PERSPECTIVIZATION AND CONTEXTUALIZATION IN SEMANTIC ANALYSIS: A PARSIMONIOUS
POLYSEMY APPROACH TO IN
cytuj
pobierz pliki
RIS BIB ENDNOTEWybierz format
RIS BIB ENDNOTE
PERSPECTIVIZATION AND CONTEXTUALIZATION IN SEMANTIC ANALYSIS: A PARSIMONIOUS
POLYSEMY APPROACH TO IN
Data publikacji: 30.10.2017
Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, 2017, Volume 134, Issue 3, s. 247 - 264
https://doi.org/10.4467/20834624SL.17.017.7091Autorzy
PERSPECTIVIZATION AND CONTEXTUALIZATION IN SEMANTIC ANALYSIS: A PARSIMONIOUS
POLYSEMY APPROACH TO IN
This paper presents a highly contextualizing approach to the meaning pattern of in. It introduces perspectivization (or vantage point taking) as an important cognitive pragmatic mechanism that accounts for meaning variation of prepositions. In addition, contextualization is included as an important part of the methodology for sense decision. It is hoped that the proposed model can shed light on the connection between cognitive semantics and the cognitive pragmatic principle of relevance.
Carston R. 2002. Linguistics meaning, communicated meaning and cognitive pragmatics. – Mind and Language 17: 127–48.
Croft W., Cruse A. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge, New York.
Cruse A. 1986. Lexical semantics. Cambridge, New York.
Dirven R. 1993. Dividing up physical and mental space into conceptual categories by means of English prepositions. – Zelinsky-Wibbelt C. (ed.). The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language. Berlin: 73–97.
Evans V., Tyler A. 2004. Spatial experience, lexical structure and motivation: The case of in. – Radden G., Panther K. (eds.). Studies in linguistic motivation. Berlin: 157–192.
Fauconnier G., Turner M. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York.
Grady J. 1997. Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. [Ph.D. Diss., Linguistics Department, UC California].
Grice P. 1978. Further notes on logic and conversation. – Cole P., Morgan J. (eds.). Syntax and semantics. [vol. 9: Pragmatics]. New York: 113–128.
Hawkins B. 1988. The category MEDIUM. – Rudzka-Ostyn B. (ed.). Topics in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: 231–270.
Herskovits A. 1986. Language and spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge.
Herskovits A. 1988. Spatial expressions and the plasticity of meaning. – Rudzka-Ostyn B. (ed.). Topics in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: 271–298.
Hottenroth P.-M. 1993. Prepositions and object concepts: A contribution to cognitive semantics. – Zelinsky-Wibbelt C. (ed.). The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language. Berlin: 179–219.
Johnson M. 1987. The body in the mind. Chicago.
Lakoff G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago.
Lakoff G., Johnson M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago.
Lakoff G., Johnson M. 1999. Philosphy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York.
Langacker R. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. [vol. 1]. Stanford.
Langacker R. 1991. Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin.
Lindstromberg S. 1997. English prepositions explained. Amsterdam.
Lu W. 2008. From textual prompts to cognitive models: A context-oriented perspective on metaphor interpretation in Taiwanese presidential speeches. – Language and Linguistics 9.2: 341–358.
Lu W. 2016. Polysemy and the semantic-pragmatic interface: The case of up in a context-based model. – Intercultural Pragmatics 13.4: 563–589.
Miller G., Johnson-Laird Ph. 1976. Language and perception. Cambridge.
Pustejovsky J. 1991. The generative lexicon. – Computational Linguistics 17.4: 409–441.
Reddy M. 1979. The conduit metaphor. – Ortony A. (ed.). Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: 284–310.
Rudzka-Ostyn B. 2003. Word power: Phrasal verbs and compounds. New York.
Ruhl Ch. 1989. On monosemy: A study in linguistic semantics. Albany.
Sandra D. 1998. What linguists can and can’t tell about the mind: A reply to Croft. – Cognitive Linguistics 9.4: 361–378.
Sperber D., Wilson D. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford.
Sperber D., Wilson D. 2002. Pragmatics, modularity and mindreading. – Mind & Language 17: 3–23.
Taylor J. 2003. Polysemy’s paradoxes. – Language Sciences 25: 637–655.
Tyler A., Evans V. 2003. The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge, New York.
Vandeloise C. 1991. Spatial prepositions: A case study in French. Chicago.
Vandeloise C. 1994. Methodology and analyses of the preposition in. – Cognitive Linguistics 5.2: 157–184.
Wilson D. 2003. Relevance theory and lexical pragmatics. – Italian Journal of Linguistics / Rivista di Linguistica 15.2: 273–291.
Informacje: Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, 2017, Volume 134, Issue 3, s. 247 - 264
Typ artykułu: Oryginalny artykuł naukowy
Tytuły:
PERSPECTIVIZATION AND CONTEXTUALIZATION IN SEMANTIC ANALYSIS: A PARSIMONIOUS
POLYSEMY APPROACH TO IN
PERSPECTIVIZATION AND CONTEXTUALIZATION IN SEMANTIC ANALYSIS: A PARSIMONIOUS
POLYSEMY APPROACH TO IN
Masaryk University, Žerotínovo nám. 617/9, 601 77 Brno, Czechy
Publikacja: 30.10.2017
Status artykułu: Otwarte
Licencja: CC BY-NC-ND
Udział procentowy autorów:
Korekty artykułu:
-Języki publikacji:
AngielskiLiczba wyświetleń: 1735
Liczba pobrań: 2064