The many pitfalls of polysemy - UMCSphavi.umcs.pl/at/attachments/2015/0424/074126-yls... ·...

The many pitfalls of polysemy:gaps and bridges between

the different methodologies in CognitiveLinguisticsDaria Bębeniec

Department of Cognitive Linguistics

Maria Curie-Skłodowska University, Lublin

Young Linguists' Seminar, 16 April 2015 1

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)


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

• encyclopedic semantics

• prototype categorization: radial network representations

• The Above-Across sense(1) as the central sense of over:

The plane flew over.


1

3.RO

3

3.MX.RO

3.MX3.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

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

Problems:

• prototypicality of sense

• distinctness and interconnectedness of senses

• subjectivity (“whosemind…?”)

• mental representation

• Sandra and Rice (1995)

• Tyler and Evans (2003)


1

3.RO

3

3.MX.RO

3.MX3.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

Cognitive linguistic theory (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)


FORM (or phenomenon) UNDERINVESTIGATION

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)

Cognitive linguistic theory (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)


The semantic network of the od-do cx

Bębeniec (2010: 222)

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)



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,

organizations/institutions,

locations, quantities, events,

processes

collocates

senses

Hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis

run (v) / Glynn (2014a) 500 / the BNC, the ANC and the LiveJournalCorpus

The same as in Gries(2006)PLUSdialect: BrE, AmEregister: conversation, blog

Hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysisChi-squared tests Binary correspondence analysisMultiple correspondence analysisLogistic regression


Bębeniec and Cudna (In prep.)

Back to the two central issues

• prototypicality of sense >> relative frequency of occurrence (Gries2006: 76, Glynn 2014a: 121-122), unmarkedness (Gries 2006: 76, Glynn 2014a: 135), conceptual/perceptual salience (Glynn 2014a: 121-122)

• distinctness and interconnectedness of senses >> distributionalsimilarities (Gries 2006: 78-81), not without problems, however: 1) distance matrices 2) type-token ratio 3) discrete senses rather thanclusters of usage-features (Glynn 2014a: passim)

• New method, old problems?


“Gaps” and “bridges”

• methods

• theoretical commitment

• theoretical commitment

• research goals

• problems

• hypothesis testing (Glynn 2014b, 2014c)



FORM / AUTHOR NUMBER OF OCCURRENCES / CORPUS

FACTORS (ID-TAGS) STATISTICAL TECHNIQUES

over (prep) / Glynn(2014c)

800 TR dimensionality, kinaesthesia, animacy, tactility, plexityTR LM orientationPath type, boundednessLM expression, type, dimensionality

Multiple correspondence analysisFactor analysis MCA again, all factors with senses Hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysisLoglinear analysisMultinomial logistic regression

A note on application

• lexicography

• L2 acquisition

• word sense disambiguation


THANK [email protected]


mailto:[email protected]

References (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 KaufmannPublishers.

• Dewell, R. B., 1994. “Over again: Image-schema transformations in semantic analyses,” CognitiveLinguistics 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 polysemyand synonymy, 117-144. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.


References (2)

• Glynn, D., 2014b. “Polysemy and synonymy: Cognitive theory and corpus method,” in D. Glynnand J. A. Robinson (eds.) Corpus Methods for Semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy andsynonymy, 7-38. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

• Glynn, D., 2014c. “Modelling meaning: A quantified and usage-based approach to the polysemy ofOver.” 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-basedApproaches to Syntax and Lexis, 57-99. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.


References (3)

• Hopper, P., 1987. “Emergent grammar,” Berkeley Linguistics Society 13: 139-157.

• Koskela, A., 2005. “On the distinction between metonymy and vertical polysemy in encyclopaedicsemantics.” 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 CognitiveLinguistics, 127-161. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Current Issues in LinguisticsTheory 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 –ernominals,” in R. Dirven and R. Pörings (eds.) Metaphor and metonymy in comparison andcontrast, 279-319. Berlin and NY: Mouton de Gruyter.


http://www.sussex.ac.uk/linguistics/documents/ak_metonymy.pdf

References (4)

• Rosch, E., 1975. “Cognitive representations of semantic categories,” Journal of ExperimentalPsychology 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: ClarendonPress.

• 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, EmbodiedMeaning and Cognition. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

• Wierzbicka, A., 1991. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin andNew York: Mouton de Gruyter.


The many pitfalls of polysemy - UMCSphavi.umcs.pl/at/attachments/2015/0424/074126-yls... ·...

Documents

Transcript of The many pitfalls of polysemy - UMCSphavi.umcs.pl/at/attachments/2015/0424/074126-yls... ·...