Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T23:17:52.996Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A meaning potential perspective on lexical meaning: the case of bit1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2015

JENNY HARTMAN
JENNY HARTMAN*
Affiliation:
Center for Languages and Literature, Lund University, Box 201, SE-221 00 Lund, Swedenjenny.hartman@englund.lu.se
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article offers a description of a particular lexical item, the English word bit, from a meaning potential perspective making use of the framework lexical meaning as ontologies and construals (LOC). The lexical semantics for bit is described not in terms of meanings per se, but rather in terms of potential for cueing conceptual structures of varying schematicity, put to use through a range of cognitive processes, or construals. The article concludes that some conceptual structures are quite fundamental to bit’s use and that their construal is highly flexible and contextually sensitive. The semantic structures evoked by bit are realized through particular communicative and discursive settings, and these semantic structures provide the raw material for all its situated meanings in response to communicative demands. Ultimately, a meaning potential perspective, in particular the model for describing and explaining lexical meaning adopted in this article, facilitates a rich and explicatory description of bit, both as regards its fundamental structures and their construal in attested language use.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 85 - 106
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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.)

Footnotes

1

I am grateful to Carita Paradis, Lund University, and Britt Erman, Stockholm University, for many useful comments on the study and suggestions for improvement, and to Elizabeth Closs Traugott for much valuable input. In addition, I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for many helpful remarks and suggestions.

