. GEOGRAPHICAL cognitive model matchingprocess proc proceeds pl()(ced as follow A A search "h is i established abli hed in in the tbe The matching matching process proceeds as follows. follows. A The is established in the {(lgniti,. model profiles pmfiles accessed acee \cd by by the th lexical lexicJIconcepts concep"subject IIb)C<1to tomatching. mat 'hing. cognitive model model profiles accessed cognitive by the concepts subject to matching. The initial cognitive are those accessed Theinitial iOltiJI cognitive CogOlt". model modelprofiles profil undergoing undergoinginterpretation interpreldlionare arethose th accessed a e»ed The model profiles undergoing interpretation by [BEAUTIFUL] (8EAIlTIFUL) and and Icot-NIRYt. (0 TRyl. The Th search se."h serves rv to to identify (ormore) more) The search serves identifyone one (or (or more) [COUNTRY'. by cogniti,' model(s) model(s) in in the therespective r ~ti\C (primary) (priIllJry)cognitive cognill\Cmodel mod Iprofiles profil which whith cognitive model(s) cognitive model cognitive in the respective (primary) profiles which mJtch-""constrained con trained1w by. numberof ofother otherprinciples prin{lpl discussed di uS>Cdbelow. below.The The match—as constrained by number of other principles discussed below. match—as aa number The informationalcharacterization characteri7.. tionassociated associatedwith with"beautiful "beautifulcountry" country" ari due dueto informational characterization associated informational with "beautiful count ry" arises arises due toto matchlllgbetween betweenthe thevisual vi lIal pleasure ple.,ure (and (andpethaps perhapsalso al the Ihenon-visual non vi wlphy,ical matching between the visual (and perhaps also the non-visual physical matching physical GEOGRAPHICAL and the the !BEAUTIFUL] ple.1!ourc)Cognitive cognit".model(s) model(s)accessed )accessed iKc '"via via (Bl.AUIIFUI) theGEO(iRAPIIICAI LEO itl~ to thathave have access sites inin (3). (3), and the rek'sant Iexk.ll that sites to10aa.1 ll>goitl\~model mo,.Idprofile—the profile tht:next nl~tlevel Il"\ ·1of oflexical lexiulconcept t:.OIK piconiplexitv compleXityinvolves Involv profile—the next level of lexical concept complexity involves cognitive model cognitive theentire entl~utterance, utttr.1nce,and andthe the"predicate "prcdic.ltenominative" nomin3tivc'"I iealconcept. (;oocept.This Th. entails entail nominative" lexical concept. This entails the entire utterance, and the "predicate the lexical I

ic18 258

SEMANTIC_COMPOSITIONAl ITY

th.dthe theinformational informationalcharacterization characterii1uion i'eautifulcountry" isismatched matchedwith withthe the that "beautiful ognhtive model profile to which the lexical concept (FRANC 11 facilitates access cognitive model profile to which the lexical concept [ FRANCE' facilitates access. I floW turn to the second implication of the PrincipleofofGuided GuidedMatching. I now turn to the second implication of the Principle This is as follows. The way in whkh matching takes place guidedby bythe the This is as follows. The way in which matching takes place isisguided linguistk content associated with the kxkal conceptual units, and the larget linguistic content associated with the: lexical conceptual units, and the larger utterance,in in question. question.To lo illustrate, illustrate, reconsider the examples examplesinin(i) (,)and and(2). (i). utterance, reconsider the of these theseconstitutes constitutesan anappositive appositivevehicle, vehicle,associated associated withwhat whatI gloss I glossasas Each of with the 01 THING xJ lexical concept. The semantic function of the [SPECIFICATION OF THING x) lexical concept. The semantic function of this lexical lexical concept conceptisistotospecify specifyiningreater greaterdetail detaila particular a particularentity, entity,reprereprethis sentedby by"x." "x." That That is, the internally internally closed dosed lexical lexical concept onceptthat thatisisintegrated integrated sented is, the with the the internally internally open openlexical lexicalconcept concept(THING (i iiiw; xJ, the"x" '4x" with xJ,which which occupies occupies the slot in in the the larger larger lexical concept, concept,constitutes COflstitiitcsthe theentity entitywhich whichisisbeing beingspeSpt slot cified. The consequence of lexical t.oniept integration is that (i)and and(2)(i)ititis cified. The consequence of lexical concept integration is that inin(I) (FRANCEJ which is the lexical concept being specified, rather than (LANDFRANCE which is the lexical concept being specified, rather than MASSI or INATIONI. MASS' Or (NATION I.

The Principle Principle of of Guiding Guiding Matching, Matching,then, then,ensures ensures thatinterpretation interpretation The that proceedsin inaaway waywhich whichisiscompatible compatiblewith with the theoutput outputofofthis thisunpacking unpacking proceeds process. In terms the specific specificutterances utterancesinin(1) (i) and and (z), (2),ititfollows followsthat that process. In terms of the matching Js a means of the conceptual content associated matching occurs as a means of specifying the conceptual content associated with (FRAN iJ, rather than with or I(NATI0NJ. the cogcogwith (FRANCE', rather than with (LANDMASS' or NATION'. Hence, Hence, the nitive model profiles accessed by IIANnMA55J and (NATION! are in nitive model profiles accessed by (LANDMASS! and are employed in order to activate ompatihle cognitive models in in the the cognitive cognitivemodel modelprofile profile order to activate compatible cognitive models associated with IFRAN(FJ rather than the other round. It It is associated with (FRANCE' rather than the other way way round. is for for this this reason reason that in the examples in (i) and (2) there is scktive activation of one cognitive that in the examples in (1) and (2) there is selective activation of one cognitive model in the cognitive model profile to which affords access, as as model in the cognitive model profile to which (FRANCE) affords evidenced by the variation in meaning evident: it is (FRAN iJ whose semantic evidenced by the variation in meaning evident: it is (FRANCE' whose semantic contribution is being specified, rather thinthat thatofof(LANDMASS! (IA NOMAsSJor or(NATION'. (NATI0NJ. contribution is being specified, rather than The matching operation central to interpretation is constrained by the The matching operation central to interpretation is constrained by the Principle of Conceptual Coherence. l'his can be stated as follows: Principle of Conceptual Coherence. This can be stated as follows:

(ps)

Principle of Concept LIal (ps) Principle of Conceptual Coherence Matching occurs between one or Matching occurs betweenone or more more cognitive cognitive models/informational models/informational characterizations, belonging to distinct cognitive model profiles/lexical characterizations, belonging to distinct cognitive model profiles/lexical conceptual units, which share conceptual units, which share schematic schematic coherencein interms termsof of conconceptual content. ceptual content.

This principle in (ps) mirrors the Principle of Iinguistk (ohererice This principle in (p5) mirrors the Principle of Linguistic Coherence (pi), to lexical

integration, discussed in the the previous previous chapter. chapter. In In central to lexical concept integration, discussed in particular, this principle particular, this principle(p5) (p5)relies reliesOfl on the the Principle Principleof ofSchematic Schematic Coherence Coherence (pz) also introduced in the chapter, whkh I below: (pi) also introduced in the previous chapter, which I reproduce below: (pa)

INTERPRETATION INTl RPRFTATION

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY

Principleof of Schematic Schematic Coherence (pi) Principle Coherence [he content associated the relations relations The content associated with with entities, entities, participants participants and and the holding between them must exhibit coherence in fusion 1 perations. holding between them must exhibit coherence in fusion operations.

259

259

What that What the thetwo twoprinciples principlesdo, do,in in(p5) (p5)and and(p2), (pz),isistotoguarantee guarantee thatmatching mat hing takes charactakesplace placeonly onlywhen whenthe thecognitive cognitivemodel modelprofiles profilesororinformational informational characterizations that are subject to the matching process (i) that are subject to the matching process (i)belong belongtotodifferent different cognitive model profiles or lexical conceptual units as relevant, and hence model profiles or kxkal conceptual units as relevant, and henceare are accessed accessedbybydifferent differentlexical lexicalconcepts, concepts.and and(ii) (ii)exhibit exhibitcoherence. coherence. *I•e ► illustrate To illustrate consider the example example in in (4), which whichminimally minimallycontrasts contrastswith with the the example examplein in(3). (4) is is a beautiful France a beautifulnation nation (4) France While a "geographical Whilethe theexample exampleinin(3)()related relatedtotowhat whatI termed I termed a "geographicalarea" area" conception, the example in (4) provides what I will term a "nation state" onception, the example in (4) provides what I will term a "nation state conception. conception.AA common commonconception conceptionarising arisingfrom from (4), without withoutaafurther furtherspespecifying cifying extra-linguistic extra-linguistic context, context,might mightrelate relatetotoan anunderstanding understandingofofFrance tranceas as aa nation nation state state whose whoseculture, culture, language, language,cuisine, art artforms forms(e.g., (e.g.,literature), literature),and and so 51)ononare areheld heldtotobe beaesthetically aesthetk1illypleasing. pleasing.This Thistakes takesplace placeby byvirtue virtueof of I undergoing I(BEAU BEAUTIFUL' II1ULJand and[NATION (NATIONJ undergoingmatching, matching, giving giving rise riseto toan aninformainformational characterization, characterization, before before being matched with the cognitive model matched with cognitive modelprofile profile determined by the principle in (ps). accessed accessedvia via(FRANCE', (I KANt ij, as as determined by the principle in (ps). The Principle of Conceptual Coherence determines determines how [he Principle of Conceptual Coherence how the the matching matching process(es) are are constrained and hence how, in general terms, the cognitive onstrained and hence how, in general terms, the cognitive model(s) across cognitive cognitive model modelprofiles profiles or orinformational informational characterizations characterizations to be be matched matched are are selected. selected.InInthe theexample exampleinin(4) (4)the thefirst firststep stepinininterpretinterpretation is is the matching matching that that takes takes place place between between the model ation the cognitive cognitive modelprofiles profiles which form part of an internally [NATION' accessed via IBEAuTtFut.1 and .itessed (MEAt and INAT1ONI which form part of an internally simpler lexical lexical concept concept than than the the one simpler one also alsoinvolving involving [FsisicE1. 3 Recall Recall the the -rioN1 partial primary cognitive model profiles for and 1NA I BEAUTIFUL I partial primary cognitive model profiles for IBEAL'IIFI I and INATIONJ provided in in Figures Figures 13.4 13.4 and provided and 13.3 13.3respectively. respectively. The Principle of Schematic Coherence ensures that the matching matching process process '[he Principle of Schematic Coherence ensures that in in the only Cognitive cognitive models coherent can oflly models that that are schematically ally coherent can he he matched. matched. In In terms terms and (NATIoN I NATION JJ afford access, those those of the the cognitive cognitive models models to of BEAUTIFUL) to which which I( BEAUTI n' LI and aflord access, thatachieve achieveschematic schematiccoherence coherence across across the cognitive that thetwo twopartial partial primary pnmarv cognitive model model profiles profiles are the the AESTIIE AESTHETIC TICPLEASURE i'i 1:AstJRIcognitive cognitivemodel model associated assticiated with with the and the the (:t'ITURE CULTURE and and iLANGUAGE the cognitive cognitive model profile for (BEAU [BEAUTIFUL! profile for I IIt'LJ and ANIiL'APF cognitivemodels models associated associated with profile accessed NAcognitive with the cognitive model model profile accessed via via ((NATION). TION'. The The AESIIIFTU AESTHETIC PIlAStRE, PLEASURE,(:ut CULTURE, and IANGUM.l LANGUAGE cognitive cognitivemodels models I LKF, and achieve schematic schematic coherence coherence as as tCULTURE and and i LANGUAGE relate to to bodies bodies of of achieve AN6UAGI relate knowledge concerning concerning entities entities which which may may exhibit exhibit properties properties relating relating to to knowknowknowledge AESTHETIC PLEASURE. ledge ledge concerning concerning AEStU El IC P11: ASI IRE.. Once matching has occurred, is Once occurred, the the resulting resulting informational informational characterization characterization is thensubject subject to to matching matching with withthe the cognitive model model profile profileaccessed accessed vi.i via the the then The "beautiful "beautiful nation" nation" informational informational characterization lexical concept. The I (FR/4 FRAN(:I) NC E 1lexical

iliti

mikeup upthe the (stecireati THING) boat countept IllEAVTIPUL1and and INA !RINI make The kuaJ lexical iliNkePal Ihe oncpts IILALI'lIL'LJ TIIINI.! lexical concept than themorr more cnt innpassing - predicate nominative' lexical concept_ than the preditatc n4nnnativtf

simplerkxkal lexicalintept con which whic hisis.iAsampler

-

260

I ITY SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY

matched %IAII cogmt i,is ma\(h rtl with with the theNATION NATION \TATI ognitive modelfrom from the the pnma IV model primary modd rycogni«'gnl from the primary NATION STATE cognitive isfive matched with the modell aaccessed via fIRAPJcEJ. 'I his tIVe mode c followsas asthe the NATIO via IFRANU). Thi follow NATION CiognitlVc NSTATE STATEcognitive tive model accessed via (FRANCE). This follows as the NATION model relates to know knowledge ofenhti mode entities such l rclat to ledge of as the people and their uchasa the thepeople peopland e andtheir th ir nationalal model relates to knowledge ofand entities such nation identity, including culture identI ty, Inclu ding lUltu language. Hence, this re and langu age.Hence, kindofof ofknowledge kn Ilente , this thi kind lund know lcdge identity, culture and language. relatesto toincluding entities which rdate arecoher coherent with knowledge arising enlltl cs which are nt with knowlrtlgearising from ari ingfrom from the b"au relates to entities which are coherent with knowledge the "beautiflil natio nation" informational tiful n" inform ational chara t rilali on. tifulBefore nation" informational characterization. proceeding, worth nohn noting that that the !lefore prote eding , Itit Iisworth the uttera utterance ()can can nceinin In(4) (4) canreadi rcadll Before proceeding, it is conception worth notinggthat the utterance give rise to an alternative gl\e ri to an altem ativ conce ption subject to to an appropriate extra-lu an appro priate extra Iingu l tit give rise toone an which alternative conception subject to an appropriate extra-linguistic context, involves understanding conte xt, one whi h involv the Frenc French people und rstand ing the being h peopl asaas ph. context, one whichwhat involves understanding the French people being physic.illyattral attractive: might be ieally glossed as the "beautiful li,'r: what might be gl(, sed a the "beau tiful peopl people" coi e"conception. conte pt l(,", ically attractive: what might be glossed as the "beautiful people" involvescon constructing an inform informational characterization 11hIhisinvolv trucll ng an alion al chara tt riuhofor for IBEAU n for I 8£AUTIlF~ t ) This constructing (BEAUTIFUL) and involves INATI0NJ byvirtu virtue an of informational and matching thecharacterization INAT lOS ) by of VfSVAI PLFASL'Rf cognitivi match ing the VtSUAL PLEASURE PLEA URE cognitive ognili..model modd and by virtue of matching the VISUAL. from(NATION) the primary from model profile accessed the prima ry cognitive cogm tl\e modd via IHFALrrIIui profilaccessed e a cesscd IBfAU-rtuut.( 11I ullJ and and the th from the primary cognitive model profile viavia 1 BEesu PEOPLI cognitive model from the PIOP II eognl primary tiv mode l from cognitive model the prima ry cogni llve accessed mod I a via model from the primary cognitive model accessed via PEOPLE cognitive This informational I ATlos l. Thi characterization infom .ation al chara is cteri1ation iis then thenmatched matched with then matched with WIththe the th This informational characterization 'NATION'. NATION TATI SIATI cognitive model NATIO .issod,ited with tOgm tl\e model a xiate d with the the eogni cognitive model tiv modelprofile profilee prohl cognitive model associated with the cognitive model NATION STATE accessed via (FRANCEJ. This a,, ~ via in th the "beau "beautiful II RANU ). Thi rresults ult in people" conception. liful peopl e" conce pli n.This ibis (,hi accessed via 'FRANCE). This results in the "beautiful people" conception. example illustrates, that different interpretations, exam ple Illu trate , then, then, that differ ent inter and hence preta tion, and hence onceph neeconcepconce p example then, that different interpretations, tions, can canillustrates, be for by tions, be accounted Jccou ntrtl for CM Th Theory, and arise by ItCCM precisely ry, ari precisely preci Iy because betau of tions, can be accounted by I.CCM Theory, and and arise of the dIVe" diverse ways in which whichfor matching th " way In occur, as constrained by the match ing can occur , con traine d by principles the prin il'l the diverse ways inand which matching can occur, as constrained by the principles of interp interpretation, of more (or salient retati on, and as made made mor (or less) I ) salient of the salience lient by b virtue virtue of ofthe .. lienee of interpretation, and as made more (or less) associated with particular a -iatrtl with partic ular inter interpretations, prew ions, and and as asguided guided by extra guidrtlby byextra-linguistic c tra linguistic lingui til associated with particular interpretations, and context. conte xt. context. turn to II flow now tum to aa related rdate d issue, the need for i u, and and hence h nc the th need needfor further principles forfurther furth er principles printi ple I now turn to a related issue, and hence which onstrain Interpretation. whith serve rve to to tOn train Interp retah on . In discussing the di -u ing the cump l in example in (3) In (3) (3) which serve to that constrain interpretation. In discussing the example above, argued aoove, II argue rise to d that this lhi~ utterance utter an« gives giv a "geographical area" ri to "geng raphicalarea" conceparea" concepcon ep' above, I argued that this utterance gives rise to a "geographical tion. Yet, tion. Yel, what what II have have just just indicated indicated regarding the possibility regar ding the po ibility of of multiple multiple multIple tion. Yet, whatdue I have just indicated regarding the possibility interpretations, to inter preta tion, du in which which mah,h matching to the the diverse diverse ways way in ing can can occur, occur, suggests (Xtur, suggests uggc t interpretations, due to the in diverse ways in which matching that lhat lhl example example should, hould, in principle, print ipl , be capable of more than capab l of than one on concc'pconce p· that indeed, this example should,equally in principle, be capable of mor more than one conception. tion. Indeed, itit should hould be be equally possible, po ibl, based on what posited thus what III have have posited po Itrtl thus thu, tion. Indeed, it should be equally possible, based on what have far, for far, for aJ "beautiful " beauhful nation" he derivable nation" conception con« ption to to he deriv able from 1 hat is, from is, just (3). That That i" illst ju t for a "beautiful nation" conception to be derivable from (;). (3). as matching •far, matth ing may may serve informational ~rve to to construct con trutt an an inform ation al characterization characlerization in characterization in in which as matching may serve toand construct an informational whi h VISUAl VISUA L PlEASURE PLfA l'R£ and (10(gAp)fI( Al (jF()(j RArU ICAl AkEA AREA cognitive models are ognit ive modd which VISUAL are and GEOGRAPHICAL AREA cognitive models Jrc~ matched, givingPLEASURE rise

.w

matth ed, giving ri to to the th "geogriphical "geographilal area" area" conception, ption, itItitshould hould also al", he be matched, giving rise to the "geographical area"tOncc conception, should also be possible PLEASURE and po Ible for for the the AESTHI AI TlIHuII. PLEA l'RI and NATION STATE cognitive models NATIO N TATE to cogni tive mod I to possible for the AESTHETIC PLEASURE and NATION STATE cognitive models to undergo und rgo matching, matching, giving giving rise ri to to aa conce ption in which the In whith of lhe prod ul" 01 matching, giving rise to a conception in which the products of aaundergo nation natio n state, So tate,language, language, culture, culture, and are conceived and '"soon, lH'() of of aas being being a nation state, language, culture, and on, ar are tOnle conceived of as being aestheticalh pleasing. aesthellcally plea ing. However, and based Ilowevcr, and basrtl on intuitions from intuit ion from a large number er aesthetically pleasing. and based on intuitions from aa larg large numb number of native thisHowever, isi not of nah,espeakers peak r ,thi that native speakers not aa conception tOnee ption that nallve peakers of of t ngli h of native speakers, this is not a conception that native speakers ofEnglish English readily for readil . derive specifying derive for (j), 1.1), without Without further furthe extra-linguistic r \l""-l fYlnl lutra Iingui context. tic tOnte xt. readily for (3), without further specifying extra-linguistic context. Based on the II.t .I derive on th principles pnnei pl thus this finding thu far presented, pr"", nted, thi findin is not predicted. g I prrtlicted. Based the principles thus far presented, this finding is n nott predicted. Hence, require the Principle Henc e, we we on requi .. aa further furth er principle, of Schematic prino pl ,th Princ ipl of h matic Salience li.nce in inin Hence, we require a furtherbe principle,.isthe Principle of Schematic Salience Matching. ~atching I'his follows: 'I hi principle pnnli ple can lan bestated \latl..! a f .. 11",, : Matching. This principle can be stated as f011ows:

INTERPRETATION INTeR PRET ATION INTFRPRETATION

261 261

pr•) Schematic Matching Pnnel p)ofof S<:he Principle of Schetiiatk matlSalience (1'1» Principle Sali ncrinin latch ing in Matching Matching model profiles/informational characterizaMatc hingacross aero Matching acrosscognitive cognitive cogni tiv modd infom .ation model profil pr( )fi tes/informat al chara cteriz.t · ional characterizations relatively more cognitive tion achie tionsachieves achieves vesgreater greate greaterrschematic hematicsalience Iienc when schemaik when relati , salience Iy more it" when relatively more cogn ognitive models mod I are ar match models arematched matched thanmatches edthan than matchesinvolving involvingfewer cognitive models.

matches involving fewer cognI tive mod Is. cognitive models.

The without additional I heprinciple prine The printipl ipkprovided provided provi drtlinin(p6) (p6) (p6)accounts accou nt for forthe accounts thefact factthat that ut addIt ional that WItho without additional linguistic utterances give rise to what may Iilinguistic ngui ticor orextra-linguistic or extra -lingui titcontext, context,certain cxtra-linguistk context, certai n u\lera n, glV certain utterances give nrise to to what may may he or what I term a default conception. For be con idered to to beconsidered considered tobe beaaacanonical canon ical or what I term canonical or default con
cultural traditions..

Applied (p6) guarantees that the Applirtl to to an an example exampl such uch as a (3), (3), the theprinciple an example such as principle pnnu pl in in guara nt that the the in (p6) (p6) guarantees "geographical area"(on conception emerges at the expense of other possible "geog raphical area" area" geographical eptio n emerges emerg.. at Conception at the the expense expense of other other possible po ible conceptions. applies follows. we saw above, due to the conc eptio n, This Thi principle prin ipl. applies conceptions. This principle appli as aas follows. follo w. As As we saw abov to the lhe As above,, due to introduced, first lexical concepts Principl of Interpretation Principles Interpretation Interp retati on already alread y introduced, inlrod uced, the th already first lexical lexical concepts concept the first and (COUNTRY). The Principle (BEAUTIFUL) to undergo undergo interpretation under go interpretation interp relati on are ar )8EA TlfUL ) and are (nEAt IIFUL) I OUNTRY). The Th Principle Principle of Conceptual Coherence to establish two matches between the cogniof Conceptual Coherence herence serves of(;onceptual rv to labli h two mat h between between the serves to establish matches the cognicogni . tive model profiles of (BEAUTIFUL) [COUNTRY'. The "geographical area" and ILOU tlve model profiles profil of(Be AuTI of Ful) and and I lFuLJ lRY). raphical area" ar a" I RY).The The"geog "geographical NONand the VISUAL PLEASURE match emerges emerges due to to a aa match match between match emerg .. du mat h between between the due theVISUAL VI UAL PLEASURE PLEA URE and NO, and NONcognitive models of the profile VISUAL PHYSICAL PLEASURE VISUA L PHYSICAL PIIY I AL PLEASURF PlU URF cognitive VISUAL cognI tIVe models models of of the lh cognitive ognih v model mod I profile profil cognitive model GEOGRAPHICAL REGION cognitive model accessed by by (iwAuTiu;LJ and the the (BEAUTIFUL) ae< accessed IBEA UTlrnl and the GEO(;KApHIcAL "'O(;RAPIIICA' REGIO N cogni tive model model R1;ION cognitive lexical concept. fromthe thecognitive cognitive mode profile accessed via the (COUNTRY) Irom th from eogm tiv mode mod profile prolil accessed a c via lh IcouN TRyl lexica via the IcouNTkyJ lexicall concept. concept. The "beautiful "beautiful nation" match .merg emerges du due aa match between the AESTHETIC Th "beau The liful nation" natio n" match match mat h belwe en the the Af TII[TI lC emerges due a match between 1: lit model of the the cognitive profile accessedAESTHE I BEAUPLEASURE cognitive PU,A ~RF cogn EASURI cognitive iu,e model mode l of of the cognitive cognitiv model mod Iprof il accessed by by model profile lUAU ' by fHEAUcognitive model from the cognitive model Iii TIFUL) andthe theNA NATION III ullI and the NATIO I ioNN STATE TATB cognl tiv mode l from the th cognitive si*i E cognitive model from cognitive model model profileaccessed accessed via the the [COUNTRY) lexical concept. Once these two distinct profiJ acces sed via profile via the(COUNTRYJ I 0 NTRyl1lexical i al concept. conce pt. Once n. these lhe<e two two distinct di tin t matches havebeen beenderived, the Principle of Schematic Salience in Matchmat,h have been mat hes have dderived, rived, the lhe PrinC Iple of Schematic Salience in Principle of III \tatt.h~at{h · ingidentifies identities the "geographical area" match as involving matching across Ing identi ing li the th "geng raphi al area" malch as a involving "geographical area" match involving matching mat hing across a ro largernumber number ofcognitive cognitive models, and hence as involving (i) a broader larger numb aaalarger er of of cogni tive models, modd , and and hence hen e as as involving Involving (i) (i) aa broader broad er baseand and(ii) (ii) aaa greater greater quantity of matched information. This serves to base ba and (ii) great r quantity quant Ity of of matched matched information. inform ation . This Thi serves rv to to establish thismatch matchas thedefault. default. Hence, andin in the the light of there being cstabl establish i h this thl maleh asasthe the defau lt. Hence, Hen e, and light of th re being being and in the light of there noadditional additional context, the other other match discarded, with the "geographical no no addit ional context, conIc t, the tho olhermatch matchisis i discarded, di ardrtl , with with the the"geographical "geographical theinformational informational characterization which matchbeing beingestablished established ararea" a" match match area" being tabli hrtl as a\asthe the inform ational characterliat tbara lleri' .!ti"n whith ion which with the cognitive proceeds thenext stage of interpretation: to be matched proce ed to proceeds totothe th nnext xt stage tag of ofinterpretation: interpretatIon: to to be be matched matlh rtl with with the the cognitive cognillv model. In short, the cognitive model profile accessed viathe the (FRANCE) modd profil eaccessed ace model profile -cd via via tho ( r) cognitive cogni tive mode Ii (FRAN MANEJ

ii

l, in In short, hort, the th model. accounts for the insight that certain conceptions arise principle in(p6) (p6) 3(;4.uu prind pl in In (pM prinupk nl for thr insight inMght that ,lc..ounts for the that (crtJi n ,om~c pllnn Jri ertain conceptions arise

canlx' beconsadcrt'd considered typical, canonical, or what I refer to as automatically, andcan autom dticall)', and ami automatically, be lon idered typical, typica l, canonical, canon ital, or orwhat what II rekr refertotoasa default conceptions. d.fau default lt con« plion ept ions. .

262 2(52

Of LOUISC, course, default conceptions can can Ix as beoverridden overridden by Lwfurther further context, as default concep$ioflS Of illustrated by the example in (5) above, where additional utterance context, illustrated by the example in (s) above, where additional utterance context, notablythe thecomplex complex NP: "a recent survey survey (St of the "a recent theaesthetic aestheticcontribution contribution of a notably rangeof of European European cultural traditions" traditions"serves servesto toensure ensure that, that, at at least least for sonic for some range native speakers1 speakers, aa "beautiful "beautiful nation nation"interpretation interpretationfor forIFRAN(II [ FRANCE] emerges. emerges. This This native arises due to the construction informational characternation informational character— Coflstflk lion of of aa"beautiful "heautiful nation" 1inses due to ization following following matching matchingbetween betweenthe the cognitive model profiles associated associated cognitive mode) profile ization and1(:ouNTRyJ. with IBEAuTIIuLI [BEAUTIFUL) and icouNTRY I. This This takes takes place place by virtue virtueof ofaaprocess process with I refer to as co-activation due to the context ontext provided provided by the complex NP NP I refer to as co-activation due to the which forms part of the comment clause intnxluced by "according to". That which forms part of the clause introduced by "according to". lhat is, the the informational informationalcharacterization characterizationassociated associated with complex NP isissubject subject with the complex is. to matching with the cognitive model profiles associated with (BEAUTIFUL] and and profiles associated with I13FAuT1fl'LI to matching with the Cognitive (COUNTRY] simultaneously, giving rise to toaa co-activation of cognitive cognitive models models .Itlv1ltiofl of simultaneously1 giving rise I AESTHETIC PLEAs('RE PLEASURE derived derived from from the the cognitive model BEAUTIFUL], model profile profile for for (BIALTIFULI, AEsTUFrR: Cognitive model and the the NATION STATE model accessed accessed via via ((;OUNTRYJ [COUNTRY) together with STAR cognitive and the inform1itional infOrmationalcharacterization characterizationassociated associated with the complex the complex NP. The The reason reasonthat thatmatching matchingwith withthe theinformational informational characterization characterization of the the complex NP involves simultaneous activation across two cognitive model complex NP involves siniultaneous activation across two cognitive model profiles follows follows from from application applliation of the overarching overarchingPrinciple Principleof ofInterpretInterpretation: the Principle Principle of(,uided of GuidedMatching. Matching.As Asthe thelexical lexicalconcepts concepts (BEAUTIFULI I BEAtrrt FULA ation: and (COUNTRY] NTRYJform formpart part ofa of alexical lexicalconceptual conceptualunit, unit, given given that that they they comprise comprise and 1 part of of aa complex complex lexical concept, and part and given given the the nature nature of of lexical lexical concept concept integration, with informational integrations these thesetwo twolexical lexicalconcepts conceptsare arematched matched withthe the informational characterization characterization of of the the complex complex NP, NP,in intandem. tandem.Once Oncethe theinformational informational characterization of "beautiful nation" is derived for the lexical conceptual characterization of "beautiful nation is derived for the lexical conceptual unit associated with the expression beautiful country, unit associated with the expression beautif iii country,this thisinformational informationalcharcharacterization is matched, in turn, with the cognitive model profile accessed it cnzation is matched, in turn, with the cognitive model profile accessedvia via (FRANCE'. This results in an interpretation of IFRAN(E1. This results in an interpretation of(FRANCE' IFkAN(IJ in in which which aa"nation "nation state" state" informational informational characterization is derived. derived. Together Togetherthese thesevarious variousinforinformational mational characterizations characterizations result result in in the the conception conceptionassociated associatedwith withthe theentire entire utterance be paraphrased utterancewhich whichcan an be paraphrased as asfollows: follows:"According "According to to aasurvey surveyexamexamining attitudes towards the aesthetic .iesthetic pleasure pleasureresulting resultingfrom from products products of of distinctive cultures, the nation of France distinctive European luropean cultures, France isisfound foundto tohave haveaaculture culture that it provides". that is is ranked ranked as is being being high, high, in in terms termsof ofthe theaesthetic pleasure pleasure it The finding that the cognitive model profiles accessed viavia (BEAUTIFUL( The finding cognitive model profiles accessed (BFAUTIFUIJand and [COUNTRY] are matched simultaneously with a distinct informational charare matched simultaneously with a distinct informational characterization predicted by by the Principle of Simultaneous .I.tcrization kis predicted SimultaneousMatching, Matching,which which can be stated as follows: can be stated as follows: (p (p 7)

INTERPRETATION INTERPRETATION

siSEMANTIC SIANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY

Principle Principle of of Simultaneous Sinniltaneous Matching When informational \Vhen matching matching takes takesplace placebetween betweenanan informationalcharacterization characterization and a complex lexical concept, matching may occur simultaneously and a complex lexical concepts matching may occur simultaneously across that form acrosscognitive cognitivemodel modelprofiles profilesofofthe thelexical lexicalconcepts concepts that formpart part of of the the complex complex lexical lexical concept. concept.

263

Principle of Simultaneous Simultaneous Matching ensures ensures that that when when an an Inessence, essence, the the Principle In that associated with the complex N P informational characterization, such infOrmational characterization, suchasas that associated with the complex NP in(5), (i), isis preposition according tO introduced hv to in inthe theclause clause introduced by the the complex preposition in lexical concept concept associated associatedwith with the the expression expression matched matched with with the the complex complex lexical simpler the cognitive cognitive mode) model profiles profiles which which constitute constitute the the simpler toUntry the beautiful country, matching respectively, undergo lexical At TI I ri 1 and undergo matching (COUNTRY )I respectively, and (CouNTRY (BEAUTIFUL[ lexical concepts: concepts: (ni characteri"ation with which they they are are simultaneously with the the informational informational characterization with which simultaneously with to particular example being matched. matched. In this particular example then, then, lC(..Nt LCCMTheory Theory is is able able to being In this interpretationsassociated assoaatedwith with beautifid beautiful distinguish the distinct distinct interpretations distinguish between between the with this which is andthe thedefault default interpretation interpretation which is associated with this (5) and in (s) country country in doing, account account for for the the expression expression in in the the utterance utterancegiven giveninin (3), and and in in so so doing, associatedwith with (IRAN(:i in each each examples (FRANCE) in distinct interpretations associated termedthe the principle of of interpretation, interpretation1 which which isistermed II now turn to aa further further principle repeatedly the discussion discussionthus thusfar tar II have have repeatedly Principle of Primary Primary Activation. In In the Moreover, of activation activation of models.Moreover, talked about matching in in terms of of cognitive cognitive models. do with with the the iVatiofl has has to to do II earlier earlier introduced introduced the term primary primary activation. activation. Act Activation associatedwith withcogcog(i.e., multimodal) multimodal) content content associated of the the conceptual conceptual (i.e., resonance of of the the informational characterizations) characterizations) that that form form part nitive models (or part of nitive models (or informational ThePrinciple Principle profiles accessed aessed via cognitive model profiles via distinct distinct lexical lexical concepts. concepts. The stated as asfollows: follows: of Primary Primary Activation be stated of Activation can can be

PrincipleofofPrimary PrimaryActivation Activation (p$) p8 ) Principle subjecttotoprimary primaryactivation. activation. Matched cognitive cognitive model( model(s) are subject Matched s) are suhjtLt that cognitive cognitivemodels modelswhich whicharc iresubject \Vhat this principle guarantee that What principledoes does is to guarantee such as high degree degree of of resonance. resonance.Hence, Hencein in an an utterance utterance such to matching as matching achieve a high area" conception ofthe the"beautiful "beautiful geographical geographicalarea" conception reasonfor for the emergence emergenceof (3), the reason models (primary activation) cognitive models of the the cognitive activation) of is due due to to the thehigh high level kvel of resonance is resonance (primary and GEOGRAPHICAL REGION accessed, reNATION STATE, STATi, VISUAL NATION VISUAL PLEASURE, PLEASURE, and GEOGRAPHICAL REGION accessed, reAs (BEAUTIIuLI, and and (COUNTRY'. AS FRANCE', 'BEAUTIFUL', spectively,by by the the lexical Icxi1iI concepts concepts EFRAN(:EI, spectively, attenuated receive a relativelyattenuated wgniti'e models modelscan receive we a relatively we shall shall see seebelow, below, some somecognitive secondaryactivation. activation. form of which II refer refer to form of resonance resonance which to as as secondary forthe the interpretation1 II have have been beenassuming, assuming,for in the disk ussionof ofinterpretation, Thus discussion Thus far in model inthe theprimary primary cognitive cognitivemodel always possible in most part, part, that that aa match match isisalways most suhiecttotointerpretation. interpretation.However, However, profiles of lexical concepts conceptswhich whichare arcsubject profiles examples: illustrate, consider considerthe thefollowing examples: sometimes,there there is is aaclash. clash.To To illustrate, sometimes,

'

perspective. whih Is to

from a a proceming perspective. which is to worthconsidering considcnngwhat what1 cR(t IM 51 Theory theory predicts, from ItIt isis worth France isis aa 'f the first slauseininthe theutterance uttcrance France unfolds.After After processing of the first clause say.Asasthe theutterance utteranceinin Is) I;) unfolds. wy,

Interpretation. (p4 to Prmniples thatfollowing following standard stantLirdPrint t( 't:(M Theory predicts that pies 131 of Interpretation. I pa) to hcgiutifsd C(PUflfly. country, It Al Theory heaurtful ntcrprrtat ion emerges. heautiful country default mnterpretat Ion arises in which a p) indusisT. inclusive, aadefault ► nterpretation arises in which a "beautiful country . ' interpretation emerges. 11+71 mathing proess and a revised, is .t the seiond lause. this Itoweser,with withthe lb advent advent of the setond clause. this l(mt.rpt ► on is revised. and a new matching process However,

tt,untry. This in turn emerges newinformational informational charatcri,ationemerges inwhich whkh aanew bebeautiful ► utols41,ountry. This in turn takes ch.aracteritation forfor plate in takes place. limAwlil. Hence. Ii cM Theory prcdsctsthat that rnwrges br the interprd.itIOfl serves Ii) revise revise the interpretation which emerges for l ► kAr44 I. Hence. It t AI Theory predicts serves to tontezt as further and an he revised during emerge thnaniklIIY. as further h tigUlst It t ullterit t 'inceptions ,lkCIlti4lIlS emerge dynamical's'. and an be revised during processing uneplions establishedtont produte new new matches which "overwrite" previously established matches which eptiiiiis emergesininorder ordertoto produce emerges I

undenianding. theprocess proeM of of language Languageunderstanding. during duringthe

264 (6)

(6)

TATIO N INn RPR£IATION INTERPRETATION

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY ALiTY (

a. ?John, the landmass landnus> the landmass ?John. th a. ?John, a. h. ?John, the nation

nation th~ nation h. ?John. the b. ?John,

interpretable, signalled (6) are not straightforwardly The utterances in ((s) bby the interpretable1 ignallrd by rpretable. signalled tralghtforwardlyant are not not straightforwardly ulleranc an The utterances in (6) or Th question marks, precisely because an inform informational characterization cterizatIon isIis not chara ational characteri,ation >«au an marks,. precisely because pr iscly! qu tion marks question possible for (LANDMASS) or(NATION whenmakhed matched withthe the primary th~ primary rd with match when INATIONI when or (NATION ANImIASSI IA s] (11 pcl Ibl for (illANO cognitive model profile associated with the the lexical lexical concept (INDIVIDUAL vml'AI I,NIlI concept (INi1 I xicalCOfleCpt wIth rnudci ass!l(iated with profil associated l profik tive mode cognI cognitive in NAMED JOHN!. This is due to a clash profil model profiles cognitive model ry cognitive prima the h in This is due to a cia clash in the the primary primary i due i 101lNI. Thi NA 1m concept on the one NAMED JOHN)llexia associated with the [INDIVIDUAL lin the on the 4)11e pt on conce l concept IOIlN lexical AMIII IOHN1 I,NOIVIIll'AI NAMEI th (INDIvIOUAI with the ",xlatl'd WIth aassociated and (NATIONI (NATION) other. Thisis notto tosay, say, of hand and (LANDMASS(] and >Jr, to not i,isnot Thi . This other and ononthe ththeother. loNI on INAT ILANO"A hand and ILANI hand course, that matching is impossible, clash. clash cia h Howev~r. clash avoiding However, clash. However, ing aaa clash. avoid thereby avoiding matching thereby impo ible. thereby ing isi impossible1 e. that match course, cours resolution requires recourse to what in to as the Of I dill th level the level of rcferrrd to 10 Chapter in 1I referred Chapter to an Chapter rcquor rClOU"" to what in resolution resolution reqLiires level is the hallmark of figurasecondary cognitive models: activation at this ligura ark of figura. the hallm hallmark level iis th~ thi!. level tion at this I : actIva secondary cognitive models: activation tIve mod dary cognI SJy aa da Coherence (ps) as applied to the default Ulgnotl\. rycognitive prima search region: theprimary primary cognitis'e the : the region archregion: faultsearch (;oherence (ps) as applied d to the ddefault '" applie '{lh renee (1'5)

••a

•I

rr SOCIO)41P1, 1 (MIXo

SIZE SHAPE

THNICITY

OOQO.

SOCIAL

......

TINI4 P1

HiSTOFMCILL STATUS OF IlAfU8 Qf NM*

...roow::.o..

,"

CIE (It FS

••

bb

U

I

••I

•I c

CC

BODY

!IOOy

SOCIAL IDENTITY

SOCIAl. 100NTlTY

IDIOSYNCRATIC IDIOSYNCRATIC COGNITIVE COGNITIVE TRAITS TRAITS

O00

.• U

0V d

••I I

(INDIVIDUAL JOHNI (INDIViDUAL NAMEDJOHN] JOHN) NA/,t(O IDUALNAMED (INDIV FIGURE 13.6. A partial primary cognitive model with lexical 11:11:1..... 1 Ihl: fur forthe the lexical .Ulnhutotor " wHh modelprofile pristilc withattributes prol"ilC ognHI \t: nHKld ry ...cognitive 13.6."pJrt A partial primary i.. 1 pnm.l U,l tit' I).~ IL'R.URt concept ImnivinuAt. NAMED JOHN) 1) l()flN) PO1INJ NAMf O l'IVUl l'AlSASh con4ept II\OIVII)tAL rl (I lUna

265

265

th coherence readily apparent in on the ent in appar y apparent readil crencc readily model hematilcoh Iisno there Iis,•there That e,. That profil l profiles. model profiles. Thatis, thereis no schematic coherence the mode and IINI)IVID I,NO,VII)' and 'INDIVIDprofiles accessed viathe the(LANDMASS) LIANIMASSI lLANO IA I and \la alCcs.edvia primary profil accessed model profiles tiv~ model "'gnl ry cognitive primary cognitive model prima this rch thataasearch i that lhi isis of quence of lexical conse The on cpt . The al concepts. L'AI 10llN A tEO JOHN1 NAMED JOHN]Ilexic lexical concepts. Theconsequence consequence of this that a search "AI UALMAMEI) or one or ofone e of profil l profile mode llve model mgnl condary cognitive the tJbli, hrd ininthe region be t he mu regionmust must beestablished established thesecondary secondary cognitive model profile of one or regIon

of follows from the Prin ipl of the Principle relevant '[his pt . Thi, conce l concepts. lexica niore r I ant lexical th f the moreof of the relevant lexical concepts. This follow follows from from the Principle of more follow: a follows: Ordered tatrd as be can which h. which Sear red Search, Ordt Ordered Search, whichcan can be be stated stated as follows: Principle of Ordered Sea" h OrderedSearch ofOrdered PrinCipleof (p9) Principle Search (1'9) (p9) the profile1•which which isi the mod li, model cogni ry cognitive Matching the primary e inin pIa t3k hingtakes Matc Matching takespLace place inthe theprima primary cognitive modelI profil profile, which is the that facilitate facilItate concept,that Icri alconcepts oflexical ub;ct of thatsubset for regoon default lt ",aRh defau default searchregion regionfor forthat that subset of lexical concepts facilitate unsuccessful the lite in the ()rOhk. If umuc ' ful in i unsuccessful matching is If matching proftie. If model profile. access cognoti\c model ace access to toaaa cognitive model matching is rch newsearch th naaanew ""curs. then da h occurs, default domain, say. aaa clash tosay, i toto which in. which "h doma lt search defau default search domain, whichisis say, clash occurs, then new search The secondary cognitive modell profile. profil . The mode ti> model ((Igni xond ary cognitive domain the secondary Clotabli,hed in i established in isis doma domain established in the the profile. The ofsecthe ba i of the basis rding on proce n. proceeding f""hio ed fashion, search proceeds in order c~ in sear
following. When there

there Whenthere foil wing.When the following. of Ordered n ur the . arch ensures d rrdSearch ofOr ipl of ln thePrinciple Principle Prin n e,lh Inessence, essence, the Ordered Search ensures In lexical concepts or or on eplS or cognitive model profiles of the Ie ical concepts the lexical ofthe profil of model profiles cognitive model is aj clash the primary primary primary cognitive in the cia h in is clash i, estabtab· i estabquestion1 larger search regionisis "hregion tlon.aalarger qu informational characterization(s) in question, aracterizati n(~) in mationalch infor informational characteriz.ation(s) search cognitive model mod I cognitivemodel models in relevant secondary S
in i( tUhrfC' lkt' hc-1Ii;&lcoherence. a rnatihinIn ftU;h.h interms terms Itnn ofofa .. match scheniatii. "'1. I, inLn

266 z66

SEMANTIC I)SIPOSITIONALETT Si SI kN I I( COMPOSITIONALITY

-

actually (i.e., literally) LANDMASS( Cannot aClually cannot actually (i.e., Iilerally) lit cognitive model model profile accessed via via(LANI)MASSJ cogmlive via [LANDMAS [cannol profile ace cognitive match wilh with the the primary primary cognitive model NAMED J01D4 toHNI) prohleof [INDIVIDUAL [INDIVIDUAL NAMED NAMED 'OHN malch primarycognilive modelprofile profileofof(INDIVIDUAL with Cognitive mitch the secondary secol the kxical lexical concept it about, established in the search al concepl ilit iis arch region regIon is i established labli hed in Ihe ondary Ihe lexi is aboul, atxnit, aaa search concept the order to establish ma cognitive model profile accessed via (LANDMASS' in order to establish a in order 10 eSI.blish match. cogllllive profi) accessed via [LANDMA J in malt h. I 1ANDMAS%1 cognfli%'e model profile The Principle of Ordered Search further ensures that the search domain The rdered Search ures that thai search doma in is i Principle of of Ordered Search further en ensures The Principle progressivelyenlarged, enlarged,beginning beginning with secondary models, which enlarged1 beginningwilh with secondary setondary cognitive cognitive models, progr~lVely model. which are are progressively those cognitive cognhl searchedbased basedon on Iheir their relative conceptual coherence conceptual se.rched relalive con eplual coherence coheren e with those Ihose cogmti\e scarthed based on their relative models Ihal that populate populate the cognitive ensures model populale the primary cognitive cognilive model model profile. profile. This Thi ensures ensur that Ihal that the primary models cognitive models models which which are, are, relative terms, conceptually "closer" to to the the cogniliv models are, in in relative relalive terms, lem. , conceptually con eplually "closer" "doscr" 10 Ihe cognitive site Ihal that is is represented searchedprior priorto to are searched lexical concept, access sile ace i represented represenled by the lexical lexi al concept, c neepl, are searched prior 10 site that by the the those cognitive models which arc less close. This captures the intuition that less close. This captures the intuition that Iho arc I clo. Thi captures Ihe intuilion thai those cognilive cognitive models which are of, knowledge which is likely to he "central" to what we might think of, knowledge h is be more "cenlral" 10 what whal we we might mighl of. knowledge whi which is likely likely 10 to be more "central" meaning" is informally, 3!> as searched before before knowledge knowledge con liluting "word "word meaning" iis searched searched before mformally, informally1 asconstituting constituting "word meaning" that, in in relative relative terms, LCCM Theory, the centralIhal, relalive terms, lerm ,iis more"peripheral." "peripheral." In In LCCM LC M theory, Theory,the thecentral— cenl ral· that, is more more peripheraldi distinction, as we we saw saw in Chapter Chapter modelledin terms as peripheral lin tion, as saw Chapler to, 10, is iis modelled modelled in terms lerm of a. peripheral distinction, hierarchicalcognitive cognitive model profile, WIth withthose those cognitive cognitive models models deemed with hiera«hical ognllive model mod I profile, those cognillve models deemed decmt'\! to 10 hierarchical be more further away. away. be more peripheral peripheral represented represenled diagrammatically diagrammatically a further further away. be represented diagrammatically as as The application of the Principle of Ordered Search serves to application of ensure thai due aue The applicallon ofthe the Principle PrincipleofofOrdered OrderedSearch Sear h serves rYes to ensure en ure that Ihal due to the failure to establish a match between the primary cognitive model the primary cognitive 10 the failure failure to 10establish e labli h aa match match between belween Ihe cognilive model modd to the a search region and (INDIVIDUAL. NAMED JOHN' search region profile of [LANDMASS] NA lED'JOhN) II J a search regio n is I profile of IiILANDMASSJ ANDMASSJand and I,NDIVIDUAl IINI)I\'u)IAL NAMED established model profile to to which (LANDMASS) establishedin inthe thesecondary secondarycognitive cognitive model which ILANI)MASsI eslablished m Ihe secondary cognitive model profile 10 whICh JLANO IA\\J facilitates access. The The jitiv.it ion in in the fa ililales access. access. model thai achi.. primary aclivation mthe Ihe facilitates Thesecondary secondarymodel modelthat that achieves achievesprimary primary activation cognitive that of of being being significantly that other cognilive mod JLANDMA J iisisIhalofbeing ignificantly larger than other olher cognitivemodel modelIofof[LANDMASS( gloss as as geographical This features. This secondary secondary cognitive model we we might might geographi al fealur . Thi ognitive model mighl gloss glo J\ OVERSIZE. BODY Jss0This is with the primary cognitivemodel modelofof this is ROI)Y OVU IZ£. Thi i matched matched with wilh the Iheprimary primarycognitive cognilive of DOllYassoa~Ml dated with providing informational (INDIVIDUAL NAMED JOHN', an characcialed wilhIINDIVIDUAL J,NDlVIDUAlNAMED NAMED 'OIlNJ, informational characciated with terization of an "excessively large individual named lohn". individual named of an an "exc ively large larg individual n.med lohn". lenzation terization of The final Principle the of Interpretation 1 consider in this is The fin.1 Principle Pnn iple of of Interpretation Inlerprelalion I consider con ider in Ihis chapter chapler is i, the thc The final Principle of Secondary Activation. This can be stated as follows: ofSecondary Secondary Activation. Activation.This Thi canbe bestated laled as as follows: follow : (pm) ofSecondary Secondary Activation (plo) Principle Principle Pnn ipleofof Se<:ondaryActivation Awvallon (p'O) All cognitive cognitive models all secondary cognilive models, and and all aU modelson on the the All primary primary cognitive cognitive models, route access activation, achieve secachieveprimary roule of a«e which do nOIachieve achieve primaryactivation, aclivalion, achieve secsa of aces.s which do donot not route of ondary ondary activation. activation. .ctlValion.

high III mentioned models which achieve that cognitive cognitive whICh are ar matched m.lthed achieve athieveaaahigh mentioned above above that Ihal cognitive models model which level process..This i'his rise to lev of resonance re>onan e and and give rise 10 Ihemeaning-construction meaning·con Iruclionprocess. proc Thi, tothe the meamngconstrtktion resonance and give levelI of II referred to as as primarY primary activalion. activation. In In addilion, addition, other models which 10 as primary other cognitive cognitive models modelswhich whi h activation. referred to Thi. form of the search region achieve a more diffuse level of activation. This level activation. a diffuse form part pari of Ihe search rCSton achIeve a more ditTuse level of aclivalion. Thi region part the is activationisis ofactivation Fhismore morediffuse ditluselevel level iis guaranteed guaranlt ...'\! by by the Ih principle principle m (pIO). Thi more dinu levelofof acllvation j, principle in in(pio). (pio).This guaranteed the levels of what positing two rationale for activation. The The rationale whal refer to 10 as a secondary secondary activation. activalion. Th ralionale for positing po ilmg two Iwolevels 1C\c1 of of to as what1I refer entail aa a activation region will necessarily entail search JLtlVoltlOIl (HnlC from from the the view viewthat thai aa search an:h region willnecessarily n«cs1klrily entail the that activation comes minimal whether match available. to establish establish mimmal level of of .ellv.llon morder orderto 10 I.bl"h whether whelheraa match m.lehisis i,available. Jv.,IJblc. of activation activationin in minimal level level Hence, this searched cognitivemodels lIen. of. livalion may m.ymake make the Ihe searched searched cognitive cognilive modelsmore more ofactivation activation may make this level level of Hence,,Ihl

267 267

INIFRPkETAI1ON INTERPRETATION INTERPRETATION

,

:"

Input: ! Input an UII ranee (a (a input an anutterance utterance (a !

situated !• Sltualad """"I) situatedusage usage event) event) ! •

· ..... ---

-" 4

SEUCTIOH by SEUCTION: SELECTION driven drivenby by utterance UIIeranee extra· utterance and and extraextralinguistic Iongu,slOC conlext linguisticcontext context

1.

·

rr-

........

output: oulput stong o. :' stnng of of output: stnng lexical leXICal concepts lexical concepts ~-.--.---- ............ -_ ..... ..

i

I

FUSION production 01 of FUSION FUSION productoon production of a a concepIion (Sllualad conception conception (situated (situated meaning with mean'ng aSSOClalad WIth meaning associated associated with utterance) an UIIeranee) an utterance)

NTERPRETATION:actlVabOn activation of IHT£RPRETATtON INTERPRETATION activation of

•

INTEGRATiONInlegraloon integration ~_.j the semantic INT£GAATlON integration INTEGRATION potential the semanbc semantic polenll8l potential accessed accessed of lexical lexical concepts oIlexlcal of concepts 1118 a go_ lexocal concepl via given lexical concept via a given lexical concept constrained by the the lexical lexical constraJllad by leXICal constrained conceptual unit of which it~ is is aa conceplual unol o. whICh conceptual unit of which it

part pan part

·! output lexical conceplual I'! , ·,,• ...• '"

.n

'"

' output: lexical conceptual ' : units units : unitS

.'

output: i output. output informational Informattonal informational

.i

characterization with ! characterization charact8r1zalion associated associaladwith W1Ih ! associated lexical conceptual units !t lexical leXICal COnceptual conceplual units un,ts _______ J! t

.

'

or output: (a'meaning' i output oulput aaaconception conceploon(a 'meanong'or or i conception associatedwith withthe theinput input reading' associated i 'reading' 'readlng' aSsoClalad WIth Input i

.: utt ranee) utterance) utterance)

L.

:,

..!

Theory 13.7. con%truclion inLCCM i(;(;M Theory FIGURE 13.7. 1'}.7. Meaning Meaning construction con lruc.lloninIn LCCM Thtory FIGURE achieve diffuselevel levelof ofactivation activationwhich, which,in in hence they readily accessible, acc""ible,and dnd hen« Iheyachieve .1
268

268

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY

INTERPRETATION INTERPRETATION INTERPRFTATION

269 269

tognitive model profile

",,-ondarycognitive cogmtive model model profile profil achieve achievesecondary ",,-ondary activation. This Thi"i s did, wurndaryactivation. secondary cUssed lfl more cu >cd in more detail detail in in the the next next section. tion. cussed in more detail in the next section. By virtue virtue of concluding concluding this By thi section sectiononOn onthe Prin ipl ofof Interpretation. thePrinciples Principles of By virtue of concluding this Interpretation, II prC'>ent present aasummary. summary, in in J-igure Figure ').7. 13.7, of meaning *onst ruct 01 meaning meamngconstruction
Access Accessroute routeactivation activation Access route activation To activation, lo the first type of activation, I" illustrate illustratethe thefirst first type typeof ofactivation, activation.access a« route route activation. recon id the r the the access route .iitivation,reconsider reconsider following example discussed in earlier chapters: tollowing example u.ro in earli r ,hapter : lollowing example di earlier chapters: (7) referendum Francevoted voted against theEU FUconstitution constitution inthe (7) France votedagainst again tthe the EU con titution in 2005 the ioo 2005 referendum

Types of of activation activation Types Types of activation we have seen seenthu thusfar far in our our discussion of interpretation. di u sionofof rresuult of interpretation,the theresult seen thus far ininour discussion interpretation, matching—the process at the heart of interpretation—is matching- the process pro< at at the theheart heartof interpretation—is interpretation .•activation. aactivation. tivat.on. In In th" matching—the In this section 1 present a taxonomy of the "'llion II present prC'>ent aa taxonomy taxonomy of ofthe thetypes type, activation takeplace plale III typesofof ofactivation activationthat thattake take section place In general terms there interpretation. In gen ralterms th re are two types: types: interpretation. In general terms there are two types: As we we have hav As

• activation i)i an aaccess route: thisserves serves activation of of an an c route: rou te: this thi' M:rv to tofacilitate fa
distinction between between In broad broad temis, term . • the the key key distinction distinction betw<X'n activation aCllvation ofan anaccess a«e mute, rOll Ie.and and activation of of an access route, and In highlighting, is that route activation tak highlighting. is that that access a cc>s route place over more than Ihan one one takes place highlighting, is over more more than one activation takes over cognitive model, while highlighting involves involves cognilive model. while while highlighting highlighling involves activation activation ,vithin ingle cognitive cognitive activationwithin within aaasingle single cognitive cognitive model, model. The hallmark of activation ofan model. The hallmark of aClivalion of an a c roule i that while one (or more) accessroute route is is that that while one model. The hallmark of activation of an access (or more) more) one (or

cognitive model(s) undergoes cognitive underg,,.,,, primary al1ivation. the majority ofactivated aClivall'tl cognitive model(s) majority of of activated model(s) undergoes primary activation, activation, the the majority cognitive models cognitive models undergo undefSothe thelesser I r form form ofresonance resonance that refer to as ""and formof resonancethat thatIIIrefer refer to to as as secondsecondcognitive models undergo the lesser ary activation. activation. The di distIlKtIofl activation ary tinction in types i, prC'>enled in hgure types is presented in Figure ary activation. lbe The distinction in activation types is presented in Figure '3.8. t;.$.

The The whichharises arises forthe exampleinin(7) rheconception conceptionwhich whi arisesfor for theexample example (7)involves onv.olvesprimary primaryactivation activation involves cognitive model, a secondary cognitive model to which of the the El of cognitive model, of the ELECTORATE [. ECTORAl fCTORATf Lcognitive model. aa ondary cognitive
CONSTITUTIONAL CONSllTUTtONAL

13.8.

Activattlon ion 'Nlthtn a ActJv Activation within a cognitive model C<>gn' cognitive model profile by PfO/,Ie profile by

...... .. ........• • •

SPORTS SPORTS

access route activation Cognitive models

across/through cognitive models

highlightIng hIghlighting 0/ Structure songIe 01structure structure ",lIwl within aa single highlighting of within • single cognitive model (attr$bu*e). c:oon,lMI 0< between cognitivemodel model(annbute). (attribute).or orbe"""," between annbul8Ol<:ogn'lMI mode models attributes/cognitive models (structural (s.ructural rnvartant) (structuralWlVenant) invariant)

.IS..SS. •• • • • • • • •ss.s••su••.ss • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• . GEOGRAPHICAL :• :: GEOGRAPHICAL

S S

S

1

:::

GEOGRAPHtCA LANDMASS L LANDMASS

: :

,........ ·····,s·········.. ........ S

•

t •5.ss

,;.~~~

•• CUISINE ••• POLITICAL POlITICAL CUISINE SYSTEM •• ••• SYSTEM •••• •• • •••••••••••••••••••••• •• •• •• • •••••• :c ••"'.-.!..-<": . •• •..•••• • •••••••••••••••••• ~ •S•••s•sSSSSS.S..SS• • • •. HOLIDAY • . : : : HOUDAY HOUDAY : NATIONSTATE STATE .: DESTINATION NATiON : NATION : Dt;SnNAOON DESTiNATiON •: • •

NATIONAL NAllONAL

access route activation

S

. . . ..........,.......... ...... ,~ ....... . . . •

: : S •

:• S

S

Is ....••..

•••••

.

activation

• ••••• •• ••• r-~.~.~ .~ .~~.~.~--,

MCOndary

S

AL.

oo 000

o 1%,,Vaa

• .S••5

S S S

000 000

0 000000

[F[FRANCE] RANC EJ (FRANCE]

secondary OCINa'oon activation

U.S. within .aa 4..0gIlIU\'C h (o l III: 1. 1.8 . ALtn'ation \1.11\ lion types I~ within cognutivc m(ld modelI profile profile FIGURE 13.8. Activation types within a cognitive modelprofak

S•

S S

..

:

•

\ ...... .5.5'• . ••.S.•. ••••• •••

:

............

pnmory pnmary act", hon

HEAOOF STATE

ELECTORATE

SYSTEM SYSTEM

the utter inthe (FRANCA Access route established bythe theinterprcl.,uIC, interpretation of((ikAN(I FIGURE13.9. 13.9. h;L'RI route h(.lltF IV '). Access Al.4..C: ~ route t.llhlt hl-d by the m of fRAN( 1 I1 l in In the ullerinterpretation of utterreferendum France voted against the EU constitution in the 200,5 anceFrance ance the lU l"OlISlIlW.otl ."u, the voted agmml 11.f' ance Fnm(f' ~'Olt'/ ,lri' 2005 2005 r"'trtnt/"", ,4fr'emlum

ru

SEMANTIC ( COMPOSITIONALITY ITY EMANTIC COMPO ITiONAUTY SEMAWII(

270

270

,1;nitivemodeLs models whllh which achieve are represented activation are secondary activation cogmllve models a.i.hk've hlev~ secondary s«ondary acllvallon are represented repre""n1N wi wllhth cognitive dashed boldface.The The cognitive dashed boldface. 11wcognou cognitive model modelI which which achieves act da hed boldfac~. mod whi h achieves a hieves primary primary activation actlvahon sI . markedwithunsbolface. marked wilh marked with undashed boldface. Beforeconduding concludingthi thisdiscussion discussionof of a«es access roules, routes, IIit it Iis Imporlanl important I" to I' roUIr is Ihal language users uscr~ will )udg aa particula parlil ularr routc Ihe the more likely ilitit is figurative, wilh with greater length correlaling correlating with with a ullerance a being figuralive, grealer lenglh menl uterancsbigftve,whralngcoetiwhasmn, utterance as of greater greater figuralivily. figurativity. of grealer of tigurativity.

Highlighting Highlighting now lurn turn to to the the phenomenon results fromdifferential ditt II now 10 Ihe phenomenon ph nomenon of ofhighlighting. hlghhghling.This Thl results muh from from ditTerenllal turn highlighting. This activation of allribules attributes internal internalto toaaagiven given cognitive cognitive model, model, as see attributes we will in achvallon inlernal 10 given cognilive mod I, as a we we will will see ":e in a. tivation of of the di discussion of the examples (8) and and (9) (9) below, below, which relate relateto tothe thelexical kxjtal Ih~ ussion 1)1 oflhe in below, which which relale 10 Ihe lexilal the discussion theexampl examplesin in (8) (8) concept for this this lexical concept BooK partialcognitive cognitive model model onlepl I(Boma DOOKI.1.AAApartial partial cognilive Illodel profile profile for Ihis lexical lexical concept cOnlepl is "is provided in Figure 13.10. igure 13.io. provided in in IFigure 1).10. (8) (8)

a. That's heavy a. That's Thai's .iaa heavy heavy hook book a. b. That antiquarian hook is illegibl h. That illegible Thai antiquarian antiquarian book book is i illegible b.

(9) (t,) (9)

a. That's a long Thal'_ a a. That's long hook book a. b. That's an interesting book Thai's an an interesting onler tong book b. That's b.

