Linguistic area being addressed essay

User Generated

SryvkOengb

Writing

Description

You need to write a critical assessment of the dissertation paper attached below.

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO READ THE ENTIRE DISSERTATION! Just go through the lines but try to give thorough answers.

  • Target length: 800 words
  • Excellent grammar required
  • Assesses learning outcomes 1-5
  • What topic or area of linguistics is being addressed?
  • Do you think that sufficient background information or context is provided in the Literature Review/State of the Art?
  • Is there irrelevant material in the literature review? Does it appear that the author is including everything he/she has read?
  • Do the subsequent chapters follow in a natural manner from the literature review? Is there a research question and what is it?
  • What research method(s) is used, e.g., quantitative, qualitative, mixed?
  • If a quantitative method is used, are any statistical methods discussed?
  • If a qualitative method is used is there an analytical or theoretical framework used for the analysis of the data?
  • What results are found?
  • How do the results relate to the background?
  • Do the results support the theory?
  • Approximately what percentage of the dissertation is taken up with: (i) the Introduction; (ii) the State of the Art; (iii) Results; (iv) Discussion; (iv) Conclusion.

In general the following aspects of the dissertation should be addressed in your critique although these will vary depending upon the dissertation. Feel free to address other points as you see fit. Note that this assignment is not just a list of yes/no questions but these types of question should be addressed in your report. The report should also enable the reader to learn what the dissertation was about and what the main conclusions were.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