References

Allwood, Jens. 1999. Semantics as meaning determination. In Allwood, Jens & Gärdenfors, Peter (eds.), Cognitive semantics, 1−17. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allwood, Jens. 2003. Meaning potentials and context: Some consequences for the analysis of variation in meaning. In Cuyckens, Hubert, Dirven, René & Taylor, John R. (eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics, 29−65. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1972. Degree words. The Hague and Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Brems, Lieselotte. 2003. Measure noun constructions: An instance of semantically-driven grammaticalization. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8 (2), 283−312.Google Scholar
Brems, Lieselotte. 2007. The grammaticalization of small size nouns: Reconsidering frequency and analogy. Journal of English Linguistics 35 (4), 293−324.Google Scholar
Brems, Lieselotte. 2011. Layering of size and type noun constructions in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Claridge, Claudia & Kytö, Merja. 2014. I had lost sight of them then for a bit, but I went on pretty fast: Two degree modifiers in the Old Bailey Corpus. In Taavitsainen, Irma, Jucker, Andreas H. & Tuominen, Jukka (eds.), Diachronic corpus pragmatics, 29−52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William & Cruse, Alan D.. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cruse, Alan D. 2002. The construal of sense boundaries. Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique 12, 101−19.Google Scholar
Cruse, Alan D. & Togia, Pagona. 1995. Towards a cognitive model of antonymy. Lexicology 1 (1), 113−41.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1981. On the definition of the telic-atelic (bounded-nonbounded) distinction. In Tedeschi, Philip & Zaenen, Annie (eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 14: Tense and aspect, 79−90. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2004–. BYU-BNC. Based on the British National Corpus from Oxford University Press. http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008–. The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990−present. http://corpus.byu.edu/coca Google Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse. 1995. On the necessity of distinguishing between (un)boundedness and (a)telicity. Linguistics and Philosophy: An International Journal 18, 1−19.Google Scholar
Ekberg, Lena. 1994. Ett glas vin − och andra falska partitiver. In Språkbruk, grammatik och språkförändring: En festskrift till Ulf Teleman 13.1.1994, 109−17. Lund University, Centre for Languages and Literature.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 2004. Pragmatics and cognitive linguistics. In Horn, Laurence R. & Ward, Gregory (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 657−74. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Frawley, William. 1992. Linguistic semantics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk & Cuyckens, Hubert. 2007. The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goddard, Cliff. 2006. Lift your game Martina! Deadpan jocular irony and the ethnopragmatics of Australian English. In Goddard, Cliff (ed.), Ethnopragmatics: Understanding discourse in cultural context, 65−97. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, Peter. 2014. Geometry of meaning: Semantics based on conceptual spaces. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hart, Christopher. 2011. Moving beyond metaphor in the cognitive linguistic approach to CDA: Construal operations in immigration discourse. In Hart, Christopher (ed.), Critical discourse studies in context and cognition, 171−92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hartman, Jenny. 2013. Bit: An examination of the explanatory power of a meaning potential approach to the description of lexical meaning. PhD thesis, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack & Rullmann, Hotze. 2001. Scalarity and polarity: A study of scalar adverbs as polarity items. In Hoeksema, Jack, Rullmann, Hotze, Sánchez-Valencia, Víctor & van der Wouden, Ton (eds.), Perspectives on negation and polarity items, 129−71. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jones, Steven, Murphy, M. Lynne, Paradis, Carita & Willners, Caroline. 2012. Antonyms in English: Construals, constructions and canonicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2001. A piece of the cake and a cup of tea: Partitive and pseudo-partitive constructions in the Circum-Baltic languages. In Dahl, Östen & Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria (eds.), Circum-Baltic languages, vol. 2: Grammar and typology, 523−68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2009. A lot of grammar and a good portion of lexicon: Towards a typology of partitive and pseudo-partitive nominal constructions. In Helmbrecht, Johannes, Nishina, Yoko, Shin, Yong-Min, Skopeteas, Stavros & Verhoeven, Elisabeth (eds.), Form and function in language research, 329−46. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2000. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2010. A lot of quantifiers. In Rice, Sally & Newman, John (eds.), Empirical and experimental methods in cognitive/functional research, 41−57. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Linell, Per. 2009. Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carita. 1997. Degree modifiers of adjectives in spoken British English. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carita. 2000. It's well weird. Degree modifiers of adjectives revisited: The nineties. In Kirk, John M. (ed.), Corpora galore: Analyses and techniques in describing English, 147−60. Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carita. 2001. Adjectives and boundedness. Cognitive Linguistics 12 (1), 47−65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, Carita. 2003. Between epistemic modality and degree: The case of really . In Faccinetti, Roberta, Krug, Manfred & Palmer, Frank (eds.), Modality in contemporary English, 191−222. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carita. 2005. Ontologies and construals in lexical semantics. Axiomathes 15, 541−73.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carita. 2008. Configurations, construals and change: Expressions of degree. English Language and Linguistics 12 (2), 317–43.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carita. 2011. Metonymization: A key mechanism in semantic change. In Benczes, Réka, Barcelona, Antonio & de Mendoza Ibáñez, José Ruiz (eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics, 61−85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carita & Willners, Caroline. 2013. Negation and approximation as configuration construal in space . In Paradis, Carita, Hudson, Jean & Magnusson, Ulf (eds.), The construal of spatial meaning: Windows into conceptual space, 287−311. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. I: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2007. The concepts of constructional mismatch and type-shifting from the perspective of grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics 18 (4), 523−57.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2008a. The grammaticalization of NP of NP constructions. In Bergs, Alexander & Diewald, Gabriele (eds.), Constructions and language change, 21−43. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2008b. Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. In Eckhart, Regine, Jäger, Gerhard & Veenstra, Tonjes (eds.), Variation, selection, development: Probing the evolutionary model of language change, 219−50. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Davidse, Kristin, Vandelanotte, Lieven & Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization, 29−71. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth & Dasher, Richard B.. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tribushinina, Elena. 2008. Cognitive reference points: Semantics beyond the prototypes in adjectives of space and color. PhD thesis, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Tribushinina, Elena. 2009. The linguistics of zero: A cognitive reference point or a phantom? Folia Linguistica 43 (2), 417−61.Google Scholar
Tribushinina, Elena. 2011. Once again on norms and comparison classes. Linguistics 49 (3), 525−53.Google Scholar
Tuggy, David. 1993. Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics 4 (3), 273−90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, Arie. 2005. Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie. 2007. Construal and perspectivization. In Geeraerts, Dirk & Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 48−81. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar