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

Intercultural Pragmatics

Editor-in-Chief: Kecskes, Istvan

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.769
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.120

CiteScore 2016: 0.72

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.286
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.827

Online
ISSN
1613-365X
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 13, Issue 4

Issues

Polysemy and the Semantic-pragmatic Interface: The Case of Up in a Context-based Model

Wei-Lun Lu
Published Online: 2016-11-04 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2016-0024

Abstract

The present study adopts a context-based approach to the meaning of up. The analysis draws on the notion of “context” defined as a composite of surrounding linguistic cues, world knowledge and physical environment of the utterance, and on a parsimonious criterion of sense establishment. I demonstrate that the proposed model is capable of distinguishing context-sensitive implicatures and senses, with only two separate senses listed: “vertically higher” and “completive”. I propose a developmental hierarchy in the meaning network that refines Hampe’s (2005. When down is not bad, and up not good enough: A usage-based assessment of the plus-minus parameter in image-schema theory. Cognitive Linguistics 16(1). 81–112) challenge to the axiological parameter by unhooking “completive” from “good”. The proposed model finally addresses cases of seeming oxymora to explicate the context-sensitivity of interpretations. The paper concludes with a two-fold implication: first, the context-oriented methodology is capable of distinguishing context-induced implicatures and context-insensitive senses. Second, it captures the details of lexical meaning as contextualization patterns by explicating how the prototypical sense of a spatial particle, undergoing the fine-tuning of linguistic, encyclopedic and physical context, derives diverse contextual implicatures in real use.

Keywords: spatial particle; polysemy; contextualization; co-text; metaphor

References

  • Ahrens, Kathleen & Chu-Ren Huang. 2002. Time passing is motion. Language and Linguistics 3(3). 491–519.Google Scholar

  • Bar-Hillel, Y. 1971. Pragmatics of natural languages. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

  • Barlow, Michael & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.). 2000. Usage-based model of language. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar

  • Blutner, Reinhard. 1998. Lexical pragmatics. Journal of Semantics 15(2). 115–62.Google Scholar

  • Brugman, Claudia. 1988. The story of over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar

  • Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Croft, William & Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Evans, Vyvyan. 2004. The structure of time: Language, meaning and temporal cognition. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Evans, Vyvyan. 2006. Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning construction. Cognitive Linguistics 17(4). 491–534.Google Scholar

  • Evans, Vyvyan & Andrea Tyler. 2004a. Spatial experience, lexical structure and motivation: The case of in. In G. Radden & K. Panther (eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation, 157–92. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Evans, Vyvyan & Andrea Tyler. 2004b. Rethinking English “prepositions of movement”: The case of to and through. In H. Cuyckens, W. de Mulder & T. Mortelmans (eds.), Adpositions of movement, 247–270. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Fillmore, Charles. 1976. Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annuals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the origin and development of language and speech 280. 20–32.Google Scholar

  • Grice, Paul. 1978. Further notes on logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 9, pragmatics, 113–128. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Gries, Stefan Th. 2006. Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many meanings of to run. In Stefan Th. Gries & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, 57–99. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Hampe, Beate. 2005. When down is not bad, and up not good enough: A usage-based assessment of the plus-minus parameter in image-schema theory. Cognitive Linguistics 16(1). 81–112.Google Scholar

  • Herskovits, Annette. 1988. Spatial expressions and the plasticity of meaning. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.), Topics in cognitive grammar, 271–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Hogan, Patrick Colm. 2003. Cognitive science, literature, and the arts: A guide for humanists. New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Johnson, Mark. 1987. The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination and reason. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

  • Kövecses, Zoltan. 2015. Where metaphors come from: Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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

  • Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Lindner, Susan. 1983. A lexico-semantic analysis of English verb particle constructions with out and up. Bloomington: University of Indiana.Google Scholar

  • Lindstromberg, Seth. 1997. English prepositions explained. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Lu, L. Wei-lun. 2008. From textual prompts to cognitive models: A context-oriented perspective on metaphor interpretation in Taiwanese presidential speeches. Language and Linguistics 9(2). 341–358.Google Scholar

  • Lu, Wei-lun. 2014. Contextualization and blending: A cognitive linguistic approach to the semantics of in. Theory and Practice in English Studies 7(2). 97–114.Google Scholar

  • Lu, Wei-lun. 2015a. A Cognitive Linguistic approach to teaching Chinese spatial particles: From contrastive constructional analyses to material design. In Kyoko Masuda & Carlee Arnett (eds.), Cognitive linguistics and sociocultural theory, 51–72. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Lu, Wei-lun. 2015b. Conceptual autonymy and dependence in Chinese lexical semantic analysis: The role of image-schema, conceptual domains and co-text in [V]–[SHANG]. Chinese Language and Discourse 6(2). 162–182.Google Scholar

  • Lu, Wei-lun. In press. Metaphor, conceptual archetypes and subjectification: The case of COMPLETION IS UP and the polysemy of shàng in Chinese. In Angeliki Athanasiadou (ed.), Studies in figurative thought and language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Lu, Wei-lun. In preparation. Use of multiple parallel texts as a method in contrastive cognitive poetics: Vertical spatial terms as viewpoint tools in English and Chinese. To be submitted to Dingfang Shu and Hui Zhang (ed.), Cognitive linguistics in China: 1985–2015 (Human Cognitive Processing Series). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Lu, Wei-lun & I-wen Su. 2012. Antonymous polysemy: The case of -shang in Mandarin. In Adam Bednarek (ed.), Interdisciplinary perspectives in cross-cultural communication, 36–50. München: Lincom Europa Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

  • Moore, E. K. 2000. Spatial experience and temporal metaphors in Wolof: Point of view, conceptual mapping, and linguistic practice. Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida. 2003. Word power: Phrasal verbs and compounds. New York & Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Ruhl, Charles. 1989. On monosemy: A study in linguistic semantics. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

  • Ruhl, Charles. 2002. Data, comprehensiveness, monosemy. In Wallis Reid, Ricardo Otheguy & Nancy Stern (eds.), Signal, meaning and message, 171–89. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Sandra, Dominiek. 1998. What linguists can and can’t tell us about the mind: A reply to Croft. Cognitive Linguistics 9(4). 361–78.Google Scholar

  • Sandra, Dominiek & Sally Rice. 1995. Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind – the linguist’s or the language user’s? Cognitive Linguistics 6(1). 89–130.Google Scholar

  • Sinclair, John. 2004. Corpus and text: Basic principles. In Martin Wynne (ed.), Developing linguistic corpora: A guide to good practice, 1–16. Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar

  • Sperber, Dan & Deidre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Su, Lily I-wen. 2002. What can metaphors tell us about culture? Language andLinguistics 3(3). 589–613.Google Scholar

  • Sullivan, Karen. 2013. Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Sweetser, E. Eve. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Taylor, John. 2003. Polysemy’s paradoxes. Language Sciences 25. 637–655.Google Scholar

  • Tyler, Andrea & Vyvyan Evans. 2001. Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language 77(4). 724–65.Google Scholar

  • Tyler, Andrea & VyVyan Evans. 2003. The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Vandeloise, Claude. 1994. Methodology and analyses of the preposition in. Cognitive Linguistics 5(2). 157–84.Google Scholar

  • Wilson, Deirdre. 2003. Relevance Theory and lexical pragmatics. Italian Journal of Linguistics/Rivista di Linguistica 15(2). 273–291.Google Scholar

About the article

Wei-Lun Lu

Wei-Lun Lu is currently a Research Fellow in the Department of English and American at Masaryk University, with a Ph.D. in Linguistics from National Taiwan University. His research interest is cultural and cognitive linguistics and rhetoric, with a strictly corpus-based methodology.


Published Online: 2016-11-04

Published in Print: 2016-11-01


The completion of this paper was supported by “Employment of Best Young Scientists for International Cooperation Empowerment” (CZ.1.07/2.3.00/30.0037) co-financed from European Social Fund and the state budget of the Czech Republic Prof. I-wen Su. I thank two reviewers for suggestions, with the typical disclaimer that applies.


Citation Information: Intercultural Pragmatics, Volume 13, Issue 4, Pages 563–589, ISSN (Online) 1613-365X, ISSN (Print) 1612-295X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2016-0024.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in