Word, Meaning, and Concept

1. Lecture 5 26 Oct., 2005 Word, Meaning, and Concept Helena Gao

2. Required readings: • O’ Grady, W. (1987). Semantics: the study of meaning. In W. O’Grady & M. Dobrovolsky (eds.), Contemporary Linguistic analysis. Copp Clark Pitman Ltd. pp. 171-188 • Vygotsky, L. (1996). Thought and Language. Newly revised and edited by Alex Kozulin. The MIT Press. Chapter 7: Thought and Word. pp. 210-276. Recommended readings: • Jackendoff, R. (1992). Language of the mind. Essays on mental representation. Chapter 3: Word meanings and what it takes to learn them: reflections on the Piaget-Chomsky. The MIT Press. pp. 53-67 • Gao, H. (2001). The physical foundation of the patterning of physical action verbs. Lund University Press. Chapter 2: Lexicalization patterns from contact to motion and motion to contact. pp. 41-60

3. What is “word meaning”? • What does it mean when you say you know the meaning of a word? • What does it mean when you say you know a word, such as “bird” “blue”, or “happy” ? • How do we conceive of a word meaning?

4. Word Meaning • something that is conveyed or signified, or sensed in a symbolic sign • A fragment of conceptual structure that is linked in long-term memory with a phonological structure and a syntactic structure (Jackendoff, 1992)

5. Referential meaning Rose = Concept <-> word <-> object

6. Reference theory • Word = referent in the real world • But what about extension of meaning • Adjectives = qualities of something • Grammatical function words e.g. ‘in’ ‘on’ ‘at’ ‘because’ • Abstract concepts like ‘love’ ‘god’

7. According to referential theory, Referent (denotation) To equate meaning to a word or phrase with actual entities to which it refers e.g. an animal that can bark = dog Prime Minister of Canada = Paul Martin *Imaginary things have no referents

8. Two referents for one thing ‡ the same thing e.g. Paul Martin: the Prime Minister of Canada ‡ the leader of Liberal Party

9. Extension versus intention - The distinction stipulates the relation between referents and meanings A word’s extension corresponds to the set of entities that it picks out in the world (referents) A word’s intension corresponds to its inherent sense or the concepts that evoke.

10. According to Jackendoff (1992), Within a cognitive theory Conceptual Well-Formedness Rules linguistic structures conceptual structures perceptual and action Inference rules

11. A number of factors combine to make a word mean what it does (1) The connection of the concept expressed by the word to perception and action conceptual structures perceptual and action • No concern about the real-world counter part but the mental representations • Not all words, nor all aspects of any particular word, are linked to perceptual or motor components.

12. (2) A word meaning’s interaction with the inference rules conceptual structures perceptual and action Inference rules The difference in inference between two words follows from a feature of “completiveness”/ ”boundedness” in conceptual structure interacting with an inference rule that depends on the value of that feature.

13. (3) A word meaning’s relationship to the rest of the lexicon linguistic structures conceptual structures perceptual and action • Lexicon has taxonomic structure • Links within the lexicon (e.g., animal->dog-> poodle) form concepts into hierarchies. Inference rules

14. (4) The interaction of the word with the grammatical patterns of the language e.g. I read Shakespeare. I am reading Shakespeare. I have read Shakespeare. • The grammatical pattern itself is carrying an element of meaning that interacts with the meaning of the verb to make the inference possible.

15. the resources available in the brain for forming concepts Conceptual Well-Formedness Rules the brain’s combinatorial organization linguistic structures conceptual structures perceptual and action Inference rules Similar to logical inference

16. Learned and Innate Components of Word Meaning • What determines the possible concepts that the learner can consider?

17. The possibilities are constrained by the Conceptual Well-Formedness Rules Question: Where does the Conceptual Well-Formedness Rules come from? Answer (Jackendoff, Fodor, Kant): They can not be learned: they are the foundation on which learning is based.

18. Conceptual Well-Formedness Rules encompass the space of possibilities provided by • sense-data • the combination of elements of that space by the principle of association

19. Questions: • Is the space of possible concepts constrained by a set of innate principles? • How specific and detailed is the set of innate principle? • What are the specifics and details?

20. A suggestion by serious research on lexical organization: Word meanings are composite – they are built up from some set of conceptual primitives and principles of combination.

21. Back to the question: • How do we conceive of a word meaning? Piaget’s hypothesis: Children acquire their repertoire of concepts in a certain order, starting with basic sensorimotor concepts and gradually progressing from them to more abstract domains, eventually arriving at the most abstract concepts of pure logic. (see Piaget 1954a)

22. Back to the question: • How do we conceive of a word meaning? Vygotsky’s understanding word meaning: Word meanings are dynamic rather than static formations. They change as the child develops; they change also with the various ways in which thought functions. If word meanings change in their inner nature, then the relation of thought to word also changes. (Vygotsky 1996: 217)

23. Thought and Word –Vygotsky (1996) • Thought and word are not connected by a primary bond. • Word meaning is an elementary “cell” that cannot be further analyzed and that represents the most elementary form of the unity between thought and word.

24. Concepts • From the point of view of psychology, the meaning of every word is a generalization or a concept. And since generalizations and concepts are undeniably acts of thought, we may regard meaning as a phenomenon of thinking.” (Vygotsky, 1996: 212)

25. Concepts • Some think of concepts as word meanings (or bearers of word meanings) • What does the word “rose” mean? • Rephrase as: When would you know that someone knew the meaning of the word “rose” • When they can identify roses as roses • Use the word “rose” only to refer to roses • How do you identify a rose (as a rose)? (Categorisation) • How do you bring a single instance under a general concept?

