How Conceptual Are Semantic Maps?

Abstract

The question addressed in this paper is whether (and to what extent) a semantic map aimed at representing the multifunctionality of a given construction (or set of constructions) in discourse can be thought of as endowed with conceptual reality. To be considered as a mental representation that is essentially similar in all human brains, such a map should meet two requirements: (i) its nodes should be bundles of semantic and pragmatic properties that form conceptual archetypes, that is, ways of conceptualizing and categorizing dynamic or static configurations that are fundamental to human experience; (ii) there should be a high degree of regularity in the data material, i.e. each construction should be associated with a node or a contiguous set of nodes in a regular way. However, observing the use of grammatical constructions in discourse provides us with compelling evidence that discourse contexts are complex entities involving many different variables, and that "a perfect fit is not the usual state of affairs for models of complex human behavior (including language)" (Croft and Poole 2008:6). Based on a previous analysis of various passive and impersonal constructions in a parallel corpus of five European languages, I will argue that a first-generation semantic map representing the distribution of these constructions in discourse and comprising a few conceptual archetypes may be only an idealized abstraction over the conflicting evidence of the association between discourse contexts and construction types. As an idealization, such a map is not particularly informative as to language-specific tendencies and idiosyncrasies and does not allow us to analyze all the datasets that we might be interested in analyzing. On the other hand, a second-generation semantic map proves to be a more reliable tool for representing variation in discourse and does not force the analyst to posit (and multiply) conceptual structures where there may be none.

The Semantic Map of "Aktionart" and Lexical Entailment of Old English Strong Verbs

“…Although hybrid approaches occur, there are two fundamental classes of semantic maps (Levshina 2015). Firstly, a 'classical map' (van der Auwera 2013), 'first generation map' (Sansò 2009), or 'connectivity map' (van der Auwera 2013) is a semantic map that consists of a network of nodes connected between links. These nodes denote the functions and serve as points of cross-linguistic comparison among words, constructions or grammatical categories.…”

The semantic map model: State of the art and future avenues for linguistic research

“…The semantic maps discussed in Sections 2 and 3 are classical semantic maps (also known as “traditional” in Malchukov, ; “first generation” in Sansò, ; “implicational” in Wälchli, ; or “connectivity maps” in van der Auwera, ). They usually take the form of two‐dimensional graphs, with nodes (technically called “vertices”) connected by lines (technically called “edges”).…”

“…236, 241), the general idea behind the mathematical analysis is that the distance between two meanings in a two‐dimensional Euclidian plane is iconic to the chance of co‐occurrence of these meanings within a single linguistic expression (Schiffman, Reynolds, & Young, ; Groenen & van de Velden, , p. 1280; Croft & Poole, ). Maps of this type are called, “similarity” (Malchukov, , p. 176), “second generation” (Sansò, ), “statistical” (Wälchli, ), “probabilistic” (Wälchli & Cysouw, ), or “proximity” maps (van der Auwera, ).…”

From vectors to waves and streams: An alternative approach to semantic maps

“…A weakness of S-maps is, in principle, their exclusive synchronic dimension and thus possible disconnection 4 To a certain degree, S-maps approximate the following types of maps previously distinguished by scholars: (a) maps designed by means of the space-driven or meaning-driven approach (cf. Zwarts (2010); (b) so-called 'second generation maps', as proposed by Sansò (2010); and (c) radial (mental) maps and semantic spaces (cf. Brugman and Lakoff 2006;Evans and Green 2006;Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk 2007;Geeraerts 2010).…”

“…10 This class of maps is generally equivalent to maps plotted by means of the matrix-driven approach (Zwart 2010). To a certain extent, it corresponds to maps that Sansò (2010) refers to as 'first generation maps'. In all such maps, the traditional distinction between synchrony and diachrony is blurred, as synchrony is also dynamic.…”