LEXICAL TYPOLOGY LEXICAL TYPOLOGY Peter Koch (Part II) Department - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
lexical typology lexical typology
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

LEXICAL TYPOLOGY LEXICAL TYPOLOGY Peter Koch (Part II) Department - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jan 19, 2023 213 likes •769 views

LEXICAL TYPOLOGY LEXICAL TYPOLOGY Peter Koch (Part II) Department of Romance Studies, Tbingen University peter.koch@uni-tuebingen.de http://homepages.unituebingen.de/peter.koch/index.htm Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 1 6. Lexical

slide-1
SLIDE 1

LEXICAL TYPOLOGY

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 1

LEXICAL TYPOLOGY

Peter Koch (Part II)

Department of Romance Studies, Tübingen University peter.koch@uni-tuebingen.de http://homepages.unituebingen.de/peter.koch/index.htm

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Lexical (C.): of the

  • signi

fied

  • 6. Lexical motivation: basics
  • Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825

2

  • fied
  • Fig. 30
slide-3
SLIDE 3

concept

  • 6. Lexical motivation: basics

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 3

form = signifier

  • Fig. 31
slide-4
SLIDE 4
  • f
  • f

the sign relation the sign relation

  • 6. Lexical motivation: basics
  • f signs
  • f signs

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 4

the sign relation the sign relation

  • f signs
  • f signs
  • Plato, Kratylos
  • Peirce 1902
  • Saussure 1916
  • Benveniste 1966
  • Ullmann 1966
  • Keller 1998
  • Ungerer 2002
  • Radden/Panther 2004
  • Fig. 32
slide-5
SLIDE 5
  • 6.1. Symbol, index, icon
  • Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825

5

  • Fig. 36

(cf. Peirce 1902)

slide-6
SLIDE 6
  • 6.1. Symbol, index, icon

contiguity

  • Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825

6

  • type of motivation
  • Fig. 38
slide-7
SLIDE 7
  • 6.1. Symbol, index, icon

similarity

  • Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825

7

  • type of motivation
  • Fig. 40
slide-8
SLIDE 8

6.2. Onomatopœia – wordformation – polysemy

Types of (relative) lexical motivation

  • onomatopœia

according to Saussure 1916:

  • wordformation

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 8

slide-9
SLIDE 9
  • YOUNG

BULL BULL

6.2. Onomatopœia – wordformation – polysemy

  • Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825

9

  • Sp. torito
  • Sp. toro
  • Fig. 41
slide-10
SLIDE 10
  • 6.2. Onomatopœia – wordformation – polysemy

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 10

  • type of motivation
  • Fig. 42
slide-11
SLIDE 11

6.2. Onomatopœia – wordformation – polysemy

Types of (relative) lexical motivation

  • onomatopœia ( ‘phonetic’ motivation)
  • wordformation (‘morphological’ motivation )

according to Ullmann 1966:

  • metaphor, metonymie (‘semantic’ motivation)

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 11

  • metaphor, metonymie (‘semantic’ motivation)
slide-12
SLIDE 12
  • SOFT

SWEET

6.2. Onomatopœia – wordformation – polysemy

  • (metaphorical)

similarity

type of motivation

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 12

  • It. dolce

motivation

  • Fig. 43
slide-13
SLIDE 13
  • YOUNG

BULL BULL

6.2. Onomatopœia – wordformation – polysemy

  • taxonomic subordination

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 13

  • Sp. torito
  • Sp. toro
  • Fig. 44

suffixation

slide-14
SLIDE 14
  • BULL

FIGHTER BULL

6.2. Onomatopœia – wordformation – polysemy

  • contiguity

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 14

  • Sp. torero
  • Sp. toro
  • Fig. 45

suffixation

slide-15
SLIDE 15
  • TRESTLE IN

THE FORM OF A BULL BULL

6.2. Onomatopœia – wordformation – polysemy

  • metaphorical

similarity

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 15

  • Sp. tora
  • Sp. toro
  • (in a broad sense)
  • Fig. 46

gender alternation

slide-16
SLIDE 16
  • 6.2. Onomatopœia – wordformation – polysemy

cognitive relation

  • Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825

16

  • formal relation
  • (cf. Koch 2001: 11561159; Koch/Marzo 2007: 260265;

also Radden/Panther 2004)

  • Fig. 47
slide-17
SLIDE 17
  • 6.2. Onomatopœia – wordformation – polysemy

cognitive relation

  • Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825

17

  • (cf. Koch 2001: 1158; Koch/Marzo 2007: 265;

also Radden/Panther 2004)

  • Fig. 48
slide-18
SLIDE 18
  • (MOTOR)

CAR IN MOTION

contiguity 7.1. The cognitive and the formal dimension

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 18

  • Arab.

sajjāra Arab. sajjār

  • Fig. 52

wordclass alternation (cf. Koch 2001: 1166f.)

slide-19
SLIDE 19
  • (MOTOR)

CAR VEHI CLE

taxonomic sub/superordination 7.1. The cognitive and the formal dimension

  • Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825

19

  • Fig. 53

(cf. Koch 2001: 1166f.)

