Cover not available

In:Language Learning, Discourse and Cognition: Studies in the tradition of Andrea Tyler
Edited by Lucy Pickering and Vyvyan Evans
[Human Cognitive Processing 64] 2018
► pp. 159–190

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 7
Conceptual vs. inter-lexical polysemy

An LCCM theory approach

Published online: 20 December 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.64.08eva
Abstract
In this chapter I consider two types of polysemy that have not received wide attention in the cognitive linguistics literature. First, I argue that polysemy can arise from the non-linguistic knowledge to which words facilitate access. This phenomenon I refer to as conceptual polysemy. I illustrate this with an analysis of the lexical item book. Moreover, polysemy also arises from different word forms, which, at least on first blush, appear to share a common semantic representation. This phenomenon I refer to as inter-lexical polysemy. I illustrate with a detailed case study involving an analysis of the prepositional forms in and on. I draw on the Theory of Lexical Concepts and Cognitive Models to account for these phenomena.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Parametric vs. analogue concepts
  • 3.Towards an account of meaning construction
    • 3.1LCCM Theory
    • 3.2The cognitive model profile
  • 4.Conceptual polysemy
  • 5.Inter-lexical polysemy
    • 5.1‘State’ lexical concepts for in
      • [enclosure] and its parameters
      • ‘state’ lexical concepts for in
      • derivation of the ‘state’ lexical concepts
    • 5.2Lexical concepts for on
      • the [active state] lexical concept
    • 5.3Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (31)
References
Barsalou, L. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergen, B. K. (2012). Louder than words. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans, V. (2006). Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(4), 491–534. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). How words mean: Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). From the spatial to the non-spatial: The ‘state’ lexical concepts of in, on and at . In V. Evans & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, cognition & space (pp. 215–248). London: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Language and time: A cognitive linguistics approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). The language myth: Why language is not an instinct. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015a). A unified account of polysemy in LCCM Theory. Lingua, 157, 100–123. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015b). What’s in a concept? Analogue versus parametric concepts in LCCM Theory. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Concepts: New directions (pp. 251–290). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015c). The crucible of language: How language and mind create meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Design features for linguistically-mediated meaning construction: The relative roles of the linguistic and conceptual systems in subserving the ideational function of language. Frontiers in Psychology, 19th February, Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans, V. & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, M. H., & Zwaan, R. A. (2008). Grounding cognition in perception and action. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(6), 825–850. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gallese, V. & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in reason and language. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, 455–479. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What memory is for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 1–55.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glenberg, A. & Robertson, D. A. (1999). Indexical understanding of instructions. Discourse Processes, 28(1), 1–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herskovits, A. (1988). Spatial expressions and the plasticity of meaning. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp. 271–297). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hurford, J. (2007). The origins of meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. & Gray, R. D. (2012). Tools from evolutionary biology shed new light on the diversification of languages. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(3), 167–173 Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruhl, C. (1989). On monosemy: A study in linguistic semantics. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, L. J. & Zwaan, R. A. (2008). Motor resonance and linguistic focus. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 896–904. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Action in cognition: The case of language. Language and Cognition, 1(1), 45–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tyler, A. & Evans, V. (2001). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks. Language, 77(4), 724–765. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). The semantics of english prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied experience and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A. (2004). The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, (pp. 35–62). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Romain, Laurence
2022. Putting the argument back into argument structure constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 33:1 ► pp. 35 ff. DOI logo
Longhi, Julien
2020. Proposals for a Discourse Analysis Practice Integrated into Digital Humanities: Theoretical Issues, Practical Applications, and Methodological Consequences. Languages 5:1 ► pp. 5 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue