Lecture 5
26 Oct., 2005
Word, Meaning, and Concept
Helena Gao
1
Required readings:
 O’ Grady, W. (1987). Semantics: the study of meaning. In W.
O’Grady & M. Dobrovolsky (eds.), Contemporary Linguistic
analysis. Copp Clark Pitman Ltd. pp. 171-188
 Vygotsky, L. (1996). Thought and Language. Newly revised and
edited by Alex Kozulin. The MIT Press. Chapter 7: Thought and
Word. pp. 210-276.
Recommended readings:
 Jackendoff, R. (1992). Language of the mind. Essays on mental
representation. Chapter 3: Word meanings and what it takes to
learn them: reflections on the Piaget-Chomsky. The MIT Press.
pp. 53-67
 Gao, H. (2001). The physical foundation of the patterning of
physical action verbs. Lund University Press. Chapter 2:
Lexicalization patterns from contact to motion and motion to
contact. pp. 41-60
2

What is “word meaning”?

What does it mean when you say you know
the meaning of a word?

What does it mean when you say you know a
word, such as “bird” “blue”, or “happy” ?

How do we conceive of a word meaning?
3
Word Meaning

something that is conveyed or signified, or
sensed in a symbolic sign

A fragment of conceptual structure that is
linked in long-term memory with a phonological
structure and a syntactic structure (Jackendoff,
1992)
4
Referential meaning
Rose =
Concept <-> word <-> object
5
Reference theory


Word = referent in the real world
But what about extension of meaning
Adjectives = qualities of something
 Grammatical function words e.g. ‘in’ ‘on’ ‘at’
‘because’
 Abstract concepts like ‘love’ ‘god’

6
According to referential theory,
Referent (denotation)
To equate meaning to a word or phrase with actual
entities to which it refers
e.g.
an animal that can bark = dog
Prime Minister of Canada = Paul Martin
*Imaginary things have no referents
7
Two referents for one thing
‡
the same thing
e.g.
Paul Martin:
the Prime Minister of Canada
‡
the leader of Liberal Party
8
Extension versus intention
- The distinction stipulates the relation
between referents and meanings
A word’s extension corresponds to
the set of entities that it picks out in
the world (referents)
A word’s intension corresponds to its
inherent sense or the concepts that
evoke.
9
According to Jackendoff (1992),
Within a cognitive theory
Conceptual
Well-Formedness Rules
linguistic
structures
conceptual
structures
perceptual
and action
Inference
rules
10
A number of factors combine to make a
word mean what it does
(1) The connection of the concept expressed by the
word to perception and action
conceptual
structures
perceptual
and action
• No concern about the real-world counter part but the
mental representations
• Not all words, nor all aspects of any particular word, are
linked to perceptual or motor components.
11
(2) A word meaning’s interaction with the inference
rules
conceptual
structures
perceptual
and action
Inference
rules
The difference in inference between two words follows
from a feature of “completiveness”/ ”boundedness” in
conceptual structure interacting with an inference rule
that depends on the value of that feature.
12
(3) A word meaning’s relationship to the rest of the
lexicon
linguistic
structures
Lexicon has
taxonomic structure
Links within the
lexicon (e.g.,
animal->dog->
poodle) form
concepts into
hierarchies.
conceptual
structures
perceptual
and action
Inference
rules
13
(4) The interaction of the word with the
grammatical patterns of the language
e.g.
I read Shakespeare.
I am reading Shakespeare.
I have read Shakespeare.