  • Hung. kocsi
slide-20
SLIDE 20
  • (MOTOR)

CAR

7.1. The cognitive and the formal dimension

  • Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825

20

  • Swed. bil
  • Fig. 54

(cf. Koch 2001: 1166f.)

slide-21
SLIDE 21
  • set of different

cognitive relations

motivational square

7.1. The cognitive and the formal dimension

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 21

  • (cf. Koch 2001: 11571161; Koch/Marzo 2007: 268271)
  • Fig. 55

set of different formal relations

slide-22
SLIDE 22

con ceptual identi ty conti guity meta phorical similari ty taxon. simi larity taxonomic sub/ superor dination con trast formal identity → polysemy gender

Twodimensional grid

7.1. The cognitive and the formal dimension

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 22

gender alternation wordclass alternation suffixation préfixation composition ...

  • Fig. 56
slide-23
SLIDE 23

con ceptual identi ty conti guity meta phorical similari ty taxon. simi larity taxonomic sub/ superor dination con trast formal identity → polysemy gender

Twodimensional grid

  • Fig. 43

It.. dolce

7.1. The cognitive and the formal dimension

  • Fig. 46
  • Fig. 50
  • It. cuc

chiaio

  • Fig. 53
  • Hung. kocsi

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 23

gender alternation wordclass alternation suffixation préfixation composition ...

  • Fig. 44
  • Sp. torito
  • Fig. 45
  • Sp. torero
  • Fig. 46
  • Sp. tora
  • Fig. 52
  • Arab. sajjarā
  • Fig. 56
slide-24
SLIDE 24

con ceptual identi ty conti guity meta phorical similari ty taxon. simi larity taxonomic sub/ superor dination con trast formal identity → polysemy gender

Twodimensional grid

7.1. The cognitive and the formal dimension

Which of these combinations exist in

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 24

gender alternation wordclass alternation suffixation préfixation composition ...

Which of these combinations exist in human languages, which not? Why? By which formal relations can a given cognitive relation be expressed in different languages? 7.2.

  • Fig. 56
slide-25
SLIDE 25

7.2. From meaning to form (case study V): RENT/LET

(11) E. John rented this house from an agency. (12) E. The agency let this house to John.

Lexical ‘converses’

(cf. Fillmore 1977)

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 25

(same frame very salient contiguity)

  • (cf. also Russian, partly Hungarian)
slide-26
SLIDE 26

7.2. From meaning to form (case study V): RENT/LET

Formal relations for marking ‘converses’ in the domain RENT/LET

Turk. kiralamak polysemy (“auto conversion”)

  • cf. Fr., Sp., It.,

Port., Rom., Mod.Gr. Anc.Gr. misthûsthai – misthûn voice alternation Arab. ’ista’ara (X) – “stem” alternation (cf. Koch: 2001: 1166f.)

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 26

Arab. ’ista’ara (X) – ’aara (II) / ’āara (IV) “stem” alternation Germ. mieten – vermieten prefixation Swahili panga / kodi – pangisha / kodisha suffixation Swed. hyra – hyra ut phrasal verb

  • cf. Amer.E.

Chin. chū – chūzū serial verb Hung. bérbe venni – bérbe adni idiom

slide-27
SLIDE 27

7.2. From meaning to form (case study V): RENT/LET

Formal relations for marking ‘converses’ in the domain RENT/LET

Turk. kiralamak polysemy (“auto conversion”)

  • cf. Fr., Sp., It.,

Port., Rom., Mod.Gr. Anc.Gr. misthûsthai – misthûn voice alternation Arab. ’ista’ara (X) – “stem” alternation

  • widespread motivational solu

tions based on underlying frame

  • functional equivalence of a great

variety of formal devices

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 27

Arab. ’ista’ara (X) – ’aara (II) / ’āara (IV) “stem” alternation Germ. mieten – vermieten prefixation Swahili panga / kodi – pangisha / kodisha suffixation Swed. hyra – hyra ut phrasal verb

  • cf. Amer.E.