A critical assessment of the following dissertation • • Target length: 800 words Assesses learning outcomes 1-5 In general the following aspects of the dissertation should be addressed in your critique although these will vary depending upon the dissertation. Feel free to address other points as you see fit. Note that this assignment is not just a list of yes/no questions but these types of question should be addressed in your report. The report should also enable the reader to learn what the dissertation was about and what the main conclusions were. The Dissertation • • • • • • • • • • • What topic or area of linguistics is being addressed? Do you think that sufficient background information or context is provided in the Literature Review/State of the Art? Is there irrelevant material in the literature review? Does it appear that the author is including everything he/she has read? Do the subsequent chapters follow in a natural manner from the literature review? Is there a research question and what is it? What research method(s) is used, e.g., quantitative, qualitative, mixed? If a quantitative method is used, are any statistical methods discussed? If a qualitative method is used is there an analytical or theoretical framework used for the analysis of the data? What results are found? How do the results relate to the background? Do the results support the theory? Approximately what percentage of the dissertation is taken up with: (i) the Introduction; (ii) the State of the Art; (iii) Results; (iv) Discussion; (iv) Conclusion. Note that if your dissertation is judged to be one of the best ones, we may well put it on blackboard (anonymised) for next year’s students to critique in terms of the above questions. 1 From Thought to Language: Exploring a Cognitive Approach to Language Production Abstract The Cognitive Linguistics approach has rarely contemplated certain aspects of Language Production. Since the scope of a study involving every facet of this area is rather vast and diverse, it is best to focus on a single aspect at a time. Hence, this paper deliberates only on the notion of Lexical Access from the Production point of view. Apart from glancing at the current theories of Lexical Access, the paper aims to explore how a model based on the tenets laid out by Cognitive Linguistics, namely the Theory of Access Semantics (also known as LCCM Theory) as proposed by Evans (2009), might be used to accommodate this phenomenon. The study thus examines if this system could work as a functional model for Lexical Access, while suggesting certain modifications for it to fit the required criteria. The main area of interest is enumerating the factors affecting this process – namely Semantic Specificity, Context, Degree of Semantic Emphasis, Degree of Articulatory Emphasis and Semantic/Articulatory Generalisation. Consequently, the paper attempts to offer a theoretical account for a functional model (described as the CMLC Model) that explains the way in which words are selected for a specific context – on a monolingual and multilingual/cross-linguistic level. It must be noted that this is by no means a fully-developed theory, and requires a great deal of further research for the ideas stated herein to reach fruition at that level. 2 1 CONTENTS 2 3 4 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Aim and Objectives ........................................................................................................ 5 2.2 Research question and hypothesis .............................................................................. 10 Theoretical Background ...................................................................................................... 11 3.1 Commitments to and of the Approach ........................................................................ 11 3.2 Subsequence and Cascade/Connectionist Models of Lexical Access ........................... 13 3.2.1 Subsequence Model: Levelt and Schriefers (1987) ............................................. 13 3.2.2 Cascade Model: Dell, et al. (1999)....................................................................... 15 3.3 The LCCM Theory ......................................................................................................... 17 3.4 Synonymy .................................................................................................................... 33 3.5 Equivalence.................................................................................................................. 36 3.6 Equivalence from a Cognitive Linguistics Perspective ................................................. 37 3.7 Entrenchment, Collocations and Salience ................................................................... 39 3.8 Entrenchment and Equivalence – A Debatable Dichotomy ......................................... 42 CMLC – A Functional Lexical Access Model? ....................................................................... 44 4.1 LCCM Upside-Down: CMLC? ........................................................................................ 44 4.2 Factors Affecting Lexical Access in Language Production ........................................... 50 4.3 The CMLC Model: An Overview ................................................................................... 60 5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 64 6 References ........................................................................................................................... 67 7 Appendix A – List of Figures ................................................................................................ 70 3 Acknowledgements I take this opportunity to thank my family and friends for their constant support throughout this endeavour. Special thanks to my dissertation supervisor and the personal tutor for being so patient with me and helping channelise my wayward thoughts into something productive. I would also like to express my gratitude to my fellow linguists – Jenny, Sahar, Jordan, Leo and Albert, as well as all the lecturers for their unending support and constructive input. Most of all, I thank the university for giving me the chance to learn with and from such bright stars from the world of Linguistics. 4 2 INTRODUCTION Language Production is as human a tendency as is visual perception, bipedalism, culture, emotions or any process involving higher-level cognitive functioning. In recent views on Language Production and the way in which it occurs, a set of “informationally encapsulated” units (Fodor, 2008) are described – wherein distinct phonological, syntactic and semantic components are believed to co-exist and interact. For reasons explained below, in this study, we choose to follow the tenets laid out by the relatively new (Evans & Green, 2014) discipline of Cognitive Linguistics – a school of thought that involves the understanding that language is incorporated into the cognitive system along with other cognitive mechanisms such as conceptualisation, recall and recollection, and even perceptual processing. It is a matter of consensus among Cognitive Linguists that language seems to be inextricably connected to each of these systems, among others. Despite the fact that Cognitive Linguistics is now a thriving approach, a preliminary glance at various books, journals etc. has revealed very little work on the subject from this perspective except for the preliminary foundation laid by Levelt and Schriefers (1987), Levelt (1992) and Dell & O’Seaghdha (1992) and those building on it. Apart from that, the indicated theories seem to overlook the factors affecting the process of Lexical Access, showing greater focus on defining the process itself. The notion of “entrenchment” (Schmid, 2007), which is an inherent part of Cognitive Linguistics, seems to play an important role in this process, but requires a more detailed investigation of how it works with regards to Lexical Access. As a result of this need to study factors such as entrenchment, which have their theoretical bases in Cognitive Linguistics, the paper employs the tenets laid out by this field and uses the point of view presented by it. In doing so, it also aims at maintaining a streamlined focus in terms of scope, rather than attempting to explain every single facet of Language Production, Cognitive Linguistics or even Lexical Access. This dissertation thus seeks to remedy the issues posed, by exploring simply whether a well-articulated Cognitive Linguistics approach such as Evans’ Theory of Access Semantics (2009), might be used to explain the point at hand, while other relevant factors included in the field follow suit. 5 2.1 AIM AND OBJECTIVES The overall aim of this dissertation is to propose a detailed model of the factors affecting Lexical Access in Language Production, involving examples of adjectives and other parts of speech across languages in order to bolster the claims made. The objectives of the study are as follows: i) To explore the existing theories of Lexical Access from the Cognitive Linguistics perspective, and suggest a more comprehensive model for the same. In particular, to explore Evans’ theory of Access Semantics (Evans, 2009), which proposes the pairing of conceptual profiles with specific lexical items, from a Language Production point of view. ii) Subsequently, to study “equivalence” substitution: how the absence of a particular word to signify a concept can enable the selection of a different word or phrase that might seem equivalent in some way. iii) More specifically, to study the phenomenon of entrenchment through the means of lexical associations, and how they manifest in discourse – whether spoken or written. iv) Finally, to describe the semantic and articulatory aspects involved in the process of Lexical Access, and study how they interact with each other. We now discuss each of these points individually. i) Current Theories of Lexical Access: Levelt and Schriefers (1987) describe a model which involves the “modular” approach; suggesting that the process of lexical access starts with the “Conceptualiser,” which “maps a communicative intention onto a preverbal message” (Levelt & Schriefers, 1987, pg. 397) followed by the “Grammatical Encoder,” which uses this preverbal message in order to produce the “surface structure.” This is then carried through to the “Sound Form Encoder,” which “applies the surface structure to a phonetic and articulatory plane” (Levelt & Schriefers, 1987, pg. 397) which in turn is produced by the “Articulator.” In a later paper by Levelt (1993), levels 2 and 3 were combined to form the “Formulator.” While this forms a basic working premise within which lexical access could 6 occur, we take things one step further in this paper by suggesting the presence and interaction of a number of dimensions or factors that affect the process. On the other hand, there exists a separate theoretical approach to the process of Lexical Access. Proposed by Dell, et al. (1999), this “cascade” model suggests that the Grammatical Encoder and Sound Form Encoder work in a parallel manner, rather than sequentially. This could certainly be the case, as will be discussed in chapters 3 and 4, and is relevant as one of the cornerstones for the Factors Affecting Lexical Access to be built around. ii) Equivalence Substitution: The concept of “equivalence,” as proposed by Jakobson (1959), shall also be taken into consideration herein, with regards especially to the aspects of “Context,” “Semantic Specificity” and “Semantic/Articulatory Generalisation.” This paper shall study the existence of intra-lingual equivalence (Jakobson, 1959), and the ability of individuals to substitute one word or phrase for another when required. iii) The role of Entrenchment in Discourse: A vital aspect when it comes to lexical access, entrenchment is also a very intrinsic part of the Cognitive Linguistics school of thought. The extent to which the usage of a particular word or phrase is entrenched is vital in this scenario, especially when it comes to “Context” as a factor of lexical access. This shall also be examined further in the Theoretical Background. iv) Factors Affecting Lexical Access: As mentioned above, the main aim of this paper is to suggest a set of factors affecting the process of lexical access, while also taking into consideration the way in which they interact, and how they may be related to other cognitive and perceptual processes; the relationship which forms the basis of Cognitive Linguistics. We suggest the existence of 5 factors – Semantic Specificity, Degree of Semantic Emphasis, Degree of Articulatory Emphasis, Context and Semantic/Articulatory 7 Generalisation. These shall be reviewed in detail in chapter 4. However, the obvious question remains to be answered – why these factors? The elements mentioned above are broadly divided into Semantic, Articulatory and Contextual operations. It can be assumed that language is set within these categories; Lexical Access in spoken language requires conceptual representation (meaning), articulatory representation (speech) and contextual awareness (linguistic and extralinguistic framework) in order to function in an efficient and effective manner. Given this idea, we propose that the factors involved in conceptual representation would include the following: - Semantic Specificity (narrow conceptual definition) – Not to be confused with the “semantic specificity hypothesis” suggested by Pine, et al.. (2010), this relates to the activation of specific parts of the conceptual system, or as explained in chapters 3 and 4 on the basis of Evans’ (2009) LCCM Theory, those of the Cognitive Model Profile. - Degree of Semantic Emphasis (convention-driven emphasis attached to a specific word or phrase) – This is based on the notion of “extreme and scalar adjectives” as proposed by Paradis (2001), wherein Bolinger’s (1967, pg. 4) statement is cited – “…comparability is a semantic feature coextensive with ‘having different degrees’ or associated to items which are ‘susceptible to be laid out on a scale’” - Semantic Generalisation (broad conceptual description) – This factor is related to the notion of the Cognitive Model Profile as per Evans’ (2009) claim. The Articulatory representation would involve: - Degree of Articulatory Emphasis (emphasis created by prosodic factors) – This is based on the suggestion that “lexical stress,” “lexical tone,” and other syllabic and segmental information as “independently represented dimensions,” Goldrick (2014, pg. 236). - Linguistic Context - This point finds basis in Evans’ (2009) LCCM Theory. 8 - Articulatory Generalisation (broad phonological similarities) – This is based on a notion proposed by Dell, et al.. (1999) in their “cascade” model. Contextual awareness includes various aspects of the Linguistic and Extralinguistic Context, as described by Evans in his account of the LCCM Theory (2009). These factors have been studied under various terminologies before; in this paper we attempt to consolidate them all into a single working model to see how they interact. While we do not suggest that they are the only factors involved, it must be noted that they are certainly important when considering Lexical Access, as is substantiated by their respective scholarly works. Given that most of them fall within the Cognitive Linguistics approach, and many are based on Evans’ (2009) LCCM Theory, these two aspects shall become the primary fulcra of the suggested model. This paper thus reviews the Theory of Lexical Concepts and Cognitive Models (LCCM Theory, also known as the Theory of Access Semantics) as suggested by Evans (Evans, 2009), and attempts to use its structure as a fundamental premise on which to base the claims made. Evans’ theory of Access Semantics creates a plausible argument for the way the cognitive system functions with reference to the perception of language, but does not necessarily mention that it is limited to comprehension. That is, it mainly explores the way the hearer or reader of language would access the conceptual information within their cognitive system in order to make sense of the items they are presented with. These items, according to Talmy (2000) (cited in Evans, 2009 pg. 102), are divided into “closed class” and “open class” categories. Despite it being a theory of Access Semantics, wherein conceptual information is accessed through words, the LCCM Theory could be turned ‘upside down,’ to see if it could be expanded to include the functioning of language production as well. That is, while the current theory deals with the Language>Cognition process, we shall attempt to see if it works from the Cognition>Language perspective. Given these points, it may be assumed that if the system of Access Semantics works along these lines, then that of Lexical Access would work in the opposite direction. 9 However, in this study, we suggest that while the basic premise might be true, when it comes to production, a few more factors need to be taken into consideration as a means of expanding the given theory. The methodology involved herein consists mainly of the theoretical approach, while also using supporting information drawn from corpora to substantiate the claims made. The use of 4 different languages – namely English, Hindi, Marathi and Gujarati, is twofold in its objectives. The first aim is to explore the variety of occurrences and variations that occur across languages that vary on the scale of similarity. The second is aimed at bolstering the claims made further, so as to suggest a generic, working theory on a cross-linguistic level. It may be noted during the course of the paper that the examples stated involve mainly adjectives. This is because adjectives seem to provide a wide range of possibilities when it comes “scalar” and “extreme” (Paradis, 2001) kinds of instances, so as to create further clarity of functioning in terms of the factors mentioned above. The theory could, of course, also be applied to other parts of speech, including nouns, verbs, adverbs, prepositions, etc. It has been suggested that there are no absolute “synonyms” (Cruse, 2000). With this point in mind, we suggest the use of the term “equivalents,” as indicated by Jakobson (1959), in order to discuss the process of substitution and the elements thereof. One can consider two kinds of “equivalents.” The first category is the “semantic” equivalents, which would focus mainly on ‘getting the point across through any means necessary,’ without any consideration towards formal or grammatical similarity between the source and target equivalents. The best example of this would be the use of a phrase in order to substitute a word, usually seen in spoken discourse. On the other hand, there exist the “formal” equivalents, which not only include the use of words within the same grammatical and semantic category, but also ones that may not necessarily carry similar semantic structure. The best example of this is the use of the word “thing,” or in informal discourse, even “thingy,” to express the existence of a noun that for some reason has either slipped the speaker’s mind, or has lesser semantic focus and greater perceptual focus, as in Hand me the thing. This point shall also be discussed further in the Theoretical Background. 10 2.2 RESEARCH QUESTION AND HYPOTHESIS The research questions for this study are as follows: a) Which aspects of the current theories of Lexical Access in Language Production can be combined to make a more holistic, cross-linguistic model? Can the theory of Access Semantics, as proposed by Evans (2009)be used as a working model of Lexical Access in this scenario? ii) What is the role of “equivalence” as suggested by Jakobson (1959) in his theory with regards to the suggested model of Lexical Access? iii) What role does Entrenchment (Schmid, 2007) play in this process of Lexical Access? iv) What are the factors affecting Lexical Access in Language Production? *It is to be noted that any mention of Lexical Access in this study is made with reference to Language Production, unless otherwise specified. The main hypothesis is as follows: “The factors affecting Lexical Access, which form the crux of the process involved, are Semantic Specificity, Degree of Semantic Emphasis, Degree of Articulatory Emphasis, Context and Semantic/Articulatory Generalisation. These factors interact with aspects such as Entrenchment and Equivalence, and attempt to bring forth a number of potential lexical units that may be used, which undergo further filtration, extracting the specific lexical unit that is most suitable as per the requirements generated by the background. When this system falters, the next best available alternative is used.” Hence, it is to be noted once again that while various theories of Lexical Access have been proposed, the factors involved in the process have been overlooked, which are based on aspects such as Entrenchment – a Cognitive Linguistic notion, among others as described above. Thus, this paper employs the Cognitive Linguistics approach to carry out an overview of current theories, while also suggesting the presence of a number of factors affecting the process. The next chapter shall take into account each of these theories, as well as a study of how the theoretically established factors such as Equivalence and Entrenchment function. 11 3 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 3.1 COMMITMENTS TO AND OF THE APPROACH In Cognitive Linguistics, language is considered a part of the human cognitive structure, and the basic principle is to apply the same points to it that one would to other cognitive processes. This is evident in the Cognitive Commitment and the Generalisation Commitment as stated by Evans (2007), which are as follows: - Cognitive Commitment: The principles of linguistic structure should reflect what is known about human cognition from other disciplines, particularly the other cognitive sciences (philosophy, psychology, artificial intelligence and neuroscience). It follows from the cognitive commitment that language and linguistic organisation should reflect general cognitive principles rather than cognitive principles that are specific to language. This commitment, central to and definitional of cognitive linguistics, leads to the generalisation commitment and the rejection by cognitive linguists of the modular approach to language and the mind adopted in formal linguistics. - Generalisation Commitment: It constitutes a commitment to the characterisation of general principles that are responsible for all aspects of human language. This commitment follows from the assumption central to cognitive linguistics that language reflects general cognitive mechanisms and processes. Hence the generalisation commitment leads cognitive linguists to search for common organising principles across different language ‘systems’, such as phonology, syntax, semantics and so on. Such common organising principles include conceptual mechanisms like metaphor, conceptual blending and phenomena such as polysemy. The generalisation commitment stands in direct opposition to the modular approach taken in formal linguistics. 12 Given the above, then, it is important to note the difference between Cognitive Linguistics and the schools of thought that are based on the Generative View (Marantz, 2005) of the subject. The most important point of distinction is that while Generative Linguistics views language as a separate modular system that works simultaneously with other specific “modules” of cognition, Cognitive Linguistics views the entire cognitive system as an inextricable whole, wherein various processes occur across various areas. This is rather like the road networks in any one of the vastly populated cities of the world where roads, lanes and highways are connected in and across all directions, as compared to the streamlined lanes that one sees on the race tracks, for instance. Basically, the idea is that for Cognitive Linguists, the entire cognitive system is a holistic network, while for Generative Linguists, it is a channelised, streamlined group of systems which are simultaneously at play. Thus, according to these guidelines, from the perspective of Cognitive Linguistics as taken in this study, language is fundamentally a part of the cognitive structure. Assuming this statement to be true, we now move on to the specificities of this study. In this paper, we study the way in which one specific part of Language Production - Lexical Access, or in layman’s terms, word selection, occurs. How does an individual select words with which to communicate? What factors affect this selection process? What happens when this system malfunctions? How can speech and usage-based errors be explained? All these questions create the building blocks of the research potential of this study. 13 3.2 SUBSEQUENCE AND CASCADE/CONNECTIONIST MODELS OF LEXICAL ACCESS 3.2.1 Subsequence Model: Levelt and Schriefers (1987) The most fundamental premise of this paper is the model presented by Levelt and Schriefers (1987). Following in the authors’ footsteps, we consider the basic notion of the “linguistic sign” as described by Saussure (Saussure, 1916); what the authors like to call “Saussure’s Egg.” According to this theory, the linguistic sign was made up of a “Concept,” as well as a Sound/Image pairing. Basically, it suggested a direct relationship between encyclopaedic or “analogous” knowledge as later proposed by Evans (Evans, 2009) and the phonetic as well as visual perceptual input referring to the same. Essentially, then, the linguistic sign was considered to involve mainly a “formmeaning” pair (Saussure, 1916). However, Levelt and Schriefers argue that this notion must also include the syntactic or as Saussure puts it, “syntagmatic” properties of the sign in question, which they define as “the ways in which the item can enter into phrasal combinations with other linguistic signs” (Levelt & Schriefers, 1987). This indicates what syntactic properties the word or group thereof might have, and perhaps even where it would occur within an utterance. Thus, they suggest a flow-based model, wherein the Concept (Conceptual Environment) interacts with the Syntax (Syntactic Environment) to create what they call a “lemma,” which then interacts as a whole with the Sound/Image pairing (Phonetic Environment, which they label the “lexeme.” According to Levelt and Schriefers, The lexical item ‘resonates’ to the current conceptual environment, the speaker’s speech act intention, message, or whatever it is called. When the item’s conceptual conditions are sufficiently present in that environment, its syntactic properties become available for the procedures of sentence generation. The retrieval of other items is directly conditioned by the current syntactic environment. Hence, this theory suggests a scheme of things with input going from one component to another, that is, from the conceptual module to the linguistic one, with the syntactic properties following the semantic properties. However, as we have seen above, the 14 Cognitive Linguistics approach is quite different. Rather than viewing these components as separate entities, we suggest they ought to be looked at as properties of the same singular cognitive system. This is an important point in the proposed hypothesis, as the proposition made here indicates the interaction of various factors in the process of Lexical Access, which obviously includes the conceptual and linguistic aspects of the word or phrase to be accessed. Furthermore, the model suggested by Levelt and Schriefers describes the processes that occur before and after the functioning of this modular system, which they call the “lexical access proper,” stating that the activation of the lemma and lexeme could take place either successively, or in a simultaneous manner. Given the approach described above, however, the authors seem to lean more towards a distinction of the processes, suggesting that the Conceptualiser is followed by the Grammatical Encoder, which in turn is followed by the Sound Form Encoder, with the process terminating with the Articulator. Later, Levelt suggested that the second and third stages, that is, the Grammatical Encoder and the Sound Form Encoder must be melded together to form the “Formulator” (Levelt, 1993). In this study, however, we do away with these separate “informationally encapsulated” units that distinguish between phonological, syntactic and semantic input. There are two main reasons for this. The first is our suggestion that if language is based on and part of cognition and draws on embodied experience (as is believed in the field of Cognitive Linguistics), it would follow that it also functions in a similar manner. Hence, just as the latter receives perceptual and conceptual information and upgrades on a constant basis which creates the foundation for their interaction with their environment, language too would require a continuous stream of conceptual and linguistic information in order to function correctly. The other reason is a corollary to this suggestion – as we shall see in chapter 4, the process of Lexical Access is somewhat cyclic in nature, involving input from a number of “dimensions” of language at the same time, more than once, and in combination with each other, which would not be the case if they were separated into informationally encapsulated units and not allowed to interact at the same level. Articulation would possibly come later, although there might be arguments regarding that, mentioning that there are many times when people fumble for words halfway through the selected word, or even say the wrong one, if it sounds similar, without realising the difference in speech, even if they knew the difference in meaning. 