Meaning potentials and context: Some consequences for the analysis of variation in meaning

Allwood, Jens

doi:10.1515/9783110219074.29

Cited by 106 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Evans & Green, 2006). As we discussed, there are many problems with sense enumeration, and more recently, scholars working within the cognitive grammar framework have proposed a more moderate approach, taking into account the role played by the context in giving rise to novel senses of a word (Allwood, 2003;Taylor, 2006;Tyler & Evans, 2003). In particular, Tyler and Evans (2003) (Evans, 2009(Evans, , 2013 (3) and (11) The idea is that [BOOK] gives access to at least the two primary cognitive models In the last part of his paper, Evans discusses the notion of a 'meaning spectrum', a novel construct within his theory, which he describes as a bundle of semantic parameters or atoms of meaning, which are conventionally associated with lexical concepts.…”

Section: Sense Network and Lccmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Polysemy: Current perspectives and approaches

Falkum

Vicente

2015

Lingua

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PreliminariesPolysemy is usually characterized as the phenomenon whereby a single word form is associated with two or several related senses, as in (1) below:(1) draw a line; read a line; a line around eyes; a wash on a line; wait in a line; a line of bad decisions, etc.In this, it is contrasted with monosemy, on the one hand, and with homonymy, on the other. While a monosemous form has only one meaning, a homonymous form is associated with two or several unrelated meanings (e.g., coach; 'bus', 'sports instructor'), and is standardly viewed as involving different lexemes (e.g., COACH1, COACH2).Polysemy is pervasive in natural languages, and affects both content and function words. While deciding which sense is intended on a given occasion of use rarely seems to cause any difficulty for speakers of a language, polysemy has proved notoriously difficult to treat both theoretically and empirically. Some of the questions that have occupied linguists, philosophers and psychologists interested in the phenomenon concern the representation of polysemous senses in the mental lexicon, how we should deal with polysemous words in a compositional theory of meaning, how novel senses of a word arise in the course of communication, and how hearers, usually effortlessly, arrive at the contextually appropriate sense on a given occasion of use.The definition and delimitation of the polysemy phenomenon itself also remains a source of theoretical discussion across disciplines: how do we tell polysemy apart from monosemy on the one hand, and from homonymy on the other? At first glance, the contrast with monosemy is clearer: while a monosemous term has only a single meaning, a polysemous term is associated with several senses.However, the literature shows that distinguishing polysemy from monosemy is far from a trivial matter. A famous case in point is the debate between Jackendoff 2 (1992a) and Fodor (1998) Another type of test exploits the impossibility of anaphorically referring to different senses (Cruse, 2004a). For instance, in the sentence ?John read a line from his new poem. It was straight. the pronoun cannot simultaneously refer to a sense of line combinable with the modifier straight (e.g., 'long, narrow mark or band') and the sense of line in the previous sentence ('row of written/printed words'), which suggests that we have to do with a case of lexical ambiguity.However, such tests for identity of meaning do not give clear-cut answers (for a review, see Geeraerts, 1993). In particular, only a slight manipulation of the context can yield a different result, as shown by the following example (Norrick, 1981: 115):(2) a. ? Judy's dissertation is thought provoking though yellowed with age.b. Judy's dissertation is still thought provoking though yellowed with age.While the sentence in (2a) is zeugmatic -apparently due to the use of Judy's dissertation to refer to a type of informational content in the first conjunct and a physical object in the second conjunct -no zeugmatic effect occurs when the sentence is slightly altered ...

show abstract

Section: Sense Network and Lccmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Polysemy: Current perspectives and approaches

Falkum

Vicente

2015

Lingua

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The traditional view of meaning-construction is based on the assumption that words have sense-units, or 'meanings', which are typically conceived as static 'lexical entries' (Allwood 2003;Pustejovsky 1995;Tyler and Evans 2001). Lexical entries are thought of in many formal and computational approaches to linguistic semantics as being tagged with syntactic, morphological and semantic features.…”