Chin. chū – chūzū serial verb Hung. bérbe venni – bérbe adni idiom

  • in part grammatical devices as

suming a lexical function

  • in part typologically typical for

mal devices

  • no clear directionality between

the two concepts

slide-28
SLIDE 28
  • 8. Case study VI: French and Italian vocabulary

Interesting questions concerning lexical motivation:

  • How many words of a given language are motivated?
  • Have different languages / language types different propor

tions of motivated words?

(cf. Ullmann 1966)

  • are the motivated word motivated, i.e. which formal

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 28

  • are the motivated word motivated, i.e. which formal

and cognitive relations are involved in different languages?

Project LexiTypeSyn (Tübingen, 200508),

pilot study on portions of French and Italian vocabulary

http://www.sfb441.unituebingen.de/b6/indexengl.html

slide-29
SLIDE 29
  • 8. Case study VI: French and Italian vocabulary

LexiTypeSyn Startingpoint:

  • onomasiological? e.g. Buck?

not sufficiently finegrained with respect to polysemy necessity of a previous polysemy analysis

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 29

  • frequency of words

correlation between fre quency and morphological complexity/polysemy (→ motivation!) necessity to consider different frequency portions

  • f the vocabulary
slide-30
SLIDE 30
  • 8. Case study VI: French and Italian vocabulary

LexiTypeSyn Threestep procedure:

  • 1. analysis of a (random) choice of high and

lowfrequency words

  • 2. analysis ( part): finding out the motiva

tional “partner” for each stimulus

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 30

tional “partner” for each stimulus

  • 3. analysis ( part): finding out the

cognitive relation for each couple of motivational “partners”

slide-31
SLIDE 31
  • 8. Case study VI: French and Italian vocabulary

LexiTypeSyn

  • 1. analysis of a (random) choice of high and

lowfrequency words:

  • empirical inquiry (internet form), 30 informants per stimulus

→ task for every “sense” → task for every “sense” type of result:

  • Fr. pension

responses

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 31

  • Fr. pension

responses BOARDINGSCHOOL 16 BOARDINGHOUSE 10 OLD AGE PENSION 9 (FINANCIAL) SUPPORT 7 ... ...

→ most salient sense → 2nd most salient sense

  • input
  • 2. analysis ( part)
slide-32
SLIDE 32
  • 8. Case study VI: French and Italian vocabulary

LexiTypeSyn

  • 2. analysis ( part): finding out the motiva

tional “partner” for each stimulus (30 informants per stim.): results for 100 (left) and 100 ! (right) stimuli:

  • "#

$ %#

  • &#
  • '#
  • #

$ #

  • %(#
  • #

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 32

  • )#

$ *#

  • &#

$ '#

http://www.sfb441.unituebingen.de/b6/ergebnisse.html

  • Fig. 58
  • Fig. 57
slide-33
SLIDE 33
  • 8. Case study VI: French and Italian vocabulary

LexiTypeSyn

  • 3. analysis ( part): finding out the

cognitive relation for each couple of motivational “partners”:

  • empirical inquiry (internet form, halfclosed questionary),

30 informants per stimulus with diagnostic templates like:

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 33

– X is a type of Y, becauseQ (taxonomic subordination) – X and Y do not have anything to do with each other, but you can nevertheless see a similarity between them, becauseQ (metaphorical similarity) – X and Y are normally linked in space and/or in time, becauseQ (contiguity) etc.

slide-34
SLIDE 34
  • 8. Case study VI: French and Italian vocabulary

LexiTypeSyn

  • 3. analysis ( part): finding out the

cognitive relation for each couple of motivational “partners”: results for the motivated stimuli (from 2.):

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 34

(• formalcognitive combinations)

  • cognitive relations: →
slide-35
SLIDE 35
  • 8. Case study VI: French and Italian vocabulary

LexiTypeSyn

Cognitive relations for French

taxonomic superordination conceptual identity cotaxonomic similarity

  • pacity

standoff unclear

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 35

http://www.sfb441.unituebingen.de/b6/ergebnisse.html

  • Fig. 59

contiguity taxonomic subordination

slide-36
SLIDE 36
  • 8. Case study VI: French and Italian vocabulary

LexiTypeSyn

Cognitive relations for Italian

conceptual identity cotaxonomic similarity contrast standoff

  • pacity

more than

  • ne implicit

step

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 36

unclear

  • pacity
  • metaphorical

similarity taxonomic subordination

http://www.sfb441.unituebingen.de/b6/ergebnisse.html

  • Fig. 60
slide-37
SLIDE 37
  • +
  • images (e.g. onomatopes)