Let's consider Ihe the cognillv cognitive models models accessed 1. As As illustrated It1'S a«cssed via via loom: IDoo~). illu traled in the Ihe Let's consider consider the cognitive partial cognitive model profile given in Figure 13.1o, the knowledge accessed partial cognitive parllal cognilive model model profile profile given given ininFigure Figure13.10, I.PO, the Ihe knowledge knowledge acce ......J by [Komi includes, at the very least, that a book is a physical by IBooki entity and isi~ by IBOOK) includes, includes, at al the Ihe very very least, leasl, that aa book book isi aa physical phy ical entity enlity and and is interacted with via a process of reading. These two distinct sorts of knowledge— interacted wilh with via a proc~ processof ofreading. reading.Th Theselwo twodislincl distinctwrts sortsofknowledg,~ o(knowkdge— interaclN knowledge relating to an artefact, and the process of reading—are of reading—arc captured knowledge rrelating to an arietact, knowledge blong to art fact, and the the pro.:css of reading-arecaptured captured in Figure 13.10 by the two cognitive models (BOOK) PHYSICAL STRUCTURE PIIYsI(;AL STRUCTURE Iwocognitive cognillvemodels model (BooK) (BOOK) .IlYSICAl STRt:CTl;RF and and in Figure Figure 1).10 by the two

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 Attributl

Cognitive mod/ill modis

Lexical Lexacalconcept concaç*

.on,epts. nitive nuxlel, models, andattrialtriIU.l at 13.m. 1\.10 The Thc rel.lllOn hlrbetween bchH'C1l It"kxsaI u. ..1I..:um . ept .Lcognitive ..:ognlll\C model and Jnd .Jun iherelationship reLitionship between II(.(KI

FIGURE

butes

hutt"

,

-

INTfRPRETA nON INI ERPRETATR)N INTERPRETATION

271 271 271

~IREADING ADING AerlVITY re:.~lVely. models are related related by The two cognitive A( TIVIT•Y respectively. respectively.The Thetwo twocognilive cognitivemodels models are are related by virtue virtue ACTIVITY Ki

by virtLic physical artefact with the the physical "f READE~-Ihe tru tural invariant—who invariant-who inleracts with wilh phy icalartefact ota structural invariant—who interacts interacts artefact READER—the structural of aaREADER—thC between cognitive bv of reading Ihe prinled text. Thi relation holds holds between between cognitive cognitive virtueof ofreading reading the the printed printed text. text. This This relation relation holds 1w virtue by virtue I capture the structural Chapter io. n;"dels ,"ributes, as di«:msed 10. I capture caplur the Ihe structural Slructural models models and/or and/orattributes, attributes,as asdiscussed discussed in in Chapter to. relation 1).10 arrow, the specific pecifi relation relation IIlvariant in Figure invariant invariantin inFigure Figure13.10 13.10by byaaa double-headed double-headed arrow1 arrow, and and the the specific addition, cognitive IIwolved mnemoni RPADrR. models signalled by addition, cognilive cognitivemodels models READER.In In addilion, involved iis is signalled signalled by by the the mnemonic mnemonic REAI)IR. structured, body of knowledge. ligure of a large, delalled, bUI lructured, of knowledge. Figure 1).10 cun i I ,.onsist of a large, large, detailed, detailed, but but structured, body of knowledge. Figure 13.10 consist of 13.10 provides models which I BOOK allribules for each ofofthe the cognitive model which IIsom] BOOK)I provides provides provides providestwo twoattributes attributesfor foreach eachof thecognitive cognitive models which relates to the the physical phvskal J(C model PIIY ICAl sIRUCTIRI STRuerURE Ihe physical access to. The The relates 10 to PHYSICAL STRUCTURE relat The cognitive cognitive model model PIIYSI(AL access 10. to. least, knowledge knowledge as asto tothe thephysical physical structure Jrtefa t, con i ling of, al th very least, least, knowkdge as 10 Ihe physical structure Iru ture artefact, consisting of, artefact, consisting of, at at the the very concerning .nd of giv n book. book. indud ddetailed tailed knowledge knowledge concerning and organization and organizalion organizationof ofaaa given given book. This This indudcs includes detailed knowledge weight, binding artefact, Ihe malerial aaspects peets of ititsdimensions, dimensions. weighl, binding binding the of the material materialaspects of the the artefact, artefact, including includingits dimensions, weight, knowledge ,ibout books books refer forth. This aaspect ped of of our knowledge about aboul booksIIIrefer refer (pa per or Soforth. forth. This This aspect ofour our knowledge (paper (paper or cloth), cloth), and and w so ion and construc10 aas the Ihe TOMh atlribul In addilion Ihephysical phy i aI organizat organizalion and and construccon trueto I attribute. attribute.. In Inaddition additionto10 tothe the physical organization TOME to as theTOM the process of text text interactedwith withthrough of book, booksconsiSt consisl of of lex I which which isiisinteracted inleracted wilh through the Iheprocess proc lion tion tion of ofaaa book, hook, books books consist attribute. of reading. refer to to aas the Ihe TEXT of This attribute.. -rEx -r atlribut reading. Thi This III refer refer toas the of reading. involved in relates to Th~ READING ACTIVITY cognitive model relales to 10 the the process process involved involved in on The ACI IVITY cognitive cognitive model relates the process READING ACTIVITY The READING the text the nature of of the the interaction with the onleracting with books, especially nature Ihe interaction with wilh the text lext interacting interactingwith withbooks, hooks,especially especially the the nature of period of interaction that up a period liseif. of Ihi interaction inleraction is Ihatreading readingtakes lakes up up, period of of of this this itself. One One consequence consequence of isi that reading takes a that on the lime, whichI IIrefer refertoto 10 asthe IheDURA DURATION allribute. iis,depending depending on on the the time, asas i ION attribute. attribute. That Thatis, depending DURATION time, which which refer the of time. reading can can take take lesser or greater amounts of .mounl involved, reading take lesser I r or or greater amounts amount oftime. time. amount of of text text involved, involved, that with isI the the level of interest Another consequen e of interaction with wilh books books is the level level of ofinterest interest that that aaa Another ot interaction Another consequence consequence of books This refer to as the vii OF given book holds holds for for the the reader. read r. This Thi III refer refer to to as as the the iiLEVEL LEVEL OF INTEREST given hook holds for OFINTL INTEREST given the reader. might judge judge the book book to be interesting, .nribut That iis,, while while the the reader reader might judg the book to tobe beinteresting, interesling, .ittrihutc.. That attribute. Thatis, while the reader and so so on. on. another might might be be judged judged to to be be boring1 boring, and another might be judged to be boring, highlighting. of the utterances in (8) (8) ow let's let's return return to the issue i ue of of highlighting. Each Ea h of ofthe the utterances ullerances in (8) Now let's ofhighlighting. Now to the the issue Each characterization and (9) (9) involves involves aaadistinct di lin tinformational informalional characterization characterization for for the theLBOOKI IBooKI involves distinct informational and and for the (nom] being achievedby 1w virtueofof each instance IBOOKI lex I I concept. con ept. This Thi isachieved achieved by virtue of ea hinstance on tan of e of of IBooKII being beong concept. Thisisis lexical virtue each (BOOK such that a slightly con i tent with with the theutterance ullerancecontext contextsuch suchthat that, lightly in aaa way way consistent interpreted in with the utterance context interpreted in way consistent a slightly through the cognitive model profile through the thecognitive cognitivemodel modelprofile profile ditTerent a c i established established through different access route is different access route is established ",,,-.sed via via IIDooK). accessed accessed BOOK I. from(8) (8)have have todo dowith withprimary primary For instance, the conceptionsthat that result rresult uh from from havetoto do with primary instance, the the conceptions For instance, For cognitive model. However, each conactIVation ofthe thePHYSICAL PIIYSICAlSTRL'CI TRuerURF cognitive model. mndel.However, lIowever,each ea h conconactivation of tRE cognitive PHYSICAL STRUCTURE activation of the attributes associated withthis this cogception involves Inmlv differential ditTerenlial activalionofof ofattributes allribultsassociated a -ialedwith with thi cogcog involves differential activation activation ception informational the ofhighlighting. highlighting. nitive model-the process proc highlighting. While Whilethe theinformational informational nitive model—the nitive model—the process of involveshighlighting highlightingofof ofthe the IBOOKI inin(8a) (8a)involves involves highlighting the chara terizalion associated aassociated iated with characterization with BOOKJ (8a) characterization with (Book' in .tssociated with I rOMI allribul informati nalcharacterization characterilalionassociated a sociatedwith wilhIBooK IBooKI informational I OMEattribute, attribute,,Ihe the informational the I inin TOME involves highlighting of of the attribute. ofthe IheTEXT TEXT attribute. allribute. (8b) involves involv highlighting highlighting TEXT (8b) have from the the utterances in (9) contra t, the the conceptions conception Ihatresult r ult from theutterances ullerancesin (9)have hav toto 10 In contrast, contrast, the onceptions that that result In model accessed EVENT cognitive dowith withprimary primaryactivation a livallonof of theREAI)1N R.AOIN.; EVENT fV'NT cognitive cognitivemodel modelaccessed ac cssed with primary the READING do activation of the associated with IB(X)KI Theinformational informationalcharacterization characterizalionassociated a ialedwith withI Board IBOOK)inin on via IBooK).The via(Book]. IRooKI. The informational characterization via attribute. The informational (9a) resuh from highlighllng of IlURATION attribute. anribule. The Theinformational informational (9a)results resultsfrom fromhighlighting highlightingof ofthe the DURATION (9a) the in (9h) results from highlighting iatedwith with!BOOK] lharallerilJlion associated ''''''''Ialed Wllh InooKI in (9b) (9b)results r "Ihsfrom fromhighlighting the Ihe characterization characterization attribute. LEVEL OPINTEREST INTf.Mf~Tattribute. .ltlribule. I IVEI OF INTEKF5I LEVEL OF

272 2 272 27

ION INTI RPRf.TATI()S IN I FIIPRETAl INTERPRETATION

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY EMANTlic ICCOMP()SITIONALITY OMPOS'~'.!.T!! ' O:!!N~A~L:!'.!.T!.Y_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

of matching matching Types of Types of Types now turn turn to to aa of the process of Matching Iis tthe of matching. matching. IInOW now con ideration of th process proc of match inS. Matching a consideration consideration turn centralmechanism mechanism in interpretation1 interpretation, simultaneous primary pril (cntral m hani\m in interpretation, and Jnd involves involves simultaneous \imultancou primary central activationof ofcognitive cognitivemodels models accessed arising from, distinct distinct lexical a{tiv.tion of cognitive model,accessed accessed via, via. or arising ari ing from, from. lexical activation via, or concepts andlor and/or lexical lexicalconceptual conceptual units in in order order to produce lexiid units concept con eptual unit ord r to to produce produ e aa complex compl x concepts and/or informational characterization. characterization. informational characterintlon. Matching takes twodistinct distinctforms. This of broad the distinct is Iaisconsequence ~forms. rms.This Thi aa consequence con;equenof the of the broad broad Matching Matching takes two distinction which holds between nominal versus relational lexical concepts distinction which which holds hold between between nominal nominalversus ver u relational lexical lexical concepts concep" 6, and hence, the sorts of cognitive model first discussed in Chapter profiles fir di 'u;;cd in Chapter ( hapter 6, 6, and and hence, hence. th sort of cognitive model profiles prolik." firstt discussed that, in broad terms, these two types of lexical concepts facilitate access of lexical LonCepIs that. broad terms, t rms. these th two types type oflexical onceph fa ilit.te access to. to. Put Put that, in broad another way. way, notonly only is the linguistic distinction in the nature only iis there th re aaa distinction distinction in the the nature nature of ofthe thelinguistic lingui tic another there another wa, not content that nominal, e.g., (To) EXix versus rdational, e.g., e.g.1 ((io) content that nominal, nominal. e.g., e.g.• (ExpLostoNI, (>XPIO ION(. versus versu relational, relational. e.g.• (bo) IX content lexicalconcepts concepts encode, butas each PLODE]lexical lexical concept concept has unique PLOOl) lexical onccpt encode, en ode. hut but aas each ea h lexical lexical con cpt has ha aaaunique unique pwtml access site, the cognitive models accessed accessed viaeach eachlexical lexical conceptwill will be it • the cognitive models models accessed via via each lexi al concept concept will be acc access site, slightly distinct. With respect to matching, the claim in I.CCM Theory isi, is Theory slightly di distinct. With respect to matching. matching, the the claim claim in in 1(1 NI slightly tin t. With respect to teeM that the the distinctive distinctive nature of these these classes classes of hence ofthese da oflexical concept-and hence hencetheir their that nature of of lexical lexical concept—and associated cognitive model profiles—entails a differential contribution to aassociated iated cognitive cognitivemodel modelprofiles-entail profiles—entailsaadifferential differentialcontribution contribution to the the construction of a complex informational characterization—the interpretation characterization—the interpretation con tructlon of the interpretatinn construction of aa complex complex informational informational characterilatlonthat ari arises from from integration lexical conceptual arises from integration integration of conceptual unit—due to to differences that of 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

273 173

273

PROVISION PROVISION Of OF PlEASURE PLEASURE

(0000) (GOOD) [GOOD] model profile for F,GUR. 1).11. Parli.1 Goool Partial II(itJRF cognitive modd model profile for (60001 (Goon) Partial cogni"" FIGURE13.11. 13.11.

I(;(x)L)1isiisof ofaaa profile proc thtcognitive profil accessed accessed via via [Goon) (Gooo) of process as itit it appli applies process as applies to to the the cognitive cognitive model model profile accessed via cognitive model profile profile for for distin t kind. con ider the partial cognitive model profile for illustrate consider distinct distinct kind. To To illustrate consider the partial partial cognitive model presentedin in Hgurc (1Goonl ;OOIl( as a, presentl'tl inFigure l'igure13.11. 1).11. as presented 13.11. iated with "good The complex informational characterization associated associated with "good "good nun", man". informal ional characterization characterization The complex informational honour, such Js physical beaut for in tance. might relate to notion such uch as as physical physi al beauty, beauty.. honour, honour. being being for instance, instance, might relate relate to notions notions being family, and so on, depending upon up'tanding. providing for one", on. depending upon morally morallyupstanding, upstanding,providing providingfor foroflC'S one's famIly. family, and <0 so on, notions relate to extra-linguistic utteran" · linguistic context. context. Such notions notions relate relat to to relevant utterance the relevant and/or relevant utterance andlor and/or extra extra-linguistic context. Such desirable qualities1 characteristic of knowledge having having to do desirablequalities, qualities.characteristic characteri tic bodies bodies of knowledge knowledge havingto todo dowith withdesirable bodies of provision of pleasLire, as relateto to qualities. provision of ofadvantage advantage and and provision provi ion of ofpleasure, pica ure. as a they theyrelate qualities, qualities, provision provision of advantage such lbe way. in in which whICh being being aaa man man affects affects such such issuCs. i u . the which man affects the ways ways being issues. concerns the same same bodies bodiesof of knowledge, knowledge,• em th ofknowledg In t. while contrast, "good meal" In contra contrast, while aa "good meal" also also (on concerns the same bodies associated with"good "goodmeal" meal" has to the informationalcharacterization characteriation associated a ty the the food food is, IS. that that it con I IS of of with the lbe size do with of portions, do with the size the how tasty informational I hus,while whileboth complex whol. me ingredients, ingredient and ThUs, while bothcomplex complexinformational informational wholesome ingredients and on. Thus, wholesome and so so on. the associated with characterization, invohe the \ame models associated a '>O
a small mallgalaxy galaxy a.a small (ii) a.a.

( II)) (11

,mallelephant elephant b. aaasmall small elephant h. small mouse c. aasmall mall mouse mouse c. in these these examples arewholly wholly provides small provides provide. in these examples examples are are I he metric metri properties properti that that sinai! The metric properties that small The However, this is notdue due different. several orders orders of magnitud . However, However. this Iisnot not du toto to different, by different, by several several orders of of magnitude. magnitude. this model profile on each a" s toto di tinct cognitive cognitiv model model profile profile on oneach ea h bMAll.] facilitating IsmAt.t.1 facilitatingaccess access to aaa distinct distinct cognitive LSMAII J facilitating applies is adjusted1 which(smAt.1.1 [sMAll J applies IIl"an« of ofaccess. a(Ce , . Rather, Rather. the \(ale at atwhich whkh "MAli) appli isi adjusted, adjusted. instance of access. Rather, the scale scale at instance matchedwith. on the cognitive cognitive models) model(s)ititisis ibeing beingmatched with. depending depending on on the being depending informational characterizations—inforwlltr"t. in III buildingcomplex campi xinformational informationalcharacterizations—inforcharacterization· - inforIn contrast, contrast, in building building complex In lexicalconcept conceptwithin within the the mational charactcri,ations more than one ,hJrollleri/dlion 01 ofmore mor than than one onelexical Icxi\..ll (OI1(Cpt Within the same \aIllC malinn.ll characterizations same mational of unit—matching as applied to nominal lexical concepts lexi al conceptual conceptual unit—matching unlt - mdtchlOS as a, applied applied to tonominal nominallexical leXICalconcepts (oncept lexical lexical models, butthe the activation distinct model. but but Iheactivation activationofof ofdistinct distinct involv not nol adJusting of of cognitive (ognilive models, involves not adjusting adjusting of cognitive involves illustr.ite, 1k Ilhlie phenomenon of 1)1 perspt'ctiVii.Lt ion.To (ogniu\c models Il1nc.lcl, - the ..·phenomenon phenomenon ofperspectivization. per IlCII..tivi/Jtion. '(0illustrate, IlIlI trate. conlon cognitive cognitive the following: Ider the the distlOlllon Ih.following: followIIlS: sider sider thedistinction distinctionininthe —

SI MAN TIC COMPOSITIONALITY

-

(.2) (12)

(12)

IN II INTERPkETA1' ION INTERPRETATION

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY

274 274

a. aa good a. good man man a. agood 'Thin b. aa small man mallman man b.b. a small

The complex intOrmational that result from the expressio '1 h tomplex mformational characterizations chara terization that thatresult resultfrom fromthe theexpi xpr< 'nlln1 informational The in (12) in (.2) involve inv Ive activation activati n of ofdistinct di tinctcognitive cognitivemodels model accessed a c sedvia viaIMANI. ( IA . I. in (ii) IflVOIVC activation of distinct cognitive models accessed via While (12a) (Iza) involves involv activation a
275

275

read through to Z. J\a,'ab' to himwas w.,aa dittionary lx'gJn.t r ad through to to Z. 'L availableto was dictionaryhe hebegan beganatatthe theletter letterAAand and read acceptable. (i3b) becomes semantktlly In uchaasituation, situation. th example examplein in(13b) (.jb) becomes Ix,<:om semantically ;cmantlC311ya«eptable. Insuch such situation,the the example in acceptable. In anomalous as a rock face of it, is also semantically The Theexamplein('lC).onth fa eofit.i al semantically semanti allyanomalou Theexample exampleinin(13c), (13c), on on the the face of it, is also anomalous as aarock rock sequential process that has internal structure that is sub jett to a is"not an entity entity that that has h internal internal structure trUtture that that isi subject ublC'1 to toaasequential uentialprocess proc isflOt not an Thus, while a dictionary is J that that nbe beconstrued onstruedas a having havingaaastarting startmgpoint. pomt. Thus, Thus, while whil aadictionary dict.onary' thatcan can construed as having starting point. is aa be txlOk can. uodercertain certainnovel context he beconstrued con truedas asan anentity entitythat thatcan can be be hookthat thatcan, can,under under novelcontexts, contexts, be construed as an entity that can book I-Iowc'ver, if the semantically anomalous than read sequentially1 (13h) is less anomalous than lithe read (.)h) is i less I semantically '11.Jnti
Above utterance:discourse discourse models models Above the the utterance: models Semanticality 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. of colheptions. In this section 1 briefly address the semantic Conceptions are, by definition, Conteption are. by definition. semantically mantically coherent. coher nt. We We will !ott that tha th" is semantically coherent. We will see see thatt this this isi Conceptions arc, definition, the C.1 case by considering situations in which th ituation in whi h conceptions conception,fail fail to tomaterialize. materiali7 . conceptions fail to materialize. which the case by onsidering situations The term semanticality, as Thc term semanticality, mltn ticality. as a introduced introdu ed into intolinguistics IingUl tic by byPustejovsky pu tCJOv ky introduced into linguistics by Pusteiovsky The term (1995), related related to to the the semantic well-formedness of ('995). to the semantic manti well-formedness well·formedn ofaaasentence. >entente.In LeeM sentence. InInLCCM LCCM related Theory, semanticality semanticality relatesto well-formed utterances, which iis Theory. scmanti ality relates relates tto well-formed well· formed utterances. to say "'Y utterances, which which is to say Theory, those that give to tho,"" that give g.ve rise "'" to to conceptions. concept.on. Utterances tterant that that fail in in this thi regard n.-gard arc arc are in this that fail those that rise conceptions. semantically semanticallyanomalou The rea n for f< r failing failing to to achieve aachieve hievcsemanticality semanticality i due due semanticalitvisis semantically anomalous. anomalous.. The The reason reason for tailing to e.ther failur to the th Principles Prin il'l of ofLe i al Concept Concept Integra tion either ofLexical Lexkal ConceptIntegration Integration either to to aa failure failure to to conform conform to to the Principles (principles (prindpl • pi-p3), p. 1'3). or or failure to to confoml to thePrinciples Prinupl ofof InterpretatIOn conformto tothe the Principles ofInterpretation Interpretation or aaa failure failure to conform (principles pa-plo), (prindpl or failur to conf< rm to to both. In other words. manti · words,semantisemanti(principles 1'41"0). p4-plo),or oraaafailure failureto toconform conform toboth. both.In Inother otherwords, cality CIllity f.ilu re is is aaa consequence con\Cquence of of failure u c fullyundergo undergo fu ion. failuretoto tosuccessfully successfully undergofusion, fusion, offailure cality failure failure is consequence thereby resulting in in aaastring string ofvehid&s. but no no conceptK)fl. conception. thereby m tring of of \vehicles, h.dev. but but tonception. thereby resulting resulting To consider this phenomenon 10 id r thi. omidersome some examplesinvolving involvingthe th verbal theverbal lo con consider this phenomenon phenomenon consider consider someexamples began: vvehicle hicl btgmr. vehicle

(13) a. He ('3) He began began the th book book (ii) a. a. Ikbeganthebook b. 111e ?He began th the dictionary dictionary h. ?He began began the dictionary c. 1111e ??He began the t. began th rock rock ??lkbegantherock On the faface e of of it. while the fir t example example eviden semanti allywell-formed well· formed semantically well-formed ofit, it,while whilethe thefirst first exampleevidences evidencesaaasemantically Onthe theface conception, the conception. the utterante in (.)b) not well fnrmed.This 'Ihi follnw a.isdictiondi
out by Pustcjovsky rights adivi.t who proll1nted violent ..struggle in 195osand and loos, famously rIght truggle ,n •isi,is fall1ou,ly inthe the'950' 1960s, faimnisly and '9(,0 rightsactivist activistwho whopromoted promoted vinlent violent struggk known to have read a dictionary whilst in prison "like a hook". As the only tonI''''''" book whilst in prison"Ioke. "like abook". hook. Asththeonly onlybook book kflowfltotohaH haveread reada adltt.onary dictionarywhil

what

refer to as

Theory is is aaa theory theory in Chapter A noted in in Chapter hapter 3, 3. 112CM LC 1 Theory. theory of ofwhat what II refer re~ r to as a LCCM Theory of As As noted noted the way in which concepconcerned frontstage Iront\tas cognition. togn.tion. That is, i,. it tonccmed with with the the way way in which concepconeep frontstage cognition. That is, itit is isi concerned I

between linguistic content,

focused on the interaction tion emerge1 emerg. and i focused focused on onthe theinteraction mter.ttionbetween betweenlinguistic Iingui ticcontent, content. turns tions emerge, and is is at the kvcl of the utterance. conceptual content and extra-linguistic context conceptual content and and extra-linguistic extra·lingui ti context context at at the th level level of ofthe theutterance. utteran . understanding of meaning construction requires However, a full account Ilowever. a full account .ccount of ofmeaning meaningconstruction con~tru(tionrequires requiresunderstanding understanding However, This involves "above" the level of the utterance. the processes compo .tional processes proc "abov "the lewl of ofthe theutterance. utterance.This Thi involves iO\'olve the compositional compositional "above" the level do not discourse model.6 That is, utterances building aas aa discourse model.° modeJ.6That That is, is. utterances utteranc do do not n t building what what II will will refer refer to to as discourse. Moreover, utterances they form part of ongoing IXCUI inisolation: isolation: they "ccur in i;olation: they form foml part part of ofongoing ongoingdiscourse. di\(ourM!.Moreover, 1oreover.utterances utteranc occur forms of interpreted in isolation from other themselves are not th m",lvC\ Jre dehvered from other other forms fom" of of themselves are not delivered delivered and and interpreted interpreted in in i;olation isolation from the following attested utterance symbolic representation. representation. \ymbolic representation. For For in tan e. the the following ~ 1I0wing attested att ted utterance utterance symbolic Forinstance, instance, Brighton: double-decker eco friendly bus in appeared on the bak of a red 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 Redisgreen! I.4) Red is green! (('4) '4) Red. green!

extra-linguistic knowledge is required relating

In ord orderr to to form form aa conception, conception extra-linguistic In conception. extra hngu;,ticknowledge knowledge. requiredrelating relatmg In order is required in the city of Brighton, introduced fleet of eco-friendly bUSeS to the the recently recently th rceently introduced introduced fleet tleet of of eco-friendly ceo·friendly buses buses in in the thecity cityof ofBrighton, Brighton. to knowledge the bus, and background visual information relating relating the colour colour of of vi ual information relating the colour ofthe the bus, bu •and and background batkground knowledge knowledg visual of colour green as a symbolic representation relatingto to the the notion notionof ofthe thecolour relating the notion of the tolourgreen green as a aasymbolic ymtx.licrepresentation rl'Prcsentatlon of of relating to lot languageunderstanding understandinginvolves invokesaaalot environmental "friendliness." That is, environm ntal "friendliness." "friendlin ." That iis,• language understanding involv lot environmental That and access butintegration integration with with visual cues,•and more than than semantic semantic composition, compositionsbut ,emant; compo,ition. but integration withvisual vi ual cues, cu and access ace more of stored information, knowledge relating to other sorts toand andintegration integrationof ofknowledge integration of knowledge relating relating to to other other sorts \Ort of ofstored tored information, information. to both propositional and visual. propo itional and and visual. vi uaJ. both propositional with knowledge berelated relatedand andintegrated integrated In addition, utterances must In addition, addition. utterances utterantev must mu t be be related and integrated with withknowledge knnwledge In during model that is being constructed derived from other utterances and the deriVe'" from fmm other utterances uttl'ral1CC\ and model that that isi, being beingconstructed on trutted during during derived and the model andcognitive cognitivesciences, sciences, nowknown knownfrom fromthe the Language ongoingdiscourse. discourse. Asisiisnow ongoing di Dune. As As now known from thelanguage languageand and cognitiv ienccs, ongoing Wilson and inferential processes meaning results from complex meaning (Sperber fml11 complex "'1111'1 inferential inferential processes prtx (Sperberand ndWilson Wi bon1995), '995). meaning results rc. ult from including the exchanges during ongoing discourse, the interactional nature of interattlonal nature of the the exchanges e«hangev during during ongoing ongoing discourse, d."ou,"",. including II1duding the interactional negotiate with respect to one another and speakers adopt the range of roles that 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'

md

it the ritLitrd notion (2iM4 liiiddi., usSion ts.stiihot I" the therebated rNt"" 1101 n..h14..,11n

Radvarnkit IWO .rnd ILItiVan•Y ZWJallritt1 Zwaan411d IW&an.nd .,.,.)./w n.nd Madden ((101141 fur • Set zoo.° 1.4 •• Set' /W.I.111

bJ"

mcNICI.' "situ.it ol asiturth/r1 01a uf. - .. (\WI ...ion nmodel:* nw"jd·

l.y «•

taJ..kn

2 76

SI MANTICCOMPOSITIONALITY IOMPOSITIONALITY SEMANTIC

INTERPRETATION I TERPRfTATION INTER PR FT ATI ON

ofLontext1994), the the range ctOnIc I dunns ongoing ongoms d,S<:OUM (ColEman (Gonman 1981; Schiffrin Slhiffrin 1994), 1994). Ihe range ot ongoing discourse ' Aman1981; during discourse (G( oflanguage natureofoflanguage (Gurnperz 1981), cu employed employed(Gumperz (Gumperz1982), 1982).the thegoal-directed ggoal-directed al-dim:lmnature nalure ualization cues cues others(Clark (Clark the extensive extensive USC ofgesture thatisi a, u<e Inininteraction inl ractlon with with others olhe" (Clark199ô), 1996).lhe exten iv use u ofof ggestwe lurethat Ihal asuse usein intcrJctiofl as 1998), the Kendon2004 2004), the with language language (MeNeill cO .llmed with with language (McNeill (Mc ' ill 1992; 1992; Kenton Kendon 2004). Iheproliferation proliferalion ofIII co-timed ), the mi lattice information mental spaces, paces, and th preading of ofinformation informalion across a ro aaalattice lalli eofofinterconintercon_ spaces1 andthe the spreading spreading mental mental spaces spaces (Fauconnier 19940 1997), 1997). the integration inlegralion of ofknowledge knowledge n""led menIal paces (Fauconnier (Fauconnier 1994, 1994, nected nected mental by virtue virtue the construction construction of SOUfl.CS in in the Ih construclion of mental mental spaces paces by by VlrtUC of III from muhimodal ,""ur< ln)m nuhltinU)dal from multimodal sources in referredto toas vitalrelations relations( (Fauconnicr (Fauconnier andTurner Ihe compression comp ionof of whatisiisreferred referred to aasvital vital relalion lumer compression ofwhat the Fauconnier and ionceptualmetaphors metaphors thatare are 2002). ofcross-domain cro ·domainconceptual conceptual metaphor..lhal reneurally neurally 2002), the deployment of that triggeringof ofmotor niotornid instantiated in;!antialed (Lakoff and 1999). and and the triggering lriggering of motor andsensory 'n\(lry Johnson1999), *999), and Lakoffand andJohnson instantiated ((Lakoff languageunderstanding understanding(Zwaan All of these es in the process proc offlanguage understanding (Zwaan2004). 2004).All AUof ofthese the re50nan resonances resonances language the level level of the utterance, and are in various ways iissues ,u operale .bove level of ofthe Iheutterance, ulleran e.and andare arein invarious variou,ways way issUCS operateat or above above the operate atator A full full meaning construction beyond Ihe 'ope of ofof LeCM full account accounl of ofmeaning m ningconstruction con trU
•• Fronistage Front lage cognition cognition Frontstage cognition

involves the the relationship relationship between phonological vehicles vehicles (lexical forms) forms) -—- involves II1vol,<" Ihe rrlallon;hip belween vehide, (lexical form,) between phonologIC.1 and t..c.."mantic.:: semantic structure. to encyclopaedic/conceptual encyclopaedic/conceptual ,md structure, including in ludingaccess ace \ to tncydopaedicJconceptuJI including access semantic potential) potential) knuwkdge "'l11anli< pOlenlial) knowledge knowledge ( =semantic wealso also(..hate ( (lark 0996);I.see '' See inpartkular p.uisiulu Clark Ste in

1994).

277 277 277

- involves involves principles principles of semantic composition involve; pnncopl of semantic mal1lic composition compo ilIonthat Ihalserve ;ervetotonarrow the that serve narrowthe the semantic potential semantic accessed mantic potential potential accessed acc~ in in aa given given utterance, utterance. as asconstrained constrained by by given utterance, as constrained by (eXIra lingul tic) context cont .t (extra-linguistic) (extra linguistic) context —

• Backstage Bawtag cognition cognition Backstage cognition invoh' non-linguistic - involves non-Iong", ti principles involves non-linguistic principl that that facilitate construction th.1 facilitate faCllilale construction on trucllon of ofaaa discourse model di our model discourse -—must must involveextra-linguistic extra-linguistic context, background knowledge. e.g., mu t involve involve extra.lingui Ii context, context.background background knowledge, knowledge.e.g., e.g .• pattern completion, recognition situated communicativeintention intention pattern cOl11pletion. recognilion of of situated iluated communicative communicatIve onlentlon and so of of language language user, user. and so forth. soforth. —

i .CM LCCM Iheory Theoryattempts attempts to to provide provide e 1 Theory attemplS 10 provide a sound \Qund basis ba is for for Ih oflinguistic linguistic sound basis forthe therole roleof of linguistic knowledge, its interface with with conceptual conceptual knowledge andthe thelinguistic linguistic knowledge, itits interface inlerface wllh conceptual knowledge knowledge and and lingui;!iccomcom. knowledge. compositional processes seeks to po ilional processes processes involved the level level of of th utterance. utterance. It to do soin involved at at the of the ItIt seeks do so so in way which which is is cognitively cognitivdy realistic, aa way cognillvely rcali IIC. i.e., i.e.• consistent con Islenl with with Ihe guiding prindples i.e., consistent withthe theguiding guiding principles principles of cognitive cognitive linguistics—as discussed inChapter Chapter cognitiv linguistics—as Iongui tl as discussed di u sed in in Chapter 3—and )-and III aa whi h 3 and in in a way way which which builds made liv builds on on many of theoretical advances many of ofthe thetheoretical theoreticaladvances advances made made by by cognitive cognitive linguists lingui ISand and as cognitive others Ilowever, aaafull full account a auntof ofmeaning meaning olhers such as as cognitive cogniliv psychologists. psychologi. t.. However, However, account of meaning construction the integration integration such an account
Summary This addressed interpretation.Interpretation has Thi chapter chapter has ha addressed addr~ interpretation. onterpretation. Interpretation involves involves access aaccess c to to content model. ininservice servi eofoflinguistically lingui ti ally conceptual lent encoded en oded by by cognitive conceptual can encoded bycognitive cognitivemodels, models, service linguistically meaning construction. construction. Interpretation Interpretation mediated meaning applies l11ed,aled me.nong con!>!ruction. Inlerprelalion applies appli to to lexical lexical concepts concepl lexical concepts within aa given within lexical conceptualunit, unit resulting resulting in an lexi aJ conceptual unit. re uhing in an informational informationalcharaccharac. given lexical informational terization, which, linguisttically icallvmediated mediatedsimulation. simulation. leri7<1llon. whi h. in on effect, effect. isis aaalinguistically lingui medialed imul.lion.Matching Matching occurs recursively, operating on additional operatingon on addillonal additional cognitive cognitive model modelprofiles profiles and/or
~ 278

278

MANTI( COMPOSITIONALITY SEMANTI OMPO ITI,::O.:.:N.::A.:; lI:..: TY ~_ _ __ 51 SEMANTIC

overarching prln of interpretation the Principle Principle of Guided Matching. overar
Part IV IV Figurative Figurative Language and Thought and hook represents an application applicationof ofLCCM I ('(CM \1 Theory to figurative Thi of the the book book represents repr~nt an application ofl Theoryto tofigurative figurative This part of languageand andthought. thought.Part PartIV IV consists consists oftwo twochapters. chapters. The fIrst, (hapter language thought. Part IV consi ISof of two hapt rs.The The first. hapter14, 14. first, Chapter 14, addressesth thephenomena phenomenaof metaphorand and metonymy, metonymy, and provides addresses phenomena metaphor and metonymy. and and provides provides an an addresses the ofofmetaphor an L(:( M account it isisargued, LC :M account offigurative figurative language language understanding under tanding which, which. it argued. LCCM accountof figurative language understanding argued. complements the themajor insights provided provided by Conceptual Metaphor complement th major insights by Conceptual nceptuaJ Metaphor Metaphor Theory. Theory. complements second, Chapter providesan anLCCM LCCM ofthe thesemantics semantksof ofTime, Time,• 15, provides an LC M account aaccount count of ofthe semanti of Tim The se ond. Chapter hapter ts, second, presenting analysis of aasubset subset oflexical lexical concepts fromEnglish English forthis this i of ub.et of of lexi al concepts on ept from from Engli h for for thi presenttng an an .naly analysis of domain. The purpose purpose is to provide an anapplication application to to purpo is is to provide toone areaofof onearea area offigurative figurative language to to demonstrate demonstrate how ILCCM ( (M LC M Theory Theory might be applied applied to tospecific specifi language Theorymight mightbe applied to domains. domain.

14 14 Metaphor Metaphor and and metonymy modd has been been One of the majOr u. of Iingui!,lics 10 Ihe corncom major successes of cognitive cognitive Linguistii.s ,1the. the major One of successes of cognitive linguistics has has been to to model model the the comUntilrelatively relatively recently plcxity and richness of Ihe humanimagination. imaginal ion.Until relalivelyrecently recently inin imagination. the human pkxity plexityand and richness of the either that was a.ssurned Iingui~II" cognilivescience "ience more moregenerally, generally. itilit was W assume(' a umedeither ilherthat thai and more generally. linguist linguistics and and in in cognitive cognitive science not be coglution or that it imaginalion was was peripheral 10tocognilion nol he be the the the human humanimagination imagination wasperipheral peripheralto cognitionor or thai that ilit could not assume which lemalically studied—see sludied~ represenlalive papers ume systematically representative papers in Ortony (1993) (190 which assume systematically studied—see representative in Ortony The cognitive linguisin Gibbs (;ihbs exactly referen(~ ·u ,ion in Giblx (1994). (1994). Th cognillve linguisIinguisdi exactly exactly thi this, and and referentes references and and dl discussion The cognitive imagination, and Iitics ludying human human imagination, imagin.uon. and has has enterprise has hasprovided providedan anappro'Kh approa.h 10 to studying studying has tics enterpri enterprise has provided an approach to work. been influential in arguing that language reveals svstcmatic processes at been inOuenlial in arguing lhal l.ngWlIl reveal lernati processes al work. been influential in arguing that language reveals systematic processes at work. think processes arecentral centralto to the the way ha,e argued Ihal uch processes pro<: . are arc cenlrallo Ihe way we we think. think. Cognilive linguists Cognitive argued that that such ( :ognitive linguists linguists have have in cognitive cognitive Th ion in in human humanthought Ihoughlhas ha been been approached, approached. in cognllive The role of of imagination The role of imaginal imagination in human thought has been knowledgestructures structures whkhare are way of positingrelatively relalivelystable siableknowledge knowledge lructur which which are linguistics, linguistics1 by way way of of positing positing relatively stable linguistics, by termed 10 inhere inhere in in long-term long·lemlmemory. onemory.These Theseknowledge knowledgestructures lruclurcsare aretermed lermed held knowledge structures are held to to inhere long-term memory. 'these claimed to have conceptual metaphors and are con eplual metaphors metaphor ((Lakoff (LakotT andJohnson John n1980,1999) 198<>.1999) 1999) and andare arc claimed claImedto10have hav conceptual Lakoffand and Johnson 1980, be manipupsychological reality. reality. In In addilion. addition, metaphors are held to to 10be bemanipureality. conceplual metaphors metaphorsare areheld psychological addition, conceptual conceptual (olkep laled ive dynamic meaning·con Iru tionprocess proc . known knownasas a,concepcon ep· lated by an an inelu inclusive dynamic meaning-construction process 2005). Theway wayinin lual blending blending (Fauconnier (Fau onnier and and Turner 1998, 2002; 2001; Grady Grady 2005). 200S). The The way tual (Fauconnicr and Turner 1998, predominantly been andprocesses processes have have been ludied has has predominantly predominantlybeen been which Ihese structures lructurcsand which these studied which these structures and processes have been studied has figurative language,particularly partitularly in in the the studyof 10 examine exam,"e systematicities 'Y'lemaliciliC\ in in figurative figuralive language, I.nguage. particularly Ihe study study of examine systernaticities to in of the conceptual metaphors. George Lakoti and Mark Johnson, the proponents conceplual metaphors.George eorgeLakoff LakotT and Mark Mark Johnson. the Ihe proponents proponentsof ofthe Ihe conceptual Johnson, ConceptualMetaphor Metaphor ludy of of conceptual conceplu.,1 metaphor metaphor and and Ihe architects archilect of of Conceplual Metaphor study conceptual metaphor and the the architects of Conceptual study of the existence ota aj Th ry. argue Ihal figurative figurauvelanguage language isisaaconsequence consequence of ofthe Iheexistence exi len eofof Theory, Theory, argue that that figurative language consequence see Johnson 1999; primary melaphors(Lakoff (LakotT 1999; see see unIVersal set sel f pre-linguistic pre-linguisli universal setofof pre-linguisticprimary primary metaphors metaphors (I akotl and andJohnson universal metaphors bothofof of also rady 1997), 1997). and and aa language-specific languagepecific set sel of of conceplualmetaphors, metaphors,both bolh alsoGrady Grady 1997), language-specific set of conceptual conceptual also conceptual structure, whith map map structure siructure from from more more concrete conerel domains domains of of conceptual conceplual structure, lruclure. which map structure from more concrete domains which of concep10 a source domain onto onlo I easily easilyapprehended apprehendedaspects aspecb of ofconcepconcep· referred to onto less kss easily apprehended referred to as as source domains., domains, aspects knowledge structual structure, structure, Together these lual truclure. referred referred to toas a target target domains. domain Together Together these Ih knowledge knowledgestruclructual referred as target domains. productive use hgurativt language. as 10 give ri\C both 10 Ih productive productiveuse U\Cofof offigurative figuralh language, languag.as as lures are arc held tures areheld heldto to give give rise riseboth bothto tothe the tures weU a to 10 more creative creative aspects, aspects. uch aas for instance (see LakotT well as as to more creative such aspoeti poetic metaphor. metaphor, for well aspects, such poetic metaphor, forinstance instancy(see (see Lakoff [Aka metaphors Turner 1989). More recently. il has been argued Ihal conceplual and Turner 1989). recently, it has been argued that conceptual and Turner 1989). More recently, it has been argued that conceptual metaphors and Lakoff ha,'r. neural in"anli.lion ( discussion di"u~ion I·eldon.n lOOt.; (;.11"", LakotT haveaaneural neuralinstantiation instant iition(see (see discussion Feldman 2006; (alkseand have ininin Feldman 2006; Galli:se 2o05;Lakoti Lakotiand 1999). 1005; LakotT and Johnson Johnson1999). 1999). 2005; and Johnson While the success of both Conceptual MetaphorTheory Fhcory and Conceptual Whil Ih ucc of halh ConccplualMetaphor Theoryand andConceptual n eplual While the success of both Conceptual the BlendingTheory Theoryprovides pnwide the in this chapter. llIending Theory pn!Vlde Ihebackdrop h.Kkdmp for forthe Ihediscussion di u~lon in inthis lhl chapter, (hapl .....the Ihe Blending the backdrop for the discussion analysespresented presentedhere hereare arcorthogonal orthogonalto, to,and, and,IIIargue, argue,•complement coniplementthe the .ip10. and. argu (omplemenl Iheapapanalr pn.""nled here arc orthogonal analyses Metaphor Theory proaches these theories.For Forinst.' instance, Conceptual Metaphor proach developed developedby bythese Ihesetheories. theories. I'or in lance. Conceplual MetaphorTheory Theory proaches MC, Conceptual

METAPHOR AND METONYMY MEIAPHOR METAPHOR ANt) AND METONYMY METONYMY

I FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT ANt) ruoU(;H =I IANGUAGF 1~8:;1,-_-,F IGU RA TIVE LANGUA~ E,-,A:.N::::!;:D~T~"!!O!!U:.:·G!!'.:.'T _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 282

metaphor unders understanding about melaphor metaphor is not not primarily (if at all) a theory i~ primarily (it (if theory about abo'" ... nding in in language. IJnguJj;". at all) is not with the Rather, Conceptual Metaphor Theory has traditionally been concerned with traditionally been Rather. nceptual Metaphor b«n the Rather, Conceptual Metaphor Theory reprcsentations—cognItivc nature and and the level of Cognitive nature and of the the various various cognitive cognitiverepresentations—cognitive representation 'ognitivemodels model. Various nature domains in terms of 5Ource in present terms—that serve serve to structure targetdomains domains in terms in present tn!lture target target terms of (Ifsource '>Ou«. serve to structure present tcrtm-that in heory is concerned domains. That That is. Conceptual Theory domain. iis, Conceptual Conceptual Metaphor Metaphor 'ITheory i a theory th ry concerned concerned with with domains. of how how language backstagecognition. cognition. What addition, addition, isiis aaatheory is required, required, in addition. backstage required. theory of of howlanguage language \\1iat is backstage wgnitiofl. What deploys and and with these these non-linguistic knowkdgc structures— deplo and interfaces mterfac with with th non-linguistic non Iingul tICknowledge knowledgestructures— trueture deploys understanding. the conceptual serviceof offigurative figurative language language th metaphors-in service service of languag understanding. understanding. the conceptual metaphors—in metaphors—in frontstagecognition. cognition.In this chapter, That is. require a theory addresses frontstage cognition. That iis, we requ addr fron~tage In this thi chapter, chapter. ire aa theory that addresses LCCM Theory.' ofof such anaccount fromthe the perspective U ( \lTheory.1 lheory.l attempt to to provide provide perspective provid such uch an aaccount count from from the perspec1iv of l.CCM II auempt attempt Phenomena in in Phenomena in need need of of explanation explanation Phenomena explanation account figurative language order to to be providean an IIJ( ( .M In order he able able to provide anLCCM Maccount a countofof offigurative figurativelanguage language In order able toprovide be addressed. In phenomena to be addressed. identify the phenomena understandingswe wemust must first identify understanding, understanding. mu t first first phenomena to he addr sed. In particular IIIaddress address the the the following: tollowing particular addr~ foil wmg:

283 283

the andthe thecognitive cognitivemodel model profileto which ont nt encoded encoded and the cognItIve mod Iprofile profile to which whi hititIt the hnguistie linguistic content encoded and affords glossed as IurwAKn MOTION atTord aaccess, c , might mighthe beglossed glossedas a (UPWARD IUPWARDVERTIcAL VERTI AL lOTIONBEFORE BEFORE NOW). affordsaccess, be VERTICAL MOTION BEFORENOWJ. NOW). (i) entity In the expression itali went "went ..m up, liP. relat which can undergo undergo In (.) ( t)the theexpression expression in italics, up.relates relatestotoan anentity entitywhich whichcan veridical n. Hence, llence. the an tlllerpret veridi...al actual) moti motion. sanctionsan aninterpretinterpretveridical (i.e., ((i.e., i.e.,actual) motion. Hence, the lexical lexical concept concept sanction sanctions

aflon to upward ation ""m up relates relates upward motion on the the vertical verti aI axis. axis. In the ation in in which which went went up up relates to motion on vertical axis. In the the second example in in (2) the As second th expr ion ""III lip relates the student's tudent' grades. grad As As we'flt second example expression went up relates to to the student's grades. grade's file' students grades II", slud"m's g",des refers nphy ical entity thus cannot an not undergo undergo the student's refers to to aan a non-physical non-physical entity which which thus veridical up would ..mllp would appear appear not veridi motion. expr ion went "went veridicalI motion, motion,the theexpression expression not to to apply apply ininthe thesame same way aas doesin (i). In way (.). "went ..III up lip refrrs refers to an improvement in inthe thestudent's tud nt' as ititit does does inin(1). In (2) (2) went refersto toan animprovement in the student's grades. Giventhat that ""III went up iis not being wemight might being used used in in its itsspatial spatialsense, sense. we might grades. that grades. Given Given went up spatial sense, informally its asbeing beingnon-literal non-literalor orfigurative figurative in nature. nature. informally describe uusage ge aas being non-literal or figurative in nature. informallydescribe describeits its usage Hence, oneof ofthe thechallenges challenges this chapter present Ilence. of the challeng ininthis thi chapter present anan LClf( .M account account of Hence, one in chapter isi is tototo present an ',CCM of figurative meaning construction construction whichcaptures c.ptur the th different ditTerentconceptions on eption assoasso figurativemeaning construction which captures the different conceptions assodated with in (1) and (i), and doing so while accounting for ciated with the two utterances ulleran III (.) and (2). and doing so while a counting for the two utterances in ( t) and (2), doing so while accounting for the quite different thesame sameexpression: expr ion: went lip. ditTerent contributionsofof differentcontributions ofthe expression: went up.

""m

Metaphor versus versus Metaphor veflUSmetonymy metonymy

literal and figurativeLanguage, language, between literal the distinction distinction hetween and figurative language. •• the th distlllClion the distinction distinction between betweenmetaphor metaphorand andmetonymy. metonymy. • the metaphor and th hetween

for these stakeinin inaccounting accounting II daborate elaborate belowon on54)I1IC some of on some of the the issues i u at .t stake stake ac ountmg for for these th elaborate below helow the issues at distinctions. distinct iOflS. di tinction. versus figurative versus figurativelanguage language Literal veflUS figurative language

ofmaking making principled While (;ihhs Gibbs warns against the possibility possibility Whil Gibb (t994) ('994) warns warn against again t the the po ibility of making aaaprincipled principled distinction between the two, pointing to the range of often contradictory the two. two, pointing pointing to the di tinction between hetween th the range range of of often often contradictory and cognitive scientists have defined ways ways linguist. philosophers, phtlosophers. and cognitive cognitivescientists ientimhave havedefined defined ways in in which linguists, for reasonable grounds are these assume there th will assume a ume for now that thatthere therearc arereasonable r sonable grounds ground for these notions, notions, II will will for now that supposing for intuition uppo 109 that there iissome basi for the intuition that there di tinction supposing that there there is soffiCbasis basis forthe the intuitionthat thatthere thereisIisaJadistinction distinetion between betweenliteral literal and andfigurative language, even drawing aa hard hard and and fast fast hetween literal figurative language, languag. even en ifif drawing hard and fa~t line line lb make make this point clear, between hetween the two may not notbe bestraightforward. traightforward. To To make this this point pointclear, clear, betweenthe thetwo twomay may not be straightforward. the consider went examples of 1)1 thefollowing followingkind: ""III up, liP. and examples eXJmpl~ of the following kind: con ider the the expression e pr . ion went expression up, went up (t) (s)) The rocket we'nt (. Therocket ""III lip (in (in the the sky) ky) course of of the the semester) (2) Thestudent's tudent'.grades grades went ..... ", up up (during the the course cour of the semester) mester) (1) student's grades wrist (z) The nativespeakers speakers ofEnglish I nglish informally Without aaaspecific cont xt, native natIVe peake ... of of rngli hinformally mformally pexific utterance uUeran e context, specific utterance context, (i.e., actual) actual)motion motionin in an upwards define went define Wc.'''' up relating 10 veridical veridical (i.e., J<.lu01I) inan anupwards upwartb relating to up as relating dehne weist Theory,we we cansay saythat the direction dir ·tion along thevertical verti alaxis. axi In terms ' MTheory, Theory. wecan thatthe the direction alongthe vertical axis..In Interms termsofofLC ofLCCM L( LM with aaalexical lexkal given concept vehicle vehide 'n'm up is iis conventionally conventionallyassociated a SO(:iatoowith with lexi 31 Concept con rplwhich, which,given s'ehidc went went up irresentation..ti nowled ge rt'pUW'nt.llkm,., nal met.iphot% IfldaJ9k)fland mdkknuwW U)nirp*UAI .hilt examine tomtit' , between •I I1I a.tw.U namllwthe dw rcw"unJlIp Mho.. n,orkept uorkt'l'lu.aJ mc1"I~h.·r .nJ eta.nune ihctart ri4atu'n'tup %LImcdby:CMTheor,intxcap. assumcd by1(<< L(( Mi Thc'i'ry. nw.J bY' l'bc-ury. in an t}w tht next 1lC:J.1 dwr'('f",

Secondly. weneed needtotobe beable ableto forthe theintuition intuitionthat thatmetaphor metaphor . onclly. we be able totoaccount acaccount ount for for the intuition metaphor and and Secondly, metonymy, the the two forms form of offigurative figurativ language languag which whi hhave hav received received most 010 t metonymy. metonymy, forms figurative language have received attention are auention in in cognitivelinguistics, Iingui ti •and andcognitive cognitivescience ienc. more moregenerally, generally. arc are incognitive cognitive linguistics, and cognitive science more distinct linguist ic and phenomena. with, with.presumably, pr umably. distinct di tinctsorts sort of oflinguisti and perhaps perhaps di tinct phenomena, distinct phenomena, with, presumably, distinct sorts of linguistic and inthe the conceptual operationsgiving giving rise tothem. them.An Animportant important conceptual ririseto them. An important objective objective in the conceptual operation operations giving chapter iis isto to develop developan anLCCM IA CM accountof ofthe themeaning-construction meaning-construction an LC M account of the meaning-con truction present present chapter proc ..... responsible respon ible for the figurative language phenomena ph nomen aoften oftendescribed described processes responsible forthe thefigurative figurative language language phenomena described processes as constituting constituting metaphor are exemplified by expresmetaphor and and metonymy. 01 tonymy. These Theseare areexemplified exemplifiedby byexpresexpr as These sions of off the thefollowing following kind: Slon th following sions

Metaphor a.My Myhossisa a. My boss bo is i apussycat p"ssrcal (3) pussycat (3) a. up b. The Thestudent's tudent' grades grades went ..."m up lip h. went Metonymy Metonymy a. France France the EU EU constitution Frallce rejected rejected the EU constitution con titullon ((4) 4 ) a. askedfor for the thebill The ham lID", sandwich lalldwic/I has h asked the bill b. The ham sandwich has

metaphorisis understood as involvingthe the intermod rn linguistics, hngui ti s. metaphor i often often understood und r tood as as involving involving th interinter· In modern as in pretation (or (orconceptualization) conceptualization)of oneentity entityin term of somethingelse, else.as asin in (or conceptualization) ofofone one entity ininterms terms ofofsomething something else, lily boss termsof ofaaapussycat, pussycator oran animprovement improvement in in student's grades terms my boss bo Sininterms terms of PflsS)'(ol, or an improvement instudent's tudent' grades grad in interms term an object object in motion. Metonymy Metonymy on the other hand often taken relate ofan in motion. motIon. Metonymyon onthe theother otherhand handisisi often oftentaken takentoto torelate relatetoto of referent other other than than the theone oneliterally literallydesignated. hr instance, aa referent referent than the one literally ddesignated. ignated.For for instance, in in (4a), (43). France Frallce instance, in (4a), France to the the portion portion electorate that voted against endorsing refers to portion of ofthe theFrench french electorate electorate that that voted votedagainst again tendorsing endorsingaa refers iii 2(K)5 rekrenduinheld held by the French Iuropean Union [urop.an Union constitutIon in In aa •texas lOOS referendum referendum held by bythe theFrench Iren h European Union constitution constitution restaurant scenario, andtwo twowaiting waiting staff governm nl. Similarly, Similarly. given given a.1 restaurant r lauranl scenario, cnario, and and two waitingstaff staff government. government.

__________ ONi MY METAPHOR ANt) ANll MEl Mf.:TONYMY METAPHOR AND METONYMY

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT

284 £ANGUA(;E AND THOUGHT ~!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____________________ FIGUkATIVI~

284

who talkingabout aboutaapani particular hart;sandwich sandwich refer refersto thecustc customerwho totothe refers ham talking ular eucustomer, tom r, /u""
ordethamsnwicrethosandwic. ordered the th~ ham sandwich rather than to the the sandwi h. Traditionally, metaphorhahasbt...,n beenthought thoughtof implicitcomp comparismo been thought as TradItionally, ofof ~asananimplicit implicit comp."">11.2 FraditionallV, metaphor has Examples uch suchaas astho those in (ia) (3a)making makinguse use of of the the predicate predicate nominati nominative predicate nominative Exampl making useofth .. vehicle 'chId thoseinin (3'1) t xamples such of which I shall have more to say below are the kinds of examples that are have more to say of which II shall shall have say below are ar~ the th~ kinds kind of ofexamples exampl that that are of which usuallyemployed employedto to support this perspective. perspective. and Johnson Johnson inin thm their u,ually uppon this thi per peetive. Lakoff (lakoff .. koff and .nd )ohn~n usually employed to support development of th the theoreti",1 theoretical con construct of the the conceptual metaphor ddevelopment .. clopment of truet of the conceptual (onceptual metaphor met.phor have have theorcikal of the subsumed a wider range of examples as relating to metaphor, to include examplesaasrelating relatingtoto metaphor, metaphor, to to indude in ide sub umed aa wider subsumed wider rang range of of exampl ample% of the following sort: •, exampl examplesof of the the following following sort: going s",oo,lIIy smoothly in the Thingsare arcgoing theoperating operatingtheatre theatre (5) Things (5) .r~ gOlllg operating theatre smoothly in th~ (s) Thing

was in a ,tat state of of shock shock the (6) He wa after the election result (6) ,hock after the election eI tion result r.. ult in a state of lIe was III (6) lie going from from bad toworse worse (7) The economy is going (7) fro", bad to '0 (7) The economy is goillg

As Lakoff Lakoffand and Johnson Johnson (t980) (198o)first first observed, examples as the
See Evans

.11111d Green (soon) for a felt' Ile% 5« Scc II ".am vain .nd and ((.rC'C'n ,rrcn (1006 ) fur.i fC"VM'W ) tier See the collection of paper in Barcelona 2( forinstance. instante. of papers in • ice lhe: In I%arckna !l.tn:dul\,l (2000) h · ...... ' fur In t .. ~t'. the UIUn.1Inn (I'

J

Ikilon

JUre"

2.85

285

intor— from metonymy function m taphor. Hence. \I~nce, whil wwemight might whilewe mightinforinformetonymyfunctions functions differently differently Cmm frommetaphor. metaphor. Hence,while for Y," 1w the same mally gloss metonymy as the rdation 111 which "X stand for V; by the the relation in which "\ stands null)' mallygloss glossmetonymy metonymyasas the relation in which "X stands for Y," by the same same Of V." the relation "X understood in terms token, metaph r is the .. lation"X tenns of V." token,metaphor metaphorisis the relation "X understood in terms of Y."

Assumptions Assumptions phenomena intmduced introduced above, tlefo ..proceeding prou'eding wtth an l LCCM eM of N1 account lkiore Before proceedingwith withan anLC( accountof ofthe thephenomena phenomena introduced .bove, above, the LCCM perspective assumptions. A consequence of II I first, first, briefly, present my. umption A consequence of the LCCM perspective first,briefly, briefly,present presentmy my assumptions. A consequence of the LCCM perspective arising the same and figurative i, that literal.nd figurative language.re seen as.ri ing from from m~processes proce isisthat thatliteral literal and figurativelanguage languageare areseen seenas as arising fromthe the same processes a Lx' seen aspoint pointslying lying along of meaning construction. In other word>, they can be!>Cen.s along. In other words, they can of ofmeaning meaning construction. In other words, they can be seen as points lying along a due to whoUy wholly different construction, rather than than being being due (continuum ontinuum of of meaning construction, con truction, rather du to to different continuum of meaning meaning wholly different particular as two meehani ms. Analogou Iy, metaphor metonymy,. particular exem~
guided by conwith meanings. iated with with figurative figurative utterances utteran es are .re guided guided by concon•• the the associated the meanings meanings associated figurative utterances are by literal extra-linguistic-—in the same way as text. both linguistic lingui ti and and extra-linguistic—in extra lingui tic· in the the same same way way as a literal literal text—both text—both linguistic and utterances ulteranc utterances •• there there continuity between figur.tive and and literal language language figurative and literal literal language between figurative there isiis continuity continuity between metaphor and metonymy there I continuity continUIty between metaphor metaphor and .nd metonymy metonymy continuity between there is is between •• there the nature of figurative isisaaaconsequence consequenc~ of th~ nature nature of of language •• figurative figurative languag~ language understanding understandingis consequence of the which is to say. the semantic representation representation .nd manti composition, compo ition, which whi h isi totosay, say,the the and representation semantic and semantic semantic in Parts literal language in Pan II me structures tructures and .nd proce as asdescribed ddescribed ribedfor forliteral literallanguag and processes processes as same structures same language in Parts Il\I and Ill Ill of the book. and \II ofthe th~ book. book. and of

understanding literal versus understanding Literal versus figurative language Literal versus figurative figurative language understanding conception—the refer toasas literalconception—the The di tinction between between what what will refer refer toto a aa aliteral conc~ption-the between whatIIIwill wtll distinction The distinction The the one hand, and a figura-

meaning. iated with with aaa literal literal utteraflcc—On utterance--{)n the th one onehand, hand,and .ndaafigurafiguraliteral associated meaning associated meaning utterance—on the with a figurative utterance—on tiv~ conception-th~meaning meaningassociated a i.tedwith witha •figurative figurativ~utterance—on utteranc...-onthe the meaning associated tive conception—the conception—-the tive which is activated during other, relates relates to to th.t pan of ofthe thesemantic scmanticpotential potenll.1which whi hisi activated activatedduring during of the semantic potential other, relates tothat that part part other, of a conception. While during theconstruction construction the proc of interpretation duringthe con tru tionofof. on epllon.While Whil aa• theprocess processof ofinterpretation interpretation during the a conception. which activates results inan aninterpretation interpretation literal conception canonically canonicaUyresults result inin interpretationwhich whichactivates .ctivatesaaa literal conception conception canonically literal the default, which say withinthe cognitive model, or orcognitive (ognitivemodels, model,within thedefault, default,which whichisIS i toto tosay say models, cognitivemodel, model, or cognitive cognitive conception artses when cogniprtmary, cognitive cognitiv model modelprofile, profile,aafigurative (onc~ptionarises ariseswhen whencognicogni profile. figurativeconception primary, cognitive model primary, model profile. Moreover, tive model are are. tivatedinin th~secondary ~ondarycognitive cognitive modelprofile. profile.Moreover, Mor~ver, the secondary cognitivemodel tivemodels models are activated inthe tive activated in Chapter 13, the more more the sense defined in hapter13,t,\.the th greater greaterthe theaccess accessroute route length,ininthe th sense sen defined defined th the greater the access route length, length1 more the in Chapter feel. theconception feel. figurativethe conceptionisis ilikely likelytotofeel. figurative conceptions1 in t~nn terms literal versus The b .. i di tin tion between hteral versu figurative figurativeconceptions, con ~ption in , in Thebasic basicdistinction distinctionbetween betweenliteral versus The terms posited by by LCCM l'benry, ofthe themechanisms melhani,n" ofof of meaning m aning construction construction posited po,ited L .eM Theory, Thl'Ory, meaning constructiOn the mechanisms by LCCM ofof in one the to a relal~, aaswe we begdn to tosee \t.'e in the theprevious prcYiou~chapter, lhaptcr.to a .tclash da hininone oneofof ofthe lh previous relates,as webegan began to see relates, in the

_I_ 286 286

METAPHOR METAPHOR ANt) AND METONYMY METONYMY

FIGURATIVELANGUA6F LANGUAGEANt) AND IHOUGHT THOUGHT FIGURATIVI

287 287

primarycognitive cognitive model model irotiks profilesofofthc thek\kil lexical conceptsin inthe the same same lexical (.1)nccpts prinury

Figure illustrates the the following. following. At At interpretation, intcrprct.ition1 the the primary primary cognitive Figure 14.1 14.1 illustrates cognitive model profiles for lexical concpts which afford access to s..onccptual model profiles for lexical concepts which afford access to conceptual content content The Principle and arc in the same lexical conceptual unit undergo matching. And are in the same lexical conceptual unit undergo matching. The Principle of(oneptual Coherence of Conceptual Coherencerequires requiresthat thataadash clashininthe thecognitive cognitive model model profiles profiles is avoided. of undergoing interpretation snterpretatft)n is avoided. of the the two two (or (or more) more) lexical lexical concepts concepts undergoing models The Principle Principle of ensuresthat thatprimary primary cognitive The of Ordered Ordered Search Search ensures cognitive models

sense of results in in literal literal and processresults of how how the the language language understanding understanding process aa sense figurativeconceptions1 conceptions, consider Figure Figure 14.1. 14.1. figurative

primary activation or undergo undergo matching matchingfirst. first. ItIfthere there is is a a match, match, primary activation of of one one or more more primary primarycognitive cognitivemodels models occurs. ItIfthere thereisisno no match match then then there there is is aa clash in the primary cognitive clash in the primary cognitive model model profiles profiles of of the the relevant relevant lexical lexical concepts. concepts. (ognitive model In In order ordertotoavoid avoidaaclash, clash,aa searchis is initiated initiatedin inthe thesecondary secondary cognitive model profile. profile. profile relates relates to to As in Chapter the secondary secondary cognitive cognitive model model profile As we we saw saw in Chapter to, to the knowledge it knowledge that that is is not not directly directlyassociated associated with withaa given given lexical lexical concept, concept, as as it As such, such, the site. As does not form form part does not partof ofaalexical lexicalconcept's concept'saccess access site. thesecondary secondary potential JvJilahle cognitive cognitive model model protile profile constitutes constitutes a a very very large large semantic semantic potential available

conceptual unit unit undergoing As we we shall sec see below, matching in interpretation. interpretation. As undergoing matching conceptual the distinction distinctionbetween between metaphor metaphor and metonymy. metonymy, from from the the perspective perspective of the LCCM Theory,concerns concernsthe the respective respective discourse function of each each type of function of l.( ;i. figurativelanguage languageunderstanding, understanding,and andhence, hence, the way in in which clash dash resofigurative lution functions functions in in terms terms of the being constructed. constructed. In order to get In order the conception ulneption being lution

Figurative conception conception

Literalconception conception Literal

Primary activation in in secondary cognitive cognitive model profile

Primary activation activation in Pnmary in primary cognitive model primary cognitive model profile profile

Match

pnrna ►y

cognott f2 models

1

Fusion (stage 2). Fusion (stage 2): interpretation interpretation

m pnm.rv

Clash Clash resolution: resolution: search search of secondary secondary cognitive cognitive models models

Fusion Fusion (stage (stage1): 1): Lexical concept Lexical conceptintegration inte9ration

Lexical Lexical concept concept selection selection FIGIT*1-14 14.1. Theory leading toliteral literal leading to I. Meaning construction processes ininLCCM Theory

versus oncept ions versusfigurative figuritive conceptions

the search search in in for l'he Principle that the for search. search. The Principle olOrdered of OrderedSearch Searchserves serves to to ensure ensure that That is. the the cognitive model the secondary secondary cognitive model profile profileproceeds proceeds in in aa coherent coherent way. way. That is the a match match based basedon ontheir their secondary secondary cognitive cognitive models models are are searched searched to to facilitate a

withthe theprimary primary cognitive cognitivemodels modelswhich whichform formpart partofof conceptual coherence coherence with alsoensures ensures the accesssite. site.Put Putanother anotherway, way,this thisprinciple principlealso the lexical lexical concept's concept's access relative that secondary cognitive models modelsare aresearched searchedininthe theorder orderofoftheir their relative that secondary cognitive "distance" activation access. Hence, Hence,secondary secondary activation "distance"from fromthe thepoint pointofoflexical lexicalaccess. "upwards" through cognitive model modelprofile profile until until aa continues "upwards" throughthe the secondary secondary cognitive secondary match is is achieved, achieved,giving givingrise risetotoprimary primary activation activation of ot one oneor ormore moresecondary match cognitive models. the In order familiar examples relating to to the In order to to illustrate, illustrate, II consider consider by by now now familiar examples relating from the the utterance utteranceinin(8) (8) lexical concept concept [FRANCE].AAliteral literalconception conception arises arises from (ia).By Byway wayof of figurative conception for the while .ia figurative while conception arises arises for the utterance utterance in in (y). iJ presented in reminder, the the partial partial cognitive cognitive model modelprofile profile for for I FRANCE] presented in reminder, presious chapters is given given here here as as Figure Figure 14.2. 14.2. previous

(8) (8)

Literal conception Literal conception France has has aabeautiful beautiful landscape landscape France

(9)

Figurative concept conception Figurative ion Irance rejected the EU constitution constitution France rejected the EU

A literal literal conception arisesfor forthe thefirst first example exampleby byvirtue virtueof ofaamatch matchoccurring occurring A conception arises between the the informational informational characterization ofof (BEAUTIFUL and the the between characterization [BEAUTIFULLANDSCAPEJ LANDSCAPE' and primary cognitive mxlcl profile Asinterpretinterpretaffordsaccess. access. As primary cognitive model profileto towhich which(FRANCII I FRANCE]affords and an an I IRAN( i I and lexicalconcept concept 'FRANCE] ation relates, relates, in in the the utterance utterance in in (8), totoaalexical ation informational characicrization IFUI LANDSCAPFJ, these informational characterizationassociated associated with with(DEAlt I imAtrrinit. LANDSCAPE', these being the only ckments in this utterance which are associ.*ted with conceptual being the only elements in this utterance which are associated with conceptual profile assu,iatcd content, aa search search takes takesplace pl.t& inin the content, the cognitive cognitive model model profile associated

288 i88

tlTAPUOR AND METONYMY MI APHOR AND METONYMY METAPHOR ANDMETONYMY

THOUGHT AND THOUGHT AND 1 lIOt(,IIT FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE ANO Fi(,t'ILATIVE

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

CONSTITUTIONAL CONsnTUnONAL STITUT1ONAL ICON SYSTEM SYSTEM

P

-

[FRANCE] [FRANCE)

{FRANCE] for Ii(rRANerl KANE 14.2.Partial Partial(ognll'vc cognitive model cognitive model IFIGURE It,CRE '4.1. PUII.I mod I profile for FIGLkI 4.2.

ANDSCAPEJhaving having [LANDSCAPE] and ILANDSCAPE) (BEAUTIFUL) With as the the lexical concepts [FRANCE], .ts wilh IFRANc:E), as lh lexical lexicalconcepts con eptsI IBEAUTIFUL) with IFRANCEI, BEAUTIFULI and characterization. undergone interpretation undergone inlerpretation have formed an inforn,alionalcharacterization. charaet rizalion. undergone interpretation have haveformed formedan aninformational informational availableas as search domains. IHence, tense, their cognitive Hen e,lheir model profiles profil are a~ no nolonger assearch arch domains. domai n>. their cogOllive cogjlitive model profiles are longeravailable The FRANCE]. for I FRAN( F). profile Hence, a search occurs in the primary cognitive model profile for arch occur Hence, a search occurs inIhe the primary cognitive cognitive model profil for I FRAN E). The and Ordered Search serve to ensure Principles of (onccptual Concept salCoherence Principles of Search PrinCIpleofConceplUal Coherenceand andOrdered rdered. archserve serveto 10ensure ensure aa match malch FRANCE'. the primary cognitive model profile of IIrRAN for (8) in in the th primary primarycogititive cognitivemodel modelprofile profileof ofIFRANCE). EI· (onceptual CoherCoheractivation In terms lerm of of primary aClivalion in Principle of ofConceptual Conceplua) oherprimary activation in (8), the the Principle Principle cognitive model model for NDM ASS ence that GEOGRAPHICAL LANflMAS% enee en ure, that Ihal the Ih GWGRAPIIICAL LA LANDMA S cognitive cognilive model for fo r the 4IIO(JRAPHICAI ente ensures matches primary That iis,,lhi this [FRANCE] IFRANCll receives IIvallon. Thai cogniliv model matches mal(he, IFRANF1 receives receivesprimary primary aactivation. activation. this cognitive cognitive model This the informational characterization associated with"beautiful "beautifullandscape". landscape".This Ihe informational inforn,alional charaCierizalionassociated associaledwith with "beaUlifullandscape". This between theinformational informationalcharacterization characterization andthe the follows follow as "' there Ihere is i, aa clash d"h between bel ween the Ihe informalional characlerizalionand Ihe FRANCO: [IrRAN' other cognitive model profile for olh r cognitive cognillve models model in Iheprimary primarycognitive cognilivemodel modelprofile profilefor forIFRAN(E1 I): models in the the primary the conception conception which NATION HOLIDAY DESTINATION. STATE, and 1I0LlOAY DESTINATION. Ol$TlNATION. Hence, Hen (', the the con eplion which whi h NATIONSTATE, STATE, and HOLIDAY Hence, arises as activation occurs solely solelyin inthe the primary primary cognitive .ri for i literal hleral as aelivalion occurs occurs \olely in Ih cognolive arisesfor for (8) (8) is literal model model profile. mod Iprofile. profil • modelsin in the the all In contrast, conlra\l, in there is between .11 all the (9) there Iher i a clash cia h between bel"cen th cognitive cognilive models model lhe contrast, in (9) I(,FRANCE] primary cognitive rrotile andthe theinformainformaprimary cognitive associated promary coglllllYe model model profile profileassociated a "xialed with wilh [FRANCE) "AN' , ) and Ihe infornlJ with"EU "EU constitution". constitution". E)uc toapplication application tional Due lional characlcril.lion associated aassociated so<:,alcd with wilh "EU conslllUllon". Ou to 10 applicallon tional characterization Ordered Search, this gives gives rise of this of the Ihe Principle of ofConceptual ,oneeplualCoherence Coherenceand andOrdered rdercdSearch, reh,lhi givesrise ri the Principles Principles of Conceptual Coherence model isis identified established. to. .lr
289 289

cognitive model. in ach,eve pnmary a(lival,on, IheElECTORATE "ELECTORATE I (:T()RATI cognllive lIen(e, in achieves primary primaryactivation, activation,is"isthe the cognitive model. Hence, Hence, (u), cha racteri ia t ion associated (9), ~ Uowinginterpretation, inlerprelalion,the Iheinformational informalional characterization ialed (9), following following interpretation, the informational characterization associated with iticallvdue due10 tohighlighting, highlighting,that that wilh I[FRANCE] rRANC t) is iis that Ihal .specifically ~Ifically highhghling, thai with(FRANCEJ that of"eI«torale", of "electorate",and and spec due to "portion which voted voted'non' 'non'in in the the lOllS zoos lU constitu"pori ionof ofthe IheFrench I·rench electorate e1cclorale ,oted in Ihe con lilu"portion the French electorate which 2005 IU EU constituH TORATEcogOlti,·e cognitive model model is is secondary cognition referendum". referendum': As A the Ihe El ELECTORATE model i aa secondary ondary cogniELECTORATE cognitive live thi means means that lhal i figurative figuralive in nature. tive means that Ih the con«plion ionception is tive model, this the conception figurative in in nature. nature. In um, the Ihe fining feature ~ alure of a literal hlcral con«plion i, that Ihal matching mal hingoccurs O(cur defining of literal conception is that matching occurs In sum, suns, the d defining feature of a conception is in lhe primary primarycognitive cognilive modelprofiles profil of ofthe Iherelevant relevanllexical lexi alconcepts. concepts.The The The in the primary cognitivemodel model profiles of the relevant lexical concepts. of aaa figurative figurative coneeplion onception is clash inthe theprimary cognitive defining fealure of figuralive is aaa clash clash in in Ihe primary cognitive cognllive defining feature feature of conception is model profiles profil of ofthe Iherelevant relevanllexical lexicalconcepts concepl necessitating nccessllalingclash da h avoidance, avoidance, profiles of the relevant lexical concepts necessitating clash avoidance, primary activalion activation cognitive model profile profile of and hence primary in the secondary SlXondary profile ofone one and hence activation in inthe secondary cognilive cognitive model of one (or more) (or ofthe Ih relevant relevanl lexical lexical concepts. concepl . more) of of the concepts.

