Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Folia Linguistica

Acta Societatis Linguisticae Europaeae

Editor-in-Chief: Cuyckens, Hubert / Norde, Muriel

4 Issues per year


Folia Linguistica
IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.312
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.578

CiteScore 2016: 0.34

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.398
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.538


Folia Linguistica Historica
IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.294
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.263

Online
ISSN
1614-7308
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 50, Issue 2 (Nov 2016)

Issues

Quantifying polysemy: Corpus methodology for prototype theory

Dylan Glynn
Published Online: 2016-11-08 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2016-0016

Abstract

This study addresses the methodological problem of result falsification in Cognitive Semantics, specifically in the descriptive analysis of semasiological variation, or “polysemy”. It argues that manually analysed corpus data can be used to describe models of semantic structure. The method proposed is quantified, permitting repeat analysis. The operationalisation of a semasiological structure employed in the study takes the principle of semantic features and applies them to a contextual analysis of usage-events, associated with the lexeme under scrutiny. The feature analysis, repeated on a large collection of occurrences, results in a set of metadata that constitutes the usage-profile of the lexeme. Multivariate statistics are then employed to identify patterns in those metadata. The case study examines 500 occurrences of the English lexeme annoy. Three basic senses are identified as well as a more complex array of semantic variations linked to morpho-syntactic context of usage.

Keywords: annoy; corpus methods; multivariate statistics; polysemy; prototype theory; Usage-Based Model

References

  • Artstein, Ron & Massimo Poesio. 2007. Inter-coder agreement for computational linguistics. Computational Linguistics 34. 555–596.Google Scholar

  • Berez, Andrea & Stefan Th. Gries. 2009. In defence of corpus-based methods: A behavioral profile analysis of polysemous get in English. University of Washington Working Papers in Linguistics 27. 57–166.

  • Brugman, Claudia. 1983. The story of over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon. Trier: LAUT.Google Scholar

  • Claude, Julien. 2008. Morphometrics with R. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Coleman, Linda & Paul Kay. 1981. Prototype semantics: The English word lie. Language 57. 26–44.Google Scholar

  • Cuyckens, Hubert. 1995. Family resemblance in the Dutch spatial prepositions door and langs. Cognitive Linguistics 6. 183–207.Google Scholar

  • Deshors, Sandra. 2014. Constructing meaning in L2 discourse: The case of modal verbs and sequential dependencies. In Dylan Glynn & Mette Sjölin (eds.), Subjectivity and epistemicity: Corpus, discourse, and literary approaches to stance, 329–348. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar

  • Deshors, Sandra. 2016. Multidimensional perspectives on interlanguage: Exploring may and can across learner corpora. Louvain: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar

  • Deshors, Sandra & Stefan Th. Gries. 2014. A case for the multifactorial assessment of learner language: The uses of may and can in French-English interlanguage. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 179–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Dirven, René, Louis Goossens, Yvan Putseys & Emma Vorlat. 1982. The scene of linguistic action and its perspectivization by speak, talk, say, and tell. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Divjak, Dagmar. 2006. Ways of intending: A corpus-based Cognitive Linguistic approach to near-synonyms in Russian. In Stefen Th. Gries & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, 19–56. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Divjak, Dagmar. 2010. Structuring the lexicon: A clustered model for near-synonymy. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Divjak, Dagmar & Nick Fieller. 2014. Cluster analysis: Finding structure in linguistic data. In Dylan Glynn & Kerstin Fischer (eds.), Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches, 405–442. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Divjak, Dagmar & Stefan Th. Gries. 2006. Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering behavioral profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2. 23–60.Google Scholar

  • Fabiszak, Małgorzata, Anna Hebda, Iwona Kokorniak & Karolina Krawczak. 2014. The semasiological structure of Polish myśleć ‘to think’: A study in verb-prefix semantics. In Dylan Glynn & Kerstin Fischer (eds.), Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches, 223–252. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Fillmore, Charles. 1975. An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 1. 123–131.Google Scholar

  • Fillmore, Charles. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6. 222–254.Google Scholar

  • Geeraerts, Dirk. 1986. On necessary and sufficient conditions. Journal of Semantics 5. 275–291.Google Scholar

  • Geeraerts, Dirk. 1989. Prospects and problems of prototype theory. Linguistics 27. 587–612.Google Scholar

  • Geeraerts, Dirk. 1990. The lexicographical treatment of prototypical polysemy. In S. Tsohatzidis (ed.). Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization, 195–210. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Geeraerts, Dirk. 1993a. Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics 4. 223–272.Google Scholar

  • Geeraerts, Dirk. 1993b. Generalised onomasiological salience. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 8. 43–56.Google Scholar

  • Geeraerts, Dirk. 1995. Representational formats in Cognitive Semantics. Folia Linguistica 39. 21–41.Google Scholar

  • Geeraerts, Dirk. 2006. Methodology in Cognitive Linguistics. In Gitte Kristiansen, Michel Achard, René Dirven & Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibañez (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives, 21–50. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Geeraerts, Dirk, Stefan Grondelaers & Peter Bakema. 1994. Structure of lexical variation: Meaning, naming and context. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Geeraerts, Dirk, Stefan Grondelaers & Dirk Speelman. 1999. Convergentie en divergentie in de Nederlandse woordenschat: Een onderzoek naar kleding- en voetbaltermen [Convergence and divergence in Dutch vocabulary: A study of clothing and football terms]. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.Google Scholar

  • Glynn, Dylan. 2008. Lexical fields, grammatical constructions and synonymy: A study in usage-based Cognitive Semantics. In Hans-Jörg Schmid & Sandra Handl (eds.), Cognitive foundations of linguistic usage-patterns: Empirical studies, 89–118. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Glynn, Dylan. 2009. Polysemy, syntax, and variation: A usage-based method for Cognitive Semantics. In Vyvyan Evans & Stéphanie Pourcel (eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics, 77–106. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Glynn, Dylan. 2010a. Testing the hypothesis: Objectivity and verification in usage-based Cognitive Semantics. In Dylan Glynn & Kerstin Fischer (eds.), Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches, 239–270. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Glynn, Dylan. 2010b. Corpus-driven Cognitive Semantics: Introduction to the field. In Dylan Glynn & Kerstin Fischer (eds.), Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches, 1–42. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Glynn, Dylan. 2014a. Polysemy and synonymy: Corpus method and cognitive theory. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 7–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Glynn, Dylan. 2014b. The many uses of run: Corpus methods and Socio-Cognitive Semantics. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 117–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Glynn, Dylan. 2014c. Techniques and tools: Corpus methods and statistics for semantics. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 307–342. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Glynn, Dylan. 2014d. Correspondence Analysis: An exploratory technique for identifying usage patterns. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 443–486. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Glynn, Dylan. 2014e. Conceptualisation of home in popular Anglo-American texts: A multifactorial diachronic analysis. In Javier Díaz-Vera (ed.), Metaphor and metonymy across time and cultures, 265–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Glynn, Dylan. 2014f. The social nature of anger: Multivariate corpus evidence for context effects upon conceptual structure. In Iva Novakova, Peter Blumenthal & Dirk Siepmann (eds.), Emotions in discourse, 69–82. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

  • Glynn, Dylan. 2015. Semasiology and onomasiology: Empirical questions between meaning, naming and context. In Jocelyne Daems, Eline Zenner, Kris Heylen, Dirk Speelman & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Change of paradigms – New Paradoxes: Recontextualizing Language and Linguistics, 47–79. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Glynn, Dylan. submitted. Cognitive Socio-Semantics: A quantitative study of dialect effects on the polysemy of annoy. Review of Cognitive Linguistics.

  • Glynn, Dylan & Kerstin Fischer (eds.). 2010. Quantitative methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Glynn, Dylan & Karolina Krawczak. 2014. Operationalisation of non-observable usage-features: An exploratory study in English and Polish. Paper presented at the International Conference on Evidentiality and Modality in European Languages, Madrid, 6–8 October.

  • Glynn, Dylan & Justyna Robinson (eds.). 2014. Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Goguen, Joseph. 1967. L-fuzzy sets. Journal of mathematical analysis and applications 18. 145–174.Google Scholar

  • Goguen, Joseph. 1969. The logic of inexact concepts. Svnthese 19. 325–373.Google Scholar

  • Greenacre, Michael 2007. Correspondence analysis in practice, 2nd edn. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar

  • Gries, Stefan Th. 1999. Particle movement: A cognitive and functional approach. Cognitive Linguistics 10. 105–145.Google Scholar

  • Gries, Stefan Th. 2003. Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. Continuum: London.Google Scholar

  • Gries, Stefan Th. 2006. Corpus-based methods and Cognitive Semantics: The many senses of to run. In Stefen Th. Gries & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, 57–99. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Gries, Stefan Th. 2010. Behavioral profiles: A fine-grained and quantitative approach in corpus-based lexical semantics. The Mental Lexicon 5. 323–346.Google Scholar

  • Gries, Stefan Th. & Dagmar Divjak. 2009. Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based approach towards cognitive semantic analysis. In Vyvyan Evans & Stephanie Pourcel (eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics, 57–75. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Gries, Stefan Th. & Naoki Otani. 2010. Behavioral profiles: a corpus-based perspective on synonymy and antonymy. ICAME Journal 34. 121–150.Google Scholar

  • Gries, Stefan Th. & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.). 2006. Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Heider, Eleanor [Rosch]. 1971. ‘Focal’ color areas and the development of color names. Developmental Psychology 4. 447–455.Google Scholar

