Název: Contextualization and blending: a cognitive linguistics approach to the semantics of in
Zdrojový dokument: Theory and Practice in English Studies. 2014, roč. 7, č. 2, s. [97]-114
Rozsah
[97]-114
-
ISSN1805-0859
Trvalý odkaz (handle): https://hdl.handle.net/11222.digilib/134364
Type: Článek
Jazyk
Licence: Neurčená licence
Upozornění: Tyto citace jsou generovány automaticky. Nemusí být zcela správně podle citačních pravidel.
Abstrakt(y)
This paper adopts a cognitive pragmatic and a Conceptual Blending approach to the semantics of in. It is argued that pragmatics, with context defined as a composite of surrounding linguistic items and shared world knowledge, can serve as an information processing system that derives the diverse interpretations of in from its proto-scene. The criterion for sense establishment is based on Grice's Modified Occam's Razor, according to which the meanings in use that can be considered an inferential product of the proto-scene and contextual factors will not be entitled a status of a distinct sense. The analyses have established two senses, 'physical containment' and 'means', and the other overlapping meanings discussed in previous studies are regarded context-sensitive uses by the above criterion. Furthermore, it is argued that this pragmatic model of meaning processing can position itself as cognitive in that it corresponds to Conceptual Blending Theory (Fauconnier and Turner 2002), with the details of the present model matches specifically three elements of emergent structure: composition, completion, and elaboration. The implication of the present study is at least two-fold: A context-based pragmatic approach to polysemy, assuming Modified Occam's Razor as the criterion of sense establishment, is highly parsimonious so can greatly alleviate the problem of sense proliferation. On the other hand, the preposition study can delineate how the context-oriented model of polysemy integrates into Conceptual Blending Theory by carving out the correspondences between details of contextualization and elements of emergent structure, and is hoped to make contribution to cognitive linguistics from a pragmatic point of view.
Note
The completion of this work is partially supported both by the project "Employment of Best Young Scientists for International Cooperation Empowerment" (CZ.1.07/2.3.00/30.0037), co-financed by European Social Fund and the state budget of the Czech Republic.
Reference
[1] Carston, Robyn. 2002. "Linguistics Meaning, Communicated Meaning and Cognitive Pragmatics." Mind and Language 17 (1-2): 127–48.
[2] Chamonikolasová, Jana. 2007. Intonation in English and Czech Dialogues. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.
[3] Coulson, Seana and Todd Oakley. 2005. "Blending and Coded Meaning: Literal and Figurative Meaning in Cognitive Semantics." Journal of Pragmatics 37 (10): 1510–36. | DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.09.010
[4] Croft, William and Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[5] Cruse, Alan. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[6] Drápela, Martin. 2011. Aspects of Functional Sentence Perspective in Contemporary English News and Academic Prose. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.
[7] Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. 2002. The Way we Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind's Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
[8] Firbas, Jan. 1992. Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[9] Grady, Joseph. 1997. Foundations of Meaning: Primary Metaphors and Primary Scenes. Ph.D. dissertation, Linguistics Department, UC California.
[10] Grice, Paul. 1978. "Further Notes on Logic and Conversation." In Syntax and Semantics, vol. 9, pragmatics, edited by P. Cole and J. Morgan, 113–28. New York: Academic Press.
[11] Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in the Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
[12] Kudrnáčová, Naděžda. 2013. Verbal polysemy: The case of 'walk' and 'run'. (Olomouc: Requested Lecture given in Univerzity Palackého).
[13] Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
[14] Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
[15] Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
[16] Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
[17] Langacker, Ronald W. 2002. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar, 2nd ed. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
[18] Lindstromberg, Seth. 1997. English Prepositions Explained. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[19] Lu, Wei-lun. 2011. Conceptual Exploration of Polysemy: A Case Study of [V] – [UP] and [V] – [SHANG]. Unpublished Dissertation. Taipei: National Taiwan University.
[20] Reddy, Michael. 1979. "The conduit metaphor. A case of frame conflict in our language about language." In Metaphor and Thought, edited By A. Ortony, 284–324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[21] Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida. 2003. Word Power: Phrasal Verbs and Compounds. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
[22] Sandra, Dominiek. 1998. What Linguists Can and Can't Tell about the Mind: a Reply to Croft. Cognitive Linguistics 9 (4):361–78.
[23] Sperber, Dan and Deidre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
[24] Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 2002. "Pragmatics, modularity and mindreading." Mind & Language 17 (1-2): 3–23.
[25] Taylor, John. 2003. "Polysemy's paradoxes." Language Sciences 25: 637–55. | DOI 10.1016/S0388-0001(03)00031-7
[26] Tyler, Andrea, and VyVyan Evans. 2003. The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
[27] Vyvyan Evans and Andrea Tyler. 2004. "Spatial experience, lexical structure and motivation: The case of in." In Studies in linguistic motivation, edited by G. Radden and K. Panther, 157–92. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
[2] Chamonikolasová, Jana. 2007. Intonation in English and Czech Dialogues. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.
[3] Coulson, Seana and Todd Oakley. 2005. "Blending and Coded Meaning: Literal and Figurative Meaning in Cognitive Semantics." Journal of Pragmatics 37 (10): 1510–36. | DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.09.010
[4] Croft, William and Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[5] Cruse, Alan. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[6] Drápela, Martin. 2011. Aspects of Functional Sentence Perspective in Contemporary English News and Academic Prose. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.
[7] Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. 2002. The Way we Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind's Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
[8] Firbas, Jan. 1992. Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[9] Grady, Joseph. 1997. Foundations of Meaning: Primary Metaphors and Primary Scenes. Ph.D. dissertation, Linguistics Department, UC California.
[10] Grice, Paul. 1978. "Further Notes on Logic and Conversation." In Syntax and Semantics, vol. 9, pragmatics, edited by P. Cole and J. Morgan, 113–28. New York: Academic Press.
[11] Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in the Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
[12] Kudrnáčová, Naděžda. 2013. Verbal polysemy: The case of 'walk' and 'run'. (Olomouc: Requested Lecture given in Univerzity Palackého).
[13] Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
[14] Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
[15] Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
[16] Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
[17] Langacker, Ronald W. 2002. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar, 2nd ed. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
[18] Lindstromberg, Seth. 1997. English Prepositions Explained. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[19] Lu, Wei-lun. 2011. Conceptual Exploration of Polysemy: A Case Study of [V] – [UP] and [V] – [SHANG]. Unpublished Dissertation. Taipei: National Taiwan University.
[20] Reddy, Michael. 1979. "The conduit metaphor. A case of frame conflict in our language about language." In Metaphor and Thought, edited By A. Ortony, 284–324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[21] Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida. 2003. Word Power: Phrasal Verbs and Compounds. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
[22] Sandra, Dominiek. 1998. What Linguists Can and Can't Tell about the Mind: a Reply to Croft. Cognitive Linguistics 9 (4):361–78.
[23] Sperber, Dan and Deidre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
[24] Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 2002. "Pragmatics, modularity and mindreading." Mind & Language 17 (1-2): 3–23.
[25] Taylor, John. 2003. "Polysemy's paradoxes." Language Sciences 25: 637–55. | DOI 10.1016/S0388-0001(03)00031-7
[26] Tyler, Andrea, and VyVyan Evans. 2003. The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
[27] Vyvyan Evans and Andrea Tyler. 2004. "Spatial experience, lexical structure and motivation: The case of in." In Studies in linguistic motivation, edited by G. Radden and K. Panther, 157–92. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.