Lexical meaning as a testable hypothesis

The case of English look, see, seem and appear

HardboundAvailable
ISBN 9789027200426 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
e-Book
ISBN 9789027264343 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
This book offers an original treatment of the lexical form look. The work is innovative in that it establishes that the Columbia School conception of an invariant meaning – hitherto found primarily in grammar – is equally operative in core vocabulary items like look and see. The upshot is that grammar and lexicon are both amenable to synchronic monosemic analysis. The invariant meaning proposed for look explains the full range of its distribution, without the need to posit as linguistic units ‘look-noun’ and ‘look-verb’, ‘look-visual’ and ‘look-intellectual’, or constructions such as have-a-look, look-like, etc. The analysis places look in opposition with see, seem and appear for which tentative meanings are posited as well. The hypotheses are supported through qualitative analyses of attested examples and quantitative predictions tested in a massive corpus. These predictions offer new knowledge about the distribution of look, see and other forms that may provide useful for other scholars.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
List of tables
List of figures
Chapter 1. The problem, methodology and theoretical background
2–24
Chapter 2. ATTENTION, VISUAL as the explanation for the choice of look
26–46
Chapter 3. Using big data to support the hypothesized meaning ATTENTION, VISUAL
48–76
Chapter 4. ATTENTION, VISUAL in competition with the meanings of see, seem, and appear
78–110
Chapter 5. Competing analyses of the meaning of look
112–124
Chapter 6. Theoretical excursus: A critique of William Diver’s approach to the grammar-lexicon divide and a recapitulation of analytical assumptions and findings
126–137
References
139–141
Acknowledgements
ix
Index
“A model of lexical analysis, demonstrating in a masterful manner that meaning is the central driver of usage, and that specific, explicit, well-articulated hypotheses about what a word means can be justified theoretically and lead to testable quantitative scientific predictions. A linguistic tour de force.”
“This book presents a radical turn in the field of lexical semantics, using qualitative and quantitative research to argue convincingly for a single meaning of the English word look that explains a range of newly discovered distributional generalizations. Within the Columbia School framework, it is a model of rigor, clarity, and responsible engagement with the wider linguistic community.”
References