15 Thus, while Levelt and Schriefer’s model seems to indicate a number of systems or processes occurring in a subsequent manner to each other, A Cognitive Linguisticsbased approach would suggest a model that views these processes as simultaneous dimensions of a single, holistic cognitive system. This shall be worked out in detail in chapter 4. Conceptualiser •Maps Communicative Intention onto a Preverbal Message • Takes message as input, produces surface structure as output Sound Form Encoder Formulator Grammatical Encoder •Maps the surface structure onto a phonetic/articulatory plane Articulator • Interprets and executes the phonetic plan Fig. 1: “Subsequence Model” – Levelt & Schriefers (1987), Levelt (1993) 3.2.2 Cascade Model: Dell, et al. (1999) On the other hand, Dell, et al. (1999) describe a “cascade” model of Lexical Access, wherein it is assumed that the process of “Phonological Encoding” begins before the end of the seemingly preceding one of “Grammatical Encoding.” Also known as the Connectionist Model, it indicates that semantic, syntactic and phonological information is activated in a seemingly simultaneous manner, considering that a number of speech errors, such as the Hungarian restaurant instead of Hungarian rhapsody instance, involve phonological similarity within the correct and erroneous lexical items used, despite the lack of a semantic connection between the two. The main claims made by this model are: i) That the two modules mentioned above do not work sequentially, but parallel to each other. ii) That the words chosen in the beginning of a sentence define the subsequent ones. iii) That in contrast to comprehension, production models are required to “make linguistic structure a priority.” 16 iv) That in case of speech errors, words that fall into the same “grammatical class” tend to be substituted for one other, that is, nouns substitute nouns, and so on. v) That the TOT (Tip-Of the-Tongue) phenomenon occurs after the stage of lemma selection is over, and when phonological encoding begins; the speaker is unable to retrieve the phonological units that constitute the lemma. vi) That “lexical access is not a generative process,” and apart from “productive use of morphology,” the required words are already part of one’s lexicon. Conceptualiser Grammatical Encoder Sound Form Encoder Articulator Fig. 2: “Cascade Model” Dell, et al.. (1999) With respect to the two models presented here, then, it can be surmised that while each makes some valid and interesting arguments regarding the nature of Lexical Access, which of course form the bases of our perspective here, there still remains the fact that they both view language as a separate modular system, which clashes with the tenets of Cognitive Linguistics. Also, there is the issue of the factors involved in the process, which are not explored by either of these theories, and which we attempt to do here. Hence, neither of the aforementioned models attempt to define precisely what elements affect the process of Lexical Access, or talk about Semantic Specificity, Context, Degree of Emphasis or Semantic/Articulatory Generalisation, or even points such as Equivalence and Entrenchment. On the basis of these points, we question these models and indicate that they should at least be considered incomplete, which leads us to reject them as complete theories. In order to work out the functioning of Lexical Access from the conceptual system to the linguistic one, and given the relative lack of resources to draw upon from the Cognitive Linguistics point of view, we first need to select and assess one of the most popular recent theories of conceptual access through lexical items, and then see if they could be applied to the process of production, when turned ‘upside-down,’ so to speak. 17 One theory stands out the most in terms of Access, albeit from the comprehension point of view. This is the LCCM Theory as laid out by Evans (2009), which we shall now discuss in the next section. 3.3 THE LCCM THEORY The Theory of Lexical Concepts and Cognitive Models (also known as Access Semantics), as explained by Evans (2009), is one describing the processes that seemingly occur within the cognitive system during the comprehension of language, while addressing mainly the “protean nature of word meaning.” The theory itself is comprehensive and exhaustive in nature, taking into account all apparent aspects of cognition within the comprehension process. We shall first take a look at the claims made by Evans within this premise, and then move on to working out exactly how it could be employed for the process of production as well. We begin with the overall structure of Access Semantics. Evans suggests an approach towards “accounting for the inherent variation in word meaning” through “a principled separation between the linguistic system – the linguistic knowledge that words encode – and the conceptual system – the non-linguistic knowledge that words facilitate access to” (Evans, 2009, p. xi). He also indicates that while there are many theories attempting to connect semantic and conceptual structure and join them both within the same group, these two aspects are quite distinct from each other, with the former forming the linguistic content which naturally is language-dependent, and the latter, the conceptual content which is language-independent. However, he explains through logical argument, that conceptual content cannot be context-independent as such. Below is a summary of the Theory of Access Semantics, as put forth by XXX (2016) • Lexical representation is made up of Symbolic Units and Cognitive Models; • Symbolic Units consist of Lexical Concepts and Vehicles (which are individual linguistic units); 18 • Lexical Concepts refer to the Semantic Structure, which is parametric in nature. This means that their content, independent of conceptual connections, is highly schematic knowledge that is abstracted from Cognitive Models; • Cognitive Models refer to the Conceptual Structure, which is the encyclopaedic or, as Evans prefers to call it, “analogous” knowledge that is present within the conceptual system, which is based on embodied experience and is reactivated or “simulated” when we think; • The Access Site refers to a Cognitive Model that “facilitates direct access from an open-class Lexical Concept to its relevant Cognitive Models;” • A Lexical Profile is the unique profile of each Lexical Concept, involving the Use Potential; • A Cognitive Model Profile is the Semantic Potential – the set of Cognitive Models that get activated based on the linguistic and non-linguistic context; and • There are specific Semantic and Formal Selectional Tendencies that govern the overall process of Lexical Concept Selection, which is followed by Fusion, which in turn involves Lexical Concept Integration and Interpretation. Thus, according to the LCCM theory, there are two main nodes in terms of “representation” when it comes to the interaction between language and the conceptual framework within the realm of cognition. The first node, which Evans calls “Lexical Representation,” is made of “Symbolic Units” and “Cognitive Models.” He describes three basic principles of Lexical Representation (Evans, 2009, P. 30): • Polysemy is conceptual in nature • Words are associated with selectional tendencies (Lexical Profile) 19 • Grammatical categories have a semantic basis According to Evans, meaning is distinct from Lexical Representation as “while meaning is a property of an utterance, lexical representations consist of the mental abstractions which we infer must be stored as part of the language user’s knowledge of language: symbolic units, together with the range of cognitive models, the semantic potential, to which a lexical concept affords access” (Evans, 2009, p. 73). Essentially, he explains that Lexical Representation consists of a more complex web of aspects that create the bridge between the conceptual and linguistic systems, thereby creating meaning for an utterance, or as Evans puts it, a “conception.” It is also mentioned that “backstage processes” such as conceptualisation lead to meaning construction. Evans calls this process of conceptualisation “simulation,” wherein a word or utterance triggers conceptual content that is based on embodied experience. Let us take the example of the word left, in the context of embodied direction, so to speak. The Lexical Concept for this term, then, provides access to the cognitive models associated with the aspects of “directedness” (Evans, 2013), and in doing so, gives rise to an “image schema” (Johnson, 2005) of directionality in terms of ‘right’ or ‘left’ on the basis of personal individual experience. An interesting thing to note here is the connection between cognitive models associated mainly with activities that are specific to the right or left hand, depending also on the cultural context, and their effect on comprehension. In the Indian context, the [Hand/Eat] parameter of the [DIRECTION] Lexical Concept would be associated with the right hand, whereas in most Western cultures, which employ the use of cutlery as compared to Indians’ use of their fingers, it would be associated with the left hand. Hence, the association of specific parameters of Lexical Concepts with a Cognitive Model Profile is not only based on embodied experience, but also culture-specific, convention-driven behaviour. An amusing factual instance comes to mind; an Indian individual who usually has trouble telling left from right once ended up sending people asking for directions the wrong way because they forgot to carry out the ‘eating motion’ with their hands, to figure out which was which, before giving the directions. This shows how strongly these Cognitive Models can affect the overall process. • Aspects of Lexical Representation: 20 i) Symbolic Units: This term refers to a system that involves “Vehicles” and “Lexical Concepts.” Essentially, a symbolic unit is a merger of the schematic information that makes up the linguistic item, and the phonological form it takes, eventually adding up to create the linguistic essence of the item. a. Lexical Concepts: These include the schematic and “digitised” content which is “abstracted from usage events” (Evans, 2009, p. 128). The knowledge represented here, then, is purely linguistic and “parametric” in nature. This takes into account whether the item needs to represent a THING, PROCESS, RELATION (Taylor, 2002) or any other such phenomena, which in the most basic understanding of grammar may be considered as whether the lexical item belongs to the noun, verb, adjective, adverb or other such lexical class. However, it must be noted that Lexical Concepts themselves, when employed in usage, are only partially activated; in fact, the context and usage-based requirements would prescribe which form and linguistic aspects of the Lexical Concept would come to the forefront. Evans (2009) likens this to the distinction between phonemes and allophones, wherein phonemes are abstract entities with specific usage-based options for realisation, and allophones are those actual realisations in context. An interesting case is the lexical item walk, which can be considered a THING (noun) or a PROCESS (verb), depending on the utterance context. The question that arises here is whether it would appear as the same meaningful abstract entity (Lexical Concept) [WALK], with specific aspects of its linguistic contextual parameters being activated, or if it would occur as two different Lexical Concepts, each defined by its own linguistic parameters and thus distinguished from the other, despite being drawn from within similar (or congruent – it would be a matter of perspective) Cognitive Model Profiles. Evans seems to suggest the latter, which shall be discussed later. Thus, Evans proposes that Lexical Concepts constitute the “semantic pole” of Symbolic Units. He also suggests that Lexical Concepts have their own unique “Lexical Profile,” which consists of their “Use Potential” in terms of the linguistic context. 21 b. Vehicles: Independent linguistic units that are employed to represent lexical concepts and their related analogue content are known as vehicles. This involves the phonologically bound entities that are packed together to form morphemes, words or idioms – any linguistic structure that can be viewed as a whole entity. Hence, Vehicles are known as the “linguistic pole” of the Symbolic Unit. ii) Cognitive Models: This aspect of Lexical Representation deals with the “analogous” or “encyclopaedic” knowledge, which is non-linguistic in nature and is specific to the conceptual system. Basically, it refers to the set of conceptual structures that can be activated with the usage of a certain lexical concept, depending on the context thereof. According to Evans, the use of a particular lexical concept in a specific context gives rise to a number of conceptual structures, which he calls “cognitive models,” which are clusters of non-linguistic, encyclopaedic knowledge that we gain through embodied experience, and which are activated through the means of an “access site,” based on the linguistic and non-linguistic context. The entirety of the Cognitive Models that are associated with a Lexical Concept regardless of context, is called a “Cognitive Model Profile” for that particular Lexical Concept. This forms the “Semantic Potential” for the same. • Aspects of Semantic Composition: The second node that forms the LCCM Theory (Evans, 2009) involves the processes that interact with the elements within the Lexical Representation node, and is called Semantic Composition. This refers to “the linguistically mediated meaning construction process” (Evans, 2009, p.75). It includes two basic processes – Lexical Concept Selection and Fusion. 22 According to the theory, “a vehicle may potentially be associated with a large number of distinct Lexical Concepts” (Evans, 2009, p. 217). This property of each vehicle - being associated with an array of Lexical Concepts that exist parallel to each other, is known as the Lexical Concept Potential of that particular vehicle. Hence, it is indicated that this Lexical Concept Potential must be narrowed down to a single Lexical Concept in order to produce a “reading,” which Evans describes as “a situated interpretation specific to the context in which it is embedded” (Evans, 2009, p. 218). Basically, it refers to the specific conceptual structure(s) that would be associated with a vehicle within a given context during comprehension; the latter would include the other Lexical Concepts involved within the utterance. Thus, Evans claims that in order to achieve this objective of reading, the Lexical Concept Potential of a vehicle must undergo a kind of filtration, which includes the processes of Lexical Concept Selection (mostly referred to as “Selection”) and Fusion, the latter of which includes two sub-processes, namely Integration and Interpretation. These sub-processes seem to be governed by a set of 10 basic principles in all, which shall be discussed later in the chapter. i) Lexical Concept Selection: This process, as is evident from the term itself, involves the identification of a specific Lexical Concept for a specific Vehicle in a specific context, within a given utterance. It is suggested that Selection occurs between distinct Lexical Concepts and not at the level of the Semantic Potential (Cognitive Models). Essentially, Selection occurs when there is more than one Lexical Concept available for a vehicle, each with distinct Lexical Profiles and consequently a number of potential Access Sites, as compared to ones with a single Lexical Profile and similarly, a single Access Site. Let us take the example of some adjectives/adverbs that are related to visual perception. i. Shiny: a. That’s one shiny diamond! b. She gave him a shiny smile. 23 In the sentences given above, the Lexical Concept of [VISUALLY BRIGHT/ LUSTROUS] seems to be at play in the first instance, whereas a more metaphorical usage is indicated in the second one, perhaps with the Lexical Concept [SEEMINGLY HAPPY] in action. While this suggests the existence of more than one Lexical Concept, Evans’ explanation seems to cover only the broad range of parameters used to define and distinguish one Lexical Concept from another. This point is discussed more elaborately at the end of the chapter. The process of distinguishing Lexical Concepts may cause a certain degree of confusion while deciding how many Lexical Concepts a vehicle can have, especially when it comes to homonymy or polysemy. While Evans does address the issue of polysemy in quite a lot of detail, the focus remains on the fact that different Lexical Concepts may well exist for a word, and not on how they are defined. He also mentions, as stated above (Evans, 2009, pg. 30), that polysemy is “conceptual in nature.” However, this gives rise to the question of how exactly Lexical Concepts are defined for words that have distinct, but related meanings. ii. Dull: a. The silver looks dull and dusty. b. This is such a dull job. In the first utterance, dull seems to mean [OLD/VISUALLY UNAPPEALING], whereas in the second, it suggests the use of the [BORING/MUNDANE] Lexical Concept. Given these examples, we can now work out the overall process of Lexical Concept Selection – a vehicle, when uttered, generates a number of possibilities in terms of Lexical Concepts within the hearer’s mind, out of which one (or more) are selected, giving rise to the Cognitive Model Profile of that particular Lexical Concept or blend thereof. The first phase, then, Evans calls “broad selection,” wherein one Lexical Concept is selected from an array of potential ones. Next comes 24 the process of “narrow selection,” wherein he suggests that each Lexical Concept has a number of different “parameters,” which would define specific usages and inferences, and from which one (or more) parameters would be engaged and selected. Consider the following example. iii. Tall: a. He is tall for his age. b. The city is full of tall buildings. c. She tells tall tales. In this scenario, it seems that the vehicle tall activates the selection of a single Lexical Concept in each of these utterances – [OF GREAT(ER) HEIGHT (THAN AVERAGE)]. Even on a figurative level – the “tall tales” seem to refer to the same Lexical Concept, except that it seems to focus on the part about the tales being ‘beyond the reach of belief,’ and thus unrealistic or not believable. Hence, the Lexical Concept [OF GREAT(ER) HEIGHT (THAN AVERAGE)] would have at least two parameters associated with it – that of visual perception and that of something being metaphorically out of reach – both of which are connected in the fact that something or someone tall would generally be beyond the reach or potential of the similar things or people surrounding it. There may be a certain amount of debate over whether this explanation is acceptable or not, depending on the approach taken. A similar situation occurs in the case of short, as seen below, where the Lexical Concept involved is [OF LESS(ER) HEIGHT/LENGTH (THAN AVERAGE)]. A point to be noted here, then, is that while tall and short are essentially considered antonyms (Turney, 2008) or opposites of each other, the latter seems to also include the aspect of (usually horizontal) ‘length,’ to add to the vertical ‘height aspect. iv. Short: a. He is short for his age. b. It seems he fell short of his parents’ expectations. c. Keep it short. 25 - Context: There are a number of factors that affect Lexical Concept Selection, which are divided into two broad categories: Linguistic Context and Extra-linguistic Context. The former includes the Utterance Context, which denotes the linguistic and prosodic features involved in the utterance, such as intonation, rhythm and stress etc. It also includes the Discourse Context, that is, the “common ground” or shared knowledge between the speaker and hearer(s), which is textual and situational in nature, and the Speech Event, which leads to selection based on the situation in general. The Extra-linguistic Context would involve the overall venue, setting etc. of the utterance. For instance, while Evans uses the example of expired to explain this phenomenon (Evans, 2009, p. 221), we make use of the polysemous word goal – which can mean different things in different situations. We consider two different scenarios here – a football game and a meeting of an organization’s top executives. In the first scenario, the following would be considered in terms of Context: (i) Football Game: 1. Extra-linguistic Context: The football game taking place in a stadium with hundreds of fans for both teams, cheering them on. 2. Linguistic Context: a. Utterance Context: The intonation and stress patterns of the utterance would lead to the construing of an exclamation on the audience’s part. b. Discourse Context: The common ground would be the knowledge shared by football fans regarding the rules and terminology of the game, thus leading them to know that a goal in this context would involve one of the team members sending the ball through the post and into the net, and past the goalkeeper. 26 c. Speech Event: Again, considering the overall situation, vis-à-vis the commentary during a football game, the “meaning” of the word goal becomes quite clear. (ii) In the boardroom meeting situation, the inference drawn would be based on the following. 1. Extra-linguistic Context: A small number of people sitting in a conference room, with one individual (perhaps the CEO, or someone with that kind of authority) speaking to the rest of them regarding the company’s functioning and vision. 2. Linguistic Context: a. Utterance Context: The intonation, rhythm and stress involved in this utterance would suggest a declaration, possibly said with an air of authority. b. Discourse Context: The common ground would be the shared knowledge of the various aspects involved in the functioning of a company, and the fact that there are targets and objectives to be met. c. Speech Event: This would involve the talk given by the individual, perhaps with the motive of offering inspiration or reprimanding negligence. In either situation, then, it would be rather difficult for people to mix up what is meant by the word goal, despite it being the same sound form. We now move on to the next process of Lexical Access – Fusion. ii) Fusion: This section involves two basic processes – Lexical Concept Integration and Interpretation. Lexical Concept Integration as a process forms composite units known as Lexical Conceptual Units – integrated units of linguistic content. Essentially, Evans suggests that it provides the “scaffolding” for the activation of conceptual content. He distinguishes between two types of open-class Lexical Concepts – Internally Open (abstract) and Internally Closed (concrete). According to this view, the 27 former kind are not “lexically filled,” that is, they do not have “fixed lexical items as part of their composition” (Evans, 2009), whereas the latter do. He also suggests that in case of the former kind of Lexical Concept, there occurs the process of Internal Lexical Concept Integration, while the latter involves External Lexical Concept Integration. Both these processes create a holistic Lexical Concept for the utterance itself, after going through individual integrative processes for each separate Lexical Concept within the utterance. This is a recursive process, wherein once the Cognitive Models for each Lexical Concept have been activated, they are put together with the others within the utterance, and if there are no clashes among them in terms of conceptual or linguistic structure, then the entire utterance is considered as a whole and interpreted accordingly. There are 10 basic principles (Evans, 2009) that govern the process of Fusion. These are as follows: • Principle of Linguistic Coherence: “A lexical concept that is internally open may only be integrated with a lexical concept with which it shares schematic coherence in terms of linguistic content.” • Principle of Schematic Content: “The content associated with entities, participants, and the relations holding between them must exhibit coherence in fusion operations.” • Principle of Ordered Integration in Internally Open Lexical Concepts: Lexical concept integration takes place by applying to internally simpler lexical concepts before applying to internally more complex lexical concepts.” • Principle of Guided Matching: “Matching of cognitive models in interpretation proceeds in a way that is compatible with the output of lexical concept integration.” • Principle of Conceptual Coherence: “Matching occurs between one or more cognitive models/informational characterisations, belonging to 28 distinct cognitive model profiles/lexical conceptual units, which share schematic coherence in terms of conceptual content.” • Principle of Schematic Salience in Matching: “Matching across cognitive model profiles/informational characterisations achieves greater schematic salience when relatively more cognitive models are matched than matches involving fewer cognitive models.” • Principle of Simultaneous Matching: When matching takes place between an informational characterisation and a complex lexical concept, matching may occur simultaneously across cognitive model profiles of the lexical concepts that form a part of the complex lexical concept.” • Principle of Primary Activation: Matched cognitive model(s) are subject to primary activation.” • Principle of Ordered Search: “Matching takes place in the primary cognitive model profile, which is the default search region for that subset of lexical concepts that facilitate access to a cognitive model profile. If matching is unsuccessful in the default search domain… a clash occurs, then a new search domain is established in the secondary cognitive model profile. The search proceeds in an ordered fashion, proceeding on the basis of secondary cognitive models that are conceptually more coherent with respect to the primary cognitive models (and hence modelled as being ‘closer’ in the cognitive model profile) prior to searching cognitive models that exhibit successively less conceptual coherence,” • Principle of Secondary Activation: “All primary cognitive models, and all secondary cognitive models on the route of access which do not achieve primary activation, achieve secondary activation.” There still remain some points to consider when it comes to the LCCM Theory. First of all, there is the claim that closed class elements are less content-based than open class ones. For instance, we take the utterance The men are going to war. In this sentence, if the open class elements are removed, we get “The somethings are something-ing to something.” This suggests that a specific group of individuals is currently carrying out an action that culminates at a specific point. The same structure could be used for The girls are heading to school, or The boys are talking to Dexter, etc. However, the information we gain from the closed class elements is still 29 conceptually relevant. We make the argument that words such as the, are and to are equally conceptually-driven as the others in any of these sentences. True, they may not have an entire array of Lexical Concepts at their disposal, but they would still be related to the cognitive system, in terms of providing more than just schematic information. For instance, the leads to a good deal of conceptual information, which is drawn from the cognitive models that define the existence of specificity, which leads to the definiteness of the article, as well as what it describes – in this case, men, girls or boys. Just like the ‘meaning’ of the utterance would change if the open class elements were changed, it would do the same for closed class ones too, which is seen if we replace the with these or those. There may be a smaller degree of difference, but it would still exist. Aspects such as definiteness, specificity, tense, number, and prepositional value are all vital in terms of meaning, and ought to derive their content from cognitive models, as they are not purely linguistic or schematic in nature, as is suggested. The same goes if we replace to with for here, especially in the third utterance. Also, an argument could be made regarding the limited number of alternatives that could be chosen for closed class elements as compared to open class ones. However, given the structure of any utterance, the existence of closed class elements tends to constrain the alternatives for the open class elements as well. For instance, while the slots given above may be filled with girls, heading and school or boys, talking and Dexter, they cannot be filled with random words falling within the same grammatical category, such as cats, creeping and wall, without adding another the before the last word. This suggests that closed class elements are also conceptually-driven, as are open class ones. The biggest examples of this are seen in Evans’ use of in, on and over as Lexical Concepts involving polysemy. Another point to note, as mentioned above, is the fact that while more than one Lexical Concept may well exist for a single vehicle, it is important to define the characteristics of Lexical Concepts themselves, outlining the parameters that govern the distinction of one from the other. Evans (2009, p. 141-142) describes two basic distinguishing criteria for Lexical Profile selection, and in turn, Lexical Concept selection: - The Semantic Selectional Criterion: A distinct lexical profile – by definition encoded by a distinct lexical concept – provides unique or highly distinct patterns in terms of the nature and range of 30 the lexical concepts with which a lexical concept can co-occur or in which it can be embedded, or in the case of an internally open lexical concept, which occur within it. - The Formal Selectional Criterion: A distinct lexical profile – by definition encoded by a distinct lexical concept – provides unique or highly distinct patterns in terms of the vehicles with which a lexical concept can co-occur or in which it can be embedded, or in the case of an internally open lexical concept, the nature of the alignment between vehicles and the internally closed lexical concepts that lexically fill the internally open lexical concept. However, despite these criteria, sometimes differentiating between Lexical Concepts can be difficult. An instance of this is seen in Evans’ (2009, p. 220-221) own example of the Lexical Concepts associated with fast. (1) a fast car [RAPID LOCOMOTION] (2) a fast typist [RAPID PERFORMANCE OF ACTIVITY] (3) a fast decision [REQUIRES LITTLE TIME FOR COMPLETION] (4) …a fast garage… [Blend: all of the above] While all of these are considered distinct Lexical Concepts for the word fast in the given description, if it comes to the Semantic Selectional Criterion, the basis of Lexical Concept Selection here would be the slight differences in semantic value. However, Evans also rightly points out that if every usage of the vehicle is considered as a distinct Lexical Concept, the list would be infinite. The point to note here, though, is that while one can understand why the Lexical Concept is different for (3), given the use of the Time domain, (1) and (2) are based mainly on Motion/Movement. Whether it is locomotion or the performance of an activity, the basis of both potential Lexical Concepts is [MOTION], and thus makes one wonder why they have been separated in the first place. Also, considering that the Lexical Concept is supposed to be highly schematic and linguistic in nature, the conceptual nature of its collocations should not really be a point of concern. Thus, while the Lexical Concepts for car and typist differ only in that the former defines an inanimate THING and the latter defines an animate one, their respective Semantic Potentials should not be relevant. The Semantic Selectional Criterion mentions the uniqueness of patterns in terms of “nature,” which makes one 31 wonder what exactly constitutes “nature” here. If it is schematic content, then the only difference in the Lexical Concepts for car and typist is that one is inanimate, while another is not. However, even this knowledge is to a degree conceptual in nature, based on the embodied experience and analogue information that a car is distinct from a person, and while both move, the former requires another entity to bring it into motion, while the latter does not. Thus, from the purely schematic perspective, we are only looking at [THING] here, perhaps with certain other aspects such as number, tense etc. This seems to entail that – a. Lexical Concepts are not purely schematic in nature; they also include conceptual content. If that is the case, however, then the use for fast or any other adjective to describe each and every [THING] in its collocations would incite the use of a distinct Lexical Concept – making the list infinite, or b. Lexical Concepts are truly schematic in nature, which suggests that the Semantic Potential of their collocations or any part thereof must not interfere with the selectional criteria, and would thus suggest a single Lexical Concept for common use, unless there is a notable difference in its own semantic value, as seen in homonomy. We suggest a third alternative, at least in terms of Production, as we shall see in the next chapter – taking aspects from both options given above. If the Lexical Concept itself is considered a part-schematic, part-conceptual category for a range of potential vehicles to be used within different usage-based contexts, then both these problems can be solved. Hence, the schematic information encoded by it would take first preference, creating a category of options for the vehicles describing (in case of an adjective) a RELATION (property) to/of a THING. Having established that, the Semantic Potential of the Lexical Concept would come into play, eliminating various vehicles that do not fall within the required semantic range. Hence, if placed under the Lexical Concept category of [RAPID], the issue could be sorted out more easily than the divisions given above, with the collocational Lexical Concept being [MOTION]. If it was about thinking fast, that too is essentially an “activity,” but focuses more on the aspects of Time and Cognition, and hence, would possibly be put together with (3) under the same context. In terms of 32 comprehension, then, the vehicles with more than one truly distinct Lexical Concepts would select, based on their semantic value, the one best suited for the context, and access the combined Semantic Potential that is generated by the connection between the two accordingly. While this is pure conjecture and exploring it is beyond the scope of this paper, further studies carried out in this area would certainly yield interesting results. Given below is a pictorial representation of Evans’ LCCM Theory as described by XXXX (2016) – LCCM Theory Lexical Representation Cognitive Models Symbolic Units Vehicles Lexical Concepts Selection Fusion Semantic Composition Integration Lexical Conceptual Units (Semantic Value) Interpretation Fig. 3: The LCCM Theory Access Site Cognitive Model Profiles 33 3.4 SYNONYMY The concept of synonymy has been a long-standing matter of debate among linguists, whatever their approach. While some early linguists believed that the semantic and formal values of one word can be “similar” to those of another, others later pointed out various issues related to the claim (Martin, 1984). For one thing, it is suggested that seemingly synonymous words may have related meanings, but are distinct in terms of some conceptual and semantic nuances. For instance, if we take the most commonly occurring adjective in the British National Corpus (Sketch Engine, 2004) – other, the top 3 “synonyms” we get from the Sketch Engine thesaurus are different, another/some other and new – all of which differ to a certain degree in terms of actual conceptual and “semantic value.” The term “semantic value” here can be defined as the “exact meaning” to be delivered by the word, which involves a specific set of conceptual structures that are based on embodied cognition and experience, and which make up a unique combination of semantic characteristics associated with it. Similarly, if a cross-linguistic analysis were to take place here, the “synonyms” for [ənjə] (which loosely translates into other in Hindi) would be [du:sra] (second/another), [ələg] (different) and [nəja] (new) or even [bɦinn] (distinct) (Sketch Engine, 2004), if considering the formal register of Hindi. From inherent knowledge of the languages (as a native speaker), it can be surmised that the same would occur in Gujarati and Marathi, leading to [ʤudũ] and [ʋegɭə] being considered “synonymous” to [biʤũ] (second/another) and [həʤi] (more/someone or something else), as well as [dusrə] (second/another), [əʣu:n] (more) and [aɳkhi] (further/more). From the point of view of the LCCM Theory, then, it can be considered that synonymy per se doesn’t exist. While there may be a number of overlapping cognitive models between two or more words or phrases (not necessarily those within the same grammatical category either), each Lexical Concept would have its own Cognitive Model Profile, and thus, even if we discount the “Use Potential” of the Lexical Concept by arguing that there are various scenarios in usage wherein despite the use of a different word or phrase the content of the utterance and the speaker intent are conveyed successfully, the “Semantic Potential” thereof will still be distinct from others falling within a similar ‘semantic range,’ so to speak. 34 ‘Semantic range’ here refers to the array of conceptually associated semantic values for various lexical items, which range between least to most similar, depending on the context. While all these points are difficult to refute, and seem to make sense, there also exists the fact that eventually, the aim of language is to act as an “instrument for organising, processing, and conveying information” (Sanders and Spooren, 2007, p. 916). This brings forth two main arguments. The first is that while the Semantic Potential matters at the speaker level, this potential for the same word or phrase may be slightly different for the listener, and there cannot be complete congruence in these two, given the statement above, which indicates that conceptual structure is based on embodied experience. Since no two human beings can have the exact same embodied experiences throughout their lives, complete congruence is not possible. This means that to a degree, the listener is adding on to his/her own understanding of the word or phrase in question by attaching a new ‘meaning’ or context to its use and possibly even giving rise to polysemy through such learning. On the other hand, there is also the point that at the utterance level, the context seems to be the most important aspect. The use of any word or phrase from within the same semantic range, given certain basic constraints and the extra-linguistic factors mentioned above, can be permissible as long as their linguistic context is clear, and fits with the extra-linguistic context. A good example of this is the word thing or in more recent use, even thingy, to describe a physical or abstract object or entity. For instance, take the statements – i. Hand me the broom, as opposed to ii. Hand me the thing. Within the same linguistic (prosodic) context and with the use of the same gestures within the same speech situation (Evans, 2009), thing can still be used to substitute broom in order to convey the relevant message. On the other hand, in case this doesn’t work and the hearer does not understand which thing” the speaker is talking about, it incites the former to interact further, asking for a more specific 35 description. In case the speaker is experiencing a Tip-of the-Tongue (TOT) (Brown & McNeill, 1966) phenomenon at this time, they may just describe the broom as iii. The thing you sweep with. This would lead to better understanding on the hearer’s part. This is where the aspect of categorization also comes in. It can be argued that a broom still falls in the category of a thing, and thus the hearer has at least some linguistic or as Evans puts it, “parametric” knowledge of the seemingly synonymous words, and their potential relation to each other. It also indicates that there is a specific Cognitive Model Profile at play, which makes use of words that define the function of the object being discussed, and thus provides at least a somewhat detailed description of it. However, it may also be argued that a number of objects can exist together with the broom, in the same general direction that the speaker gestures towards, and unless there are visual or other such cues suggesting precisely which thing the speaker really needs, it becomes an ambiguous statement that demands further clarity. For the most part, though, given the extra-linguistic context, it is usually possible for successful communication to occur. The notion of “cognitive economy” is also relevant here (Evans, 2007). It is suggested in the field of Cognitive Linguistics that while there is a great deal of rich conceptual content within a speaker and/or hearer’s mind, the speaker would usually try to express themselves using as specific a conceptual structure and categorisation tools as possible, which in terms of the LCCM Theory, would mean a very specific part of the Cognitive Model Profile and thus, the Lexical Concept related to it, in order to convey the message. However, in phenomena such as the TOT situation, the same conceptual structure may have to be broadened to include other aspects of the Cognitive Model Profile and enable “substitution” by apparent “synonyms” or other such equivalents (see next section). This could lead to further Generalisation of the overall content thereof, and consequently, necessitate the choice of words expressing other characteristic features of the object/entity in question in order for the speaker to express themselves more efficiently. Continuing the example of the broom here, it 36 can be said that in case the TOT phenomenon occurs during the speaker’s utterance, they might first use a more generic term to substitute the word broom, such as thing. If due to contextual “noise” (interference by entities or phenomena within the context that carry a similar description, function or other defining value) this does not work, it would then be focused on a different part of the cognitive model profile (in this case its function) involving other aspects. It will thus result in the selection of the words most specific to expressing this new functional description. This means that the shift in focus within the Cognitive Model Profile would lead to the selection of words expressing other aspects of the object/ entity in question. 3.5 EQUIVALENCE As a related concept to synonymy, Jakobson’s (1959) theory of equivalence seems to pave the way for a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon given above. While his claims were made on the basis of the study of Translation, the points he has stated are the building blocks for the arguments laid out in this study. The most important aspect thereof is that of “intralingual translation.” Jakobson enumerates three basic kinds of translation – “intralingual,” “interlingual” and “intersemiotic.” • Intralingual Translation: This kind of translation, also termed “rewording,” occurs within the language, and can be described as the substitution of a word or phrase with an apparently “synonymous” one. This could also occur in case the target word or phrase is for any reason unavailable, as in Tip-of-Tongue situations. The author defines it as “…an interpretation of verbal signs by means of other signs of the same language.” Essentially, as is currently happening to a degree within this very sentence, it refers to what is generally known as “paraphrasing.” This concept is one of the most vital cogs of the Lexical Access system, as it provides the basis for the substitution of specific words within the lexicon with others that have a similar semantic value. It follows, then, that the Cognitive Model Profiles associated with this type of translation are either slightly different, but overlap to quite an extent, or as mentioned in the previous section, simply require a shift in “focus” to other aspects within them. In case of word-for-word substitution, this would involve the 37 use of Lexical Concepts that are associated with each other through their respective Cognitive Models, and thus, even if the substitute word does not sound exactly “apt” for the context or changes the meaning ever so slightly, it can still be used, as it conveys the basic message. As mentioned above, it is the linguistic and extralinguistic context that helps the hearer understand the semantic value of the target word and apply it to the Cognitive Models within their own conceptual structure. • Interlingual Translation: This kind of translation refers to the substitution of words or phrases within one language with those in another. Jakobson calls this phenomenon “translation proper,” indicating that it is “…an interpretation of verbal signs by means of some other language.” • Intersemiotic Translation: Here, translation occurs between two distinct semiotic systems, that is, from verbal to nonverbal systems, in order to convey meaning. An instance of this is the adaptation of prose or poetry into dance, wherein every word or phrase is interpreted in terms of gestures and/or movements. Another example is the existence of Sign Language, as we see in a number of news channels where an individual gesticulates while the reader reads out the script. The author describes this as “transmutation,” suggesting that it is “…an interpretation of verbal signs by means of signs of nonverbal sign systems.” While the first two kinds of translation are relevant to Lexical Access in Language Production and describe the concept of “equivalence” quite well in order to define the equality of semantic value between two distinct words or phrases, the correlation between them both is a matter beyond the scope of this paper. Thus, we shall only consider the point of Intralingual Translation for this specific study, as it focuses on a more in-depth analysis of synonym substitution as compared to the others. 3.6 EQUIVALENCE FROM A COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS PERSPECTIVE Carrying on the point of Intralingual Translation, then, we come to a bit of an impasse as to the level of “loss” that occurs during the process, with various theories suggesting various approaches to it (Halverson, 1997). Here the term “loss” refers to the loss of semantic value when one word or phrase is substituted by another. However, while this debate is by no means inconsequential, there exists another 38 point to all of this – that of ‘gain’ in semantic potential. As such, with the suggestion that different vehicles are connected to distinct Lexical Concepts which provide certain conceptual structures associated with them, it follows that while there would certinly be a loss of certain Cognitive Models from within a profile, there would also be an addition of other Cognitive Models into the revised profile, when it comes to the use of a substitute. The other option is that only the vehicle is mapped onto the Cognitive Model Profile of a different word or phrase, leading to a complete loss (for the substituted vehicle in terms of semantic potential) and no gain in terms of conceptual structures in the speaker’s mind. This seems rather far-fetched, though. If a vehicle is inextricably connected to a Lexical Concept, then it follows that the Cognitive Model Profile would tag along when it is used in an unfamiliar context and would evolve accordingly, given that it is because of the Cognitive Model Profile that the substitute word or phrase was selected in the first place. While we have spoken mainly about the gain in semantic potential in terms of word-for-word substitution here, it is also important to note that in carrying out the process, there is a certain degree of ‘linguistic gain’ occurring for both, the speaker and the hearer’s conceptual systems. This means that despite the seemingly inappropriate usage of the substitute word, it could be added as an instance of how the relevant conceptual structure could be expressed, and if repeated a number of times, the vehicle and its respective Lexical Concept would become part of their conceptual/linguistic repertoire (see next section). In this study, we carry on the distinction between what is described as “formal equivalence,” and “dynamic equivalence” by Nida (2003). He describes the former as focusing on both, the form and content of the message, and the latter as a phenomenon in which the focus is on the relationship between the hearer and the message, which should essentially be the same as was with their original counterparts (Nida, 1964). Essentially, he distinguishes between the kind of equivalence that deals with both, form and content, and the kind that focuses entirely on content, as long as the message is communicated effectively – that is, if it has the same comprehension value as the original message in the hearer’s mind. When we say “value” here, though, it does not necessarily mean that it activates the exact same Cognitive Model Profile as that of the original word or phrase, but it is semantically as close to it as 39 possible, allowing the linguistic and extra-linguistic context to fill any gaps left by the substitution. While this dichotomy between formal and dynamic equivalence may be conducive from the modular approach, given everything discussed above, it seems plausible that a greater degree of focus is set on content when it comes to substitution, rather than form. 3.7 ENTRENCHMENT, COLLOCATIONS AND SALIENCE Another very important notion within Cognitive Linguistics is that of “entrenchment.” It is defined as “the degree to which the formation and activation of a cognitive unit is routinised and automated” (Schmid, 2007). However, Schmid also suggests that entrenchment is, to a certain degree, variable in nature. That is, despite the viewing of a single lexical item or group thereof as a gestalt – in this case, an independent unit carrying a specific kind of conceptual information – in the latter scenario, there may be variation in the use of certain words or their forms depending on context. As mentioned by Langacker, When a complex structure coalesces into a unit, its subparts do not thereby cease to exist or be identifiable as substructures… Its components do become less salient, however, precisely because the speaker no longer has to attend to them individually (Langacker, 1987, p.59). Thus, according to Schmid (2007, p. 121), “it is not only lexical concepts that get entrenched with repeated use, but also collocational patterns…” The most striking examples of this kind of structure are idioms, such as piece of cake, break a leg, hit the books, etc. It is important to note here, however, that the meaning conveyed by these gestalts is not necessarily equivalent to the sum of the meaning conveyed by its parts. That is, if viewed from outside the entrenched perspective, such as from that of a non-native learner of the language (in this case English), the meaning conveyed by the lexical sub-parts, if put together in exactly the same manner and used within the same context, may not make sense at all, or would convey something entirely different. If we take the first example stated here – piece of cake, which means “extremely easy,” if said in the context i. That test was a piece of cake, 40 would not make sense to anyone who is not aware of the idiomatic meaning of the unit. Obviously, a test cannot actually be a piece of cake (in this case an actual portion taken from a cake), unless of course it is some kind of cake-eating contest, in which case it may be expressed differently. Although, if the speaker is trying to create humour through the use of a pun, that is, using the idiom to state that the test in reality was (to eat) a piece of cake, then the effect would be totally different. Again, this would be effective only if the hearer is actually aware of the existence of the idiom and its gestalt meaning. If not, they would (quite figuratively, of course) be out of their depth. A bigger study would involve a cross-linguistic approach; however, we gloss over some examples from Hindi, Gujarati and Marathi so as to elucidate the point further. As seen below, a similar situation would occur with any of the following idioms in any of the following languages (contrived examples drawn from native knowledge): - Hindi: [ʈu:ʈ pəɖna] (literally - to break and fall) means to attack with all one’s strength. i. Example: [nəgaɖe ki aʋaz sunte hi sɪpahi duʃmən pər tu:t pəɖe], means ‘As soon as they heard the drums, the soldiers attacked the enemy with all their strength.’ - Gujarati: [ʤəg ʤitʋu] (literally - to win the world), means to achieve absolute success. ii. Example: [pərikʃama səfəɭta prapt kərine ene lagju ke eɳe ʤəg ʤiti lidɦu hətu], means ‘After passing his exams successfully, he felt like he had achieved absolute success.’ - Marathi: [ajtjya bɪɭaʋər nagoba] (literally - to be a cobra on a ready-made burrow), means to declare ownership over someone else’s work; to take credit for someone else’s work. It also carries the notion of laziness and cunningness, and 41 is possibly drawn from the fact that snakes usually take over holes/burrows created by other animals. iii. Example: [səgɦɭə kam toʦ kərto, ti tər tɪthe “saghla kaam toch karto; ti tar tithe ajtjya bɪɭaʋər nagobaʦ ahe], means ‘He does all the work; she simply sits around and takes the credit.’ Idioms such as these are thus entrenched in a native speaker’s mind as singular, holistic conceptual units, and while the closed-class elements within them change according to the context, the rich, conceptual meaning conveyed remains similar throughout. Consequently, it can be assumed that non-idiomatic lexical units occurring together more frequently would also be more entrenched as compared to those that are less frequent. For instance, the use of stunningly beautiful (frequency score 23) would be more entrenched than startlingly beautiful (frequency score 6), based on the corpus data drawn from the British National Corpus through SketchEngine. Thus, it can be deduced that frequency in usage is directly correlated to the level of entrenchment. According to Schmid (2007, p. 121), the “emergence of novel linguistic structures,” also known as “sanctioning,” can occur due to the facilitation of similar structures that are already well entrenched. However, he also notes that sanctioning could be inhibited or blocked by these very structures in certain cases, such as if the semantic value of both structures is almost congruent. He gives an instance of this as the use of *stealer instead of thief in English. As the latter is more entrenched, it seems to block the use of the former as an equivalent substitute. While this may be true to a certain extent, it must also be noted that sometimes, especially in cases of the Tip-of-Tongue phenomenon, new structures such as *stealer can be created and used to substitute the target word, and once established, could be used more frequently until it becomes a well-entrenched unit in itself. This process may not be very common, but it cannot be discounted either. A usage-based example for this very instance is seen in the American sitcom Friends {season 7, 42 episode 11} (2001), wherein Rachel finds out that Chandler is eating a cheesecake that was meant for their neighbour and calls him a thief, but when she joins him, she says that they are *dessert-stealers, not dessert-thieves. This latter expression could have been used for a number of reasons; even the notion that *stealer in this scenario sounds more aesthetically interesting than thief, although that is entirely a matter of perspective. Either way, given the popularity of the show and the fact that most fans still watch it every now and then despite it being over ten years since it stopped airing, it is highly probable that this term has been entrenched into their minds. Consequently, it is possible that the word *stealer be used alongside other nouns, until eventually it becomes an autonomous equivalent for thief. This point is discussed further in the next section. We now come to the concept of “salience.” According to Schmid (2007, p. 122), the theory of spreading activation suggests that “many more words than those that are uttered in a given speech act are activated during the process of lexical retrieval.” This implies that in terms of the LCCM Theory, a number of Lexical Concepts that are associated with the Cognitive Models related to the concept to be expressed, are activated to a certain degree, and the ones that seem most specific and apt for the context in linguistic and extra-linguistic terms would form the “active node” of that conceptual structure. This includes potential “synonyms,” antonyms, various levels of categorization (superordinate, subordinate etc.) (Rosch, 1999), as well as collocates and elements within one (conceptual) frame (Schmid, 2007). This point creates a further basis for the arguments given in chapter 4, and hence shall be continued there. 3.8 ENTRENCHMENT AND EQUIVALENCE – A DEBATABLE DICHOTOMY Further to the point of sanctioning as given above, there is a certain degree of conflict between the concepts of entrenchment and equivalence, posing the question – What would be the status of equivalence substitution in case of entrenched collocations and their respective conceptual structures? The answer to this is the notion of flexibility; human language use and the conceptual system associated with it are not in any way rigid – they constantly evolve. Given that, we suggest that while 43 entrenchment (especially with respect to collocations) would certainly take the upper hand in most usage-based situations, in others that demand creativity - which is one of the distinctive features of human language (Gomez, 1998), such as TOT or even the writing of fiction or poetry, equivalence substitution can also occur quite frequently. An instance of this can be seen in lines 15 and 16 of William Wordsworth’s renowned poem “I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud” (The Wordsworth Poetry Library, 1994), which is as follows: i) “The waves beside them danced; but they Out-did the sparkling waves in glee: A poet could not but be gay, In such a jocund company:” Here, the use of the words gay and jocund could offer similar semantic values on account of being “synonymous” (Princeton University, 2016) and if not for the aspects of metre and other such tools employed in poetry, they could easily be interchanged and still provide the same broad semantic value in both contexts. If used in the context of company, both gay company and jocund company would create an almost congruent effect, in terms of pure conceptual detail, as they would in the “poet…gay” versus “poet…jocund” scenario. The fact that the latter example of interchanging does not seem appropriate is secondary here. The fact that the general semantic value is conveyed is of the essence. Thus, within the Theoretical Background, we have discussed the models of Language Production suggested by Levelt & Schriefers (1987) and Dell, et al. (1999), Evans’ LCCM Theory (2009), and the concepts of synonymy, cognitive economy, equivalence, entrenchment and salience, as well as the relationship between entrenchment and intralingual equivalence in detail. We have also established that despite there being seemingly valid points on the functioning of Lexical Access as a process in the theories suggested by Levelt & Schriefers and Dell, et al., they still view the phenomenon through the modular perspective, while also overlooking the factors affecting it. The LCCM Theory, on the other hand, 44 focuses on comprehension rather than production, which leads us to try and address the objective of bringing it together in a cohesive manner with the other aspects that have been discussed above. We do this in the following chapter, creating the foundation for a more streamlined model of Lexical Access in Language Production, and suggesting the addition of certain points and processes within the same. 4 CMLC – A FUNCTIONAL LEXICAL ACCESS MODEL? This chapter deals with an amalgamation of all the aspects mentioned in the previous one, and proposing a functional model of Lexical Access that focuses more on the factors affecting the processes, and not just the existence thereof. It shall take into consideration examples from English and compare them with those from other languages, in order to substantiate the claims made. 4.1 LCCM UPSIDE-DOWN: CMLC? Given that one of the main objectives of this study is to examine the LCCM Theory as a functional theory/model of Lexical Access in Language Production, we shall begin this chapter with the establishment of the LCCM model placed upsidedown – that is, rather than from the ‘Access Semantics through Lexical Input’ point of view, we focus on the ‘Lexical Access through Semantic Input’ perspective. We start with the Semantic Potential here – namely, the Cognitive Models within a speaker’s conceptual repertoire. The argument that Evans posits here, which indicates the existence of cognitive information created through embodied experience, seems likely even from the perspective of production. To recap, when it comes to comprehension, the Cognitive Models associated with a Lexical Concept come together to form a Cognitive Model Profile for the same, facilitated by the Access Site associated with the Lexical Concept, based on the linguistic and extralinguistic context of the utterance. We shall now see if the same occurs from a production point of view, by describing a backwards overview the process, and seeing if the Cognitive Model Profile provides access to a specific Lexical Concept 45 and consequently, a specific vehicle as well. The system would thus (hypothetically) work as follows. i. A set of Cognitive Models would be selected from the overall conceptual system in order to create associations relevant to the concept to be expressed. ii. A Cognitive Model Profile would then be created with reference to the concept, along with the contextually related and unrelated information associated with the concept. iii. The Cognitive Model structure in phase 1 would lead to the Access Site for a particular Lexical Concept. iv. This Access Site would facilitate access to the respective Lexical Concept, which would in turn provide access to the vehicle(s) associated with it. v. The specific vehicle(s) accessed shall then be used within the utterance. There seem to be a number of issues in this process. For one thing, while the narrowing down of the relevant Cognitive Model Profile into a specific set of conceptual structures based on context seems likely from the comprehension point of view, it seems rather unnecessary when it comes to production. After all, the speaker is usually very specific of the exact kind of information he or she wants to express, and thus, the involvement of a Cognitive Model Profile at this stage (phase 2) seems redundant. For instance, if a speaker wishes to express the conceptual information brought together for the notion of shoe, it would be redundant for them to create a complete, comprehensive conceptual structure with regards to the kinds of footwear they have seen or worn, and then narrow down from that to create a Cognitive Model Profile, especially if it involves perceptual input. This would naturally depend greatly on Context. Secondly, if each Lexical Concept has a specific Cognitive Model Profile or Semantic Potential associated with it, then the absence of the latter would suggest the availability of a number of Lexical Concepts associated with the Cognitive Models involved, each with their own Semantic Potential which overlap to a great degree. This consequently suggests that there would be a number of vehicles associated with the array of Lexical Concepts, which would then require a set of formal and 46 semantic “selectional tendencies” as Evans likes to put it, or a set of factors affecting the selection of a specific one, in order to carry out the actual selection, while doing away with the peripheral alternatives. Thus, while the presence of a Cognitive Model Profile works out well enough from the comprehension point of view, the very fact that we as speakers are constantly looking for more contextually apt ways to express ourselves suggests the existence of more than one Lexical Concept at a time. If the speaker starts with a specific Cognitive Model Profile which is associated with just one Lexical Concept, as is indicated, then it is not possible for that to occur, unless a single Lexical Concept can offer a number of vehicles from which to choose. However, that is not the case from Evans’ perspective, and hence, the theory needs a certain degree of modification when it comes to the activation of a Cognitive Model Profile that is specific to just one Lexical Concept, which in turn provides access to a single vehicle. Let us elucidate with the following contrived example. i. He saw a _____ meadow, in the middle of which stood a ______ structure made of _____ bricks and stones. Consider the utterance above. Let us focus only on the expression of the adjectives – say those related to largeness, which the speaker would have to fill up within the utterance. While he or she could always use the same word to describe all three nouns, we could place a constraint on doing so, expecting them to use different words in each blank. Depending on the given context, the Cognitive Models related to what the speaker intends to express, vis-à-vis the greater-than-average size or extent of the entities to be described, would be selected from the conceptual system. Based on these Cognitive Models, the Lexical Concepts associated with each of them would come in play, and the most appropriate ones would be selected. These would then give rise to potential vehicles, and the most apt ones would be used within the utterance. For instance, if the Cognitive Model for the meadow is to be considered, then the concepts of green, open, grassy, beautiful, vast, and others such as these would come to mind. Given that the speaker wishes to define the large area covered by the meadow, he or she would possibly select the Cognitive Models associated 47 with vast(ness), which would then lead to the Lexical Concept [VAST], and hence, the vehicle vast. This would work in a similar manner in the case of colossal for the structure and enormous for the bricks and stones. All the adjectives given above are related to the concept of size, and more specifically, to a size much greater than would be considered ‘normal’ or ‘average.’ We take the definitions given by Wordnet (Princeton University, 2016) for each of these words, along with their “synonyms.” (b) Vast: (huge, immense) – Unusually great in size or amount or degree or especially extent or scope. Top 3 nominal collocations from SketchEngine (BNC): majority, amount and number. (c) Colossal: (prodigious, stupendous) – So great in size or force or extent as to elicit awe. Top 3 nominal collocations from SketchEngine (BNC): statue, cheek and close-out. (d) Enormous: (tremendous) – Extraordinarily large in size or extent or amount or power or degree. Top 3 nominal collocations from SketchEngine (BNC): amount, number and pressure. It seems that vast and enormous have a certain degree of commonness not only in the semantic value, but also in terms of collocations, as in amount and number. However, while these collocations may not be the most obvious nominal choices for colossal, according to the BNC, they do still occur, albeit rarely – twice for number(s) and 11 times for amount. This ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

1

Dissertation

By Student

Course
Tutor
Institution, City

Date

2

Dissertation
-

Linguistic area being addressed?

The paper mostly focuses on the semantics of language. It majors on the lexical access semantic
theory which was proposed by Evans theory of semantics (2009). It attempts to examine a
theoretical approach which uses a functional model basically known as the CMLC model. This
model focuses on the way words are selected for specific context on a monolingual and
multilingual/ cross-lingual level.
-

Level of sufficient background info on the liter. Review/ state of the art?

The literature review is sufficient in that it explains how the logical access theory came up to be
and the level of its development. It discusses the factors that lead to the selection process chosen
and provide for remedies suppose the process malfunctions. It discusses the cognitive
commitment and has it that human cognition is related with other disciplines like philosophy,
psychology, artificial intelligence and neuroscience. It also discusses the generalization
commitment which stands directly opposite to the modular approach that focuses on different
language systems such as phonology, syntax and...


Anonymous
Really useful study material!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags