The many pit itfalls of poly lysemy: gaps and bri ridges between - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
the many pit itfalls of poly lysemy
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

The many pit itfalls of poly lysemy: gaps and bri ridges between - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Mar 03, 2023 122 likes •373 views

The many pit itfalls of poly lysemy: gaps and bri ridges between the dif ifferent methodologies in in Cognitive Lin inguistics Daria Bbeniec Department of Cognitive Linguistics Maria Curie- Skodowska University, Lublin Young

slide-1
SLIDE 1

The many pit itfalls of poly lysemy:

gaps and bri ridges between the dif ifferent methodologies in in Cognitive Lin inguistics

Daria Bębeniec Department of Cognitive Linguistics Maria Curie-Skłodowska University, Lublin

Young Linguists' Seminar, 16 April 2015 1

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Paper outline & & motivation behind the title

  • 1. Polysemy and introspective studies
  • 2. Theory >> method?
  • 3. Polysemy and usage-based approaches
  • 4. Different method, the same problems?
  • 5. Summary: “gaps” and “bridges”
  • “Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many senses of to

run” Gries (2006)

  • “The many uses of run: Corpus methods and Socio-Cognitive Semantics”

Glynn (2014a)

Young Linguists' Seminar, 16 April 2015 2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Radial network of f over (Brugman and Lakoff 1988: : 493)

  • encyclopedic semantics
  • prototype categorization:

radial network representations

  • The Above-Across sense

(1) as the central sense of

  • ver:

The plane flew over.

Young Linguists' Seminar, 16 April 2015 3

1 3.RO 3 3.MX.RO 3.MX 3.MX.P 3.M.X.P.RO 3.P.E.RO 3.P.E 2 1.X.NC 1.VX.NC 1.V.NC 1.X.C 1.VX.C 1.V.C 1.X.C.E 1.VX.C.E 2.1DTR

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Radial network of f over (Brugman and Lakoff 1988: : 493)

Problems:

  • prototypicality of sense
  • distinctness and

interconnectedness of senses

  • subjectivity (“whose

mind…?”)

  • mental representation
  • Sandra and Rice (1995)
  • Tyler and Evans (2003)

Young Linguists' Seminar, 16 April 2015 4

1 3.RO 3 3.MX.RO 3.MX 3.MX.P 3.M.X.P.RO 3.P.E.RO 3.P.E 2 1.X.NC 1.VX.NC 1.V.NC 1.X.C 1.VX.C 1.V.C 1.X.C.E 1.VX.C.E 2.1DTR

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Cognitive linguistic theory ry (a (and implications for the method)

  • Usage-based model (Langacker 1988)
  • Emergent grammar (Hopper 1987)
  • Meaning is (dynamic, interactive, imagistic) conceptualization

(Langacker 2008)

  • Lexicon-grammar continuum (Langacker 2008)
  • Prototype categorisation (Rosch 1975)
slide-6
SLIDE 6

Cognitive linguistic theory ry (a (and implications for the method)

  • Usage-based model (Langacker 1988)
  • Emergent grammar (Hopper 1987)
  • Meaning is (dynamic, interactive, imagistic) conceptualization

(Langacker 2008)

  • Lexicon-grammar continuum (Langacker 2008)
  • Prototype categorisation (Rosch 1975)
slide-7
SLIDE 7

Cognitive linguistic theory ry (a (and implications for the method)

  • Usage-based model (Langacker 1988)
  • Emergent grammar (Hopper 1987)
  • Meaning is (dynamic, interactive, imagistic) conceptualization

(Langacker 2008)

  • Lexicon-grammar continuum (Langacker 2008)
  • Prototype categorisation (Rosch 1975)
slide-8
SLIDE 8