The grammatical pattern itself is carrying an element of
meaning that interacts with the meaning of the verb to
make the inference possible.
14
the resources available
in the brain for forming
concepts
Conceptual
Well-Formedness Rules
linguistic
structures
conceptual
structures
Inference
rules
the brain’s
combinatorial
organization
perceptual
and action
Similar to logical
inference
15
Learned and Innate
Components of Word Meaning
What determines the possible
concepts that the learner can
consider?
16
The possibilities are constrained by the
Conceptual Well-Formedness Rules
Question:
Where does the Conceptual WellFormedness Rules come from?
Answer (Jackendoff, Fodor, Kant):
They can not be learned: they are the
foundation on which learning is based.
17
Conceptual Well-Formedness Rules encompass the
space of possibilities provided by
sense-data
 the combination of elements of that space by
the principle of association

18
Questions:

Is the space of possible concepts constrained by
a set of innate principles?
 How
specific and detailed is the set of innate
principle?
 What
are the specifics and details?
19
A suggestion by serious research on lexical
organization:
Word meanings are composite –
they are built up from some set of
conceptual primitives and
principles of combination.
20
Back to the question:
• How do we conceive of a word meaning?
Piaget’s hypothesis:
Children acquire their repertoire of concepts in
a certain order, starting with basic
sensorimotor concepts and gradually
progressing from them to more abstract
domains, eventually arriving at the most
abstract concepts of pure logic.
(see Piaget 1954a)
21
Back to the question:
• How do we conceive of a word meaning?
Vygotsky’s understanding word meaning:
Word meanings are dynamic rather than static
formations. They change as the child develops; they
change also with the various ways in which thought
functions.
If word meanings change in their inner nature,
then the relation of thought to word also changes.
(Vygotsky 1996: 217)
22
Thought and Word –Vygotsky (1996)

Thought and word are not connected by a
primary bond.

Word meaning is an elementary “cell” that
cannot be further analyzed and that represents
the most elementary form of the unity between
thought and word.
23
Concepts

From the point of view of psychology, the
meaning of every word is a generalization or a
concept. And since generalizations and concepts
are undeniably acts of thought, we may regard
meaning as a phenomenon of thinking.”
(Vygotsky, 1996: 212)
24
Concepts

Some think of concepts as word meanings (or bearers
of word meanings)

What does the word “rose” mean?

Rephrase as: When would you know that someone
knew the meaning of the word “rose”

When they can identify roses as roses


Use the word “rose” only to refer to roses
How do you identify a rose (as a rose)? (Categorisation)

How do you bring a single instance under a general concept?
25
Concepts

Concepts and knowledge
You and I both possess (are masters of) the concept
TREE
 My knowledge of trees is rather sketchy, whereas
yours might be rich and full



Novice versus expert
Concept versus conceptualisation?
26
Question:
Do languages have the same concepts?

Talmy claims that “Mandarin Chinese has Path satellites and
constructions that are entirely homologous with those of
English” (Talmy 1985: 106).

Is it? What about this sentence in English:
He knocked off a fly from the table.
The Chinese translation:
他敲桌子把苍蝇赶飞了。
Ta qiao zhuozi ba cangyi gan fei le.
he knock table Ba fly
drive fly Le
He knocked off a fly from the table.
(Gao, 2001: 62)
27
The Prototype Theory

“[C]oncepts are bundles of statistically reliable features
[and] having a concept is knowing which properties the
things it applies to reliably exhibit” (Fodor, 1998, p. 92)

“According to the Prototype Theory, most concepts …
are complex representations whose structure encodes a
statistical analysis of the properties their members tend
to have” (Laurence & Margolis, 2000 p. 27)

Note “tend to have” – so it’s not necessary that an
example of the concept have the property in question
28
The Prototype Theory

The prototype theory explains
 Concept acquisition
 The learner acquires a concept by assembling its features
(statistical procedure)
 Categorization
 Similarity comparison process (e.g., “contrast principle”)
 Is Tweety Pie a bird?
 Suppose the features that tend to be possessed by birds are
 Flies, sings, lays eggs, is small, nests in trees, eats insects
 Suppose Tweety Pie flies, lays eggs, is small and sings
 Tweety pie has 4 of these features and doesn’t have 2 of them
4–2 =2
 Tweety Pie doesn’t have any features additional to those a bird
29
tends to have
Word meaning and radial categories

Words and their senses represent conceptual categories,
which have much in common with non-linguistic
conceptual categories.


