Patterns of semantic variation differ across body parts: evidence from the Japonic languages

Huisman, John L. A.; Hout, R.W.N.M. van; Majid, Asifa

doi:10.1515/cog-2020-0079

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Often body part colexifications are confined to one area of the body and some language families tend to colexify different parts of a particular area of the body. While our approach provides an overview of the different patterns, studies on language subgroups 9 , genealogically related languages 17 , 18 , or individual languages 3 , 19 , 20 offer a detailed comparison of systematic preferences within language families.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Universal and cultural factors shape body part vocabularies

Tjuka,

Forkel,

List

2024

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Every human has a body. Yet, languages differ in how they divide the body into parts to name them. While universal naming strategies exist, there is also variation in the vocabularies of body parts across languages. In this study, we investigate the similarities and differences in naming two separate body parts with one word, i.e., colexifications. We use a computational approach to create networks of body part vocabularies across languages. The analyses focus on body part networks in large language families, on perceptual features that lead to colexifications of body parts, and on a comparison of network structures in different semantic domains. Our results show that adjacent body parts are colexified frequently. However, preferences for perceptual features such as shape and function lead to variations in body part vocabularies. In addition, body part colexification networks are less varied across language families than networks in the semantic domains of emotion and colour. The study presents the first large-scale comparison of body part vocabularies in 1,028 language varieties and provides important insights into the variability of a universal human domain.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Universal and cultural factors shape body part vocabularies

Tjuka,

Forkel,

List

2024

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Often body part colexifications are confined to one area of the body and some language families tend to colexify different parts of a particular area of the body. While our approach provides an overview of the different patterns, studies on language subgroups, 21 genealogically related languages, 23,8 or individual languages 32,27,17 offer a detailed comparison of systematic preferences within language families.…”

Section: N a K H -D A G H E S T A N I A Nmentioning

confidence: 99%

Universal and cultural factors shape body part vocabularies

Tjuka,

Forkel,

List

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Every human has a body. Yet, languages differ in how they divide the body into parts to name them. While universal naming strategies exist, there is also variation in the vocabularies of body parts across languages. In this study, we investigate the similarities and differences in naming two separate body parts with the same word, i.e., colexifications. We use a computational approach to create networks of body part vocabularies across languages. The analyses focus on body part networks in large language families, on perceptual features that lead to colexifications of body parts, and on a comparison of network structures in different semantic domains. Our results show that adjacent body parts are colexified more frequently. However, preferences for perceptual features such as shape and function lead to variations in body part vocabularies. In addition, body part colexification networks are less varied across language families than networks in the semantic domains of emotion and colour. The study presents the first large-scale comparison of body part vocabularies in 1,028 language varieties and provides important insights into the variability of a universal human domain.

show abstract

“…Some languages have no corresponding word for “elbow”; others have no word for “head”; in another, the same word is used for both elbows and knees or ankles and wrists. Even within the same language family body partonym meronymies often feature widespread mismatches between languages (Huisman et al, 2021); and perceived boundaries between body parts can vary widely among speakers of the same language (Devylder et al, 2020; Majid & van Staden, 2015). Such variation has led some to doubt not only the possibility of shared bodily experience across languages but even the shared experiential grounds for cognitive categorization itself (Enfield et al, 2006).…”

Section: Categories and Projectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Embodiment and language

Pelkey

2023

WIRES Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The findings of cognitive linguistics demonstrate the thoroughly embodied grounding of linguistic constructions and linguistic meaning ranging from abstract thought to interactive communication. A historical survey and updated summary of work in this area illustrates the many layers of bodily meaning that we rely on when thinking and communicating as human beings. Key distinctions, definitions, and clarifications, plus an overview of key works on embodied cognition in cognitive linguistics provide necessary context for understanding specific aspects of linguistic embodiment, including schemas and iconicity, mapping and metaphor, categories and projections, embodied grammar and abstract thought, intersubjectivity, and textual meaning. Realigning philosophical presuppositions with the findings of cognitive linguistics has important consequences: Body and mind can be reunited in lived experience. Both imaginative thought and rational thought can be understood as reliant on the same movement and memory structures. Even the most habituated form‐content relationships in language can be understood as growing out of vital networks of real‐world experiential relations, from the personal to the interpersonal. And instead of being understood as the narrow purview of semantics and pragmatics, the study of meaning can be embraced as the purpose and function of linguistics. These consequences have potential for revolutionizing scientific inquiry and theory building across a wide array of disciplines.This article is categorized under: Linguistics > Cognitive Linguistics Psychology > Language Philosophy > Foundations of Cognitive Science

show abstract

Patterns of semantic variation differ across body parts: evidence from the Japonic languages

Cited by 8 publications

References 48 publications

Universal and cultural factors shape body part vocabularies

Universal and cultural factors shape body part vocabularies

Universal and cultural factors shape body part vocabularies

Embodiment and language

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About