In:Lexical meaning as a testable hypothesis: The case of English look, see, seem and appear
Nadav Sabar
[Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 75] 2018
► pp. v–viii
Get fulltext
This article is available free of charge.
Published online: 26 April 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.75.toc
https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.75.toc
Table of contents
List of tables
List of figures
Chapter 1.The problem, methodology and theoretical background
1.Introduction
2.The problem of the identification of linguistic units
2.1The problem of identifying linguistic units based on syntactic categories
2.2The problem of identifying linguistic units based on cognitive status
2.2.1The problem of stored sequences
2.2.2The problem of polysemy
3.Methodology
3.1Qualitative support
3.2Quantitative support
4.Preview of upcoming chapters
Chapter 2.
attention, visual as the explanation for the choice of look
1.Introduction
2.The fit with messages involving acts of visual attention
3.The fit with messages where a visual stimulus is absent
4.The fit with messages involving the communication of one’s thoughts or feelings
5.The fit with messages involving attention-grabbing visual features
6.The fit with messages involving attribution based on visual attention
7.The fit with messages involving either visual or intellectual attention
8.The fit with messages of searching
9.
Look in combination with directional terms: up, down, forward, back and after
10.Conclusion
Chapter 3.Using big data to support the hypothesized meaning attention, visual
1.Introduction
2.Methodology
2.1Quantitative predictions test the generality of communicative strategies
2.2Justification of the inductive approach
3.Supporting attention in the meaning of look
3.1Using carefully to support attention
3.2Using this to support attention
3.3Using but to support attention
3.4Using at to support attention
3.5Using deliberately to support attention
3.6Using think to support attention
4.Supporting visual in the meaning of look
4.1Using eye to support visual
4.2Using painting to support visual
4.3Using see to support visual
5.Conclusion
Chapter 4.
attention, visual in competition with the meanings of see, seem, and appear
1.Introduction
2.
Look and see – attention, visual versus experiencing visually
2.1The hypothesis for see as a monosemic sign
2.2
attention as the explanation for the choice of look over see
2.2.1Using turn to to support attention
2.2.2Using notice to support attention
2.3
experiencing as the explanation for the choice of see over look
2.3.1Using believe to support experiencing
2.3.2Using understand to support experiencing
2.3.3Using less control to support experiencing
3.
Look and seem – attention, visual versus perspective dependency
3.1The hypothesis for seem as a monosemic sign
3.2
visual as the explanation for the choice of look over seem
3.2.1Using green to support visual
3.3
perspective dependency as the explanation for the choice of seem over look
3.3.1Using logical to support perspective
3.3.2Using to me to support perspective
3.3.3Using at the time to support perspective
4.
Look and appear – attention, visual versus initiation of perception
4.1The hypothesis for appear as a monosemic sign
4.2
initiation as the explanation for the choice of appear over look
4.2.1Using introduce to support initiation
4.2.2Using first to support initiation
4.2.3Using comparative adjectives to support initiation
4.2.4Using but to support initiation
4.3Messages involving visual features: look versus appearance
5.Conclusion
Chapter 5.Competing analyses of the meaning of look
1.Introduction
2.A componential analysis
3.A construction analysis
4.A markedness analysis
Chapter 6.Theoretical excursus: a critique of William Diver’s approach to the grammar-lexicon divide, and a recapitulation of analytical assumptions and findings
1.Introduction
2.The linguistic status of the categories of grammar and lexicon
2.1The a priori assumption of a grammar-lexicon continuum
2.2The a priori assumption of polysemy in the lexicon
2.3The a priori assumption that only grammatical forms constrain one another
2.4The a priori assumption that lexical meanings are based on real-world categorizations
2.5Conclusion
3.Recapitulations
References
Index