It follows that linguistic categories have prototype structure.
Word meanings are typically polysemous, being
structured with respect to a central prototype (or
prototypes).

Lexical categories therefore form radial categories, which can
be modeled as a radiating lattice structure.
30
Word meaning and radial categories

Radial categories, particularly meaning
extensions from the prototype, are motivated by
general cognitive mechanisms including
metaphor and image schema transformation.

The senses that constitute radial categories are
stored rather than generated.
31
An Example in English - the word over
Lakoff ’s The full-specification approach: over
TR
LM
The central schema for over (Lakoff 1987: 419)
32
Lakoff argues that the schema depicted in this figure
underlies examples like (1):

(1) The plane flew over

(2) The bird flew over the yard
(3) The plane flew over the hill
(4) The boy climbed over the wall
(5) The boy walked over the hill
(6) The boy walked over the bridge




33
Image schema transformations:


(7) The boy lives over the hill
(8) The boy lives over the bridge
Metaphoric extensions:
 (9) Jane has a strange power over me
34
Schema type




ABOVE schema
 The TR is located above the LM
 E.g., The helicopter is hovering over the hill
COVERING schema
 The TR is covering the LM
 E.g., The board is over the hole
REFLEXIVE schema
 The TR is reflexive: TR is simultaneously TR and LM. The final location of the TR
is understood with respect to its starting position
 E.g., The fence fell over
EXCESS schema
 When over is employed as a prefix it can indicate ‘excess’ of TR relative to LM


E.g., The bath overflowed
REPETITION schema
 Over is used as an adverb to indicate a process that is repeated

E.g., After receiving a poor grade, the student started the assignment over (again)
35
The main findings of the full-specification approach

Words represent radial categories: related senses organized with
respect to a central sense.

A radial category consists of abstract schemas, which may also
consist of more detailed instances.

Radial categories are highly granular in nature, ranging from
relatively schematic senses to very detailed senses. The lexicon
(semantic memory) fully specifies the majority of the sense
associated with a lexical item.

Senses may derive from image schema transformations and/or
metaphorical extension.

Because radial categories have prototype structure, they exhibit
polysemy; while some senses are closely related, others are more
peripheral (e.g., metaphorical extensions).
36
Distinct senses for over identified in Tyler and Evans
(2003)

1 ABOVE (central sense)


2A ON-THE-OTHER-SIDE-OF


The discredited government hand power over to an interim authority
2E TEMPORAL


The movie is over
2D TRANSFER


Your article is over the page limit
2C COMPLETION


St. Paul’s is over the river from Southwark
2B ABOVE-AND-BEYOND (excess I)


The picture is over the sofa
The relationship had altered over the years
3 COVERING

The clouds are over the sun
37
Distinct senses for over identified in Tyler and
Evans (2003)

4 EXAMINING


4A FOCUS-OF-ATTENTION


I would prefer tea over coffee
6 REFLEXIVE


She has a strange power over me
5C PREFERENCE


The heavy rains caused the river to flow over its banks
5B CONTROL


Jerome found over forty kinds of shells on the beach
5A1 OVER-AND-ABOVE (excess II)


The committee agonized over the decision
5A MORE


Mary looked over the document quite carefully
The fence fell over
6A REPETITION

After the false start, they started the race over
38
The Semantic network for Over (Tyler and Evana, 2003:80
39
An Example of Polysemy – the Chinese word Da
(Gao, 2001, pp. 163-165)
Corpus-based Taxonomy
40
41
42
43
44

We found no specific interdependence between
the genetic roots of thought and word. It
became plain that the inner relations we were
looking for were not a prerequisite for , but
rather a product of, the historical development
of human consciousness. (Vygotsky 1996: 211)
45