Towards a Typology of Lexical Semantic Derivation Models: Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects

Keywords: semantic derivation, model, experiential, situation concept, contrastive.

Abstract

Objective. The paper focuses on lexical semantic derivation models and the ways they are explicated in experiential vocabulary. The study substantiates linguistic and psycholinguistic features of the models in the contrastive aspect (based on the Ukrainian and Polish languages).

Materials and Methods. The material for the analysis is the Ukrainian and Polish adjectives-stimuli that represent the concepts of experiential situation. The psycholinguistic validity of the models is verified based on the results of associative experiments. The results are supposed to help establish types of associations that underlie the experiential vocabulary extensions.

Results. The study appeals to the conceptions that uphold the idea of a dynamic conceptualization of the world of discourse (of a certain situation or its fragment). On that ground, the lexical semantic derivation models are considered as theoretical constructs that represent information on derivational strategies in Ukrainian and Polish. Such an approach has allowed not only to reveal cognitive mechanisms that underlie lexical (experiential) items’ semantic extensions but also to systematize the semantic shifts that occur in the contrasted languages. The extensions are considered within four lexical semantic derivation models: componential (the level of semantic components and their configurations), actantial (the level of predicate-actant structures), topological (the level of image-schema transformations) and constructional (the level of lexical constructions).

Conclusions. The results show the relevance of both linguistic and psycholinguistic modelling in analysis of lexical semantic derivation. The choice of a semantic derivation strategy correlates with an informant’s response to a word-stimulus. The similarities and differences in semantic shifts are determined by constraints that set limits on the target situation extensions.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Boleda, G., Schulte, S., & Badia, T. (2012). Modeling regular polysemy: A study on the semantic classification of Catalan adjectives. Computational Linguistics, 38, 3, 575–616. https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00093

Correa-Beningfield, M., Kristiansen, G., Navarro-Ferrando, I., & Vandeloise, C. (2005). Image schemas vs. “Complex Primitives” in cross-cultural spatial cognition. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 343–368). Berlin; N. Y.: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532.4.343

Dik, S. (1992). Functional grammar in Prolog. An integrated implementation for English, French, and Dutch. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110850451

Eckardt, R. (2011). Grammaticalization and semantic change. In H. Narrog, & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 389–400). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0031

Vanhove, M. (Ed.). (2008). From polysemy to semantic change. Towards a typology of lexical semantic association. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publ. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.106

Gatkowska, I. (2017). Eksperymentalna sieć leksykalna języka polskiego. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego [in Poland].

Goldberg, A.E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Iriskhanova, O.K. (2014). Igry fokusa v yazyke. Semantika, sintaksis i pragmatika defokusirovaniya [Games of focus in the language. Semantics, syntax and pragmatics of defocusing]. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoy kultury [in Russian].

Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001

Kibrik, A.E. (1992). Ocherki po obshchim i prikladnym voprosam iazykoznaniia (universalnoe, tipovoe i spetcificheskoe v iazyke) [Sketches on general and applied issues of linguistics (universal, typical and specific in language)]. Moscow: MGU [in Russian].

Klepousniotou, E., Titone, D., & Romero, C. (2008). Making sense of word senses: The comprehension of polysemy depends on sense overlap. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 6, 1534–1543. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013012

Koch, P. (1999). Frame and contiguity: On the cognitive bases of metonymy and certain types of word formation. In K-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 139–167). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publ. dx. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.09koc

Kustova, G.I. (2004). Tipy proizvodnykh znacheniy i mekhanizmy yazykovogo rasshireniya [Types of derived values and mechanisms of language extension]. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoy kultury [in Russian].

Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Levin, B. (2015). Semantics and pragmatics of argument alternations. Annual Review of Linguistics, 1, 63–83. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125141

Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165570

Narrog, H. (2012). Modality, subjectivity, and semantic change. A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199694372.001.0001

Paducheva, E.V. (2004). Dinamicheskie modeli v semantike leksyki [Dynamic models in the semantics of vocabulary]. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoy kultury [in Russian].

Radden, G., & Kӧvecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–60). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publ. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.03rad

Rakhilina, E.V. (2002). Osnovnye idei kognitivnoy semantyki [The main ideas of cognitive semantics]. In A.A. Kibrik, I.M. Kobozeva & I.A. Sekerina (Eds.), Sovremennaya amerikanskaya lingvistika: Fundamentalnye napravleniya. (pp. 370–389). Moscow: Editorial URSS [in Russian].

Juvonen, P., & Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (Tds.). (2016). The lexical typology of semantic shifts. Berlin, Boston: Walter de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110377675

Traugott, E.C. (2011). Grammaticalization and mechanisms of change. In H. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization (pp. 19–30). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0002

Traugott, E.C., & Dasher, R.B. (2005). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ullmann, S. (1963). Semantic universals. Universal of language. In J.H. Greenberg (Ed.), Report of a conference held at Dobbs Ferry, New York (April 13–15, 1961), (pp. 172–207). Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press.

Vandeloise, C. (1987). Complex primitives in language acquisition. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 2(1), 11–36. https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.2.02van

Wierzbicka, A. (1992). Semantics, culture, and cognition: Universal human concepts in culture-specific configurations. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Zaliznyak, Anna A. (2013). Russkaya semantika v tipologicheskoy perspektive [Russian semantics in typological perspective]. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoy kultury [in Russian].


Abstract views: 542
PDF Downloads: 459
Published
2020-11-08
How to Cite
Demenchuk, O. (2020). Towards a Typology of Lexical Semantic Derivation Models: Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects. PSYCHOLINGUISTICS, 28(2), 8-23. https://doi.org/10.31470/2309-1797-2020-28-2-8-23