Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models and Meaning-Construction: Vyvyan Evans
Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models and Meaning-Construction: Vyvyan Evans
Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models and Meaning-Construction: Vyvyan Evans
meaning-construction
VYVYAN EVANS
Abstract
all the information that the word has been used to convey either by a single
individual, or on the social level, by the language community. A consequence
of this approach is that no attempt is made to distinguish between lexical and
encyclopedic information in terms of the kind of information that is contained in
496 V. Evans
3. Lexical representation
I now turn to a more detailed account of the first aspect of LCCM theory,
namely how lexical representation is modelled. I defer a more detailed ac-
count of lexical concept integration until section 4.
3.1.2. Lexical concepts are associated with di¤erent sorts of forms Sec-
ond, as lexical concepts are conventionally associated with a given
Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction 503
described this as the ‘matrix’ sense associated with time, in which we un-
derstand Time to be ‘the’ event in which all other events occur. Thus, the
gloss we might apply to describe this instance of time is [matrix].
Based on the quite distinct semantic contributions associated with this
range of usages of time, I argued in Evans (2004a) that there are a range
of distinct lexical concepts associated with time identified by the glosses
introduced above. Moreover, each of these distinct usages has a distinct
lexical profile associated with it which supports this perspective. Let’s il-
lustrate for each.
I begin by examining the grammatical tendencies associated with each
use of time. To do this, let’s consider the kind of noun phrase in which
each semantically-distinct use appears. We first note that the examples in
(4) and (7) appear, on the face of it, to be similar. Neither is pre-modified
by a determiner. However, further examples reveal that the [duration]
lexical concept of time as in (4) can be determined by the definite arti-
cle when the assessment of temporal magnitude is specific rather than ge-
neric, while the [matrix] lexical concept cannot be.
(8) During the dinner date, the time seemed to fly. [duration]
(9) *The time flows on (forever). [matrix]
Indeed, this patterning appears consistent with the semantics of these
uses. While the [matrix] lexical concept already relates to a unique refer-
ent, the event which subsumes all others, and thus further specification
which the definite article would provide is superfluous, with assessments
of temporal magnitude both specific and more generic readings are avail-
able, encoded by determiner patterns exhibited in (4) and (8) respectively.
Thus, we can say that while both the [duration] and [matrix] lexical con-
cepts appears to pattern formally like mass nouns (see Evans 2004a for
evidence that they fail to allow determination by the indefinite article),
the [duration] lexical concept, but not the [matrix] lexical concept,
allows determination by the definite article.
The examples in (5) and (6) also exhibit unique patterns in terms of
grammatical collocational tendencies, both from each other and from the
examples in (4) and (7). The [moment] lexical concept appears to pattern
straightforwardly as a count noun, allowing determination by the definite
article, as in (5), or by the indefinite article, as in (10).
(10) A time will come when we’ll be forced to make a decision.
[moment]
The [event] lexical concept in (6) appears to require a pre-modifying gen-
itive noun phrase followed by the enclitic possessive ‘-s’, or else an attrib-
utive pronoun, serving a similar function.
506 V. Evans
be able to judge how others are feeling, such as whether a guest in one’s
home is hungry or not, and thus be in a position to o¤er food so that the
guest is not embarrassed by having to request it. Lexical concepts serve to
encapsulate complex ideas which are di¤usely grounded in an intricate
cultural web of ideas and information. They achieve this by providing ac-
cess sites at particular ‘points’ in conceptual knowledge.
Property Details
lexical concepts are form-specific i.e., lexical concepts are conventionally associated with
a specific form. Thus, lexical concepts are necessarily
language specific.
lexical concepts are associated i.e., lexical concepts constitute the semantic pole of
with di¤erent sorts of forms symbolic assemblies of form-meaning (linguistic units)
of all kinds
forms are not lexical concept- i.e., are associated with a ‘semantic network’ of related
specific lexical concepts, and thus exhibit polysemy
lexical concepts have a lexical i.e., a unique ‘biometric’ identifier associated with
profile formal and collocational tendencies
lexical concepts can be combined i.e., lexical concepts can be combined in various
predictable ways, due to valence relations (relational
vs. non-relational lexical concepts and larger lexical
conceptual units), in service of activating semantic
potential and thus meaning-construction
lexical concepts possess a i.e., in context, lexical concepts provide an
semantic value: informational characterisation.
