DISCOURSE-DRIVEN MEANING CONSTRUCTION IN NEOSEMANTIC NOUN-TO-VERB CONVERSIONS [MEANING CONSTRUCTION IN NOUN-TO-VERB CONVERSIONS]

Abstract

Neosemantic noun-to-verb conversions such as beer → to beer, door → to door, pink → to pink, etc., constitute a particularly interesting field of study for Cognitive Linguistics in that they call for a discourse-guided and context-based analysis of meaning construction. The present article takes a closer look at the cognitive motivation for the conversion process involved in the noun-verb alterations with a view to explaining the semantics of some conversion formations in relation to the user-centred discourse context. The analysis developed in this article draws from the combined insights of Fauconnier and Turner’s (2002) Conceptual Integration Theory and Langacker’s (2005, 2008) Current Discourse Space.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Clark, Eve V. & Herbert H. Clark (1979). “When nouns surface as verbs”. Language, 55, 767-811.

  • Clark, Herbert H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Coulson, Seana (2001). Semantic Leaps. Frame-shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction. Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, Sao Paulo: Cambridge University Press.

  • Croft, William & Alan D. Cruse (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Dirven, René & Marjolijn Verspoor (2004). Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

  • Elsen, Hilke (2004). Neologismen. Formen und Funktionen neuer Wörter in verschiedenen Varietäten des Deutschen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

  • Evans, Vyvyan and Melanie Green (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

  • Fauconnier Gilles (1985). Mental Spaces. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

  • Fauconnier, Gilles (1994). Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Fauconnier, Gilles (1997). Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner (1994). “Conceptual Projection and Middle Spaces”. San Diego: University of California, Department of Cognitive Science Technical Report 9401. Retrieved March 15, 2010, from http://markturner.org.

  • Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner (1998). “Principles of Conceptual Integration”. In J.- P. Koenig (Ed.), Discourse and Cognition (269-283). Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.

  • Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner (2002). The Way We Think. Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.

  • Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner (2007). Conceptual integration networks. In V. Evans, B. K. Bergen & J. Zinken (Eds.), The Cognitive Linguistic Reader (360-419). London, Oakville: Equinox Publishing Ltd.

  • Grabias, Stanisław (1980). O ekspresywności języka. Ekspresja a słowotwórstwo. Lublin: UMCS.

  • Gumperz, John J. (1992). “Contextualization and understanding”. In Ch. Goodwin & A. Duranti (Eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon (229-252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Herberg, Dieter & Michael Kinne (1998). Neologismen. Heidelberg: Groos.

  • Kardela, Henryk (2006). “(Nie)podobieństwa w morfologii: amalgamaty kognitywne”. In H. Kardela, Z. Muszyński & M. Rajewski (Eds.), Kognitywistyka: Podobieństwo (195-210). Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS.

  • Kardela, Henryk (2007). “‘Good’ revisited: A mental space analysis”. In U. Magnusson, H. Kardela & A. Głaz (Eds.), Further Insights into Semantics and Lexicography (291-303). Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS.

  • Kemmer, Suzanne (2003). “Schemas and lexical blends”. In G. Radden & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Motivation in Language. Studies in Honor of Günter Radden (69-95). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Langacker, Ronald W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press

  • Langacker, Ronald W. (1991). Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter Langacker, Ronald W. (1999). Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Langacker, Ronald W. (2005). Wykłady z gramatyki kognitywnej. Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS Langacker, Ronald W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar. A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press

  • Langlotz, Andreas (2006). Idiomatic Creativity. A cognitive-linguistic model of idiomrepresentation and idiom-variation in English. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

  • Libura, Agnieszka (2007). Amalgamaty kognitywne w sztuce. Kraków: Universitas.

  • Lieber, Rochelle (2004). Morphology and Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Roberts, Craige (2004). “Context in dynamic interpretation”. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (197-220). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

  • Taylor, John R. (2002). Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Taylor, John R. (2003). Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Twardzisz, Piotr (1997). Zero Derivation in English: A Cognitive Grammar Approach. Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS.

  • Veale, Tony & Cristina Butnariu (2010). Harvesting and understanding of on-line neologisms. In A. Onysko & S. Michel (Eds.), Cognitive Perspectives on Word Formation (399-420). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

OPEN ACCESS

Journal + Issues

Search