26. Concepts • Concepts and knowledge • You and I both possess (are masters of) the concept TREE • My knowledge of trees is rather sketchy, whereas yours might be rich and full • Novice versus expert • Concept versus conceptualisation?

27. Question: Do languages have the same concepts? • Talmy claims that “Mandarin Chinese has Path satellites and constructions that are entirely homologous with those of English” (Talmy 1985: 106). • Is it? What about this sentence in English: He knocked off a fly from the table. The Chinese translation: 他敲桌子把苍蝇赶飞了。 Ta qiao zhuozi ba cangyi gan fei le. he knock table Ba fly drive fly Le He knocked off a fly from the table. (Gao, 2001: 62)

28. The Prototype Theory • “[C]oncepts are bundles of statistically reliable features [and] having a concept is knowing which properties the things it applies to reliably exhibit” (Fodor, 1998, p. 92) • “According to the Prototype Theory, most concepts … are complex representations whose structure encodes a statistical analysis of the properties their members tend to have” (Laurence & Margolis, 2000 p. 27) • Note “tend to have” – so it’s not necessary that an example of the concept have the property in question

29. The Prototype Theory • The prototype theory explains • Concept acquisition • The learner acquires a concept by assembling its features (statistical procedure) • Categorization • Similarity comparison process (e.g., “contrast principle”) • Is Tweety Pie a bird? • Suppose the features that tend to be possessed by birds are • Flies, sings, lays eggs, is small, nests in trees, eats insects • Suppose Tweety Pie flies, lays eggs, is small and sings • Tweety pie has 4 of these features and doesn’t have 2 of them • 4 – 2 = 2 • Tweety Pie doesn’t have any features additional to those a bird tends to have

30. Word meaning and radial categories • Words and their senses represent conceptual categories, which have much in common with non-linguistic conceptual categories. • It follows that linguistic categories have prototype structure. • Word meanings are typically polysemous, being structured with respect to a central prototype (or prototypes). • Lexical categories therefore form radial categories, which can be modeled as a radiating lattice structure.

31. Word meaning and radial categories • Radial categories, particularly meaning extensions from the prototype, are motivated by general cognitive mechanisms including metaphor and image schema transformation. • The senses that constitute radial categories are stored rather than generated.

32. An Example in English - the word over Lakoff’s The full-specification approach: over TR LM The central schema for over (Lakoff 1987: 419)

33. Lakoff argues that the schema depicted in this figure underlies examples like (1): • (1) The plane flew over • (2) The bird flew over the yard • (3) The plane flew over the hill • (4) The boy climbed over the wall • (5) The boy walked over the hill • (6) The boy walked over the bridge

34. Image schema transformations: • (7) The boy lives over the hill • (8) The boy lives over the bridge Metaphoric extensions: • (9) Jane has a strange power over me

35. Schema type • ABOVE schema • The TR is located above the LM • E.g., The helicopter is hovering over the hill • COVERING schema • The TR is covering the LM • E.g., The board is over the hole • REFLEXIVE schema • The TR is reflexive: TR is simultaneously TR and LM. The final location of the TR is understood with respect to its starting position • E.g., The fence fell over • EXCESS schema • When over is employed as a prefix it can indicate ‘excess’ of TR relative to LM • E.g., The bath overflowed • REPETITION schema • Over is used as an adverb to indicate a process that is repeated • E.g., After receiving a poor grade, the student started the assignment over (again)

36. The main findings of the full-specification approach • Words represent radial categories: related senses organized with respect to a central sense. • A radial category consists of abstract schemas, which may also consist of more detailed instances. • Radial categories are highly granular in nature, ranging from relatively schematic senses to very detailed senses. The lexicon (semantic memory) fully specifies the majority of the sense associated with a lexical item. • Senses may derive from image schema transformations and/or metaphorical extension. • Because radial categories have prototype structure, they exhibit polysemy; while some senses are closely related, others are more peripheral (e.g., metaphorical extensions).

37. Distinct senses for over identified in Tyler and Evans (2003) • 1 ABOVE (central sense) • The picture is over the sofa • 2A ON-THE-OTHER-SIDE-OF • St. Paul’s is over the river from Southwark • 2B ABOVE-AND-BEYOND (excess I) • Your article is over the page limit • 2C COMPLETION • The movie is over • 2D TRANSFER • The discredited government hand power over to an interim authority • 2E TEMPORAL • The relationship had altered over the years • 3 COVERING • The clouds are over the sun

38. Distinct senses for over identified in Tyler and Evans (2003) • 4 EXAMINING • Mary looked over the document quite carefully • 4A FOCUS-OF-ATTENTION • The committee agonized over the decision • 5A MORE • Jerome found over forty kinds of shells on the beach • 5A1 OVER-AND-ABOVE (excess II) • The heavy rains caused the river to flow over its banks • 5B CONTROL • She has a strange power over me • 5C PREFERENCE • I would prefer tea over coffee • 6 REFLEXIVE • The fence fell over • 6A REPETITION • After the false start, they started the race over

39. The Semantic network for Over (Tyler and Evana, 2003:80

40. An Example of Polysemy – the Chinese word Da(Gao, 2001, pp. 163-165) Corpus-based Taxonomy

45. We found no specific interdependence between the genetic roots of thought and word. It became plain that the inner relations we were looking for were not a prerequisite for , but rather a product of, the historical development of human consciousness. (Vygotsky 1996: 211)