i) semantic potential i.e., access to a cognitive model profile (encyclopaedic
knowledge).
ii) encapsulation i.e., provides access to the cognitive model profile at a
particular access site (in the cognitive model profile).
iii) relational vs. non-relational i.e., relates to specific information concerning valence,
and thus combinatorial abilities and properties.
iv) temporal structure i.e., encodes how the temporal structure of the relation
is being accessed, i.e., whether it evolves in time, as
encoded by verbs, or whether it is provided as a
‘gestalt’, as encoded by, for instance, prepositions.
v) referentiality i.e., lexical concepts refer to or index entities of di¤er-
ent sorts. Some lexical concepts refer to entities which
are conceived as objectively existing. Other lexical con-
cepts refer to entities understood with respect to some
deictic centre, such as the speaker’s physical location.
Others refer to entities in the linguistic context itself.
are always interpreted (a process described later), such that they provide
an informational characterisation. This is achieved via activation of part
of the semantic potential available.
The form bar has a number of distinct lexical concepts associated with
it, including the ‘bar of a court’ at which the judge sits, and a ‘bar in
a public house’ at which alcohol is purchased and served. The appropri-
ate lexical concept is selected in these examples due to the linguistic
context.
Another example of linguistic context selecting the appropriate lexi-
cal concept is illustrated by ellipsis of the following kind, often termed
zeugma.
(25) On the day my driving licence expired, so did my old dad.
In this example, a di¤erent lexical concept for expired is selected in each
clause, despite the verb not appearing in the second clause. In the first
clause, the lexical concept selected for can be glossed as [expiration of
permission], in the second [death].
Despite being able to di¤erentially identify the separate contributions
of extra-linguistic and linguistic context with respect to lexical concept se-
lection, the typical arrangement appears to involve a process I refer to as
co-selection, involving both linguistic and extra-linguistic context. To il-
lustrate, consider the following utterance adapted from a recent news-
paper headline.
(26) France shot down the EU constitution
One of the points made by Croft (1993) in discussing a not dissimilar ex-
ample, was that words often appear to take on ‘meaning’ only when it is
clear what the ‘meaning of the whole’, what I refer to as the conception,
relates to. That is, it is only by knowing what the entire utterance relates
to that the ‘parts’ can be interpreted. For instance, France might relate to
the geographical landmass, the political ‘nation-state’ entity, the govern-
ment, the head of state, the people, a national sports team, a delegation
from France, or something else. Similarly, shot down has a number of
conventional interpretations associated with it, including the ‘literal’
meaning plus other conventional readings such as ‘forcefully reject’. Sim-
ilarly, EU constitution could relate to the membership of the EU, the
health of the EU, or the new treaty and charter of rights and social provi-
sion recently presented to European Union member states for ratification.
However, co-selection relies upon selecting the most mutually appro-
priate readings associated with each of these expressions. That is, to
understand the semantic contribution of one, we have to understand the
semantic contribution of all. Thus, co-selection has to do with the inter-
dependence of lexical concept selection. Selecting the most appropriate
lexical concept associated with a given form is a mutually-involving ‘sym-
biotic’ process.
Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction 517
4.2. Fusion
Fusion concerns the process in which selected lexical concepts are com-
posed such that they give rise to a particular conception. Fusion involves
two component processes: integration and interpretation. I address each
in turn.
Figure 4. The relationship between lexical concepts, cognitive models, and facets and
relations
partial cognitive model profile accessed via the lexical concept [france] in
Figure 1. Now re-consider the utterance in (26), above, re-produced
below:
Figure 5. Access route established by the interpretation of [france] in the utterance France
shot down the EU constitution
Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction 523
(31) a. That’s a heavy book to carry around in your school bag all
day.
b. That antiquarian book is so old that it is illegible in places.
(32) a. That book is really long.
b. That book is really boring.
Reconsider the partial cognitive model profile accessed via the lexical
concept [book] presented as Figure 4. The examples in (31) give rise to a
conception which establishes an access route in the book cognitive model.