Metaphor Having JU justI illustrated illustrated literal and figurative concepIlavlOg illu>lrated the Ihe distinction dislin(lion between belweenliteral hleral and andfigurative figuraliveconcepconcepHaving just the distinction between lion, nowprovide provideaaasketch kel hof ofthe themeaning-construction meaning-con IruCiionprocesses proce Ihal give give tions,! that give tions, IInow now provide sketch of the meaning-construction processes that first of all consider metaphoric conceptions rise to metaphoric metaphoric conceptions. 'onceptions. IIIfirst rise melaphoric conceplion,. fiN of ofall all consider con ider metaphoric melaphoric conceptions con
that the entity \\bat is in Whal i strikingly slrikinglyfigurative figuralive about aboul the Ihe example exampl in in (3a) (J3) isiisthat Ihal the Iheentity enlily What is strikingly about the example (3a) not normally normally member boss designated designaled by by my Illy boss bo s is i. not nol normallytaken laken as a being being a member of ofthe Iheclass cia designated my taken as being aa member of the class of pussycats. However,the thepredicate predicatenominative nominativevehicle vehicle normally taken taken as of pussycats. pus ytwl kt..I"hllrTheory. rtw. ..·v InInInparticular, J\lrtltuLlIr, _hilt cntkrptWll orthogonal nwtaph4)rsare archypothesized hypo*hesircdto tostructure structure primary cognitive models. terms ol language understand mct.arhnn .arc.' hvrvthbllN III n\kturt primary rnnury (l'5"IIIV(,models, ""MId inin Interms tt'TPltof ttflanguage L..n~understandul'kkr ...nd metaphors ins nbc a"a "l.&.-\h model pio6k(s,)of of the ing figurative tiguralive hJUr.. II\ Language ~J Ulfk"t"r''''M In ttk pnmarV rrunuy cognitive U,,"III\(' model mo.ldd profile(s) rwhl .,(the lhting conceptions Inutlw involve clash ifl in the the primary kzkal contq'ts undcqoing tUUOn The reLitk)flship metaphors ...... ".llu"'('1'1 unJcorll.1Inllu'i(ln Ilk' n:t..ttOntoh,p MWft'n nlt'tolrho —whKh WhKhstructure tnklutc.' lexical concept% undergoing tusiam. The relationshipbetween between u.n..q.tu..l conceptual metaphors--which andhence henticontain tontirn knowledge - .snd hgurativeLanguage kr pts and ...ihsira&t h<.tr.... ' ,,,e uln,",1" an.1 honkC' w tnknowledge kh
In,

29() 290

MEIAPHOR AND MFIONYSIY METAPHOR AND METONYMY

LANGUAGI ANI)TI1oL(;IIT FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT

thecopular copularor "link involvesthe [his vehick utterance in in (to) (io) involves This vehicle exemplified exemplified by the utterance "apianist". pianist". The nominal with aa nominal, nominal1e.g., e.g.,"a which combines combines with be which verb be ing" verb .is the the essential essentialpart partofoft the dausal predicate: predicate: "is "is a pianist". The function functions as he clausal wnventionally paired with with RE BE in this symbolic symbolicunit unitis to of the lexical concept conventionally "my boss bossisisaamember memberofofthe Namely, "my rcLit ion t(Langackcr signal Langacker isgia). Namely, signal aa stative stitive relation situation which which persists persiststhrough throughtime. time. class t.Jassof of pianists; pu1mits aasituation as, in in the normal course of samecannot cannothold hold for for the example example in in (3a) as, The same That is, is, the theperson evcflts, someone's someone s boss bosscannot cannotliterally literally be events, be aa pussycat. pussycat. That boss is not normally taken to be aa member expression my boss designated by the expression of pussycats. pussvi.Its.The Ihe metaphoric metaphoric conception conceptionwhich whichthis thisutterance utt of the class of gives rise riseto toisisderived derivedfrom from aaproperty property which which is is usually usually associated asstxiateciwith with gives pussvc.its.namely namelythat that they they are areextremely extremelydocile docileand andoften oftenaffectionate, and pussycats, and thus not not frightening frightening or or intimidating intimidating ininany are anyway. way.Ininthis thisutterance, utterance, we are being asked asked to to understand understand the boss bossnot not in in terms terms of of being being aa pussycat, pussycat,but but in in terms of exhibiting exhibiting some some ol of the properties properties and and behaviours behaviours often often associated associated with pussycats as manifested manifested towards towards their their human as being being with pussycats as human owners, owners, such as docile, extremely extremely friendly, friendly, and thus non-forbidding non-forbidding and perhaps easy easytoto docile, conception might might he contrasted contrasted with with the conception manipulate. Such a conception such as: as: which might might derive derive from froman an Lltterance utterance such Mvboss bossisisan anogre ogre (n) (ii) My

metaphoric conception conceptionderived derivedfrom from(1f) (ii) involves understanding understanding the the The metaphoric bossin in terms termsof ofextreme extremeferocity, ferocity,aaproperty property associated associatedwith withthe themythical mythical boss reiture referred creature referred to to is as an an ogre. ogre. metaphoric conception The Yet how how does does the metaphoric conceptionassociated associated with with(3a) (3a)anse? arise The 1c :M approach thesimisimiLCCM approachtotofigurative figurativemeaning meaningconstruction constructionallows allowsUs us to to see see the betweenmetaphor metaphorand andthe theliteral literalpredicate predicatenominative nominative larities and differences differences between examples suchasas(to). (io).An Animportant importantpoint point of of similarity sinulanty relates relates to to the the process processofof examples such fusion crucial for meaning construction,involving involvingboth bothintegration integrationand andinterintermeaning construction, pretation. As noted in the previous section, pretation. As section, figurative language, which metalanguage, of which Meta phor phor is a subtype, diverges from literal language useininterms termsof of the the sorts sorts of of access access is subtype, diverges from literal language use routes itit provides, provides,and andspecifically specificallyprimary primaryact activation cognitive routes i vat ionininthe thesecondary secondary cognitive prohks of which is is undergoing undergoing clash clashresolution. resolution. model profiles of the the lexical concept concept which In an utterance such such as as"My "Mv boss thetwo tworelevant relevantlexical lexical In boss isisaapianist", the conceptsfor for interpretation interpretation are Ihossi This follows follows as is these theseare are concepts [Boss] and IPIANISTI. 1PiAsfisrl. This the utterance utterance which have access accesssites sitesand andthus thus the only two lexical concepts ininthe provide direct to conceptual conceptual content. Interpretation Interpretationproceeds proceedsby by provide directaccess access to modelsin in the theprimary primary cognitive model model profiles profiles attempting to match cognitive models ated with lexical concepts conceptsas asguided guidedby bythe thePrinciple Principleof of associated with each each of these these lexical Coherenceand andapplication application of of the thePrinciple Principle of Ordered Search. Search. Conceptual Coherence achievedininthe theprimary primary cognitive model modelprofiles profiles of of each eachlexical lexical A match is achieved concept. That That is, itii isissemantically semantically acceptable to state that My boss is a pianist concept. pianist human and humans can be pianists. The betause the referent of my my boss boss isis aa human because

291

intuitivelyfeels feelsliteral literalisis reason, reason, then, the,i,why whythe theconception conceptionassociated assotiatcdwith with(to) (io)intuitively that the access accessroute routeisisrelatively relativelyshort, short,limited limitedtotothe theprimary primarycognitive cognitivemodel model afford access. which both both[Boss] Ii,ossland and[PiAsiisT] afford access. profiles to which Now let's consider how how the the metaphoric metaphork conception arises.In In the theexample exampleinin conception arises, fla), the ofinterpretation interpretation leads leadsto toaaclash clashininthe theprimary primarycognitive cognitive (3a), the process process of wheremetaphor metaphordiffers differsfrom from and PUSSYCAT]. This is where model profiles of 'Huss! and literal class inclusionstatements. statements.AA partial partial primary primary cognitive model profile profile cognitive model literal class-inclusion for nossj is provided provided in Figure for I'Boss] Figure 14.3. 14.3. primars cognitive model modelprofile profile for for IIRossi the very veryleast, least, The primary Bossy includes, includes, at the ognitive models models relating relating to to the the fact fact that that aa boss bossis,is,typically, typk all, a human being, being, cognitive concerning what what is is and the complex body body of of knowledge knowledge we we each possess concerning bosshas hasparticular particular pastoral pastoral responresponinvolved in in being a human being, that a boss with respect to those thosefor for whom whomhe heor orshe sheisisline-manager, line-nunager,asiswell wellas as sibilities with the boss boss managerial responsibilities and duties, both with with respect respect to those those the organizationfor for manages.the thesubordinate(s), subordinate(s),and antithe theparticular particular company companyor ororganization manages, extremelylarge largenumber nuntherof of an extremely whom the the "boss" "boss' works. In addition, there are are an stondarv cognitive these,only onlyaafew fewofofwhich which secondary cognitivemodels modelsassociated associated with with each each of these, being, particular, by by virtue virtue of of being being a human being, representedininFigure Figure14.3. i.e. In particular, are represented sorts, in in bosshas hasaaparticular particular personality and exhibits behaviour of various sorts, a boss part contexts and andsituations. situations.In In part aa function function of of his/her his/her personality, in various contexts addition, each bossexhibits exhibitsaaparticular particular managerial style, which which includes includes addition, each boss behaviours with with respect respect to to those those the the boss boss maninterpersonal strategies and behaviours docilewith with respect respectto tothe the ages. The boss bosscan, can,for for instance, be aggressive aggressive or or docile ages. The subordinate. Moreover, Moreover,there thereisisaacliched clichédcultural cultural model model of ot aaferocious krotsous and and subordinate. aggressiveboss, boss,who whoseeks seeks keep employees their toes"bybyvirtue virtueofof aggressive totokeep employees "on"on their toes" aggressiveand andbullying bullying interpersonal interpersonal behaviour. By contrast, a boss boss who whoisis aggressive relatively treated as asaacolleague colleaguerather rather than than a superior superior relatively placid placid and and can can thus be treated may he somewhat salient salient with with respect respect to to the the stereotype.' stereotype.' be somewhat

BEHAVIOUR

PERSONALITY

114 JUAN

I FIGURE

14. ;.

E X PE FIJI NU OF MANAGEMENT NIT SuBORCANATE)

CONTROL OF SUBORDINATE

pn.Iik for iI,iosst Partial cognitive niot.kl profile Rossi I'.trtial primary cognitive

way ICMs It 51.. can can nietonymitAlly mctn.iymkalIy Øvr lie Intoprnlolype cffcils, Sec 14k1,ttl Likors {1987) diuo,sion of(the the war give rise prototype effects, (lq$7) tluscussum

► ino%. rcfrrrtkc p1ioiflls. as - Lognstive reference by bervanK .6%

-

-

292 2 291 29

FIGURA T I VE 6 LANGUAGE LA NG UAG£ AN ;.:D ~ T;.; ".;; O.;; U.;; G;.; II;..;T_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ FIGURATI' AND THOUGHT FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE 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]

profile r.for model profil. Partial model profile for 1pussycmi F",l'" '4.4. P.rIl.1 iognitivc C08Il1t; .. modd r EPISSYCATI [.l·S YCA TI IFIi.URI 14.4. I4.4. Partial

for fftossJ cognitive model concept Just Ie ieal con ept for [80 sl has ha a sophisticated sophi tt ated cognitive cognitive model model Just as as the Just as the the lcxkal lexical concept [Ross] so too too the which the lexical lexical concept potentially profile to profil whi h the lexical concept concept potentially potentially .iflords afford access, ace ,so the profile to which affords so (lb(tssycAlJ provides access toaaawide wide range range of knowledge kxical concept provides [I'U ~Y(. AT I lexilal provid a,,~ wid range of ofknowledge knowiL-dge 1PUSSYCAT] lexical access to to provided A very tructures. A profil isi provided providedin inFigure Figurei44 t4.4. structures. very partial partial cognitive cognitive model profile in Figure 14.4. The lexical lexkal concept [PUSSYCAT] relates totocognitiv cognitive models having to do The [pu SYCATI relatesto cognitivemodels models having Al I relat with, at skal attributes, including UlIl emlllg physical physical attributes, including includingbody bodyshape 'hape with, at least, least, knowledge concerning shape sue, diet and andeating eatinghabits, habits,patterns patternsof ofbehaviour, pussycat's status, and size, ize, diet and eating habit, patterns of behaviour.and andaapussycat's pu yeat' status, tatu. behaviour, culture, as household pet pet of of choice choicefor formany many people. people. terms in W"'tem culture. of choice for peopl .In Interms term in Western culture, a as the the household of secondary cognitive models, models, thereare arcaaanumber numberthat thatrelate relateto toour knowof 'ondory cognitive model. there there are number that relate to ourknowknow sociated wilh sorts of ofbehaviours behaviourspussycats pu yeats exhibit. exhibit.For Forinstance, instan e. ledge ledge aassociated assudated with the sorts of behaviours pussycats For instaflcC, ledge with S ' also also exh.hlt animal behavbehav of certain certain kinds kinds including including hunting, reproduction and soforth. forth.Finally, Finally, in luding hunting, hunting. reproduction reproductionand andso Finally. iour> iours of pussycats alsoexhib.t exhibitsocial socialbehaviour, behaviour,including includingbehaviour behaviour towards towards other yeat also «xial behaviour. including toward, other other pu pussycats also exhibit conspecifics, and towards human~. Ilence. social SO<.ial behaviour behaviour is is aJ con;peeific>. and behaviour towards toward humans. humans. Hence, Hence, those of cognitive mod I related related to at at least lea t two two primary primary...ognitive cognitive models: model: those tho of of cognitive model primary cognitive PATTII RNS RNS OF 01111 IIAVIOUR and HOl: itousi111010 11011)PET. PIT. PAll 81lfAVIOliR PIT. PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOUR HOUSEHOLD arisesdue dueto toaaafailure failure to to in (3a), In e.. mple in ( 1J). aaafigurative ligurative conception conception arises ari to failure tu figurative In the the example cognitive model model profiles associated establish match in in the the tablish aaa match match the primary primary cognitive cognitive model profiles profiles associated associated with with establish conceptsrelevant relevantfor forinterpretation. interpretation. the thetwo two lexic.1 lexical concepts [80s [Pl" weATI., the relevant for interpr tation. I Boss[ iiossjI and and (PUSSYCAT], IPLssy(:Al cognitive model model I lence,aaaclash clash ours leading lIen..:c. dol h tKlUr ICJding to to aJ search \Cdn..h in in aaa secondary «ondJry cognitive logniti\'c mtxlcl Hence, occurs leading profile.. In partkular fur clash profil In LCCM 1eeM Theory. th particular particularlexical lexicalconcept con ept selected ... Ietted for for clash clash profile. Theory, the lexical concept selected resolution, and and hence. hence, for primary primary activation cognitive for activation inthe the secondary rC"Allutinn. activJtion in thesecondary ondary cognitive cognitive resolution, hence, (or m ..del profile* pmlik. Iis ",ntextually 'J'l'his hi, isi, formalil a, the model profile, is contextually determined. This isformalized formaliiedd as as thePrinciple Principle model Clash Resolution. This states thefollowing: of Context-induced Context ·induced Clash d. h Resolution. R oJution.This Thisstates tatl">the the following: [

METONYMY METAPHOR AND METONYMY METAPHOR

293 193 293

Principle Clash Resolution ( I'" Prin iple of ofContextContext induced inducedClash Cia h Resolution Re,olution 'I1 of context-induced i)) ) Principle where clashresolution resolutionisiisrequired, the lexical ea re clash required. the con eptwhose who In concept whose lexical concept In cases cases wh where clash secondary i searched arched to resolve the theclash cia hisis i profile is to resolve resolve the clash secondary cognitive cognitive model profile searched context. This This isi achieved achieved byestablishing establishing determined Th. is achieved by establishingaaafigurative figurative determined by context. offcontext. conlext.The Th lexical lexical target and and aa figurative figurative vehicle, vehide. on on the th basis ba i of figurative context. The lexical target vehicle, basis that isi.is established asthe thefigurative figurative vehicle vehicle isis subject to clash clash concept that eestablished tahli hed as as the figurative i subject ubject to cia h resolut ion. resolullon. resolution. lhe utterance in ()3) II am am assuming a uming aaadiscourse discourse context in which th In assuming discoursecontext contextin inwhich whichthe the In the the utterance utterance in (3a) speaker has been been di discussing their boss. such acontext, context the figurative target ,pe.ker has u ing their their 00 . In In such u h aa, ntext.the thefigurative figurativetarget target been discussing target for for short) short)isis I~the theboss, 00 • as a this thi iis the topic or or theme themeof ofthe theutterance. utterante. (or target this is the topic theme of the uflerance. the boss, as Informally, the something "about" boss. Infom.ally. lhe point ofthe theutterance utterance isis to to say saysomething something"about" "aoout" the theboss. 00 . Informally, the point pointof of the utterance say 6 hom this thi it follow that that the th figurative figurativ vehicle vehide (or (orvehicle vehidefor forshort"), h rt ).isIs i the lh it follows figurative (or vehicle for short6), the From pussycat. ( ruciaHy,ititit is is the the secondary secondary cognitivemodel niodd profile profile vehicle, pu y at. Crucially. 'ondary cognitive model profile of ofthe thevehicle, vehicle. pussycat. Crucially, is the here [PUSSYCAT], I I'tssYcATI, searchin inorder orderto here Ipus YCATI. rather lhe target. undergoes order to ratherthan thanthe thetarget, target,which whichundergoes undergoes search facilitate resolution. In fa ililat clash lash resolution. other w rd • the the prin ipleinin(p11) (pit)serves serves to to facilitate clash In other otherwords, words, the principle principle (pH) serves determine which secondary cognitive cognitive model profiles ofthe the lexical lexi al concepts' concepts' secondary cognitive modelprofiles profile isis i detem.ine which of of subject search. subject to search. Retore discussion of the the example examplein (3a), consider '.ontext Before con luding the discussion di u ion of of in (3a), ()3).consider con ideraacontext conlext Before concluding actually speaker. in making making the the utterance utterance provided in in (3a) in utteran e provided provided tn ()3) isIs isactually actually in which whi h the the speaker, peaker. in talking about bemoaning the the fact that, that, due due to to an an extremely lalking aooutlheir pu yeal and bemoaning lhe fact lhat. anextremely talking about their theirpussycat pussycat fussy and and awkward awkward pet. pet, the speaker's speaker's life is, in certain respects. constrained by (on trained by fussy awkward peaker's life iis,• in respects. constrained respects, the "demands" "demands" of of on. In In such the at for food. affection. attention. In such u h. "demands" of their their cat cat forfood, food, affection, affection, attention, attention, and and so so on. aa the cat cat owner owner might might enario. the lhe eat owoer mightsay: y: Mv Myboss boss isis PUSS}'Cat. Thi interpretation. scenario, say: My boss is aaa pussycat. pussycat.This This interpretation, interpretation, which III refer cat" interpretation for by a~ the the "bossy "00 y cat" by the the r fer to to as refer as interpretationisisalso also accounted accounted for Principle 1110551 Prin iple of of .on text inducedClash la hResolution. Resolution.InIn Inthis thicase, a it• it itis isithe the 180s I Principle ofContext-induced Context-induced Clash Resolution. this case, the [Boss} rather than lexical concept the figurative figurative SYCAT] lexical becomes lhe figurative rather lhan the the (PUSSY;ATJ rather than [ [pu PUSSYCAT] lexicalconcept conceptwhich whichbecomes becomes the vehicle, hence whosesecondary secondarycognitive cognitivemodel modelprofile profileisiissubject subject vehicle. and hen e whose who secondary cognilive model profile ubject toto and hence search and hence henceclash clash resolution.Moreover, Moreover,the the [PUSSYCAT] IN'SSY;ATI lexical ... arch and lash resolution. resolution. Moreover.th [pu sYcATllexical con cpt search and lexical concept concept becomes thefigurative figurative target target as theinterpretation interpretation represents represents anattempt attempt to to becom lhe figurative largel aasthe the interprelation represent an attempt becomes the somequality quality to aascribe ribe some quality 10 "pu sycat". to the "pussycat". Ihe interpretation clash between theprimary primary la h between between the th primary The interpretationarises ari aas follows. follows. i aa clash interpretation arisesas follows. There There is is cognitive in the the cognilive profilesassociated associatedwith withI ROSS! [80 I and andI PUSSYCATj [pu Y ATI as aasin in cognitive model modelprofiles profiles associated with [Boss] [PUSSYCAT' canonical interpretation describedearlier. earlicr.With Withthe the "bossy interpret"00 ycat" cat"interpretinterprel canonical interpret.ti n described described earlier. With the "bossy canonical interpretation ation, arisesdue dueto tocontext: the speaker their pet at ion. the the difference difference arises ari du to context:the thespeaker peak risiisdescribing describingtheir theirpet pet hence, theutterance utteranceis "about"their their pet pet their boss. Theprinciple principle 00 .The The prin iple hence. utterance i is"about" "aoout" their pet rather rather than than their lheirboss. hence, the given in (pit) (pu) that the litoss! concept treated as the figura[00 Ilexical lexicalconcept conceptisisi treated treatedas a the lhefigurafigura given (pit)ensures ensures that that the the [Boss] ensures tive vehicle. That is, receives an informationalcharacterization characteri,ationthat that loosslreceives r eivesan an informallonal charactemation that vchide. i •!Rossi informational relates not to an adult human in a workplace scenario, but rather any relates an adult adult human human inina aworkplace workplacescenario, scenario. but rather rath r any any relates not not to an organism organism that exhibits that toconstrain andthus thus restrict a th.t serves rve to to constrainand and lhu restrict serves organi,m exhibit behaviour behaviour that given human's freedom in certain respects. This is achieved by conducting .n certain
-294 294

FIGURATIVE LAN(aA(,IANDTHOL(,IIT nc;uRATlvE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT

--

——

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ METAPHOR ANDMETONYSIY METONYMY METAPHOR ANt) AND METONYMY ~.::!.ETAPHOR

primary aitivation to restrictive rest rkiive behavi relating to primary "cllvatlon activationotofaa cognitive cognitive behaviour cognillVe model model relating relalmg 10 r Iriclive behaviour and an prai.t ice. praClier. practice.

The grades went The student's student's grades gradeswent wentup up student's the kind kind of metaphoric 'ow let leI's consider con ider Ihe ofmetaphoric melaphoric conception con eplion associated a. i.led with wilh Now conception .issodated with aann Now let's intransitive motion grades Wt?st intransilive mol ion vehit.k: vehide: The TIlt s"IIIft/'s grades grmlN went W(/I'up. lip. metJ phnri application of ofth PrinCIple ofConceptual Conceptual volves which is isis guided by Coherence to to ensure ensure aamatch matchisis achieved. ThePrinciple Principle of Ordered Search Coherence ensurr match i achieved. achieved. The The Prin ipl of ofOrdered OrderedSearch Search Coherence ensures that anempts .ittempts en ures that are made to match match in in th primary primarycognitive cognitivemodel modd match inthe the primary ..tgnitive niodel ensures that attempts are are made made irttiIes before profiles before proceeding thesecondary secondary cognitive profile!>. Due Due to to profiles beforeproceeding proceedingtoto tothe cognitive model model profiles. profiles. to of Context-induced communi.. the Context-indu ed Clash Cia h Resolution, Resolutjon. given that that the the communicommuni . the Principle Principle of Context-induced c.itive intention quality to it isis cative to ascribe a ribe some some quality to the thestudent's student' grades, grades. it the cative intention isis to ascribe isthe lexical con concept [wi NT up) ti'I lexical ept [WENT IWFNT which designated as aasthe the figurative vehicle vehicleinm thefigurative concept uP1which whichisi\isdesignated inthe the hen e which which undergoes und rgoes the thesearch search operopermeanmg con truction process, proc • and meaning construction which construction process, and hence hence undergoes cognitivemodel modelprofile. profile.AA partial partial model ation ils secondary secondary cognitive cognitive model profile. partial cognitive cognitive model modd ation in its secondary went up up below in Figure Figure for went profile (or wrrl/ lip is i provided below below in rigure14.5. 14.5. 14.5. we see, [WI NTup) upj affords affords aaccess to knowledge relating As w wesee. see,Iw ENT UP) As WENT relating to aa physical ph icaJ entity entit y phvskal that of motion, motion, and and the the motion isisdirected directed against gravity on motion. the motion motionis directedagainst ag.rinst gravity oon nthe the that iis capable capable of that is capable the vertical represent atat of of thethe primary cognitive inodds verti aI axis. axi reprrsent least three th primary cogniti"e models vertical axis.. These These represent atleast leastthree three of primary cognitive models

BENEFITS DUE TO INCREASE INCREASE

/

IMPROVEMENT

~/ INCHEASF IN iN INCREASE

295 195

10 which IWfNT upl afford uiJ affords [WENT UPI affords to which

aaccess. cess. Therr are, additIonally. mall number There are, are, additionally, additionally, aa small number first relates secondary cognitivemodels models illustratedin inFigure Figure of secondary cognitive cognitive modelsillustrated iUustrated Figure i4.s. '4.5. The first relat to of secondary 14.5. cases everydayinteraction interactionwith withour envirIN(:REAsI IN QuANrIrY. In In many cases IN REA P IN ases in inineveryday everyday inleraction with ourenvirenvir· INCREASE !N QUANTITY. QUANTITY. being locatedfurther further up on the vertical axis correlates withan anincrease inrease onthe thevertical v rtllalaxis axi correlates correlat with with mcrease unment.being bemglocated furtherup upon onment, there m quantity—for quantity-forinstance, instaner.the thehigher higherthe thelevel I 'eIof waterin gla the themore morrthere th rr in quantity—for instance, the higher the level ofofwater water ininaaagLiss. glass, these cases, anincrease increasein inheight heightcorrelates correlateswith an increase i\. In In each each of ofthese thesecases, cases, an an increase in height correlates withan anincrease increaseinin in is. concerns thebenefits benefitsthat thatnaturnatursecondary cognitive cognitive model modelconcerns concernsthe Ihat natur· quantity. AA further furthersecondary aUy of greater greater quantity. instaner. pile of oforanges orange!> accrue by by virtue virtue of oranges ally accrue quantity. For Forinstance, instance, a higher pile correlates WIth with more oranges, oranges,which whichcorrelates correlateswith withmore morefood foodand and thus greater correlates which correlates with andthus thu greater greater with opportunity fur ftc greater liquid relates glassrelates relat upportunlty fornourishment. nouri hmen!.The The greaterthe theamount amountof for nourishment. greater the amount ofofliquid liquidininIIIaaaglass glass receive refreshment, refreshment, and SO forth.In Inaddition, addition,there therris alsoaaa ability to and so soforth. In isi also also to greater ability to receive receive MINT which ofIMPR0VI IMPROVfM[NT whi h derives derive from fmm an in \C(ondary cognitive cognitive model IMPROVEMENT which derives from an increase increase in secondary model of of quantity. Improvement as positive, in in this instance Improvementrelates relatesto toaaachange change evaluated evaluated as a positive, positive. inthis thi instance mstance quantity. Improvement relates to change nicasured incre~ i.~., one point in time timemeasured measured increasein inamount, amount, over over time, time, i.e., i.e.,an anamount amountat atone onepoint pointin time an increase in amount, against inincreased 'reased amount atataaalater later point. .IgarnsLan anincreased amountat laterpoint. point. against Cia h resolution achieved by th secondary of Clash achieved by virtue virtue of the secondary cognitive cognitive model model of of resolution is achieved virtue primary Improv ment achieving a hieving primary primary activation. Thi provides providesaaamatch matchbetween between improvement activation. This This provides between associated with DES' and the informational characterization chara tcrildlionassociated associatedwith with I(srtIII-NT's sTunfNT's GRA (iRAIlES) the informational STUDENT'S This atlords the secondary ognitlve pmfil which IWlNT upl affords afford access. ace .This Thi the secondary secondarycognitive cognitiveprofile profileto10to which (wi NI uP] upi the which [WENT example figurative conception, example provid figuralive con eption. as involv clash da h resolution in in aaa provides aa figurative conception, as it involves in secondary
Metonymy Earlier I now turn, tum. briefly, briefly. to to the lC M account account of metonymic m tonymi conceptions. con eptlons.Earlier briefly, the LCCM LCCM account of following as instances metonymy: in this presented the following followingexamples examplesas a instances in tan esof ofmetonymy: metonymy: this chapter chapter1I presented examples

rejectedIhe theEU Eli constitution (4) a. Iraisce Frarl" rejected rejected con tltution France the (.3) a. (4) for the thebill /ramsandwich, !Ilrldw;c/r has ha asked aasked ked for the bill b. The Theham ham sandwich h. The

QUANTITY OUANTITY

PHYSICAL ENTITY PHYSICAl.

VECTOR UPWARDS VECTORUPWAROS MOTION MOTION

[WENT UPI JWENTUPI

145. FIGURE 14.5.

up) l'artial modelprofile profile Partial cognitive cognitive model forfor I wENT LIP!

AlONG ALONG THE VERTICAL AXIS AXIS VERTICAl VERTICAL

example in (4a) earlierin inorder orderto illustrate I provided LCeM analy i of earlier in order to illustrate illustrate provided an an LCCM LCCManalysis analysis ofthe theexample examplein in(43) (0) earlier processes involvedinindedc the distinction th di tin tion between between the th meaning-construction meaning-con tructionprocesses processesinvolved involved dedistinction between riving literal associated withutterances. utterances. Inthis this figurative conceptions conception associated a sociated with wilh ulleran es. In In thi; nving literal and riving literal and figurative figurative conceptions Withhas hasasked askedfor forthe the section II will consider the example in in (4b), (4b).The TI,e ham /ralll sandwich sarldlVlcillras for til will consider saud The ham the example I'ill, are derived. brl/. in order illustratethe th way metonymicconceptions conception are arederived. hill, in orderto to illustrate illustrate the way metonymic metonymic conceptions we saw sawwith with the the earlier earlier analysis anal sis of of the example examplein in (4a) (4a)and theanalysis analysis of analy", in (43) andthe anal isofof A w th As we metaphoric conceptions, what common to to both both metaphor metaphor and metonymy metonymv in in metaphoric conceptions. what iis COmmon common is that that meaning meaningconstruction construction involvesprimary primaryactivation activationof of ( M aaccount I.C count,is con truction involves involves primary activation of the ILCCM that cognitive nuxiels in the the sewndary cognitive model profile of of particular lexical cogllltivc models model, in .he secondary 'IC<""dJrycognitive u>gnitivcmodel modelpmtile ofaaaparticular particularlexical I xical profile Ilence, clash resolution required, which thedistinguishing distinguishing feature lien e, clash cI. h resolution rc ,Iution isis i required, required. which isis i the di tinguishingfeature feature concept. Hence, opposed of hgurative as opposedto toliteral literalmeaning meaningconstruction. construction.In order to to illustrate illustrate the Inorder ortler illustratethe .he offigurati"e a 0Pl'0>«l to Iiter.1 meaning construction. figurative as hetween a a metonymic metonymic distinction )tlt. eption and and metaphoric iOflS di~'inctiol1 between bctwl'Cn J mclunymi,.; conception lOIlt.:cplion mct~lphori(concept (om:cption\ metaphoric conceptions the example examplein in (4h). (4h). consider the let' conSIder in (4b). discussed earlier, let's

296 296

The Ham Sandwich Has Asked for the Bill Bill The Ham Sandwich Has Asked for the In an utterance of thi% kind the relevantelements elementsthat thatafford afford access to access this kind the relevant Inconceptual an utterance SANDWICH{ andthe content are the lexical concept (HAM SANPWI(II1 and the lexical the kxkal concept (11AM 1onceptual contcflt concepts (ASK Foal and !ma As (ASK FOR] and (mil form a simpler lexical Iokj and (fILL j. As (Ask FokJ and (full formasimpkrl concepts (ASK conceptual unit than the entire utterance,by byvirtue virtueofofthe theprinciples principles o unit than the entire utterance1 integration, these lexical concepts undergo interpretation,giving givingrise riseto toan an concepts undergo these informational characterization.The ThekxkJl lexical concept (HAM SANDWICH ] then concept (11AM SAY'il)WI( ul then informational characterization. informationalcharacterizacharacterizaundergoes interpretation in conjunction with the informational in conjunction with the undergoes interpretation tion "asked for the bill". However, there is a clashbetween theiflfflrIfl1ltiOfl1II informational However, there is a dash betweenthe "asked for the tion characterization, and the primary cognitive model profile of (HAM SANDand the primary cognitive model profile of (11AM SANI)wicii I. After all, a ham sandwich is not, normally,..onceived conceived of of as as an an animate animate sandwich is not, normally, After all, a ham W1 iu(. entity that can ask for the hill. ask for the bill. entity that Due to the Principle of Context-induced Clash Resolution, the customer of Context-induced Clash Resolution, the customer I)ue to the Principle who ordered the ham sandwich is identified as the figurative target, and the s.indwich is identified as the figurative targets and the who ordered the ham ham sandwich is identified as the figurative vehicle. Accordingly, it is the kientitied as the figurative vehick. Accordingly, it is the ham sandwkh is cognitive model profile associated with the lexical concept (HAM SANDWICH] associated with the lexical contept (11AM SANI)WICHI cognitive model profile which becomes the site for clash resolution. Following the Principle of for dash resolution. Following the Principle of whkh becomts the site Ordered Search, the search region for clash resolution is expanded to take Ordered Search, the search region fur dash resolution is expanded to take in secondary cognitive models associated with (HAM SANDWICHI. partial A partial models associated with (HAM SANDWICH]. A in secondary cognitive cognitive model profile for (ham sandwichl is provided in Figure 14.6. 14.6. cognitive model profile tor (ham sandwichl is provided inaFigure In this example, clash resolution is achieved by virtue of search occurring In this examples clash resolution is achieved by virtue of a search occurring in the secondary cognitive model profile of (HAM SANDWICH]. The cognitive model profile of (11AM SANDWICH ). The cognitive in the secondary cognitive model which achieves primary activation is that Of RESTAURANT CUSTOMER. model which ashieves primary activation is that of RISFAUILANT CUSIOMER.

COW-AM VI

CAFE/RESTAURANT CUSTOMER

SHOP

CAFE/RESTAURANT

INGREDIENTS

VENUE

[HAM SANDWICH]

APPEARANCE/ COMPOSIT ION

Metaphor Metaphorversus versusmetonymy metonymy

i

I4.h Partial cognitive model profile for HAM SA/440%61'14M I Fu(.uutI 14f'. Partial cognitive model profile for 114AM sAwnwI(:H)

hut not

pointed out that

it has often been As Asobserved observedearlier, earlier, it has often been pointed out that metonymy, but or entity serves to stand for, not referential function—one metaphor, has a metaphor, has a referential function—one entity serves to stand for, or "ham sandwich" serving to identity the particular identity, identify,another, another,asasininaa "ham sandwich" serving to identify the particular scholars have In contrast, previous ordered the ham sandwich. customer customerwho who ordered the ham sandwich. In contrast, previous scholars have of particular target in terms metaphor serves to frame a variously variouslyargued arguedthat that metaphor serves to frame a particular target in ('u terms stoflof ,tu!(e.g.,Clucksherg and Kevsar 1990; isa novel Carston novel categories, e.g., My job is a jail (e.g., Glucksberg and Keysar 1990;That k. Gentner et aL, aooi). Juliet is the sun (e.g., 2002), et Al., zool). That is, 2o02),or oranalogy. analogy,e.g., e.g., Juliet is the sun (e.g., (,entner might very loosely refer to as a predicative function.7 n'Ietaphor metaphorhas haswhat whatwe we might very loosely refer to as a predicative function.' distiIKtion between metaphor Irom the From theperspective perspectiveof ofLC(.Nl LCCMTheory Theorythe the distinction between metaphor whether the figurative target and figurative vehicle and andmetonymy metonymyrelates relates to to whether the figurative target and figurative vehicle clash resolution site corresponds to and hence whether the exhibit exhibitalignment1 alignment, and hence whether the clash resolution site corresponds to metaphoric reconsider the lb illustrate, let's the the figurative figurativetarget. target. To illustrate, let's reconsider the canonical metaphoric In thts example the of My boss is a pussycat. "docile the "docileboss" boss"interpretation interpretation of My boss is a pussycat. In this example vehicle is (PUSSYCAT). Following and the figurative figurative figurative target target is is [BOSS) and the figurative vehicle is PUSSYCAT I. Following Resolution, the cognitive model Context-inducedClash (lash Resolution, the of Context-induced the cognitive model the Principle Principle of is the clash resolution sitc the figurative vehicle, profile profilefor for(PUSSY(:ATI, ( PUSSYCATJ, the figurative vehicle, is the clash resolution site: cognitive model takes place here. activation primary primary activation1)1 of aa secondary cognitive model takes place here.sandwich" In the "ham 'this differs with withrespect respect to to metonymy. metonymy. In the "ham sandwich" situation differs This situation determined by corresponds to the figurative target1 as example, the the "customer" "customer corresix)nds to the figurative target, as determined by example. and the figurative vehicle Context-inducedClash (iash Resolution, Resolution,and the Principle Principle of Context-induced the figurative vehicle contextually salient elements sandwich". I lowever, both correspondsto tothe the"ham "ham sandwich". However, both contextually salient elements corresponds profile associated with a single lexiciil concept: model profile are accessed via via the the cognitive cognitive model associated with a single lexical concept: js alignment, in a single cognitive model other words, there (11AM sANnwI(:uI). In other words, there is alignment, in a single cognitive model HAM SANDWICH I. In resolution and vchkle. Hence, the site of profile of the figurative figurative target profile of the target and vehicle. Hence, the site of clash resolution for the figurative target: corresponds to to the the access accessmute routefor corresponds the figurative target: "customer". divergence in metaphor and metonymy. Theory reveals In sum, l.C( NI In sum, LCCM Theory reveals aa divergence in metaphor and metonymy, regular meaning '.Ofltheapplication applicationofofregular which emerges asan an outcome outcome ofofthe which emerges as meaning conwhich arc labelled as "metoFigurative conceptions struction mechanisms. mechanisms. Figurative conceptions which are labelled as "metostruction facilitating direct .tueSs to the thefigurative figurative vehicle vehiclefacilitating nymic" arise arise due due to to the nymic" direct access to the figurative vehicle and target in the alignment of the figurative target target due due to to alignment of the figurative vehicle and target in the figurative profile. In contrast, "metaphoric" and cognitivemodel modelprofile. samelexical lexicalconcept conceptand cognitive same In contrast, "metaphoric" figurative vehicles and targets divergence between conceptionsarise arisedue duetotoaadivergence between figurative vehicles and targets conceptions distinctlexical lexical concepts. concepts. acrosstwo twodistinct across My that the "bossy pussycat" intcrpretatiOfl ofMy Basedon onthis thisdiscussion, discussion,we wesee seethat Based the "bossy pussycat" interpretation of metaphor-like, in the sense that there is nondiscussedearlier earlierisismetaphor-like, puss fiossisisa pussycat discussed in the sense that there is nonboss and vehicle. After all, in that interpretation, the alignment of the figurative target alignment of the figurative target and vehicle. After all, in that interpretation, the vehicle and hence the site of clash is the figurative lexicalconcept concept [Rossi is the figurative vehicle and hence the site of clash lexical Yet, the "bossy pussycat" AT) is the figurative target. resolution, while resolution, while (PussvcATI is the figurative target. Yet, the "bossy pussycat" While this interpretation does intuitivelyfeel tedmetaphoric. While interpretationdoesn't doesn'tintuitively this interpretation does interpretation

di'.

nwtaphor'

o( ihc typc

tujiiJ

I akotl

i h.it theLIV■ Of ill 4.TOSS-d1:10141t1 on.sppings -con. tilt inctaphors").01"thr type singled 1-ikott kmdbthan thoic the ti ■ %lc that different 1w t s) -4 is mdII tlinvon, iu*uwnias exemplified by1wthe ci,milvk s in Iand And,cntncr. (0471 appear to be ota different kind than thi ► ,e Anil Larstofl. mcboLu'such asasCanton, t Am ( 'winner. !1tudicdbybyscholars %Imbed .masn

(

-

i4.t

297

METAPHOR AND METONYMY

1fl.URATIVF LANGUAGI AND TI1OL(IHT

SHOP CUSTOMER

297

MI 1APIII)K A\I) METONYMY

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT

ala

29$

298

METAPHOR ANt) Ml IONYMY

METAPHOR AND METONYMY

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT

FI(L'RATIVE LANGUA() AN!) THOUGHT

constituteaafigurative figurativeconception1 conception, given given the operationalized the way way tigurativity figurativity isisoperatu LCCM Theory,involving, involving,isasititisis does, dots, primary activation of of a seconda primary activation Theory ICCM of undergoingmat matchin cognitive model in One the cognitive model profiles undergoing tt)gnitiv(: model in one of the cognitive model profiles the interpretation is somewhat atypical, from the perspective perspective of of the the canonical the interpretation is somewhat atypical, from the discourse function associated with metaphor. As we have seen, metaphor nordiscourse function associated with metaphor. .\s we have seen, metaphor mally has a predicative function: it says something "about" a Subject or Them e. mally has a predicative function: it says something "about" a Subject or Yet, in the "homy pussycat" interpretation, the predicative interpretation interpretation is at Yet, in the "bossy pussycat" interpretation1 the predicative odds with the organization of the linguistic content as it emerges following odds with the organization of the linguistic content as it emerges integration. That is, while at the level of linguistic content lexical concept integration. That is, while at the level of linguistk content lexical integration leads to the I Boss, lexical concept having the semantic value value of integration leads to the Itiossi lexical concept having the Subject, interpretation leads to a conception in which the utterance serves to 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 attribute the quality of bossiness to the "pus at", the figurative target in this interpretation, rather than the "boss". lor Forthis thisreason, reason, there there is is what what we we might might interpretation1 rather than the think of as a mismatch between the the output of lexical concept integration on one output of lexical concept integration on one think of as a mismatch between hand, and interpretation on the other. The net result is that such an interprethand, and intctprctatiofl on the other. The net result is that such an interpret ation is unlikely to feel metaphoric, although the utterance is figurative, in ation is unlikely to feel metaphoric although the utterance is figurative, in present terms. present terms. In the final analysis, metaphor and metonymy, rather than being neatly In the final analysis1 metaphor and metonymy, rather than being neatly identifiable types of figurative language, are terms that have been applied by identifiabk types of figurative language arc terms that have been applied by differentscholars scholars to to aa range overlapping and and sometimes sometimescomplementary complementary different range of of overlapping figurative language phenomena. What emerges from the LCCM attountisisthat that figurative language phenomena. What emerges from the LC( N1account the intuitions that lie behind the use of these terms for data of particular kinds 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 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 chapvarious sorts olconstraints (the principles identified in this and earlier chap ters). mechanismsand andprinciples principlesgives givesrise rise ters). Moreover, Moreover, the the application application of of these thesemechanisms to a range of figurative conceptions which, in terms of discourse functions, are to a range of figurative conceptions which, in terms of discourse functions, are continuous in nature. That is, from the perspective of language understanding, continuous in nature. Ihat is, from the perspective of language understanding1 while there be thought thought of ofas as symptoms symptoms of metaphor and of metaphor and while there are are what whatmight might be metonymy, there is not always aa neat that can can be be made distinction that made that that serves serves metonymy, there is not always neat distinction to identify where metaphor ends and metonymy begins. to identify where metaphor ends and metonymy begins. What is not figurative language

What is not figurative language

In some accounts ofoffigurative examplessuch suchas asthe the figurative language language phenomena,' examples In some italicized lexical items in each of the following examples are taken to he italicized lexical items in each of the following examples are taken to he metaphoric in nature: metaphoric in nature: (12) a.a.That is a loud shirt That is a loud shirt (12) b. They have a close relationship h. Ihey have a tIos' relationship c. She isisininlove love c. d.d. That took a longtime time That took a long ed by the Praggleia/ tiroup develop For instance. we the metaphor identification criteria A%as dcvdopcd Gruup by the see the 1-or (20071. Seeustante, also disco...ion in papers in Itarcel ► na Imono). in in pipers See

299

299

coloured shirt, close while long relatestoto.in anemotional emotionalstate state while long emotional "closeness", ininrelates relates relates totoemotional relates extendedduration. duration. relates totoextended relate to distinct lexical ( NI Theory, such From Fromthe theperspective perspectiveofofULCCM Theory, suchusages usages relate to distinct lexical figurative Language concep()IKCptS rather rather than concepts thanbeing beingdue, due, for forinstance, instance, to to figurative language concepconventionally established lexical tions. has at atleast least two two conventionally established lexical long has tions.For Forinstance, instance, long SPACI) IN IlOKI/ONTA! long. with the concepts conceptsassociated associated with the vehicle long. !EXTENDED IN HORIZONTAL SPACE! i NOED During lexical concept selection the OURATI0NI. and I EXTENDED DURATION]. Dining lexical concept selection the 'EXTENDED and(EXt clash in the primary thereby avoiding 1)URATIONI lexical concept concept isis selected, selected, thereby avoiding aa clash in the primary DURATION! lexical U DURAl loNi and (TIMEI. (lxii model profiles profilesassociated associated with(EXTENDED DURATION! and [TIME'. cognitive model with conventionally Evidence has (at (at least) least) two two distinct distinctlexical lexicalconcepts concepts conventionally long has Evidence that that long examples such suchas asthe thefollowing: following: issociated associated with itit comes comes from examples

use of ofloud /out/ refers referstoto.iabrightly brightly coloured shirt, close theseexampk's. examples, the the use I In n these

(13) 110

a.a. AAlongkiss long kiss h. A h. A long long book hook

physical length—a duration, not to physical "Long" "Long"inin"long "longkiss" kiss"relates relatestotoextended extended duration, not to length—a

(13b), we are not, or extendedin inspace. space.Similarly Similarlyin in(13b), Liss kiss cannot, obviously, be extended we are not, or

book, hut rather with an dealing with with an at at least least not typically, dealing an oversize oversize book, but rather with an relating to Ii XII N DED Understanding the form long extended reading time. time. Understanding longas as relating to I EXTENDED extended reading the form discussed in

lexical concept concept selection, selection, as as discussed in relates to to the the process process of of lexical relates DURunderstanding we select the the (ExTENUED (Ihapter ! EXTENDED DURChapter u. iI. During Duringlanguage language understanding we select (BooKi as with the the lexical lexical concept conceptI BooKI ATIONI !Mical lexical concept conceptin in conjunction conjunction with as ATION! guided by context. Of coherent conceptions as facilitating provision of most facilitating provision of most coherent conception, as guided by context. Of with which these two forms helped by by the the frequency with course, we are helped which these two forms collocate conception. Collocations of this kind which and are associated associatedwith with this this very conception. Collocations and of this kind which collocations. In the conception I refer to as concept provide aa pre-assembled conception I refer to as concept collocations. In the provide collocation. represents aa concept concept collocation. time represents sameway, way, long long time same coLlocations such as "long Theory account, concept collocations In view of the the LCCM LCCM Theory account, concept such as "long as involving "metaphor?' in the appropriately thought of time" are not, then, time" then, appropriately thought of as involving "metaphor," in the resolution, as online process of clash do not result from the sensethat that they they do not result from the online process of clash resolution, as sense metaphors" is highlyconventional conventional"lexical "lexicalmetaphors" described above.This Thisview viewofofhighly described above. is of Metaphor Uypothapproach developed in the Career consonantwith withthe theapproach developed in the Career of Metaphor Hypothconsonant Mapping builds on on the the Structure Structure Mapping ;entner2005), 2005),which whichbuilds esis(Bowdle (Bowdleand andGentner esis Gentner et a!. Dedrc Gent ncr (e.g., 1988;(knitter Approachto tometaphor metaphordeveloped developedbybyDedre et al. Approach Gentner"metaphors" (e.g., 1988; are treated as highly conventionalized 200%).InInthat thatapproach, highly conventionalized "metaphors" are treated as 2oo1). with the whichare areconventionally ..onventionatlyassociated with senseunits unitswhich being polysemous sense being the "lexical look-up" which are accessed via a and which are accessed via a "lexical look-up" "base"term, term.here, here, long, long, and "base" structural alignments and inference probyestablishing establishingstructural process,rather ratherthan thanby process, alignments and inference proI his aspect of the I(( 'M base and target. jections (mappings) between a jections (mappings) between a base and target. This aspect of the LCCM Giora (2003). In her the work of Rachel perspective is also consonant with perspective is also consonant with the work of Rachel Giora (2oo3).meanings In her examples of "figurative" work, (iora demonstrates that certain work, Giora demonstrates that certain examples of "figurative" meanings and can be 1wstored storedininmemory memoryand associatedwith withlexical lexicalitems itemsappear appearto to be associated can he "literal" meanings. moresalient salientthan thanso-called so more "literal" meanings. I)UI4ATION DURATION)

;00

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOL(;HT THOUGHT AGE ANt) FI(;URATIVE

From theLCCM perspective, the theinteresting interestingquestion questionin in such cases is how h cases rorn the LCCMperspective1 became conventionally conventionally associated an ( EXTENDED DURATION] lexical concept became an [ExTENI*1) DURATION I lexical concept Recentwork workon on semantic semantic change pioneered by Elizabeth long.Recent with the the form formlong. with Closs Traugott (e.g., Traugott andl)asher Dasher2004) 2004) has argued that thai situated has argued Closs Fraugott (e.g., Traugottand implicatures (or (orinvited invitedinferences) inferences) can can become "detached" "detached" from their conimplicatures texts of use and reanalysed as being distinct sense-units—lexical concepts in texts of UsC and reanalysed as being distinct sense-units —lexical present terms—which arc associated with a given vehicle. Intuitions, by som e present terms—which are associated with a given vehicle. Intuitions

scholar,texmpsarfigutvebd,1sgoniterfscholars, that these examples are figurative are based, I suggest, on ence of contextually irrelevant lexical concepts, in the case of of our our example examplethe ence of contextually irrelevant lexical concepts1 in the HORIZONTALSPACEJ. SPACE). II assume lexical concept concept (EXTENDED assume that that such interlexical Li XT1-NI)lL) ININHORIZONTAL ference can can occur occur when when the temporal restrictions on language language processing processingare ference the temporal in the the theoretical theoretical practice practiceof oflanguage language scientists is the the case in scientists who relaxed, as relaxed, as is often appear appearto toanalyse analyse such such expressuns expressions without withouttaking taking(any) (any)account account Of of their often In actual actual conversation, conversation, II would would argue, argue, talk usage context(s). 9 In "long time" talk of aa "long usage is hardly hardly ever ever felt is felt to to he be figurative.") tigur.it long might DURATION] lexical concept concept associated The [EXTENDED might be associatedwith with long The [i XTENI)IL) DURATIONI lexical whichreference reference to historically derived derived from fromcontexts contexts of of communication communication ininwhich historically length can can be be understood as reference duration without without harming expresexpreslength understood as reference to to duration sion of as in about"long 'long in communication about sion of the the communicative communicative intention, intention, as journeys". Through repeated repeated use meaning, in use of of this this form, form, with with the the inferred inferred meaning1 in journeys. Through 20°0),fl 11 long such bridging contexts (Evans and Wilkins 2000), it is plausible that it is plausible that long such bridging contexts (Evans and Wilkins developed of decontexlexical concept by I)(KAIIUNJ lexical by virtue virtue of developedanan(EXTENDED DURATION] tualization (Langacker 1987). tuahzation (Iangackcr 1987).

Summary Summary This chapter has figur.itivc lanlanIhis chapter has been beenconcerned concernedwith withan anLCCM LCC\t account account of of figurative guage particular, the the chapter chapter addressed addressedthe thedistinction distinction guageunderstanding. understanding. In In particular, between a literal conception—the meaning associated with a literal utterliteral utterbetween a literal conception—the meaning associated with a ance—on conception—themeaning meaningassociated ance—onone onehand, hand,and andaafigurative figurativeconception—the with aa figurative figurative utterance—on utterance—onthe theother. other.While Whileaaliteral literal conception conceptioncanoncanonically results in an interpretation which activates a cognitive model, or model, or ically results in an interpretation which activates a cognitive cognitive models, Iflt)delS,within withinthe thedefault, default,which whkh is js to to say sayprimary, primary, cognitive cognitivC model conception arises arises when when cognitive modelsare are modelprofile, profile, aa figurative tigurati'c conception cognitive models activated in the secondary placewhen when activated in the secondary cognitive cognitivemodel modelprofile. profile. This This takes takesplace there is a clash in one of the primary cognitive models involved in interpretin one of the primary cognitive models involved in interpretthere is a ation. suchthat thatmatchmatchation. A A clash clash results results in in enlargement enlargement of of the the search searchdomain, domain,such ing profile associated .tssociatedwith withone oneof of ing takes takes place placein in the thesecondary secondarycognitive i.ognitivemodel modelprofile some cases, context serves to determine which the In some eases. context serves to determine which therelevant relev.int lexical lexical concepts. oncepts. In • Sec Leezenhcrslumil and metaphor theimportante Imporlanteof context contextininmetaphor iooo) for for diskussion discucsu,n ofofthe and Stern (woo) See understanding. understanding f See Bowdle and GenIner (200i) (.f the thetirades, (,radcdSaliense SaIicn4eI ► pothesis oiii (ioos) for fur •a related u4atedperspective (41. ' 6

Sec Iiowdk md

Giora. e.g.. 14, ► ' ). ;Iora. e.g.. 199;').

(;haptcr "Retail kccaIithe thedissussion ininChapter

11

S.

--

MEtAPHOR METAPHORAND AND METONYMY

301

301

the Principle Principle of1 captured by the lexical lexicalconcept concept is is the the site site tur for clash clash resolution, resolution, captured further t:ontext-induced introduced in in this this chapter. chapter. A A further Context-induced Clash Clash Resolution, Resolution, introduced associated with with distinction distinction in function associated distinctionmade made was was the the distinction in discourse discourse function It was argued tigurative figurativeconceptions conceptions referred referredto toas as metaphor metaphor and and metonymy. metonymy. It was argued to whether whether there alignment or what that thatthe the distinction distinction is is due due to there is is alignment or not not between between what While the hallmark was referredto toas as figurative figurative target target and and figurative figurativevehicle. vehicle. While the hallmark %.as referred symptom of of metaphor is that there Is divergence between of metaphor is that there is divergence between the the two, two, the the symptom

Iheor predicts is that that there there is is alignment. alignment. In In general terms, LCCM Theory metonymy is general terms, predicts mechanisms are responsible for literal and that of compositional compositional mechanisms arc responsible for literal and thatthe thesame same set set of not ininfigurativelanguage language understanding. understanding.Hence, Hence, figurative figurativelanguage language does does not Rather, itit is is continuous continuouswith withliteral literal volve volve aa distinct distinctmodule moduleor orset setof ofprocesses. processes. Rather, language language understanding.

THE SEMANTK.S OF OF TIME TIME TIl SEMANTICS THE

15 The semantics of Time domain: Ihe the domain domain of toto aaa single In Ihi chapter chaplCf 11.1Theory Theory ingle domain: of [(CM In this this apply L LCCM Theory10 single domain: the domain chapter I1 apply Time. A Tim. oflen taken laken to 10 he be an an instance in. lanc. of ofan anabstract ab Iract domain, domai n. Time. As Time instance of an abstract domain, Time. Time is often to be 'xcdllcizte,~lru(lu~ed structuredin interms termsof ofcontent contentfrom from more concrete dostructured in P'" excel/filet. lerm~ conlenl from _more more concrete concrele dodo.par excellence, relationforinvestigating investigating the relationmains such such as as Space, Spa e. it Itit provides provide an an arena arena for for onvestlgatong the relallonmains Space. provides concepts) and lexical representations (e.g., linguistic hip between between linguistic lingui tic representations representation (e.g.. lexi al concepts) concept) and and ship (e.g., lexical ship the perspective perspective of models) conceptual rcprcseflt.itiofls representations (cogmtive (cognitive model) models) from from conceptual representation from the the per~pe"'ve of ofaa colheptual single domain. Hence, Hence, my strategy strategy in this this chapter chapter Is to explore specific ingle domain. Hence. my my trategy in chapter is i to to explore explnreaaaspecific pe ilk single domain. domain (Time), (Time), structured figuratively1 rather than than aaatype type figurative dnmain (Time). structured siructured figuratively, figuratively. rather ralher Ihan type ofof offigurative figurallve in semantic metaphor). I1 do do so so in order to investigate phenomenon (e.g., (e.g .• metaphor). metaphor). in order orderto toinvestigate inve"igale semantic semantic phenomenon (e.g., in the the representation, rather rather represenlation. than meaning-con tru lion processes proce se as aas in on the representation, ratherthan thanmeaning-construction meaning-construction processes ch.ipter. previou hapter. previous_ chapter. A further further reason reason for for selecting ",Icetlng Time Time is Ihalthis thischapter chapleralso al.soaddresses addr (in (in cerls cepts (in (in the the linguistic system),

303 303

the con eplual system) yslem) also also bear on crucial melhodologicalissue. i ue.That Thai system) alsohears hearson onaaacrucial crucialmethodological methodological issue. That the conceptual predicated on branch of cognitive cogoili .. linguistics Iongul ti known ascognitive cognitivesemantics1 manli Iisis i predicated predi aled on branch of cognitive linguistics knownas as cognitive semantics' Ihe a umplion that Ihal language language can be employed employed 10 onv ligalethe Iheconceptual con eplual can he he employedto toinvestigate investigate the conceptual the assumption ith concepsystem. Langacker for instance, language equated with sy lem. For For Lingacker Langa ker ((1987), (1987). in~lan •language language isjs is equated wilh on epsystem. t987), for structure. In 11131 Iructure. For ForLakoff Lakoff(1987), (0987).language language reflects reflects conceptual conceplual structure. lructure. In tual structure. structure. For Lakoff (1987), language LC( M1 Theory, meansof ofinteracting interactingwith with L Theory. linguistic represenlation provide aa means mean of inleracting wilh LCCM Theory, linguistic linguisticrepresentations representations Ih. conceplual system, yslem. bUI ar equaled Ih m (in (on Ihe sense n of of the conceptual conceptual sstem, hut not with them but are arc nol not equated equated wilh with them (in the the sense Langacker), anddo do not not directly directly reflect them either. This follows as the Langa ker). and not directly reflect reflect them them either. either. This Thi follows follow as a the the Langacker), and do linguistic by lexical concepts schematk, and takes linguislic conlenl encoded by by lexical lexi al concepts con eplsisishighly highlyschematic, schemali •and andtakes lakes linguistic content content encoded encoded attenuated form, form, in shape ofparameterization, parameteri7ation,with sith respect respect tothe the ril.h an allenualed form. in the Ihe shape hape of of paramelerizallon. wllh respecllO Iherich ri h attenuated to conceplual lent encoded by cognitiv. models. L 11.1 Theory po its disencodedby bycognitive cognitivemodels. models.LCCM LCCM Theory posits disconceptual con content tinct structure and conceplual conceptualstructure structure inthe theformation of linct rol for manli structure tructure and tru lure in Ihe ~formation rmalion of of tinct roles roles for semantic semantic conceptual is to he expected that the parameters by conceptions,• hence concepllon hence IIit is I to 10 be beexpected expecledthat Ihalthe Iheparameters paramelers encoded en oded by by conceptions, hence it encoded semantic structure bUI pale reflection reflection of ofconceptual conceplualstructure. IruClure.As Aswe we semantic structure are hut a pale pale reflection conceptual structure. As we semantic structure are but shall see,the thenature natureof ofthe the linguistic content encoded bytemporal temporal lexical hall see. Ihe nalure of Ihe linguistic linguislic content onl nl encoded encodedby lemporallexical Ie ieal see, from the of level concepts con el'l is i~ quile dislincl from Ihe rich rich spatial palial content conlenl provided prOVIded by by the Ih level I vel of concepts is quite quite distinct conceptual associated withconceptual conceptual structure. con eplual metaphors, metaphor. associated a ialed with wilh con eplualstructure. Iructure. Beforeproceeding proceedingwith withthe theLCCM analysis ofTime, lime, II[begin, next two wilh Ihe LL(CNI 11.1 analysis analy is of of Time. begin. in in the Ih.next nexllwo Before begin, two sections byproviding providing some someof of the the context context the study presented in this this lions by by providing Ihe onleXI for for the Ihe study ludy presented presenled in in Ihi sections some the linguistic evidence chapler. The firsl ofthese Ihese two two sections seclion briefly briefly reviews review the Ihe linguistic lingui licevidence evidence chapter. briefly The first firstof these sections held view view that that Time isis asymmetrically structured interms termsof of for Ih widely widely held Ihal Time i asymmetrically a ymmelri ally structured slru lured in in lerms of for the pa e. Th ond section seclion lakes i issue u with wilh Ihe view adopled Lakoffand and Space. The second second sectiontakes takesissue withthe theview viewadopted adoptedby byLakoff Lakoff and Space. The Johnson, basedprimarily primarily on on the the linguistic linguistic evidence, thatTime iimneisis isprimarily primarily lohn n. based Ihe Iingui Ii evidence, eviden e. that Ihal Time primarily Johnson, based primarily on structured little(if (ifany) any) inherent Iru lured in lerm ofmotion mOlionevents, events. and and possesses pos lillie (if any)inherent inherenl structured interms termsof motion events, possesses little structure of its own. Indeed, Indeed, argue that, that, on thecontrary, contrary, an an important important aspect aspect lruclur.ofit Indeed. III argue Ihal. on the Ih conlrary. importalll a peel structure representation of Time Time inherently temporaL2 of our our conceptual conceplual representation represenlation of of Tim.isisi inherently inherenllytemporal. lemporal.>2 The The sububof conceptual sequent section section provides provides an an overview overview of of some someof ofthe thetemporal temporal lexical lexical concepts sequenl provide an of some of Ihe temporal lexi al concepts concepl sequent encoded in English. 1. nglish.The Thefinal finaltwo twosections sections providedetails detailsof ofhow temporal n oded in in English. final IWO -lion provide provide delails of howtemporal lemporal encoded concepts interface with with temporal which strucIlexical ical concept interface temporal cognitive cognilive models, models, which which are arestrucslru concepts interface with models, tured, lured. in part. by virtu of ofconceptual concel'lual metaphors. melaphor . in part, part, by virtue virtue of conceptual

The spatialization spatialization of of Time Time The of Ihe ke key findings III cognitive cognillVe linguistics Iongul II and and cognitive ogmlive psychology I' ychologyisisi One of the findings in in cognitive linguistics and psychology ()ne of that Time. Time, a putatively putatively domain, appears appears torecruit recruit conceptual conceptualstrucstrucIhat putalively abstract abSlract domain, domain. appears to to Iructure from domains of motion and three-dimensional lure from the Ihe more more concrete conuele domains domains of ofmotion mOl ionand andthree-dimensional Ihree-dimen ion.1 ture from the more space.Evidence Evidence for Ihi this recruitment recruitment often of language space. Eviden • for for recrullm nl most mo lofl ari on onthe Ihebasis ba i of oflanguage this most oftennarises arises language 2004b, data Alverson Evans zoo4a,20041', etal. al.2005; Clark 1973; data (e.g., 1954; Bender dala (e.g .• Alverson Alverson1994; '994; Bender Benderet./ 2005;Clark Clark1973; 1973;Isans Evan2004(1, 2oo4a. 200411. 2005;Fauconnier Fauconnier and Turner 200$; Fleischman *982;Gentner (;t'ntmier a!. lOOS; rau onnier .lnd Turner zoo8; 2008; Fleischman Hci ohman 1982; 1982; Jcntn r et ..ti, al. (II. zooz; 1002; and 2001; zoos; Ljkoff and 1990, Lakoff and Johnson 148o, 1999; 1993; Moore20(H), 2000, (rady 1997; Lakoff 1990, Grady '997; Lakofl andJohnson John~n*980, 1980.1999; 1999; [*kofl 1990.1993; '993; Moore Moore 2000. -' Rt'\..l1J the:In (I h.apta h.apc('r .\. the tI. u ..n rn that . :: l Iell:::;11:. t , +Ii i-II L 1 :n 1 11 iistimed by mun' inoir rnrnt rctrnl ss. i'n the the ie naniks arnc fh" It'' P'"ltl,.n. UkIJ.ll, .. lh, ttutlt .1,,0 uma.! by ,"",urk on 'lR the-...vaunt It'nl.lnlk. (IfI IIme:' m is also also Asuitricd In' more retent work ics01 .i pisitIOn. ta llp4 ")1 : eitu ihiz cATime Thu mCtaphl)r iradstuin(e.p... \Ioore .lIM)fl the con‘c-ptuAl tr.adlitiort Within the:U'lfktpt~ metAphot mn.arho)r tr..J.hun (~.8-0 Nioore M'M'''-'' ). 204161. within the 'I

J

04

FI(,UKATIVF LAN(,UAGE 1 FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE ANt) AND TIIO(.'(.H THOUGHT

kadden 2003; .moj; Traugott Traug( 41 Nüñcz and and Sweetser Sweetser2oo6; zooô;Shinohara Shinohara 1999; Radden zoo6; Nunez as exemplified exemplified by by the the following: tollowing: Yu Zinken forthcoming), forthcoming), as Vu 1998;Zinken Saturday onSaturday arrivedon She 1) a.a. She arrived h. aa short time short time b. Christmas is is approaching approaching c. Christmas c.

underlined. Indeed, while Time often has are underlined. The putative putative spatial has The spatial Words words arc Indeed, while Time often spatial ideas ideasascribed ascribedtotoit—and it—andwe wemay mayfind findititdifficult difficultto toconceptualize conceptualiic spatial to spatial patial notions—the lendsnot not and lexicalize lexicaliic Time Time without without recourse to and notions—the reverse reverse tends the case. case.That 1'hatisis,we weare arefar tarless less inclinedtotoinvoke invoketemporal temporalnotions notionsto to be the to be inclined understand Space. In other other words, words, the the structuring structuring of is understand Space. In of Time Time in in terms terms of of Space Space is asymmetric. asymmetric.) A of the the asymmetric asymmetricstructuring structuringof ofTime Timeinin A particularly particularly influential influentialaccount account of terms of of Space Spaceisisthat thatprovided providedby byConceptual (onceptualMetaphor MetaphorTheory Theory(e.g., (e.g.,Lakoff Ltkoff Moreover, recent reLent behavioural behavioural studies studieshave haveprovided provided and Johnson 1980, 1999). Moreover, empirical evidence for the the psychological psychologicalreality reality of of conceptual conceptualmetaphors metaphorsfor for empirical evidence for Time: the position position that that space spaceisisindeed indeedrecruited recruitedto tostructure structure time time in in asymmetric asymmetric lime: the (kntner etel a!. looz; Nunez fashion (e.g., Boroditsky liorodit sky 2000; Nüñe, et a aL 2006). More 2000; Gentner tashion (e.g., recently, it has additionally been beenestablished esttblishedthat thatthis thisrecruitment recruitmentisisinvoluntary involuntary has additionally (Casasanto and Boroditsky l3oroditsky ioo8). iooS).Further Further converging converging evidence evidencefor for the the concepconcep(Casasanto and tual from gestural tual metaphor metaphoraccount account conies comes from gestural studies studies (e.g. (e.g., NuAei Nunezand andSweetser Sweetser 2006) and from from signed languages (e.g., (e.g.,Engberg-Pederson Engberg-Pederson1993). '993). 2006) and signed languages

for the asymmetric structuring structuring of of the the Various reason reasonshave havebeen been1posited for the asymmetric domain ofTime lime in in terms ofofSpace. Sp1ice.Some Somescholars scholarshave haveargued arguedfor forshared shared domain of neurological For instance, Walsh (2003) (2003) argues arguesthat that aacommon common neurological resources. resources. For instance, Walsh magnitude underpins spatial spatial and and temporal temporal processing. processing.While Whileaadrawdrawmagnitude system system underpins back Walsh's account account is is that that itit fails fails to to account account for for the the asymmetric asymmetric strucstrucback of of Walsh's turing other accounts Ju.oufltS have haveargued, argued,ininvarious variousways, turingof ofTime Timein interms termsof ofSpace, Space, other that to structure structure Timc Time is is aa consequence consequenceofofexaptaexaptathat the the recruitment recruitment of of Space Space to lion: for new new lion: the the re-usc, re-use, in in evolutionary evolutionary terms, terms, of of pre-existing pre-existing mechanisms mechanisms for purposes. different accounts have been been argued argued for for purposes. Somewhat Somewhat different accounts along along these these lines lines have by, the discussion discussion by, for forexample, example,lackendotT(1983) lackendoff (1983)and and(YKeefe O'Keefe(1996). (1996).1see See also also the in in Casasanto (forthcoming). (forthcoming). The explanation provided provided by Metaphor Theory the The explanation by Conceptual Conceptual Metaphor Theory emphasizes emphasizes the role rather than than an an evolutionary evolutionary role of of embodiment embodiment in in ontogenctic ontogenetic development, development, rather motivation. by the theground-breaking ground breaking motivation.Lakoff Lakoffand andJohnson Johnson(1999), (1999), influenced by It islos 14141114. ions in son'wtimes spatial in the to exprc..., pawl n notion. In terms term, 01 44 tcniporal tenTotrl idc.as, as 111114r1 possibk 11 ► •Alble to the following .y.111 hangr r KhanKtA.1. 1Now low far r iso lianNer trom 4 )ndon? I ILondon It. hours by trim. train. K Thrte Italf hours 'Three and and a4A half

strucluring&5 fiat Is. oh,,.voloi•trot symnictri5 Yet. ihr llowcvcr. llw tact fatt that that is. the thr %inkhorns I. not 11 41 ► 41UttlVe. That is by by no nomeans nicaos priidutiivr. I 10WeVe this this is to structure iiruOurr Spate agaaiisi posItKsn lime argue. Agrinsithe 1114• positionthat that the au- sirutturing mtut Wrong is i. unidirri unidirecrime eafl can tie he deployed to Spaceargue' the rrIrtionship relstionilup appears awnonetrit tional. tobe beasymmetric. Appearsto tional. !fence, the

THE SEMANTICS OfUI LIME TIME Till sFSIANTICS

305 305

work of ofGraclv Grady (1997), argue that conceptual metaphors arise as as an 1ininevitable inevitable consequence consequenceofofhumans humansacting actingininthe theworld, world,such suchthat thattight tightcorrelations correlationsin in pre-linguistic experience pre-linguistic experience serve serveto toestablish establishconnections connectionsbetween betweenconcepts conceptsthat that have,what whatGrady Grady refers have refers to to as, as, image content, i.e., source concepts, concepts, and and those those concepts which which have have response responsecontent, content, i.e., i.e.,target concepts targetconcepts. concepts.Grady Grady posits posits what he he terms terms primary primary scenes: what scenes: recurrent recurrenthumanly humanlyrelevant relevantscenarios scenariosinin which the relevant relevant experiences experiences co-occur. These Theseprimary primary scenes, scents, he heargues, argues, facilitate the establishment establishment of of conceptual conceptualmetaphors metaphors(see facilitate Grady and Johnson (see (rad and Johnson 2000). 4 Lakoff 2ooo).4 Lakoft and and Johnson Johnson (1999) couch Grady's notion of experiential couch (.radv's notion of experiential correlation and primary in neurological terms. correlation primaryscenes scenes in terms.Lakoff Lakoff (personal (personal comcommunication) argues, argues,for for instance, instance,that thatthe theconsequence ofof tight consequence tightand andrecurring recurring correlations in correlations inexperience experience types. types, gives gives rise to the the notion notion of of Hebbian Hebhianneuroncurological learning: learning: "what 'what tires wires together." together." logical fires together together wires

The temporal temporal nature nature of of Time Time l)espite the success of Conceptual Metaphor Despite success of Metaphor Theory Theory in in highlighting highlighting the the .Isymmetr asymmetric structuring structuringofofdomains domainssuch suchas as Time Time in interms termsof ofSpace Space, one one of of the consequences, has been been to neglect the study of the consequences,and and II argue, drawbacks, drawbacks, has of the inherent temporal structure that that is is part part and and parcel of our conceptual system our system TimesPart for lime.' Partofofthe thereason reasonfor forthis thishas has been been that l.akoff Lakoffand and Johnson Johnson have, have, for the the most most part, part,successfully successfully focused focused the study of of Time Time on for on the the nature nature of of spatial structure that is recruited. Indeed, Indeed, they theyhave haveexplicitly explicitlyargued arguedthat thatvery very little little of of our our understanding understanding of Time is suggest, in is purely purely temporal. temporal. They Thtv suggest, in fact, fact, that most of our our understanding understanding of of time time isisaametaphorical metaphoricalversion versionof ofour our motion in in space. space. The understanding of motion The premise premisefrom from which which the the Lakoff Lakoff and eeds is that that we Johnson account of Time Time prot proceeds even we cannot cannot observe observetime, time, ifif it it even exists as as aathing thing unto unto itself. itself. Rather, what can can be be observed observedare are events eventsof ofvarious various including motion motionevents events such as objects in motion. Moreover, kinds, including events as ohpects in motion. \loreover, events can be compared. Hence, I lcnce, for for Lakoff andJohnson Johnson our our conceptualii4ition conceptualization of I goft and 'lime is of events. Time is grounded in our direct direct experience experience of events.That That is, Is, the the properties properties associated with in terms associated with Time Time arise arise from from understanding Time in terms of of events events which, unlike Time, are are directly directly perceived. perceived.InInparticular: particular: Timeisisdirectional directionaland andirreversible, irreversible,because because events events are. • Time are. In In other words, words, events cannot events annot "unhappen." Timeisisongoing ongoingbecause because events events are experienced as • Time as being being ongoing. ongoing. • 'fime as having having beginnings beginnings and and Timejsisdivisible divisiblebecause becausewe weperceive perceive events events as enti end points. Timecan canbe bemeasured measuredbecause because instances instances of event types can be • Time be counted. counted.

• 5

See Moorcs Moores (1oo4 I related relatednotion notoott4olaatin)undrng ttttt sittingSscnario. %tenni° concept of the telniertual For For aa critique t't metaphor tnetaishobr atproat h to to Tinir I unt- see seehans EvansI (lo ► aa). approach

306

;oô -

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT AND TIIO GifT LA G AGE ANI)THOU(dIl. FIGUR ATIVE1AN(;UAGE 11(1!RATIVE

I1111:. HI SEMANI ICSS01 or TI if LMAN TI(

THE SEMANTICS OF TIME

-

Nevertheless, while it is incontrovertible that that structure fromnonnonnlln (rom rulled from rrecruited trullu r recruited III ontm vertib le that structure incontrovertible whil it11, heleM, while 'evert is temporal domains, such as Space,~form part of the conceptual content contenl con eptua l content the conceptual ofthe part of rm part pace, form a Space1 u h as oral dom ain, such temp encoded domains, by temporal cognitive models, itit iis increasingly clear that a signifitemporal ign,lithataasignifi d ar that onerea ingly clear cognitlV mode l. it is increasingly oral cognitiVe temp by ed encod temporal ncoded liv cant portion of conceptual structureinin Ih the doma domain of Time is inherently inherently lime isi inherently o( Time in of tructu re in the domain of con eplua l structule porti on canl of pw temporal, rather than spatial. In particular,there thereare are two twogeneral general criticisms cant i m crilic parti ular, there are two g n raI criticisms In particular1 than pahal. In r than rathe ral. Irmpo temporaL rather that can be levelled against the perspective that Time is primarily (or solely) solely ) (orsolely) primarily(or Timeis,s primarily Ihal Time pers" ",ti, that Ihe perspective again I the I.. elled against be levelled that can be constituted of non-temporal content, what I will dub the Time-is-Space that lime-Is-Space ime-I - pa e th T dub the will dub what I I will onlen t, what non .lemporal content, of non-temporal IItuted of ,on constitUtCd perspective. These relate to the following two is issues, which outline here here outlin here h III outline u ,whi which two following two the following to the issues, relate to Th perspective. These relate perspective. and elaborate on further below:

below: (urth rbelow: on further elaborale on and elaborate and Structure Issue: • The Inherent 1lI/,.r rlll SlruC llIrt 1 ur:

nit Issur. Inherent •• The Lakoff and Johnson (e.g., 1999) sometimes sometimes appear to assume Ihat assume that a um that 10 r to appea t,m appear 1999) 'i(,mc and lohn

(e.g.•

LakofTt and Johnson (e.g., L.akof Time has limited, if any, inherent structure ofits itsoWfl. own. On On this TimeTi ml' thi. Time On this own. it!. of truelu re of inh rent structure any, inherent ifany, d, limite ha Time limited1 if Time has account, the function of conceptual metaphor Is-Space is to structure truet ure to structure i to meta phor is con eptual metaphor funetion of the function coun l. the I ·Spa e aaccount, of conceptual Is-Space the target domain, Time, in terms of structure derived from the source
follow : as follows: as that it conceptual doma domain of time time is What is literal and inherent about the iis that itIt is I Iholl lim~ is in of of plu.d domain (Om:e the conceptual aboul the inhtrmt alx)ut and inherent IIlenl and i \\fhal \Vhat is literal characterized by the comparison of events.... (This C'xp<'rltn\.(' ourexperience thaiour m~n Ithat mcansl that our experience IThi means) C'\ n ...• of events. ... (This the (omp.1rison of .ICrilN by (h.Jra4 by the time is dependent on our embodied conceptualization of time in terms of 01 h:nn of in terms lime in of ied (Onlrplualiullon of time tmhod our on 01 d~nd ho lime embodied of of time...Experience is dependentdoes on our events not always come prior to conceptualization, because (OnCCplU.1liulion l brau 10 coneptuahzatiofll .1huy (orne prior to Expericnct d . . .Lxpcrieni.C events does not not always tome prien events... conceptualization is embodied. died. con(qltu.1liulion iis embo embodied. i(ibid. ibid. 138--9) 138—-"))

• The complexity issue: laity issll'" Tht comp •• The complexity issur. The Time-Is-Space perspective assumes conceptual relat relate hol'>relate metap ptualmetaphors conce Ihal conceptual metaphors a lim that etllve assumes pel'>p Space . ·1 Tim perspective that The Time IsSp.Ke The to entire domains: Space and Time..The difficulty here is that this leads lead this leads i Ihal here is ulty here difficulty that Ih, in: Space and andTime lime. The I'he diffic nllre doma to to entire domains: to the position that Time, and indeed intern Terentiatedinternundifferentiated intern-undif areundifferentiated I' e,are indeedSpace, . and Time ion thaI poSit the to that Time, and indeed to the position ally homogenous bodies of knowledge—a 100ft by byMoore Moore mad by .Isomade malso criticism also made critici acriticism knowl dg of genoll bodi homo ally of knowledge——a ally homogenous bodies (e.g., 2oo6) in his analysis of space-to-time metaphors. tapho r;. metaphors. naly t; of hi••analysis .• 2006) (e.g of 'I" e· tll-t,m e m ioo6) in his (e.g., i. The inherent structure issue u struc ture iissue inh rent structure Th are i.i. The inherent There two objections that can and have of viewofof at lied at It", levelled atthe theview View bttn levelled have been and have been ()b)eclion Ih.t two re ar Th that ,an and [here are two objections inherent structure for Time, often Lakoff The The lohl1>on.The and Tand uted toto Lakoff andJohnson. Johnson. attrib nattributed , oft Time truetu re (or often attributed to Lakof ent structure inher inherent for Time, first relates to the kind of generalalcriticism presented in Murphy (1996). ). (1996). hy ('996 nted inin Murp presented Murphy rilici m pr gener criticism kind of 10 Ii", of general first relal relates to Ih the Murphy argues such as Time have little or no thatkind if abstract domains no havehili little or or no , TIIl,e ""h"as in such domains Time h.ve ab tract dom. s thaI hy .rgue Murp Murphy argues that ifif abstract inherent structure of their own, thereby requiring conceptual projection ction cptua l proje conceptual projection ring con by requi own. Ihere thereby requiring lruet ur. o( Iheir renl structure inh inherent their own, from source domains of to provide structure, then it is not clear what motivates at motivates n itit iis nol not clear clear what what l110liv IrU(lUrc. th de structure, lin to provide then mru."cJnmo from from source dot to prOVi the projection innains the first place. That is, it is not clear what motivates the the m()lIvatt'" the ar wh.lI ", not dclear what motivates _ Th., it is nol Ii", llOn III first pla,e place. [hat iis,•such Ih the pro)ec projection in Ihe the structuring of Time in terms ofo(domains as Motion and Space rather r Sp.,. rathe rather n and u
) IIIinh,hiswork (,997 primary (1997) workon on pnma

•

307

307

structuring. the metaphork Thi isi turing .This horic struc endently of indep ture independently struc ent structure and inher ~nd andinherent inherent structure independently of the the metap metaphoric structuring. This is of space-ti) time metaphors r tapho m ·hme to adopted in the revised account pac of nt 3c(Ou iscd r th in ed adopt Ilion adopted in the revised account of space-to-time metaphors also po the 31so alsothe theposition position . 2006) . ioo(i). developed (2000 e (iooo, Moor Kevin by oped by Moore (2000, 2006). devel developed byKevin KevinMoore specific is as follows. There neurobiologlc I petific neurobiological are specific Th reare follo w. There Ihe SCCi)fld lIOn iis as follows. Ob)tX d I)bje(tiofl scome of iew r a its own (see 1 vans for 2004" inherent of truetu re of ent structure inher inherent structure of,titsown own((see Lvan Evans ioo4a for a review of some of these points). ). point points). differ nt many different are many ther are that there reveal that biology reveals neuro in h in [or instance, r~" tance.research For Foron instance, research inneurobiology neurobiology reveals that there are many different regulating bodily function, which are fun tion • bodily function, regulatong bodily for regulating tial for essen are essential proc oral pr sorts temp of rt of sorts oftemporal temporal processes which which arc essential for cycle, which cyde. which wok leep cycle, thewake—sleep in ludingthe m. including rhyth ian rhythms, circad u circadian such vario u h as such as the the vanous various circadian rhythms, including the wake–sleep which temporal mechanisms and the range m hani m temp oral mechanisms of range of prtX icalprotesses chem by olled by are are arecontr controlled bychemkal chemical processes,• and and the the range of temporal intervals processing of interval of prOt ing intervals from rang from latterrange Th latter ing. The prOt ptual processing. that perce guide that thatguide guideperceptual perceptual processing. The latter range from processing of [his around three outer limit of Thi seconds. This threeseconds. aroun dthree ofaround limit of outer limit an outer to an ·ond up of tion of fra aaa fraction fraction ofaaasecond second up to to an seconds. ((18901/1950) referred to correspond referred to (lt89011t950) referred lames ([189o)/I95o) whatJames towhat three-second pond to may range may · ond range three three-second range may corr correspond to what James to short conceived times.. . the prototype all the horl tim ...the oncei ,ed times... all conceived of lype of "the pr nt: "the pet,o u present: as the specious aas the the specious present: "the proto prototype of all short incessantly sensible" (ibid. t950: (,b,d. immediately and ible" n ntly in and y diatel duration of which we are imme e war h whi we are immediately and incessantly of which ion of durat duration sensible" (ihid, 19so: perceptual moment (see ommonly the (sec mom enl (see perceptual moment the perceptual a the more known as only known comm mor commonly iis more 63')' 631), and and what what is known as Evans ). 2oo4a Evans2004U). woo). sophisticated timingg reveals that there IImon sophi hcated timing are sophisticated there are Ihal reveal that proc ing reveals oral processing temp Research R arch on Research on temporal temporal processing there are including to behaviours ( hafe speech (Chafe that are IIldlldingspeech behav iour including to behaviours key to are ke mechanisms in the the brain that thaI are Ihe brain in mechani m in mechanisms key speech well(Chafe as and Poppel 1983). as Ihe a the well a ). (1)avies 2006; Turner el'983 I'Opp and r Turne 2006; 1994), music and poetry (Davi y poelr and music . t994) 1994), and poetry (Davies 2oo6; Turner and Piippel 1983), as well as the experience perceiving the present: our experi n e ourexperience present:our thepresent: phenomenologically real experience offperceiving perceivingthe experien eof r Iexperience ph nom nologi allyreal phenomenologically implkated in temp oral in temporal The specific brain structures structures impli (ated in lructu r implicated "",if k brain The specific of now 1994). The el1994). (l'opp now ((l'öppel of now temporal of ['Opel 1994). in quantifying which may be involved quantifying in,olv edininquantifying beinvolved maybe include the the parietal cortex, whichmay cortex. which parietal cortex, the parietal indud processing proc ing include processing (Walsh of temporal magnitude 2003). (Wal sh 2003), magn itude(Walsh facilitating temp oralmagnitude of ment of a litalin gassessments time and and hence hence hen efaci lime time facilitating assessments temporal 2003), timekeeping tundamental timekeeping and cerl'i xllum for fundamenlaltimekeeping forfundamental and thebasal basal gangliaand baylganglia as Ihe a the well as aaswell as cerebellum for a!. 1998, but control (Ilarringtofl ci but 1998. but al. 1998, .,al. coordinating motorrcontrol inglo n et (llarr ol(Harrington contr moto inahn gmotor operations such as coord a coordinating u h as perations such operations temporal have argue argued that oral Otherr neuroscentiStS lemp thattemporal dthat have IS enti neuro '.pencer Olhe . 2004) er pen see lvry and Ivry Other neuroscentists have argued sec see Ivry and Spencer 2004). being intrinsic to distributed across brain structures to intrin ie to being r Iruetu brain aero ed processing is widely tribut di y widel i ;ing prtX structures being intrinsic brain processing is widely distributed across 21)04).. (Mauk and Ruonomaflo 2004) Buon oman o 2004). and liuonomano k and neural function (Mau ion (Mauk funct l function neura neural reveals that of time by I'psychologists that reveal that ychologi t reveals onthe theperception perception by eby ptionofofhm perce the on rchon Inaddition, addition, rresearch ion.research addit In time psychologists In phenomtemporal experience om . time. ThaI That is, i phen xperi neeisis orale i ,temp indeed directly perceive time. perceIVetime. lyperceive dirtXl wedo doindeed ddirectly indee do we we That is, temporal experience phenomof in the absence humans experience time in the ab nee of lime ience exper n huma enologically real, and, moreover, ver, moreo real, and, moreover, humans experience time enologi ally real, enologically the absence of Forin instance, a perso person Flahcrty n a e, tan in For . perceived events 1999) rty flahe (e.g., s event ived perce specific externally externallyperceived events (e.g., Flaherty sound-proofed ptXificexternally specific 1999). For instance, a person tell and hence cell and hence in a darkened, '>olita d inon place placed a adarkened, and would stimuli they are exposed to,hence would 10, ed expos are of sensory Ihey i timul n'>t elapseof of tim. time. ThaI That iis. we hav 10 nevertheless stillperceive perceive theelapse eJap the Ve the perceI "ill theless still never nevertheless of time. That is, we do not have to first experience time— contra conceptualiie and Ihu thus cxpc: onlra tll11 ricn(ctime—contra inorder orderto10 toconceptualize ancJ pluJlilCand (on\;c eventsin urder in evenh ive events pcr\;cetve perceive thusthere experience of neuroare a range perspective. Indeed, the fact Ihere arc. range of neum Ihe d.the Indee '\:lIve. Indeed, per;pt the lime-h · Is Spa, perspective. Time the the Time-Is-Space fact there arc a range neurobe centrall of whi which appear toofbe cenlra to for prikessing time, some r appea h of some lim. ong prtX (or logical mechanisms mha ", m for processing time, some of which appear logicalmechanisms logical to be central perception of events that ralh rather thdn than Ihc the pcr(c evcnt\ plion uf ingeneral. general. Ih.lt usgc t that al.suggests genn pcr\;eplinninin forperception for for rather rthan the perception of events

08

being the precursorof oftemporal temporal experience, temporal temporal experience experience is necessary in order to perceive events in the first place. in order to perceive events in the first place. A range of behavioural studies conducted by psvi.hologists psychologists reveal reveal that that time time A range of behavioural studies conducted by is directly experienced by human subjects,and and moreover, moreover, the nature of our is directly experienced by human subjects. experience of time is often independent of of the the nature of events events in in question. question. nature of experience of time is often independent is For instance, Ornstein (119691/1997) foundthat that our our perception perception of duration duration is lor instance, ()rnstein (119(i9111997) found particularly corna function of stimulus complexity, while with a a particularly comwhile familiarity familiarity with a function of stimulus and plex stimulus array can impact on on our our perception perception of of duration. duration. Zachay and pkx stimUlUS array can Block (1997)found found that that temporal temporal perception perception was was influenced by by how how interestinterestthat ing subjects found a particular activity to he, while Flaherty (1999) found that ing subjects found a particular activity to be, while Flaherty perception of duration is a function of how much we attend to a particular perception of duration is a function of how much we attend to a particular stimulus array, and how familiar with particular activitiesand andevents events we we are. (liar activities stimulus array1 and how t.imiliar with In short, a range of studies reveal that our experience of of duration, duration, rather rather than than In short, a range of studies reveal tILLI our experience Time-Is-Space being a function of event comparison, asassumed assumedby bythe theTime-Is-Space being a function of event comparisonsas perspective, is is aa consequenc consequence of evaluations of stimuli stimuli types, types, of subjective subjective evaluations and of how we process particular types of stimuli on particular occasions. and of how we process particular types of stimuli on particular temporal Evidence of this sort sort makes makes a a persuasive persuasivecase casefor forthinking thinking that that temporal Evidence of this subjectexperience is rather than external in in origin, origins constituting constituting aasubjectexperience is internal internal rather themselves, ively-drivenresponse response to to events, events, rather events themselves, rather than emerging from from events ively-driven an abstract mental achievement. an abstract mental achievement. magnitude Other research research reveals reveals that thatthe the human human ability ability to to judge judge temporal magnitude Other function of mechanisms, and varies varies in in (i.e., duration) of physiological physiological mechanisms, (i.e., duration) isis aj function predictable ways. ways. IFor instance, vital functions functions are accelerated,for forinstance instance instane, ifif vital areaccelerated, predictable amphetamines, this by thisresults results suchas asamphetamines, or stimulants stimulantssuch by the the consumption consumption of of coffee or in Fraisse 1963). protractedduration duration 1963).This This isis known known as as protracted in overestimation overestimation of ot time time ((Fraissc subjects and phenomenologicallvreal realexperience experiencewhereby wherebysubjects and constitutes constitutes the the phenomenologically theperperperceive as being beingof ofgreater greatermagnitude: magnitude: the perceive standard standard units units of of duration duration as ception "slowly" than usual and and hence hencethere thereisis ception that that time time is is proceeding proceedingmore more"slowly" more whenthe thebody bodytemperatemperaOverestimation of of duration duration also also occurs occurswhen more of of it. it. Overestimation and (see Wearden \Vardcn and ture whensuffering sufferingfrom from fever (ever (see ture is is raised, raised, for (or instance instance when Penton-Voak for a a review). oxideand andother other anaesanaesreview),In in contrast, ontrast, nitrous nitrous oxide Penton-Voak 1995 for thetic havethe theopposite opposite slowdown downthe thebody's body'svital vital functions functions have gaseswhich which slow theti gases effect, thephenomenologically phenomenologkallyreal real effect,giving givingrise riseto toan anunderestimation underestimationof oftime, time,the experience .° Raddeley temporalcompression compression.' Raddeley experiencethat thatthere thereisisless lesstime, time,known knownasastemporal risetotoan an (1966) lowtemperatures temperatures also alsogives givesrise (1966)showed showedthat thatexposing exposingthe thebody bodytotolow underestimation underestimation of of time.' time.7

being the

" The notions of protracted duration and temporal introduced the were inirodutcdearlier inmthe duration md temporalcompression were of • The for instance. hook—recall the discussion inint Chapter . hapter 7. , tor the biiok—rra11 &thieved by exposing scuba divers to to old water diversestimated estimatedtime timebyby C The Thedivert ' 'this WAS water14t4l'1. Ibis was achieved by exposing suba rate oft numeral per second. The Count ing took i numeral per icti,nd. ihe countingtook ounting from t to t.tio the rate iii whatthey theypresumed presumedtotohebethe ountiflg trim I to Atatwhat ediately following the dive onte the divers' body temperatures had been been had the dive once the diveri' body temperaturel ► place before the dive. and im 1Li4.c before the dive, and mnunediatetv towered.

lowered

I

IKE SIMAN1 1(15 OF TIME THE SEMANTICS OF TIME

LANGUAGEANI) ANDTHOUGHT THOUGHT I FIGURATIVE I(.( RATIVE LAP4Gt'A(l

309

309

ii.ii. The Thecomplexity complexityissue: issue:

As Aswith withthe theinherent inherentstructure structureissue, issue,there thereare aretwo two objections objections that thatcan can be be first levelled against the view of Time as an undifferentiated domain. The levelled against the view of Time as an undifferentiated domain. The first holds is highly highly differentiated. differentiated. That i'hat is. holds that that temporal temporal experience experience is is, itit is is tar far more more complex than Lakoft and Johnson appear to acknowledge. For instance, complex than Lakoff and Johnson appear to acknowledge. For instance, experiences." Poppel haspointed pointedto towhat whathe heterms terms"elementary "elementarytime timeexperiences." Poppel (1978) (1978) has

There Ihese constitute distinct yet of temporal temporal experience. These constitute distinct yet fundamental fundamental types types of experience. There point to, to, all all of of which which are areaa number numberof ofelementary elementary time time experienes experiences that that we we can can point are are fundamental fundamentalto toaarange range of of human human behaviours, behaviours, including including perception perception and and sUcCsslUl (inter action in the world. These include: (i) the ability to successful ( inter)action in the world. These include: (i) the ability to perceive the ability ability to to perceive perceivesimultaneity, simultaneity.(iii) (iii) the theability ability an of duration, duration, (ii) (ii) the an elapse elapse of in), to simultaneity, (iv) to perceive perceive nonnon-simultaneity, (iv) the the ability abilityto toperceive perceiveorder order(or (orsticcessii succession). past and and present, present, and and (vi) (v) (v) past (vi) cli.inge. change. encodes temtemThe second objection relates to the the way way in in which The second objection relates to which language language encodes of aa single single poral in previous on aa detailed detailedexamination examinationof poral experience. experience. In previous work work based based on of distinct distinct language, II found found that that there range of vehicle, time, in in aa single single language, there are are a a range the discussion discussionof of time temporal temporallexical lexicalconcepts concepts(Evans (Evans 2oo4a)—see also also the time in in and language Chapter 7 and below. Thus, both phcnomenological experience Chapter 7 and below. Thus, both phenomenological experience and language differentiated domain domain (or (or domains), domains), more more suggest that Time Time is is aa highly highly differentiated suggest that internally by Lakoff Lakoff and internally complex complex than than allowed allowed by and Johnson. Johnson. hasdeveloped developedaarevised revised In In more more recent recent work, work, Kevin KevinMoore Moore(zooo, ( zoo°, 2006) 2oo6) has criticisms. conceptual metaphor metaphor account exactly these these criticisms. conceptual account of of Time Time 1w by addressing addressing exactly Firstly.he heassumes assumesthat that Moore (2006) makesthe thefollowing following two two assumptions. assumptions.Firstly, Moore (2oo6) makes metaphorsthat thatserve servetoto Time has inherent structure structure independently independently of of the the metaphors Time has inherent analv singspace-to-time spa c ti-time mappings, mappings, we we structure it. he posits posits that, that, in in analysing structure it. Secondly, Secondly, he and homogenous homogenous domains domains such such as as Space Spaceand and are not not dealing dealing with with distinct distinct and are generalassumpassunipTime, but hut with with a complex array array of of experience experiencetypes. types.Moore's Mooresgeneral Time, a complex adoptedhere. here. tions are are consonant consonantwith with the the ones onesbeing beingadopted tions

Conceptual metaphors metaphors for for time time in in LCCM LCCMTheory: Theory:aafirst first look Conceptual look metaphor in I((N In view view of of the the above, above, what what then then is is the the status statusof ofconceptual conceptualmetaphor In in LCCM cognitive Theory? Conceptual Conceptual metaphors metaphorsprovide provide aameans meansofofstructuring structuring cognitive Theory?

modelsin interms termsof ofstructure structure recruited recruited from trt)m cognitive cognitive models modelsassociated .Issot iated models [hat is, is,conceptual conceptualmetaphors metaphorsserve servetoto with other other domains domainsofofexperience. That with cognitive provide one oneof of(probably) (probably) many mans types typesof oflinks linkswhich which connect connectcognitive provide provide models,allowing allowingthem themtotoinherit inheritstructure. structure.Conceptual Conceptualmetaphors metaphorsprovide models, stable,long-term long-termlinks linkswhich whichallow allowthe theautomatic automaticand andunconscious unconscious recruitstable, recruitpart, mentof ofstructure structure in in asymmetric asymmetric fashion. fashion. They They serve servetotostructure, structure,ininpart, ment within attributes and andvalues, values,providing providingmassive massiveredundancy redundanyacross .iross concepts attributes concepts within linksare are theconceptual conceptualsystem. system.Conceptual (onceptualmetaphors metaphorsarise arisewhen whenstable stablelinks the sencorim' establishedbetween betweencognitive cogndivemodels niodelsencoding encodingexperience experiencethat thatisissensorimoestablished cineptual content that is torin in nature, nature,and and cognitive cognitivemodels modelswhich whichencode en odeconceptual tor content that is the subjectiveininnature. nature.InInterms termsofotthe thesemantics semanticsofo(Timc thisamounts amountsto tothe subjective Time this representation following.Much Much of of the the structure structure associated withtemporal temporalrepresentation isis following. associated with

310

-

1 IlL si MANTI(S 01 TIME

1l(t'RATIVI I AN(L'AGE

311

THE SEMANTICS OF TIME

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT

THOUGHT

inherently temporal. However, conceptualmetaphors metaphors facilitate facilitatethe the recruitrecruittemporal. l-Iowever, inherentlY ment of structure from cognitive modelsderived derivedfrom fromthe thedomain domainofofSpace. Space. cognitive models structure from ment of Nevertheless, this structure is but one way inwhich whichtemporal temporalknowledge knowledgeisis this structure is hut ofle way in organized and understood. understood. organized and I return to the relationship between conceptualmetaphors metaphorsand andknowledge knowledge the relationship between I return to representation later in the chapter once we have have discussed discussed temporal lexical temporal lexical later in the chapter once we ,oncepts in more detail.

concepts ifl more detail.

lexical .oncept—which sanctions expresThe Thesymbolic symbolicunit—vehicle unit—vehicleand and lexical concept—which sanctions expresSbuS sionssuch suchasasthose thoseinin (2)isisprovided providedinin(3): (3): "PREP (3) a.a. vehicle vehicle "PREPNP" NP" Ix SITL'Al It) Willi KFSPI( 1 II) TISIE I'ERIOI)I b.b.lexical concept lexical concept (x SITUATED WI Ili RESPECT TO TIME PERIOD( (3h) CIK odes a highly schematic temporal relation, The Thelexical lexicalconcept conceptglossed glossedinin (3b) encodes a highly schematic temporal relation, such as an event, glossed as X, occurs with respect to ininwhich whichaaparticular particularentity entity such as an event, glossed as X, occurs with respect to by the expression in (3): aaparticular particulartime timeperiods period,as asexemplified exemplified by the expression in (3):

Temporal lexical concepts

Temporal lexical concepts

(4)

now turn to an overview of some of the main types of temporal temporal lexical lexical Of SOfl1C of the main types of Iconcepts. flOW turnI illustrate to .tfl with examples from English. The challenge for future examples from Fnglish. 11w challenge for future illustrate with I concepts. research is to identify the nature and range of of the the temporal temporal lexical lexical concepts concepts the nature and range research is to identify for other languages. Indeed, preliminaryfindings findingssuggest suggest that that the range range of of Indeed, preliminary for other languages. lexical concepts available to a language such such as quite as English English may may vary vary quite available to a language lexkal concepts suggest that the methodology c onsiderably in other languages.' II suggest for identiidentithat the methodologyfor considerably in other fying lexical concepts, introduced earlier in the book, may provide a systemintroduced earlier in the book, may provide a systemfying lexical .oncepts, atic and insightful way of cataloguing the within and and the range range of of lexical lexical concepts concepts within

atic andspecific insightful way of in a range of domains including Time. across languages specific languages in a range of domains including Time. The overview below is meant to be illustrative rather than exhaustive. is meant to be illustrative rather than exhaustive. The overvieW below I divide the discussion into the following types of lexical concepts: into the following types of lcxkal concepts:

I divide the disussion

• Lexical concepts for temporal relations .oncepts for temporal relations •• Lexical Lexical concepts that encode aspect that encode aspett Icxkal concepts •• Nominal lexical concepts lexical concepts reference (TFoRs) •• \ominal Lexical concepts that encode temporal frames of of reference (TFoRs)

• I c\ica) concepts that encode temporal frames

311

The Theexam exam took tookplace place in in March March

is internally open, and in (.i) is integrated with The Thelexical lexical conceptin in (3b) is internally open, and in (4) is integrated with lexical concepts which are The internally internallyclosed closedlexical lexical concepts. The specific lexical concepts which are lexical concept selection, as described integrated integrated are are derived derived by by virtue virtueot of lexical concept selection, as described in Chapter ii. For instance, there are a great many lexical concepts conven-

in Chapter it. For instance, there are a great many lexical concepts conveninclude a spatial kxk.tI contionally tionally associated with with the the vehicle vehicle in. in. l'bese These include a spatial lexical condescribed of "state" lexical concepts the range cept cept such such as as (ENCLOSURE', the range of "state" lexical concepts described "temporal lexical concepts1 evidenced distinct "temporal" in in (:hapter Chapter 8, and and several several distinct lexical concepts, evidenced in (5): in (5):

(s) (5)

completedthe theexam examininMarch March a. Hecompleted a. He

in one hour b. He b. He completed completed the the exam exam in one hour in one hour I-Ic will will take c. He c. take the the exam exam in one hour

(PIkIOD OF TEMPORAL ENCLOSURE 10k xl

(PERIOD OF TEMPORAL ENCLOSURE FOR XI

I PERIOD OF CON I INLOUS

(PERIOD OF CONTINUOUS

01 xl

DURATION OF X1

IPERIOD AFTER

(PERIOD AFTER WHICH

X (XCURSI

X OCCURS(

associated with in is in

Lexical concepts for temporal relations Lexical concepts for temporal relations One way in which temporal experience is encoded in language relates to temporal experience is encoded in language relates to One way in which closed-class lexical concepts that encode what I I will refer to as temporal that encode what will refer to is temporal closed-class lexical concepts relations. In a language such as English, these asso.-i.ttcd theselexical lexicalconcepts conceptsare areassociated relations. In a language such as with an adverbial vehicle introduced, typically, by theexexbyprepositions, prepositions1as asthe introduced, with .in adverbial vehicle amples below illustrate. amples below illustrate. (z) a. in March in Saturday March (2) b..t. on on2 Saturday pm c.b. at c. at forfor Time in in • Findings presented in Silva Sirihr a al. (forthcoming, on the temporal representation Time representation %snh.a et aL (forthcoming) (in tb klnporal ► minity of around 'so speakers • Findinp ► ndawa languagein the Am until relatively recently An isolated sim tommunity of around I%O %pcak(Plin in .ifl from r i the Amondjwa Ammonia provides evidence until of a Language which encodes lime in a startlingly different way from differentway tune in a whkh cvidcntc Ill a Anwoni.i —provides language such as English. ‘1 he challenge that awaits linguists is to describe the semantics ofof Time in in lime that assails linguists is to describe tb. as .English. st ud ie d The languages of th e world whic h. at present. virtually nothing mime of the %uih less well is is known. langu.tge known. nothing

sonw of the kis well- i;udicd Languagesi'f

the world about which, at present. virtually

examplesaadistinct distinctlexical kxkal concept conceptassociated with in is in In each each of of these these examples, In (PERIOD OF TEMPORAL thelexical lexicalconcept conceptglossed glossed as evidence. In In (5a) the evidence, as (PERIOD OF TEMPORAL temporal relation between a particular event, xl mediates I Ni tostRi fOR ENCLOSURE FOR XI mediates aa temporal relation between a particular event, which the event oftime, time,March, March, at at some somepoint pointininwhich theexam, exam,and andthe theperiod periodof the the event gloss as LPERIOD OF the lexical concept I occurs. In In (5h), the lexical concept I gloss as (PERIOD OF CONTINUOUS occurs. between a particular event, mediatesaatemporal temporalrelation relationbetween InRAIION OF OFX1xl mediates DURATION a particular event,in continues. Finally, period for which the exam theexam, exam,and andthe thetemporal temporalperiod for which the exam continues. Finally, in the IPERIOD AFrER wInCH x o:cuRsl mediates a tem(ic), the thelexical lexical concept concept (5c), (PERIOD AFTER WHICH X OCCURS' mediates a temthe exam, and the period after which the poralrelation relation between between an an event, event, the poral exam, and the period after which the conceptions associated with the In other words, the distinctconceptions exam takes place. exam takes place. In other words, the distinct associated with the in part, of distinct lexical concepts for in utterances in (s) are a consequence1 utterances in (5) are a consequence, in part. of distinct lexical concepts for in position to see that the conception which beingselected. selected.We Weare arealso alsonow nowinina aposition being to see that the conception which is a conseqilelKe of the (ii- Riot) OF of the utterance in arises as a result arises as a result of the utterance in (4) is a consequence of the (PERIOD OF FOR being selected and integrated with the TEMPORALENCLOSURE EN' I I)S(JRIFOR TEMPORAL xl xJ forforininbeing selected and integrated with the lexicalconcept conceptgiven given internallyopen openlexical internally inin (3h).

____ liii sIMANI l(S OF I IME 112 312

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT

FIGURA TIV£ LANGUACE FIGURATIVE

AN!) IUOL(.H1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

AN~D!..!.T~II~O~U~G~II:..:T

Lexical concepts that encode aspect Lexical concepts concepu that encode encode aspect Lexical Another way in which temporal experience getsencoded encoded interms terms oflinguistic linguistic Anolher way 10 which experience gets gets encoded in in term of of lingUlsti which temporal expencnce way in Another linguistic phenomena often referred referredto, to,variously, variously, content relates to the range oflinguistic content relates tic phenomena often referred to. variously. of relates to to the the range oflingm as aspect. In general terms, aspect relates tothe thehighly highly schematicencoding encoding ofthe the a aspect. In general aspeet relates to highly schcrnatk hematic n oding of of the terms, aspect general terms. aspect. In distribution of action through time. Nevertheless, aspectisisnot not ahomogenous homogenous aspect di'tribution of action a tion through time. tim.. Ncverthckss. 'e,erthel a peet i not aa homogenou distribution ('if category, and even an individual language (such as as Lnglish English,for for instance),has has language ((such category. and even an individual language uch as l.ngli,h. for instance), in lance). has and even an individual a range of ways in which aspectual phenomena areencoded.. encoded.Two Two examplesof of way in which aspeetual arc encoded. Two examples of aa range range of aspectual phenomena are ot ways aspectual categories encoded by English are given below: below: are given encoded by English a'llCClual Engli h are given below: aspect ual categori .ncoded Category: Boundedness

Category: Boundedn Boundedness Category: 6) a. He is drinking the beer [UNBOUNDED EVENT) EVENT] IUNDOU ORO EVENTI I i'NKOtNI)II) is drinking the beer He i drinking a.b.He (6) a. He has drunk the beer [BOUNDED EVENT) (80uN11 I) I-Vt NI EVENTI b. ha drunk the the beer beer IBOliNOW lie has b. lie These examples relate, respectively, to what is traditionally referred to as

traditionally referred referred to to as respectively,toto what what is These examples relat • respectively. i traditionally a examples relate, These imperfective aspect (6a) and perfective aspect (6b). What What II gloss as the the gloss as and perfective imperfe<:tive aspect (6a) and perfective aspect a peet (6h). (6b). What I glo as the irnperfective aspect (6a) UNBOUNDED EVENT] lexical concept is associated with vehicle provided with the the concept is IUNBOUNDED EVENTllexi I concept i associated a iated with th vehicle vehi Ie provided provided EvENTI lexical in (7a), and is conventionally associated with the vehicle "BE + VERBine, conventionally associated with the vehicle 10 (70). and and is is conventionally iated with vehi Ie "BE "BE +..VERB1ng" VERBillg". in (7a), and works in conjunction with lexical concepts for Time-reference (i.e., Time-reference and works in in conjunction with Ilexical xical concepts for Time referen • (i.e., (i.e .• oniunction with and works the tense system). The [BOUNDED EVENT] lexical concept is conventionally 1-viNri lexical th tense tense ystem). The The IBOUNDED EVENTI I.xical concept on ept is i conventionally conventionally the associatedsystem). with the vehicle "HAVE + VERB PAST PARTICIPLE". The UNThe[ (UN associated with the vehicle "HAVE • VIRB VERB PASF PA T PARTiCIPLE". PARTI IPLE". Th. IU associated with the vehicle "hAVE + BOUNDED EVENT) lexical concept encodes highly schematic content which can schematic content which 80UNDPLl IVf Tllexical oncept en od highly schemati ontent whi h can an lexical concept encodes RotNI)I I) EVINTI be paraphrased as follows: the event in in question question is/was in progress at the time the time is/was in progress at be as follows: follow : the th event is/was progres the time he paraphrased paraphrased as reference indicated by the time-reference lexical concepts (i.e., the tense (i.e., the time-reference reference indi ated by the time ref< rence lexical lexi al concepts concept (i .•.• the tense tense reference indicated by system). The [ BOUNDED EVENT) lexical concept encodes the following schefollowing schelexial concept system). IOOIJNOfLl IVENTllexical wncept encodes en odes the f< 1I0wing he system). The The tøotNI)EI) matic content: the event in question occurred (or earlier occurred was anearlier mati content: the event event in question qu tion oc urred (orwas wa initiated) initiated)atatan earlier matic point and is complete, but still relevant, at the more recent time reference, reference, relevant, at at the more recent time referenc••asas point and is i complete, complet • but still till relevant. as indicated by the time-reference lexical concepts. lexical concepts. con epts. Indicated by the time time ·relerence refer n elexical indicated Hence, the conception which typically arises of ofthe the typically arises as as aaa consequence consequence H.n e. the conception conception which which typIcally ari as onsequen of the Hence, utterance in (6a) is that the drinking of the beer isisongoing at time ofof ongoing at time that the drinking utteran e 10 (60) is i that drinking of the the beer beer i ongoing at time of utterance in (6a) speaking. That is, the [UNBOUNDED EVENT) lexical the lexical concept contributes the i peaking. That I UNBO NOW lexical concept con cpt contributes contribute th u NBOUNOI u !VlNTI speaking. That is. the I following content: in terms of the time period covered by the utterance, the the period covered by the utterance, following rm of the time tim covered by th utterance. the following content: content: in in tterms drinking event is unbounded. The conception associated with the utterance in associated with with th the utterance drinking event iis unbounded. utterance in in unbounded. The conception associated (6b) is that the drinking of the beer was initiated at an earlier point in time, time, initiated at at an earlier point in (6b) drinking of of the the beer beer was wa initiated in 11m • (6b) is that the drinking and was completed prior to, or at the moment ofof speaking. That is, the peaking. [hat and was completed prior to. or at the the moment moment of peaking. That is, is. the the and was completed prior to, (BOUNDED EVENT] lexical concept encodes the following: in the time period period the hllowing: IBOUNOfD 01 concept on ept en odes th following: in the time period [IIOUNIEOEVENTllexi i-vi Nil lexical encodes covered by the utterance, the drinking event isis hounded. bounded. covered ranc • the drinking drinklOg event vent i bounded. covered by by th the utt utterance, As I have observed earlier in the book, linguistic typically typically book, linguistic contentis is A I have have observed ob rved earlier in the book. linguisti content content i typically As I earlier in the bundled in a single lexical concept. For example, in the examples in examplesinin th the examples in(6a), (6a), bundled in aa single IOsle lexical lexi al concept. on ept. For ror example. examples in (6a). bundled the lexical concept paired with the vehicle "is drinking" bundles the Unthe drinking" bundles the lexical conlept the vehicle vehide "is "IS dmlklllg' bundl . the UnUn the lexical concept paired paired with with the bounded parameter from the temporal category Boundedness, with the the temporal category bounded parameter (torn from the temporal category Boundedness, Boundedness. with with the boundedparameter parameter Non-past temporal category Time reference.'' from thethe on pa t parameter from from the temporal category ategory Time r ference.' Non-past •

ReL,A11 the dixussion of Time Frio - rote in Chapter 6

Recall the

of 1mw rctctcnc in Chapter t'.

313 31)

THE SEMANTICS OF TIME

Another aaspectual peetual category I often often bundled bundled with with parameters paramet rs from from .alcgory that is Another from Another aspectual category that is often bundled with parameters glosses for the The Contour. I refer to as Event other categories r lates to what I to. hent Contour. The glo for the other categories relates to other categories relates to what I refer to as Event Contour. The glosses for (2ooo):the drawn from Talmy relevant parameters. (7). arc drawn from Talmy (2000): provided below in (7), are relevant parameters1 relevant parameters, provided below in (7), are drawn from Talmy (woo): Category: Category:Event Event Vehicle: Vehicle: didie (to)die (7) a.a. (to) b. fall h.b. (to) (to)fall fall c.c. (to) nash (to)flash flash breathe d.d. (to) breath (to) breathe e. leep e.e. (to) (to)sleep sleep

ntour Contour Parameter Parameter: Parameter: On -way non-rescttable non resettahle One-way One-way non- resettable One-way One· way rescttahle resettabl One-way reset table Full cycle cy Ie Full cycle Multiplex Multiplex ate Steady Steady tate SteadyStstate

Lexi al con ept glo

Lexical concept gloss:

DIF.) ((io) Dlrl «TO) ((To) DIE) L(io) «TO)FAL.I FAll I t(TO) FALL) ILASH) «TO) 1(To) FLASIII [(TO) FLASH) ((io) «TO) RREATI4II BRfATIIRI ((TO) BREATHE) «TO) IHPI ((To) siiipl ((TO) SLEEP)

which concepts While the .xamples in (7) relate to open-class open- las lexical lexi al con cpt which which facilitate fa ilitat. Whik Whilethe theexamples examplesin in (7) relate to open-class lexical conceptsmodels facilitate that are encoded by the •access . to to th wnceptual content encoded th cognitive cognitiv models model that that arc are access to the the conceptual conceptual content content encoded by the cognitive directly encoded the aassociated i.ted with th.lexical concept. th temporal temporal experience experience directly en oded associatedwith withthe thelexical lexicalconcepts concept, the temporal experience directly relates encoded to highly schematic. This content is by the th lexical lexi al concepts concept aas linguistic Iinguisti is highly highly schematic. hemati. This Thi relates relat to to by as lexical concepts linguistic content is by the course the hemall aspect of the di tribution of action during the the course WUN of ofthe th event event schematic schematic aspects aspects of of the the distribution distribution of action during therefer of to as an Event I in question. The nature of this this schematic hemati content cont nt I refer refer to to as asan anEvent Event in in question. question. The The nature nature of this schematic content Inumber of parameters1 Contour_ Thi. of Iingui ti wntent has a number of parameters. (:t)ntour. [his category Contour. This category of linguistic content has a number of parameters, ot the linguistk content as bundled with other aspeets of Iingui>!i' a part of the various variou lexical lexical bundled bundled with with other other aspects aspects of linguistic content as part of the various lexical provided. glosses also provided. concept whose glosses glo scs are are also provided. concepts concepts,•whose whose that content For in,tance.1 (TO) mi-I aIEl encodes schematic ""hematic cont nt relating relating to to an an event event that that For ((To) DIE) encodes schematic content relating to an event odes For instance, instance, [(TO) it circumstances. Hence, one can do do only only once, once.at at least least under undernormal nonnalcircumstances. circumstan es.Hence, llence.itit encodes encodes least normal only once, at one can do non-resettable. In I term One-way the parameter which, which. following Talmy, Talmy. I term t.rm One-way ne-waynon-resettable. non-resettable. In In which, following the parameter parameter the following Talmy, do it more is resettahie: you an contra t.«TO) fAlll en odes content whichisi resettable: resettable: you you can can do doitit more more content which which encodes FAI.Ii encodes contrast, ((to) FALL) contrast, [(To) beginning and ((io) mEl: it involves a than onc .IIow cr. it iis one-way.likr«To) Ill' I: itit involves involves aa beginning beginningand and one-way,like like[(TO) DIE): than once. once. However, than However, it is one-way, resettable. In the parameter One-way an end. Hence, Hen e. «TO)FAt FAlll .ncodes the parameterOne-way ne-wayresettable. resettable.In In encodes 1.1 encodes parameter an end. end. an Hence, ((To) [(To) FALL) encodes cycle. That is, it Full contrast. «TO) IlA III encodes en ode> the th parameter: parameter: Full rull cycle. cycl •. That That is, i •itIt encodes encodes IlAsill the contrast, ((ro) FLASH) encodes )(TO) contrast, to its initial state. the event the following followlllgschematic schematic content:the ent involves IIlvolv aa return to its initialstate. t.te. schematiccontent: the following the event involves a return to its initialthat the The lexi al concept «TO) BRIATHI BREATIIEIJ en od the the schematic hematic content cont ntthat thatthe the encodes The lexical lexical concept[(To) L(io) BREATHE) encodes the schematic content The concept multiplex event, hence constitutes .ent involves in,olv aaa series srri ofactions action and andhence hen cconstitutes con tilutesaaamultiplex multiplexevent, event. seriesof actions evcnt involves event and action that encodes relating toan anaction while «TO) . LPEPI encod content contentrelating relatingto action thatisis i ongoing, ongoing.and and while ((To) si ii encodes that while )(TO) SLEEP) which I gloss Stcjdy state. thu encodes encodesthe th parameter parameterwhich glo asaasSteady Steady tate. thus encodes the parameter thus I gloss state. concepts Nominallexical lexicalconcepts Nominal

Another type of oftemporallexi al concept relates ~o what I refrr to a. nomi~al temporal lexical type Anothertype Another of temporal lexical concept relates to what I refer to as nominal with temporallrxical concrpt . These are onccp" a '''<:I.ated WIth I'hese are temporallexlC.1 temporal lexical concepts tempt)rallexical lexicalconcepts. concepts.These temporal are temporal lexical concepts associated with following: time. exemplified by the noun vehicles, vehi les. or nominal vehicles. 3 .xemplified by the followIOg: '""e. vehicles, as ornominal nominal flOUflvehicles, the following: noun or vehicles, as exemplified by future,time, past, futurt. second, hour, PfliflUtt', tomorrow. yesterday1 }'Ntrrtllt}" aeon, era, fm, ct"tury, 'IOU'. tlWlUif.second, ~CC",tI, peu,. n~"'. now, future, tomorrow, yesterday aeon, era, century, hour, minute, and so past, lexical forth. The sum,,,er, W(Tk, prt5t,U.moment, momc,,'.January, Imumr,..Decenther, Ix(cmbrr.week, \\","c1.summer, 5um"u~r.and dndso 0forth. forth"The Thelexical Ic~u:JI January, present, present, associated with vehicles are each oncept conventionally conventionally paired with these vehicle> areeach eachassociated aSSOCIatedwith ~Itha aa onv&'ntionally paired with concepts concepts paired with these vehicles are distinct relating to unique 01(((:\\ site, ..,it • tacilitating f.lI.;ihl.1l1ng '}u:c to rich ri h knowledge knowledge relatmg to dlstmct unique unique access site, facilitating access to rich knowledge relating to distinct temporal ~()rh tempor..elapses. 1elapses. cldP~ • sortsofof oftemporal sorts

"CO".

relates to what I refer to as nominal

314 114

-

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGe LANGUAGEAND ANDTU THOUGHT FIGURATive UGHT _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ FI(URATIVE LAN(,tAGE AND 1IIOt'6HT

I IME THE THE SFMANTI(:sOI SEMANTICS OF TIME

315 JIS 315

'--

models, including purely purely temwhich facilitat ac . to indudlllg tem to whichfacilitate facilitateaccess access to temporal temporal cogllltive cognitive model, models, including temh spatial patial content r ruited by virtu of onceptual poral as rich content poralcontent contentas as well well as as ri rich spatial content recruited recruited by virtue virtueof ofconceptual conceptual detail below. metaphors, th. sense ussed .bove, in more detail below. metaphors1 in discussed above,and and in in more metaphors, in in the the sense sense di discussed above, and below. related notion notion of a TFoR, {Oil ider the In contextualiz the l'FoR, Inorder orderto tocontextuahze contextualize th. the notion notion of of a TFoR, consider consider the related related notion is located aa SFoR, figure (F) (l is of patial frame fram. of rtferenc< FoR). In ToR, aaa figure figure i located located by by of of aaa spatial spatial frameof ofreference reference ((SFoR). Ina SFoR, (F) by which serves to establish a search virtue of employing reference object obi t ((RU) (RO) which serves serves to toestablish establi haasearch search virtue object virtueof ofemploying employing aaareference reference RO) which figure. Consider the following following example: rtgion localing th figurt. following example: txample: region region for forlocating locating the the figure. Consider the

Aswith withother othertemporal temporalkxkal lexicalconcept, concepts, nominalle"ical nominal lexical lexical concepts concepts also (.oflcepts, nominal A temporalle"ic.1 COli cpt may 31", As with time As w we saw saw 7, the the exhibits polypolyvehicle lII time exhibit polysemy. polysemy.I.0 As exhibit in hapt« 7, th. vehicle vehicle ..e exhibits As we saw in in Chapter Chapter polvscmy.'° exhibit semy, havinga number of of distinct distinct lexical concepts it. Moreiatedwith with it. my, having of di tina lexical lexi .1 concepts concept associated associated wilh 1or. ... aa number over, lexical concepts paired with the same can distinguished based be distinguished based vehicle the same over, lexical (oil cpt pmed m. vehi Ie can di~tlllgui hed ha 'd concepts paired wuh with th over, lexical on identifying distinct lexical profiles by examining usage data. In In other other on ntifying distinct di tinct lexical lexical profiles profiles by by <xamining usage usage data. data. other identifying on id words, divergences in the lexical profile is a symptom of polysemy. Utterances polysemy. of lexical profile ii aa symptom al profile ymptom of Ullerane", words, divergences divergenc in the th lexi time involving distinct temporal lexical concepts associated with are provided are provided associated with with time IIlvol v ing distinct temporal lexical concepts associated lII ..e art involving below: below:

(8) (8) (8)

Time drags when Tillie you'r bored Fime drags drags when when you're youre lx)red

DURATION' pRorRA(;rEn DURATION I I[PROTRACTED PROTRACTED DIJRATIONI

(9) (9)

Time flies flies when when you're you're having having fun fun Time when

(TEMPORAL COMPRFSSIONI TEMPORAl.COMPRESSION) (:oMpRIssloNI ITEMPORAL

(to) (10) (to)

Time on forever forever Time flflows ws on on forever lime flows

MATRIX' I'TEMPORAL TEMPORAl. MATRIXJI In 'PORAL MATRIX

(11) (II) (it)

The time time for for decision The for aaa decision dtci ion has ha arrived has arrived

(TEMPORAL SIOSIENTI MOMENT] ITEMPORAL MOMENT)

Thebike bikeisisin in front front of the church (11) The bike front of ofthe the church church (12) The (12)

Whileeach each of these these lexical concepts gloss encodes linguistic content, Whil ea h of of th lexical concepts con epts encodes en od linguistic linguistic content, the the gloss glo While lexical provided refers refers to to the the nature nature of th. the conceptual conceptual these lexical content to which which these theselexical lexi al provided refer to the nature of of the conceptual content contentto concepts facilitate thethe (PROTRACTED ] lexical IDURATION )(RATIONJ kxkal the LIpROrRACTED PKOERA(.TL I) DURATloN)lexiral COllcept facilitateaccess. access.For ror instance, concepts facilitate access. Forinstance, instance, concept fac facilitates access to to content relating relating phenomenoconcept facilil.t ace con eptual content content r lating to to the th phenomenophenomenoslitates access to conceptual logically real real experience of experienceof ofhaving having logically real experience experien e of protra ted duration—the duration-the experienc< of having logically ofprotracted protracted duration—the experience more time than usual, and hence the experience of time proceeding and hence the experience of time more mor than usual, usual, and hen e the experi nee of tim proceeding proceeding more more more tim time than "slowly" than usual. The lexical concept illustrated in (9) facilitates access ""slowly" lowly" than than usual. u ual. The Th lexical lexical concept on ept illustrated illustratedinin(si) (9)facilitates fa ilitatesaccess ace to to the phenomenologically real experience of temporal compression—the excompression—the ion-the exexthe phenomenologi ally real real experience experien e of the phcnornenologicalh of temporal compr perience of having less time than usual, and hence the experience of time of time less time than than usual, u ual, and and hence hence the th experience experience of time perienc perience of of having less proceeding more thanusual. usual.The Thelexical lexical concept in evidence inevidence evidence in in proceeding "qui kly" than than usual. Th lexical concept concept in proceeding more more "quickly" "quickly" (to) facilitates to theevent event which (10) facilitates access aaccess ces to the conccptuali7.ation oftime timeas a the evcntwhich which (to) facilitates to the the conceptualimion conceptualiiationof time as encompasses all others, which gloss as as th the Matrix conceptualiution—time Matrix Olllp~ all glo as Matrix conceptualization— onceptualildtion - -time time en encompasses allothen, others, which which III gloss as events takes place. Finally, the lexical ev nt takes takesplace. pia ~.Finally, rinally, the th lexical lexical as ththemanifold manifold in whi allother otherevents a.sthe manifoldin inwhich whkhhall concept sanctions the use time (it) relates relates to conceptual content sana ion the the use u of oftime' lilll' in in (u) (II) relates to toconceptual con eptual content concept whi concept which whichh sanctions of its concerning time for its concerning as temporal moment or pointwithout withoutregard rtgard for for ih concerning time time as asaaatemporal temporalmoment momentor orpoint point without regard duration. d urt t on. durallon.

Lexical which Lexical concepts concepts which which encode encode temporal temporal frames of reference (TFoRs) LeXICal concepts temporalframes framesof ofreference reference(TFoRs) (TFoRs) The consider are those that The final kind oftemporal temporal lexical lexical concept con eptthat that III consider con ider are ar~ those those that Thefinal finalkind kind of of temporal lexical concept that encode short. ofreference, reference,or orTFoRs TFoRsfor forshort. \hort. encod what refer to to as as temporal temporal frames framesof encodewhat whatIIIrefer as frames of reference, Akin to spatial frames of reference (e.g., Levinson see zooo), ofreference referen e(e.g., (~.g.,levinson Levin 2003; n 2003; 2ooJ;SCC see also also Tal my z000), 2000), Akin tospatial pallalframes fram of ;\kin to alsoTalmy Talmy TFoRs are complex symbolic vehicle lIoRs are and an internafly open TFoR. are complex complex symbolic units, unit ,involving involvingaavehicle vehicle and and an an internally internally open open closed-class highly closed da classlexical concept. The lexical lexical concept serves to encode encode do,.ro Ielexical ieal concept. con cpt. The The lexical concept concept serves ~rv"" to encodehighly schematic see below, schematic oftemporal temporalreference. reference. Vet, and as we shall see pec~ of of .emporal reference.Yet, Ye., and and as as we weshall hall".,., below, hemat/< aspects aaspects TFoR open-classnominal nominallexical lexicalconcepts concepts ((1n ept are arc inttgrated with open-cia nominal concept TFoR lexical le.ical lexical concepts concepts arcintegrated integratedwith with open-class due ° Retail polvscrnv 1.. ducto it'the the phoni'$ogstalvehkk vctlkk being RnaUthat IJuIinIn I(LMTheory rhenry P'''YWPlY arras .If due,.) 1M same RlC' phorkilogital rhf.n.,''''Ik-.I1 \'ch ....kbeing ~n. inLCCM L((M Tht-orv '" conventionally paired with distinct lexical concepts. and hence potentially distinct access sites. potentially conceptl. and distinct iezI4.al utmft'ltOMlly ~lrN ... lukl k'uul U>rkt'pl and ~~ Jt(JlmlWly d. Il1'kl Au.. It paired With w,th ddiMinCt

4

entity In (.1) II,. b,k. titutes the F, the whose location is I established tabli hed by by constitutes constitutes the F, F, the .ntity entity whose whose location location is established by the bike bike con In (12) (12) the the search of employing RO. The The R() ROthereby thereby serves serves to to narrow narrow down down the thesearch search virtue virtue virtueof of employing employing aaa RU. RO. The RO thereby serves region rtgion which the FFFcan can be be located. located. region in in which whichthe the can be located. in order order to "locate" "locate" point order to "locat." aaa analogou r r. ren • point In employ aaa reference reference point in In analogous analogous fashion, fashion, TFoRs TFoRs employ employ thelanguage language ofillustration. illustration. given event time. will employ .mploy English Engli h as as the languag of of iIIustralion. given event in in time. time. II will will employ English as in given event from English, II'ngli nglish, there difTer, of tell quite quite radically, radically, from h, there ther isis i Although other languages languages differ, differ, often often radically Although other other languages possessing lexical reasonably h is alon in inpossessing po inglexical reasonably robust evidence that Engli English is reasonably robust robust evidenc< evidence lhat that English is not not alone alone Alverson 1994;Bender Benderel aL 1005; zoos;Moore \loore concepts that encode encode TFoRs TFoRs (see ( Alverson Alverson1994; 1994; Bender al. Moort TFoRs eta al. zoos; concepts that encode (see gil. Nevertheless, workby bySilva Silva Sinha 2000; unt? and and Sweetser weetser zo)6). 20(6).Nevertheless, everthele:.s, work work ilva Sinha Sinha et el al. al. Sweciser i000; N(inez woo; Nunez cross-linguistically universal. (forthcoming) rev..1 that that TFoRs TFoRs may may not not be be cross-linguistically ero -linguisticallyuniversal. universal. (forthcoming) that be (forthcoming) reveals reveals TFoRs lexical concepts, Ikfort procteding a discussion di u ion of ofspecific pecific TFoR IToR lexical lexi al concepts, con cpt, aaa Before proceeding with aa of specific TFoR Before proceeding with with discussion been commontoto Metaphor Theory in order. Con eptual Metaphor Theory itit has has been beell common common to caveat caveat iis is in in order. order. In In Conceptual caveat Conceptual linguistic expressions expressions discuss below are conseum. that that the type oflinguistic linguistic expr ions IIIdiscuss discus below beloware areaaaconseconseaassume that the thetype typeof assume metaphors -—cross-domain thatunderlie underlie of conetptual metaphors—cross-domain metaphors-
SIMANTICS OF TIMI TUE __________~T~I~IE ~ ~EMANTI OF T ~I~ M~E~__~317 3~1~7 THE SEMANTICS OF~ TIME 317

ANt) FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT THOUGHT FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND

utterances withspecific specific earlier/later relation. Both Both types illustrated edrlierllal r relation. relation. types are are illustrated illu trated with with peeilkutterances utterane earlier/later below: below: (l' xpenencer-ba;cd) (Ixperiencer-based) Christmas approaching(us) Christmas tma iisisapproaching (u(us) ) (Experiencer-based) (13) (13) ehri (ii)

(14) (14) (i.e)

(Event . based) (Event-based) Christmas precedesNew New Year (Event-based) Christmas ehri tma precedes precedes 'ew Year Vear

of reference, reference, temporal reference rekrcncc As with spatial frames encodes of referene , temporal referen eencodes en odes aa reference r ferenee A with spatial patial frames fram of As locate" aa particular example point which which serves to particular event in in time. poont whi h serves "I<><:at.' particular event event time. In In the th example exampleinin on point to "locate" associated withthe thelocation locationofofan an (13),the thenotion notion of of (13), the of"now" ""now" now" associated asso<:iated with with the location anexperiencing experiencong (ij), asth thereference reference point.With With rereconsciousness—the as the consciousn the "Experiencer"—serves ""Experiencer"—serves lxperiencer"- serves as referen e point. With reo understood in in terms termsof ofits immi-· spect to an event event can can be be understood understood speet thi Experiencer, Fxperiencer, an term of ititsimmiimmi an event spect to this this thefuture with respect to the nence--the nenc the degree ddegree ree to totowhich which "located" in the the future with with respect r"'peet to tllthe the nence—the whichitititisisis"located" "located"in "located" in in the degree to which which it Experiencer--or its occurrence-—the occurrence—the degree to to Experien er-or its occurrenct'-the degr which it is iis"located" "located" in the the Experiencer—Or is by past respect to Hence, lxpericncer. Hence, examplein in(13) (13) isi licensed licensedby by pa the Experiencer. Experiencer. Hen e, the the example pastt with with respect to the and the the open-class open-class kxkal an TFoRlexical lexical c4)nIcpt concept an Experiencer· ba\ed lToR oncept and open -cia lexical lexi al concon Experiencer-hased TFoR an Experiencer-based a conception to aa conception are integrated with it. Together these with it. cepts It.Together Togetherthese these give give rise ri to conceptioninin cepts which which are the theevent, event, Christmas,,and and the relation holds between Christmas, which pa t/ future relation relation holds hold between between the event,-hristma and the which a past/future pastlfuture reference associated ref< rence point, "now:'associated a \llCidted with WIth th Experiencer. hperien(er. point. "now," "now' with the the Ixpcricncer. given event event as the reference employs a a given (14) employs In contra t, the the example example in in (14) (t4) employ given event as as the thereference ref< renee In contrast, contrast, the New Year, point, rather than notion of"now." "now." In (14), (14), itit is iis New ewYear, Vear, aaatemporal temporal than the point, rather the notion notionof "now." In the relative as the the reference reference point in in order to establish event serve as reference point in order orderto toestablish establi,h the therelative r Idti", serves as event which serves theutterance utterance "location" intime timeofof another event, here ofanother anotherevent, event,here here Christmas. Christmas. Hence, Hence,the utteranceinin ""location" location" inin Hence, lexical concept and open-class (4) (14) licensedby byan anEvent-based Fvent -based TFoR Icxi al concept con cpt and and the the open-class open-cia ('4) isisi licensed licensed by an Event-based TFoR lexical conceptsthat that are arc integrated integratedwith with it. it. Thgether giverise riseto toaaJ lexical concept concepts that are with Together these give ri-. to lexieal integrated Together these th give relation holding holding the conception between conception in there is is an anearlier/later earlier/later relation relation holding between between the the conception in in which which there there is an earlier/later Year.The Thedistinction between ewYear. Vear. The didistinction tinctionbetween between event, .hri tma" and referen e point, point, event, Christmas, Christmas, and the the reference reference point, New New the encoded by these these twoIFoR TFoRlexical lexicalconcepts conuptsisis sumthe linguistic linguistic content (on tent encoded encodl.,) by the . two two TFoR lexicdl contept is sumsum marized in 15.t. in Table Tdble '5.1. ofaaa of TFoR lexical concept arc The two broad types types ofTFoR lellical concept con cpt are arc manifested manifested in in terms term of of types TIoR lexical manifested terms ofthe the number of of specific 'peeilk TFoR ,(,FoR lexical lexical concepts. wnerpt .Below BelowIIIbriefly bneflydescribe de,cribesome someofof concepts. briefly describe mostt common types. mo type,.

two types of TFoR lexical lexical TABLE Linguistic content encoded encoded TFoR TABU ' $0', lmgm tic content cOnltnt tncoded by by two IwO types lyptS of ofTfoR Itx"at concept wnt:tpt I inguistic TAPIE 151. of I t-ramc Type of Temporal Frame lram of of Reference Refe«n e (TFoR) (TFoR) ( IFoR) lexical Itxical concept conttpt Reference (RP) ReferenL< (RP) Reference point (RP) ethoded enco.led encoded Relation encoded en o.led

Experien er·b. d TFoR Ilexical xieal concepts con cpt I-xpcriencer-bascd IFoR lexical Experiencer-based TFoR concepts are aa large largenumber, number,II will will illustrate illustrate considering justt two two TFoR TFoR While there iIIu trate by con idering just ju there are large by considering lexical this type: type: leXIcal umeept of this type: lexical concepts concepts of •• (LOCATION IEVENT VI NT IN TIME, FROM (LOCATION Of IN TIMl, fROM PER PECTIVE EVENT) FROMPERSPECTIVE PERSI'I TIVI OF [LOCATIONOF OF [VENT IN TIME, OF IVFNTJ EVENT] e.g., Clms/mllS (liS) i':as is upproac/mlg e.g.. Christ Christmas approaching (us) (LOCATION OF EVENT I-VENTIN INTIME, lIME, FROM FROM PERSPIlIVE OF OF IXPEKIENCERI [VENT IN TIMl, I-ROMPERSPECTIVE PERSPECTIVE OJ EXPERIENCERI EXPLRllNCERI •• (LOCATION (LOCATION 01 OF tnas e.g., e.g.,We Wt arc approac/IItIg Chris/mas We are are approaching approaching Christ Christmas

As with all 1 IoR lexical lexical t.oncepts, these arecomplex complex closed-dass lexical As WIth all TFoR Tl'oR lelO al concepts, concepts, these these are arc compl xclosed-class c1osed -da lexical lellic.] As with all concepts con ist of of phonetically overt aaswell well as phonetically implicit concepts which which consist consist ofphonetically phoneticallyovert overtas wellas asphonetically phoneticallyimplicit implicit vehicles. hence,they theyconstitute constitutepartially partially internally internally lexical concepts, comtitute internally open open lexical lexi .1concepts, (Oncept , vehides. lIence, they vehicles. Hence, open open-class lexical which can be be integrated integrated with withother otherclosed-class dosed -da. as a well wellas a~open-class open- la~\lexical lexical which can can be integrated with other closed-class as well as concepts. con cpt. by considering consideringthe thefirst firstof ofthe thetwo twoexperiencer-based experiencer-based iloRlexical lexical I begin considering the first of experien er-ba dTFoR TFoR lexical begin by concepts. i given givcn in in (15): (IS): concepts.The Thesymbolic symbolk unit unit is is in (15):

(IS) (15) ('i)

J. vehicle a.

b. lexical concept h. lexical

""NP1 PI VERBAL VlRBAL eOMPLfX I DIRECTED [)IRlCTU) NPi IX 01: DIRE(:l'EI) VERBAL COMPLEX OF MOTION MOTIO (NP2)" ( Pl)" (NPi)" MOTION (locATioN OF FIN FROM PERSI'ECIiVE (LOCATION OFEVEN EVENT INTIME, TIME,FROM fROMPERSPECTIVE PERSPECTIVE [LOCATION OF EVENT IN TIME, OF EVENT] Of [VlNT) OF

The lexical The lexical concept concept (ISb) encodes en odes the the following. There i an event (E) (E) encodes thefollowing. following.There Thereisis anevent event (E) The lexical concept in in (10) in time time with as the which is i located located in on lime with withrespect r . peet totoan anexperiencer expenenlCrwhich whithserves serves as d the the which respect which serves reference point (RP). (RP). Additionally, Additionally, the temporal temporal location location is is from the reference point i viewed viewed from the reference point the perspective point ((PP) the This can berepresented representeddiagrammatically diagrammatically (PP) ofthe event. This Thiscan canhe represented diagrammatically perspeetiv point perspective point PP) of of the event. event. asin inFigure ligure 15.t. is.,. as in I-igure

'5.'.