Section: The Protean Nature Of Word 'Meaning'mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The second recent model I briefly discuss here is the proposal put forward by Allwood (2003). Allwood provides an account of what he refers to as meaning potential (see also Zlatev's 1997Zlatev's , 2003 related notion of use potential).…”

Section: The Semantic Potential Of Wordsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction

Evans¹

2006

Cognitive Linguistics

221

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper I address the role of words in meaning-construction. My starting point is the observation that the 'meanings' associated with words are protean in nature. That is, the semantic values associated with words are flexible, open-ended and highly dependent on the utterance context in which they are embedded. In attempting to provide an account of meaningconstruction that coheres with this observation I develop a cognitivelyrealistic theory of lexical representation and a programmatic theory of lexical concept integration. My fundamental claim is that there is a basic distinction between lexical concepts, and meaning. While lexical concepts constitute the semantic units conventionally associated with linguistic forms, and form an integral part of a language user's individual mental grammar, meaning is a property of situated usage-events, rather than words. That is, meaning is not a function of language per se, but arises from language use. I present an account of lexical concepts and the conceptual knowledge structures, cognitive models, with respect to which they are relativised. I also situate this theory within a usage-based account. I then develop a theory of lexical concept integration which serves to provide an account of how lexical concepts are combined in service of situated meaning-construction. As the constructs lexical concept and cognitive model are central to the theory of lexical representation and meaningconstruction I present, I refer to the approach developed here as the Theory of Lexical Concepts and Cognitive Models, or LCCM Theory.

show abstract

“…Hutchins 2001, Sinha 1988, meaning is detached from a traditionaily conceived conceptual level and is instead disseminated inside an encyclopaedic knowledge network acrivated by virtue of the specific context in which an element is embedded (cp. Allwood 2003, Evans 2006). This perspective is perfecdy compatible and contiguous with how an encyclopaedic semantics has always been thought inside a structuralist and Peirce-inspired semiotics (cp.…”

Section: From Structuralism To Cognitive Semioticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Logic of Relatives to Cognitive Semiotics: On some unsuspected correspondences between Peirce and Structuralism

Paolucci¹

2008

Cognitive Semiotics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates the actuality of structuralism in its relaüonship with cognitive semanocs. It does so through a trajectory that begins with Peirce's Logic of Relatives, then Tesniere's and Greimas' actantial syntax are considered with respect to dynamic semiotics and Frege's chemistry of concepts, ending in cognitive semiotics. The articie argues for the complete compatibility of Peirce's semiotics with a structuralist epistemology, of which the Logic of Relatives antidpates some fundamental traits. A Peirce-inspired intetpretative semiotics has often been opposed to structural and generative semiotics. This is not necessarily the case. Through passages from Peirce, Tesniere, Greimas and dynamic semiotics works, unsuspected echoes and correspondences are unveiled, but a crucial divergence also comes to light. The different authors share a conception of the sentence as grounded on purely relational positions, called relatives or correlates (Peirce), actants (Tesniere) and proto-actants (Greimas). Peirce considers the primitive relatives as triads (the model of "A gives B to C") from which dyads can be generated. Contrarily, the Greimasian development of structuralism decomposes actantial structures into primitive dyads ("A renounces to B" and "C receives B"), thus breaking the structural balance that constitutes the topological and relational Gestalten on which the Logic of Relatives and actantial syntax are grounded. Indeed, those Gestalten are not reducible to conjunctions and disjunctions of algebraic inspiration, or to a conceptual chemistry inspired by logic (as in Frege): this is the reason why Peirce's and Tesniere's structural theories have prompted a great interest in dynamic semiotics. Moreover, through their semio-linguistic specificity, these models still allow us to investigate the heritage of structuralism, and situate it within a cognitive semiotic perspective.

show abstract

Meaning potentials and context: Some consequences for the analysis of variation in meaning

Cited by 106 publications

References 11 publications

Polysemy: Current perspectives and approaches

Polysemy: Current perspectives and approaches

Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction

From Logic of Relatives to Cognitive Semiotics: On some unsuspected correspondences between Peirce and Structuralism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About