Chapter published in:
Language Learning, Discourse and Cognition: Studies in the tradition of Andrea Tyler
Edited by Lucy Pickering and Vyvyan Evans
[Human Cognitive Processing 64] 2018
► pp. 159–190

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.
Keywords: polysemy, the Theory of Lexical Concepts and Cognitive Models
Published online: 20 December 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.64.08eva
References

References

Barsalou, L.
(1999) Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.Google Scholar
(2008) Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B. K.
(2012) Louder than words. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Cruse, D. A.
(1986) Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, V.
(2006) Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(4), 491–534.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) How words mean: Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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
(2013) Language and time: A cognitive linguistics approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) The language myth: Why language is not an instinct. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015a) A unified account of polysemy in LCCM Theory. Lingua, 157, 100–123.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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
(2015c) The crucible of language: How language and mind create meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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, CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, V. & Green, M.
(2006) Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, M. H., & Zwaan, R. A.
(2008) Grounding cognition in perception and action. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(6), 825–850.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glenberg, A. M.
(1997) What memory is for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 1–55.Google Scholar
Glenberg, A. & Robertson, D. A.
(1999) Indexical understanding of instructions. Discourse Processes, 28(1), 1–26.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herskovits, A.
(1988) Spatial expressions and the plasticity of meaning. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp. 271–297). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hurford, J.
(2007) The origins of meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, J.
(1995) The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ruhl, C.
(1989) On monosemy: A study in linguistic semantics. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L.
(2000) Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, L. J. & Zwaan, R. A.
(2008) Motor resonance and linguistic focus. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 896–904.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Action in cognition: The case of language. Language and Cognition, 1(1), 45–58.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A. & Evans, V.
(2001) Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks. Language, 77(4), 724–765.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) The semantics of english prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied experience and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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