Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-z2ts4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-05T21:25:05.474Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Semplates: A new concept in lexical semantics?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Stephen C. Levinson  and
Niclas Burenhult
Stephen C. Levinson*
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
Niclas Burenhult*
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics and Lund University
*
Language and Cognition Group, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, P.O. Box 310, NL-6500 AH Nijmegen, The Netherlands [Stephen.Levinson@mpi.nl]
[Niclas.Burenhult@mpi.nl]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This short report draws attention to an interesting kind of configuration in the lexicon that seems to have escaped theoretical or systematic descriptive attention. These configurations, which we dub SEMPLATES, consist of an abstract structure or template, which is recurrently instantiated in a number of lexical sets, typically of different form classes. A number of examples from different language families are adduced, and generalizations made about the nature of semplates, which are contrasted to other, perhaps similar, phenomena.

Keywords

semplatelexical semanticsspacelandscape lexiconmetaphoranalogycultural modelssense relationstoponyms

Information

Type
Short Report
Information
Language , Volume 85 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 153 - 174
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bartlett, Frederick C. 1932. Remembering: An experimental and social study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bennardo, Giovanni. 2002. Mental images of the familiar: Cultural strategies of spatial representation in Tonga. Representing space in Oceania (Pacific linguistics 523), ed. by Bennardo, Giovanni, 159–77. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Berlin, Brent. 1992. Ethnobiological classification: Principles of categorization of plants and animals in traditional societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlin, Brent, and Berlin, Elois Ann. 1996. Medical ethnobiology of the Highland Maya of Chiapas, Mexico. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Black, Max. 1962. Models and metaphors. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Max. 1979. More about metaphor. Metaphor and thought, ed. by Ortony, Andrew, 19–43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope. 2006. A sketch of the grammar of space in Tzeltal. Grammars of space, ed. by Levinson, Stephen C. and Wilkins, David P., 230–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope. 2008. Up, down and across the land: Landscape terms, place names, and spatial language in Tzeltal. Language Sciences 30.2/3.151–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Levinson, Stephen C.. 1992. ‘Left’ and ‘right’ in Tenejapa: Investigating a linguistic and conceptual gap. Space in Mesoamerican languages, ed. by de León, Lourdes and Levinson, Stephen C., 590–611. Berlin: Akademie.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Levinson, Stephen C.. 1993. ‘Uphill’ and ‘downhill’ in Tzeltal. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 3.1.46–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brugman, Claudia. 1983. The use of body-part terms as locatives in Chalcatongo Mixtec. Studies in Mesoamerican linguistics (Survey of California and other Indian languages 4), ed. by Schlichter, Alice, Chafe, Wallace L., and Hinton, Leanne, 235–90. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Burenhult, Niclas (ed.) 2008a. Language and landscape: Geographical ontology in cross-linguistic perspective. (Special issue of Language Sciences, 30.2/3.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burenhult, Niclas. 2008b. Streams of words: Hydrological lexicon in Jahai. Language Sciences 30.2/3.182–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burenhult, Niclas. 2009. Foraging and ethnobiology among the Jahai. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, ms.Google Scholar
Burenhult, Niclas, and Levinson, Stephen C.. 2008. Language and landscape: A cross-linguistic perspective. Language Sciences 30.2/3.135–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruse, David Alan. 1977. A note on the learning of color names. Journal of Child Language 4. 305–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruse, David Alan. 1986. Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
D'Andrade, Roy G. 1995. The development of cognitive anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Andrade, Roy G., and Strauss, Claudia (eds.) 1992. Human motives and cultural models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
d'Olivet, Antoine Fabre. 1816. La langue hébraïque restituée. Paris.Google Scholar