  • Heider, Eleanor [Rosch]. 1972. Universals in color naming and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology 93: 10–20.Google Scholar

  • Herskovits, Annette. 1986. Language and spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Heylen, Kris, Thomas Wielfaert, Dirk Speelman & Dirk Geeraerts. 2015. Monitoring polysemy: Word space models as a tool for large-scale lexical semantic analysis. Lingua 157. 153–172.Google Scholar

  • Hopper, Paul. 1987. Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 13. 139–157.Google Scholar

  • Horvath, Steve. 2011. Weighted network analysis: Applications in genomics and systems biology. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Janda, Laura. 1990. Radial network of a grammatical category – its genesis and dynamic structure. Cognitive Linguistics 1. 269–288.Google Scholar

  • Klavan, Jane. 2014. A multifactorial corpus analysis of grammatical synonymy: The Estonian adessive and adposition peal ‘on’. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 253–278. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Krawczak, Karolina. 2014a. Corpus evidence for the cross-cultural structure of social emotions: Shame, embarrassment, and guilt in English and Polish. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 50. 441–475.Google Scholar

  • Krawczak, Karolina. 2014b. Epistemic stance predicates in English: A quantitative corpus-driven study of subjectivity. In Dylan Glynn & Mette Sjölin (eds.), Subjectivity and epistemicity: Corpus, discourse, and literary approaches to stance, 355–386. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar

  • Krawczak, Karolina & Dylan Glynn. 2015. Operationalising mirativity: A usage-based quantitative study on constructional construal in English. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 13(2). 253–282.Google Scholar

  • Krawczak, Karolina & Iwona Kokorniak. 2012. A corpus-driven quantitative approach to the construal of Polish think. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 48. 439–472.Google Scholar

  • Lakoff, George. 1973. Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2. 458–508.Google Scholar

  • Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Priness, Ido, Oded Maimon & Irad Ben-Gal. 2007. Evaluation of gene-expression clustering via mutual information distance measure. BMC Bioinformatics 8. 111Google Scholar

  • Rastier, François. 1987. Sémantique interprétative. Paris, Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar

  • Rosch, Eleanor [nee Heider]. 1973. Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4. 328–350.Google Scholar

  • Rosch, Eleanor [nee Heider]. 1975. Cognitive reference points. Cognitive Psychology 7. 532–547.Google Scholar

  • Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida. 1985. Metaphoric processes in word formation. In Wolf Paprotté & René Dirven (eds.), Ubiquity of metaphor: Metaphor in language and thought, 209–241. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida. 1988. Semantic extensions into the domain of verbal communication. In Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, 507–553. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida. 1989. Prototypes, schemas, and cross-category correspondences: The case of ask. Linguistics 27. 613–661.Google Scholar

  • Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida. 1995. Metaphor, schema, invariance: The case of verbs of answering. In Louis Goossens, Paul Pauwels, Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen & Johan Vanparys (eds.), By word of mouth: Metaphor, metonymy, and linguistic action from a cognitive perspective, 205–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Sandra, Dominiek & Sandra Rice. 1995. Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind – the linguist’s or the language user’s? Cognitive Linguistics 6. 89–130.Google Scholar

  • Schütze, Henrich. 1998. Automatic word sense discrimination. Computational Linguistics 24. 97–123.Google Scholar

  • Speelman, Dirk & Dylan Glynn. 2005. LiveJournal corpus of American and British English. Leuven: University of Leuven, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar

  • Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12. 49–100.Google Scholar

  • Taylor, John. 1989. Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

  • Turney, Peter & Patrick Pantel. 2010. From frequency to meaning: Vector space models of semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 37. 141–188.Google Scholar

  • Tyler, Andrea & Vyvyan Evans. 2001. Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language 77. 724–765.Google Scholar

  • UNESCO. 2013. Statistical guide for partitioning around medoids. http://tinyurl.com/yh5qvqj (accessed 25 April 2016)

  • Vandeloise, Claude. 1986. L’espace en français. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar

  • Victorri, Bernard. 1997. La polysémie: Un artéfact de la linguistique? Revue de sémantique et pragmatique 2. 41–62.Google Scholar

  • Wierzbicka, Anna. 1990. Prototypes save: On the uses and abuses of the notion “prototype” in linguistics and related fields. In Savas L. Tsohatzidis (ed.), Meanings and prototypes, 347–367. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Zadeh, Lofti 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8. 338–353.Google Scholar

  • Zadeh, Lofti 1968. Probability measures of fuzzy events. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 23. 421–427.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2015-08-31

Received: 2016-02-20

Revised: 2016-03-10

Accepted: 2016-05-31

Published Online: 2016-11-08

Published in Print: 2016-11-01


Citation Information: Folia Linguistica, ISSN (Online) 1614-7308, ISSN (Print) 0165-4004, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2016-0016.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in