9.1. Iconicity and diagrammaticity

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 37

  • +
  • images (e.g. onomatopes)
  • Fig. 61

(cf. Peirce 1902)

  • diagrams
  • metaphors
slide-38
SLIDE 38
  • similarity

MORE LESS

(cf. Peirce 1902)

  • 9.1. Iconicity and diagrammaticity

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 38

( * ( * ( * & ( , - ,

  • Fig. 62
slide-39
SLIDE 39
  • similarity
  • 9.1. Iconicity and diagrammaticity

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 39

  • Fig. 63
slide-40
SLIDE 40
  • similarity

9.1. Iconicity and diagrammaticity

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 40

  • ./
  • Fig. 64

type of motivation

slide-41
SLIDE 41
  • similarity

GENER ATION +2

(cf. Jakobson 1965)

  • GENER

ATION +1

9.1. Iconicity and diagrammaticity

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 41

  • E. grand

father

  • E. father

type of motivation

  • Fig. 66
slide-42
SLIDE 42
  • YOUNG

BULL BULL

9.1. Iconicity and diagrammaticity

similarity

  • Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825

42

  • Sp. torito
  • Sp. toro
  • Fig. 67
  • type of motivation
slide-43
SLIDE 43
  • 9.1. Iconicity and diagrammaticity

similarity

  • Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825

43

  • Fig. 68
  • type of motivation
slide-44
SLIDE 44
  • BULL

9.1. Iconicity and diagrammaticity

similarity

  • BULL

FIGHTER

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 44

  • Sp. torero
  • Sp. toro
  • Fig. 69
  • type of motivation
slide-45
SLIDE 45

Germ. Eiche ‘oak’

  • Fr. pommier

‘appletree’

9.2. Case study VII: TREE and FRUIT

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 45

  • Germ. Eichel

‘acorn’

  • Fr. pomme

‘apple’

  • Fig. 71
slide-46
SLIDE 46

A crosslinguistic investigation Concepts: BEECH/BEECHNUT and PEARTREE/PEAR Sample of 27 languages

(Arabic, Basque, Breton, Catalan, Check, Chinese,

9.2. Case study VII: TREE and FRUIT

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 46

(Arabic, Basque, Breton, Catalan, Check, Chinese, Danish, Dutch, English, French, German, Ancient Greek, Modern Greek, Hungrarian, Italian, Japanese, Latin, Norvegian, Persian, Polish, Portugese, Rumania, Russian, Sardinia, Spanish, Swedish, Turkish)

(cf. Koch 1999)

slide-47
SLIDE 47

BEECH/ BEECHNUT PEARTREE/ PEAR

identity (polysemy) — 2 gender — 4

9.2. Case study VII: TREE and FRUIT

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 47

gender alternation — 4

FRUIT ← TREE

20 1

TREE ← FRUIT

— 20 no link 7 —

slide-48
SLIDE 48

BEECH

9.2. Case study VII: TREE and FRUIT

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 48

iconicity: diagrammaticity PEAR

  • Fig. 72
slide-49
SLIDE 49
  • BEECH

NUT BEECH

similarity

  • 9.2. Case study VII: TREE and FRUIT

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 49

  • x + y

x

  • Fig. 73
slide-50
SLIDE 50
  • PEAR

TREE PEAR

similarity

  • 9.2. Case study VII: TREE and FRUIT

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 50

  • x + y

x

  • Fig. 74
slide-51
SLIDE 51

Task for students

Polysemy

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 51

Polysemy

slide-52
SLIDE 52
  • SOFT

SWEET

  • (metaphorical)

similarity

type of motivation

Task for students: polysemy

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 52

  • It. dolce

motivation

  • Fig. 43
slide-53
SLIDE 53
  • SOFT

SWEET

Task for students: polysemy

similarity ?

  • Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825

53

  • It. dolce
  • Fig. 75
slide-54
SLIDE 54

Questions with respect to :

  • 1. Does polysemy (identity of F) represent the

Task for students: polysemy

Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 54

  • 1. Does polysemy (identity of F) represent the

relation between C1 and C2 by similarity?

  • 2. Is polysemy iconic/diagrammatic?