References

Blevins, J.
(2012) Duality of patterning: absolute universal or statistical tendency? Language and Cognition 4(4), 275–296. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.
(2002) Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In T. Givon & B. Malle (Eds.), The evolution of language out of pre-language (pp.107–132). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4), 711–733. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J, & P. Hopper
(2001) Introduction to frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp.1–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E.
(1976) Universal categories: on the semantics of classifiers and children’s early word meanings. In A. Juilland (Ed.), Linguistic studies offered to Joseph Greenberg (pp.449–462). Saratoga, CA: Anma Libri.Google Scholar
Contini-Morava, Ellen
1995Introduction. Meaning as explanation: Advances in linguistic sign theory, ed. by E. Contini-Morava & B. Sussman Goldberg. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–39.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crupi, C.
(2004) But still a yet: the quest for a constant semantic value for English yet. New Brunswick, NJ: State University of New Jersey dissertation.Google Scholar
Culler, J.
(1976) Ferdinand de Saussure. Fonatan / Collins.Google Scholar
Davies, M.
(2008–) The corpus of contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990–present.
Davis, J.
(2002) Rethinking the place of statistics in Columbia School analysis. In W. Reid, R. Otheguy & N. Stern (Eds.), Signal, meaning, and message: perspectives on sign-based linguistics (pp.65–90). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) Revisiting the gap between meaning and message. In E. Contini-Morava, R. S. Kirsner & B. Rodriguez-Bachiller (Eds.), Cognitive and communicative approaches to linguistic analysis (pp.155–174). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diver, W.
(1969) The system of relevance of the Homeric verb. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 12 , 45–68. Revised and reprinted in A. Huffman & J. Davis. (Eds.), Language: Communication and human behavior: The linguistic essays of William Diver (pp.135–159). Leiden / Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
(1974) Substance and value in linguistic analysis. Semiotext(e) 1 , 11–30. Revised and reprinted A. Huffman & J. Davis. (Eds.), Language: communication and human behavior: The linguistic essays of William Diver (pp.23–45). Leiden / Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
(1995) Theory. In E. Contini Morava & B. Sussman-Goldberg (Eds.), Meaning as explanation: advances in linguistic sign theory (pp.43–114). Revised and reprinted A. Huffman & J. Davis. (Eds.), Language: communication and human behavior: The linguistic essays of William Diver (pp.445–519). Leiden / Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
(2012) The elements of a science of a language. In A. Huffman & J. Davis (Eds.), Language: communication and human behavior: The linguistic essays of William Diver (pp.65–84). Leiden / Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Diver, W., J. Davis & W. Reid
(2012) Traditional grammar and its legacy in twentieth-century linguistics. In A. Huffman & J. Davis (Eds.), Language: communication and human behavior: The linguistic essays of William Diver (pp.371–443). Leiden / Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.
(1995) Constructions – a construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gruber, J.
(1967) Look and see. Language 43(4), 937–947. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L.
(1994) Introduction to government and binding theory. Second edition. Oxford UK and Cambridge USA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hatfield, G.
(1998) Attention in early scientific psychology. In R. Wright (Ed.), Visual attention (pp.3–25). New York / Oxford: Oxford University press.Google Scholar
Huffman, A.
(1989) Teaching the English tenses. In W. Diver (Ed.), Columbia University working papers in linguistics (pp.10.1–1065).Google Scholar
Huffman, Alan
2001The Linguistics of William Diver and the Columbia School. Word 52.29–68.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huffman, A.
(1997)  The categories of grammar: French lui and le . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Diver’s Theory. In J. Davis, R. J. Gorup & N. Stern (Eds.), Advances in functional linguistics: Columbia School beyond its origins (pp.41–62). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Introduction: the enduring legacy of William Diver. In A. Huffman & J. Davis (Eds.), Language: communication and human behavior: The linguistic essays of William Diver (pp.9–20). Leiden / Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Huffman, A. & J. Davis
(Eds.) (2012) Language: Communication and human behavior: The linguistic essays of William Diver. Leiden / Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought, Volume 2 (pp. 202–251). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Landau, B.
and L. Gleitman (1985) Language and experience: evidence from the blind child. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.
(2004) Form, meaning and behavior – the cognitive grammar analysis of double subject constructions. In E. Contini-Morava, R. S. Kirsner & B. Rodriguez-Bachiller (Eds.), Cognitive and communicative approaches to linguistic analysis (pp.21–60). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levin, B.
(1993) English verb classes and alternations: a preliminary investigation. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
OED. Online
(2015) “look, v.”; “look, n.” Oxford University Press. http://​www​.oed​.com​/view​/Entry​/110130​?rskey​=ltooak​&result​=2
Otheguy, R.
(1995) When contact speakers talk, linguistic theory listens. In E. Contini Morava & B. Sussman-Goldberg (Eds.), Meaning as explanation: advances in linguistic sign theory (pp.213–242). Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) Saussurean anti-nomenclaturism in grammatical analysis: A comparative theoretical perspective. In W. Reid, R. Otheguy & N. Stern (Eds.), Signal, meaning, and message: perspectives on sign-based linguistics (pp.373–403). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Otheguy, R., B. Rodriguez-Bachiller & E. Canals
(2004) Length of the extra-information phrase as a predictor of word order. In E. Contini-Morava, R. S. Kirsner & B. Rodriguez-Bachiller (Eds.), Cognitive and communicative approaches to linguistic analysis (pp.325–340). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, J.
(1985) The nature of English grammar. English teaching forum, July: 2–8.
Reid, W.
(1974) The Saussurean sign as a control in linguistic analysis. Semiotext(e)1.31–53.Google Scholar
(1991) Verb and noun number in English: a functional explanation. London: Langman.Google Scholar
(1995) Quantitative Analysis in Columbia School Theory. In E. Contini Morava & B. Sussman-Goldberg (Eds.), Meaning as explanation: advances in linguistic sign theory (pp.115–152). Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) Monosemy, Homonymy and Polysemy. In E. Contini-Morava, R. S. Kirsner & B. Rodriguez-Bachiller (Eds.), Cognitive and communicative approaches to linguistic analysis (pp.93–130). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) The communicative function of English verb number. Natural language linguistic theory, 29, 1087–1146. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Saussure, F.
(1916) Cours de linguistique generale. Translated by Roy Harris as Course in general linguistics. La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Classics, 1972 [1986].Google Scholar
Swan, M.
(1980) Practical English usage. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E.
(1990) From etymology to pragmatics: metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tobin, Y.
(1993) Aspect in the English verb: process and result in language. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(2003) Constructing a language – a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Vendler, Z.
(1957) Verbs and Times. Philosophical Review 56, 143–160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A.
(1988) The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, C.
(1738) Psychologia empirica. Frankfurt and Leipzig: Officina Libraria Rengeriana. Cited by section number.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

No author info given
2020.  In Follow the Signs [Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics, 79], Crossref logo
Blevins, Juliette
2019.  In Columbia School Linguistics in the 21st Century [Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics, 77],  pp. 281 ff. Crossref logo
de Jonge, Bob
2019.  In Columbia School Linguistics in the 21st Century [Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics, 77],  pp. 122 ff. Crossref logo
Hesseltine, Kelli & Joseph Davis
2020. The communicative function of adjective-noun order in English. <i>WORD</i> 66:3  pp. 166 ff. Crossref logo
Reid, Wallis
2019.  In Columbia School Linguistics in the 21st Century [Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics, 77],  pp. 103 ff. Crossref logo
Sabar, Nadav
2019.  In Columbia School Linguistics in the 21st Century [Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics, 77],  pp. 33 ff. Crossref logo
Stern, Nancy
2019.  In Columbia School Linguistics in the 21st Century [Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics, 77],  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Xiang, Xuehua
2019.  In Columbia School Linguistics in the 21st Century [Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics, 77],  pp. 259 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 september 2020. 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.

Subjects
BIC Subject: CFG – Semantics, Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis
BISAC Subject: LAN016000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / Semantics
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2017056558 | Marc record