•. PP PP

-

Experiencer-based ,. xpt:ricn,cr h.J\et.l e.g.. te.g.. .p...

Fvent-hased Event-based e.g., I vrnl ho\ed e.g.. e.g.,

Christmas (I:r:sUrsili isISii Christmas approaching apprc..)f.l,/,ing Human experience llum.in experienti lIum;ln t J't."ricnct of "now" ("Experiencer") { OO l- pt.-ricf\\:er", RelativeI()(.uion loGitionin intime time Relative location Rtlall\C m lim ((i.e' i.e., past/future) of (i.e., p.ist/future) •• p.ut /tUlure) of to RI' event C\1.."tlt \\-lIh rt pa.1 to to RP RP eventwith with respect

Chr,,.tmasprecedes Christmas C/,ruttmu prclc,/t· New New Year Nnv \i'd' event Temporal event C'\cnt Relative sequence Relative Sot"qu sequcncc Rdative n~t (i.e., ((i.e., i.t .• earlier/later) earlier/later) event c;lrhtr/ l~ll:r ' of ofevent nenl with respect with respect to With n: ptl.1 to 10 another event event another .anmher enl

•

time bme-time

RP RP

E E

114 .('itl l~l isi.. Representation Representationofuftht ofthe thclinguistic linguistic 4K A lION 4)1 Vi NT FIGURE FI(.l'a. Reprt."'!K"nt;lUun lingul II, t.ootcnl tnuKled hy l It)( ATlON 01 I VINT encoded by content encoded by [LOCATION OF EVENT IN IIMF, IFROM KOM PERsPicTIVE I'FKSPI( I lviOF 1)1 lvi NTI) INTlloU.I-ROM 1"a Pit l'V' ()I EVENTI IVI-N' IN TIME.

TIlE THESIMANTI(S SEMANTICSOF OFTIMI TIME

FiciURA IVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT ANI) TIjou(;HT _ _ _ _ __ FIG U RA TII VI!; LANG UAGe__A:::.:N.:::O...:T:..:I.:.:IO:::U:::G:::'~IT=I ANG('A(IE 18 3;18F1(1'RATIVE

-

he Iingul linguistic contentencoded encoded hby in Figure illustrated Ih lexical Ilexkal xlCal concept cone pi illustrated illu Iraled in in Figure rigure The lie content conlenl encoded by the linguistic does not not relate relate tothe the phenomenological phenomenological 15.1 highlyschematic schematicin in nature. nature. ItIIItdoes nalure. 15. does nol relate to 10 th phenom nological 1 iisishighly of what itit "fuels" like, for forInst instance, to experience passage of of experience to experien e of "feel inslan e, 10 experience the Ihe passage pa ge of experience ofwhal whatil "feels'.. like, time. Nor Nor does itilit encode encode phenomenologicallyrich notionsrelating relating to the lime. or does does en ode phenomenologically phenomenologically rirkh h notions nOlion relaling to the Ihe lime. experienceof of pastn pastness or or futurity. Thatis, thislexical lexicalconcept concept simply encodes this experience iis,,thi con epl simply imply encodes encodes experience of pastness orfUlurily. futurity. That relation holding holdingbetween between event In other other words, aaa relalion belween an an event evenl and and the Ihe RP: RP: the Ihe present. presenl. In olherwords, word, holding the RP: the relation "getsinto" into"language, language, so10 to speak, speak, in of what "get in terms terms of of linguistic linguistic is whal inlo" languag , so peak, in lerm lingui Ii content, eonlenl, is I aa.1 what 'gets to highlyparamaterized paramaterizedversion version of of temporal temporal experience. says nothing about about ItIt says highly paramalerized of lemporalexperience. experience. II ys nothing about whether Ih the evenl event isis past with respect respect to the RP. whelher localed in Ihe fulure or the thepast pa Iwith with r peelto tothe IheRP. RP. whether the event is located locatedin inthe thefuture future or Ibis rich inference emerges following interpretation, once open-class lexical interpretation. once This rich inference infer nee emerges emerges following oncet)pcnCIJSS open ·cla le"ieal ihis rich following onlerprelalion, concepts have havebeen been integrated withthe the TFoR lexical concept, as discussed integrated with concepl have been inlegraled with IheTFoR TFoRlexical lellicalconcept, con cpt,as a discussed di u sed concepts later. For For Ihi this reason, reason, the the has nodirectionality. directionality. laler. tim line inFigure Figure15.1 IS .• has ha no no direclionalily. later. For this reason, thetime timeline linein Figure is.t In addition additionto tothis thisschematic schematic content, the lexicalIconcept concept also also encodesaalexical lexical In addillon 10 Ihisschemalic conlenl,lhe le"i concepl alsoencodes lexical content, the lexical profile.As As thi thisTFoR TFoRlexical lexical concepl concept iisis inlernal1y internally open, the the lexical lexical profile profile encodes encodes profile. prome this concept internally open, internalformal formaland andsemantic semantic sekctional selectional tendcndes. tendencies. This following: internal This includes the inlernal fom.al and semanli selcctionallendenci Thisincludes in Iud the Ihefollowing: NP1 mustbe be aa temporal temporal event event of of some some kind, by optionalNP2 P,musl be evenl kind, and the Ihe oplional P2(signalled ((signalled ignalledby NPi must of some kind, and the optional the parentheses parentheses in Iheverbal verbal in (15a)) (isa)) must experiencer of some kind. Ihe parentheses in (Isa)) must be be an an experiencer experiencer of ofsome som kind. kind.The The verbal Lomplex of directed motion must relate to motion events that can be construed complex of directed mol motion omplex of ion must musl relate relale to to motion 0101 ionevents event that Ihal can can he be construed con Irued as facilitaling facilitating arrivalat the experiencer. experiencer. These These include ofofdeictic the experiencer. Thesein include verbsof deictkmotion, motion, aas alat th lude verbs verb deicti molion, facilitating arrival come, verbs such verbs of terminal motion,such such as approach, verbal verbal complexes complexes uch as as motion, u has asapproach, approach, such as com., come, verbsof of lern.inal terminal motion, Involving increase increase in in such get/move closer, or verbs of motion involving increase proximily, such U h as a get/mow getlmo,." c/OSl'r, or verbs of mol ion in proximity, proximity, as which are manner-neutral, mow, but which manner-neutral, such asmOl.", mow, bUI hut which which are are paired paired with with aaa path path whi hare manner·neulral, such u h as as which are paired wilh path satellite of of directed directedmotion, motion, such give complex move up up satellite of directed as up up on, on,to togive givethe theverbal verbalcomplex complex mo,." mow on. salellile mol ion,SUCh such as as 01410 the verbal upon. Ott Fxamples of utterances licensed by this lexical concept are given below: are given given below: ulleran es licensed licensed 1w by Ihi lellical con epl are Examples of of utterances this lexical ( 16) (16) (.6)

a. Christmas is moving towards a. Christmas us a. hri Ima is i moving moving towards loward us us b. Christmas is approaching (us) h. Christmas b. hri lOla is i approaching approaching (us) (u ) c. Christmas is getting closer Christmas is getting closer closer (to (to us) us) c. ehri Imas I. (10 u ) d. Christmas is d. Christmas coming d. hri tmas is i coming e. Christmas is tow.irds us e. Christmas hri Imas is i whizzing whizzing towards lowards us u

The second e\perienh er-basedTFoR TEoRsymbolic symbolic unitcan canbe bestated stated follows: The second cond experiencer-based experiencer-based TFoR ymbolicunit unit statedasas asfollows: follow: '7) a.a.vehicle (i7) (17) vehicl vehide b. h. lexical lexicalconcept concept b. le"ieal con el'l

"NPt VIRBAL COMPLEX ( ()MPLEX OFDIRECTED DIREClIL) " PI VERBAL VERBAL OMPlEX OF Of DIREcrED MOTION NP2" MOTION P2" MOnO [ILO<'ATION LOCATION OF OF FROM TIM), OF EVENT IVEN1 IN EVENT IN TIME, TI 'E,FROM IRO., I1.0(ATION

Rl

319 319 319

.• PP PP PP

flme llme-time

•

RP RP RP

• E E

encoded by by IUMATION FI(.l'al lSol. Representation Rcpr ntation of tht linguistic hngui til content (on tent encoded encoded (UKATION or of the linguistic (LOCATION 01 OF of Iu;vkE Representation FIGURE 15.2. pLgspE(:I IV) OF EXPERIENCIRI lVlNT TIMt;, IFROM ROMPERSPECTIVE P) R Pu.:TIVI OF Of EXPFRIFNCER lXPERIt;N( u,lI ES ENT IN IN TIME, TIME, FROM EVENT IN

stipulates thatN1 Nh leXIcal profile profil Ihi. lexical leXICal concept oncepl stipulates Slipulaiesthat Ihal PI muSI The lexical lexical profile for for this lexical wncept musthe be an an 3 1 must be a temporal event of some experien er of P2 must mu I be aa temporal lemporal event evenl of of some me experiencer of some and that experiencer of som some sort, sort, and that NPz NP2 must motion must relate to motion events kind. The verbal complex complex of direcled motion must must relate relale to motion mol ionevents evenl kind. The The verbal verbal complex of of directed directed the Illustrative Ihal direcled molion wilh respect respecl to 10the Ihe event. evenl. lIlu Iraliveexamples exampl", that motion with to event. Illustrative examples involve directed respect that involve below: are provided below: are moving towards Christmas (18) We are movong lowardsChristmas ('hri Ima a. is) a. a. WeWe areare moving towards (i8) We are are approaching approa hing Christmas hri Ima b. h. We closeto toChristmas Christmas c. We are 10 hri Imas c. We getting close are gelling We concepts concep" Evenl-based TFoR lexical concepts Event-based of lexical there are are aaa number number of As with expericncer-hased experiencer-based TFoR TFoR al concepts, con el'l , there there are of .\s with with experiencer-based TFoR lexi lexical concepts, this di linci kinds kindsof ofevent-based evenl-based based TFoR TFoR lexical lexical concepts. con eplS.In Inthis Ihissection seclionI IIexemplify exemplify distinct kinds of event concepts. differencebetween between experiencer-based and jusl two. two. Recall Recall that Ihat the theessential essentialdifference betweenexperiencer-based experiencer-basedand that essential just encoded, and hence hence the evenl based TFoR .1 con eplS iis Ihe Rp encoded, en oded, and and hen e the Ihe event-based TFoR le"i lexical concepts event-based TFoR lexical concepts is the the RP RP expericncer-hased it oR lexical lexical concepts schemali relalion encoded.While Whil experien er-basedTFoR TFoR lexicalconcepts con eplS schematicrelation relation encoded. encoded. Whileexperiencer-based schematic eventtheexperiencer, encode an an event thai located lime withrespect respecttoto tothe experiencer,eventevenlencode anevent eventthat thatisis islocated locatedinin intime timewith with respect encode relation of an event with respect lexi al concepts con epl encode en od the Ihe relalion of ofan anevent evenlwith wilhrespect r pecttoto 10 basedTFoR TFoR lexical lexical encode therelation based sequential (i.e., an earlier/later), rather another event, evenl, and and hence hen e encode n odeaaasequential sequenlial(i.e., (i.e.,ananearlier/later), earlier/laler),rather ralher hence encode another illustrate, consider the symbolic Ihan aa temporal pa tlfulure)relation. relalion.To Toillustrate, iUu trale,consider con iderthe thesymbolic symbolic than temporal (i.e., (i.e., past/future) past/future) relation. 11 than unit provided provided in (19): unil provided in in(19): ('9): unit

PERSPECTIVE OF IXPEKIFN* FRJ PIRSPECUIVI OF PERSPlCTIVf Of EXPERIENCERI EXPERlfNCI

The event (E) (17b) encodes thefollowing. following.There There an Th concept in in (17b) (17b) encodes encodes the Ihe There isisI an an event evenl (F.) (E) The lexical lexical concept an which is located in time with respect to experiencer which serves as the which is whith is located I'Kaled in in time limewith wilhrespect respecl to10an anexperiencer e peri neerwhich whi hserves serves as as the Ihe reference point (RP), and that the temporal location is viewed from the reference point(Rp), (RP).and and thai that the the temporal temporal local location from the referen e poinl ion Iis viewed viewed from perspective point (PP) of the experiencer. This can be represented diagramperspective poinl point (PP) of diagramper;petlive ofthe Ihe expcriencer. experiene r. This Thi can can be be represented repre nled diagram matically as in Figure 15.2. maikally as in malitallya on Figure Ilgure 1s.L 15.1.

(19) (19)

.."NPi PI COME MEbefore before NP2" 1'1" (OME NP2" vehicle before "NP. a.a. vehicle FARt) FRTHAN TItAN Yv) IQUENC£D EARLIER [ARLIER THAN [x b. lexical lexical IXIISIS SEQUENCED I le"i .1 concept concepi b. concept Ix

in relation encodesaaschematic schematic Ihi example, example, the Ih~ lexical lelli aI concept concepl in in(19b) (19b)encodes schematicrelation relalioninin In this this example. the lexical concept in In than another. That is, there which one 011 temporal lemporalevent nentis '>CC(ueneedearlier Ihan another. anolher. That Thai is, i ,there thereisis i one temporal event isI sequenced sequenced earlierthan which 1, whkh is prior as oneevent, evenl,event evenl E, L. which whi(.h ~lucnu"dprior priorto toaaasecond set:ondevent, evenl,which whichserves rYesas ~ which serves event, isi~sequenced sequenced to second event, one Nlureiser, is the relation is one of being earlier, the the reference reference point polOl (RP). Moreover, Moreover, as as the th~ relation relation isisone oneofofbeing beingearlier, earlier,the th~ reference point (RP). (1(P). the

__________________

Till. SIMANTICS OFT IMF. THE SEMANTICS OF TIME

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT FIGURATIVE 1.AN(.tAGI AND I IIOL (jilT

320

321

321

PP PP

perspective point (PP) is fixed event. Hence, this TFoR TFo lexical at the the earlier earlier event. Hence, this perspective point (PP) fIxed at concept encodes what I refer to as a prospective relation. It says nothing concept encodes what I refer to as a prospective relation. It says aboutthe thenature natureof ofthe the temporal temporal event event ininquestion, question,nor norabout aboutthe theaegrev degree of about two events temporalproximity proximityofofthe thetwo events nor norabout aboutphenomenologkal phenomenologicalaspects aspects of temporal temporalexperience. experience. In In short, short, the the content content encoded encoded is islinguistic linguistic in in nature nature and and temporal hence highly schematic. The The phenomenologically rich details are derived from rich details are derived from hence highly schematk. interpretation of the open-class lexical concepts which are integrated integrated with with the the arc interpretation of the open-class lexical concepts closed-class internally open lexical lexical concept concept in The symbolic symbolic unit in (19b). (9b). The unit in in (19) closed-class internally open ..anctions an example such as (20): sanctions an example such as (zo): (20)

(20)

time time 4—

InFrance, France,cheese cheese comes comes before before dessert dessert In

RP RP

conception that typical conceptlt)n (2o) is The typical is that inFrance, France,cheese cheese is is that in that arises arisesfrom from (zo) The sequenced prior to dessert dessert in happens to meal—which happens to contrast contrast sequenced prior to in a a four-course four-course meal—which with the convention in the United Kingdom where cheese follows dessert. The with the convention in the United Kingdom where cheese fi)llows dessert. The TFoR lexicalconcept concept described described here here can diagrammed as asin in Figure Figure 15.3. 15.3. UoK lexical can be bediagrammed In Figure 15.3, Time is represented by the directed arrow, so as to signify 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 and RP represent the the the earlier/later relation. The black circles labelled two events events (X cirde labelled labelled PP PP signals signals which which event event is is two (X and and Y), 1), while while the the circle the perspective fromthe thePP PP to to the events the two two events the perspective point. point. The The arrows arrows leading kading from (F. and and KP) RP) signal signal the the prospective prospective relation. I helexical lexicalprofile profile associated associated (E relation. The with this lexical concept stipulates the following. NPs and NP2 he with this lexical concept stipulates the following. NPi and N1'2 must must be temporal events, there of come, come, and and an an obligatory obligatory element, element, temporal events, thereisisaafinite finiteform form of l► efore. before.

E

E

XIS by the the TFoR IFoR kxical FIGUIF Retrospective relation relation encoded by lexicalconcept: concept: [EVENT X IS FIGURE154. 114. Retrospective EVE?sI 1.1) LATFR SEQUENCED LATERtHAN THAN EVENT Ifl

relation in in (21b) (zib) encodes schematic relation In Inthis thisexample, example, the the lexical lexical concept concept in encodes a a schematic in there is rne sequenced later than another. That is, which temporal event is sequenced later than another. That is, there is one which one one temporal event is second event, and the which is sequenced subsequent to to a event, event 1. E, which is sequenced subsequent a second event, and the the relation is referencepoint point (RP). (RP). Moreover, Moreover, as second event event serves as as the the reference as the relation is fixedatatthe thelater later event. event.Hence, Hence, later, the the perspective perspective point point (PP) (P1')isisfixed one of of being being later, one retrospective relation. encodeswhat whatI Irefer rckr to to as as aaretrospective this TFoR lexical concept encodes relation. temporal event in question, about the nature of the As before, it says nothing says nothing about the nature of the temporal event in question,

the two events nor about

The concept II consider consider is is given given below below as as second event-based event-based TFoR TFoR lexical concept The second part of the symbolic unit of which it is a component: part of the symbolic unit of which it is a component: (it) a. vehicle "NP1 COME after NP2" N P2" "NP COME (zi) a. vehicle b. lexical concept (x ISSEQUEN(;lD SEQUENCEDLATER LATER THAN THAN YI h. lexical concept (x is

degreeofoftemporal temporal proximity proximity of nor about nor about the the degree of the two events nor about The content encoded is phenomcnological aspects of temporal experielke. phenomenological aspects of temporal experience. The content encoded is unit in in (21) highly schematic. schematic.The Thesymbolic symbolic unit linguistic in (21) linguistic in nature nature and and hence hence highly sanctions an an example example such such as as (22): (22): sanctions

(ii) (u)

after cheese cheese In France, France, dessert comes after In dessert comes

signify the the the two circles labelled I. and RP represent earlier/later relation. earlier/later relation. The The black black circles labelled E and RP represent the two the labelledPP P1'signals signalswhich whichevent eventisis the while thecircle labelled events(X (Xand andY), Y), while the events (E and from the the PP PP to to the thetwo twoevents events(F. perspectivepoint. point.The l'he arrows arrows leading from and perspective associated with this relation. The lexical profile RP)signal signalthe theretrospective retrospectiverelation. The lexical profile associated with this RP) temporal following. NPi NPt and andNP2 NP2must musthebetemporal lexical concept concept stipulates stipulates the lexical the following. element,after. andan anobligatory obligatoryelement, events, there is a finitc form of tOUIC,and representedby bythe thedirected directedarrow, arrow, so soas astotosignify in Figure Time is In Figure 15.4, 15.4, Time is represented

•. PP

PP

events, there is a finite form of come,

time time44— E FIGURE

Ifl.UKI

1s3.

RP RP

Prospective relation 4 R Ic.ical l x(xISisSErelationencoded encodedbybythe theTITEoR lexicalconcept: concept: si -

QUENCED EARLIER THAN Y

I ARt ER THAN

I

andtemporal temporal roleof oftemporal temporallinguistic linguistic content contentand The role The construction conceptualcontent contentin inmeaning meaningconstruction conceptual content associated ofthe thelevel levelof of schematic schematic linguistic content Providing an account of Providing associated is only part of the story, however. 'lemporal lexical with TFoR TFoR lexical concepts is only part of the story, however. Temporal with

lIME Til SeMANTICS OF TIMl. TUE sIMANII(.S 01 THE SEMANTICS OF TIME

FIGURATIVELANGUAGE LANGUAGEAND ANDTHOU(tHT THOUGHT ANI) FIGURATIVE TltOUGUT

conceptionsalso also involve involve the the IIItegration integration of open open-class temporal lexical con contemporal lexical (Onception da temporal lexi,al also involve the integration of of ceptswith with the dosed-class closed-class TF TFoR lexical concepts, and and hence hence access to access cogni. concepts1 cept R lexical lexi al concepts. hen cae to cogni_ cogni . TFoR cepts with the closed-cia live model profiles and so structure recruited via conceptual metaphor. That t.ve tructure recruited via v.a conceptual con eptual metaphor. That so structure model profiles and so tave model is, we need need to con consider the content conceptual ik. • we we .der the way in which which linguistic hngui tic and and conceptual (oneeptual Content ,ontent thc way way in linguistic need to to consider interactinin givingrise rise to temporal conceptions, the subject of section. To subject of of this this To interact lhi section. interact giving rise to temporal conceptions. the subject do this. this, II consider consider an an example example to the the first of the experiencer-based relating to the first first of ofthe theexperiencer-bascd experiencer.ba<ed do exam pi relating do this. TFoRs discussed: the lexical concept provided in (15b), which sanctions the t he which sanctions concept prov.ded provkled in III ('5b). TI'oRs di ussed: the lexical (oncept TFoRs discussed: following example: example: following following example (23) Christmas (:hristin.ts is is approaching (2J) C.hristmas i approaching approa hing On the the face face of it, the takenliterally. literally.After the utterance utterance in in (23) (23)isis isdistinctly distinctly On utterance in (2J) di tinctlyodd oddifitiftaken taken literally. After On the face of of it. it, th all,Chri Christmas temporalevent, event, whi which usually lasts lasts for which for aaa determined determined period. period, all. tma isisaaatemporal event. h usually u~ually la t for all, Christmas temporal and as. as such cannot undergo motion of of the veridical motion sort indicated by the and uch cannot undergo veridical veridical of the the sort sort indicated indicated by by the the and as such cannot undergo approaching. Yet, this utterance is straightforwardly understood expression straightforwardly understood by by utteran e iisstraightforwardly expr .on "pprolmas. while located the future. fu ture utterance, and secondly, is relatively imminent. To see that this is so, we can contrast the utterance in is imminent.To Tosee S« that lhat this lhi isi so, so. we can contrast contra t the utterancein i~ is relatively imminent. (23) with that in (24): (23) with with that in (24): (2J) (24): (24) (24) (14)

OBJECT IN MOTION MOTION OBJECT IN ALONG A PATH PATH ALONG A

Before these spatial firstconsider consider theway way inwhich which Before acwunting f?rthese these,issues, i ue;.I II first first con iderthe .he way inIII whi hspatial patial Before accounting accounting for for issues, conceptual content is recruited, via conceptual metaphor, to structure temmetaphor, to to structure conceptual I recruited, recruited. via via conceptual conceptual metaphor, tru ture temtern· conceptual content content is poral cognitive models. I do so by considering the cognitive model profile the cognitive model profile poral (()g~'lIv models. m~e1. I do so by comidering the cognitive model poral cognitive accessed via the lexical concept aCl< '" vvia •• the lexical leXICalconcept ( ncel" (CHRIsTMAsl. (tIIlKisi •• I\.MA I·

SYNCHRONOUS DURATION

I'AOTAACT£D

TEMPORAL

PROTRACTED DURATION DURATION

In (24), while also while Christmas Christmas is al alsolocated locatedin thefuture, future,it isnot not imminent. imminent. wh.le 'hri tmas is is located ininthe the future. itit is is not .mminent. In (24). Accordingly, there are three specific issues that need to be accounted accountedfor for in lherr arc are three specific peeific issues i ues that need to be accounted for in Accordingly. Accordingly, there that need terms of explaining how LCCM Theory models the conception which arises models the conception temlS of .M Theory Theory model con eption which which arises ari terms of explaining explaining how how LC LC(M for the utterance in (23). These are summarized below: for the the utterance utterance inin(23). (2J). These These 1ire are summarized ummarized below:

motion. motion. mohon. •• Issue with The temporal temporal eventof ofChristmas Christmas locatedinin inthe the futurewith The temporal event esent of Chmtma isiislocated located thefuture with • /SSIl' Issue 2:z The respect implicit1although although rrespect peel to totoour our under tanding of ofthe present which which implicit. ourunderstanding understanding thepresent present whichisiisimplicit, not explicitly mentioned, in the utterance in (23). not exphCltly mentioned, mentioned. in in the the utterance utterance inin(2%). (2J). •• Issue y The future event of Christmas is interpreted relatively beingrelatively event of of Christmas Chri tmas is is interpreted interpretedasas asbeing relatively The future event • /SSllf Issue•.I: ;: The imminent with respect to the present. imminent with .mmlllent w.threspect r peet to to the the present. present.

323

ilkisi The "0' 1 MA,I cognitive ThecognitIVe cognitivemodel modelprofile profilefor for Ie!CHRISTMAS' The that aassume ume in 1 Theory. keeplllg wilh Lakoff and that IIIassume in lCCNI in LC LCCM Theory,ininkeeping keepingwith withLakoff Lakoffand andJohnson Johnson('999). 0999), that unconscious con eptual metaphors metaphor and uncon iou recruitment recruitment facilitate conceptual metaphors facilitate facilitate the the automatic automatic and and unconscious domains, in in the of on eptual content model from distinct di tinct domains, domain,. the of content ofconceptual conceptual content from from cognitive cognitive models models from distinct in the recruitment spatial ca from pace. Thi thereby facilitates fa ilitates the th recruitment of of pati.1 This thereby case of Time. Time, caseof Time, from fromSpace. Space. This thereby facilitates the recruitment of spatial temporal cognitive models. That model.That That con eptual content which 'iervcs to tru ture temporal temporal cognitive cogmtive models. conceptual to structure structure conceptual content which which serves serves to cognitive models to metaphors. in effect, provide the the is. is, conceptual is, conceptual conceptual metaphor. metaphors, in in effect. effect, provide provide the primary primary cognitive cognitive models models to to To (CHRISTMASI affords access, with additional structure. (CHO.STMAS) afford acc • with additional tructure. To which. for in tance. which, which, for for instance, instance, (CHRISTMAS) affords access, with additional structure. To ilkusustAsi, promodel profile for for t(CIIR.STMAS). .lIu trate. con ider aa partial cognitive profile illustrate, pro'CHRISTMAS', proillustrate,consider consider partial cognitive cognitive model model profile vided in !'igure is.s. '5.5. vided t5.5. vided III in ligure Figure of primary to number (CII R. TMA I facilitates access primary The lexical concept The facilitatesaccess accessto toaaa number number of of primary -rmAs1 The lexical lexicalconcept conceptL:HRIsTMASI IcHms Christmas cuiinclude knowledge relating to to Christmas cognitive model. Th= III lude knowledge knowledge relating hri tm. as aasaaa CUL.u, cognitive models. models. 'Ihese These include other cultural cultural TURAL FEST.VAL. in ludingthe the exchange of gift; and and other cultural practice, practi e. i ukAl. lEst IVAL, including including theexchange exchange of of gifts gifts and practice, TURAL FESTIVAL, together in, including food con umed. activities activiti engaged th coming together together ot of includingfood foodconsumed, consumed, activitiesengaged engagedin. in, the the coming coming of of knowledge relates to Christmas as family. SO forth. The The ond type type of ofknowledg relatestotoChristmas hristma asa aaa family, type family,and and so so forth. forth. The second second knowledge relates temporal knowledge, includes whole host TEMPORA' EVENT. Thi, in Iud aaa whole wh Ie host ho,t of of knowledge. aas i. This IVIN as of temporal TEMPORAL This includes TEMPORAL EVENT. with the TEMPORAL EVENT iIIu trated by the attributes and valu associated with the TEMPORAL EVENT values illustrated illustrated by the attributes and values associated with the TEMPORAL EVENT temporal of our relating to cognitive model. For in,tan e. part part of of our our knowledge knowledge relating relating to to aaatemporal t mporal cognitive model. For Ior instance, part cognitive model. instance, knowledge EU1URI. A further further situated in Ni, and is that can be be situated ituated in in the th PASt, PAST. PRESENT. and further event A event is that that it itit can FUTURE. A and H;TUR>. PAST,PIIESI PRESENT, event is can be the

Christmas is approaching. approaching, but is Christmas approaching, but but is is still still way off off till aaa long long way way off Chri tma iis

•• Issue interpreted as as relatingto toaatemporal temporal scene stene /e IIf I: The The utteran e in inin(23) (2J)' IIIterpreted asrelating relating scene utterance (it isisinterpreted Issue,: the utterance rather than a spatial scene. That is, the utterance is interpreted is, the utterance is interpreted as rather than aa spatial patial scene. ene. That a that i • lh utteran, i interpreted as rather than concerning a temporal scenario rather than one involving veridical veridical concemlllg temporal scenario scenario rather one involving involving concerning aa temporal rather than than one

323 J2J

I

I

I S

S

PAST PAST PAST

( A MPRE SSION

0

0

I I

0I I

(. •I

PRESENT PRESENT

S.

FUTURE FUTlM'IE FUTURE

DURATION DURATION DURATION

RELIGIOUS

CULTlM'IALFESTIVAL FESTIVAL CULTURAL

TEMPORALEVENT EVENT TEMPORAL

RELIGIOUS FESTIVAL FESTIVAL

[CHRISTMASI [CHRISTMAS) [CHRISTMAS]

tiir modelprofile profilefor FIGUaf IS-S. P.lfti,, -IIprimary pnm.Jry l.(lg"'t1\'~model profile (or'CHRISTMAS' Itl(:UKISTMASI ItRI\TMAS) Partial primarycognitive IIt.UkFISS. irs. MAW FIGURE

-324

TIlL sI MANTI(S OE TISIE TILE SEMANTICS OF TIME

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT FI(t K S I --IVE LANGUAC;E ANI) TlIOt't,U

the attribute relates to the natureofofthe the durational durationalelapse elapse associated associated with with the attribute rdates to the nature hasaanumber numberofofvalues values DURATION. Thisattribute event,which whichisistotosJV sayitsitsDURAI This attributehas event, TEMPORAL( COMPRESassociated with it. Moving from right righttotoleft, left,the thefirst firstisisTFMPOKAL OMPRESwith it. Moving from underestimationofoftime, time,which whichisistotosay, say,the the experience experience that timc time SION—theunderestimation sIoN—thC SYNCHRONOUS is proceeding more "quickly"than thanusual. usual.The Thesecønd secondis isSYNCHRONOUS DUE• more proceeding isA-rtoN—the normative estimation of time, which is to say, the the experience experience normative estimation of time, which is to sjV, PROTRACTED time unfolding at its its standard standard or or equable equable rate. The final is PROTRACI value is ,u rate. The final value time unfolding at ofduration, duration,which whichisistotoSJV say the the DURATION. This relates to an overestimationof This relates to an overestimation felt experiencethat thattime timeisisproceeding proceeding more more "slowly" than usual. usual. "slowly" than kit esperience The sorts of experiences experiences that give rise to the range of different attributes that give rise to the range of different attributes The sorts of and valuesrepresented representedininthe theconceptual conceptualsystem systemininthe the domain domain of of Time Time are are of and values myriad kinds. For instance, we experience the past in terms of of the the range of myriad kinds. For instance, we experience the past in terms measures we deploy to record temporal temporal "distance" "distance" from fromnow, now, such such as time lime deploy to record measures we lines, calendars,diaries, diaries,and andso soon. on.We We also also experience the past past in terms terms of of experience the lines, calendars, biological ageing, photographic photographic records records of of past past events, events, narrative narrative and and story story biological ageing, which recount past happenings, as well as personal personaland andautobiographical autobiographical happenings. as well as which recount past memory, and so on. The present isisexperienced by virtue of direct perceptual of direct perceptual and so on. The present experienced by virtue processing, the phenomenologically real perceptual moment briefly briefly described described the phenomenologicallY real perceptual moment above." The future is apprehended in terms of our experiences of intentionexperiences of intentionabove.0 (he future is apprehended in terms of our ality and the realization of of intentions, intentions, as as well experienceofofwaiting waitingand and well as as our our experience ality and the realization the subsequent occurrence of events. Moreover, it is apprehended apprehendedin interms termsof of the subsequent occurrence of events. Moreover, it is our experience and interaction with the recording deploy recording mechanisms mechanismsthat that we wedeploy our experience and interaction with the in order to gauge the relative imminence of future events such suchas ascalendars, calendars1 in order to gauge the relative imminence of future events timetables, schedules, time plans, and time-reckoning systems and anddevices deviceson on timetables, schedules, time plans1 and time-reckoning systems a daily basis. Finally, we also have detailed knowledge of the range of phebasis. Finally, we also have detailed knowledge of the range of phe a daily nomenologically real aspects of duration which we experience throughout our nomenologically real aspects of duration which we experience throughout oU lives. lives. The final primary cognitive model diagrammed in Figure 15.5 isisthat thatofof The final primary cognitive model diagrammed in Figure is.s This relates to knowledge concerning the Christmas as a RELIGIOUS FESTIVAL. ii STIVAL.. This relates to knowledge concerning the Christmas as a nature and status of Christmas as a Christian event, and the way in which this this nature tnd status of Christmas as a Christian event, and the way in which festival is enacted and celebrated. festival is enacted and celebrated. In addition, the primary cognitive models for IciiiusmiAsi recruit recruitstrucstrUCIn addition, the primary cognitive models for IcHRIsTStAsI ture from other cognitive models metaphor.That Thatis, is,as .ISopermodelsvia viaconceptual conceptualmetaphor. lure from other ationalized in LCCM Theory, a conceptual metaphor link metaphorprovides providesaastable stablelink ationaliicd in LC( NI Theory a that allows aspects of conceptual content encoded by one cognitive model modeltoto that allows aspects of conceptual content encoded by one cognitive he imported so as to form part of thethe permanent knowledge representation knowledge representation permanent be imported so as to form part of encoded by another. For instance, the primary cognitive model I IMPOKAI the primary cognitive model TEMPORAL encoded by another. For in terms of a stable, long-term EVENT is structured via conceptual metaphor structured via conceptual metaphor in terms of a stable, long-term EVENT link holding between it and witucr ININ modelrelating relating to to an an 01111(1 andthe thecognitive cognitivemodel link holding bctwctn it As IN MOTION such, the cognitive model, OBJECTr IN MOTION ALONG A PATH. MOTION MOTION ALON(i A PATH. As such, tht cognitive model, onpi ALONG A PATH, which is represented, ininFigure byvirtue virtueofofaacircle circle Ligure15.5, by ALONG A PATH, which is located on a path, with the arrow indicating direction of motion, provides provides indicating direction of motion, '

lotated on a path, with the arrow

I' See Evans (sonsit) furtherdetail• details. (aoo4a)for forfurther Is

325 325

relating to the EVENT thei EMPORAL TEMPORAL EVENTcognitive cognitivemodel model with with inkrentlal inferentialstructure structure relating to

The our ourknowledge knowledgeofofobjects objectsundergoing undergoingmotion motionalong along aa path. path. The conceptual indicated by the dashed lines. content contentrecruited recruitedvia viaconceptual conceptualmetaphor metaphorisis indicated byisthe dashed lines. inherited by the inferential structure from this cognitive nu)del Specifically, inferential structure from this cognitive model is inherited by the relating to the URI- attributes, such that content I'ASI', PAST, PRI PRESENT, and and i ui FUTURE attributes, such that content relatingexperito the behind the ohiect serves to structure, in part1 our region of the path region of the path behind the object serves to structure, in part, ourlocation expericonceptual content relating to the objects present ence of paStflcs.S, ence of pastness, conceptual content relating to the object's present location serves to structure, in part, our experience of the presents and content relating

serves to structure, in part, our experience of the present, and content relating

to structure structure our our to to that thatportion portion of of the the path path in in front frontofofthe theobject object serves serves to

dashed lines which map the experience of futurity. futurity. This experience of This is is indkatcd indicated by by the the dashed lines which map the 1 IN MOIION ALONG A relevant relevantportft)flS portions of of the the path path of of motion motion from from the the011J1( OBJECT IN MOTION ALONG A PRISINT, PAST. pAul PATHcognitive cognitive model model onto onto the the relevant relevantattributes: attributes:tUIURE, FUTURE, PRESENT, PAST. inherited by the In Inaddition, addition, content relating relatingto to the the nature nature of of motion motion is is inherited by the DURATION attribute. .\gain this is captured by the dashed arrow, which links DURATION

attribute. Again this is captured by the dashed arrow, which links

the InRATION attribute. the the arrow—signifying arrow—signifying motion—with motion—with the DURATION attribute. system—-the I discussed chaining within the conceptual In Chapter In Chapter to, I discussed chaining within the conceptual system—the associations are established such that a web phenomenon whereby links links and and associations phenomenon whereby are established such that a web

models. Hence1 cognitive models are of to relate relate cognitive cognitive models. of connections connections serves serves to Hence, cognitive models are of knowledge as it is required, related to one another, facilitating activation related to one another, facilitating activation of knowledge as it is required,

mediated communication, in LCCM Theory1 for by linguistically linguistically mediated for instance, instance, by communication. In LCCM Theory, in which cognitive models conceptual metaphors provide one of the conceptual metaphors provide one of the ways ways in which cognitive models become linked with cognitive from other regions of the conceptual sVstcfl) can from other regions of the conceptual system can become linked with cognitive given lexical concept. By virtue of models site of of a a given models belonging belonging to to the theaccess access site lexical concept. By virtue of reoccurring correlations serve to establish humans acting in the world, tight humans acting in the world, tight reoccurring correlations serve to establish models associated with distinct domains in connections between between cognitive cognitive models connections associated with distinct domains (see in infants prior to the onset of language the conceptual systems of human the conceptual systems of human infants prior to the onset of language (see powerful The establishing establishing of of these theselinks linksprovides providesaapowerful Lakoff and Lakoff and Johnson Johnson 1999). The and re-use of multi organizational device device that that ijs. ilitates the organizational facilitates the deployment deployment and re-us• of multimodal knowledge in order to structure other (less easily apprehended)

modal knowledge in order to structure other (less easily apprehended) domains of of experience.' experience.'22 domains eptual metaphors serve l'heory then, then, as asconceptual From the theperspective perspectiveofofLCCM UI From Theory metaphors serve between specific cognitise models that may belong to to establish stable links to establish stable links between specific cognitive models that may belong to —for example, Faster, Spring, the the access accesssites sitesofofmany manylexical lexicalconcepts—for the example, Easter, Spring, the of spatial forth—this leads to massive t'm iTt, his prinse, and so concert, his prime, and so forth—this leads to massive redundancy of spatial That is, conceptual mct.m conceptualcontent contentsubserving suhservingtemporal temporalconcepts. concepts.That conceptual is, conceptual metamechanism of the human concepphors provide a fundamental structuring phors provide a fundamental structuring mechanism of the human conceptualsystem. tual

meuphor—4hc cstjsbtishment of linked

models

note itut It is important " It is important toto note that sonteptual metaphor—the establishment of linked sognitive models models domains of espenente —is but one wis in which which derive from which derive from unrelated domains of expetiente is but one way in which cognitive models attriliiite system is well intlude thc phcni'1uen4'n of tr.rnsrndCn(e. as inhens%truth's-v. strutturt. ethers 'niters' others insludr the ► hen ►► menon isanssentlence. as well is ♦ phenonwiis .&ISO senc to establish links hetwern so. hapter aRk dsMussed in ( alit Rees, discussed in Chapter 10. These pin ilia also serve to essaslish links bvissern tisimitivr models. models.

Nf.

26

THE SEMANII(5 OF TIME THE SEMANTICS OF TIME

FIGURATIVELANGUAGE LANGUAGEAND AND THOUGht THOUGHT

Meaning construction in Christmas is approaching

Meaning construction in Christmas is approaching

now return to aconsideration considerationofofhow howthe thevarious various interpretations interpretations(issue (issues 1- 3 I now return to a

above). assouated with (ii), arise.

discueabov), tdwih(23arse.

Issue I

Issue $

Firstly, how is it that the utterance in (23) is interpreted as relating to a Firstly1 how is it that the utter,Ino..e in (23) is interpreted as relating to temporal scenariorather ratherthan thanaaspatial spatialone? one?The Theanswer answer is is as follows. Th e temporal TFoRlexicanpthsoeurancswholevafrm TIoR lexital concept that sanctions the utterance as a whole serves as for interpreting the open-class lexical concepts—those associated with the for interpreting the opcn-dass lexical concepts—those associated with approaching allowing them them to to achieve an informavehicles Christmas and approach:ng—allowing achieve an informavehicles Christmii" and —

tional characterization relating to a temporal scene. That is, the linguistic tional charactcrii.itiofl relating to a temporal scene. That is, the linguistic content encoded by this TFoR lexical concept, as described above, ensures content encoded by this FEoR lexical concept1 as described that the interpretations that arise for the lexical concepts paired with Christthat the interpretations that arise for the lexical concepts paired with Christ ► as and {approaching are a consequence of these lexical concepts undergoing of these lexical concepts undergoing a urns and integration in the context of schematic temporal, as asopposed opposedto tospatial, spatial. integration in the context of schematictemporal, content. Put another way, as the overarching internally open TFoR lexical content. Put another way, as the overarching internally open TEoRlexical concept relates to a temporal scene, this provides a schematic framework concept reLites to a temporal scene, this provides schematic framework which constrains constrainsthe theprocess process of of interpretation1 interpretation,as as it it applies applies to to the the open-class open-class which lexical concepts concepts that TFoR lexical lexical concept. concept. lexical that populate populate the the larger larger TFoR

i ssue 2 Issue I Secondly, relatingto toaatemporal temporal Secondly1how howisisititthat that the the utterance utterance is is understood understood as as relating event which is "located" in the future? After all, as we saw above the experievent whkh 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 encer-hascd TFoR lexical concept which licenses the utterance as a wholedoes not event isissituated situatedininthe thepast pastororfuture. future. not encode encode whether whether aa given given temporal temporal event The suggest, relates matching that that involves involvesthe the The answer, answer, II suggest, relatesto toaaspecial specialkind kind of of matching spatial whichstructures structuresthe the spatial content content recruited recruited via via conceptual conceptual metaphor, metaphor, which cognitive and the the primary primary cognitive cognitive model model cognitivemodel modelprofile profileofof[CHRISTMAS] IcuRisi MAS) and profile accessed via [APPROACHING]. This refer to to as as typeof ofmatching matching II refer profile accessed via IAPPR0ACHINIl. This type conceptual is constrained thePrinciple Principleof of conceptualmetaphor metaphor matching, matching, which which is constrained by by the Conceptual Metaphor Matching, summarized below: Matching, summarized below: Conceptual (p12) Principle ofof Conceptual Metaphor Conceptual MetaphorMatching NI.it hing (p12) Principle During interpretation, (an) open-class structuredinin I )uring interpretation. (an) open-classlexical lexk.dconcept(s) concept(s)structured terms subjecttotomatching, matching,whenever whenever termsof ofconceptual conceptualmetaphor(s) metaphor(s)are aresubject possible, in the primary cognitive model profile of relevant lexical possible, in the primary cognitive model profile of relevantlexical concepts in the same lexical conceptual unit. Conceptual metaphor concepts in the same lexi ii conceptual unit. (:o)thcptual metaphor matching matching. matching does doesnot notpreclude precluderegular regularmatching. This principle does two things. Firstly, (ii)the the Firstly,ititensures ensuresthat thatin'nthe thecase ofof(23) This prinuple does two access in spatial content to which lciikisTmAsl has its primary cognitive in its primary cognitive FMASI has

spatial content to which

327

327

conceptual metaphor is matched model model profile p rofile by by virtue virtueof ofr&truitment recruitmentvia via conceptual metaphor is matched model profile of with s) inin the withrelevant relevantcognitive cognitivernodel( model(s) the primary primarycognitive cognitive model profile of does not interfere with, LAII)ROAcHINGI. this matching I APPROACHING]. Secondly, Secondly, this matching operation operation does not interfere with, takes place on and andhence hencedoes does not not prevent prevent regular regular matching. matching, matching matching that that takes place on conceptual metaphor. .onceptual conceptual content content which which is is not not recruited recruited via via conceptual metaphor. 1(TIIRISTMAsI the spatial spatial content contentto towhich whichiciiRISTMASI In Interms termsof ofthe the utterance utterance in in (23), (23), the from the motion tacilit ales access hastotodo dowith withinferential inferential structure structure derived facilitates access has derived from the motion

kind of scenario scenario involving involvingan anobject objectin inmotion. motion. This Thisis is matched matched with withthe the kind of Fhe cognitive model profile terminal accessed terminalmotion motion accessedvia viaLAPPROA(IIIN(;I. (APPROACHING]. The cognitive model profile involves motion towards an entity, and associated associated with with [APPROACHING' involves motion towards an entity, and which it in front front of to which hence, the object object in hence, the in motion motion is is in of the the entity entity with with respect respect to it

attribute of the TIMPORAL IvFNT cognitive is AsAsthe FUTURE attribute of the TEMPORAL EVENT cognitive is "approaching" "approaching". theFUTURE I1RI5TMASJ is structured in terms of that part of the model via (CHRISTMAS( is structured in terms of that part of the model accessed via involves an interpretin front, front, the resulting match match involves motion motion trajectory trajectory that that is is in the resulting an interpret"located" in the future. In temporal event of Christmas is ation ation in in which which the the temporal event of Christmas is "located" in the future. In special type interpretation is other this particular particular interpretation consequence of of the the special type other words, words, this is a a consequelke metaphor matching. matching. of of matching matching II refer referto toas as conceptual conceptual metaphor

Issue 3 0)1 interpretation that to the The final issue issue relates relates to the interpretation that the the temporal temporalevent event of The final This interbeingrelatively relativelyimminent. imminent. This (;hristmas in (23) (ij) isisinterpreted Christmas in interpreted as as being inter-

described

the regular regular process of matching matching as as described pretation arises, argue due to the pretation arises, I1 argue, due to process of introduced guided by by the the previously previouslY introduced in earlier in earlier chapters. chapters.Matching1 Matching, as as guided informational characterattemptsto tobuild buildan aninformational Principles of of Interpretation, attempts Principles characterby first searching the primary ization for [CHRISTMASI and [APPROACHING] by first searching the primary ization for (CHRISTMAS' As Christmas is both these open-class lexical concepts. cognitive models models of of both concepts. As Christmas is these open class lexical cognitive hence something that cannot cultural, and religious event, a temporal, temporal, cultural, and hence something that cannot event, and a and religious implicatedby bythe theprimary primarycognitive cognitive undergo the thesort sortof ofveridical veridical motion motion implicated undergo I his necessia clash arises. model profile profile associated associatedwith with (Ai'PKOA(:HINGI, APPROACHING 1, a clash arises. This necessimodel Context-induced (lash Duetotothe thePrinciple PrincipleofofContext-induced tates clash clash resolution. resolution. Due tates Clash designated chapter, 1° IIKI5IMASj is Resolution,introduced introducedin inthe theprevious previouschapter, [CHRISTMAS] is designated Resolution, vehicle. This and (APPROACHINGI thefigurative figurative vehicle. as the the figurative figurative target, target, and [APPROACHING' the This as Christmas, and specifically serves followsas asthe theutterance utteranceisis"about" "about"Christmas, and specifically serves toto follows of the foregoing is that "locate" Christmas "locate" Christmas "in" "in"time. time.The Theconsequence consequence of the foregoing is that modelprofile profileofof inthe the secondary secondary cognitive cognitive model established in search isisestablished aa search I APPKOA( H ING is modelfor for (APPROACHING' (APPROACIIIN; I. verypartial partial cognitive cognitive model is AA very (APPROACHING]. provided in Figure provided in Figure 15.6. IIIN(1 includes primary cogThecognitive cognitive model model profile profile for The for(APPROA( (APPROACHING] includes primary cogI 00 ATION, the D$RI( III) MOTION OF AN nitive models models for for aa tARGET nitive TARGET LOCATION, the DIRECTED MOTION OF AN iii. AAconsequence andthe the IMSIINI NCEof of ARRIVAL ARRiVAl OF ANENTITY. consequence ENTITY, and OF AN IMMINENCE entity is the IMMINEN( I- OF of the relative imminence of arrival of an of the relative imminence of arrival of an entity is the IMMINENCE OF cognitive model.As Asaa secondarycognitive IVEN1',which whith isisa asecondary 01 EVENT, 0)(:URRENO I OF model. OCCURRENCE hutnot not(literally) (literally)arrive, arrive, temporal event event such suchas asChristmas Christmas can canoccur, but temporal -

______________

;28

FIGURATIVE LAN6UA(;E LANGUAGE AND T"OU:::G~ · ::".:.T_ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ FIGURATIVE THOL(;HT FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT

IMMINENCE OF IMMINENCt OF LW IMMINENCE OCCURRENCE OF OCCURRENCE OF CVFNT EVENT EVENT

TARGET TARGET TARGET LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION

DIRECTED DIRECTEO DIRECTED OF AN AN MOTION MOTION OF ENTITY ENTITY

IMMINENCE OF OF IMMINENCE ARRIVAL OF ARRIVAL OF ENTITY ENTITY

(APPROACHING (APPROACHING! [APPROACHING]

iso. Partial FIG"Rf 1~6. P,nl.l iognhtive ognlli, model profile fi)r for (APPROA "'~G! IAPPROACIIIN6J 1- 1GURF 156. Partial cognitive model profile for [APPROACHING]

there is is aaa match betweenthe thesecondary setondary cognitive cognitive there match between between the ;econdary cognili.e model model IMMINE U OlUF model IMMINI-N(;E IMMINENCE OF there o((:UKRIN(I oc XRRENCE Of EVFNT the primary cognitive model profile of EVEN'rand andthe theprimary primarycognitive cognitivemodel modelprofile profile of OCCURRENCE OF EVENT and Ie((:IIRISTMAsI. IIRI\T tA\I. Ilence, mterpretation the imminence ofthe theoccurO« lor Hence,the theinterpretation interpretationof of the theimminence imminenceof the occurHence, the of (CHRISTMAS!. rence of Christmas Christmas iis is due due to metaphoric conception arising, alongthe the renee Christm. to aa metaphoric metaphoric conception coneeplion arising, ari ing. along the rence of of due lines line discu sed in in more more detail in the previous previou chapter. moredetail lines discussed discussed in the the previous chapter. chapter.

The status of of conceptual conceptualmetaphors The of conceptual metaphorsininLCCM LCCM Theory Theory LCCM Theory The status status cOIklude this III condude by conSidering or conteptual metaphor; in hapter by considering status of of conceptual conceptual metaphors metaphors ill in conclude this considering the the statu status this chapter chapter LCCM Theory. I do asking, and attempting LCC 1 Theory. to answer, answer. tour four questions: question: LCCM Theory. I do so so by by asking. asking, and and attemptmg attempting to to answer, four questions:

metaphorsin inI.CCM IA CM Theory? Iheory? •• What What the .status tatus of of ",nceptual metaphors in tecM Theory? Whatisis isthe thestatus of conceptual conceptual metaphors •• What What the distinctive roleofof oflexical lellicalconcepts con ept and and cognitive models? models? Whatisis isthe thedistirKtive distinctiverole role lexical concepts andcognitive cognitive models? ••• What What isisthe the motivation motivation for for TIoR TI'oRlexical Ie i(al conepis conceptstoto todeploy deployvehicles vehide Whatis the motivation for TFoR lexical concepts deploy vehicles language? relating literal patiallanguage? relatingto toliteral literalspatial spatial language? does this show about utility •• What What d this how th utility utilityof ofusing u ingsemantic semantic structure tru ture in on structure in What does this show about the the of using semantic language as lensfor for investigating investigating conceptual conceptual language investigating (on eptual structure? tructure? structure? language a, as aaalen lens for

I.i.i. What iisthe the tatu of of conceptual m t.phors? Whatis thestatus status ofconceptual conceptualmetaphors? metaphors? metaphors, in teeM I.CC\l Theory, theory, proVIde (onleptual structurmg provide meansof ofstructuring struturing Conceptualmetaphor, metaphors,in in LCCM Theory, provide aa a Illean, means of cognitive models in terms of conceptual "'gmti .. model, term of of conceptual conceptual content content recruited recruited from cognitive content recruited from cognitive cognitive cognitive models in terms models a.ssociated model SO<.I.lIl-d with other dOlllains of of xperience. That i,. conteptual models •associated withother otherdomains domains ofexperience. experience. Thatis, is,conceptual conceptual metaphors serve to provide one of (probably) metaphor (probably) many Illany types of link, which types of of links links which metaphors'..:rH servetotoprovid provideone one of (probably) types (unnt.",-t ... uglllll\~ model, aJlowing them to inherit ~truc.:ture. Con(cptual connect cognitive models, allowing them to inherit structure. Ci rn. ept ual connect cognitive models, allowing them to inherit structure. Conceptual

THE Till- SEMANTICS SFMAWTICSOF OFTIME TIME

329

329

metaphors metaphors provide providestable, ,table. long-term long-term link> which allow theautomatic automaticand and provide stable, long-termlinks linkswhich which allowthe the and unconscious uncon iousrecruitment recruitment of contentininasymmetric asymmetricfashion. fashion.They They unconscious recruitmentof ofconceptual conceptualcontent asymmetric fashion. They to structure, setve to serve ",rve .tru ture. in PJrt.attributes attributcs and andvalues, values.providing providingmassive ma iveredunredun structure, in part, part. attributes values, providing massive redundancy dancyacross acrossconcepts conceptswithin withinthe the conceptual dancy aero concept within th conceptual conceptualsystem. sy tern.Conceptual Conceptual metaphor system. Conceptualmetaphors metaphors arise arise when when stable stable links are established between arise when table links links arc arc established cstabli hed between between cognitive model encoding encoding cognitivemodels models encoding perceptual experience that is sensorimotor in nature, and cognitive perceptual experience that is sensorimotor in perceptual that i nwrimotor nature. model, nature, and and cogmtive ognitive models models which encode conceptual content that is subjective in nature. which encode conceptual content that whICh encode conceptual that isi subjective ubjective in nature. ndture. ii. ii. What What the distinctive role kxical Whatisisthe thedistinctive di tinctiv.role roleofoflexical lexicalconcepts, con cpt cognitive • cognitive model and and concepts, cognitivemodels, models, and conceptual conceptualmetaphors metaphorsinin infigurative meaning construction metaphors figurative meaning con truction for fortime? time? concq>tual construction for time?

Based Rased guiding premise ofLCCM ila\Cd on on the the guiding guiding premise preml e of l.eeM Theory, I"heory. the theconception conception that Theory, the onceptionthat that is aa consequence consequence arises situated arises from the ari s from from th situated ituated usage uusage ge of of utterance is is a consequenc of of ofaaa given given utterance utterance of two sorts of representations: purely linguistic content encoded by two distinct distinct sorts di tinct wrts of representations: repre. ntations: purely lingUIstic content contentencoded encoded 1w by pureR linguistic lexical concepts, and purely conceptual content encoded by the cognitive lexical lexkal concepts. conceptual content content encoded encoded by th cognitive ioncepts, and and purely conceptual by the model profile to which lexical concepts facilitate access. For instance, model profile to which model which lexical lexical concepts acee s. For instance, in tan e. the concepts facilitate access. the TFoR lexical concepts, concepts, above, encode briefly TFoR lexical concept, considered con idered briefly briefly above, above. encode encode schematic 'hematic temtem . temporal content, as well poral poral content, content, aas well well as aasinformation information about the nature of the sorts orts of of information about about the the nature nature of the the sorts internally closed lexical lexicalconcepts, concepts, and and vehicles vehicles that make make internally mternally closed dosed lexical concept. and vehicle that make up up these the ininthese internally complex lexical concepts. The ternallv complex The result result of ternally complex Ie ical concepts. concept. The result oflinguistic lingui tic unpacking unpacking isis i aaa of schematic schematic level level of of temporal temporal <>chematic level tempor.1 representation. representation. However, However, this thi level level provides provide. aaa representation. However, this level provides prompt for for interpretation: thedeployment deployment of conceptual prompt for interpretation: interpret.tion: the the deployment of ofconceptual conceptual content a icontent associassociated with conceptual structure, resulting in an utterance-level simulation, ated with conceptual conceptual structure, tructure. resulting re ulting in an an utterance-level utter.n e·level .simulation, imulation. which is to say a conception, and hence meaning. Interpretation which whICh is i to to "'y aa conception, conception. and and hence hence meaning. meaning. Interpretation makes makes makes associated use of the the cognitive cognitive model profile with aa lexical use of model profile profileassociated a ociated with lexical concept, concept, and and and in figurative figurative language understanding, this involves involves in figurative language language understanding, under tanding. this thi involv primary primary activation a tivation of of activation cognitive models. temporal secondary cognitive mndels. models. In In other condary cognitive In other words, words, temporal temporal conceptions con eption are arc conceptions are both of the result the result both of linguistic lingui tic content and conceptual conceptual content. ontent. content and and conceptual content. saw earlier inthe discussion of the interpretations which arise the As we we saw sawearlier earlierin thedi discussion of the theinterpretation interpretations which As ussion of whi h arise ari", from from the utterance, C"ristmas Christmas approaching, temporal temporal language language understanding utterance, (hrisrmas is utteran
33o 330

FIGURATIVE L\N(jUAGE LANGUAGE AND AND THOU THOUGHT AND FIGURATIVE THOUGHT FIGURATIVI

motivation for TfoR TFoR lexicalconcepts concepts to uep deploy 1 loR lexical to iii. ththemotivation motivltion lexicil con cpt to d ploy vvchid What ii% is the iii. What literal spatial spatial language? relating Iitenl patiallanguagel relating to literal ThisiSSUC issue TFoR lexical are aassociated to the fact Thi,. ue relates relate. to fact that that TFoR TJ'oR lCXkal lexical concepts concept arc ar _iated uatedwith with This vehicles that that literally literallyrelate relateto tomotion motionthrough throughspace, space, and yet, vehicles literally relate to motion spa e, and yet, IIargue, argue, encode schematictemporal temporal relation relation independently of metaphors aaa schematic "hematic temporal relation of the the conceptual conceptual metaphor metaphor s innieptual the con that structure Tim lime in In terms term of of Spa e at th eptual kvel. level.The Thequestion que t.lln thasruceTimn ofSpacethnulv.Teqstion that structure then is is semanticrepresentation representation in language language (semantic structure) why? As As semantic semantic representation in language (semantic (semanticstructure) tructure) then .s why? then reflects con conceptual structure,albeit albeit indirectly indirectly (see (seediscussion discussion below), the conceptual renect eptual structure, albeit di u ion below), below), the rctletts linguistic content content encoded encoded by linguistic concepts vehiclcs employed, 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 serve indirectly—the reOectagain indirectly-the the imulation that that they they serve serve as a t—again as Inother otherwords, words, symbolic partial prompts constructing. partial prompt for for constructing. con. tructing. In In word, symbolic ymbolic units unit (lexical (lexical naIl zedprompts promptsfor are conventionalized conventlonalizcd prompt for buildbuild concepts vehi 'Ies) are )ncepts and and phonological phonological vehicles) convent ing complex (conceptions). Asthinking thinking and ing complex simulations imulations (conceptions). (conception ). As As and communicating communicating about temporal temporal relationships is central to the way we coordinate our We coordinate our ouractions actilln relation hip i the way we and with with oursociophysical sociophysical environment, and hence hence with one one another with the sociophy.ical environment, environment, and hence the another and and with our sorts of of complex complex simulations simulations we (seekto) to)evoke, evoke,itititisiis(perhaps) (perhaps)natural naturalthat that sorts imulations we we (seek (seek to) evoke, (perhap) naturalth.t the nature make-up of of TFoR lexical concepts reflect aspects of ofTFoR TFoR lexical lexical concepts con cpt should hould reflect rene" aspects a pect of IIf th nature and make-up that thes they evoke. conceptual structure Mru lUre that they serve, serve, in in part, part, to toevoke. evoke. iv. What does this the of What does this show show about the the utility semantic structure in iv. doe this how about utility of ofusing using semantic semanti structure tructure in in language as a lensfor forinvestigating investigating conceptual structure? structure? I alens len for inv tigating conceptual tructurel language aas At the outset of chapter II1alluded alludedto the assumption assumption made by At of the the chapter chapter alluded to the a umption made madeby by cognitive cognitive linguistics language can can be bedeployed deployedin inorder investigate IinguiMi ' that language be deployed in ordertoto toinvestigate investigateconceptual conceptu •• 1 some sense, structure as, sense, languagereflects reflects conceptualstructure—although structure—although n, language language rtfl t conceptual conceptual stru tur~although structure aas,, in some som authors take take different differentviews views different authors precise way in which language authOr> view on on the the precise pr ise way way in inwhich whichlanguage language reflects conceptual ofof LCCM reflects conceptual conceptualorganization. organization.From Fromthe theperspective perspective of lA' :Nl Theory, Theory, Irom the perspective LCCM Th<'Ory, renect organization. all, semantic semantic tructure iis pale reflection reflection ofof ofconceptual conceptualstructure. structure.After Alier alL semanticstructure structure isaaapale pale reflection conceptual structure. After linguistic content encodes encodes highlyschematic schematic representations,which whichstand standinin lingu"tlC encod highly highly hematicrepresentations, representation" which stand stark contra contrastt to the the perceptually and phenomenologically phenomenologkally rich representa"ark the perceptually perceptually and phenomenologicallyrich richrepresentarepre enta tions encoded cognitivemodels. models.This Thisdoes doesnot notmean, mean, course, that model. Thi does not mean,ofofcourse, course,that that tions encoded en oded as aascognitive cognitive semantic structure cannot he deployed in order to investigate conceptual semantic ;tructure structure cannot be be deployed deployed in order order totoinvestigate investigate conceptual conceptual semantIC is that that as structure. In In point point of structure. NI Theory is "ructure. In offact, fact, the thecentral central argument of L eM i, a' the centralargument argument of of LCCM lexical access lexi aI concepts con epts facilitate facilitate access a cess to to con ptualstructure, tructu«, semantic manticstructure tructure concepb facilitate toconceptual conceptual structure, semantic structure can albeit be deployed means of, albeit indirectly. investigating be deployed deployed as aasaaameans m an of,of, albe.tindirectly, indirectly,investigating inve>tigatingconceptual conceptual can he structure. \tru ture.

