Chapter 7
Conceptual vs. inter-lexical polysemy
An LCCM theory approach
In this chapter I consider two types of polysemy that have not received wide attention in the cognitive linguistics literature. First, I argue that polysemy can arise from the non-linguistic knowledge to which words facilitate access. This phenomenon I refer to as conceptual polysemy. I illustrate this with an analysis of the lexical item book. Moreover, polysemy also arises from different word forms, which, at least on first blush, appear to share a common semantic representation. This phenomenon I refer to as inter-lexical polysemy. I illustrate with a detailed case study involving an analysis of the prepositional forms in and on. I draw on the Theory of Lexical Concepts and Cognitive Models to account for these phenomena.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Parametric vs. analogue concepts
- 3.Towards an account of meaning construction
- 3.1LCCM Theory
- 3.2The cognitive model profile
- 4.Conceptual polysemy
- 5.Inter-lexical polysemy
- 5.1‘State’ lexical concepts for in
-
[enclosure] and its parameters
- ‘state’ lexical concepts for in
-
derivation of the ‘state’ lexical concepts
- 5.2Lexical concepts for on
-
the [active state] lexical concept
- 5.3Discussion
- 6.Conclusion
-
Acknowledgements
-
Notes
-
References
References
Barsalou, L.
(
1999)
Perceptual symbol systems.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barsalou, L.
(
2008)
Grounded cognition.
Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bergen, B. K.
(
2012)
Louder than words. New York: Basic Books.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cruse, D. A.
(
1986)
Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Evans, V.
(
2006)
Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction.
Cognitive Linguistics, 17(4), 491–534.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Evans, V.
(
2009)
How words mean: Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Evans, V.
(
2010)
From the spatial to the non-spatial: The ‘state’ lexical concepts of in, on and at
. In
V. Evans &
P. Chilton (Eds.),
Language, cognition & space (pp. 215–248). London: Equinox.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Evans, V.
(
2013)
Language and time: A cognitive linguistics approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Evans, V.
(
2014)
The language myth: Why language is not an instinct. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Evans, V.
(
2015a)
A unified account of polysemy in LCCM Theory.
Lingua, 157, 100–123.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Evans, V.
(
2015b)
What’s in a concept? Analogue versus parametric concepts in LCCM Theory. In
E. Margolis &
S. Laurence (Eds.),
Concepts: New directions (pp. 251–290). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Evans, V.
(
2015c)
The crucible of language: How language and mind create meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Evans, V.
(
2016)
Design features for linguistically-mediated meaning construction: The relative roles of the linguistic and conceptual systems in subserving the ideational function of language.
Frontiers in Psychology 19th February,
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Evans, V. & Green, M.
(
2006)
Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fischer, M. H., & Zwaan, R. A.
(
2008)
Grounding cognition in perception and action.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(6), 825–850.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gallese, V. & Lakoff, G.
(
2005)
The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in reason and language.
Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, 455–479.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Glenberg, A. M.
(
1997)
What memory is for.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 1–55.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Glenberg, A. & Robertson, D. A.
(
1999)
Indexical understanding of instructions.
Discourse Processes, 28(1), 1–26.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hurford, J.
(
2007)
The origins of meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W.
(
1987)
Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA.: Stanford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W.
(
2008)
Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Levinson, S. C. & Gray, R. D.
(
2012)
Tools from evolutionary biology shed new light on the diversification of languages.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(3), 167–173
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pustejovsky, J.
(
1995)
The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruhl, C.
(
1989)
On monosemy: A study in linguistic semantics. New York: State University of New York Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Talmy, L.
(
2000)
Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Taylor, L. J. & Zwaan, R. A.
(
2008)
Motor resonance and linguistic focus.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 896–904.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Taylor, L. J. & Zwaan, R. A.
(
2009)
Action in cognition: The case of language.
Language and Cognition, 1(1), 45–58.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tyler, A. & Evans, V.
(
2001)
Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks.
Language, 77(4), 724–765.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tyler, A. & Evans, V.
(
2003)
The semantics of english prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied experience and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zwaan, R. A.
(
2004)
The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. In
B. H. Ross (Ed.),
The psychology of learning and motivation, (pp. 35–62). New York: Academic Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by
Cited by 2 other publications
Longhi, Julien
2020.
Proposals for a Discourse Analysis Practice Integrated into Digital Humanities: Theoretical Issues, Practical Applications, and Methodological Consequences.
Languages 5:1
► pp. 5 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Romain, Laurence
2022.
Putting the argument back into argument structure constructions.
Cognitive Linguistics 33:1
► pp. 35 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.