Reexamining the Theory of Lexical Concepts and Cognitive Models: A case study based on Mandarin zou
Date Issued
2008
Date
2008
Author(s)
Wang, Chueh-chen
Abstract
The rise of Cognitive Semantics in the 1980s has changed the way many linguists view meaning. Meaning has been shown to be intimately tied to conceptual structures, influenced by cognitive operations that help shape the speaker’s perception and conception on the multiple dimensions of the situation at hand. Despite the advances, we are still in need of a comprehensive account that not only synthesizes core insights from previous research but also explicate how meaning comes about in natural language use. n light of such concern, we shall argue that the Theory of Lexical Concepts and Cognitive Models (henceforth LCCM) proposed by Evans (2006) is up to the challenge. Following the tenets of Cognitive Semantics, LCCM offers a lexical representation that includes two central constructs: lexical concept and cognitive model; the former refers to the conventionalized semantic values associated with a lexical item, whereas the latter subsumes encyclopedic knowledge structures. The two constructs reflect an underlying assumption of LCCM: meaning is largely a function of the utterance in which a word is embedded and the complex processes of lexical concept integration. With the two constructs, LCCM clearly explains how lexical concepts afford access to cognitive models and are integrated to produce the intended interpretations in language use. Furthermore, an explicit set of criteria is presented for identifying lexical concepts, thereby preventing unchecked proliferation of senses.espite LCCM’s constructs and strengths, our bottom-up analysis of Mandarin verb zou reveals that it is necessary to incorporate key findings from Croft’s (1993) study into LCCM. More specifically, we highlight the importance of conceptual unity of domain and the autonomy-dependence principle in presenting a revised version of LCCM.hrough an analysis of zou in non-compositional constructions, we then argue that a non-compositional construction, with its own meanings and fixed schematic form, needs to be treated as a single lexical item in meaning-construction. The lexical concepts of its inner components must be first internally integrated with the construction’s meaning to produce a lexical concept of the construction, which is then integrated and interpreted with the rest of the utterance. fterwards, we review Evans and Zinken’s (to appear) study on how LCCM can handle figurative language like metaphor and metonymy. While accepting their claims on the distinction between metaphor and metonymy, we again argue for the need of incorporating Croft’s (1993) insights into LCCM, in order to elaborate on the details of meaning-construction processes involving non-literal language use as well as illuminate its motivating principle. Metaphorical and metonymic usage examples of zou are then well explained by our revised version of LCCM, which accentuates the differences in literal and figurative language processing.ll in all, this thesis argues that the LCCM framework proposed Evans (2006), though boasting a sound theoretical machinery, needs to incorporate key findings from Croft’s (1993) study to remedy the lingering problems that hinder successful application on usage examples of Mandarin zou. Furthermore, it is demonstrated that the revised version of LCCM we present can adequately expound not only literal use of zou but also its figurative use. Therefore, altogether we have a clear, plausible theory of meaning that not only incorporate key insights from past cognitive-semantic research but also provides unified account for literal and figurative language use in a single model. Most importantly, our revised version of LCCM is proven to be a capable model equipped with the necessary theoretical constructs and mechanisms to explicate how language users mean and understand each other.
Subjects
meaning
semantics
construction
metaphor
metonymy
File(s)![Thumbnail Image]()
Loading...
Name
ntu-97-R93142001-1.pdf
Size
23.53 KB
Format
Adobe PDF
Checksum
(MD5):cb2e8ce35046bc28e2e8582cc691dc28