The di¤erence between the informational characterisation associated with
book in each of the examples in (31) relates to the two distinct facets tome
versus text. That is, the process of interpretation that gives rise to the two
distinct conceptions (or readings) associated with each utterance comes
from utterance context informing which facet is highlighted. In (31a) the
utterance context, particularly the lexical concept associated with heavy,
serves to highlight the tome facet, and especially those aspects of our
524 V. Evans
With the examples of small, and red in (33) and (34) the sensory qualities
interpreted will depend on the lexical concept with respect to which it is
fused. That is, the informational characterisation associated with small
varies not in terms of the notion of relative size (what), but rather how
we interpret this. Thus, we interpret the absolute dimensions that apply
to small in (33a) to be quite distinct from those in (33b). Yet, there is no
confusion that ‘small’ can apply equally to an elephant or a mouse, each
of which (a small mouse versus a small elephant) are radically di¤erent in
terms of their absolute dimensions.
Similarly, the interpretation of good is adjusted depending on the com-
posite lexical-conceptual structure it is involved in. For instance, a good
man might possess attributes such as physical beauty, honour, providing
for his family, and so on, depending upon context. The sorts of qualities
associated with a good meal, however, are more likely to include the size
of the portions, how tasty the food is, that it consists of wholesome ingre-
dients, and so on. Thus, we adjust how the knowledge associated with
good is being activated rather than what is being activated, a consequence
of the relational (here attributive) nature of the lexical concept associated
with good.
Now consider the lexical concepts encoded by the verb bake: the well-
known change-of-state/creation ‘alternation’.
(36) Fred baked the potato.
(37) Fred baked the cake.
In these examples the informational characterisation associated with bake
is adjusted in the light of the informational characterisation accessed by
virtue of the other lexical concepts integrated in the composite lexical-
conceptual structure. Previous researchers have referred to this process
of adjustment by terms such as ‘accommodation’ (e.g., Talmy 1977) or
‘coercion’ (e.g. Pustejovsky 1995; Goldberg 1995). However, such schol-
ars have emphasised the role of other aspects of language in ‘coercing’
the ‘meaning’ of the verb. For instance, Goldberg argues that sentence-
level verbal argument constructions coerce verbal meanings. The reason
for selecting the term adjustment here is that the process I am describing
relates not primarily to ‘one-sided’ coercion by the grammatical construc-
tion. Rather, the adjustment is a consequence of a mutually interdepen-
dent process of interpretation in which bake provides access to an infor-
mational characterisation associated with rich conceptual knowledge,
part of which is highlighted in conjunction with and in response to the
informational characterisation provided by other lexical concepts in the
composite lexical conceptual structure. Thus, in addition to a process of
lexical concept integration, there are, additionally, activation processes:
526 V. Evans
4.3. Semanticality
Finally, having provided a programmatic sketch of how the constructs
of lexical concepts and cognitive models might relate to a cognitively re-
alistic approach to compositional semantics, I now address the semantic
‘well-formedness’ of conceptions. Indeed, conceptions are, by definition,
semantically coherent. We will see that this is the case by considering sit-
uations in which conceptions fail.
The term semanticality, introduced into linguistics by Pustejovsky
(1995), relates to the semantic well-formedness of an utterance. Semanti-
cally well-formed utterances give rise to conceptions. Utterances that fail
in this regard are semantically anomalous. However, as with the related
notion of grammaticality, semanticality or semantic anomaly is a matter
of degree rather than an either/or distinction.
The principle reason for semantic failure appears to be a failure in
matching semantic selectional dependencies, discussed earlier. Of course,
semantic selection tendencies, or collocational patterns, are a consequence
of semantic compatibility. Even lexical concepts that are potentially
dissonant and can be said to clash, need not result in failure to form a
conception. This follows as the semantic potential which lexical concepts
provide access sites to is vast and extremely richly detailed, allowing the
possibility of novel access routes, perspectivisations and adjustments re-
sulting in a semantically well-formed conceptions, particularly with ap-
propriate extra-linguistic context to assist in the co-selection process. In-
deed, this is the strategy that prevails in so-called ‘figurative’ language use
(see Evans and Zinken to appear).
To consider this phenomenon consider some examples involving the
verb began.
(38) a. He began the book
b. ?He began the dictionary
c. ??He began the rock
Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction 527
5. Conclusion
In this paper I have made a number of proposals in order to de-
velop a cognitively-realistic account of lexical semantics and meaning-
construction: the Theory of Lexical Concepts and Cognitive Models,
and thus to develop an account which is consonant with the facts of lan-
guage use. I argued that meaning is not a property of words, but rather of
the utterance: that is, a function of situated use. Words, as such, don’t
have ‘meanings’. The representational aspects of language that contribute
to meaning involve two dimensions: lexical representations, including ac-
cess to non-linguistic, conceptual knowledge, and a cognitively-realistic
account of compositionality. I modelled lexical representation by devel-
oping the construct of the lexical concept, and the conceptual structures
that lexical concepts provide access to. Lexical concepts are relatively
528 V. Evans
Notes
* I gratefully acknowledge detailed comments on an earlier version of this paper by Alan
Cienki, Malgorzata Fabiszak, Shane Lindsay, and two anonymous reviewers for Cogni-
tive Linguistics. I am also indebted to the 2005–6 cohort of students on the MA in Cog-
nitive Linguistics at the University of Sussex, who worked through many of the ideas
presented here with me. Some of the proposals in this paper have also benefitted from
discussions with Jörg Zinken. Many of the specific theoretical suggestions have been
presented at a number of venues. These include the Department of Psychology seminar
series, University of Portsmouth, May 2005; the International Cognitive Linguistics
Conference held in Seoul, South Korea, July 2005; the New Insights in Semantics and
Lexicography (NISL) conference, held in Lublin, Poland, September 2005; the New Di-
rections in Cognitive Linguistics (NDCL) conference held at the University of Sussex,
October 2005; and the MetNet workshops 1 & 2, funded by the ESRC, which were
held at the Universities of Leeds and York in May 2006. I am grateful to members of
the audiences at these venues for their feedback which has informed the version of
LCCM theory presented here. Finally, I gratefully acknowledge the support and advice
of Adele Goldberg. The author is a‰liated to the University of Brighton. Author’s
E-mail address: 3vyv.evans@brighton.ac.uk4.
1. As Croft (2000) notes, this is precisely why language change is possible, and proceeds as
rapidly (in relative terms) as it does.
2. See Evans (2005) and Tyler and Evans (2001, 2003) for detailed discussion of polysemy.
3. Identifying such selectional tendencies is ultimately an empirical question. Important
techniques in this regard have been developed recently in corpus linguistics. See for in-
stance Gries (2006) and Stefanowitsch and Gries (2003).
4. The temporal compression variant of duration associated with time can also be struc-
tured in terms of motion events which relate to a lack of perceptual awareness, such as
the following: Where has the time gone? The time seemed to have vanished, etc.
5. Note that by non-relational I have in mind valence properties. Nouns are conceptually
‘independent’ in that they refer to conceptually autonomous entities. In Gentner and
Borodsitsky’s (2001) terms they are cognitively rather than linguistically oriented.
6. It has been pointed out to me by Shane Lindsay that the example in (38c) would not be
anomalous in the context of a sculpture.
References
Allwood, Jens
2003 Meaning potentials and context: Some consequences for the analysis of vari-
ation in meaning. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven and J. Taylor (eds.). Cognitive
Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction 531
Kendon, Adam
2004 Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Lako¤, George
1987 Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the
Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald
1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. I. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
2000 A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow and S. Kemmer (eds.),
Usage-based Models of Language. Stanford, CA.: CSLI Publications, 1–
64.
Michaelis, Laura
2003 Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning. In Cuyckens, H.,
R. Dirven and J. Taylor (eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics.
Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 163–210.
Prinz, Jesse
2002 Furnishing the Mind: Concepts and their Perceptual Basis. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Pustejovsky, James
1995 The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Searle, John
1969 Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Schi¤rin, Deborah
1987 Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmid, Hans-Jörg
2000 English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus to Cognition.
Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sharifian, Farzad
2003 On cultural conceptualisations. Journal of Cognition and Culture 3(3),
187–207.
Sinha, Chris
In print Cognitive linguistics, psychology and cognitive science. In Geeraerts, Dirk
and Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson
1995 Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stefanowitsch, Anatol and Stefan Th. Gries
2003 Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and construc-
tions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8 (2), 209–243.
Sweetser, Eve
1999 Compositionality and blending: Semantic composition in a cognitively
realistic framework. In Janssen T. and G. Redeker (eds.), Cognitive Linguis-
tics: Foundations, Scope and Methodology. Berlin/New York: Mouton de
Gruyter, 129–162.
Talmy, Leonard
1977 Rubber sheet cognition in language. Chicago Linguistics Society 13.
Tomasello, Michael
1999 The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
534 V. Evans