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

Authors

  • Oleh Demenchuk Rivne State University for the Humanities, Ukraine

DOI:

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

Keywords:

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

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.  

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Oleh Demenchuk, Rivne State University for the Humanities

Department of Germanic and Romance Philology,

Doctor of Philological Sciences.

Head of Department of Germanic and Romance Philology 

References

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Dik, S. (1997). The theory of functional grammar. The structure of the clause. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  8. Mel’čuk, I. (2015). Semantics. From meaning to text. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publ.
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Multidimensional models of perception and cognition (1992). New York & London: Taylor & Frencis Group & Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315807607
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. Taylor, J.R. (1995). Linguistic categorization. Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  21. 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.
  22. 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
  23. 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.
  24. 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
  25. Bragina, N.G. (2007). Pamjat' v jazyke i kul'ture [Memory in language and culture]. Moscow, Russia: Jazyki slavjanskih kul'tur.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. Zaliznjak, Anna A. (2006). Mnogoznachnost' v jazyke i sposoby ee predstavlenija [Polysemy in language and its representation]. Moscow, Russia: Jazyki slavjanskih kul'tur.

Downloads

Published

2017-12-27

How to Cite

Demenchuk, O. (2017). TOWARDS A TYPOLOGY OF SEMANTIC DERIVATION MODELS. A CASE OF MENTAL ENGROSSMENT VOCABULARY. Advanced Education, 4(8), 138–143. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.112202

Issue

2017: Issue 8

Section

Linguistics

License

Copyright (c) 2017 Oleh Volodymyrovych Demenchuk

Creative Commons License

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

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

    1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

    1. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  1. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).