Young Linguists' Seminar, 16 April 2015 8

FORM (or phenomenon) UNDER INVESTIGATION STUDY the suffix –er Panther and Thornburg (2003) the preposition over Brugman (1981), Lakoff and Brugman (1988), Dewell (1994), Kreitzer (1997), Tyler and Evans (2001, 2003) the diminutive & the past tense Taylor (2003) tautological cxs Wierzbicka (1991) the ditransitive cx Goldberg (1995) vertical polysemy Koskela (2005) SAI cxs Goldberg (2006)

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Cognitive linguistic theory ry (a (and implications for the method)

  • Usage-based model (Langacker 1988)
  • Emergent grammar (Hopper 1987)
  • Meaning is (dynamic, interactive, imagistic) conceptualization

(Langacker 2008)

  • Lexicon-grammar continuum (Langacker 2008)
  • Prototype categorisation (Rosch 1975)
slide-10
SLIDE 10

Young Linguists' Seminar, 16 April 2015 10

The semantic network

  • f the od-do cx

Bębeniec (2010: 222)

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Redefining polysemy: : usage-based approaches

Glynn (2014b):

  • “(vague) polysemy” (p. 18)
  • “semasiological variation” (p. 8)
  • “functional-conceptual variation of any symbolic form” (p. 11)
  • “entrenched functional-conceptual variation of a schematic or non-

schematic form” (p. 14)

Young Linguists' Seminar, 16 April 2015 11

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Young Linguists' Seminar, 16 April 2015 12

FORM / AUTHOR NUMBER OF OCCURRENCES / CORPUS FACTORS (ID-TAGS) STATISTICAL TECHNIQUES run (v) / Gries (2006) 815 / the ICE-GB and the Brown Corpus

morphological: verb tense, aspect and voice syntactic: intransitive, transitive, complex transitive verb form; main clause, subordinate clause semantic: subjects, objects and complements – human, animate, concrete countable, concrete mass, machines, abstract entities,

  • rganizations/institutions,

locations, quantities, events, processes collocates senses

Hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis run (v) / Glynn (2014a) 500 / the BNC, the ANC and the LiveJournal Corpus The same as in Gries (2006) PLUS dialect: BrE, AmE register: conversation, blog Hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis Chi-squared tests Binary correspondence analysis Multiple correspondence analysis Logistic regression

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Young Linguists' Seminar, 16 April 2015 13

Bębeniec and Cudna (In prep.)

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Young Linguists' Seminar, 16 April 2015 14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Back to the two central issues

  • prototypicality of sense >> relative frequency of occurrence (Gries

2006: 76, Glynn 2014a: 121-122), unmarkedness (Gries 2006: 76, Glynn 2014a: 135), conceptual/perceptual salience (Glynn 2014a: 121-122)

  • distinctness and interconnectedness of senses >> distributional

similarities (Gries 2006: 78-81), not without problems, however: 1) distance matrices 2) type-token ratio 3) discrete senses rather than clusters of usage-features (Glynn 2014a: passim)

  • New method, old problems?

Young Linguists' Seminar, 16 April 2015 15

slide-16
SLIDE 16

“Gaps” and “bridges”

  • methods
  • theoretical commitment
  • theoretical commitment
  • research goals
  • problems
  • hypothesis testing (Glynn 2014b,

2014c)

Young Linguists' Seminar, 16 April 2015 16

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Young Linguists' Seminar, 16 April 2015 17

FORM / AUTHOR NUMBER OF OCCURRENCES / CORPUS FACTORS (ID-TAGS) STATISTICAL TECHNIQUES

  • ver (prep) / Glynn

(2014c) 800 TR dimensionality, kinaesthesia, animacy, tactility, plexity TR LM orientation Path type, boundedness LM expression, type, dimensionality Multiple correspondence analysis Factor analysis MCA again, all factors with senses Hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis Loglinear analysis Multinomial logistic regression

slide-18
SLIDE 18

A A note on application

  • lexicography
  • L2 acquisition
  • word sense disambiguation

Young Linguists' Seminar, 16 April 2015 18

slide-19
SLIDE 19

THANK YOU!

daria@hektor.umcs.lublin.pl

Young Linguists' Seminar, 16 April 2015 19

slide-20
SLIDE 20

References (1 (1)

  • Bębeniec, D., 2010. Directional prepositions in Polish and English: towards a cognitive account.

