TOWARDS A TYPOLOGY OF SEMANTIC DERIVATION MODELS. A CASE OF MENTAL ENGROSSMENT VOCABULARY

Oleh Demenchuk

Abstract


The paper focuses on the semantic derivation models of mental engrossment vocabulary – a semantic class of words that denote the mental state of a person absorbed (lost, buried, plunged, etc.) in thought, memories, dreams, etc. The study shows the characteristics of the development of a mental engrossment vocabulary semantic paradigm from a cross-linguistic perspective and reveals the semantic derivation models of engrossment adjectives in the English and Polish languages. Semantic derivation modelling provided in the paper proceeds from the assumption that the development of a linguistic item semantic paradigm is realised simultaneously with a situation concept extension. The extension of the concept is supposed to be determined by the changes the participants undergo within the source-to-target-situations transitions (shifts). The participants of the source situation may change their role, referential, communicative, taxonomic or deictic characteristics as compared to those in the target one. The changes determine the types (models) of derivational strategies that underlie the development of a linguistic item’s semantic paradigm. The semantic development construed by the English and Polish engrossment adjectives suggests the regular way of a concept extension – from the internal domain (the situation of mental engrossment) towards the external domains (the situations of identification, association, evaluation, etc.). The study concludes that engrossment adjectives in English and Polish may apply to the actantial (based on the increase of the situation participants), implicative (based on the implications of the situation participants’ changes) and categorical (based on the situation participants’ taxonomic class specifications) models of semantic derivation.  


Keywords


semantic derivation; model; mental engrossment; cross-linguistic; concept of situation; participant

Full Text:

PDF

References


Brychcín, T. & Konopik, M. (2015). Latent semantics in language models. Computer speech and language, 33, 1, 88–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csl.2015.01.004

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

Dik, S. (1997). The theory of functional grammar. The structure of the clause. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

François, A. (2008). Semantic maps and the typology of colexification. Intertwining polysemous networks across languages. In M. Vanhove (Ed.), From polysemy to semantic change. Towards a typology of lexical semantic association (pp. 163–215). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publ. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.106.09fra

Goddard, C. (2008). Natural Semantic Metalanguage. The state of the art. In. C. Goddard (Ed.), Cross-linguistic semantics (pp. 1-34). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publ. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.102.05god

Koch, P. (2008). Cognitive onomasiology and lexical change: Around the eye. In M. Vanhove (Ed.), From polysemy to semantic change. Towards a typology of lexical semantic association (pp. 107–137). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publ.

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mel’čuk, I. (2015). Semantics. From meaning to text. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publ.

Millrood, R. (2014). Cognitive models of grammatical competence of students. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 154, 259–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.147

Mitchell, J. & Lapata, M. (2010). Composition in distributional models of semantics. Cognitive Science, 34, 8, 1388–1429. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01106.x

Mukhtarullina, A., Issakova, S., Kuzdibaeva, A. & Esenova, K. (2015). The cognitive modelling of textual modality. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 214, 970–976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.685

Multidimensional models of perception and cognition (1992). New York & London: Taylor & Frencis Group & Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315807607

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

Panther, K-U & Thornburg, L. (1999). The Potentiality for Actuality Metonymy in English and Hungarian. In M. Dascal, R. Gibbs & J. Nuyts (Eds.). Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 333–357). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publ. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.19pan

Ponterotto, D. (2010). Cross-cultural variation in idiomatic expression: Insights from Conceptual Metaphor Theory and implications for Translation Studies. In M. Choinski, L. Wiraszka & E. Tabakowska (Eds.). Cognitive linguistics in action. From theory to application and back (pp. 343–369). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226096.5.345

Pottier, B. (2008). The typology of semantic affinities. In M. Vanhove (Ed.), From polysemy to semantic change. Towards a typology of lexical semantic association (pp. 93–105). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publ. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.106.06pot

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

Schally, A.C. (2004). Cognitive modeling and verbal semantics: A representational framework based on UML. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110909623

Srinivasan, M. & Rabagliati, H. (2015). How concepts and conventions structure the lexicon: Cross-linguistic evidence from polysemy. Lingua, 157, 124–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.12.004

Taylor, J.R. (1995). Linguistic categorization. Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Therriault, D.J. & Rinck, M. (2007). Multidimentional situation models. In F. Schmalhofer & C.A. Perfetti (Eds.), Higher level language processes in the brain: inference and comprehension processes (pp. 311–328). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Usonienė, A. (2003). Extension of meaning: Verbs of perception in English and Lithuanian. In K.M. Jaszczolt & Ken Turner (Eds.), Meaning through language contrast. (pp. 193–222). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publ. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.99.17uso

Zalizniak, Anna A. (2007). The phenomenon of polysemy and ways to describe it. In M. Rakova, G. Pethő & C Rákosi (Eds.), The cognitive basis of polysemy (pp. 94–121). Frankfurt-am-Main, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford & Wien: Peter Lang.

Zalizniak, Anna A. (2008). A catalogue of semantic shifts. Towards a typology of semantic derivation. In M. Vanhove (Ed.), From polysemy to semantic change. Towards a typology of lexical semantic association (pp. 217–232). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publ. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.106.10zal

Bragina, N.G. (2007). Pamjat' v jazyke i kul'ture [Memory in language and culture]. Moscow, Russia: Jazyki slavjanskih kul'tur.

Irishanova, O.K. (2014). Igry fokusa v jazyke. Semantika, sintaksis i pragmatika defokusirovanija [Focus games in language. Semantics, syntax and pragmatics of defocusing]. Moscow, Russia: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul'tury.

Kustova, G.I. (2004). Tipy proizvodnyh znachenij i mehanizmy jazykovogo rasshirenija [Types of derived meanings and mechanisms of language extensions]. Moscow, Russia: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul'tury.

Rahilina, E.V. (2007). Tipy metaforicheskih upotreblenij glagolov plavanija [Types of metaphorical uses of aqua-motion verbs]. In T.A. Majsak & E.V. Rahilina (Eds.), Glagoly dvizhenija v vode: leksicheskaja tipologija (pp. 76–105). Moscow, Russia: Indrik.

Rozina, R.I. (2005). Semanticheskoe razvitie slova v russkom literaturnom jazyke i sovremennom slenge: glagol [Semantic development of the word in the Russian literary language and modern slang: A verb]. Moscow, Russia: Azbukovnik.

Zaliznjak, Anna A. (2006). Mnogoznachnost' v jazyke i sposoby ee predstavlenija [Polysemy in language and its representation]. Moscow, Russia: Jazyki slavjanskih kul'tur.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.112202

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2017 Oleh Volodymyrovych Demenchuk

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

ISSN 2410-8286 (Online), ISSN 2409-3351 (Print)