Contronymy and Semantic Primes
Paweł Dziedziul
University of Białystok, PolandRésumé
Contronymy, that is sense opposition invoked by one word, can pose a serious conundrum from a theoretical standpoint. Nonetheless, the prime concern of this paper is to introduce the phenomenon into a broader discussion within theoretical linguistics. To be more specific, the question at hand is: what kind of comprehensive and coherent theoretical construct can be adequate for semantic representation of contronymy? It will be demonstrated that the particular sense opposition can be classified as being linked with direct negation. A theoretical vantage point will be presented that addresses the cause of opposition via the means of the natural semantic metalanguage theory. This approach may shed some light on how to deal with the problem from a cognitive perspective. The underlying methodological assumptions of the presented framework, based on the idea of semantic primes, prove to be a coherent tool for encapsulating radical sense opposition manifested by contronyms. As an addendum to this prolegomena there will also be presented a brief discussion of some of the implications of contronymy for fields such as the theory of the human mind, natural language processing, artificial intelligence, machine translations and big data structures.Mots-clés :
contronymy, sense opposition, primitive concepts, semantic primes, negation, natural semantic metalanguage theoryRéférences
Apresjan, Jurij. 2000. Systematic Lexicography, trans. Kevin Windle, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carlson A., Betteridge J., Kisiel B., Settles B., Hruschka E.R., Mitchell T.M. 2010. Toward an Architecture for Never-Ending Language Learning. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’10),1306-1313.
Fähndrich, J., Ahrndta S., Albayraka S. 2014. Formal Language Decomposition into Semantic Primes. Advances in Distributed Computing and Artificial Intelligence Journal 3.8, 56-73.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In: Emmon. Bach & Robert T. Harms (eds.), Universals in Linguistic theory, New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1-88.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1976. Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech 280, 20-32.
Goddard, Cliff 2003. Thinking across Languages and Cultures: Six Dimensions of Variation. Cognitive Linguistics 14 (2-3), 109–140, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2003.005.
Goddard, Cliff 2006. Natural Semantic Metalanguage. In: Keith Brown (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. 2nd edition. Amsterdam/Heidelberg: Elsevier.
Goddard, Cliff. 2007. Semantic molecules. In: Ilana Mushin & Mary Laughren (eds.), Selected Papers of the 2006 Annual Meeting of the Australian Linguistic Society at: http://espace.uq.edu.au/.
Goddard, Cliff. 2008. Natural Semantic Metalanguage: The State of the Art. In: Cliff Goddard (ed.), Cross-Linguistic Semantics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1-34.
Goddard, Cliff. 2010. The Natural Semantic Metalanguage Approach. In: Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 459-484.
Goddard, Cliff. 2012. Semantic primes, semantic molecules, semantic templates: Key concepts in the NSM approach to lexical typology. In: Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm & Martine Vanhove (eds.), Linguistics. Special issue on “Lexical Typology”, 50(3), 711-743, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2012-0022.
Goddard, Cliff, Wierzbicka, Anna. 2001. Język, kultura i znaczenie: semantyka międzykulturowa. In: Elżbieta Tabakowska (ed.), Kognitywne podstawy języka i językoznawstwa. Kraków: Towarzystwo Autorów i Wydawców Prac Naukowych Universitas, 175-202.
Goldberg, Adele. E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
Karaman, Burcu. I. 2008. On Contronymy. International Journal of Lexicography 21 (2), 173-192.
Klégr, Aleš 2013. The limits of polysemy: enantiosemy. Linguistica Pragensia 2, 7-23.
Lehrer, Adrienne. 1985. Markedness and Antonymy. Linguistics 21, 397-429.
Lutzeier, Peter R. 2007. Wörterbuch des Gegensinns im Deutschen. Band 1: A - G. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Matthews, Peter H. (ed.). 1997. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Mel’čuk, Igor A. 1981. Meaning-Text Models: A recent trend in Soviet linguistics. Annual Review of Anthropology 10, 27–62.
Minsky, Marvin. 1975. A Framework for Representing Knowledge. In: Patrick Henry Winston (ed.), The Psychology of Computer Vision, New York: Mvgraw-Hill, 211-277.
Mitchell, T., Cohen W., Hruschka E., Talukdar P., Betteridge J., Carlson A., Dalvi B., Gardner M., Kisiel B., Krishnamurthy J., Lao N., Mazaitis K., Mohamed T., Nakashole N., Platanios E., Ritter A., Samadi M., Settles B., Wang R., Wijaya D., Gupta A., Chen X., Saparov A., Greaves M., Welling J. 2015. Never-Ending Learning. Proceedings of the Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (www.aaai.org).
Spranger, M., Suchan J., Bhatt M. 2016. Robust Natural Language Processing - Combining Reasoning, Cognitive Semantics and Construction Grammar for Spatial Language. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-16), DOI: arXiv:1607.05968 (12 April 2018).
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1980. Lingua Mentalis. The Semantics of Natural Language. Sydney/ New York/London/ Toronto/San Francisco: Academic Press Australia.
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1996. Semantics. Primes and Universals, Oxford,New York: Oxford University Press.
Wolniewicz, Bogusław. 1980. Języki i kody. In: Adam Schaff (ed.), Zagadnienia socjo- i psycholingwistyki. Wrocław: Polska Akademia Nauk, Instytut Filozofii i Socjologii, Zakład Narodowy Imienia Ossolińskich, Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk.