PhD dissertation, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University, Lublin.

  • Bębeniec, D. and M. Cudna, In prep. “Constructional variation from a semasiological perspective:

a corpus-based approach.”

  • Brugman, C., 1981. Story of OVER. MA thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
  • Brugman, C. and G. Lakoff, 1988. “Cognitive Topology and Lexical Networks,” in S. Small, G.

Cottrell and M. Tanenhaus (eds.) Lexical Ambiguity Resolution: Perspective from Psycholinguistics, Neuropsychology and Artificial Intelligence, 477-508. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

  • Dewell, R. B., 1994. “Over again: Image-schema transformations in semantic analyses,” Cognitive

Linguistics 5 (4): 351-380.

  • Glynn, D., 2014a. “The many uses of run: Corpus methods and Socio-Cognitive Semantics,” in D.

Glynn and J. A. Robinson (eds.) Corpus Methods for Semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 117-144. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Young Linguists' Seminar, 16 April 2015 20

slide-21
SLIDE 21

References (2 (2)

  • Glynn, D., 2014b. “Polysemy and synonymy: Cognitive theory and corpus method,” in D. Glynn

and J. A. Robinson (eds.) Corpus Methods for Semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 7-38. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Glynn, D., 2014c. “Modelling meaning: A quantified and usage-based approach to the polysemy of

Over.” Paper presented at the conference Constructions and Cognition, Friedrich-Alexander- Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, 30 Sept-2 Oct 2014.

  • Goldberg, A., 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure.

Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

  • Goldberg, A., 2006. Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

  • Gries, S. Th., 2006. “Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many senses of to run,”

in

  • S. Th. Gries and A. Stefanowitsch (eds.) Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based

Approaches to Syntax and Lexis, 57-99. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Young Linguists' Seminar, 16 April 2015 21

slide-22
SLIDE 22

References (3 (3)

  • Hopper, P., 1987. “Emergent grammar,” Berkeley Linguistics Society 13: 139-157.
  • Koskela, A., 2005. “On the distinction between metonymy and vertical polysemy in encyclopaedic

semantics.” University of Sussex Working Papers in Linguistics and English Language LxWP 19/05. http://www.sussex.ac.uk/linguistics/documents/ak_metonymy.pdf

  • Kreitzer, A., 1997. “Multiple levels of schematization: A study in the conceptualization of space,”

Cognitive Linguistics 8 (4): 291-325.

  • Langacker, R., 1988. “A Usage-Based Model,” in B. Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.) Topics in Cognitive

Linguistics, 127-161. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Current Issues in Linguistics Theory 50.

  • Langacker, R., 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Panther, K.-U. and L. L. Thornburg, 2003. “The roles of metaphor and metonymy in English –er

nominals,” in

  • R. Dirven and R. Pörings (eds.) Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and

contrast, 279-319. Berlin and NY: Mouton de Gruyter.

Young Linguists' Seminar, 16 April 2015 22

slide-23
SLIDE 23

References (4 (4)

  • Rosch, E., 1975. “Cognitive representations of semantic categories,” Journal of Experimental

Psychology 104: 192-233.

  • Sandra, D. and S. Rice, 1995. “Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind

– the linguist’s or the language user’s?,” Cognitive Linguistics 6 (1): 89-130.

  • Taylor, J. R., 2003. Linguistic Categorization. Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon

Press.

  • Tyler, A. and V. Evans, 2001. “Reconsidering Prepositional Polysemy Networks: The Case of Over.”

Language 77(4): 724-765.

  • Tyler, A. and V. Evans, 2003. The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied

Meaning and Cognition. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • Wierzbicka, A., 1991. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin and

New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Young Linguists' Seminar, 16 April 2015 23