• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Lexical decomposition in cognitive semantics. Item Type text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Saka, Paul. Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 10/10/2021 00:00:27 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/185592 INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. U·M·I University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Compar,y 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, M148106-1346 USA 3131761-4700 800/521-0600 Order Number 9200042 Lexical decomposition in cognitive semantics Saka, Paul, Ph.D. The University of Arizona, 1991 V·M·I 300 N. Zccb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 LEXICAL DECOMPOSITION IN COGNITIVE SEMANTICS by Paul Saka A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 199 1 2 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE As members of the Final Examination Committee, we certify that we have read Paul Sak;! the dissertation prepared by entitled Lexical Decomposition in Cognitive Semantics and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the Degree of Ph. D • ~~~~------------------------------------------------- 27/99/ Datef~Jr / ?J~ 2 "/e I f('/ Date Date 7 7 Date Date Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate's submission of the final copy of the dissertation to the Graduate College. I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement. Dissertation Director 3 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This dissertation has been submi tted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. SIGNED:~!3=.i~l-=~~--_:L-_'_-_____ 4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I hope that the reader will find my work worthwhile. I find the subject matter and my discussion of it both intrinsically interesting and valuable. However, I'm a biased judge; so just to further enliven my work, I have interspersed some poetic and political thoughts. The sources are as follows: (5) of p120, Oliver Wendell Holmes; the irony in footnote 3, Anatole France; (21) of p123, Konrad Lorenz; (24), Beaumarchais; (40) of p127, Woody Allen; (60) of p137, Hector Berlioz; (64), Bill Griffith's Zippy; (88) of p147, Unreliable Sources: A Guide to Detecting Bias in the News Media, by Norman Soloman & Martin Lee; (90) of p148, e.e. cummings; (14q) of p191, JeanCocteau; (14r) , Charles Baudelaire; (14s), Edward Lear; and (104) of p159, and others, anonymous. lowe a great deal to many real-life people. I would like to thank my committee members Rob Cummins, Terry Langendoen, and Adrienne Lehrer for their guidance, and I would like also to thank Joan Bybee, Donald Davidson, Rich Janda, Kean Kaufmann, Jean Kazez, James McCawley, Vann McGee, James Myers, Dick Oehrle, Eve Sweetser, and Claudine Verheggen for reading portions of my work and providing valuable feedback. I should also mention how impressed I have been by the competence and the collegiality of the members (past and present) of the University of Arizona Linguistics and Philosophy Departments. Allow me to single out Michael Flynn and Vann McGee in these respects. Finally, I would like to thank Jeff Anderson, Jonathan Kandell, and Pat Perez for their support and I wish to express my deepest gratitude to Adrienne Lehrer and to James Myers for all that they have done. 'I'his work is dedicated, with love, to the people signified in (42), page 129. 5 Table of Contents Abstract ••••• .8 1. Introduct:ion. • .9 2. Artful Decompositionism versus Natural semantics. .20 2.1 Markerese •••••••••••• .22 2.2 Generative semantics. .29 2.3 Natural semantic Meta-language. .36 2.4 Cognitive Linguistics. .55 2.4.1 Mental Models ••• .58 2.4.2 Conventional Models. .62 2.4.3 Experientialism. .67 2.4.4 X-Bar semantics. .73 3. Real Decompositionism versus convenient semantics. .79 3.1 Psychological Reality. .80 3.1.1 Definition. .80 3.1. 2 Importance. .87 3.2 Real Decompositionism. .92 3.2.1 Arguments ••••••• • .92 3.2.2 Counter-Arguments. .101 3.2.3 Reductionism •••••• .111 6 3.3 Universals and Innateness. ..................... .119 4. Quantum Decompositionism versus \ Truth··condi tional Semantics ••••• .122 \ \ 4.1 Arguments against TC semantics in General. .125 \ 4.1.1 Faulty Motivations •••• .125 4.1.2 The Essential Problem ••••••••••••••••.•••• 133 4.1. 3 Indexicals •• ............................. .136 Speech Acts. .141 4.2 Arguments against Truth-theoretic Semantics. .150 4.2.1 The Liar Paradox. .150 4.2.2 Ambiguity •••• ............................ .154 4 • 2 • 3 Use/l-Iention. .157 4.3 Conclusion •••••••• .166 5. Atomistic Decompositionism versus Holistic Semantics •• 172 5.1 Background ••••••• .172 5.1.1 Definition. .172 5.1.2 Family Resemblances. .179 5.1.3 The Stakes. .186 5.2 Arguments ••••••• ............................... .190 5.2.1 Murkiness. .191 5.2.2 Revisability •• .198 5.2.3 The Substrate. .204 5.2.4 The Modularity of Mind. .208 5.3 Conclusion. .213 5. 4 Appendix ••• .218 7 5.4.1 Rational Psychology. .219 5.4.2 Eliminativism. .226 6. Sample Analyses ••• .239 6.1 Evaluatives. .239 6.1.1 General Evaluatives. .240 6.1. 2 Special Evaluatives. .251 6.2 Knowledge ••••••••• .261 6.2.1 The Problem •• .262 6.2.2 The Solution. .268 6.3 Plurality •••••••••• .278 6.3.1 Quantities other Than One. .278 6.3.2 cross-linguistic Patterns. .285 6.3.3 Neutralization ••••• .288 6.3.4 Further Discussion. .292 7. Conclusion. .297 References ••..•.•.•••••••••• 0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 303 8 ABSTRACT This dissertation formulates, defends, and exemplifies a semantic approach that I call cognitive Decompositionism. Cognitive Decompositionism is one version of lexical decompositionism, which holds that the meaning of lexical items are decomposable into component parts. Decompositionism comE'~S in different varieties that can be characterized in terms of four binary parameters. Firs~, Natural Decomposi·tionism contrasts with Artful Decompositionism. The former views components as word-like, the latter views components more abstractly. Second, Convenient Decompositionism claims that components are merely convenient fictions, while Real Decompositionism claims that components are psychologicaJ ly real. Third , Truth-conditional Decompositionism contrasts with various non-truth-conditional theories, in particular with Quantum Semantics. And fourth, Holistic Decompositionism assumes that decompositions are circular, as opposed to Atomistic Decompositionism, which assumes that some primitive basis ultimately underlies semantic components. Cognitive Decompositionism is the conjunction of the following theses: decomposition is Artful (chapter 2), Psychologically Real (chapter 3), Quantum (chapter 4), and Atomistic (chapter 5). As I sUbstantiate these claims, I will be responding to the antidecompositionist theories of Fodor, Davidson, and Quine. 9 1. Introduction In this dissertation I give new arguments for an old thesis. The thesis is that of lexical decompositionism: The meaning of a lexical item is decomposable into component parts. This thesis can be construed in different ways. By lexical item I mean the unit of language that needs to be memorized, including idioms, many words (including all monomorphemic

Load more

  319

Copy Link