Summary 1 his chapter chapter has detailed examination examination of This reas)nably detailed provided a reasonably Th" chaptcr has ha provided prov.ded reasonably of aa range range of of lexical lime, and sdeciion the cognitive models which lC'xi4..al ..concepts onu·ph for for Time, Time, Jnd aJ selection c..clt"t..llon of ofthe thecognitive (ognitivemodels mod Iwhich whkh lexical concepts populate populate the thedomain domainof ofTime lime at level of conceptual structure. particuI'<>pulate domain ofTlln at the thelevel level of ofconceptual conccl,tualstructure. tructur. In Inparticuparticu lar, examined the theoretical ofconceptual con eptual lar, have cxamined lar. I have cxamined the theway wayininwhich whichthe thetheoretical theoretk.il construct construct of of conceptual

—-

TIlE THE EMANTICS OF or TIME THESEMANTICS SEMANTICS oi TIME I IME

331 33' 331

metaphor. III orporated IIIto LCCM of Time. The metaphor incorporated intoLCCM L(CNl Theory, Theory. in in the the domain domainof ofTime. lime. The The metaphor isis incorporated into Theory, in i that thattemporal temporalrepresentation representationhas hasreflexes reflexes in central of the hapter isis in central argument argument of the chapter representation has reflexes ill language, temporal lexical concepts, toIKcptS, which encode term lanlluage, temporal con cpt, which whichencode en ode terms of of direct direct encoding encoding in language, and perceptually highly hematIC parameteriz,ltion, of temporal experience, parameteri/at ions of temporal experience, and perceptually highly schematic schematic parameterizations and ally rich The temporal temporal cogcogand phenomenologi phenornenologically rich temporal phenomenologically temporal cognitive cognitive models. models. The nitive much that that is purely temporal ininnature. I For or instance, instance, ispurely purelytemporal temporalin nature.For in tan e, that is nitive models models include much as phcnomenologically rich phenomenolog. ally rich telllporal relate notion such uth as as phenomenologically richtemporal temporal experienCe> experiences relate relate to to notions notions such sequentiality, imultaneity, temporal ion, protracted our temporal compres compression, protractedduration, duration, our sequentiality, simultaneity1 simultaneity, temporal compression, experience of pa pastness. futurity, the soon. on.In In addition, addition, such sut.h experien e of tness, futurity, In uch experience of pastness, futurity, the present, present,and and so so notions are are systematically structured interms termsofofstructure structure notion arc systematically ystemallcally structured Iructured in in terllls "ructurerecruited recrUited from experiofperceptual perceptual expericognitive models model which relate to non-temporalaspects a peets of models which relate relate of to non-temporal non-temporal aspects This is is achieved via conceptual conceptual is achieved a hieved via onceptual metameta ence such uch as aas motion motion pace. This Thi through space. ence motion through to phors. provide phors, which serve serve uncon"iou and and automatic automatic level level of ofaccess ace ,to serve to provid provide an an unconscious to structurefrom from cognitive non-temporal knowledge allowing allowing inferential inferential structure structure from cognitive cognitive non-temporal inferential non-temporal knowledge models associatedwith with the the domain domain of of Space Space fiirm part part of llIodel associated of Spa e totoform form ofour ourconceptual conceptual associated with our conceptual representations for temporal concepts. In terms terms of linguistically mediated tenn of oflinguistically Iingui Ii allymediated mediated representation In representations for for temporal concepts. concepts. In simulations, this conceptions which are are not tigurativc1 in the .mulation ,thi can lead lead to conceptions conceptions which which are not n t figurative, figurative, in the this can .1 sense, sense, Chapler '4 1I0wever, canoni allyfigurative canoni canonical asdefined defined in in Chapter However, canonically figurative canonical sense, aas defined in Chapter14. However, canonically in the temporal conception conceptionsare arealso ako po possihk temporal ible in tandem, as a in the case case of of the the the case temporal are also possible in tandem, tandem, risimasisis C/lri5lmas i5 approaching. approacllll'g. example: Cu Christmas

Part V V Conclusion L(( situates chaptersituates Thechapter Thi oflh~ book consists con i I of ofone chapler.The TheLCCM 1. 'M onechapter. chapter. consists This final part part of of the the hook book cognitive linguisticswhich which Th~ry respecl to 10 the Ihe various variou theories Ih~ries within withincognitive cogniliv~linguistics linguistic Theory with with respect respect theories serves to contextualize contcxtualiic ilit ynth ile!> and build A~ such, uch. this Ihl final part ""rves to 10 conlexlualile it syntheslies synthesises and builds builds upon. upon. As As such, thisfinal part serves ofLCCM LCCM Theory. Ih developmenl of of LC M Theory. Theory. the development

16 16 LCCM LCCM Theory in in context context LCCM Theory Theory in context In "theory' In as Thi hort chapter consIder the th status tatu of ofLCCM LCCM Theoryas a aaa"theory." "theory." st.itus of ICc NI Theory This This short chapter considers all.After Afterall, all,itit newtheory theoryatatall. certain respects, of course, course, LCCM LC M Theory Theory isiisnot notaanew n~ theory certun certainrespects1 respects, of conceiVscholars examines · tudled phenomena phenom na that that countless countl=scholars holar ofofevery everyconceivcon eiv· examines countless examines well well-studied phenomena theoretical have examined examinedbefore beforeme. me.ItItItalso also incorporates abl penua i n have me. alsoincorporates in orporates able able theoretical theoretical persuasion persuasion have examined linguistics and cognitive cognitive linguistics seminal idea lingui tics and cognitive seminal ideas ideas developed developed by by others, others, in in both both cognitive the core insights r,iics and psy hology, and in orporat synthesizes many of the the core coreinsights in ights incorp psychology, psychology, and incorporates andsynthesiies synthesizes many of of semanticsand andgrammar in the th best~known approach semanti and grammar developed in the best-known best-known approaches approaches to to linguistic linguisticsemantics developed by other oth r cognitive cognitiv linguists. linguist. other cognitive yet theory to My the preceding preceding pages, pag ,has not been to add add yet yet another another theory pages, hasnot to My aim, in the has Neverthekss. there ire the mix, so to peak, simply for the ke of doing so. everthel , there are of doing doing so. so.Nevertheless, there are mix, so to speak, simply for the sake of the mix, the preceding pages, which thr aspects of LC Theory, a presented presented in in the preceding precedingpages, pages,which whichI II three aspectsof ofLCCM l. NIMTheory, aspects Theory,as as presented and,IIhope, hope,elegant elegantaccount which provide aaccount ount believe arc noteworthy, provide aa new newand, believe arc are noteworthy, and, which book. the during the course of oflingui ti phenomena phenom na discussed dl ussed during during the the course course of ofthe book. of the range range of of linguistk. linguistic the hook. has reached a point in its its movement has ha reached a point in its I also also believe believe that that the cognitive linguistics linguistics movement believe that the cognitive linguistics Theory.The Thethree three development where require (something (something like) LC CNI M Theory. Theory. Th thrtt development where whereitititrequires requires (somethinglike) like)LCCM U development are detailed below. notabl aspects aspect arc detailed below. below. notable key provides self-tonsdous attempt to to svntlwsiic I. LCCM llCCM M Theory iou attempt to synthesize ynthesi7ekey Theory provides provides aaa selfcon self-conscious i.1. andcognitive cognitive development relating relating to to cognitive cognitivelexical lexi 31semantics, semanti ,and cognitive relating lexical semantics, developments and distinct theories and to grammar grammar from across across of distinct a ro aa number number of di tinct theories theoriesand and approaches to linguistks thereby providing a single joinedapproa h within cognitive (ognitlve linguistics Iingui ti sthereby thereby providing providingaasingle inglejoinedJOined · approaches semantics. theory of oflinguistic Iinguisti semantics. mantic. up theory linguistic thatitititconstitutes ..onstitutes anapproach approach ne of of tthe hallmarks of ofcognitive cognitivelingui tI isis i that con titutesan One linguistics hallmarks of cognitive linguistics he hallmarks relationship between language.the tudy of oflanguage and the relationship relation hip between betwttnlanguage, language, themind, mind,and and to the the study study of languageand and the language to distinct,complecomplesociophysical experien e. Hence, Hence, itit comprises comprises aa number numberof ofdistinct, souophysical experience. experience. Hence, number sociophysical theoretical frameworks approaches, m ntary and and sometimes sometime:.competing competingtheoretical theoreti alframeworks frameworksand andapproaches, mentary sometimes mentary perspective1 one which often addr overlapping overlapping phenomena. hom thi perspective, per pective, one one whichoften oftenaddress address overlappingphenomena. phenomena.From Irom this this which and challenge for cognitive cognitivelinguists linguists istoto tointegrate integratethe therange range of perspedives challenge for cognitive lingui t isis rang of ofperspectives perspective and and challenge more focused attempt to account frameworks on in order to provide aa more morefocused focusedattempt attempttotoaccount ac ount frameworks on offer offer in in order to provide provide frameworks As I noted earlier, for the the object object of ofanalysis, analy is,whatever whatever that that happen to tobe. be.AsAI noted noted earlier, for the object of analysis, whatever thathappens happens to be. for earlier, cognitive Ilngui ticscan can be notionally divided into two ub-branch cognicognitivelinguistics linguistics canbe benotionally notionallydivided dividedinto twosub sub-branches: branches::cognicognitive within tive semantic. and cognitive approolche to grammar. One concern within livesemantics semanticsand andcognitive cognitiveapproaches approachestotogrammar. grammar.One concern concernwithin tive cognitively from (ognilivc b>CmJntic~has hd\been beentoto%tudv \tuoylexical Icxic.Urepresentation rrepresentation pr~ntalionfrom frol11aa3cognitively (ogniliv Iy cognitivesemantics semantics has lexical cognitive study realistic framework.This Thiswork work hasassumed thatsemantic semanticstructure structure rcali tic framework. framework. Thi w rk has h~ aassumed umedthat tholt scl11anlk ~trU(. : turereflects reneeLS realistic -

______________ _______________________________

336

—

(.ONCLUSION CONCLUSION

partiularly the concognitIVe particularly the mbodied nature nature of ofthe con cognitive organization. organization, theembodied embodied nature the human human contognitivc organi/nion. particularly (Lakott1987 thesis ofembodied the thesis ceptual system, ceplUal y tern. as en hrined in in the th is of of embodiedcognition ognition(Lakoff (Lakoff t987;; as enshrined enshrined Evansand and Green 2006 for for an an overview), John'>On t987; 5CCe [van ,rcen 2006 overview). .is a well well as a other oth rJohns1987;ecEvadGrnzo6faveiw),slothr Johnson 1987; of human cognition as categorizationand md attenaflen organizing cognition such ~uch as a categorization categorization and atten organizing principl~ principles of addition, cognitive have made tional mechanisms. In addition, tional mechani m . In addition. cognitive semantic mantic accounts a count have have made made lexical representation, as in exemcxcm"gnificant tride in moddling lexical lexiCilI representation, representation. i evident in exem significant strides in modelling as is signifi.ant strides (1994), Tyler and Evans Evans (2u03),and andthe the (;eeraerts (1994), (1987), Geeraerts pia" Lakoff (1987), ('987). Geeraert> (t994). Tyler Tyler Evan (2003), (2003). the plars as Lakoff tlars such .is coUection ofpapers papers in inCuyckens Cuyckens ci tI al. (20433). (2003). Some me of of the notions notion apparent apparent in collection of (2003). et a!. aL of in Cuyckens beenimportant important in the development dcvdopment of of cognitive cognitive >;emantic have hay' also hern in the .he development ofcognitive cogni tive cognitive semantics semantics have also been approaches to grammar, grammar1""pcO evident evident thetheory theoryof ofCognitive CognitiveConstruction Construction ,rammar ization is also also evidentin in the the theory of (:ognhtive 1006).This evidenced, forinstance, instance, by developed developed by Goldberg, Goldberg. (e.g., (e.g .• 1995, '995. 2oo6). 2006). This isis i evidenced, eviden ed.for inMancc.by by ene·encoding hypoth i~. which which predicts predicts that thatsentence-level sentence-level - encoding hypothesis, Goldberg'sscene scene-encoding that sentence-level Goldberg's argument structure constrlktions to encode encode ubiquit )Ushumanly humanlyrelerele·- tru ture con truction serve \Crve to encodeubiquitous ubiquitous humanl)' rde argument-structure constructions serve vant scenes. vanl M:en~. vant scenes. apparent iis is that that there there is commonset settofofvocabulary. vocabulary. However. lhat iisnot nnott aaacommon common vocabulary. However, what what iisis apparent And, moreover, moreover, approaches haveemerged emergedwithin within both both cognitive cognitive And. moreover. distinct distinct approaches approach have have emerged within cognitive And semanticsand andcognitive cognitiveapproaches approachesto grammarwhich whichpartially partiallyreplicate replicate semantics and \Cmantics wgnitive approach"" totogrammar grammar which replicate (and partially distinct from) from) other otherrelated related cognitive cognitivelinguistic lingui tictheories. theorie . (and are are partially linguistic theories. from) other related While this leads to confusion While thi may advantages. sometimes lead to confusionand andcan canthus thus this mayhave have advantages, advantages, itit sometimes sometimes leads be a disadvantage. di\Jdvantage. For instance, Talmy (e.g (e.g., iooo) and angacker (e.g., ioo8) use for in tance. Talmy .• 2000) 2000) and ILangacker Langacker (e.g.• 1987, '987. 2oo8) 2008) U!>e Talmy and (e.g., 1987, use distinct of terms for some—arguably much—of the same di tin(\ sets \Ct of ofterms term for forcovering coveringsome—arguably wme-arguably much—of much f the thesame \.1me distinct sets conceptual territory. Moreover, wnteptu •• 1 territory. More'owr, Langacker Langaeker (e.g .• 1987) '987) and (e.g.• l.angacker (e.g., 1987) and Goldberg Goldberg (e.g., (e.g., (e.g., 1995) differ differ quite significantly they define theterm "construction," '995) antly in they ddefine fine the the tterm rm"construction," "con tru tion," aa differ quite signifi in how they fundamental theoretical construct construct in their respective Thus,not notonly theories. Thus, fundamental in their rc pcuse u>cthe thesame \Jme replication, butwhen whenthere there overlap different theorists use the same temlS, occasion, in markedlydifferent differ nt ways. way. Moreover, Moreover. differ nt cognitive cognitive terms, on on occasion, occasion,in inmarkedly different ways. Moreover,different different linguistic to linguistic linguistic organization while while ostensibly ostensibly grounded in linguistic lingui ti approaches approaches to lingui tic organization organll.3tion ostemiblygrounded grounded cognitive their accounts oflexical kxi.al represencognitive semantics, semantics, base and conceptual cognitiv semantic. base ba>c their their account~ of of lexicaland andconceptual conceptualrepresenrepre n· tat ion on on ditterent differentsemantic semanti theories. lh ries. For Forinstance, in tane •Goldberg Goldbergbases base:.her h racacbases her actation different semantic bases hisaccount account ount on (Fillmore count on Frame Fram Semantics Semantic; ((Fillmore '982). wh.le ba his his acmantK~"(e.g., (e.g.,Langacker Langal~er own 2008). Indeed, Indeed, what what Langacker Langacker rekrs to domain as 2008). Langa k r refer ~ iis not thesame same", refers toas asaaa domain domain is not quite quite the the same as Filimores notllln notion of Moreover, both bothare are differentfrom fromwhat what frame. Moreover, of aa semantic Fillmore' of \Cmantic frame. Moreover. arcdifferent different Fillmore's I.akoff to. in Lakoff and and JohnM)n Johnson refer refer to. to, Theory (e.g., 1980, La~of1 and John"," in Conceptual Conceptual Metaphor Metaphor Iheory Theory(e.g.. (e.g .•1980, '980. '999),.•as domain,which whiLh isdifferent ditlerentagain again fromwhat what lakoff refers 'm) domain. whi h isis different agaonfrom whatLakoff Lakoff(1987) ('987)refers refer> 1999), as aadomain, (1987) ( ognitiveModel M'del (1CM). The plethora ofoftheoretical theoretical ais an an Idealized Ide.li/ed Cognitive Cognitiv Model (ICM). (ICM). The Theplethora plethoraof theoretic.1 an Idealized to as constructs can,on onoccasion, occ.Isi''n,be becontradictory. contradictory.For lor instance, Instance, while (on Irw.1 can, 4..Jn, nn ()u:~l,i()n. be lUlllra<.lu.;tory. I'or in lolnce.while \vhileLangacker L..:lIlgad;er constructs hutnot notabstract, abstract, domains, for lakoff ,"dude l:.mo.ion a basic, ba;ic. but but ab tract.domains, domains. for Lakoff includes lime and and Emotion Imotion .is includes 1,me Time as for Lakoff

ONI lxi t(:eM TlIEORY 1THEORY lOONY IN ( 'ONTEXT 11(51 LCCM IN CONTEXT

337

cm and Johnson are ahstract domains. 1This h,slack latk of unified can Johnsonboth bothare areabstract abstractdomains. domains.This la.kMa of aaunified unifiedvocabulary vocabularycan also undermin concerted focus focu on ofagreed-upon agreed·uponphephe. also undermine a concerted concerted focuson onaaadelimited delimited set settofof agreed-upon phealso undermine nomena. As such, such, thisstate state ofaffairs affairsisisispotentially potentiallyconfusing confusing the analyst nomena. nom na. As A uch. this this tate of of affair potentially confu ing to tothe th analyst analy t secks to apply and deploythe variou,theories theorie<;on offer.and andmoreover, moreover. who seeks toapply apply and anddeploy thevarious various theories onoffer, offer, and moreover, seeks can make it difficult to tocompare compar (and (andcontrast) contra t)the thedistinct distincttheoretical th reti al compare (and contrast) the distinct theoretical can make make it difficult po ition theirmain mainclaims daim and andobjectives. objcctive<;.The Thedivergen4cs divergencesalso, also.potentially, potentially. posit ins, •their also, potentially. positions, their main claims and objectives. The divergences undermine the claim claim that that cognitive cogllltive linguistics linguistic represents represcnt aaacoherent coherententerenter· linguisiks coherent enterundermine represents (e.g., cognitivepsychologists, psychologists. scholars from from other disciplines pri that offer scholar> di iplin (e.g., (e.g.•cognitive cognitive p ychologi t • prise that offers scholars literary anal t. and for use u in e .. mining phenomena phenomenathat andso so on) aa toolkit toolkit for in examining examining phenomena that literaryanalysts, analysts, so on) on) use disciplines. fall ofstudy tudy in intheir theirrespective respcemantic memory. From cognitive cognitive approaches approaches to to gramgram storage in essential insights. mar. LC M Theory Theory has two essential ntial insights. insight . mar, LCCM mar, has taken two Firstly, cognltivel)' cognitively oriented have argued that that grammar grammar is is Firstly. grammarian have argued lhat grammar i Firstly, cognitively oriented oriented grammarians have argued meaningful, aa position position that until until was marginal viewin in meaningful. po ition that until relatively relallvely recently recently was wa aamarginal marginal view in nmainstream linguistics. Inparticular, particular,scholars scholars such lalmyand and Langacker main tream linguistics. linguisti . In In particular. -holar such u hasaasTalmy Talmy andLangacker Langa k r mainstream have successfully su..esstully demonstrated that although although grammatical grammatical meaning meaning is highly u c fully ddemonstrated mon trated that meaningi5 i highly highly have schematic in in nature, nature. when when compared compared to to the relatively associated s
_________

—

CONCLUSION (ON ( '1LUSION US 14 N CON

symIntegration of conceptually conceptuallydepend dependent autonomous with con conceptually autonomous symdependent integrallo nt with eptu~Uy a"tonomou symn of integration entities encode schemati. t)olicunits. units.. For For Langa Langacker conceptuallyd dependent encode bolic lInil For ker conceptuaUy pendent entoll encod schematic hematiC Langacker conceptually dependent Mic the terms terms trajectorsand/or and/or landmark landmarks whi which he filled in—Langacker uses filled in—-tra,eclor landmarks h can be in langat.ker Langackeruses uses the Ihe term, which andior trJICctOIs sofa, the the' under the sofa, the phrase such as: uiukr Asa consequence, in a phrase such as: "elaboration." consequen e, III 0/" in a phrase lIch a : lII,der tilt
subbranch of of cognitive cognitive semantics, as One of oflhe ou"'anding uccc'>sc of of cogniliv. ""lnanli~,as a~aaa sub-branch ,ub branch of of of the the outstanding outstandingsuccesses role of of embodiment embodiment in cognitive linguistics, has cognillve Linguistics, lingui lie, ha been 10 empha ile the Ih of embodimenl in in hasbeen beento toemphasize emphasize the role demonstrate the cognitive and in language. has and in inlanguage. language. Another Another has has been been to 10demonstrate d mon Irate the the cognillve function funclion and function Another been to However, one of the importance of of imagination in meaning construction. Importance imagination in in meaning meaning construction. (on truction. However, Ilowevcr. one one of ofthe the imagination downplay the the significance of language consequences language consequence of Ihi move has ha been been 10 downplay Ihesignificance ignoficanceof oflanguage consequencesof ofthis this move has beento todownplay Thisisisapparent apparentin perhaps thetwo twocognitive itself meaning it If in meaning meaning construction. con Iruction.This Thi apparent inperhaps perhap the Ihe IwO cognitive itself profiles beyond beyondthe theconfines confines of linguistic theoriesthat thathave have the highest lingul\11( Ihemic Ihat have the Ihe highest high.,' profiles profile, beyond Ihe confine. ofof linguistk theories ConceptualMetaphor MetaphorTheory, theory, pioneered pioneered cognitive are Conceptual cognilive lingui lie. itself. ilself. These Th are Conceptual Melaphor Theory, pioneered cogmtivc linguistics linguistics itself. and Conceptual Blending Theory, by and Johnson, George Lakoff l.ak"ff and Mark MarkJohnson, Johnson, and andConceptual onceptllalBlending BlendingTheory, Theory, by George George lakoff and Mark developed by Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner. This not to say, of course, Mark Turner. rhas is hOt to say, of dc\ei"l"oJ and Mark Tlimer.lhi. i, not 10 'lay, of course, cou,""" developed hy hy("lie (,illes humnnicr Iauconnier and language. or explicitly attempts to that either of these theories ignores language, or explicitly attempts to reduce Ihal Ihe . Iheori .. ignores ignMe. languagc, or explkilly allempl 10 reduce redu, that cllher either of of these theorks constfliction. The IS5UC is more one (it focus. its significance in meaning construction. The issue is more one of focus. ih ignificolm:r in meaning meaning con truction. Tht i ur i mort ant of focu . its sigflifkancc

—

_ _ _ __ _.....;l~C::!C ~.1 THEORY ONTEXT L(M1HEORY IN'N CONTEXT LCCM THEORY IN CONTEXT -

339 JJ9 339

lor is primarily a ror "itspart, part, Con cplllal Metaphor M taphor Theory pnmarily aa theory know· of knowknowForits part,Conceptual Conceptual Metaphor Theory is is primarily theory of of ledge representation. Although it on language languag to to ledg representallon. Although has traditionally relied on traditionally relied to ledge representation. Although it has relied on language provide evidence provide e for for conceptual conceplual m taphors, and and seeks seeks to account for foraaasubset subset to account for provide eviden evidence conceptual metaphors. metaphors, and seeks of exhibited of scmanll ompo ilion exhibited exhibitedby byfigurative figurali ..language, language, itit i not not aaa theory Iheory theory of of of semantic semantic composition composition by figurative language, it is is not of languag rstanding nor of melaphor comprehen ion. II1have have assumed assumed language understanding in language und understanding nor of of metaphor metaphorcomprehension. comprehension. have assumed in this Metaphor Ihi thai Conceptual ,onceptual Metaphor ietaphor Theory Theoryis i correct correel ~II /igll($. Thai en gralll/~j graisdes That this book book that that Conceptual Theory is correct grandes ligises. That is, there is is compelling compelling evidence evidencefrom from behavioural behavioural studies studies demonstrating, ~s, evidenl< from behavioural tudi demonstrating, demon trating, for for is, there there is is truelured in terms of ofconceptual conceptual Instance, knowledge repr ntation is instance, that knowledge knowledge representation representation isstructured structured in terms terms of conceptual instance, that that ub trate taken con eptllal representation, repr ntalion, in in the n substrate taken from from other other domains of conceptual conceptual representation, the sense sense substrate taken from other domain domains of of predicted predICted Con epl"al Metaphor Theory, However, Ilowever, III believe believe that Ihat Concepn«pMetaphor Theory. that Conceppredicted by Conceptual Conceptual Theory. However, supplemented intwo two ways. ietaphor 'Iheory Theory needJ be supplemented upplemented in in way>. tual ways. tual Metaphor Metaphor Theoryneeds needs to to be be rir Ily, Con eptual Metaphor 'l11eory ha traditionally traditionallybeen beenconcerned con erned Firstly, Conceptual Metaphor Theory theory has Firstly, Conceptual Metaphor has traditionally been concerned with sensory· motorexperience e perience and and how howthis Ihi gives givC\rise riseto 10abstract ab lractconcepts. on«plS. with withsensory-motor sensory-motor experience and how this gives rise to abstract concepts. For i.akoff that notions notions such ror in tan e, Lakoff Lakoff and and Johnson have have emphasized empha ized that that notion such uch asas For instance, instance, andJohnson Johnson have emphasized and Quantityare, are,inin insonic som sense, n , subjective ubjective and and hence, h nce,inincertain Anger, lime, and hence, certain Anger, Tim, Time,and andQuantity arc, some sense, subjective abstract notions. Much of of the theimpetus impetusbehind Conceptual Metaphor Ii n . Much of Ihe impetu behindConceptual Con eplualMetaphor Metaphor rrespects peclS ab Ira t nnotions. respects abstract been to to show showhow these moreabstract abstractnotions notionsare arestructured structured Theory has has been been show how these thesemore more abstrael notion ar truelured in in has terms referred to dimensionsof of experience, term of what have hav been been referred 10 a concrete dimensions d,men.ion ofexperience, experience,for for terms of of what have to as as instance, 'time in in terms terms of Motion Anger in terms ut Heat. t rm of of Motion Motionthrough throughspace. pa e. Anger Anger in in terms termsof ofHeat, lleat. in tan
F40 o

(ON! I.XT _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _......!L~, ~C~M THEORY I (;(:M IHEOK\ IN CONTEXT

CONCLUSION ("ON I\J~ION

LCCM THEORY IN CONTEXT

of knowledge. Hence, what is required is anatxount account of lexical lexical representation of knowledge. lienee. whal i an a(tounl of of lexic,al representation repr~nlallon what iis required is knowledge. 1-lence, ofand semantic composition which complements the the perspective perspective on on knowledge knowledge and ...,manlic compo ition whi complemenl Ihe per pectlve on knowledge whichh COfllpktflCfltS composition and representation provided by ConceptualMetaphor Metaphor Theory.Yet, Yet, suchan an acby Conceptual Conc I'lual 1 laphor Theory. The<,ry. Yel. such uch an a(· • re'oCnlalion provided hy count must also remain mindful of the unique contribution of Ilanguageto to rcp . 'b' contribution counl muSI also remaIn mindful 0off the Ihe unique umqu conln ullon offlanguage anguage 10 remain must also meaning construction. This is what I.CCMTheory Theory attemptstotodo. do. This is meaning conslruclion. Thi i what whal 1(1CM Ie ' .M Theory attempts attempl 10 do. , , construction. meaning Conceptual Blending Theory,while whilethis this(Werlaps overlaps in in certain certain to Turning now Turning now 10 ,onceplual B1endmg Bknding 1 h~ry. whIle Ih.'s ovcrlap m cert'IO lurningwith floW to Conceptual respects Conceptual Metaphor Theory, itsprimary primary impulseisissomewhat somewhat Metaphor Theory1 respeelS with Conceplual Melaphor Theory. its lIS pri~larr impulse Im~ul~ I som hal with (onceptUJl respects different. Unlike Conceptual Metaphor Theory which which is concerned is primarily primarily concerned (;onceptual Metaphor differenl. Unlike .onceplual Melaphor Theory whl h I pnmanly different. Unlike knowledge representation—accounting for with a subset for the relatively Ih a sub I of of knowledge reprC'oCnlation Ihe relatively relallvely representation -a(tounllng for the of knowledge with a subset stable aspects of the structuring of abstract domains—Blending Theory is domains_—Blending Theory of abstract ~~ble aspeel of Ih structuring slrucluring of ab.lra I do~ain Blending The<)ry i of the stable .tspccts by the concerned with a wider range of domains, and is primarily exercised by primarily exercised domam • and is I pnmanlyex rC1 ed by the Ihe concerned wilh a wider wider range range of domains, with a Condesire to account for dynamic aspects of of meaning meaning construction. Like like ('on10 a(tounl for dynamic dynamic aspects "'peel of meaning con Iruction. Like Con. desire desire to Metaphor Theory, however, Blending Theory Theory is not not concerned with with ceptual Melaphor Theory. Blending ceptual however. Blending Theory is i no~ concerned .w,ilh Theory1 however1 ceptual Metaphor language per se. Indeed, the architects of of the theory theory emphasize the overriding overriding language per se. se. IIndeed, ndced. Ihe Ihe Iheory emphasiie emphasIZe the Ihe overndlOS the archilects architects of the language per importance of non-linguistic processes which are, they argue, conceptual conceptual which are, processes of proc~ses which are. they Iheyargue1 argue •• conc plual imporlance importance of non.lingUlslic rather than linguistic in nature. It is these processes, operating "behind the these processes1 operating "behind I I~e;c proc . operalmg behlOd Ihe ralher Ihan lingui lie m nature. It is in nature. rather than linguistic scenes" which guide meaning construction ( (Fauconnier Fauconnier 1997; Fauconnier and and 1997 Fauconflier , 'enes" which guide meaning conslrucllon construction (Fauconmer 199~; Fau onmer and scenes" whkh guide Turner zooz). My purpose in this hook has not been to dispute this claim. claim. to dispute Turner 2002). My iy purpose purpose in this Ihi book book has has not nol been been 10 d,spule this thIS dalm, Turner 2001). Indeed, as with Conceptual Metaphor Theory, II assume that BlendingTheory that Blending umelhal Blendmg 1theory heory Indeed. aas wilh Conceplual Conceptual Melaphor Metaphor Theory. Theory, I aassume Indeed, with is, in general terms, correct. Rather, LCCM Theory represents an attempt to attempt to LCCM1 Theory is. in generallem". correct. Rather, Ralher. LC Theory represents rePn:s"nts an an att mI'l 10 is, in general terms, redress the balance. It seeks to do so by demonstrating demonstratingthe thecomplexity complexity redr. Ihe balance. It seeks seeks 10 so 1w by demonslrallng Ihe complexlly to do M) redress the balante. It associated with lexical concepts—the prompts for the conceptual the Lonceptual processes concepts—the prompts for Ihe conceplualprocesses associaled with I xi .1 concep Ihe prompts proce " associated with Lexical operating behind the scenes—and to show that language does in fact make make aa language does in fact to show show Ihal that la~guage does in facl m~ke operaling behind Ihe,scenes—and en.,-and 10 a operating behind the significant contribution to meaning construction, involving a range of highly highly involvmg a range ol meaning tonstrut. I IOfl, InvolvlOg a range of hIghly 10 meanmg con lrucllon. ignificanl conlribulion contribution to sign it ant complex meaning construction mechanisms. Indeed, with anassertion assertionwith mechanisms. Indeed,this complex meaning on Iruction mechani m . Indeed. thisisiisan an assertion wllh .omplex meaning construction which Fauconnier and Turner would doubt agree. would no no which Fauconnier and Turner would no doubt doubl agree. agree. and In essence, I conceive of LCCM Theory as complementing, rather than In essence. I conceIVe of l.('eM Theory a ((ImplemenllOg. rather ralher than Ihan L(LCM as I conceive In essence, t provides, I competing with, the theories ofConceptual Metaphor and Blending. provides. competmg with. the the theories theones ofConceplual Metaphor Melaphor and and Blending. Blending. ItII provld.... competing with, I suggest. the missing link in meaning construction which which essential foraaa mi ing link in in meaning meaning construction con lruction which isis i essential essenlialfor for I suggests uggesl. Ihe I the missing complete understanding of how language interfaces with conceptual structUre. complele IJnguJg interfaces inlerfac,,,, with withconceptual concepluJIstructure. Inl(lure. complete underslanding understanding of of how language That is, while Conceptual Metaphor and Blending Theories address the roleof of Theories address the i" while whil Conceptual Conceplual Metaphor Melaph rand BlendlOg Theori address therole rol of ThaI and Blending That is. with conceptual processes in meaning construction, Theoryisis concernedwith constrUction, LCCM conceplualproc lruction.LCCM LC MTheory Theory i concerned concerned wilh conceptual processts in in meaning con the role of language and linguistically represenknowledge rcprescfl linguisticallymediated mediated access toknowledge ml of of language languJge and and Iinguislically medialedaccess a"esto10 knowledge repr.... n· Ihe the role tation. Hence, while Conceptual Metaphor and Blending Theories constitute Blending Theories constitute Conceptual lalion. lienee. whil Con cplual Metaphor 1 taphor and Blending Theories con IIlule tation. Hence, while theories of, what Fauconnier (1997) has ILCM cognition1 LCLM hastermed termedbackstage backstage lermed ba kslagecognition, cognilion. LC .M Iheories of. whal Fauconnier Fau((lnnier (1997) ha theories of, what Theory constitutes a theory of what I have called fmntstage cognition. frontstage cognition. Theory IIlul ,Ihe<,ry of what whal II have have called ailed fmntslJ!: cognilion. Theory ((In coflstltutes a theIF\ of

°

LCCM Theory reanalyses and thereby reinterprets encyclopaedic iii. encyclopaedic reinterpretsthe the LCC 1Theory rhl'Ory reanalyse Ihe encydopaedic iii. rcanalyses and and Ihereby thereby reinlerprel iii. approach 1.(CM to linguistic semantics developed in cognitive linguistics. cognitive linguistics. semantics devdoped developed in cogmllve .pprod,h 10 IIc ...,lIIanll" linguistic . approach to Iingui linguistic is The encyclopaedic approach to semantics developed in in cognitive linguistics dcveloped linguistics semanlics dcvdoped in cognitive ~gni.'ivc lingui Ii iis, Th enC)dopaedic approach 10 to semantics The encyclopaedic in10no measure, to10 the work of Ronald I Angacker Langackeii n10 inhis hisdevelopment developmentofof nilsmall malllllcd ure.due due Ihe workofRonJld l..tnSJcker hI developmenlof the work of Ronald small measure due to ifl no semantics which is part and parcel of Cognitive a aconceptual parcelofof ofhis histheory theory part and UlIllcptUJI "toCmantic.:, whkh and ~.lrtl':cI hi,. tht.t·ory of of Cognitive Cogniu\.e which 1\ pJrt conceptual a Grammar. While the encyclopaedic semantics perspective equates semantic semantic semantics perspective equates (Iranlnlar. \\fhilc the the tncydopaedic -;emantlc per,pcctlve equat c,cntant,,; (rammar. While

3411 34

341

slru,1ure wilhconceptual cnnccpludlstructure, Iruclure.IC( It:;M:M Theli, non-linguistic y lem isis the th abililY 10 evoke evoke simulations, "lIIulalion system the ability ability to system is to evoke which developed for non-linguistic aL forth· forthfunctions as (Barsalou zoo5; Rarsalou et functions. uch. perceplion and action (Barsalou 2005; Barsalou n etaL functionssuch such as perception perceptionand andaction action (Barsalou zoos; Barsalou forthinto lexical In view view of ofthis, Ihi"the Iheseparation "",aralion of ofsemantic scmantic representation repr~nlalion into intolexical lexical coming). representation coming). In In view of this, the separation of semantic models (conceptual concepl (linguistic conI nl) and and cognitive cognilive models (conceplual content) conlenl).serves rYc, concepts (linguistic content) content) and cognitive concepts (linguistic (conceptual content) serves perspective on on ency cikvclopaedic semantics. 10 provide aaa somewhat somewhal nuanced nuancedperspective lopaedi semantics. semanll"'. to provide provide somewhat nuanced to on encyclopaedic these pages is programmatic In the Ihe final analy,i • what whal have provided inthese Ih~pages pagesisi aaaprogrammatic progralllmalic final analysis, what II have haveprovided providedin In the analysis, words mean. Much to provide an account for how how framework that Ihal provide an an account aecounl for howwords word, lIIean.Much framework framework that seeks seeks 10 to provide mean. psychologists with a3 10 be done, done. not nolleast leasltoto 10provide provideexperimental experimenlalpsychologists p ychologi I with with remain to remains to be he done, not least provide experimental remains a empirically verified. framework specific proposals that can be framework that Ihal offers offer specific p''
Glossary terms, along alongwith withbrut brkf definitions, definitions, that are either novel i ,1aa listing IIhsting ting of I hniul terms. term. with brief dctiniliorb.that thatare 3reeither eithernovel no\cl Below *s is or technical

to l.( CM1 Theory u.:C Theory which. urn a•a special p<ei.l,nterprdation the context
Ace Thephenomenon phenomenonwhereby wherehylexical Icxu.:JIconcepts l:Onl.t"JlI serve \Crvc to 10activate ,1(.lIvale*conceptual ·,om:('plu.11 Access The ilie phenomenon whereby lexical serve to activate t.onceptual Access concepts

;

content. There are two two types types ofaccess: primary access access and'secondary seondary access. (ontcnt There are .1fe typc") of of ~'I,.~ 'primary 'primary 01(( and' ·onduY.1l:' content. and access.

pointwhere where Ace Thepoint whereaaa*lexical °1lexical xkalconcept conl piinterfaces inlerfOl( with wHh 'con(('ptual point The interfaces withthe the'conceptual 'conceptual concept Access point point profile. system in aJa given given*cognitive 'i.ognitive model model y tcm in In gl\lcn ',ogl1lli\(' modd profile. prohle. system

Ac ut e The Thepath path 'a
nature and make-up association potentiillyafford to the the precise prt\:' nature malt . up of ofassociation 3MOCiation potentially affords acc access to. I)ue Due to ar itt is i.iisunique unique to each each 'lexical -Icxi al concept. con epl. areas, an access accesssite site unique to 'lexical areas, an

Activation The pro<:o> ",to..'rrlly port ofofthe the ',emantK whk.h lexiuJ 11wprocess process whereby partof the'semantic 'semanticpotenti.1l potentialtotowhich which •aalexical kxkal potential Activation The whereby part concept provides achievesresonance. resonance.This Thiscan canhe hefacilitated facilitatedby by'primary 'primary providesaccess aa:es. achie> monanC<. This can be facilitated by 'primaryaccess a access achieves access or 'secondary •s«ondaryaccess. au.. or 'secondary access. Adjustmentt The 11wtype typeof of*matching 'matching that that takes takes placewith withrespect the'cognitive cognitive Adjustmen of 'mat< model profile profile accessed accessed bya a*relational 'relationallexical lexicalconcept. concept. Thiscontrasts contrasts with*per'permodel accessed by by. °rel.tionallexical con epl.This Thi contra ISwith WIth 'per· spectivitat pofitivil,J,1 ion. ion.

metonymy.AA Alignment Relatesto thedistinction distinction between 'metaphor and AUgoment Rel.t totothe the di tinctIon between between 'metaphor 'md.phor and and 'metonymy. 'mdonymy. A Alignment Relates judged as as being being metonymic inetonyniic (as opposed 'figurative 'figurat" conception that I judged judged ... mdonymi (a opposed opposed to metaOld. · 'figurative conception that that is (as phoric) exhibits in cases ofmetonymy metonymythe the*cognitive 'cognitive model phont:) co hibit alignment. alignm nl. That Thai iis•in Incases (,1 of metonymy th -,ognlll\'(model moot! phoric) exhibits alignment. That is, of withthe the*figurative 'figurative target 'figurative and the profile associated a i.ted with with the 'figuratIVe t.rgd and .nd *figurative 'figu .. tovevehicle v
(,IOSSAKY GIO ARY

344

345 3.45

GLOSSA KY

GLOSSARY SARY — (iIO (;LOSSARY

345

Oash ite The''secondary onduy cognitive cognotive model mod I profile profile that th.tserves rv as as the the Clash site Clashresolution resolution site The The 'secondary cognitive model profile that serves as the 'search region ininfaulilatang facilitating 'snrdl 'dol h resolution. resolution. 'searchregIOn regionIn facilitating'clash 'clash resolution.

Attribute See 'Attribute-value sets. 'Attnbffle-%falne sets. ... uribute Sec' See ...uribute,value scts. Attribute associated withtheir thcirown ownframe. frame, frame, Attribute frame Attributes within a 'frame that are -iatcd with associated with their frame that are within aa framing. Attribute fram an Attributes Attnbut 'frame that are a providing embeddedwithm form of Attribute frame framing. form of of framIng. embedded form providing an embeddcd providing an Attribute systematicity The property associated with certain attributes attributes which which form form with cmain certain attributes whi h. form Attribute ystematicity The propn1y aassociated iated with

syslematicitY the core Of a 'frame,The duepropertY to frequency of occurrence acrossaarange range of of distinct distinct AttribUte of du to frequ ncy c,)f CXfo.urrcn,"e ;lUc,) a range of dl tIOlt the ,"ore of it 'frame. due to frequency the core of a 'frame, contexts. contexts.taxonomy Attribute-value sets form taxonomies whereby a given value, Attribute whereby a given value, taxoflomies whereby sets form form ta'(on~mi Attribute taxonomy Attribute-v lu \do given ~alue. Attribute-value anattribute, attribute, whiletaxonomY subordinate to a superordinate attribute. can in turn serve aASan Attribute while uborJIOolte to upc:rordmate attribute) can m turn rve as an attrlhute'. to aa superoidiflate and hence he superordinate, to more attnbute. specific values. while subordinate and hence M superordinate urerordinate, to more mo~ specific p«ific values. vatu •

and hence be Attribute-value sets The set of attributes—superordinate concepts--and —and values— values— Attribute-v lue sd The t of attnbutes--u~rordllute concepts-and valunThe set of subordinate sets concepts—that together with a related related kindofofconcept— concept—sstructural structural together with aa related kind ubordinate concepts-that together kind of
.

concept B. 8.

Broad selection Selection of a distinct 'lexical concept from among numberofof amongaaanumber 'lexical concept Broad Itction Selr..:tion of aa di tlllll 'Iexkal (Onlept from among number of distiiht Selection possible lexical concepts conventionally associated with a aparticular 'vehicle. Broad selection 'vehick. particular associated with po Ible Ie icaJ (on(ept conv ntlonally a»4Xlatcd With a p.1rtic.:uIJr 'vehide. possible concepts There arelexical two main types of broad selection, namely 'single selection and 'mul'mulselection and namels 'single tWO maon types of broad I ·tion, namely' ingle lection and 'mulThere are of broad selection. There are twoBroad main types tiple selection. selection contrasts with 'narrow selection. selection. with ·narrow narrow I«tion. tiple I~tlon . Bn»d I tion (ontr h wuh Broad sdetiofl tiple selection. Chaining The phenomenon whereby cognitive models linked ininaaweb wchofof modelsare are linked Chaining The phenomenon wher
tive model profile profile andlor and/or 'informational chancleriutlon undergoing 'matc.:htngtive model established in in thethe'seca 'search region is is scc(lash resolution The process in which established which a 'search region I h rrsolution The prc.x in whifo.h 01' arth rcglc.m i tabh hw III the '\Cfo. ~ The process in cognitive model profile of one of the cognitive model profiles undergoing undergoing Clash ondaryresolution model profiles ,t the fo.og.nllive cognitive model c,md.uy ,"og1l111ve model profileaof 01'match. on of profil unJt:rgoing one 'matching. ondary in order to facilitate 'match. faolitate a• 'mau;h. nlolh.hlllg. in in order orJer to to facihtJte 'matching

Oosed ·cla lexical con ept Th.t uto.et of of lexical lexical concepts concepts that that are are convcotionally That subset Closed-class lexical concept limed-class lexical concept That subset of lexical concepts that are not doconventionally of this paored with WIth 'closed-class 'dO>ct of v.hid conventionally The subset of 'phonological vc+iicks (losed-dass losed ,cia vehicles • vehicles h icl Closed-class The subset of 'phonological vehicles conventionally paired lexical (on cpt . with -class WI th 'closed 'closed· cI lexical with 'closed-class lexicalconcepts. concepts. Cognitive model ... multlm,,,bl knowledge knowled~e of ofany any kind kind to to which whkh aa coherent "oJy body of of multimodal Cognitive Cognitivemodel model AAwherent coherent body of mutt imodal knowledgerise of any kind to which a to aa 'simulation. at concept con ept can facilitate access olc," and can give gi\·e riK to ' Imulation. 'Iexi and which can 'lexical •lexical concept can facilitate access and which can give rise a 'simulation. be and toan one more 'fram I and be classified cI lfitd Cogllltlve model arc compn\Cd of one or more 'frames, ognitive models are comprised Cognitive models are comprised of one or more 'frames, and can be classified 'episodic situations, to 'ind,vldu.1 'individuals., 'types. 'epIsodic Ituatlon., based rewte to basedon on the the way way in in whi
based 00 the way in which they relate to 'individuals, 'types, 'episodic situations,

or 'generic ituatlon. or'generic 'genericsituations. situations.

modelsto to which which aa gi' given kxial Cogniti' model model profile The wgnill' model n lexi 01 11w r.n~e range of of cognitive Cognitive Cognitive modelprofile profile The range of cognitive models to which a given lexical model profile umstitutes a concept potentially fauhtolta 'access. 'o1U. • The cogniti\' model profile on titut a concept concept potentially potentially facilitates 'access. The cognitive modelprofile profile constitutes a is made up of lexical con ept' 'semantic 'scmanti potential. potential. A ... cognitive cognitive model model profile i made up of lexical lexicalconcepts concept's 'semantic potential. A cognitive model profile is made up of aa 'primary cogolll' model and aa 'sc
'primary cognitive model profile and a 'secondary cognitive model profile.

knowledge between participants the.shared hared knowledg he,w n pani ip.nt that that is i Common ground Constitutes Con IItutes the Common Common ground ground Constitutes the shared knowledge between participants that is proceed the course of of a~ 'joint 'JOint activity. activity. Joint Joint activities actlviti procca.l built up incrementally during built up during the built up incrementally incrementally during course of a • joint activity. Joint activities proceed 'these incremental In incremental Incrementalsteps t p whlth arc cumulative nalOre. Th IIlHClllcntollsteps ~"~p serve rve which are cumulative III in nature. in in incremental steps which are cumulative in nature. These incremental steps serve the common ground. to accumulate a cumulate the commonground. to accumulate

nctption

compos-~ of 'semantic A (om pi x ' Illluloltion resulting r ulting from fromprocesses prc.x of' manUc compo

complex "simulation Conception A A Conception complex 'simulation resulting from processesinofthe 'semantic composition lIl\olvlng an inter;a(tlon between representations rcpro.cntation In the 'linguistic '!tngui ticsystem y tcm interaction between ition, involving an , ition, involving an interaction between representations in utterance-level the 'linguistic system unit of and the 'conceptual •conceptual system. tern. A A conception con cption Iis thus thu an an utterance-level unit of and the the and 'conceptual system. Adynamically conceptionand is thus an utterance-level unit of during processing mraning. (Conc.:eption emerge dynamlfo.ally and can un he he revised revl~ during proc mg meaning. onceptiofls emerge meaning. Conceptions emerge dynamically and can be revised during processing 'matches ib further lingui tic.: context context emerges tmerg thereby tht~by resulting multing in In new new 'mtltc.:.h which whlc.:.h linguistic as further as further linguistic context emerges thereby resulting in new 'matches which language of .o,.erwrite· pr
Conceptual content

The knowledge knowledge represented represented in the the 'conceptual 'conceptualsystem. y tem. ConCon-

Conceptualcontent content The knowledge represented in the 'conceptual system. ConConceptual conceptual unit of a conc.:cptual unit reterred rd rred to to as as aa 'cognitive (q"llual coheres in terms term ot ceptual (ontent content coheres ceptual content coheres ininterms of a aconceptual unit referred to as a 'cognitive model , and iis multlmod.l In nature nature (cf. 'linguistic 'linguistic content). content). model, and multimodal in model, and is nn ltimodal in nature (cf. 'linguistic content). 'phonological vehicle vchi Ie is I n eptual polysemy The phenomenon phenomenon whereby whereby aa single ingle 'phonological

(onceptualpolysemy polvscmyThe phenomenon whereby a single 'phonological vehicle is Conceptual (OllVentlonollly. iated with di tllllt lexical lexilal concepts concept which which are arc sem.mntic.Illy nlilnt".Uy conventlon.illy associated with distinct conventionally associated with distinct lexical concepts which are semantically determined of degree rclolted. ~mantic relatedness rel.tron iis aa matter of degree and is i ddermlneO by by the th related. Semantic related. Semantic relatedness is a matter of degree and is determined by the be related lexical concepts 'bipartite tru(ture oflexical con CpI . For For instance, in tance.lexical con cpt can can M related 'bipartite structure lexical concepts. 'bipartite structure ofoflexical concepts. For instance, lexical concepts can be related of for instance ofshared hared or or overlapping ovc:rl.lpplng 'linguistic 'ilngul tit (ontent. for in tant:.t in In terms term of hy by virtue of by virtue of shared or overlapping 'linguistic content, for instance in terms of 'conceptual holrro 'parameters. The The second K'(ond way way concerns lOn(ern the th nature nature of of the the 'UlIl(epIUoll shared shared 'parameters. The second concepts way concerns the nature'acc of theto. 'conceptual to. For instance, afford potential 'access ~tructure that 'open-class 'oprn -cla lexical concrpt afford For In tance , structure structure that 'open - class lexical concepts potential to. For instance, model profile parts of the the'access 'cognitive th re may molY be significant \llf,llItll,tnt overlap oVt."rlJp between bc:tw afford 'n pan of '((lgnillve mudd profile there there may bebe significant overlap betweenassociatcd parts of the 'cognitive model profile same vehicle. with the me "chid. ol("'esKd open-dol Icxlul accessed via open-ClasS lexical "'O"(tpt~,) concepts Mlt..i.1tw With accessed viaViol open - class lexical concepts associated with the same vehicle.

_____________________-_______________________

-

GLOSSARY

GLO ARY (,t OSSAKY

thin words words tap onceptual representations knowkdgerepresentations neeptual structure trudure The Thenon-linguistic non-Iingu. ticknowledge knowledge rcpr nlt1l1onS that that worm tap tap

structure 1 he into and can draw upon in situated language use. Theory,conceptual conceptual Theory, languageusc. use.In L((M1 Th and can can draw huatcd language InInLCCM LC ry. conceptual inlO and draw upon upon in situated into structure is modelled in termsof ofthe the onstruct constructof Ofthe the 'cognitive model. cognhtive mod \1f\U.. ture 1\ term of th~ (on Irucl of the 'COgOlllv~ I. modelled in terms st rutture is nlOdelltd onceptual system repository .oncepts—nlefltat nceptual y tem The The ItOryofof conup ment.1}representations—available rcpr nlallon tlv.1ll..ble repository otconcepts—mental The repo ial system models, and and to a human being. The conceptual system is populated by cognitive cognitive models. and by system is populated 10 • human being. (ognillve conceptual Y lem i populaled by being. The The lon(cplual human to a each *cognitive model encodes *conceptual content. content. Conceptual Conceptual content content is is what what is is (.1l.h ulgnilive model model em:od "conu:ptual conI nt. Conl.eptual contrnt i wh.lt l!'i each •'cognitive activated during 'simulation. • simulation. a(tivatcd activated during" during imulalion. property of 'nominal 'nominallexical lexicalconcepts. concepts. characteristic proptrty conceptually autonomou autonomous AA(hara(teri\li~ lexital con"=pl . Conceptually characteristic property of1 "nominal ConceptUall' autonomous Lexical concepts of this kind kind relale relate to enllli entities which are independently identifiable, independently identitiahlc, Lexlullon«pl are independently Idenllfi.bl., of this relate 10 to entities which arc Lxicjl concepts "rthl such as"chair". "chair",or" or "shoe". Thenotion notionot ofbeing beingconceptually conceptuallyautonomous autonomous contrasts uch aas hoc"'. The ofbting conceptually autonomou COOtf; I The or "shoe" with that of being 'conceptually dependent. being 'lonceplually 'conceptually ddependent. wllh Ihal "rbetnS pendenl. with that Conceptuallydependenl dependent A characteristic concepts. of 'relational 'relational lexical concepts. (h.ra len'lil property property of or '..,lallon.lltx".:a1 lOnlcpl . Conceplually ConceptUalls dependent A characteristic other entities. Lexical concepts of this kind constitute a relation holding between other relation holding between ~ iul con(cpt\ of this thl kind constitute con titut~ aa relation holding between other entities, rntiti I exical and are thus "dependent" on those other entities in order to fully determine the determine entities ifl order to fully and Jr~ thu Iho oth~r Ihe "dependent" on those other entilt in order 10 fully dctermin the and are thus "dependent" nature of the relationship. The notion of being conceptually dependent contrasts dependent contrasts conceptually depend nl (onlra I nalure hip. Th. relationship. The nOlion notion or of being (on«plually nat ure or of Ihe the relalion with that of being 'conceptually autonomous. autonomous. or being being 'conleplu.lIy aulonomous. wllh IhJI of with that :onstraints type 'attribute-value sets inaaa'frame. 'frame. Con trainl5 AA typeof ofrelation relation that that huld wilhlll ·attribute· ...alue sets t in in ·fr.lme. thatholds holdswithin within'attribute-value A type of relation Constraints two types of constraints: 'global constraints and `local constraints. are There ar~ constraints: 'global constraints Ther~ traint : "global con traints and and 'local ·Iocal constraints. con traint . There are two two tyres types of of con

theway wayin in :ontextual fa factors 'attribute—value sets. Contextual tors 'Factors ••Factors hllorsthat thatrelate •attnbut v.1lu~sets. t .Concerns Com: rn the th W.ly 111 relatetoto'attribute–value (ontextual factors related which context influences valuesassociated assodatedwith withrelated which (ontext influences influenc the the interaction IOteraction between betwC'tnvalues vaJu a5S(k;.iated with related the interaction between which context attributes within a frame.

often Counterfactual that hasn't won't occur. These and/Or wont OCCUI. iheM?are are Counterfactual situations ituation A 'situation th.lt h~n'tand/or and/or won't l,,-ur.1'hc! a~often often A ·$IIU3110n 'situation that hasnt

Counterfactual situations he alternatives to 'episodic situations likely to that have have occurred or are ituation that have occurred (k;(urrm or or are a~ likely likely to tooccur. oo:ur.The The altemati\ alternatives to to ·epi.sodic 'episodic situations ,lifference is that in in theulunterfOktuai the counterfactual counterfactual situation, situation, the 'individuals 'individuals and/or and/or 'types, their the dlffcrtnU'1 IlualKlIl.the ·lOdividual ancJJor'types, "typn.their their difference is that that in the ion. states, and the actions they perform vary with respect to the episodic situation. they pnfonn perfrirm vary lOll • and v,uy with with respect to the the eplsodll. IIU.lt)on. states, and the the auion actions thqr 1

rat

Default canonical 'interpretation that arises that arises forcertain certain utteranceS Default conception conception The The canonical ·mterpret.ltion thai ari forfor cenllinutterances, utteranc

Default conception the canonical 'interpretation in qualifyingcontext. in the the absence t1b~nl.(' of o(aaafurther further novel no\('1 or orqualifying qUOllifying (onlext. novel

'in'inDefault model profile. for purposes Derault search surch region region The The'primary 'primarycognitive cognillv.model modelprofile, profile,for rorpurposes purpo ofof of'In'

Default search region terpretation. tt'rpretation, terpretation.

The 'primary cognitive

event Discourse mental representationofof of'the thediscourse disciiursc r~pfCKntalion AA type:ofof of mentalrepresentation repr~nt.lIion the di ou event t'Vt'nl Discourse representation Atype type mental

representation which isi maintained by participants byvirtue virtueofoflh ofthe the duringaa'joint 'jointactivity. activity. whkh participant\ during during.1 'jolOt activity.ItItisiisby by virtue which is maintained by participants groundaccumulates. .hcumulates. maintenance that maintenan(e of aaa discourse di our representation rrprC1
the world) sensory-motor, proprioceptive, well as as as modal arise from mcld.tl br,lIn states toll that th.llarise an from frolll sensory-motor. ItCn lry· motor. proprioceptive. propflfM.t'pli\ •as .1 well welt.t modalbrain brain slates that view is that of this knowledge representation One consequence subjective of this that knowledge knowledge represcnt;lhOn reprcsentatil)fl uhi 11\('experience. ('~rerien.,;e. ,h~ view View is I that subjective cxpefleflce. One One ~oru.equcm:e of

GLOSSA R Y

347

347

vanolbl. ~ aconsequene comeqUak of bOlh Jll."l.I~- pailll enthodiincnt ~mOOdIl1lCnl and. IIldeed. Ih~ isvariable, variable,a consequenceof ofboth bothspeeies-spedflc species-specific embodimentand, and,indeed, indeed,the the umqu~ emlx)(Jimmt of cac.h mcmbrr of ,,\~n p«1 . unique embodiment of member of any gisen unique embodiment of each member of any given species.

1is

Ene p ulation The Illu ion that that words word have hne molnl1c unity, unll)'. vinu~ of open-cb» The illusion illusion Encapsulation Encapsulation that words havesemantic semantic unity,by byvirtue virtue of open-class Ilexical liul com.epl ... ldmg an u.e~ site it of loft n lexical concepts providing an 'access site ofcOIKq>tual onceptual knowledge knowledge whkh Is conceptspro providing an... 'access of conceptual knowledge Whllh which is often often complex and inforrnationallv function diffu . Encapsulation Encap ulation iis di tinct complex complexand and informauonally informationallydiffuse. diffuse. Encapsulation isI.aafundion function of of two two distinct distinct !oy tern hting lalro such uc.;h thai ·lingul II( y lem provides pro...id aa means m~.. n of of inler· systems being that is. system provides means of interintersystems being rrelated related such that the the 'linguist `linguistic system with the s.onccptual system. facing paifil points, roint\, known Jas an .In' 01(,,: point, paint. 50 I m . facing.ll facingat atspecific specific points,known knownas an 'access 'access point, wllh with Ihe the 'colKeptual 'conceptual system.

type of'cognitive 'cognitive model ininwhich which mental representation is Episodic itullion AAtype Iypeof of 'cogniti\emodel modelin whllhaaamental mentalrepresentation rcpro-rntation is i Fpisodis. Episodic situations situations l.lbli~hcd for lIuJtion that tholt is i\ act a(tuJlly cl('leflem.cd. £-pi\oOllk situations ituJt!on\ established for aaa uniqu~ unique situation tially experienced. csperienied. Episodic Episodic situations established for unique situation that is actually contrast contrast 'generk ituation. contrast with with 'generic 'generic situations. situations.

Experiencer-based temporal frame ofofreference EX!",rien er·bascd lemporal rrame or ..reference rerence (TFoR) (TFoR) 'Iemporal frame rrame of or Experiencer-based temporal frame (TFoR) A A 'temporal 'temporal frame of rc(erenLC tJk ren(e point tin expericnl.lI1g con iou n ,referred refi rrtd reference which as its reference point referred reference whllh which takes takes .1.) as Ib its rt'fi reference pointan an experiencing experiencings.onsciousness, consciousness, to TFoRs en(ode encode relative relative lexltion location in as the the experiencer. aperiencer. Such u h TFoRs TFoRs roative time (e.g., (e.g.• past. p t. to as as the experiencer. Such encode location in time time (e.g., past, present, and future). future). pr 'nl, .nd rUlurel. present, and

process whereby 'internally Exlernal concepl inlegralion 'lnlegrallon pro.: whereby whereby 'internally 'lnl
'temporal frame oforreference reference Evenl.based or rerercnce (TFoR) 'Iemporalframe trameof .. rerence Event-based temporal rrame frame Event-based lemporal temporal frameof ofreference reference(TFoR) (TFoR) AA'temporal whi h takes t.lkC1 as aas its itits reference re~ rencc pOInt .In ('\lent. SUl.h TFoR enu)cJerelative rel.lIl\'esequence Stquen(ein 111 which reference point an an event. event. Such SuchTFoRs hoRs encode in which takes point encode relative sequence tune (e.g., (~.g., earlier earlier versus venu later). l.ller). time earlier versus later). time (e.g.,

Even" Events

attribute' within attribul withinaa frame. frame.

(;LOSSARY GLOSSARY

A Iype of or 'cognitive '(ognill,·e model modd that Ihal is comprised of or'situations. ' iluallon .Events Evcol have ha .. of 'cognitive that isiscomprised comprised of 'situations. [vetits A type type model have

three features. features.They They II1voh:c involve tIaa series series twoor ormore moresituations, situations, thesituations situations thr feature;.,. ri of two or mtlre itu.ltion.the ItuJtion are .lre three They involve ofoftwo are related 10 in a coherent manner, manner, they lead lead to aasignificant significant outcome. relattd ~oherent mann~r. and and they I ad to 19nifkant outcome. outcom~. related in a coherent

type ofrelation relationthat thatholds holdswithin within'attribute-value 'attribute-value sets 'frame. There factors ty~ofof rdatlon that hold within· .Jtlribule- vt1luesets wt ininaaa'frame. • f~me.There Ther~ Factors AAtype Factors 'goat factors. .lre 1"'0 typo of offactors: (tll.toJ'): 'contextual ·contextu.l1 f.ldOf\ and and 'goal 'SOtlIfactors. fador . are two two types types tas.tors: 'contextual factors tas.lors are

The typeofof 'conception that arises when cognitive models Figurati ... e conception Th~type of'conception ·cont:eplionthat thatarises an when whencognitive cognitivemodels model Figurative Figurative conception The \

protik of the'figurative 'figurative re activated all "aled in in the Ih<''secondary ·undarycognitive (ognll"emodel mod.1profile pmfil of orthe 'figur.. ivevchide. are actiated ..ognitive model are in the 'secondary the vehicle. AA figurative conception conceptioncontrasts contrastswith witha..a'literal 'literal conception. (om:q>tlon (ontra.st with ·Iiteralconception. (on(tption. figurative [he'open-class 'open-class lexical which established Figurati ...e target target The The '0, n od,] lexical I xi,..concept 1concept ulnlcpt whkhisisiestablished tabli halasas ol the focus f
topicof of an 'utterans.e inaaa'figurative 'figurativeconception. conception. lopn. ofan oiln'utterance 'ulterant:~inin 'hguratlv U1IKcption, topic

The"open-class 'open.class lexical concept whose 'secondary cognitive ... t vehicle vehide The The ·o~n· I lexical I~ iulconcept (onceptwhose whos-e· oodarycognitive Cognili"e Figurati Figurative Figurative vehicle 'secondary resolution site inaa'figurative 'figurative conception. modelprofile profile isi established established as the profileis labh halas U the Ihe'clash '''a hresolution rc~olull()nsite Iteinin.l "figuratlve(onl.elltion. model conception. Concerns the( (range (rangeof of)'phonological 'phonological vehicles with Formal selectional l
s.Onteflt that makes up a 'cogniti\'e 'cognitive model. l'rame A A A coherentbody body ·corKcplUal (ontentthat that mak model. Frame s.oherent body of'conceptual Frame coherent oft)( content makes upup a a'cognitive model. intl'structural 'structural atirihute-value sets 1 r.lm exhibit exhibu org.uu'oIllon 10 tum of of'attribute-value ·t1ltrihut~ v.llu sets \.('{\and .Ind • \trul.1 ural I'rames exhibitorganization organiiationin interms terms of Frames invariants. in ...olri .. nt . invariants.

48 ;414

(iLO ARY i,1 tISSARY GLOSSARY

(ilO ARY GLOSSARY

'internally open open lexical .oncept type fully inlemally le.ical con«pl lyreofof*internally ·onlemally openlexical l«i<.1 concept Wlll
property ofaa'cognitive 'cognitive model that exhibits 'transcendhanctionally detached AAproperty fun lion lIy detached delached p"'perlY of of ·,,>snl""model mod Ithat ,h.,exhibits ..h,bOl 'transcend·".n,",
conceptintegration integrationand and'interpretation. interpretation. pox . 'lexical 'Iexlul (oncept Integration and "interpretation. comtlluent 'le'.. i.. I concept constituent processes: Thetwo twoconstituent constituent pr cessesof of'fusion: 'fusion: 'lexical ..oncept inteFu ion operation The two con tituentprocesses prCk.: of "fu ion:'lexical 'lexicalconcept con cptinteinte Fusion operation The Fusion gr .. tion Jnd "lnterpretallon. gration and'interpretation. interpretation. gration and

49 349

Informational In fo rmational characterization characterizatio n The The· imulation associated o1~laled with wuh hngui~tl<: unit Ihe 'simulation 'simulation associated withaaalinguistic linguistitunit unit Informational characterization such as aa'conceptual 'conceptual lexicalunit eptuallcxinl unit or or an an *utterance 'utteran e following foUowing 'interpretation.An An uch as -con an utterance following'interpretation. An such lexical "ultrranle· lev 1 informational infornlJtlonal c;hJraderll~tlon is Iis known known as aas aa 'conception. 'conc.:.eption. characterization 'utterance-level informational characterization 'conception. integration See 'Lexicalconcept conceptintegration. integration. Integration Integra tion See Set'Lexical "Ltxic.:al c;onlC'pt Inlegro1uon.

Internal lexical conce-pl integratio n The Thr oflexical It'Xi(~lIconcept e.:onu:ptintegration intcgr.llionthat that Thetype typeofof lexical concept integration that Internallexical lexicalconcept concept integration integration applies internally IntC'rnallyopen 0l~n lexical luiul concepts. wne.:e-pl . appli to internally open lexical concepts. internally closed Inical conccpl lexicalconcept con cplwhich whochdoesn't doesn'lhave have· 101 "that Ihal Inlemall yclosed lexical concept which doesn't have "slots" that Internally closedlexical lexicalconcept concept AAlexical "slots" tan be "filled An internally intcrnafly lexical on"by olherlexical 1< luiconcepts. conlepl . An onlemaUy dosed do,.ro lexical l.. i",1 concept onc con "tilled in" is can be "filled in" byother other lexical concepts. closed assotiated with aa'phonetically 'phoneticallyovert USO
4

.\type type '..ognitive model which mental representation Generic ituations AA typeofof of'cognitive 'cognitivemodel modelinininwhich whi haaamental mentalrepresentation repl"t)("ntationisis i t ;comic situations situations (,eneric established for aa type type of of situation experienced. Hence, anepisodic episodic C\tahh htd for of ituollion that thatis ae.:tually experienced. experi ne.:ed. Hence, Ilene.:e,an an epi'Kltiu.. established for that isi\.%ttually actually episodicsituations, situations, found in in `episodic iluo1tion is i abstracted o1l»trae.:ttd from au "episodic ituatlon), situation is from across commonalities found situation from atross with which ititit contrasts. contra t . with which contrasts.

that relate to 'attribute-value Global con tralnt One One two "um tnint that that relate relate to to 'attribute-value 'allrihule·valuesets. \Ct. two *constraints sets. One of of two Global constraints Global constraints constraints attribute means thataaamodificamodificaGlobal lrainl constrain con lraon attribute allribulevalues ,>.Iu globally. globally. This Thi means mean that Ihal modlfica· Global con values tion value entailsaaaproportional proportional modification modification in rdated lion c.lne value value entails entail proportional modifko1tionin inaaarelated relaledvalue. value. tion in in one one value. relate 'attribute-value sets. Concerns the Goal factors (actors One "f;u.:lors that relatetoto ,Jltribute' valu sets. ~t.Concerns (.onc:ern the the One of two'factors factors One ofof two that relate "attribute-value Goal influencesthe theinteraction interaction between values associw .. y in agent's goal( ) influences innuenco thr intrrat:tionbetween bttwttnvalues valu associa Iin which an an agent's agent\ goal(s) way in ated with with related related attributes within within aa~ frame. frame. o1lt:d rdo1ted attributes atlribul within (ralll . ated 0

(irounded Grounded Grounded cognition cognition

See cognlllon. See·embodied 'embodied cognition. cognition. See 'embodied

nmdel.This Fhiscan IhJt lolk place pl.ue within. II1gle'cognitive 'u:l gnill\'cmodel. model. Thi\ CJn Highlighting Adiv.. tionthat iiighlighting Activation thattakes takes placewithin within aa single single II1volve p'-"ific 'attribute-value "attribute· t\ and/or olndJor °\truc;tural involve a..t I. it ionof of specific specific 'attribute- value valuesets scts andlor'structural 'structural invariants. i inv;Jriant. nvariants.. Involve ae.:tivallon activation of Images conceptualrepresentation representationthat thatisiisaitacomponent componentof of'situations. 'situations. There lomponent of' lIuo1tion .There Therearc arc Imag conceptual repreKnto1tion IhJt Images AAconceptual

are made up of aa set of rfeatures atur of ofofimages. Image . '1They hey arc .. set \Ct of of'discrete oi re-te' four charact..ristic inur lholrJlleri!ttll characteristicfeatures images. aremao made up up of of perceptualf,,'ur katures, theycan ..an represent·ondlvidual 'individuals and/or andlor 'types, 'types, they they do so soinin per<
.,)'peS.

Imminence degree to which an event "located"inIn inthe thefuture with respect to Immi" nee The 1The hedegree dcgr whilh an event "1C.'ollrd" the futurewith wllhrespect ro-prC1.:t to 10 Imminence toto which an event isi is "located" experiencer in an anexperiencer-based experiencer-bascd'temporal 'temporalIframe frameofof .t reference. reference. thr nu:r in In itn experience-r'N't'
Internally open I. i . 1concept con«pl hem.llclexical lex ,uiconcept concCd lexical lexICal coollepl. ally closed

Internally simple im ple lexical Inical concepl con cplthat thaI i not nolmade madeup ofsimpler impler Inlernally lexicalconcept concept thatisis not made upofof simpler Internally simple lexicalconcept concept AAlexical ..tnstituent A •lexical 'lexical this kind contrasts withart an (on tiluent lexical lexiul (OllltpIS. "Iexiul concept (ontep' of ofthis thl~kind kindcontrasts conlraM with an constituent lexical concepts, A concept ·,nlern.lly compl xlexical leXIcal concept. coneepo. 'internally complex 'internally complex lexical concept.

Interpretationn One Oneofofthe thetwo twoconstituent constituent processes of 'fusion.Interpretation inOne con tiluenlprocesses pr
Joint activities culturally activity enS'ged engaged bytwo twoor ormore moreparticipartici.ctivili A cullurally recognIzed lwe or more pari; i· Joinl culturallyrecognized recognized activilY engaged ininby mutually use arises in pants, in order order to to achieve achieve understood goal. language at..hit'\e some mutually mutuallyunderstood undcntoocJgoal. 8001.Language Languageuse u arises an inIn pant • III foint joint activities, a(livlti I which whi4.;h are arc tvpi.afly tYPluJlyimpossibk impo iblewithout withoutLanguage. languilg . are typically impossible without language.

LCCM TheTheory Theoryofof Lexical Concepts andCognitive CognitiveModels Models (U ( %t), ofLexical lnic.1Concepts Conccpl and and Cognilive Model (LCCM). (l.eeM). M Theory LCCM Theory The which namefrom from the the twotheoretical theoretical constructs the heart ofthe thetheory: theory: whit:h takes tak its IIits name name frol11 thr two the·orrti..:alconstructs con truU atatthe theheart h~rtofof theory: takes "lui .1 concept (on ept and -cogOltlve model. the 'lexical and 'cognitive 'cognitive model. model.

'ym

lexical concept bundle types of shemati. knowledge unventionally Lcx.ical concept bundleofofvarious vvarious rioustypes hemollie.:knowledge knowlcJg conventionally e.:ullvenll(miJlly Lexical concept AAbundle ofo( schematic

associ,ited with.aaaunique unique•plionological 'phonologicalvehicle vehi..k in 'symbolic unit. Lexical aassociated \(XloitOO With ulllque 'phonologlul vehlde in aa ol 'symbolic ' ymbolie.: unit. unll .Lexical Lexl~allon onwith concepts are arestored stored inthe the'linguistic 'linguistk and canfacilitate facilitate 'access to'conceptual 'conceptual Ct"pl arc tored 111 'hngui II system y tern and and can r. CllitOite 'access "ac.:c to to -conceptual cepts in system

350

;5() 310

—

GLOSSARY

(aoS ARY (il.OSSAKY

(,LOSSAKY GlO SARY

GLOSSARY

—

structure. There are two types ofle:uul lexicalUlf'Ke concept: the °opcn 'open-class lexical (OnlCpl Icxiul concept -d lexkal ()penIIJ'IS pt: the

two typo of

arc twO types of kxkal trudu re. There are structure. and the 'closed-class lexical concept. p!. l<xi",1 cooc< lexical .oncept. Ih< '«l ·d .od the and

Lexical concept integration One of the two of 'fusion. [.e-.lul Lexical ·fu\lu n.Lexical of of'tUSiOfl. prou: processes um Illuenl processes two constituent the two of the On of inttgr alion One ona-p l integration ltxjca J concept Lexical concept integration involves the integration of linguistic content associated with with latcd with conte nt asMxiated hngul~lI( content oflinguistic antegratlon of the thc integration invoh lllon intt'gfa pt con(c integration concept the lexical concepts which are subject to integration. This is achieved Ihe by the the a(hiC'\'Cd by iis achieved Thl inlt'grallon. This ubj t totointegration. arC' suhkct whi\.h are Ull1t.CPI\ whith Ihe IUIt.al concepts the linguistic content encoded by the lexicalJllon concepts involved operuprtr an opergoing an undergoing under ll-d undergoing 111\()h lqtb 1m4)lved IUK. concepts the lexical by the tm_oded by \.c.mttnl encoded hngui\U( content linguistiC ation termed 'unpacking. Lexical conce concept integration constrained by the operoper· tht0I')erbythe con trained by I constrained tion i.is intrgn pt integration Lexia l concept °unpacking. Lcxkal Itrmt d 'unpacking. allOn termed ation ation of three principles: 'Principle of linguistic coherence, 'Principle ofschematic schematic hrmat il of plcof ·Pnnu ren(t. 'Principle (oh ul li( coherence, ofilng Prin(lpl of linguistic prinll rl ." Principle thrrt printipkS of three .Jtlon of ation coherence, and *Principle of orderedintegration integration in internally internally open ll uln,-q lexical concepts. lex lui concepts. c:n lexical allyor Inttm In allon in open ordere d Integr 01 ordered Pnnu pl of and 'Principle (OhCrt'IKe o and· lexical concept potential The range of lexical a conventionally associated coo'
ull Ih rresult i the which is
11/4.11 representation The primary substrate in linguistically mcanlng ted meaning mtdi~ lially mediated linguistically mediated meaning hngul in ub tntt in ry substrate The prima primary ntatio n Thc l rtprcR Lexica Lexical representation construction. lexical representationn is made up ·ulgfliti\;( ilnd umt lic.:units unitsand andsLognitive ·,ymbo of toltlo Iis madt representation made up upof of'symbolic 'symbolic truc.:llon_ 1.('" 14.:~1 r~rncn 4.:0n construction. models. >. mod.l models. Linguistic content Knowledge which is Irepresented Kne)",, lem.KnowIIcsystem. Iingul linguistic system. Knowthe cnttdin111 lcdg whKh Knowledge which is reprn represented inthe thelinguistic nt Know i ti contc lingu linguistic tontent ledge of this kind is highly schematic nature (cf. I .nd andisis
The tyt'tC' typeof of"llon'-t 'conception that on tpllon Tht l conception Littrl Literal primary cognitive models of the 'default prctOllion.AA 'interpretation. °lntC'r g'interpretation. durm region .. hregion \oIl"oIn uhsearch 'default search regionduring during tht 01 \,(, moJd lry u~l1Itl primary cognitive models ci the "c.le(.& primo literal conception contrasts with a 'figurative ptlOn. (on4.: tlvtconception. 'figurative conception. ut WIth t"ptlon (onlr. literal literalc.:on!o. conception contrasts with aa "figun Local constraints One of two *constraints relate to10 'attribute-value t
nnlh r "t of another.

.lSI

351

is or uoc or ~ v-hto one n\Oltlh AAmatch The end result successful 'interpretation. °mtcrpn.101l1on. A Match I.k.!o. tul 'interpretation. ofsuccessful m.uh of cJresult match is.Kh achieved when one or 11lC'm 1.1tch The Match end of profiles receive 'primary cognitive model rtU1\ ·pnma ry profiles receive model profiles more in cognl ll\t model more: cognitive or more lWO b m rnc.>c.ic uw models (ogru morecognitive cognitive models in two two or or more 'primary more: helO. act1\' activation. 'cognitise ·Cog.nlll\·t mooel tabla hro inIII tUC established The process whereby 'search rcgaclO are ar\.h regions Matching when 'by"'search pn, whereby Thtprocess Matching regions are established in 'cognitive model 1atch ins The establish concrplU.1 ubh h conceptual 10 pl to allem ing attempts Malch prohles 'lnl<rpr
the 'figurative target and and largrt and tigurative conception in which 'figur ali..target Ih<'figurative whi h the of in which A type lion in 'figur al"
iltlvt vehicle do exhibit 'alignment in 'clash resolution. 'figurative °figur selection. Arises when wh
'lexical concept for ingl. for aa single itmore more than one conc
which relates to an .. whl h is
independent of any 10 which II rd. lion in .oy relation of independently IOd
'relational ru.:.cpt. xiullO n.111 stands. This contrasts contrasts with a 'relational "rtlolIlO wlth.J t with (o",~ 1111 to1nd~ This stands. a lexical concept.

restricThe lack of a specification ~Ification of narrow reslnc 'sekctional the nature the lC\..tion.l1 severe limitson on the thc" ofthe n.1turtofof the:nature on limit tre limits tions which whkh otherwise impose Imrc> severe othtrw i impose whilh otherwise tion~ tions •selectional 'restricted seictional this contrasts with I lional 'r lrictrdselectional wllh*restricted coni ......with tendencies encoded by lexical concept. Thl pl.This concr alconcept. byaaal<xl
multimodal brain state encoded td is 100te: Iis enukl

bralO the phenomenon whereby a mUlllmoo.11 whtrr oy.t Parameten,ation ph nomt non Tht tttriu tion The Pafllm Parameterization phenomenon whereby a multimodal brain state is encoded as the amenable to rqnCK representation in the ntalio n in icr purposes (if encoding in a form 10 ahle oJmtn form 10 lOg C'o..:od of a 'parameter purpo f
— -~

352

____

OSSARY OSSARY

~~A~R~Y~ ~ IO ~G~

Perceptual moment A neurobiologically instantiated temporal processing interval Inlt'rv.1 pr"~. illS interval ItmllOrillproi.essing In t.mlliltaJ tmporal nnarobl()I'lSil..illJy instantiated A neurobiologically mom( 'nt A P rccptuaJ moment PerceptUal with an outer limit of about three seconds. seconds. This three-second range may corres~orr may conesrang" may This three-second thr«· ond range 11\1

thrtt second . bout three IInul ofofabout outtr limit an outer with an with pond to our experience of the present. pr "nl. oflhe the present. ('''reru:"tt' of ourexperience looUl pdnc.lto pond Perspectivization The type of *matching that takes place place withrespect tothe the 'cog`cog'cog, Ihe 10 pa.1 to rrespect e wllh with lak pia Ihal takes 'mal
-.. d,u 1m nl. 'adiustmeflt.

Phonetic potential The property associated with a *phonetically implicit vehicle. vehicle. ,·ehicle.

impliclI 'phon.. i ally implicit wilh aa 'phonetically a xi".. ! with pro~rtyassociated polntr.bl with Ihis contrasts a 'phonctk.lltv pOltntl.u. Thl dl" potential. 'tmihl ·ph.m hcnt..Cexhibits 'phonetic hence Phonetically overt vehicle A 'phonological vehicle hence hen« and Ind hence fill..! and lexically filled i lexically thatisis lexically tilled Ihll vchidethat 'phonologIcal vehicle A 'phonological vehicle A Phone'ically overt vehicle Phonetically does not exhibit 'phonetic potential. This contrasts with a 'phonetically implicit Impli ut ·phon t.1Iul ly implicit umlr 1 with a.. 'phonetically 1111 contrasts JlC.'lrntiJI. This 'phon ell( potential. dCH.: not does not exhibi exhibitt 'phonetic vehicle. c. vchn.l vehicle. Phonological vehicle The formal component of COo\ ntl n· conventionIndconventionunit,and licunit, mbolic unit, and •'s ymbo ofaaa'symbolic comp onr"1 of The forma formall component Ie lOt logical veh' Phono vehicle Phonological ally paired w ith a lexical concept. Phonological Phonological vehicles can be kinds: aaa lund,: I"',. kinds: o( can "" be of of two two Hh,,1c un "'n«p l. Phonolo8,ul vehicles 1e".. 1concept. wllh with aa lexical ally pa"ed paired 'phonetically overt vehicle, or a 'phonetically vehicle. vehide. Impll"lvehicle. implicit 'phon",caJly implicit or aI 'phonetically vchlde, or o\crt vehicle, ell Illy overt 'phonetically 'phon Polvsemy Sec 'conceptual polysemy.

poly my. plu.1 polysemy. my Se< See 'wn« 'conceptual Poly Polyscmy Pragmatic point The schematic aspects of extra-linguistic oUt" Ih~t Ion that extra-linguistic dimensions thatare are dlmen lingul tit.: dimensions a pt(:t of h~mati aspects The schematic of exlra· Pngm atic point Th~ Pragmatic encoded as 'linguistic content by a given "lexical concept. Pragmatic point relates relates Pr; gmall( pomt UlJK:tJ'l. Pragmatic 'lexical1 concept. point rd.Jln gl\; " O't':ul..,J by.Ja given nl by l lIe (Onlc onteflt ed oJ\ tm:od encoded as-hngu 'linguistic to two extra-linguistic dimensions: (i) schematic aspects of the contexts of use 10 U~in of use in f'\."\.l or of tht the umln t or Ion; (i) dimensions: (i) htm.lillt.. aaspects to two C'Xlra·hn~ul til dime" which a given lexical concept is conventionally Itln' and ingsettings including settings and mdud tmplo ,-oJ. including ntlon.lJJy employed, i con\'c con t"pl is conventionally Inlul concept gi\cn lexical which a given participants, and (ii) some aspects of the communicative whkhaa.t forwhich which for purpo for uniUI !\'(purpose the comm communicative purpose ;1'1''\.1 of \()mt aspects participants1 and (ill (ii) some ut the lr.. nt • .1nd ~rtu.: lexical concept is employed. ·cd. 'pt iis crnpl0 luiut lexical conf..C concept employed. Pragmatic strengthening The process whereby in crnerg in10 thatemerges IOferencethat inviteddinference inference that emerges invite byananinvited

process whcn whereby an The proc trc:ngthcning The ali strengthening Pngm Pragmatic a 'bridging context is reanalysed as a distinct 'lexical conceptlI suc h that dtA,", ·vchi that 'vehicle 'vehicle A th.u ulh um"Cf IlOll °lul\.o lexkalIl concept • l atildistinct IYM.Joas reanalysed lt Iis rC'Jn.mg (C,)ntC ..a *hndg •hridging context comes to have a distinct lexical concept B associated with it in addition to the thl' n 10 addition to the 'K.1.1tt.-d with R associated withItit 10 in .ddllm ICXKoll lont.:cpt 8.J lind lexical hint a.1 dl distinct "om comes to to have extant lexical concept A. pt A. In:il..,J,1 com:t utan. extant lexical concept A. Predicative function The communicative function ofof'metaphor, nolmdytoto IOmetolph",.namely 'metaphor. namely tosay y (undi on Tht (lmm unilJI I\(' tunlu()n of

It ,\it function The communicative Prcdi Predicative something about the subject or theme oforan uHcra m.. t. anutterance. Ihc'mr of an ubj«t or bout the something the subject or theme utterance. mrthi ng about

Primary access

(,U

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___

The establishment of a, I'search f..ognIlIH· arycognitive primary cognitive ·prim. the'primary reglnn .m.h region regioninIn inthe the . .. hmcnt ot establishment ut a 'search ht.· nlahh 'IIhe I ry access Prima Primary model profileo of an 'open-class lexical 'default It 'ddolU the the 'default yininthe whl",h lexicalconcept, concept, whichislistotosay say 'pt. which UlOf..( . til modd model pruhlt profile of an an °Ol\c."n -d.l loin) search region. This contrasts with 'secondary .I1..f..C,access.• nnd.u yaccess. with ,uf..h rc-gum search region., 1111 This c.:ontr;t t with' or more cognitive models Primary activation Activation of one .uy ·pnm prinurv modelsinIn inthe the'primary .twn u inofof,mc onenr or m(m," more 4.:ognlllvc m(~cl ry .,.jut.ttlon Prima ion ,f..llv.0 l'rimarv cognitive model profile of an 'open-class lexical concept. This contrasts with .. h WIth l'his umtr contrasts with f..onf..tpl . Thi lexical ....1 concept. '0r
GLOSSARY

3S)

353

included •.a...u: Ihe'access indud cdininthe llvc modd c.:'lgm tll cognitive profile set of Ineset Primary profil model IVt' model (ogo!t ry iognitive Primary cognitive model profile The The set of cognitive models included in the 'access Pnma the lexical concept hence.. the 10 Whllh the Itxk.J1 (Onlt"pl \Ct to theset .;and pt and f..on,,-t site 1(~lul -d.J lexital "opcn .an ofofJfl Ite site1)1 an'open-class 'open-class lexicalconcept concept and hence hence, the set to which the lexical concept 'secondary profilc . mod Iprofile. tlvt model cogni ·ond.u y cognitive 6cilitates 'access. with' t with c.:ontr 11u t' ac.:f.. dlra l direct f.J(ilita facilitates direct 'access.This Thiscontrasts contrasts with 'secondary cognitive model profile. principles ·inter tr.in 'interOne of the tlut c.:on'lorain prinf..lpl that th principles ofthe Oneof Principle (ps) cn e (ps) coher tptualcoherence con ofofconceptual iple of Principle conceptual coherence (p5) One that constrain 'interPrin mole cognitive or mort' cogJUuv one 01' rn OflC betwt s between pretation. ()(cur hmgoccurs 'milh: thilt hold Thi ion. This prttilt pretation. Thisholds holdsthat that'matching •matching occurs between one or more cognitive distinct mOOt'1 haracteri7ations, cottnitl\~ model lin" cognitive totocJi ,JOg to hclonp moddJinformatioflal ltcriLUum~ belonging imlnrm.JtlOn.a1 ",h.u models/informational characterizations, belonging distinct cognitive model mtxic:1 cohertni.c in terms or C'nu: In tcrlTb of hem.at .... c.:oher profiles/lexical h.1fe schematic whlf..h umt ltu.at units, (on"t'J IcxKal conceptual profiles/lexical conceptual units,which whichshare share coherence in terms of prohl 'conceptual nl. conte ptuill content. 'conct 'conceptual content. that One of the principles lOn Ih.. conpnnu pl that Iheprinciples o(the Oneof (p'.) ing (pi2) Prin.iple conceptual mOI(h '"pho , matching mmetaphor plual metaphor conce pl ofo( Principle of conceptual matching (pa) One conPrinri metaphors arc subject 10 ub, t to that m t.Jpho n.are strains f..Onc.:flltu.a1 metaphors th.at conceptual hold 1111 prct.. tlon. This ·mtcr lrau\) 'interpretation. strains 'interpretation. Thisholds holds that conceptual are subject to lexical concepts. model profile(s) of relevant conccpl>. le",,,1 concepts. ,devonl lexical o(relevant profile(.)of modd profile(s) 'matching (agolli.. model 'prim arycognitive the 'primary in hing in 'matc 'matching inthe the 'primary cognitive that One the principles Ihal prinll pl. that (pit) Iheprinciples o(the Oneofof lion (I'") resolu Principle h resolution cIclash ..! clash indu( l induced (onlu o( ple of Principle ofcontext context induced resolution (pet) One Princi 'clash resolution isi roolu llon is holds that inincases where ·da h resolution when 'clash c constrain Thl rcl.Jtlon. This 'intcrp nin 'interpretatiOn. cOlUl constrain •interpretation. Thishold holds thilt that in cases where profile isi\searched 'secondary cognitive model sc.Jr(htd pmfi! is m,l(] Iprofile (ognitl'o'emodel ondar ycognitive who ,,''secondary pt whose (ClIlf...C 'Iulu thC' td. the rcqulr required, the'lexical 'lexicallconcept concept whose searched establishing a [his isl)achieved l.lblbh lllg.t byestablishing "hi rd by is determined determined liv Thi umtl'X t. This by context. to d tcmun ed by ·d.1.Jl 1is the resolve the 10 to resolve resolve the 'clash 'clash is achieved a The on the basis of context. lenul The lexical context,The ofcontext. iJbl of the basis e. on 'figurative vchlcl ·figuratlve vehicle, and tillJ,n au\c target ·figur 'figurative targetand and aa 'figurative •figurative vehicle, on the lexical vehicle is subject to rnolu llon. cI.J h resolution. to clash uh; t to I subject that as the the figurative figurative vchide is hp,urallvc vehicle ubli hed.1as I established thill is tt" that f..onc.: concept is established clash resolution. constrain 'interpret One of the principles that 'inler p''' '
'lexi,ilI One of the principles go, rn 'lexical Ihal govern pl that

pnn
cont nt. in terms terms 'linguistic content. 'lingu ticcontent. of'linguistic term of III in One o( it the the internally open lexicalI concepts (pj) One onccp (pl) lexical concept integration. [his holds that "'"'cp l lexk.ilIconcept Ih ..lexical hold.that Thi aIl"n.This principles that govern 'lexical concept IOI
all opcn Principle of ion in alion inlegr .d integsat ord
opplyl to internally simpler lexical concepts before hy applying pla« by lakes place IOlegraMn takes integration complex lexical

UlJ\\.Cpl\. lexu:alconcepts. applying tointernally internally more comp lnlexical mort'complex IOtcrl1.llly more 10 llg to aprlyl applying

'interpretation. [his region (or for that of uh«1 ,.( Ihal subset placeinIn inthe the 'default search regIon ..,hregion 'defaultsearch th 'default holdsthat that 'matching takes pl.l< lak place 'm'l,h lllgtakes .. 'matching Ih hold holds for that subset of model pmhl profile.. If If matching I nt.11c..hm is toaaa'cognitive 'cognitive modd llllvcmodel ·c.:ogJ thatfacilitate facilitate to 'ac..c.. to faf..lht.alc 'access lexical th.Jt c.:onlcpt that .....1concepts lexl lexical profile. If matching is the search region region iis established tabl! htd in the ~r.,;h unsuccessful inthe thedefault default search regions newsearch rcg;on.aailnew \Cafchregion, dtfau hsearch the UCf.. fut inIn un unsuccessful region is established in the proceeds in an ordered f.J hion. ordcm l fashion, modelprofile. profile. The search J inlO.n proc.:m archproceeds Thesearch profile.The modd (OttOlti\('model onti.arycognitive ••secondary 'secondary an ordered fashion, conceptually more cognitive models that are more plu.allymore lun.,;c .Jrcconceptually tholtare model that tlvcmodels proceeding onthe the basis ofsecondary secondary f..ogni dilrycognitive k"f.:on bobl ofof thebasis on :ttJingon prc.-... proceeding searching cognitive cognitive models prior to to rLhlllg (ognill\'e prior sprior modtl i\'emodels coherent withrespect respect tothe theprimary primary cognit rycognitive prima the r pnttoto with cntwith (ohc:r coherent to searching cognitive conceptual ulMrC'nc.t. 1coherence. rtu ..coherence. (;onu: models thatexhibit exhibit successively less I conceptual Uf.." .. i\clyless nlubusuccessively th.u ..:1 that mod models

Thl ·IOlerp'.... ion.This A principle that (on>lrain 'interpretation. th..constrains p,ind plethat Principle of ordered search (p9) A A (1'9) snrch (p9) o,d.....! search o( ordered ple of Princi Principle principle

constrain 'interpretn-I One of the principles that um Ir.alll 'inlerp

th.J1constrain 'interpretprinc.:lr1cthat Oil(' Principle ofprimary primary activation p$) One (pA) lion (p8) .cti" ry activation prima of pl~ of Principle of of thethe principles Princi 'primary cognitive model(s) are subject to ·prim ..(tiuti on. .uy activation. Uh~110 ).trt modrl( are ivcmodel(s) ation.This Thisholds holdsthat that ulgrlu Itl.Ih.hC"\!cognitive .. tmatched th hnltb Thi "I"'n. ation. subject to 'primary activation.

4

GI flSSARY GLOSSARY

GLOSSARY GLOSSARY

•kxical conboth *lexical prinupk that that governs / maple of of schematic schematic coherence (ps) governs both (pi) AAprinciple associatedwith with that the the content contentassociated Lept integration integration and and 'interpretation. 'interpretation. This This states states that cept the relations relations holding holding between betweenthem themmust mustexhibit exhibitcohertitherentities, and the entities. participants, parlitipants1 and 'fusion operations. operations. in 'fusion ence in

principleassociated associatedwith with *in(p6) A A principle matching (p6) in matching schematicsalience salience in rincipk ncipleof ofschematic cognitivemodel modelprofiles/informaprofiks/informaterpretation.This Thisstates states that that 'matching 'matching across across cognitive tcrprctatiOfl. achievesgreater gseaterschematic schematicsalience saliencewhen whenrelatively relatively more more tional characterizations characterizations achieves tional cognitive models. ntatches involving models are are matched matched than thin matches involving fewer cognitive togniti ► e models

Oneofofthe theconstraining constrainingprinciples printiples of of activation(p*o) (pio) One secondary activation •inciple incipleof of secondary models,and andall all secondary secondary states that interpretation. This states that all all primary primary cognitive models, Interpretation. activation, route which which do donot notachieve achieve'primary 'primaryactivation, cognitive models on the `access route cognitive achieve 'secondary activation. activation. Achieve 'secondary

Oneofofthe theprinciples principlesthat thatconstrain constrain matching(p7) (p7) One incipic lociple of of simultaneous simultaneous matching an*infor'inforbetween an 'interpretation. place between *interpretation.This Thisstates states that thatwhen when 'matching 'matching takes takes place lexical concept, concept,matching matching complex lexical mational characterization and and an an*internally 'internally complex mational simultaneously across cognitive model model profiles profiles of of the the lexical lexical concepts concepts may occur occur simultaneously across cognitive may

that form concept. form part partof ofthe the complex complex lexical concept.

355

which one temporal temporal event is is sequenced sequencedlater laterthan thananother, another,such that which thatthe thereference reference point is the later temporal event. event. Search Searchregion region The Theregion regionof ofaacognitive cognitive•odd model profile profile inin which whith'matching 'matching takes takes place. A A specific specific type type of of search searchregion regionisisthe the'default 'default search searchregion. region. place. Secondary Secondary.It..CSS access The Theestablishment establishment of aa 'search 'search region region in in the the `secondary 'secondary cognitive cognitive

model profile profik of model of an open.class lexical lexical concept. This an `open-class with 'primary •primary This tontrasts contrasts with access. ac cess. Secondary activation activation Activation Secondary ofof one or or more cognitive models in the *setsccondary ond.ii-v. Activation one more cognitive models in the

model profile profile of of an an 'open-class 'open-Jass lexical lexical concept. concept.This Thiscontrasts with cognitive model with 'primary activation. `primary activation. Secondary cognitive model

A model that that is is not not included in the 'access A 'cognitive model `access

an 'open-class 'open-classlexical kxical concept, concept, but but which which is is connected connectedto toaa'cognitive 'cognitivemodel model site of an

that in the 'accesssite sitevia via'chaining. 'chaining.This Thiscontrasts contrjstswith with aa'primary that is is in the 'access 'primary cognitive cognitive )del. model. Secondary cognitive model model profile profile The Secondary cognitive Theset setofofcognitive cognitivemodels modelsnot notincluded includedin in the the access site 'access siteof ofan an'open-class 'open-classlexical lexicalconcept. concept.but butwhich which are arc connected connectedto tothose thosethat that 'chaining. Hence, 'secondary cognitive cognitive models modelsare arcnot not subject subjectto to are via *chaining. Hence, these these 'secondary direct 'access bythe the*lexical 'lexicalconcept. concept.This Thiscontrasts u'ntrastswith withthe the`primary 'primary cognitive cognitive direct 'access by model profile. `

based Theschematic schematictemporal temporalrelation relation encoded encoded by by an an 'event 'event-based rospective relation The ospective relation prospective relation relation us oflCininwhich which temporal frame frame of of reference reference lexical lexical concept. A prospective is one temporal sequencedearlier earlierthan thananother, another,such suchthat thatthe thereference referencepoint Ix)int one temporal temporal event event is is sequenced -

the earlier earlier temporal event. is the The phcnomcnologicallyreal realexperience experiencewhereby wherebysubjects suhpettsperper retracted phenomenologically rotrai ted duration The

that ceive standard units units of of duration duration as being of of greater greater magnitude: magnitude: the the perception perceptionthat ceive standard as being Ths time is is proceeding proceeding more more"slowly" "slowly" than usual and and hence hencethere thereisis"more" "more" of ofit. it. This time results in an overestimation 1)1 temporalmagnitude, magnitude.and andcontrasts contrastswith with'temporal 'temporal of temporal compression. compression.

Thecommunicative communicativefunction functionofof'metonymy, 'metonymy,ininwhich whichthe the ekrential cierentialfunction function The the"figurative 'figurative target target by by virtue virtue of of 'alignment 'alignment 'figurative 'figurativevehicle vehicleserves serves to identify the of the figurative vehicle and target. target. vehicle and relation, and which A 'lexical concept which concerns aa relation, which us is clational lational lexical concept A with aa not identifiable independently of the theentities entitiesthat thatititrelates. relates.This Tb. contrasts contrastswith independently of lexical concept. contept. 'nominal lexical

l'bespecification specificationofofrestrictions restrictionsof of some somekind kind cstricted stricted selcctional selectionaltendeniies tendencies The which relatively severe limits with with respect to to the the nature nature of the 'selectional 'selectional severe limits which impose impose relatively [hiscontrasts contrastswith with'non-restricted 'non-restricted 'endemics encoded tendencies encodedby byaalexical lexical concept. concept. This seleituon tendencies. tendenties. selection

Thestschematic temporal relation relation encoded by an an 'event-based 'event-based ..•trospeetiverelation relation The hermitic temporal encoded by ctrospctive temporal A retrospective retrl)SpC(tive relation relation is is one one in in temporal frame frame of of reference reference lexical lexical concept. concept. A

Selection See Sec 'Lexicalconcept con ept selection. Selection *Lexical

Selection revision typeof of'selection. 'selection.The Therevision revisionofofwhich which'lexical 'lexicalconcept ttnceptisis Selection revision A\ type

'vehicle during during ongoing *semantic 'semantic composition. selected for for a a given 'vehicle Selectional tendencies Usage patterns conventionallyassociated associatedwith withaalexical lexical conSelectional tendencies Usage patterns conventionally concept and hence stored as as part part of of the linguistic content encoded hence stored encoded by by aa lexical lexical concept. concept. The stored select selectional referred to ional tendencies tendencies are referred to as as aa'lexical 'lexicalprofile. profile. Two Two types typesofof selectional selectional tendencies tendencies can he selectional tendencies he distinguished: distinguished: 'semantic 'semanti. selectional tendenciesand and

'formal sdectional 'formal select lona ltendencies. tendencies. Selective activation The Thedistinction distinctionbetween between 'primary activation activation and and 'secondary 'secondary Selective activation *primary

activation. l)uring for activation. During'activation 'activationone oneor ormore moretognitise cognitivemodels modelsare are selected selected for primary outcome of of 'matching. 'matching. primaryactivation activationatatthe theexpense expense of of others, others, an outcome

Semantit composition Theprocess process meaning construction whereby 'utterSemantic composition The of of meaning construction whereby anan "utter-

ance-level'simulation, 'simulation, aa 'conception, 'conception,isisconstructed constructedby byvirtue virtueofofinteraction ance-level interaction between the the'linguistic 'linguistic system systemand andthe the'conceptual 'conceptualsystem between systemduring duringlinguistically linguistically mediated tonirnunkation. Semantic composition arises mediated communication. arisesby byvirtue virtue of of two two composcompositional 'selection and and 'fusion. 'fusion. itional processes: processes: 'selection Semantic Semantic potential potential The Ihe entire entire set setof ofcognitive cognitive models an 'open-class 'opt!n-d.iSs models to to which which an lexical concept concept potentially potentially facilitates facilitates 'access. This This includes in&ludesboth bothprimary primarycognitive tognitive lexical models and secondan cognitive models. A lexical concepts semantic semantic potential potential is is models and secondary cognitive models. A lexical concept's

(;LOSSARY

GLOSSARY

4

of schematic schematic coherence coherence (ps) (pa) A principle A prini.iplethat thatgoverns governsboth both'lexical 'lexicalconwnciplc of

ceptintegration integrationand and'interpretation. 'interpretation.This Thisstates statesthat thatthe thecontent contentassociated associated with cept with partkipants. and and the the relations relations holding holding between betweenthem themmust niustexhibit exhibitcohercoherL-ntitics, participants, entities, efl..e 'fusionoperations. operations. lice inm'fusion

incipk in matching principleassociated associated with'in'inlicipleof ofschematic schematic salience salience in matching (p6) (p6) A A principle with tcrpretation. This Ihus states statesthat that'matching 'matching across cognitive cognitivemodel modelprofiles/informapmflks/inlorma.crpretation. tional characterizations achieves greater salientewhen whenrelatively relativelymore more • zonal characterizations achieves greater schematic salience cognitive modelsare arematched matchedthan thanmatches matchesinvolving involving fewer fewer cognitive cognitive models. models. ognitive models

uiciplc Oneofofthe theconstraining constrainingprinciples principlesofof ficiple of of secondary secondary activation activation(pio) (No) One •intcrpretation. Ihis states that all primary cognitive models, and all secondary

• interpretation. This states that all primary cognitive models, and all secondary cognitive models on the •acess route which do fbi achieve 'primary activation, ► gnitive models on the *access route which do not achieve 'primary activation,

t ivation. achieve 'scondarv activation. ichieve 'secondary

incipk Oneofofthe theprinciples principlesthat thatconstrain constrain ocipleof ofsimultaneous simultaneous matching matching (p7) (p7) One this states •matching takes takesplace placebetween between 'infor' intcrpretataon. interpretation. This states that that when when 'matching anan *informational matching mational characterization and and an an 'internally 'internallycomplex complex lexical lexical concept. concept, matching may cognitive model model profiles profiles of !nay occur occur simultaneously simultaneously across across cognitive of the the lexical lexical concepts concepts that form part of the kxical hat form part of the complex lexical concept. ospective The schematic sc:hernatictemporal temporalrelation relation encoded encoded by by an an 'event-based 'event-based asp ectiverelation relation The temporal frame of reference lexical concept. A relation Is one in in which which cmporal frame of reference lexical concept. A prospective prospective relation is one one earlierthan than another, another,such suchthat thatthe thereference referencepoint point one temporal temporalevent event is is sequenced sequenced earlier is the earlier temporal event. the earlier temporal event. .

)tracted duration Thephenomenologically phenomenologicailyreal real experience experiencewhereby whereby subjects subjects perperit racted duration The duration as beingofolgicater magnitude: the theperception perceptionthat that ,.cive eive standard standard units units of of duration as being greater magnitude: lime "slowly" than there is is "more" "more" of of it. it. This This A MC is is proceeding proceeding more more "slowly" thanusual usualand and hence hence there results in an overestimation of temporal magnitude, and contrasts contrastswith with 'temporal 'temporal esults in an overestimation of temporal magnitude, and compression. (impression.

krential function Thecommunicative communicativefunction function of of 'metonymy, 'metonymy. in inwhich whichthe the ierential function The 'figurative toidentify identitythe the'figurative 'figuratie target by virtue virtue of of 'alignment 'alignment • figurativevehicle vehicle serves serves to target by obf the figurative vehicle and target. the figurative vehicle and target.

lational lexical concept conceptwhich whkhconcerns concerilsaarelation, relation,and andwhich whith isis Litional lexical concept AA•lexical concept not entities that that itit relates. relates.This Thiscontrasts contrastswith with aa lotidentitLable identifiable independently independently of of the the entities nominal nominallexical lexicalconcept. concept.

itricted tendencies Thespecification specification of of restrictions restrkt ions of of some somekind kind • trictedsdcctional sclectional tendencies The

which impose relatively severe limits .vhich impose relativelysevere limits with withrespect respect to to the the nature nature of of the the 'selectional 'selectional tendencies entided by a This with 'non-restrited ondencies encoded by a lexical concept. This contrasts with 'non-restricted .

sclectuin

ies. elect ion tendencies.

rospective Iheschematic schematictemporal temporal relation relation encoded by an rospective relation relation The encoded by an 'event-based 'event-based

temporal lexical concept. c•mporalfr.itnc frameofofreferene reference lexical concept.AArctnispcctive retrospectiverelation relationis isone one in in

GLOSSARY GLOsSARY

355 355

whichone onetemporal temporalevent eventisus which sequenced later than another, stk.suth h that the reference sequenced later than another, that the referent' point point isisthe thelater latertemporal temporal event. event. Search region region The Search Theregion regionofofa acognitive cognitivemodel modelprofile profileininwind' which'matching 'matchingtakes takes place. place.AA specific specific type type of search searchregion regionisisthe the'default 'defaultsearch searchregion. region.

Secondary access Secondary access The Theestablishment establishmentof(1a a'search region regionininthe the'secondary 'secondary cognitive cognitu'.e model -L . lass lexical modelprofile profileof ofanrn'open 'open lexical concept. concept.This Thiscontrasts contrastswith with'primary primary

access. access.

Secondary activation activation Activation Secondary Activationofofone oneorormore morecognitive models modelsininthe the'secondary 'secondary cognitive cognitive model model profile profile of of an an 'open-class 'open-classlexical lexicalconcept. concept.This Thiscontrasts contrastswith with act ivation. 'primary 'primary activation. Secondary cognitive cognitivemodel model AA'cognitive 'cognitivemodel modelthat thatisisnot notincluded included in in the the 'access 'access site a 'cognitive site of of an an 'open-class 'open-classlexical lexicalconcept, concept,but hutwhich which is is connected connectedto to a 'cognitivemodel model that in the the 'access • JCCCV. site via that is in via 'chaining. 'chaining. This This contrasts contrastswith withaa'primary 'primary cognitive cognitive tflOdd. model. Secondary cognitive profile The cognitive model profile Theset setofofcognitive cognitivemodels modelsnot notincluded includedin in the the 'access an 'open-lass 'open-class lexical lexical concept, concept, but 'aitess site site of ofan hutwhich are areconnected tonnected to to those thosethat that are 'chaining. Hence,these these'secondary 'secondarycogniti%e cognitive models are are via via 'haining. Hence, arenot notsubject subjectto to direct direct 'access by with the 'primary cognitive by the the 'lexical concept. ioncept. This contrasts tntrasts with the 'primary cognitive model model profile. profile. Selection Selection See See'Lexical Lexicalconcept conceptselection. selection. Selection revision AAtype wit tion revision typeofof'selection. 'selection.The Therevision revisionof ofwhich which'lexical 'lexical concept contept is is selected for selected for aa given given 'vehicle 'vehicle during during ongoing 'semantic 'semantic composition. composition.

Selectional tendenties tendencies Usage patterns conventionally t 'sJge patterns conventionallyassociated associatedwith with.1alexical lexicalconconcept and and hence hence stored as of the the linguist linguistic encoded by a lexical concept. cept as part part of i content content encoded a lexical concept. selectional tendencies tendencies are referred to as a 'lexical profile. The stored sekctional are referred to as a 'lexical profile. Two Two types typesofof selectional tendencies tendencies can sclectional can he be distinguished: distinguished: 'semantic selectional selectional tendencies tendenciesand and 'formal selectional tendencies. formal select ional tendent ics. Selective Selective activation activation The Thedistinction distinctionbetween between'primary 'primary activation activation and and 'secondary 'secondary activation. During During'activation 'activationone one or ormore more cognitive cognitive models models are activation. areselected selectedfor for primaryactivation activation at a t the the expense expense of primary of others, others, an anoutcome out.ome of of `matching. 'matching.

Semantic Semantic composition composition The Theprocess processofofmeaning meaningconstruction construction whereby whereby an an'utter'utterance-level ance-level 'simulation, 'simulation,aa 'conception, is virtue of interaction is constructed by by virtue of between the •linguistic system and the 'conceptual between 'linguistic system 'conceptual system systemduring duringlinguistically linguistically mediated communication. communication.Semantic Semantic composition composition arises arises by virtue of two composmediated by virtue of two compositionalprocesses: processes: 'selection and 'fusion. 'fusion. itional

Semantic Semanticpotential potential The entire set set of of cognitive cognitive models models to an 'open-class 'open-class the entire to which whish an lexik out tilt potentially This includes includes Isoth both primary primarycognitive cognitive lexical ionupt potentially facilitates ta. ilitates 'access. 'Jtess. This models models and and secondary secondary wgnitise cognitivemodels. models. A A lexical lexical concept's semanticpotential potentiali,s is oncept's semantic

GlO SARY 6LOSSAkY

GLOSSARY

GlO

GLOSSARY

ARY

Principle of schematic coherence (pi) A 'lexicalconcongoverns bolh both 'Iexlul 'kxical that govern Principle hemalic coherence coh renee (p2) (1'1) A pnnllple that ,h., on· A principle of schematic Principle or cept integration and 'interpretation. This states that the content with that the content associated with cept "interpmation. This nus states tates that the content associated with and 'interpretation. cept integration integration and entities, participants, and the relations holding between them them must mustt exhibit exhibit coherentities. partlupants. and the relations rdation holding between bdWttn mu coh r· entities, participants1 ence in 'fusion operations. •Iusion em:e ion operations. oper.u ion . eflce in "fu

inmatching matching(p6) (p6) AAprinciple with 'inPrincipleor schematic salience in with 'inprindple associated w Principle hemalicsalienceinmalching(p6)Aprinipleaialed ilh.in. Principle ofofschematic salience Thi. states that 'matching across cognitive model modelI profiles/informaterpretation. Thi tcrpre'latlon. ero cognitive cogrutlve mod profiles/informa that matching across terpretation. 1his Ut that" tional characterizations achieves greater schematic salience when relatively more when rclatiVely greater schematic tional chara.cteriuti n achieves achiev gRater hemati salience hence when relativelytTh)IC more tional characterizations cognitive models are matched than matches involving fewer cognitive models. matches involving fewer f~er cognitive models. model . cogniuve mat htd than match models are matched cognitive model Oneof of the the constraining of Principle of secondary secondary activation activation (pio) (pm) One principles (1'10) or IheLonstralning constraonong principles pnncopl of or Principle Principle or of secondan' activltion models, and andall all secondary secondary 'interpretation.This This states states that that all primary cognitive cognitive models, 'Inlerpretalion. Thi Slales Ihal all all primary primary CognllOvt modds, and aU secondary 'interpretation. cognitive models on the *access route route which which do do not not activation, primary activation, ls on whkh not achieve aathieve hieve 'primary "primary activatIOn. l.ogllltive tognhti%emod models on the "., achieve "secondary attivation. activation. al.hieve" ondary activation. achieve Principle of simultaneous simultaneous malching matching(p7) (p7) One constrain Oneofof the principles that Principle (1'7) orthe Iheprinciples principl that Ihalconstrain con lrain of imultaneous matching Principle or •interpretation. This states that when 'matching takes place between an 'inforinformatching takes place an °infor lalts that when °mat(hmg pl.;au between bttw nan "Interpretation. interpretation. This This states that when complex lexical concept, matching characterization and and an an •internally mational characterization 'internally complex chuacttrization "inttmally ompltx lexical lexiul concept1 concept. matching mationaJ mational and may occur simultaneously across cognitive model profiles of the profiles of the lexical concepts m.y imultaneou Iy at aero lelcical concepts concepl ross cognilOve cognitive model profiles or Ihe lexical may occur occur simultaneously that form part of the complex lexical concept. lexical concepl. concept. ,h., fi rm part p r1 of or the Ihe complex omplex leXIcal that form Prospective relation The schematic encoded byan an'event-based 'event-based lemporal relalionencoded en odedby In '
Protracted duration The phenomenologit lilY ceive magnitude: the theperception perceptionthat that ceive tandud units ullli ofduration duration as as bring ofgreater gRater magnitude: magnitude: the pc:n~.tption that ceivestandard standard units of as being of of greater time andhence hencethere thereisis "more"ofot This lime proettdlllg more" lowly" than than usual u ualand i "more" ofit.it.This Thi timeisIisproceeding proI.ecdingmore more"slowly" slowh'" usual results in an overestimation of temporal magnitude, and contrasts with 'temporal and ontrasts with 'temporal r IImatlon of ofltemporal mroral magnitude1 magllltude. and conlra t with °temporJI rresults ult III in an ov overestimation compression. compression. compr ion. Referential function The inwhich which the' Ihecommunicative communicative function of of 'metonymy, 'tnetonvmv Referential function The e.:ommunicative function funltion "metonymy. in III whil.h the the Referential "figurative vehicle serves to identify the 'figurative target by virtue of 'alignment by VIr1U virtue or' of 'alignment '" 10 'figuralive target larget by alognmenl 'figuralIVe vehide serves 'figurative vehicle to IdenlOfy identity the 'figurative of the figurative vehicle and target.

355

the than another, which mror.u ('Vent I M-quemed laterlater another. such uch that th .. t the tht reference re~ rt04.e one temporal event scquented whith whichone one Itemporal event is is sequenced later than another, such that reference point poonl iisthe the I.ter lemporal evenl. pointis thelater latertemporal temporalevent. event. r h region region of of .. ctlgnitive modtl profile III which whi h 'matching "matchlOg takes tak~ Search Search region The The region region ofaacognitive cognitivemodel model profile profile in in which 'matching takes search p
'secondary The estabh hment of °starch region region in "SKondary cognitive cognitive ihe establishment otaaa 'search Secondary acess Secondary SecondaryIe access The establishment of 'search region in the the 'secondary cognitive prilllarv This contrasts of ,In °op,:n·d 1 xic.:al concept. (onctpl. This Thi contrasts contra t with With "pnmary model class lexical model profil model profile profile of an an 'open 'open-class lexical concept. with 'primary access. a< access.

models in the" the 'secondary A IIVOllioo of ofone oneor ormore more cognitive e.:ogOluve models model in in 'ondary Secondary Activation more cognitive activation SecondaryIdivltion activation Activation the 'secondary with open-tlass lexical concept. Thus contrasts ognillve model profile or an 'open-class 'open-cl. lexical lelci.1 concept. concepl. This Thi. contrasts conlrasl with with cognitive model cognitive model profile profile of of an an ·primary activation. primary activation. 'primary activation.

model that us notincluded included in the the onc:bry cognitive modd "cogrutivemodel nulde! that thai is i not not lIleluded in Ihe 'access ·a(l. Secondary secondary cognitivemodel model A.\ 'cognitive 'access which is connected to 'cognitive model or an 'opcn.d leXIcal concepl, bUI whl hi onnected 10 a 'cognllIVe model ile site site of of an an open-class 'open-classlexical lexical concept, concept, but but which is connected to a 'cognitive model Thiscontrasts contrasts with aa 'primary 'primary iis in 10 the "a ( site ite via via 'chaining. "chaining. This Thi contra I with With "primarycognitive cognitIVe that 'chaining. that is in Ihe the 'access 'access site cognitive flU)dd. model. model. included in the setofof cognitive models not not Secondary rognilive modd profile Theset orcognitive cognilIVemodels nol included included in in the Ihe profile The Secondary cognitive cognitive model model profile hut which are tonnected to those that °'access ace.: site ite of I xiul concept, com.:epl. but but which arc conntcted tho that thai 'access ofan an "open-dOl open-Jass lexical toticept, connected to those site of an 'open-class lexical models are not subject to via "maining. Hence, lIenct, these th 'secondary " ond.1ry cognitive cog,OIti\'e models mootl, are are not notsubject ub)C\.t to to are Hence, these 'secondary are arc via via 'chaining. 'chaining. cognitive This contrasts withthe the 'primary cognitive 'ac by the Ihe 'lexical 'lexical concept. concepl. This Thi contrasts conlrasts with Wllh Ihe'primary 'primarycognitive cognllive direct concept. direct 'access 'access by the 'lexical profile. model profile. profile. model See 'Lexical lection See Sec 'Lexical 'Lexi aI concept concepl select selectiion. n. Selection Selection concept selection. ItCtion revision revi ion Selection re.ision Selection

Ike revision revision of which 'lexical concept A type lyre of of''selection. It(tion. The The r(V1 ion of whie.:h 'lexical 'Iukal concept concept is iis of which A type ongoing 'semantic composition.

lected for for given "",chid ongoing"'semantic mantic composition. composition. selected foraaagiven given'vehicle 'vehik during during ongoing selected

conventionally associated with contcndena U~ge patterns conventionally associated aS50datN with with aaa lexical Itxical concon lectio"al tendencies patterns conventionally Usage Selectional tendencies Usage lexical Selectional encoded 1w a lexical toncept. cepland hen« stored ,ored as aas part p rl of ohhe Iongul li«ontenlen odedby byaalexical lexicalconcept. conlcpl. part of the linguistic linguistic content encoded cept and and hence hence stored cept the content referred to to as as aaI 'lexical 'lexical profile. Two types 10 'Ielcicalprofile. profile.Two Twotypes Iypesofof of The stored lored selectional lectionallendenco arereferred rererred stored sclectional tendenciesare The tendencies and •scmantic seketional tendencies 1«lional tendencies tendenci can be distingui htd: 'semantic ° manti selectional l«tionaltendencies tenden i and and selectuonal tendenciescan canhe bedistinguished: distinguished: selectional nt.i . 'formalselectional I tionaltend 'formal select ionaltendencies. tendencies. 'formal

activation and 'secondary models are selected for activationone oneor ormore more cognitive iU.t1\lahon. During During 'activation "actlv.ltion one morecognitive Cogllltl\ models model are areselected 'CIa tedfor for t)uring activation. others, an outcome of attivation at the expense ("penM' of ofothers, oth rs, an outcome of 'matching. °molll.hlllg. primary activation activation at the the primary expense whereby oln an "utter· 'utterprOctS.Sofof meaning con tructionwhereby wh~by mantic composition om position The The process meaning construction Semantic composition Semantic process meaning construction an 'utterconstructed by virtue ana.1 el·'simulation, Imulollion. a<1a'conception, "cooctption, isis icon trul.tN hy virtue of of interaction IIlter.;ac..Uon ance-level 'simulation, 'conception, constructed by virtue of interaction ance-level linguistically 'conceptual system bet" ..n the Ihe 'ionguisli system y ternand the'conceptual 'conceplu.1 sy leon during dunng Iongui l"aUy between the'linguistic 'linguistu. system andthe the between system during linguistically two (omp<> tomposarises virtue of two (ommuni alion.Semantic Semantic.:composition comp<»itionarises ;]f1 bybyvirtue vinue mc'(ilated mediatedcommunication. communication. Semantic composition mediated of two compositionalprocesses: processes: 'sdetion and 'fusion. IIlOnal prO\: :" lC't..tionand and'fusion. 'fu lOll. itional •selection Ognitive models models to which Semantic entire set stt of of cognllive whl h an an 'open-class "opcn-d The entire Semantic potential The

Itrtive activation adiVition The di tinctionbetween between °primary activationand and'secondary °SKondary Thedistinction distinction between 'prinuryactivation Selective activation The Selective 'primary

of the or Ihe figurative figuralive vehicle and target. largel.

Relational lexical concept 'lexical which concerns relation,and which lexicalconcept concept which concerns Rtlalionallexial con q>1 A A °ltxil.al (onl.tpt whkh concenlSa a..relation, rclJtlon ...and ndwhich whilhisis i

Relational lexical concept not witha aa theentities entities thatititItrelates. relates. contrasts not identifiable identifiableindependently IIldtptndentlyofofthe tnllU that relat This . This Thi contrasts contra twith With independent 'nominal lexical concept. • nominal lexical "nominallexi 011 concept. Restricted some kind l'hcspecification specihcation ofrestrictions 1otSoniC R tridtd selectional Icctional tendencies tend n ies The The pttlhution of of rrestritiOns tndlon of wmekind kind Restricted sckctional tendencies which the the 'selectional thenature natureofof whu.:h impostrelatively rtl.. tivelysevere K\o·tre limit with rrespect r«ttoto the"selectional " I tional whichimpose impose relatively severelimits limitswith withrespect tothe tendencies encoded by a lexical concept. This contrasts with 'non-restricted with 'non-restricted onccpt. This contrasts temlcnl.lc I xk..ll ulIll.ept. Thi contra.\t with "oon r tril.ttd by a kxital tendenties enuxled by select ion tendencies. tendencies.. ')nunn tcnd('nu select i Retrospective schematic temporal relation encoded byby anan based relation encoded by an'event 'event-based Retro ('tdiv relation ftlation Th hematic; temporal rel.Jllon en(odtd "('Vent based The Retrospective relation The A retrospective relation temporal frame of reference lexical concept. is one relation lone is oneinin Icmrur I (rdme of ref' renc..e Icxiul UlO\.('l't. A retrospective r('lro f"C\,tIV(, rtl.;atlon III -

temporal frame of rctcrent:e lexical t.t)ncept.

455 355

Semantic potential The entire set of cognitive models to which an 'open-class includes both primary cognitive I('x.il-alconcept u'Ull.ept potcnudltyfacilitates faulitolt 'access. ".JU:. This . This Thiincludes indud both hoth pnmJry «lgOilive lexical conept potentially potcnti.dly facilitates '.KtesS. lexical primary cognitive potential is kxial ..lticcpt's semantic modd "nd ond.1fYcognitive ulltOltlvemodels. mod I A .AAlexical Ie Il.ollconcept's l.onl.ep" semantic ·m.Jnti4..potential pOI nl1a1l\ modelsand andsecondary siondary models. is models cognitive

_________- ______________

GLOSSARY ()SS A GLO ARY

3 56

model modelled, in •LCCMThtOry, Theory,ininterms termsof theconstruct construct ofthe the 'cognitive 'cognitive model of ofofthe mod.Uro, term the (On tru
tile. profil •.

This Semantic representation The semantic representation. kxi4al manti ~plUCntltion m.1ntif.: dimension dlmen ion of of*lexical 'Ie:xU:.ollrepresentation. reprnentallon. This Thi~ dimension represcfltatiofl The scmantlt Semantic involves anIOteraction interactionbetween between-'ogOlII\e 'cognitivemodels models and 'lexical 'lexicalconcepts. concepts. 'kxkal and 'cognitive im'olv mod I and concepts. involves an an interaction betwrm

with semantic tendencies Concerns of) lexical concepts Scm ntic selectional Imional tendena enn( rn the the (range (range of) 00 lexical Ie ical concepts (Onl 1'1 with wllh Semantic sckctional tendencies be embedded. Semantk which a leXical lexical concept concept (O-CXl.un co-occurs and and 10 in which and in which itII can which which it can be be embedded. emMdded. Semantic Stmantk which aa lexical concept co-occurs selectional tendencies contrast with *formal selectional tendencies. tendencies. I tlanallendentl contra I with 'formal "formal sekctional lectional tendenci . 5ektional tendencies contrast representationwhich which arc are Semantic structure mlnti structure tNdurt Schematic S<.h mati( dimensions dlmen')lon of of· mantllrepresentation rcprC'Stntation whilh are Shematic dimensions of'semantic 'semantic Scmantk modelled, in 'L( (M Theory, directly encoded '" in langudS.language. 5<mantJc Semantic structure modelled, in structure Semantic dirtCtly tructurt Iis mod.Ued, '" 'LLCM 'LCCM Theory, ThtOry, encoded in Language. directly .ncodro in term terms of ofthe theconstruCt construct of the concept. lcxical(om:cpl thept . 10 the (on truct1)1 of "lrxkJI of the *lexical in terms

hasundergone undergone Semantic value The concept once once with aaa'lexical 'kxial concept mantic value valurassociated a~.I.ltcd with "Iexilal(on(cpl onceititIt has ha und rgone Thevalue value associated value The 'lexical concept integration and prior to 'interpretation. and prior prior 10 to 'interpretation. "lrxlc.:al concept IOtegralion and "interprttation.

'lexical concept integration

this can be Semanticslity 'conception; informally, manticality The Th pnlptrtyassociated )(i.1tNwith withaa ..*conception; ·ult\(eplion;informally, IOformally. this thi can un be bt Theproperty property associated Scmanticality and relates to its thought of as the semantic well-formedness of an 'utterance, and relates to its well-formedncssof of an an 'utterance, thought of as the the semantk ",mantic wdl-formron 'utt.ran«, and rdat to It< thought of success in communicating a specific intention given a given aaparticular particular UCl 10 p«-Ific.: intent intention parti ularcontext. context. communicating aa specific ion given success in communiutlOg

dueto toaa failure in Semanticality failure The of a a 'conception to emerge, manticality failure failure of a 'conception "conc.:cption to 10emerge, em rge. due duc to a failure l,Jilure in III The failure failure of Semanticalitv failure The 'matching. 'mathing. "moltchlng. Simulation performedby bythe the brain which reactiimulation AAgeneral-purpose gen ral purpo5lC!computation (omput.llion performed by th brain bramwhich whkhreactirea(1I general-purpose computationperformed Simulation those relating to diverse vates multimodal brain states. Such brain states include those relating to diverse brain states yates brainstates. tat . Such u h brain ""t include thru.e relating to diveM vates muhimodal multimodal brain experience types including sensory-motor experience, proprioceptive experience1 ex('Crienc.:e indudlngsensory n(,(lry'- motor motorexperience1 c prrien(e.proprioceptive propri<XC'pti\'eexperience, C'Xptrience. experience lyres types including understanding1 due and subjective experience. Simulations arise during language understanding, Simulations arise during and ub,allve experience. ul~rien(e. !'.Ilmul.1tion,Jn dunng language lolngu.Jge undenl.JndlOg. due due and subjective to the interaction between representations in the 'linguistic system and *concep'linguistic to Ihe interaction interaction bd-w«n th "iingul tu.:: system y tern and and 'concep"conl..ep between rtprcscntatlOos representations in in the to the tual system.

tual system. sy tern .

frames, which Simulator constituted constituted oneorormore more imulator AA'cognitive 'cognlti\! model, model,which whllh oru.litulcdbybyone moreframes, rram •which whit.:.h whichis iis 'cognitive model,

Simulator are subject to to 'simulation. are ~ubJtct 10 • simulation. Imulatlon.

thereisis Single type ofof Arises multipleselection. selection. Arises whenthere multiple selection lection A A "multiple \C1C\:tion. Ari when when there I Single instance in tan e multiple A type type it'multiple

Single instance multiple selection 'lexicalconcept. concept. aa single 'vehicle which which selects morethan than one one'lexical ingle instance instance of of "vmide whichselects lC\:t more mort "Iexiul concept. a single instance of aaI 'vehicle

thatparticipants participants maintaininin Situational ofor representation ituational representation representation Part P,Jrt the rC1'r nt,JlIonthat th.lt pJnidp.Jnt maintain m.JintalO in Part ofthe the representation

Situational representation the service Thesituational situational repnsefltdtioflcomprises rvke of or "dl OUDerepresentation. represenlation.The The ltuallon.11representation rqunenlation (ompri the the service of'discourse 'discourse representation. referents of the participants, the physical environment,the the partidpant • the time. venue. and olnd physical phy iul environment, environment. Ihereferents refrrent ofofthe the participants1 the time, time, venue, venue, and the commitments implied by linguistic expressions deployed, and and the the social lingui til expressions e pr \Ion\ deployed, dcplo)·oo. and Iht "'1.11 commitments c.:ommltmenl implied Implied by bythe the linguistit partkipants participants' utterances, in carrying out a 'joint activity. In addition, participants 'joint .ktivitv. pparticipants rtll.lpant •utterances, uttennc.: • In urrylllg out aa ",oint .l4..lIv,ty. In In addition, addition. p.lrtllip.1nl in carrying also .11 )maintain maintain "tcxtual repr nlalion. also maintainaaa'textual 'textualrepresentation. representation.

figure1•aa.1 Spatial scene involving en AAcne Involvl1lga olspatial pdti.11relation rel.uionholding holdmgbetween between a,Jifigure, figure Spalla! scene

Spatial scene A scene lan-reference secondary referenc object object encoded via rekrenc.:c ob,cc.:.l. and. option.dly. ·ondolryreference rcfcrent.:.t ob)«t encoded em:odcdvia viollanlan rckrence object, object,and, .ind,optionally, optionally aaIIsecondary guage. guage. gU.Jgc

(IOSSAkY GLO SARY GLOSSARY

-

357

357

ofofconcept, along with due Stru tural invariant invarianl (on(ept. ".Jllribute"v luesets, ·t that Ih.Jt makes m.1~ Structural Structural invariant AAtype typeof concept, along along Wllh with 'attribute-. 'attribute-value sets, that makes "fnme. lru\:tunllOvari~nt relational knowltdge INdure that that hold up invariant isiisa aarelational upaairame. 'frame.AA Astructural structural invariant relationalknowledge knowledgestructure structure thatholds holds ~tw n di IInct attrihute-valuc t. between between distinct distinctattribute-value attribute-valuesets. sets. ymbolic unit con\! nllonal assembly a mhly involving mvolving Ja 'phonological 'phonologiul vehicle vchld and aO(.I a conventional assenihlv involving a Symbolic Symbolic unit AAconventional 'phonological vehicle andaa mantic unit. manti unit 10in'l Theory. in lerm of ofthe semantic unit. Thc The semantic semantic unitis modelled,in 'l('CM1Theory, of the the semantic unit. The unit isismodelled. modelled, •I.CCM Theory, in terms terms lexical UlOU:-pt. conept. construct u)O\lrullofth constructof ofthe the 'Iexiul 'lexical concept. The phenomenologically real experience whereiw subjects T.mporal compr ion The Th.phenomenologically phenom.nologlcaUyreal rtalexperience .xptn.nctwhereby wh.reby subjects ubJ«15 Temporal Temporalcompression compression perceive units ot magnitude: perc.:CIV 100ndard unit dur.llion btlng oflesser I r magnitude: rnJgmludt": the the perception pcrc.:cpllon perceive standard standard unitsof of duration durationas asbeing being of of lesser the perception th.u time iis proceeding pr()(cedlOg more "quu_kly" th.Jnusual U u.JI and .. nd hence hem:e there Ihere isis i "less" I • of It. that more "quickly" "quickly" than there "less" of it. it. that time time is proceeding than usual and hence This underestimation of temporal magnitude, andcontrasts contrasts with Thi rresults uh in an underestimation under timJllon of oftemporal lemporal magnitude, magnitude. and contra IS with with This results in an an 'protracted dur.1tion "protracted duration. duration. I FoRsare are Akin spatial frames of reference. I FoR) Akin T.mpo",1 fram. of r.~ r.n • (Tr-oR) Akintoto tospatial patl.1frames fram of of rtf relK.,TFoRs noR arc Temporal Temporalframe frameof ofreference reference (TFoR) reference, compl.x .symbolic ymboli units, unit involving Involving a " hid. and and an an internally InternaUyopen optn 'closed-class 'do>td·d. complex units, involving 'vehicle internally complex symbolic aa *vehicle and an open "closed class lexical concept. The TEoR lexical concept serves to encode highly schematic lexical t:on(cpt. T~oR lexiul UlOt:Cpt \en to eocooe highly hem.llll lexical concept. The TFoR lexical concept serves to encode highly schematic aspects of temporal temporal reference. a5pt'\.1 temporal rcferen(e. aspects of of reference. -

Part therepresentation representation that participantsmaintain maintainin in the Tcxtual ~prC'SC:ntation Partofofthe rqu nt.llionthat th .. ,participants partidp.mt m~int,Jin inthe the Textual Textual representation representation Part service of'discourse 'discourse representation.During l)uring aaa •"JOint 'joint activity, rvke of "di OUf\e representation. reprncntation [)urang .l(:tivily.participants p.1rtlllp.Jnhkeep k«p service of ioint activity, participants keep tralk of of.U the utt.ranc iissued uro and and oth.r ignai>,such uchas a accompanying ac ompanylnggestures1 S tur... track track ofall allthe theutterances utterancesissued andother othersignals, signals, such as accompanying gestures, prosody, and M> soon. on.This Thisconstitutes constitutes thetextual textualrepresentation. representation. addition, partipro xly. and on. 1111 con tltut the the textual repr ntation. In InInaddition, ddllion. partiparti prosody, and so cipants maintain maintain aa 'satuational representation. c.:ip.Jnl m.1IOI,JIO;J· ilu.1tion.J1 representation. rcpr nt.1t1on. cipants 'situational Transcrndence ncerns the the and range range of oflocations 1000Jtion at al which whi h and andwhen when Concerns thenumber number and and range of Locations at which and when Transcendence Concerns Transcendence 'individuals, 'generic situations are represented "individu,JI •'types, "typo.'episodic 'C'pi\Odksituations, ItuJtion~.and olnd'generic "gen ricsituations _itu.Jtion are .lrerepresented repr nted 'individuals, 'types, 'episodic situations, and I liegreater greater thenumber and range in our our mental mental representation rcprC'Knt.Jtion of ofthe world. The grealer the Ihe numberand olndrange rang of of our mental representation theworld. worki. The in location. Ihe more troln endent the the 'cognitive "cogniti\:emodel modelin qu lion.Transcendence TranS(cndrm;e locations, the the more transcendent transcendent 'cognitive model ininquestion. question. Transcendence locations, detached. can toaaiicognitive cognitivemodel modelbecoming becoming'functionally 'functionallydetached. un lead Ilead ad to to l.ogniti\t model h«omlllg "fun'-'Ionally dC'I,Jl.het.l. can abstractare mentalrepresentations representations based TyptS A kind of'cognitive mod.1. TyptS art mtotal r.p""'nwlonbased basttrall'cognitivemodel. model. Types A kind Types of of *cognitive Types are mental thus ing.1c.:m partKuln" andividualsin orderto toleave I .)\'Cpoints POint of imiLuily.AAAtype tyreisis ithus thu aaa ing acrossparticular particular'individuals 'individuals ininorder order to leave pointsofof similarity. type ing across similarity.

generic representation representation based basedon onaaaset set rdatedindividuals. individuals.. gentn( reprnent.Jtion ~ on tof ofofrelated related iooivldu.tl generic

Th.process, pro< central ,c.ntral '1«lealconcept conceptintegration, integration,whereby wh rtbylinguistic lingul tic The process, central to'lexical 'lexical concept integration1 whereby linguistic Unpacking The I`npacking toto integrated inthe the way content encoded encoded bylexical lexical concepts inan an utterance (ontenl enuxied by hy Icxiul concepts con(ept\ in 10 .lOutterance utter.1nt:e isis I~integrated Intege-ollN in in theway woly content (on tralnN by thethree thr« prinlipl of integration. constrained bythe the' threeprinciples principlesof ofintegration. constrained

somewhat discreteentity entitythat has unit-like status in that represents tltrance AA somewhat somC"Whal discrete disc.:rtte tntlty that has h.1 unit unll like status taW in inthat thatitititrepresents reprncnt Utterance Utterance like theexpression upr ion of of ioglccoherent (:oherent ide.J.making makang(at (.1least I ol~tpartial) p.utl.ll)use uscof c.,fthe thenorms nonn expression ofaaasingle single oherentidea, idea, making (at least partial) use of the normS the community. An andconventions conventions oflinguistic linguistic behaviourinin aaa particular particular i community. comenlloo ofof lingul licbehaviour partkular linguist linguislic c.:ommunaty.An An and linguistic ontextualized, and .iiid unique ofoflanguage Language ulleran(e repr nl aaaspecific, ~ifi(. contextualited, c.:ontcxtualiltd. olndunique uniqueinstance in tJn(eof I. mgu.lge utterancerepresents represents speitic, utterance instance particular communiuse, perlormedby bya,Jalanguage languageuser inservice scrvieof of signalling u •performed performed hy IJngu.Jgc uuser 'r in 10 !J.Crvke ufsignalling Ignollhng,J p.1rti(:ul.Jrcommuniulmmuni use, aaparticular discrete usage event. cative inlention. HC'n(e.an ulteran(econstitutes (:on tllul a adiscrete dl ·reteusage u geevent. C'\'cnt. cativeintention. intention.Hence, Hence, anutterance utterance cative -

Sec 'Attributesets. Valu See Set" unhult value v.Jluesets. '1 . Value Value •Attribute-value

See• "Phonulogil..aI 'phonologicalvehicle. veliick. Hhldc. Vehicle See Phonological Vehicle

KEFEkENCE REFERENCES

359 359

L%arsalou, Lawrence.and andWiener-Hastings, Wienwr Hastings,Katja. K.atpa.( zoos). (2005).Situating Situatingabstract abstractconcepts. concept..In In Barsalou, Lawrence. 1). Pecher and K. Grounding Cognition: The Role of Perception Action Pecher and R. Zwaan Zwaan (eels), (eds), Grounding The Role of Per andand Action

References References

-

Oxford: Blackwell.

inthe' the Mind. Oxford: Blackwdl. Aitchison, Jean. Jean. (1996). Wards Words ,n Aitl.hisofl, In Aliport,1). D.A. A.(1985). (1985). Distributed l)istrihulcd memory, modular subsystems and dysphasia. In Ailport. 207-44. l)ysphassa, 20'-44. Current Perspectives ininDysphasia, S. K. Newman and R. Epstein Epstein (eds), (eds), Current

S. K. Newman and K. Edinburgh: Churchill Churchill Livingstone. Edinburgh: for the the Allwood,Jens. Jens. (2oo3)• Meaning Meaning potentials potentials and and context: context:Some Some consequences for Allwood l)irven, and i. I. Taylor Taylor (eels), analysis of of variation in in meaning. meaning. In In H. H. Cuyckcns. Cuyckens, K. R. Dirven, (eds), dcGruyter. (ruyter. —66.Berlin: Berlin: Mouton de Cognitive Approaches Approaches totoLexical (ognitive LexicalSemantics, 29-66. forTime in in Semantics and ('n:vcrsa! Metaphors for and Experience: Universal Alverson. Hoyt. Hoyt. (1994). (1994). Semantics A)verson, Baltimore, MA: Johns IIopkin% Hopkins University MA: Johns University English, Mandarin, Hindi Hindi gird and Sesotho. Sesotho. Baltimore,

Press. Press.

The senses. In The

dictionary senses. In Atkins,B. B.T. T. S.S. (1987 ).Semantic-fl) Semantic-ID tags: tags: corpu. corpus evidence evidence for dictionary Atkins, of the New Uses of of large Large Text Databases: Annual Conference of the New l)atabasec Proceedings Proceedingsofofthe the'Third Thi rd W.itcrluo. 17- 36. Canada: OED Centre, Centre, 17—36. Canada: University of Waterloo. (JEt) and why whyitit Bach, Kent. Kent. (1997). (1997). The The semantics-pragmatics distinction:What Whatitit is and scrnantics-pragmaticS distinction: Bach, SpecialIssue Issue on on Pragmatics, Pragmatics, 33 33 -So. lerichtc 8, Special -50. matters. ILinguistiche Berichte matters. reducedbody bodytemperature. i&mperature. American Baddeley, Alan Alan 1). D. (1966). Raddeky, (1966). Time Time estimation estimation atat reduced

79 (3): (3):475—9. 475-9. Journal Journal of ofPsychology, Psychology,79 Berlin: MouMetaphor '.fetonymyatatthe theCrossroads. Crossroads. Berlin: Barcelona, Antonio. ((moo). z000). Metaphor and andMetonymy ton ton de de Gruyter. Gruyter. (eel.), goals.In In(i. (. H. Bower Rower (cd.), Barsalou, (1991). Deriving Deriving categories to to achieve achieve goals. Lawrence. (1991). Rarsalou, Lawrence. in Research Theory, The Advances andand Theory, andMotivation: \ lorivat ion: Ad;w:t in Research I d'arning and The Psychology Psychology of of Learning Press. voL 27, 1-64. ('A: Academic Press. vol. 27, 1-64. San SanDiego, l)iego. CA: InA. A.Lehrer Lehrcrand andE.E.F.I.Kittay Kittay (1992a). fields. In conceptual fields. (1992a). Frames, Frames, concepts, concepts, and and conceptual Orguni:aFrames. Fields. inin Lexical and Semantic OrganizaEssays Lexical and Semantic (eds), NewEssays (ontrasts:New and Contrasts: Field', and (eds), Frgi,,uc, Hillsdale, tion, Iiillsdalc, NJ: NJ: Lawrence Lawrcntc Erlhaum. Erihaum. non, 11-74. iiHillsdale, Cognitive Psychology: An Scientists. Hillstble, Cognitive Overviewfor Cognitive - - (1992b). (1992b). Cognitive Psytltology: An Overview NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Erlhaum. \J: lawrence 22:577—660. 577-66 ► . Bras,.Sciences, Sciences, 22: - — (1999). Perceptual symbol symbol systems. systems. Behavioral Behavioraland andBrain (*999). Perceptual Language and conceptualsystem. system. Language and (2003). Situated simulation simulation in in the thehuman humanconceptual (zoo3). Situated Cognitive Processes, 18: (;ognitiw Processes, *8: 513-62. 5*3-62. Thuds in in Cognitive Cognitive acrosSspecies. species. Trends (2oos). theconceptual system across (zoos).Continuity Continuityofofthe Sciences, 9: 309-11. 9: 309—11. 617—45. ssl: 617-45. (ioo8). Reviewof ofPsychology, Psychology. 59: tunded cognition. cognition. Annual Review (ioo8).Grounded ambiguity.InInD.1). (orand (1989). Systematicity Gorandsemantic st-inantstambiguity. md Billman. fliLlman, I)orrit. I )orrit. (19$9). Svstctnat ityand NewYork: York:Springer-Verlag. springer-Verlag. fein (ed.), SetnanticAmbiguity, 146-203. New (cd.), Resolving Semantic 1cm and (forthcoming). Languageand Simmons, Kyle, and Wilson, C. D. (forthcoming). Language - - Santos, Santos,Ava, Ma, Simmons, Kyle, and Wilson, (. I). I )c Vcgmi. A. (knberg,and andA.A.Graesser (raesser simulation Vega, A. Glenberg. processing.InInM. De simulation ininconceptual processing. UnisersitvPress. Press. OxfordUniversity (),lord: Oxford (eds), (eels),Symbols, Sy,nbols,Embodiment, imbodament,and and Meaning. Oxford:

in andThought, Thought, 129-63. New in Memory, languag•, and New York: York:Cambridge CambridgeUniversity UniversityPress. Press. Yeh, Luka, Barbara, Barbara. Olseth, ()lseth, Karen, Karen.Mix Mix Kelly, Kelly, and andWu, Wu,Ling-Ling. Ling- ling. (1993). Ych, Wenchi, Wenchi, Luka,

Concepts meaning.In In K. K. Beals, Reals,G. (i. Cooke, Cooke,D. I).Kathman, Kathman, K. K. E. 1. McCullough, Concepts and meaning. S. Socici* 9: Iisrasccsions S.Kita, Kita,and andI). D.Testen Testen (ed.), (eds), Chicago Chicago Linguistics Linguistics Society 9:Papers Papers from from the the Parasessions on omiceptual Representations, vol. vol. z 23—61. ChicagoLinguistics Linguistics Society. on (Conceptual 23-61. Chicago Society. Bender, Andrea, Bennardo, Giovanni, and (zoo5). Belier, Sieghard. Spatial frames frames of it Bender, Andrea, Bennardo, Giovanni, and Beller, Sieghard. (zoos). Spatial reference A conceptual onceptual analysis in English, and reference for for temporal temporal relations: relations: A analysis in English, German, German, and Tongan. Barsalou, and and M. M. Bucciarelli Bucciarelli (eds), (eels). Proc eethngsof of the the Tongan. In InB. B. C. G. tiara, Bara, L. L Barsalou, Proceedings Twenty-Seventh AnnualConference ofofthe theCognitive CognitiveScience Science Society, 220-5. Mahwah, Mahwah, Twenty-Seventh Annual Society, NJ: Lawrence Erihaum. NJ: Lawrence Erlhaum. Bennett, )avid. (1975). ( 'se's EnglishPrepositions. London: Spatial ( Bennett, IDavid. Spatial ass! ism, Temporal Uses of of English London: Longman. Longman.

Bergen, Benjamin K. Nancy.(zoos). (zoos).Embodied Embodiedconstruction constructiongrammar grammar in in Bergen, Benjamin K. and and Chang. :hang, Nancy. simulation-based understanding. In In J.-O. ('ktman and and M. M. Fried Fried (eds), simulation-based language language understanding. I.-0. Ostman (eds), Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions, Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretic -al Extensions, 147-9o. Amsterdam: Amsterdam: John John Beniamins. Policy, Carl, Kathryn. (torthcorning). Polley, Carl, and and Wheeler, Wheeler, Kathryn. (forthcoming). Language language and andinner innerspace. space. In Space:The TheState Stateofofthe tht'Art Art In V. V.Evans Evans and and P. P. Chilton Chilton(eels), (eds), Language, Language, Cognition Cognition and and Space:

NewDirections. I),rei' ions. London: Equinox Publishing. Publishing. and New London: Equinox Metaphoricstructuring: structuring: Understanding Understanding time time through through spaspaRoroditskv, Boroditsky,Lera. Lera.(iooo). (woo). Metaphoric tial metaphors. tial metaphors.Cognition, Cognition,7575(1): (1):1—28. 1-28. (2001). l)ocs language shape thought? Mandarin and and English English speakers' speakers' concepconcep(zom). Does language shape thought? Mandarin

tions of of time. time. Cognitive Cognitive Psychology Psychology, 43: 43:1—22. 1 - 22. and Prin,, Jesse. (forthcoming). What thoughts are are made madeof. of.In InG. C. Semin Seminand and and Prinz, Jesse. (forthcoming). What thoughts Smith ((eds), Cognitive. lffective.and and Grounding:Social, Social,Cognitive. E. Smith E. eds), Embodied Embodied Grounding: Affective. Neuroscientilic Approaches. Cambridge: ( ambridge: Cambridge University Press. Approathes. Cambridge University Press. areer of ot metaphor. metaphor. Psychological Bowdle,Brian Brianand andGentner, Gentner, I)edre. The career Boodle, Dedre. (zoos). The Psychological Review, iii: 193—216. Review, 193-216. (aoo3).Space Space under e)nstruttion:LanguagelanguageBowerman, Melissa Melissa and and Choi, Choi, Soonja. (2oo3). Bowerman, under construction: specific spatial spatial categorization categorizationin in first first language languageacquisition. acquisition.In In D. 1).Gentner (,entncr and and specific in Mind: .%l:nd:Advances Advances the Study language S. Goldin-Meadow (eds), (eels), Language in S. ininthe Study of of Language Thought, 387-428. -428.Cambridge, Cambridge.MA: MA:MIT MIl Press. andThought, and Press. ainalvia syntactic amalOptimization via Slichaelis, Brenier, and Laura A. Jason M. Brenier, Jason M. and Michaelis, Laura A. (2o05). Optimization andLinLi,,gam: Syntax-prosody Syntax-prosody mismatch mismatch and and copula copula doubling. doubling. Corpus Linguisticsand gam: Corpus Linguistics guist:t Theory, I:I:45—88. guistic 45-88. Brugman, Claudia. (*988). of "over": "over": Polyserny, Polysemy,Semantics Semanticsand andthe theStructure Structureofof Brugman, Claudia. (1988). The The Story Story of New York: York: Garland. Garland. theLexicon. leue'n. New the andLakoff, takoff, George. (1y88).Cognitive Cognitivetopology topologyand and kilcalnetworks. networks.InInS.S.Small. Small, and George. (1988). lexical C. Cottrell, (:ourell, and AmbiguityResolution, Resolution,477 477-si7. Sin G. and M. M. Tannenhaus Tannenhaus (eds), (eds), Lexical Lexical Ambiguity -507. San Slatco,CA: CA:Morgan Morgati Kaufman. Kaufman. Mateo, Rurling. Robbins. howlanguage Lat.gui.ge It'olvel.Oxford: oxford: Oxford Oxford Burling, Robbins. (2007). (2oo7). The The Naked Naked Ape: How Evolved. Press. UniversityPress. University —

-

REFERENCES REFERENCIS

360

360

Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity University Press. Cann, Ronnie (1993). Formal Semantics.Camhridgc Cambndgc lor,r:al Se,,,antws. Cann, Ronnie andUtterances: Utterances:The The Pragmatics Pragmatics of Explicit CopmnuCarston, Robyn. (2002). Thoughtsand Lxpheit Commu(zooz). Thoughts (arstofl, Robyn. nication. Oxford: Blackwell. ,matiofl. Oxford Rlackweli. Casasanto, Daniel. (forthcoming). Space forthinking. thinking.InInV.V.Evans Evans and and P. l'. Chilton (hilton Ca',JsjfltO, L)aniel. (forthcoming). Sp.he 11)1 and New Directions. Art Cognition and Space: The The State (eds). Language,Cognition State of ofthe the Art and New' Direction'. and Space: Language. (eds), London: Equinox Publishing. London: Equinox Publishing. Time in the mind: t\ing space to to think thinkabout ab(nit - and Boroditsky, Um. (2008).Time in the mind: Usingspace — and Boroditsky, Lcra. (2008). time. Cognition, 106: 579 93. io6: 579-93. time. Time:The TheFlow Flow and and IDisplacement andTime: )isplacem'nt Chafe, Wallace. (1994 ). Discourse. COnStiOUSlIeSS, pisciousness, and (ihafe, Wallace. (1994). 1)iscourW Chicago:University University of Chicago Chicago of Conscious Experience in Speaking and 4Vriting. Chicago: Experwnce in Snaking and (1 Press. Press. in Choi, Soonja and Bowerman, Melissa. 0990. Learning express motion Learning to to express motion events evenh in Soon5a .irid Bowcrman, Choi, English and Korean: The influence of language-specific lexicalitation lexicalization patterns. of language-specific English and Korean: The influence -

Cognition, 41: 83-121. 41: 83—111.

(

The Hague: Hague: Mouton. Structures. The Chomsky, Noam. (1957). Syntactic Structures. Mouton. Noam. (1957). Syntactic Cambridge, MA: MA: MIT MITPress. Press. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge ol the Theory of — — (1981). (i'*s). Aspects Foris. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. (iqSs). Lectures on Gowrnment and Binding. L)ordrecht: (0991). Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In InR. R.Freidin Freidin Some notes on economy of derivation and representa' ion. — 54. Cambridge, 417 (ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, Grammar,

—

(ed.). Principles and Parameters in Cornparatiw MA: MIT Press. MA: MIT Press. MITPress. Press. Program. Cambridge, MA: 1199s). The Minimalist MA: MIT The Minimalist Program. Cambridge — Language Evolution. OxfOrd: Christiansen, Morten H. and Kirby, Simon. (2003). Evolution. Oxford: (2n03). Language Chnstiansefl, Morten U. and Kirby, Simon. -

Oxford University Press. Oxford I.. Tniversity Press. A 4 gain. ..wf. 1 ler Again. Together Clark, Andy. (1998). Being There: Putting Brain. Body Bodyand and World .1;

(lark. Andy. (1998). Being There: Putting Brain, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cambridge1 MA: MIT Press. the child. In T. Moore (ed.), (ed.), Clark, Herbert. (0973). Space, time, semantics, and Space1 time, semantics, and the child. In T. Moore (lark. Herbert. Cognitive IleveIopment and the Acquisition of Language, 27 63. New NewYork: York: Academic Academic (ognitive lkvelopnicvit and theAcquisition of Language. -

Press.

Press.

Jarvella (1983). Making sense of nonce sense. In G. Flores I. larvella FloresD'Arcais l)'Areais and R. J. (1983). Making sense of nonce sense. In Chichester: John john Wiley. (eds), The Process of Language I !nilerstatrifing, 297-332. •332. Chichestcr (eds), The Process of Language Cambridge: Cambridge (1996). Using Language. CambridgeUniversity University Press. Press. (-'sing Language. Cambridge: Corhallis, Michael. (2003). From Hand to Mouth: The Origins of Language. Language.Princeton: Princeton: -

(T.orballis, Michael. (2003). From Hand to Mouth: The Origins oJ Princeton University Press. Princeton University Press. Cambridge: Cambridge Coulson, Seana. (2000). Semantic Leaps. CambridgeUniversity University Press. Press. (:oulM)n, Seana. (zooo). Sesisantic Leaps. Cambridge: PsychoP!.vhoCoventry, Kenny and Garrod, Simon. ( 2004). Saying, Seeing The Seeingand andActing: Acting:The Coventry. Kenny and Garrod, Simon. (1004). Saying. Hove: Psychology Press. logical Semantics of Spatial Prepositions. Press. logical Semantics of Spatial Prepositions. Croft, William. (1993). The role of domains in the interpretation metaphorsand and interpretationofofmetaphors Croft, William. (1993). The role of domains in the metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4: 335 70. mctonym*es. Cognitive Linguistics 4: 335—7°. ic,i-74(1998). Mental representations. Cognitive Linguistics. 74. Linguistics.9 (2): 1 51 — (1998). Mental representations. Cognitnr ► gman. lALongrnan. (2000). Explaining Language Change An Evolutionary Approik•. London: London: (1(K)0). Explanung Language Changç An

— (1o07). The origins of grammar Linguistics, 18 (3): 339-82. Linguistics

18

(3):

361

Linguistics. Cambridge: Cam(2004). Croft, Croft,William Williamand and(ruse, Cruse,I).D.Alan. Alan. ( 2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge Press. bridgeUniversity University Press. of the micro-structure of word meanings. In Y. Ravin Cruse, I). Alan. (zooz). Cruse, D. Alan. (2002).Aspects Aspects of the micro-structure of word meanings. In Y. Ravin (eds), Polyseiny Theoretical uu! Computational Approaches, ;o—5i. and andC.C. Leocock (eds), Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches, 30-51. Oxford University Press. Oxford: Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cuyckens. Hubert, I)irven, Renc, and Taylor. John (2003). Cognitive Approaches to Cuyckens, Hubert, I)irven, Rene, and Taylor, John (2oo3). Cognitive Approaches to Mouton de Gruyter. Lexical LexicalSemantics. Semantics. Berlin: Berlin: Mouton de Gruytcr. Iowards an empirical lexical semanSandra, I)ominiek, and Rice, Sally. Sandra, Dominick, and Rice, Sally. (1997). Thwards an empirical lexical semanTaach (eds). Human Contact through Language and tics. tics.In InB. B.Smieja Smiejaand and M. M. Tasch (eds), Human Contact through Language and Frankfurt: Peter Lang. l.inguistics. 35 54. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. I ► nguistics,35-54. l)4hrowska, Ewa. (zoo9). Words as constructions. In V. Evans and S. Pourcd (eds), Dabrowska, Ewa. (2oo9). Words as constructions. In V. Evans and S. Pourcel (ads), Cognitive Linguistics. 201—24.Amsterdam: John Benjamins. New New Dircctio'i' Directions in in Cognitive Linguistics, 201-24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Time—locked multiregional ret road i' .ition: A systemsIDamasio, )amasio, Antonio. (1989). Antonio. (1989). Time-locked multiregional retroactivation: A systemslevel proposal for the neural substrates of recall and re(Ogflitil)fl. Cognition. -

level proposal for the neural substrates of recall and recognition. Cognition, 33: 25-62. 25 62. Frror: Emotion, Reason and the I lis,,sa's l3rasn. I ondt.n: Vintage. — - (1994). (1994). L),.scartcs' Descartes' Error: Emotion. Reason arid the Human Bnain. London: Vintage. Spaces in Grammar: Conditional Eve. (2ooS). IDancygier, )ancygier. Barbara Barbaraand andSweetser, Sweetscr, Eve. (2005). Alental Spaces in Grammar: Conditional University Press. Constructions. ainhridge: Cambridge Constructions. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. t,:linislu'd Revolution. London: Penguin. Time: I)avies, Paul. ((2oo6). Davies, Paul. 2006). About About Time: Einstein's Unfinished Revolution. London: Penguin. The Symbolic Species: The Co-evolutso's of Language and the L)eacon, Terrenle. Deacon, Terrence. (1997 ). The Symbolic Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the -

W. W. Norton and Co. York, NY: Brain. Brain. New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Co. (2005). Multimodal spatial representation: On the semantic unity of Paul. (2oo5). Deane, Deane, Paul. Multimodal spatial representation: On the semantic unity of Perception tO Meaning: Image .Sthensas in "over. In B. Hampe over." In B. Hampe(ed.), (ed.), From From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Berlin: Mouton tie (;ruyter. linguistics. 235—82. 235-82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Linguistics, L)ijk, Teun van and Kintsth. Walter. (1983). Strategies of I)iscour'i (iomprehe?ISWn. Dijk, Teun van and Kintsdi, Walter. (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension.

York, NY: NY: Academic New York, New Academic Press. Press.

Origins oJ the Modern Mind: Three Stages in the Evolution Harvard University Press. (:ulturcand andCognition. Cognition. Harvard: Harvard: Harvard Culture University Press. Language. London: ( roonsirsg. (;ossip anti the Evolution of Dunbar, Robin. (1996). Dunbar, Robin. ( 0996). Grooming. Gossip and the Evolution of Language. London:

l)onald, Merlin. Merlin. (1991). (*991). Origins of the Modern Mind: Three Stages in the Evolution of Donald,

Faber&& Faber. Faber. Faber

Space

in Danish Sign Language: Ihe Meaning and

Engberg-I'ederM)n. IIisabeth.(1993). Space in hinish Sign I anguage: The Meaning and EngbergPederson, Elisabeth. Hamburg: signum-Verlag. Morphosyntactic ('.se' of Space in a Visual Language. Hamburg: Signum-Verlag.

Morphosyntactic Use of Space in a Visual Language. In the mind's ear: The semantic extenDavid. Evans, Nicholasand andWilkins, Wilkins, David. Evans. Nicholas (2oo0). In the mind's car: The(3): semantic 546 92.extenverbs in Australian languages. Language. sions of perception sions of perception verbs in Australian languages. l angua ige, 76 (3): 546-92. and Cognition. Isimse; Lamsguage. The Structure ofofTime: Evans, Vyvyan. (zoo4a). The Language. Meaning and Cognition.

Evans, Vyvyan. (20040). ins. JohnBenjamins. Amsterdam:John Amsterdam:

I-low we conceptualiSe time.

an Ar: and Sciences. 33

(z): 13—44.

13 44(2oo4h). How we conceptualise time. Essays in Arts and Sciences. 33 (2):structure. Polysemy, the lexicon and (zoos). The meaning Polysemy, the lexicon and conceptual structure. iru meaning (1):"time": 33 -

-

Theory in Typological Perspec(2002). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Radical Construction Grammar: v's tat Theory in 1)pological Perspec(zoo Oxford University Press. tive. Oxford: ()xturd: Oxford University Press. tiw. Cognitive (2007). The origins of grammar in in the verbalization of of experience. verbalization experience. (agn.tiw the

REFERI REFERENCES

of linguistiCs. Journal Jour 2 Sof nal h Linguistics, Th

-

4' 0):

- 75. Cognitive models and toilCepts. cognitive i ; (449 ion. Cognitive c01-s. cognitive models and meaning-const ruction. (20 06). LLexical concepts, (4): 491—534. linguist i Linguistics to the non-spatial: The "state" lexical

--- (forthcoming a). From the spatial to the non-spatial: The "state" lexical Evans and P. Chilton (eds), Language. onand andin.at. InIn V.V.Evans concepts in, on concepts ofofin, and P. Chilton fetish I anguage, -

Equinox ondon: Equinox Cognitionand andSpate: Space:The TheState Stateofi of the the Art Art and and New Directions. l)irections. ILondon: Publishing. Publishing. In Theperceptual perceptualbasis basis of of spatial spatial rcprescfltatiofl. representation. In b).The Evans,Vyvyan. Vyvyan.(tinihcoming (forthcomingb). Evans, Stateof ofthe theArt Art Vail.: The The State Language. (ogr:ition Cognition and goldSpace: Evans and Chilton(eds), (eds), language. \'V.Evan and P.P.Chilton London: Equinox Equinox Publishing. Publishing. and New New Directions. l),rectwns. London: and Language,Cognition Cognition and and Space: Space: The The and t:hiIu)n, Chilton,Paul Paul(eds). (eds). (forthcoming). (forthcoming). Language. and

—

London: Equinox Equinox Publishing. Publishing. Stateofofthe theArt Art and and New New IDirections. ):ret Ho?l. London: State Edinburgh: Cognitive Linguistics: Linguistics: An An Introduction. Introduction. Edinburgh: and (,reen, Green,Melanie. Melanie.(2oo6). (2oo6). Cognitive and EdinburghUniversity UniversityPress. Press. Idinhurgh

and Tyler, Rethinking Inglish English'prepositions "prepositionsot of movement": movement": The The Tyler1Andrea. Andrea.( 2004). (2xl Rethinking —— and Mortelmans (eds), In H. H. Cuyckens, Cuyckens, W. Dc De Mulder, and T. T. Mortelmans through. In and through. to and Mulder. and case of to ase of t8:2-s--7u. 245-70. Amsterdam: Amsterdam: Adpositions of of Movement. Belgian BelgianJournal Journalof ofLinguistics, linguistics, *8: Adpositions John Bcnjamins. Benjamins. John

Press. Mental Spaces. Fauconnier, Gdles. Gilles. (1994). Mental Spaces.Cambridge: Cambridge:Cambridge Cambridge University University Press. Fauconnier, Cambridge: Cambridge University in Thought Thought am! and language. Language. Cambridge: (1997). Mappings in —

Press. Press.

Cognitive Science, Science, and Turner. Mark. (1998). Conceptual Conceptual integration integration networks. networks. Cognitne and Turner. Mark. 22 (2): 33-187. 22 (2): Theb%ay iVily *ve we Think Conceptual the Mind's Mind's Hidden Hidden Conceptual Blending Blending and and the (2002). The (2002). New York: Basic Books. Books. Complexities. New York: Basic Complexities. The Cambridge Cambridge11am!Hand(loos). W. Gibbs Gibbs (ed.). (ed.), The (zooS).Rethinking Rethinkingmetaphor. metaphor.In In R. R. W. Cambridge: Cambridge University University Press. Press. book of Metaphor Metaphor and and Thought. Thought. Cambridge: lwk of andpsycholinguistic psycholinguistic in and Feist, fypological and and on: Typological torthcoming).Inside Inside in Feist, Michele. Michde. (forthcoming). Language, Cognition (ognstion and am! Space: Space: perspectives. V. Evans Evans and and P. P. Chilton (eds), (ed'), Language. perspectives. In In V. The of the the Art EqUinoXPublishing. Publishing. Directigp,:s.London: London:Equinox Art and and New New Directions. The State of age. Molecule to Metaphor: ThoryofofLanguage. Feldman, Metaphor: AANeural NeuralTheory From Molecule Feldman, Jerome. Jerome. (2oo6). (zoo6). From Cambridge, Press. Cambridge.MA: MA:MIT Ml] Pre's.

neural theory theory of Lanand lanandNarayanan, Narayanan.Srini. Srini. (29o4). (2004). Embodied Embodied meaning meaning in in aa neural 89: 385-92. 385-92. guage. and Language, Language, 89: guage. Brain Brain and Proceedings Fillmore, theories of of meaning. meaning. Proceethnszs Charles. (1975). (1975).An Analternative alternative to to checklist ihesklist theories lillmore, Charles. 123-31. Odle Linguistics Society, Society, 123—31. First Annual AnnualMeeting Meetingofofthe theBerkeley Linguistics of the First

-

Seoul: 111—37. Seoul: (1982). Linguistics in Cain:. 111-37. the Morning Calm, in the semantics.In In Linguistics Frame semantics. (1982). Frame Hanshin Company. Publishing Company. Hanshin Publishing

di Seniantica, Semanticu, 6: 6: (1985). Quaderns di Frames and andthe thesemantics scmantksof ofunderstanding. understanding.Quaderni (*98s). Frames 222-54. 222—54.

-

REFERENCES

REFERENCES REFERENCES

362 362

(1997). CA: (*.MI (S1 I. Stanford: CA: I)e:ss. Stanford: or: Deixis. (1997). lectures Lectures on Kay, Mary Catherine. Catherine. (1988). ReguLarityand andidiomaticity idiomaikity Kay, Paul, Paul,and andO'Connor, O(onnor, Mary (*988). Regularity

64:501—%8. 501-38. alone. Language, Language. 64: in The case caseof ot let let alone. grammatical constructions: constructions: The in grammatical Press. %fentalImagery. Imagery.Cambridge, Cambridge,MA: MA:MIT MIT Press. l'inke, Ronald of Mental Principles of Ronald A. A. (1989). Principles

Finke, How We We Experience York. NY: NY: Experierwe Time. New York, Flaherty, Wathed Pot-. Pot How Flahertv. Michael. Michael. (1999). AA Watched New Press. NewYork York University Press. thefuture: future:Are Arethey theycoming coming or or going? Fleischman, Suzanne. (1982). Fleisthinan, Su,anne. (1982). The The past past and and the 8: 322— 322-34. Berkeley Society 8: .4. LinguisticsSociety, BerkeleyLinguistics

363

anibridge. MA: Press. Fodor, Fodor,Jerry JerryA. A.(*98;). 09831.The The Modularity of MA:MEl MIT Press. of Mind. Mind. ((:ambridge,

IFraisse, raisse. Paul. Paul. (1963) . The New York Harper Harperand and Row. Row. The Psychology Psychology of of Time. Time. New Gainotti, Guido, Silveri, Maria (atcrina, I)aniek, Antonio, and Giustolisi, Laura. Gainotti, Guido, Silveri, Maria Caterina, Daniele, Antonio, and Giustolisi, Laura.

semanti. disorders: disorders: A A critcrit(1995).Neuroanatomital Neuroanatomicalcorrelate, correlatesof ofcategory.speciiic category-specific semantic ical ical survey. survey. ,%fe ► ory, 3:3: 247-64. Gallagher. Gallagher,Shaun. Shaun. (1006). (2006). how Oxford: Oxford Oxford University University How the the Body BodyShapes Shapesthe the Mind. Oxford: Press. I'ress.

and Lakoff, Thebrain's brains concepts: The role role of (;a!kse, Gallese,Vittorio Vittorio and lakolf,George. George.(2005). zoos). The concepts: The of the the 79. sensory-motor sensory-motor system system in in reason reason and and language. language. Cognitive Cognitive Neuropsychology, 12 22: 45545s-79.

Garner, W R. Selective Garner, W. R. (ir$). (1978). Selectiveattention attentionto to attribute" attributesand and to to stimuli. stimuli. Journal Journalof of Experimental Psychology: Psychology General. 287—308. General, 107 107 (3): ( 3 ): 287-308. Semantics. Oxford: Geeraerts, l)irk. 0994). l)iachronic Geeraerts, Dirk. Diachronic Prototype Prototype Semantics. Oxford: Oxford Oxford University University Press. I nguistk relativity (,entner, before verbs: verbs: Linguistic Gentner,Dedre. Dedre. (*982). (1982). Why Why nouns nouns are are learned learned before relativity lTkveloprnent: 2. versus natural partitioning. In A. Kuczaj (ed.) versus natural partitioning. In S. A. Kuczaj (ed.), Language Development: '.ol. Vol. 2.

II illsdale, NJ: NJ: Lawrence Frihaum. Language. Culture, 30' Language, Thought and Culture, 301-34. Hillsdale, lawrence Erlhaum. (1988). Metaphor as asstructure structuremapping: mapping:Tlw Therelational relationalshift. shift. Child (hild Development, (1988). Metaphor Development, 59: 59: 447- 59. 59.

andearly earlyword word relativityand Boroditsky,Lera. Ltra. (29m). (iuoi). Individuation, lndividuation. relational relationalrelativity and and Boroditsky, learning. learning. In In M. M.Bowerman Bowermanand andS. S. Lcvinson Levinson (cdi), (eds), Language Language Acquisition Acquisition and and ConConceptual Development, 215-56. (.amhridge: Cambridge: Cambridge Cambridge University University Press. Press.

Bowdle,Brian. Brian,%Vial', Wolff, Phillip. (200*). Metaphor Metaphor isislike like Bowdle, Phillip,and andRoronat, Boronat,Consuelo. Consuclo. (2001).

analogy. In D. I). Gentncr, analogy. In Gentner, K. K. J. 1. llolyoak. Holyoak,and andB. B.N. N.Kokinov Kokinov(eds), (eds), The TheAnalogical AntilOgiCal Cambridge, MA: MIT Cognitive &it'ntz Mini!: Perspectives front Mind: from Cognitive Science, 199-253. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Press. of the Study of in Mind: Advances in and Goldin-Meadow, Susan. (zoo3). Language and Goldin-Meadow, Susan. (2003). Language in Mind: Advances in the Study Thought. Cambridge, Cambridge.MA: MA: MIT MIT Press. Language and Thought. Press. lmai, Mutsum.i, and Boroditsky, lera. (zooa). Evidencefor for [mai. Mutsumi, and Boroditsky, Lera. (2oo2).As Astime timegoes goes by: by Evidence Proeesses, two systems systems in in processing processing space spacetime time metaphors. metaphors. Language two Language eaand se! Cognitive (:ognitive Processes,

(i): 537-65. 537—65. 17 (5): 17 Cambridge University University Cambridge: Cambridge The Poetics Poetics of of Mind. Mind. Cambridge: Gibbs, Raymond Raymond W. W. (1994). The Gibbs, Press. Press. Cambridge University University Press. StserM.e Cambridge: Cambridge andCognitive ( s5',ntiwScience. Embodunentand ((2006). woo). Embodiment Press. Understandingfigurative figurativeand andliteral literal language: language:The Thegraded graded (;iora, Rachel. Giora, Rachel. (1997). Understanding salience hypothesis. hypothesis. Cognitive :m:guistics. 88 (i): salience CognitiveI linguistics. (3):183— 183-206. -

Mind:Salience, Salience,Context, Context,and andFigurative Figurative Language. Language. New New York: (zooj). On On our ourMind: (2003). York: Press. Oxford University UniversityPress. Oxford

20:1—55. BrainSciences, 20: Behavioraland andBrain for. Behavioral What memory memoryisisfor. Glenbcrg, Arthur. (1997). What ;lenberg, Arthur. 1-55. action. in language Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Michael. (2002). and Kaschak, Kaschak, Michael. and (2002). Grounding

Bulletin,and andReview, Review, 9: q: 558-85. Bulletin

Oxford NewYork: York: Oxford FigurativeLanguage. New (;lucksbcTg, Sam.( (ioo,). Aucksberg. Sam. 2001). ('uderstanding Understanding Figurative University Press. Press. University 92—6. (2003).The Thepsycholinguistics psycholinguistics of of metaphor. itive Science, Siience,7: 92-6. (2003). meta pho r. Trends Trends in in (ogn: Cognitive (iciiio.Understanding Understandingmetaphorical metaphoricalcomparisons: companions:Beyond Beyond - and and Keysar, Keysar, Boaz. Boa,. two). -iS. similarity. Psychological Review, 97: 3-; 18. similarity. Psychological Review,

Philadelphia:University UniversityofofPennsylvania PennsylvaniaPress. Press. of Talk. Talk. Philadelphia: ( ;otinian. Erving. Erving. (s98s). (19811. Forms Forms of

Construction Grammar Grammar Approach ApproachtotoArguArguConstructions. AA Construction ( ;oldberg,Adele. Adele. ('99s). (1995). Constnictions. Goldberg.

University of of Chkago ChicagoPress. Press. tStructure. Structure. Chicago: (hit.lgo: University anguage. Constructions at (;cncralizationi us► i ILanguagr. - (2006). at Work WorkThe TheNature \4uureofofGeneralization (zo(*). Constructiotu ►

REIERENCES

REFERENCES

;64

e►

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Oxford: Oxford University Press. and Spivey, Michael Seam, and Gonzalez-Marquez, Monica, Mittelherg, Irene, Coulson, Seana, Irene, (.oulson, (,oniaki-MarqueZ1 John Bciijaniins. Benjamin,. Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John in (ognitivc 1. (2007). Methods us J. (2007). Grady, Joseph E. (1997). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and Primary metaphors and primary primary (grady, Joseph E. (1997). Foundations of meaninw scenes. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Linguistics Dept.. Berkeley. lkpt., LIC U(' Berkeley. seenes. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Linguistics Journalof of (2oos). Primary metaphors as as inputs uiiceptual integration. integration. Fournal Primary metaphors inputs to to conceptual

— (ioos).

17-10:1595—614. 1595 -614. Pragmatics. r—lo: PragmatitS1 of 2000). Converging evidence for the notions of - and Johnson, Christopher. and Johnson, Christopher. (zooo). Converging evidence for the notions scene. Proceedings of the .\tcetingofofthe .%.nnualMeeting "subscene" and and "primary of the the23rd Annual "primary sc Berkeley, CA: BerkeleyLinguistics Linguistics Society. Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society, A: Bcrkckv Berkdey, Society. 123-36. I! -

Berkeley Linguist

Grier, Paul Paul H. (1989). (;rice. II. (tq$q).

Harvard University Studies in of Words. in the theWay Wayof Words. Cambridge, Cambridge. MA: MA: Harvard

Press. The many many (;vies, Stefan Th. (2006). Corpus-based Corpus-based methods methods and and cognitive cognitive semantics: The Press.

Gries,

Th.

Corpora in (eds), Corpora in meanings lit of to S. Th. 'torun." run." In In S. Tb. Grits Criesand andA. A.Stefanowitsch (eds), meanings Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based Approaches toto Syntax and Lexis, Approaches Syntax and Lexis, 57 -99. Berlin: (ognstive Linguistics: Corpus-based

Mouton de Mouton de Gruyter. and Diviak, Dagmar. (2009). (2009). Behavioral profiles: A A corpus-based corpus-basedapproach approachto to and I)ivjak, l)agmar. Behavioral profiles: Directions in New cognitive semantic Evans and and S. S. Pourcel analysis.In In V. V Evans Pourcel (eds), (eds), N'ew I)irectior.s in semantk analysis. cogniti'.c - 76. Amsterdam: Cognitive Linguistics, 57—76. Amsterdam: John John Benjamins. Benjamins. l.mgaastics 57 Press. University Press. ((;umperi. ;umperz,John. John. (1982). Discourse I)iscourseStrategies. Strategies.Cambridge: Cambridge: Cambridge Cambridge University Cambridge: and RethinkingLinguistic l.ingussf:cRelativity. Relativity. Cambridge: and Levinson, Levinson, Stephen. Stephen. (19961. Rethinking Cambridge Press. Cambridge University University Press. so: ;29-57. 329-57. Haiman, John (1980). (1980). Dictionaries encyclopedias. Lingua, lingua, 50: lijiman, John l)ktionarics and and encyclopedias. Journal international Journal Hanks, Patrick. 0996). andlexical lexicalsets. stis. International ILinks, Patrick.. (1)96).Contextual ( ontextualdependency and of 75 -98. (i) 75—98. of Corpus Corpus Linguistics,' 1(t): perspective. In instructional perspective. In V. Evans Harder, Peter. (2009). (zooq).Meaning Meaning as asinput: input: The The instructional harder, Peter. 15-26. Amsterdam: and Linguistics, 15—26. Amsterdam: and S. S.Pourcel Pourcel (eds), (eds), New New Directions Directionsin inCognitive Linguistics, Johns Johns Benjamins. Benjamins.

The Psychology Psychology ofofLanguage: Harley, Trevor. I )a to tu Theory, to Theory,3rd ird edition. edition. Trevor. (2oo8). (zooS). The Language:From FromData II a Hove: Psychology Press. lltivc Psychology l'rcss.

(urtial Harrington, Deborah IL, andKnight, Knight.Robert RobertT. T.(1998). (1998).Cortical Harrington. I)eborah ...Haaland, hlaaland,Kathleen KathleenY., Y.,and networks lournal of Neuroscience, Neuroscwnte, networks underlying underlying mechanisms mechanism'.ofoftime timeperception. perception. Journal to85 -95. 18iS (3): (i): ioS5—95.

Reconstruction. The Genesis Heine, GrrsesisofofGrammar: Grammar:A Reconstruction. Heine,Bernd Berndand andKuteva, Kuteva,Tania. lania. (2007). (2007). The Oxford: Oxford University University Press. Press. (htord: Oxford Herskovits, SpinalCognition. Cognition.Cambridge: Cambridge: Cambridge Cambridge andSpatial Herskovits,Annette. Annettc.(1986). (*986).Language languageand University University Press. Press. (1988). plasti.itv of of meaning. meaning.In In B. B.Rudzka-Ostyn Rudzka-Ostyn (i98S). Spatial Spatial expressions expressionsand and the the plasticity 9$. Amsterdam: John Benjamin'.. (ed.), Topics in Cognitive (;ogneriw I ingvitks. 271 - -9$. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.

(ed.). Topics in

IIupper, Paid and Traugott,I Iizabcih Ili/abeth( (loss. (2003). (2oo3). Cambridge: Cambridge Press. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

365

edition. Grammaticalization, and and edition.

Oxford University Press. Hurford, Hurford,James. James.(2007). (2107). Origins Originsof of Meaning. Oxford: Oxford: Oxford University Press. (2004).The Theneural neural representation representation of of time. time. lvry, Ivry, RichardB.B.and andSpencer, Spencer,Rebecca Rebecca M. M. C.. C. (2oo4). ('urrcnt Current Opinion Opinionin in Neurobiology; 14 14(2): (2):225—32. 225-32. MA: MIT Press. Semantics and ( )ackendoff, Ray. lackendoff, Ray. (1983). Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

(iwo). Structures. Cambridge, (1990). Semantic Semantic Structures. Cambridge,

MITPress. Press. MA: MIT

onMental MentalRepresentation. Cambridge, (1992). of the the Mind: Mind: Essays on (1992). Languages Languages of Cambridge, MA: Press. MA:MIT MITPress. Grans,nar, I volulion.Oxford ()tord (2002). (mu). hiundations FoundationsofofLanguage: Language:Bras,,, Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Yoric Oxford and and New York: OxfordUniversity UniversityPress. Press. phonetic categories. ProceedJaeger, Jeri and Ohala, John. (ir$4). On the the structure structure of of phonetic Jaeger, leri and Ohala, John. 0984). On categories. ProceedRcrkdey, ings of the ioth Annual 1.1 erring of the Berkeley Linguistics Socset;. 26. Berkeley, ings of the loth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, *5— 15-26. (:A: CA:Berkeley BerkeleyLinguistics LinguisticsSociety. Society. (II$9o1 1950). of Psychology. Psychology. New New York: York: Dover. \Villiam. James, James, William. ( 118901 195o). The The Principle, Principles of Dover. for the linguistic evidente and Kako, Edward. (loo7). Re-evaluating January, January,I)avid David and Kako, Edward. ( 2007). Re-evaluating evidence for the reLativity toBoroditsky Ik)roditsky (2o01). (ognition, relativity hypothesis: hypothesis: Response Response to Cognition, io4: 4)7 417-26.

MA term paper, Jasmin, Kyle.(2oo8). (zooS).Declaring DeclaringGenius (eniw at atCustoms. Unpublished lasmin, Kyle. Unpublished MA term paper, University of Brighton. Brighton. University of Origins of on Hypotheses. Hypotheses. AmsterJohansson, Svcrker. ( 2005). Origins lohansson, Sverker. ofLanguage: Language: Constraints Constraints on dam: Benjamins. ImagintheBodily BodilyBasis Ba'.:sofofMeaning, Imaginin the the Mind The Johnson, Mark. (1987). The Body in

ation and and Reason. Reason.Chicago: Chicago: University University of ation of Chicago Chicago Press. Press. Chicago: Cnderstaneling. Chicago: ' of I-furman (2007). The Meaning of the Body: — (um). The Meaning of the Body: Aesthetics of Human Understanding. (;hkago Press. University of Chicago Press.

Cambridge, MA: Ilarvird Universit

Johnson-Laird, Philip Philip N. N. (1983). (1983). Mental MentalModels. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Johnson-Laird, Press. Press.

Abstract Nouns a' ( .onceptual Shells: Iror,s ( orpus lorg-Sthmid. Ihat,'.. )(Kg-Schmid, LIM. ((zooo). 20X0). English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus

to Cognition. Cognition. Berlin: Berlin: Mouton Mouton de deGruyter. Gruyter. to The role of Kaschak, Michael Michael and andGlenberg, Gknberg. Arthur. Arthur. (zoon). Constructing meaning: mcaninw The Kaschak, (2000). Constructing role of .omprehcnsion. Journal of

atlordances and and grammatical grammatical constructions constructions in in sentence sentence comprehension. Journal of affordances Memory and Language. 43: 5011—29. Memory and Language, 43: 508-29. and Row. NY:Harper Harper and SemanticTheory. Theory.New NewYork, \ork, NY: Kat,. Jerrold Jerrold J. Katz, J. (1972). Semantic Row. theory. Fodor, Jerry A. (1963). The structure of a semantic and Fodor, Jerry A. (1963). The structure of a semantic theory. Language, Language, and 39: 170—210. 39: 170-210.

t)estriptiofls. An Integrated TheoryofojLinguistic LinguisticDescriptions. and Postal, Post.iI,Paul PaulM. M.(19641. At: and Integrated Theory Cambridge,MA: MA: MIT MIT Press. Press. Cambridge, Grammaticalconstructions constructionsand andlinguistic linguistic Charles. (1999). Grammatical Fillmore, Charles. Kay. Paul Paul and and Fillmore, Kay, generaliiations: The The What's What's XX doing doing V I construction, generalizations: 75: I - .4. Language, 75: construction. language, the meanings of basic andMcDaniel, McDaniel,Chad. Chad.(1978). (irS). The 11wlinguistic Iingui'.tit significance signih.anceofofthe meanings and of basic color terms. terms. Language, 610-46. Language, 54—3 54-3: 610 color - 46. meaningand andcomposicomposi andMichaelis, Stichaelis,Laura lauraA..\.(forthcoming). (forthcoming). Constructional Constructional meaning and An (eds), Semantics: An In C. C.Maietth Maienborn, K. von von lieusinger, Heusinger.and andP.P.Portlier Portiier(eds), ► rn. K. tionality. In of .\g,izugsl language Meaning. Berlin: Miuton de (;ruyter. ► ternati ► nal Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. I Int.r,sutioual

gir 366

RIIERFN(:Fs REFERENCES

RI I 1 RI REFERENCES

betweenlinguistic linguistic Kemmerer, Daniel. ((iooo). 21mo). AA double double dissociation disvociation between and Tranel, Trand t)aniet. Kern merer, David and Cognitive Neuropsychology, of spatial spatial relationships. replescfltatR)flS of and perceptual representations relationships. Cognitive 93—414 17: 393414. 17:

Cambridge: Cambridge ActionasasUtterance. Cambridge: Gesture:Visible V,'.l'Ie Action Kendon, Kendon, Adam. Adam.(2004 (2oo4). Gesture: University Press. University Press. cognitive I )evdoping a (jUnter. (1998). Isietonymy: Developing Kovecses, Zoltan Zoltan and and Radden, a cognitive Radden. Gunter. 37-77. (ogmtnY Linguistics, Linguist its, q-1:i: 37—77. view. Cognitive linguistic view. Multiple levels ot schematization: schematization: AA study study in in the theconceptuconceptuKreitzer,Anatol. Anatol. (1997). (1997). Multiple levels of Kreitzcr, $—4 291325. 291-325. Cognitive Linguistics, 8-4: 01space. space. Cognitive alization ali,.ation of Reveal Fire and andDangerous I)angerousThings: Things.What WhatCategories Reveal Lakotf, George. (1987). Women. Eire Lakoff, Chicago University University Press. Press. Mind. Chicago: Chicago the Mind. about the based on image-schemas? hypothesis: Is Is abstract reason based (1990). The invariance invariance hypothesis: (iwo). The Ci): 39-74. Cognitive Linguistics, ii (I): 39— Metaphor A. Ortony Ortony (ed.), (ed.), Metaphor of metaphor. metaphor. In In A. contemporary theory of - — (1993). The u)ntcrnporarY mi—si. Cambridge: Cambridgr Cambridge 2nd edition, zoz--st. Cambridge University University Press. Press. Thought, znd and Thought, niversity Think (hkago: IUniversity and Conservatives ( onservatiws Think Liberals and How Liberals Chicago: Politics: How (1996). Moral Politics: Press, of of Chicago Press. and Frame. Frame the the'Debate. Ikbare. Values and yourValues (zoo6). Know your Thinkofofan an Elephant: Elephant: Know Don't Think (2.006). l)on's Publishing. Vermont: (:helsca Chelsea Green Publishing. hicago: University of WeLive LiveBy. By. (Chicago: and Johnson, Johnson,Mark. Mark.(1980). ('98°). Metaphors We (:hicago Press. Chicago Press. Flesh. New New York: York: Basic Basic Books. inthe theFlesh. Philosophy in (1999). Philosophy Proceedings and Thompson, Thompson,Henry. I-Ienrs.(1975). ('rs. Introduction Introductiontotocognitive cognitivegrammar. grammar. Proaedings 295—313.Berkeley, Berkcky, CA: CA: of the of of thethe Berkeley Linguistics Society, 295-313. the1st i's:Annual AnnualAlerting Meeting lkrkdey I Berkeley Berkeley ILinguistics Society. than Cool fool Reason: FieldGuide GuidetotoPoetic Poetic Reason: AAField Turner, Mark. (1989). More than and Turner, University of Chicago Metaphor. Chicago: University Metaphor. ( :hicago Press. Press. lk'ssalcgn. Banchianilack, BanchiamLick,and andGoldberg, Goldberg,And AnelMiah. Landau, Barbara, Dessalegn, Micah. (forthcoming). (eds), Language and and space: space:Momentary Momentary interactions. interactions. In In V. Evans and and P. P. Chilton Chilton (eds), Language I)irections. London: london: Coguitio'iand andSpace: Spacr The ofthe the Art and New Ihrectiems. State of The State Lanuage, Cognition Iquinox Publishing. PuNishing. Equinox Volume I Theoretical Langacker. Ronald Ronald W. W. (1987). (1987). Foundations FoundationsofofCognitive CognitiveGrammar: Grammar: Volume I flieoretictal Langacker, Press. Stanford University University Press. Stanford: Stanford Prerequisites. Stanford: Volume Theoretical Prerequisites. Cogniti;eGrammar: Volume 11 IITheoretical Prerequisites. Foundations of Cognitive (19914). Foundations Stanford: Stanford: Stanford University Press. Press. Mi,u Berlin: MouBasisofof ( 'ntept. Image, Image,Symbol: Symbol:The The (ognitive Cognitive Basis Grammar. Berlin: (199110. Concept, ton de Gruyter. and Coriceptuakation. ( ontceptuahzaf:on.Berlin: Berlin:Mouton Moutonde dcGruyter. Gruytcr. (1999). Grammar and model. In In M. N. Barlow Usagedynaiiiikuc-age-baicd usage-haled model. Barlowand andS.S.Kemmer Kemnier(eds). (eds),Usage( zixxi). A dynamic

(A:(:SL1 (SI) Publications. Stanford, CA: ba.w.'tI M*kls of Language, Language,1-64. Stanford, based Models Introduction. Oxford: Oxford: Oxford University Univtrsitv Press. Press. BasicIntroduction. Cogn:trveGrammar: Grammar: AABasic 4(zooS). 2008). Cognitive

OxtOrd:llsevier ElsevierScience. Science. \Ikhiel. ((iooi). Contextsolof.'tteraphor. Metaphor. Oxford: ILce2!enbcrg. eezenherg, Michael. zoos). (ontexts Press. l.cviuson, Stephen. ( .ambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Levinson, Stephen. (1983). Pragrnutics. t'f Generalized (onversational 1mphGeneralized Conversational Theory of ImpliThe Theory (iooo). Presumptive Meanings: The (woo). Presumptive. ,uturc. Cambridge, cambridge, MA: MA: MIT MITPress. Press. cature.

367

Levinson, Stephen. Space in Stephen.(2003), (ioo;). Space Explorationsinii:Linguistic Cognition: Explorations in Language Language and Cognition: Diversity Diversity. Cambric* CambridgrCambridge Press. Cambridge University Press. Livingstone, Livingstone, Margaret Margaret and of form, form, color, color, movemoveand lIubd, Hubei,David. David.(198$). 0988). Segregation Segregation of 111e111 and 240: ;'40—9. ment Science, 240: and depth: depth:Anatomy, Anatomy,physiology physiologyand andperception. perception.ScienCe, 740-9. Lucy, John. (1982. Language I):vrrs,tv Lucy, (1982). Language Diversity and Thought:AAReformulation Reformulation Linguistic of of thethe Linguistic andThought: Relatiistl Relativity Hypothesis. Cambridge: Press. Cambridge: Cambridge Cambridge University UniversityPress. Martin, Alex. Alex.((iuoa). Eunitiond neuroimaging neuroirnagingot semantic memor. (abeza and and 2001). Functional of semantic memory. InInk. R. Cabez_a A. Kingstone (eds), (cdi), Handbook of Functional Neuroimaging Neuroimagingof Cognition, Cognition, 153—86. Handbook of 153-86. Cambridge, MA: MIT Cambridge, MA: MITPrcss. Press. (.zoo7).The Therepresentation representation of object concepts in in the thebrain. brain. Annual (2007). Annual Review Review ol of

25-45. Psychology, 58: 25—45. Mauk, Michael I). I). and Buonomano, Boonomano,I)ean DeanV. V.(2004). (zoos). The Theneural neuralbasis basis of temporal processing. The Annual Review of Neuroscience, Neuroscience, 27: 307 Review of 30 40. NkNeilI, David. (1992). andMind: What McNeill, (1992). Hand and %%liat Ge'stures Reveal about Thought. ChiChiGestures Reveal about Thought. cago: University University of of Chicago Chicago Press. Press. Michaelis, Word meaning. meaning. and and syntactic meanMichaelis, Laura. Laura.A.A.(zoo)). (mu). Word meaning, sentence sentence meaning, meanLexical ing. In H. H. (:uyckens, Cuyckens,R. R. 1)irven, t)irven, and I.J.Taylor Taylor(eds). (eds), Cognitive Cognitive Approaches Approaches totoLexical Snnantu%, 163- 210.Berlin: Berlin:Mouton Mouton de dieGruyter. Gruytcr. Semantics, 163-210. (2004 Type lype shifting in construction grammar: grammar An to (2004). An integrated integrated approach approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, is: Cognitive Linguistics, is:'—h;'. 1-67. and Lambrecht, larnhrecht, Knud. Toward aa construction-based model Knud. (1996). Toward model of of language language function: The Ihe case of nominal Lamiguage, function: nominalextraposition. extraposition. Language,72: 72:215—47. 215 47. and Johnson-Laird, Johnson-Laird. Philip. Philip. (1976). Language Languageand andPerception. Perception. Harvard: Harvard: Miller, George George and Harvard University Harvard UniversityPress. Press. Mithen, (19i$i). The Prehistory the Mind: Mind: A Search Search /or Art. Mithen, Steven. Steven. (1996). Prehistory of the forthe theOrigins Origins ofolArt, Religion andScience. science.London: London: Orion Orion Books. Religion and Moore, Kevin Ezra. Ezra. (200o). Spatialexperience experienceand andtemporal temporalmetaphors metaphorsininWolof: Wolof: (wooi. Spatial of view, conceptual Point of conceptualmapping mappingand andlinguistic linguisticpractice. practice.Unpublished Unpublisheddoctoral doctoral Point thesis, University of of California, ( alitornia, Berkeley. thesis, University Space-to timemappings mappingsand andtemporal temporal concepts. concepts.Cognitive Cognitive Linguistics - — (zoo6). Space-to-time Linguistics, -

-

17-2 199-144. 17-2: 199-244.

Spatial Munnich, Edward, Edward,Landau, Landau,Barbara, Barbara,and and l)oshcr. Dosher, Barbara Barbara Anne. Anne. (morn). (2001). Spatial language and spatial spatial representation: representation: A A cross-linguistic comparison. comparison. Cognition. language and Si 81 (;): (3):171—207. 171-207.

The Murphy, Gregory. In P. Schwanentlugel(ed.) (ed.) The Murphy, Gregory. (1991). Meaning Meaning and and concepts. concepts. In P. J. I. Schwanenflugel Psychology WordMeanings, Meanings,11-35. Hillsdale, Ilillsdale, NJ: Iribaum. Psychology ofofWord NJ: Lawrence Lawrence Erlbaum. 204. (1996). On metaphoric representation. representation. Cognition, Cognition.60, 6o,173173-204. II). (5.007). (200;'). Cognitive Cognitive linguistics linguisticsand andthe thehistory historyofof Nerlich, Brigitte and Clarke, David 13. CognitiveLinguisLinguislinguistics. InD. I).Geeraerts (krracrts and and H. II. Cuyckens (eds), of Cognitive (eds),Handbook handbook of linguistics. In tics, 589—607.Oxford: Oxford:Oxford Oxford Univcrsut', tics, 589-607. Press. University Press. Nuñcz, Rafael, Moats, Motz, Benjamin, Time after after time: The Nlinel, Benjamin,and and Tcuschcr, Truscher, Ursina. (2006). (2oo6). Time psychologital Ego- and andTime-Reference-Point Time-Reference-Pointdistinction distinitionininmetapsychological reality of the Egophorical onstruals construalsofoftunic. time. Metaphor and andSymbol, Symbol, 2* 133—46. 21: 133-46. (2006). Sviretser. Eve. and and Sweetscr, Eve. (2006).With Withthe the future future behind them: evidence them: convergent Convergent evidence from Aymara language .iski and gesture in the from Aymara language rosslinguistic comparison omparison of spatial crusslinguistic C‘ignitive Science, 3o: construals of time. (ogn:tnr ScIenIA 30: 401 -SO. ► nstruals Of time. c4 401-50.

O'Keefe, John. (1996). Thespatial spatialprepositions prepositions in in English. English, vector grammar. grammar,and and the the John. (1996). The cognitive map theory. In P. P. Bloom, Bloom, M. M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, and Garrett A. Peterson, L Nadel, and M. M. EF.Garrett

cognitive map theory. In Cambridge,MA: MA: MIT Press. Press. andSpace, Space, 277-316. (amhndge. (cds), La ► guaxeand (eds), Ornstein, Robert. 019691/1997). On On the the cxperien1e experience of (0: Westview Westview of time. time. Boulder, Boulder, CO: Robert. (11969111997). Press.

Press.

2ndedition. edition. Cambridge: Cambridge: Cambridge Metaphor and gindThought. Thought, md ()finny, Andrew. (1993). Metaphor ('anibridgt

Vrtofly. Andrew.

University Press.

University Press.

New York: York:Holt, Holt,Rinehart Rinehartand and and Verbal Paivio, Allan. (1979). Imagery and WriralProcesses. Pnxesses. New Paivio, Allan. (1979). Imagery \\Winston. instofl. Oxford:Oxford OxfordUniUniMental Representations: Dual Coding (1986). Mental Coding Approach. Approach. Oxford: Representations: AA t)ual — (1986). versity Press. versity Press. Poppet, Ernst. (1994). Temporal mechanisms in perception. In 0. and Poppd. Ernst. (1994). temporal mechanisms in perception. In 0. Sporns and theBrain: Brain: International international Review Review of Selectionion and and the (cds), Sekctsonist,i ofNeurobiology,

(. Tononi (eds),

37: 185-201. y: Perception. In InR. R.11C141, Held, H.II.W. Teuber (eds). (cds), - (1978). Time Perception. H.-L Teuber W.Leibowitz, Lcibowiti, and H.-L. (1978). Time -—

713-29. Heidelberg: Springer. I landbookof ofSensory SensoryPhysiology, Physiology,7*3—29. Heidelberg: Springer. Handbook Praggleiaz Group. (2007). MIP MIP: A A method method for foridentifying identifying metaphorically metaphorically used usedwords words Pragglciaz Symbol, 22 (1): Metaphor and in discourse. Metaphor 1-39. (i): 1—39. arid Symbol. in Mind: Concepts Perceptual Basis. CamPrinz, Jesse. (2002). Furnishing the Prinz, Jesse. (mom). Furnishing the Mind: ( oncep(s and their Perceptual Basis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. bridge. MA: MIT Press. Pulvermtiller, Friedmann. (1999).L Words language. Behavioral Behavioral and thebrain's brains Language. Words ininthe Pulvernuilki, Friedemann. Brain Sciences, 22: 253 - 336. 253—3%t. Brain

Brain Circuits Circuits of Serial The Neuroscience of Language: On Brain of Words Words and and Serial uros se's c of I.anguage: On (2oo3). The Order. Cambridge: Press. Unives\Ii\ Press. ambridge University Order. Cambridge: (Cambridge The Generative Pustejovsky, lames (1995). Press. IA: MIT MEl Press. Generative Lexicon. Lexicon.Cambridge, Cambridge, MA: Pusteovsky, James (1995). The across languages. Radden, (2003). The The metaphor metaphor TIME TIME ASSPACE SPACE across languages.In In N. N. Raddcn. GUnter. Gunter. (mooj). AS Interkulturelk Baumgarten, C. BOttger, M. Niot,. Isloti, and tlbcrsr.t:eu, Interkulturelle Probsi (eds), (edsL Ubersetzen, and I.J.Probst Baumgarten. C. Bottgcr. ► el:wren kom In unskation, Spracherwerh Spracherwerbuisd and SprachSprach-vermittliing--clas Lebenmit mit ,nehrercn ver,n:ttluni,'—das Leber: Kommunikation, Sprachen. Festschrift fur Juliane House :um 6o Geburtstag. leitschrift Jive fur InterkulInterkulSprat hen. Festschrift flu Julsanc House zion tSo Geburistag. Zeit.schrift (2003).

II relief: Fremdsprachenunterric -ht (online), - 14. Frc,ndpruthcnunterr:cht lonlinel,8S(2/3): (ii.;):1I—14 turellen Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Literal Language. Recanati, Francois. (2004). Recanati. Francois. (1004). Literal Language'. Cambridge: Cambridge I.'niversity Press. Making of Renfrew, Cohn. (2007). Prehistory: The Londorn of the the Human Human Mind. Mind. London: Renfrew, Cohn. (2007). Prehistory: The Making Weidentield and Nicolson. Weidenlield and Rosch, Eleanor. (1978). Principles of categorization. In Rosch(eds), (eds). InB. B.Lloyd lloyd and andF. I Rosch

Rosch, Eleanor. (1978). Principles of Cognition and Categorization, 27-48. Erlbaum.Reprinted Reprinted inin NI: Erlhaum. Hillsdale. NJ: 27—48. Hillsdale, (i'ognition and Concepts: Core Readings, *8—2)6. E. Margolis and S. Laurence (eds), (1999), Concepts: Readings. 189-206. E. Margolis and S. Laurence (eds),

Cambridge, MA:MIT MITPress. Press. ('anthrsdge. MA: On Monosemy: AAStudy NewYork, York, Ruhl, Charles. (1989). StudyininLinguistic LinguisticSemantics. Semantics. New

kuhi. Chades. (i98q). On

NY: State University University of ofNew NewYork York Press. Press. NY: Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel, and simplestsystematics Jeftcrson.Gail. Gail.(1974). AAsimplest Sacks, Harvey Schtgloft. Emanuel, andJefferson, Language, for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation. Laisguw..'eso: 50:696-735.

for the organisit ion of turn-taking for

Grammar. An InfOrmal Synopsis. UnpubSag. Ivan. (2007). Sign-based Construction Sag. han. (zoo7). Sign-based (0,s%truCtlOfl (rii,?i?,Iar. An Informal Synopsis. (Inpublished online at:at: .

then syno.pdf>.

I

RFIIKE\(1%

REFERENCES FS K El F HF

368

REFERENCES

369

369

t tell OU about the human Sandra, Sandra,I)ominsek. Dominick.(1998). (1998).What Whatlinguists linguistscan canand and can't tell you about the human Linguistics. 9 (4): 361—478. mind: mind:AAreply replyto to(rutt. Croft.Cognitive Cognitive Linguistics, 9 (4): 361 -478. Processing. New York: I isevier. Schank, Schank, Roger. Roger.(1975). (1975). Conceptual Information Information Processing. New York: Elsevier. and 011(1 learning in - (*982). (1982). l)ynamic Dynamic Memory:AATheory Reminding and learning in Computers and Theoryof ofRetn:nd'ng People'. People. Cambridge: Cambridge:Cambridge CambridgeUniversity UniversityPress. Press. An Inquiry and Abelson, Robert. Scripts. Plans. Goals. and and Abelson, Robert. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals. and Understanding: An inquiry ErIh.ium. illsd.ak, NJ: into KnowledgeStructures. Structures. IIHillsdale, intoHuman Milian Knowledge NJ: Lawrence Erlbauni.

people and machines. In and andKass, Kass, Alex. Alex.(1988). (1988). Knowledge Knowledge representation representationIn in people and machines. In and Mental Representations. (eds), U. U. Eco, M. M.Santamhrogio. Santanibrogio,and andP.P.Violi Violi (cds),4rtteaning Meaning and Mental Representations, 181—zoo. 181-200. Bloomington. Bloomington, IN: IN:Indiana IndianaUniversity UniversityPress. Press. to Discourse: as Social Interaction. (pprt'athes Schiffrin, Deborah. Schiffrin, Deborah. (1994). Approaches to Discourse:Language Language as Social Interaction. Oxford: Oxford: Blackwell. Blackwell. Cambridge: Searle, John. Searle, John. (1969). Speech SpeechAct': Acts:An AnEssay Essayininthe thePhilosophy PhilosophyofofLanguage. anguag•. ( 'Ambridge: Cambridge Cambridge University UniversityPress. Press.

t amhridge I. Tniversity Press. (1983). intentionality. Cambridge: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. - (1983). and Thought, 2nd Metaphor. In In A. A. Ortony Ortonv (ed.), (ed). Metaphor (1197911993). 1993). Metaphor. Metaphor and Thought, 2nd

edition, edition, 83—Ill. 83-111. Cambridge: Cambridge:Cambridge CambridgeUnsversnv UniversityPress. Press.

Images and their Transform\lental Images Shepard, RogerN. N.and andCooper, (ooper, Lynn Lynn A. A. (1982). (i982). Mental Shepard, Roger !mil their TransformCambridge University I'rcss. atwns. Cambridge: ations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. of Space and Time. Kwansei. Japan: Gakuin Kazuko. ( '999). Epistemology Shinohara, Kazuko. Epistemology of Space and Time.

Kwansci, Japan: Gakuin

University Press. University Press. and Sampaio, \Vanv. Silva Sinha, Vera dii. Sinha, Sinha, Chris, Chris, Zinken, Silva Sinha, Vera da, Zinken, Jorg. Jorg, and Sampaio, Wany. (forthcoming). linguistic construction of time intervals in When Time The social social and and linguistic When Time is is not not Space: Space: The construction of time intervals in of Pragmatics. culture. Journal an an Amazonian culture. Journal of Pragmatics. Journsaloj I)istributed spatial scmantks. Chrisand Sinha, Sinha, Chris and Kutcva, Kuteva, Tania. Tania. (1995). Distributed spatial semantics. Nordic Journal of iS: 167-99. Linguistics, 18:

Rekvance ( ommunication and Cognition.

Dan and and Wilson, Wilson, Deidre. Deidre. (1995). (1995). Relevance: C0111 nicatiom and Cognition, Sperber. Dan Sperber,

edition.Oxford: Oxford:Blackwell. 2nd edition. 2nd

and Semantics 9

Cole (ed.).

Stalnaker, Richard. Stalnaker, Richard. (1978). (1978). Assertion. Assertion. In In P. Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9: NewYork: York: Academic Academic Press. Press 315—%2.New Pragnsatses 3ts-32. Pragmatics,

MA:

II Press.

Context.Cambridge, Cambridge. MA: MIT Press. Stern,Josef. Josef.(2000). (woo).Metaphor \Ietaphor ininContext. Stern, compositiofl in a Sweetser, Eve. Sweetser, Eve. ( '999). Compositionality Compositionality and and blending: blending: Semantic Semantic composition, in a

('ogniti*e Redeker (eds). CognitiveJanssenand andC. C.Redeker In T.1. Janssen ci'gnhti% clvrealistic realisticframework. framework. In cognitively (eds), Berlin: Mouton dc Cruyter.

Lingu:tics: Foundations, Foundations, Scope Linguistics: Scope andand fethodology, 129-62. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 129—62.

a Cognitiit' Semantics (2 volumes). (ambridge.

Leonard.(2000). (woo). Toward Talmy. Leonard. Talmy, Toward a Cognitive Semantics (2 volumes). (:ambridge, MA: MIT MIT Press. Press. MA:

v Press. (htord University I. (,rammar.Oxford: ()stord:Oxford Iaylor, John. Cognitive Grammar, Taylor, John. (zoom). (wo2). Cognitive Press.

Press. edition. Oxford: Oxford cognition: The .JSC of Taylor, lawrence lawrenceI.J.and andZwaan, Zwaan,Rolf RolfA.A.(2o09). (2ooi).Action Attion in in cognition: Taylor, The case of and Cognition. I (i): 4S language. language language. Language and Cognition, a (t): 45-18. Studies in Thompson, SandraA.A.(zoos). (iooz)."Object "Objectcomplements" complements" and andconversation. Studies in Thompson, Sandra 125-64. (i): language 26 Language 26 (i): I25-64. Neuroimagingstudies studies of semantic memt'rv: InferSharon.(2003). Neuroimaging Thompson-Schill. ThoMps00-Sihill, Sharon. of se:multi.. memory: InferNeuropsyihologsa, 41: from"where". Neuropsychoiopii, ring- how" from ring 41: 280--92.

Categorization.3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (2003). Linguistic Linguistst Categorization, (2003).

REIF.K1N(ES REFERENCES

REFERENCES REFFRENCES

37t) 70

The Cultural Origins Harvard: OriginsofofHuman humanCognition. Il.irvard: l ► masello, Michael. (1999). (1999). The To,nascllo, I larvardUniversity University Press. Harvard 711eary01 of Language Language At Acquisition. based Theory - (2003). Allsage-based t language: A onstructing a Language: (loo3). (Constructing Harvard University University Press. H arvard: Harvard Press. Harvard: locative oflocative Trancl,I)anid Danieland andKemmerer, Kemmerer, I)avid. David. (aoo4). (2004). Neuroanatomical correlates correlates of Tranel, —

\

Cognitive Neuropsychology, prepositions. t4rOpsEchOlOgy,21: 21: 719-49. ions. Cognitiw (mg). On in Iratigott,lliiabeth Elizabeth (l ► ss. patio-temporal relations in iraugott, ( loss. (19714). On the the expression expression ofofspatio-temporal Universals of Human Language, 369—400. language. In In J. I. Greenberg Greenberg (ed.), (ed.), (Jnn'ersals 369-400. Stanford, Stanford, language. CA: Stanford University I. 'niversitv Press. Press. CA: Semantic Change. Change. Cambridge: Cambridge: Re gidarity in Seniantic and Dasher, (2oo4). Regularity Rihard. (1004). and I)uher Richard.

—-

Cambridge University Press. Press. Cambridge Turner, Frcdcrick Frederickand andPöppel, Piippel, Ernst. Ernst. (1983). (.983). The meter,the thebrain brain Poetic meter, lyre: Poetic neural lyre: The neural Turner, and time. 277—309. 142 (5): 277-309. time. /Wiry, 142 and Study ol of English English in the Age Age of ot Cognitive ( 'ognitive Turner, Mark. Mark.. (1991). Reading Minds: The Stuth Turner, Princeton ttniversitv University Press. Press. Science. Princeton, NI: Princeton Science. Princeton, NJ: polysemy Tyler, Andrea and and Evans, Evans, Vyvyan. (aooi). (zoo.). Reconsidering Tyler, Andrea Reconsideringprepositional prepositional polvscmy

():

networks: The The case case of of over. over. Language, 724—65. Language, 77 (4): 724-65. networks:

(zoo;). ofof English Semantics EnglishPrepositions: Prepositions:Spatial SpatialScenes, Scenes,Embodied Enibodied (loo3).The TheSemantics Meaning and Cognition. University Press. Press. Cognition.Cambridge: Cambridge: Cambridge Univerioty Vandeloise, Claude. Claude. (1990). (1990).Representation, Representation,prototypes, prototypes.and andcentrality. centrality. In In S. Tsohatand Prototypes: Studies zidis (ed.), (ed.), Meanings and StudiesininLinguistic LinguisticCategorization, Categorization, 403-37. zidis London: Routledge. London: Routledge. (1991). A Case Study from French Spatial Prepositions: Prepositions A Stuih from French (trans. (trans. Anna R. K. Bosch). (1991). Spatial Chicago: (Thicago Press. Press. (:hk.Igo: University of Chicago -

in. Cognitive CognitiveLinguistics, Linguistics, and analyses analysesof ofthe thepreposition preposition us. Methodology and — (1994). (199$). Methodology 55 (2): *57-84. (a): 157$4.

Varela, Francisco, Thompson, Thompson, Evan, Evan, and and Rosch, Roach, Eleanor. Eleanor. (199.). The Embodied Mind: Embodied Minds Var Ia, Francisco.

C ognitive Science Press. MA: MIT MIT tress. enceand andHuman humanExperience. Cambridge, MA: (;ogniteve Vigliocco, and Kousta, Stavroula. (2o09). Gabriella, Meteyard, Meteyard, Lotte, Andrews, Mark, Mark, and (2009). Vigliocco, Gabriella. Toward Language and Cognition,' I (z). (i). Toward aa theory theory of of semantic semanti. representation. representation, language Walsh, Vincent. (2oo3). A theory of magnitude: Common Common cortical cortical metrics metrics of of time, time, Walsh, Vincent. (It):483—8. 483-8. space Science, 77 (ii): in Cognitive Cognitive science, spaceand andquantity. quantity. TRENDS in Wearden, John and and Penton-Voak, Penton-Voak, lan. Ian. (1995). (199s). Feeling \V',irden, John Feelingthe theheat: beat:Body Bodytemperature temperatureand and the rate of subjective time, revisited. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, the rate of subjective time, revisited. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48B: 480: 129-41. 12(1—41. Whitney, Mifflin. Houghton MifThn. MA: Houghton (1998). The The Psychology Psychology of of language. Language. Roston. Boston, MA: Whitney, Paul. Paul. (1998). Wierzbicka, Renjamins. of Grammar. Grammar. Amsterdam: Amsterdam: John John Benjamins. (*988). The The Semantics of Wicrzbicka, Anna. Anna. (1988). Press. Oxford University University Press. Primesand andUniversals. (muiversals.Oxford: Oxford: Oxford — ——(1996). (*996). Semantics: Semantics: Primes ► no ► Psych a,igl ic Bulletin Bullersis and Wilson, Margaret. (low). Six views of embodied cognition. cognition.Psychono,nsc Plargaret. (iooz). Review, (4): 625-36. Review,99(4): Yu, The Contemporary ContemporaryTheory IIseorvofofMetaphor: Metaphor:AAPerspective Perspecuwfrom fromChinese. Chinese. Yu, Ning. Ning. (1998). (1998). The Amsterdam: John Iknjamins. \msierdam: John Renjamins. I tan (:urrentDirections and Block, (.997). Temporal l)srettso,:sinus Zakay, Tenipotal cognition. Current Richard A. (1997). Zakay. I)an and Block, Richard

Psychological 6: 12-16. Psychological Science, Science, 6:12—16.

371

371

Zeki Scientific American, 267 (3): (3): Loki Sesnir Semir 11992). flu' image in inmind mind.intI andbrain. brain.Scientific The visual ‘11.tial image 68-76. 68-76. Ihe functional and and Shipp, Shipp, Stewart. (1988). (1988). The functional logic logic of of cortical cortical connections. connections. \ature. Nature, 335: 335: 311—17. 311-17.

Ziemke, Proceedings of of the the25th, 25th Ziemke, Tom. Tom. (iooj). (2oo3).What's What'sthat thatthing thingcalled calledembodiment? embodiment?InInProceedings NJ: Lawrence lawrence C.'t71:tzW Science Annual the Cognitive 1134-9. Mahwah, Mahwah, NJ: Annual Meeting off the Science.Society, Society,1134—9. IErlbaum. ribaum. andP. P.Chilton (;hilton Zinken, In V. Zinken, Jorg. Jorg. (forthcoming). (forthcoming). Temporal Temporalframes frames of of reference. reference. In V. Evans Evans and

'ognstiorsarid and Space: Space:The TheState Stateofofthe the Art l)irettions. Art and New New Directions. (eds), Language. (Cognition (eds), languags'. Equinox Publishing. Publishing. London: London: Equinox theEmergence lnst'rgenteof if Spatial Studies ininthe en:bod:me"st: Studies Zlatev, Jordan. (*997). (1997). Situated Situated embodiment: Zlatev, Jordan. Spatial Meaning. Meaning. Stockholm: Stockholm: (,otah. Gout). Taylor (2u03). Polysemyor or generality? generality? Mu. Mu. In In II. uyckcns, R. K. Dirven, I)irven, and (2oo3). Polysemy H.C Cuyckens, and J. I. Taylor Gruyter. Berlin: MOUIOfl deGruyter. Lexical Semantics, (eds), Cognitiw Approaches 447-94. Berlin: Mouton de Approaches totoLexical Semantics, (eds), Cognitive lmbodied cognition, cognition, perceptual perceptual symbols, symbols,and andsituation situation A. (1999). Embodied Roif A. Zwaan, iwaan, Rolf models. l)iscourseProcesses, 28: 28: Si-S. 81-8. models. Discourse language The immersed expericncer: toward an an embodied embodiedtheory theoryof oflanguage (2004). The immersed experiencer: toward ofLearning learning and Motivation, comprehension. In B. (ed.) The Psychology of The Psychology comprehension. In B. H. H. Ross Ross (ed.) NY: Academic York, NY: Academic I'ress. Press. 35-62). New York, (ioo8). Language in the the brain, brain, body body and and world. world. In In and Kaschak, and Kaschak, Michael P. P. (2oo8). Language in .Ssrua:eti Cognition. of Situated Cognition, (eds), The P. The Cambridge Cambridge Handbook Handbook of P. Robbins Robbins and and M. M. Aydede Aydede (eds), -$1.Cambridge: Cambridge:Cambridge CambridgeUniversity University Press. .08-81. Updatingsituation situationmodels. modek. Jounsa!ofExmrntal andMadden, Madden, Carol. Carol. (2004). Updating Journal of Experimental and .th3—8. Psychology: Learning,Memory, Meniny,and andCognition, ('ogni:ion.Jo: 283-8 Psychology: Learning, . and memory and Radvansky, (abriel A. (*998). Situation models memory. and Radvansky, Gabriel A. (1998). Situation models in in language language and

Bulletin, 1123: 162—85. 162-85. Psychological Bulletin,