Euler, Leonhard. 1741. Solutio problematis ad geometriam situs pertinentis. Commentarii academiae scientiarum Petropolitanae 8. 128–40.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2005. Main peculiarities of the vocabularies of Australian languages. Lexikologie: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Natur und Struktur von Wörtern und Wortschätzen 2, ed. by Cruse, D. Alan, Hundsnurscher, Franz, Job, Michael, and Lutzeier, Peter Rolf, 1076–83. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Everett, Daniel L. 2005. Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã: Another look at the design features of human language. Current Anthropology 46. 621–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles A. 1976. Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech 280. 20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Janet, Fodor, Jerry; and Garrett, Merrill. 1975. The unreality of semantic representations. Linguistic Inquiry 4. 515–31.Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre. 1983. Structure mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 7. 155–70.Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre, and Jeziorski, Michael. 1993. The shift from metaphor to analogy in Western science. Metaphor and thought, 2nd edn., ed. by Ortony, Andrew, 447–80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goddard, Cliff. 2007. Semantic molecules. Selected papers of the 2006 annual meeting of the Australian Linguistic Society, ed. by Ilana Mushin and Mary Laughren. Brisbane: Australian Linguistics Society. Online: http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv/UQ:12798/Goddard_C_ALS2006.pdf.Google Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey. 1976. Lexical structures in syntax and semantics. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken L. 1986. Notes on world-view and semantic categories: Some Warlpiri examples. Features and projections, ed. by Muysken, Pieter and van Riemsdijk, Henk, 233–54. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Holland, Dorothy, and Quinn, Naomi. 1987. Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janda, Richard D., and Joseph, Brian D.. 1999. The Modern Greek negator mi(n)(-) as a morphological constellation. Greek linguistics '97: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Greek Linguistics, ed. by Babiniotis, G., 341–51. Athens: Elinika Gramata.Google Scholar
Kusters, Wouter. 2003. Linguistic complexity: The influence of social change on verbal inflection. (LOT dissertation series.) Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem J. M., Roelofs, Ardi; and Meyer, Antje S.. 1999. A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22. 1–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levinson, Stephen C. 1994. Vision, shape and linguistic description: Tzeltal body-part terminology and object description. Linguistics 32.4/5.791–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1996. Frames of reference and Molyneaux's question: Cross-linguistic evidence. Language and space, ed. by Bloom, Paul, Peterson, Mary, Nadel, Lynn, and Garrett, Merrill, 109–69. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. H. P. Grice on location in Rossel Island. Berkeley Linguistics Society 25. 210–24.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2003. Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2008. Landscape, seascape and the ontology of places on Rossel Island, Papua New Guinea. Language Sciences 30.2/3.256–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C., and Brown, Penelope. 2010. Put and take in Yélî Dnye, the Papuan language of Rossel Island. Events of ‘putting’ and ‘taking’: A crosslinguistic perspective, ed. by Anetta Kopecka and Bhuvana Narasimhan. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, to appear.Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1963. Structural anthropology, trans, by Claire Jacobson. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Levy, Paulette. 1999. From ‘part’ to ‘shape’: Incorporation in Totonac and the issue of classification by verbs. International Journal of American Linguistics 65.2.127–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1995. Linguistic semantics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandler, Jean M, and Johnson, Nancy S.. 1977. Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology 9. 111–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, Naomi (ed.) 2005. Finding culture in talk. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert, Stéphane. 1997. From body to argumentation: Grammaticalization as a fractal property of language (the case of Wolof ginnaaw). Berkeley Linguistics Society 23S.116–27.Google Scholar
Sigman, Mariano, and Cecche, Guillermo A. 2002. Global organization of the Wordnet lexicon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 599.3.1742–47.Google Scholar
Strauss, Claudia, and Quinn, Naomi. 1997. A cognitive theory of cultural meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12.1.49–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waterman, John T. 1957. Benjamin Lee Whorf and linguistic field theory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 13.3.201–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, Matthew E., Pickering, Martin J.; and Branigan, Holly. 2006. An empirical investigation into spatial reference frame taxonomy using dialogue. Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society 28. 2353–58.Google Scholar
Whorf, Benjamin Lee. 1956. Language, thought and reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1996. Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar