Semantic plasticity
Staffan Larsson
Göteborg University, Sweden
sl@ling.gu.se
Submission for oral presentation for LCM 2006
According to the postmodern descendant of structuralism, commonly referred to as
poststructuralism, langue is continuously being affected by parole. In fact, the interaction is
so pervasive that the very distinction between langue and parole is put into question. Now, if
or concepts determine how we understand the world (as assumed in a Whorfian interpretation
of structuralism), this means that concrete language use changes our understanding of the
world and thus how we act in the world; communication is not (just) transmission of
information but also transmission of a world-view.
The discipline of Critical Discourse Analysis (Fairclough et al), studies (among other things)
how different institutions in society can carry out political struggle concerning the meaning
and use of a concept (such as “gender”). The focus is on rhetorical strategies in media and in
private conversation, and how these discourses can lead to shifts in meanings or
reinforcement of existing meanings of linguistic signs. This line of research is often based on
empirical observations of actual discourse, but the connections between the empirical material
and the conclusions drawn from this material often appear to be lacking in detail, especially
for a linguist of the formalist school. On the other hand, formal linguistics has paid very little
(if any) attention to the semantic dynamics relevant to Critical Discourse Analysis; formal
semantics typically assumes that meanings are static. To describe these semantic dynamics in
more detail, one would need a general theory of how meaning can gradually change, how
these changes are related to actual discourse as played out in a multitude of domain-specific
language games, and how language in general is adapted to fit different domains and
activities. Some steps in this direction have been taken in research on computational
modelling of the emergence of coordinated vocabularies through conversational interaction
between robots playing a language game of ostension (naming and pointing to objects) (Steels
et al). Also, in psycholinguistics (Brennan, Healey) the emergence of vocabularies in groups
of human speakers has been studied experimentally. This paper sketches a rather more
abstract and general theoretical framework for semantic dynamics that ultimately aims at
explicitly relating formalist linguistics (and psycholinguistic evidence) with Critical Discourse
Analysis and associated disciplines.
Taking inspiration from Kripke's (1982) interpretation of Wittgenstein (1953), I propose a
basic framework for describing how meanings change as a result of concrete language use,
especially in spoken dialogue. The basic idea is that speakers have internalised (potentially
complex) dispositions for when and how to use specific linguistic constructs. These
dispositions depend, among other things, on observations of previous situations where the
construct in question has been used, and on specific generalisations over these situations. I use
the term "semantic plasticity" to refer to gradual change (expansion, contraction, shift) and
adaptation of meanings of words, phrases and other linguistic constructs. Apart from the wellknown phenomenon of large-scale semantic change over time (as studied in historical
linguistics as part of the general phenomenon of linguistic change), semantic plasticity occurs
in single dialogues, between specific dyads or communities of speakers, and in the adaptation
of linguistic resources to specific activities. Halliday (1976) uses the term “register” to refer to
the meaning potential related to a specific activity, i.e., the “things that can be meant” in the
activity. Local semantic plasticity allows the adaptation of linguistic constructs to a new
activity, by allowing pre-existing constructs to be fitted the register belonging to the activity.
Meaning, on this view, is coordinated usage that emerges from a multitude of interactions
where the members of a linguistic community shape each other’s usage dispositions.
A language-user A observes some linguistic construct c being used in a set of situations Sc
(the situational collocation for c). A then generalises over Sc; this generalisation we call the
usage disposition [c]. The way [c] is updated after a new use depends on the feedback given
by the hearer(s) (continued attention, a raised eyebrow, “Uhuh”, “No way!”, “Eh?”, etc.).
Semantic plasticity is described in terms of updates to individual usage-dispositions
associated with linguistic constructs (words, phrases, syntactic categories etc.) triggered by
feedback and accommodation in dialogue. Below is a very brief outline of the formal
account.
The “usage equation” below attempts to describe how usage depends on dispositions an other
related factors:
use(c, s)A = fuse( fappr(fdisp(ScA), s), X ) = fuse( fappr([c], s), X )
Here, s is the current situation; ScA is the situational collocation for c, i.e., previous situations
where c has been used, in A’s experience. The function fdisp is The way A generalises over
these; we define [c]= fdisp(ScA). The function fappr encodes the way A uses this generalisation
do (privately) determine the appropriateness of c in s; we also define an intermediate function
appr(c,s) = fappr([c], s) whose result is a judgement of appropriateness. Since actual language
use can be affected by any number of additional factors, we also include a variable X to cover
these. Finally, fuse covers how the appropriateness judgement in conjunction with additional
factors affect whether c is actually used by A.
Upon hearing c in new situation s, A’s reaction (the kind of feedback A gives) partly depends
on [c], but crucially, A’s behaviour is not determined by [c]. This means that A can understand
and accept uses of c that deviate from [c]; this is a case of accommodation. Similarly, A’s own
future uses of c are partly determined by [c] but not determined by [c. Thus, A can use c in
ways that deviate from [c]. It follows from the definition of [c] that whenever c is used, Sc will
be extended, and so the usage-disposition [c] may change. This is a disposition update, which
can be either a reinforcement or a revision. If the current use of c is consistent with usage
disposition, i.e., c is appropriate in s, there no drastic change; the previous disposition is
reinforced. However, if the current use of c is not consistent with usage disposition, there will
be a more or less drastic revision of the disposition.
This is a very brief outline of the basics of an account of the dynamics of individual linguistic
usage dispositions. The meaning of a construct c in a linguistic community L emerges from
the coordinated use of c by the members of L. Meaning is inherently social, and arises out of
coordinated behaviour in a linguistic community. In interaction, members of a community
“mould” each others’ usage dispositions by giving feedback and accommodating usage. This
keeps language use sufficiently coordinated for meaning to arise. By modelling plasticity of
usage dispositions, we thus indirectly model semantic plasticity. On this basis, we hope to
provide a semi-formal and rigorous backdrop for studies of negotiations of meaning as studied
in the various disciplines mentioned above.