Lexical Meaning As a Testable Hypothesis: The Case of English Look, See, Seem and Appear

162 Pages·2018·0.91 MB·English

by  Nadav Sabar

studies in functional and structural linguistics 75
Lexical meaning
as a testable
hypothesis
The case of English
look, see, seem and appear
Nadav Sabar
John Benjamins Publishing Company
Lexical meaning as a testable hypothesis
Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics (SFSL)
issn 1385-7916
Taking the broadest and most general definitions of the terms functional and structural,
this series aims to present linguistic and interdisciplinary research that relates language
structure – at any level of analysis from phonology to discourse – to broader functional
considerations, whether cognitive, communicative, pragmatic or sociocultural. Preference
will be given to studies that focus on data from actual discourse, whether speech, writing
or other nonvocal medium.
The series was formerly known as Linguistic & Literary Studies in Eastern Europe (LLSEE).
For an overview of all books published in this series, please see
http://benjamins.com/catalog/sfsl
Founding Editor Honorary Editors
John Odmark Eva Hajičová Petr Sgall
Charles University Charles University
General Editors
Yishai Tobin Bob de Jonge
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Groningen University
Editorial Board
Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald James A. Matisoff
La Trobe University University of California, Berkeley
Joan L. Bybee Jim Miller
University of New Mexico Emeritus, University of Edinburgh
Ellen Contini-Morava Marianne Mithun
University of Virginia University of California, at Santa Barbara
Nicholas Evans Lawrence J. Raphael
University of Melbourne CUNY and Adelphi University
Victor A. Friedman Olga Mišeska Tomić
University of Chicago Leiden University
Anatoly Liberman Olga T. Yokoyama
University of Minnesota UCLA
Volume 75
Lexical meaning as a testable hypothesis
The case of English look, see, seem and appear
by Nadav Sabar
Lexical meaning
as a testable hypothesis
The case of English look, see, seem and appear
Nadav Sabar
Petr Sgall
Charles University
John Benjamins Publishing Company
Amsterdam / Philadelphia
TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of
8
the American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence
of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.
doi 10.1075/sfsl.75
Cataloging-in-Publication Data available from Library of Congress:
lccn 2017056558 (print) / 2018000707 (e-book)
isbn 978 90 272 0042 6 (Hb)
isbn 978 90 272 6434 3 (e-book)
© 2018 – John Benjamins B.V.
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any
other means, without written permission from the publisher.
John Benjamins Publishing Company · https://benjamins.com
Table of contents
Acknowledgements ix
List of tables xi
List of figures xv
chapter 1
The problem, methodology and theoretical background 1
1. Introduction 1
2. Th e problem of the identification of linguistic units 6
 2.1 The problem of identifying linguistic units based on syntactic
c ategories 7
 2.2 The problem of identifying linguistic units based on cognitive s tatus 13
  2.2.1 Th e problem of stored sequences 13
  2.2.2 Th e problem of polysemy 16
3. M ethodology 18
 3.1 Qualitative support 18
 3.2 Quantitative support 20
4. P review of upcoming chapters 23
chapter 2
attention, visual as the explanation for the choice of look 25
1. Introduction 25
2. Th e fit with messages involving acts of visual attention 30
3. Th e fit with messages where a visual stimulus is absent 31
4. Th e fit with messages involving the communication of one’s thoughts or
feelings 32
5. Th e fit with messages involving attention-grabbing visual features 33
6. Th e fit with messages involving attribution based on visual attention 34
7. Th e fit with messages involving either visual or intellectual attention 37
8. Th e fit with messages of searching 42
9. L ook in combination with directional terms: up, down, forward, back and
after 43
10. C onclusion 45
 Lexical Meaning as a Testable Hypothesis
chapter 3
Using big data to support the hypothesized meaning attention, visual 47
1. Introduction 47
2. M ethodology 48
 2.1 Quantitative predictions test the generality of communicative
s trategies 49
 2.2 Justification of the inductive approach 53
3. Supporting attention in the meaning of look 55
 3.1 Using carefully to support attention 56
 3.2 Using this to support attention 60
 3.3 Using but to support attention 63
 3.4 Using at to support attention 64
 3.5 Using deliberately to support attention 67
 3.6 Using think to support attention 68
4. Supporting visual in the meaning of look 71
 4.1 Using eye to support visual 71
 4.2 Using painting to support visual 72
 4.3 Using see to support visual 74
5. C onclusion 75
chapter 4
attention, visual in competition with the meanings of see, seem,
and a ppear 77
1. Introduction 77
2. L ook and see – attention, visual versus experiencing visually 80
 2.1 The hypothesis for see as a monosemic sign 80
 2.2 attention as the explanation for the choice of look over see 81
  2.2.1 U sing turn to to support attention 81
  2.2.2 U sing notice to support attention 84
 2.3 experiencing as the explanation for the choice of see over look 85
  2.3.1 U sing believe to support experiencing 85
  2.3.2 U sing understand to support experiencing 87
  2.3.3 U sing less control to support experiencing 89
3. L ook and seem – attention, visual versus perspective dependency 91
 3.1 The hypothesis for seem as a monosemic sign 91
 3.2 visual as the explanation for the choice of look over seem 92
  3.2.1 U sing green to support visual 92
 3.3 perspective dependency as the explanation for the choice of seem
over look 94
  3.3.1 U sing logical to support perspective 94
Table of contents 
  3.3.2 U sing to me to support perspective 97
  3.3.3 U sing at the time to support perspective 99
4. L ook and appear – attention, visual versus initiation of
perception 100
 4.1 The hypothesis for appear as a monosemic sign 100
 4.2 initiation as the explanation for the choice of appear over look 100
  4.2.1 Using introduce to support initiation 100
  4.2.2 U sing first to support initiation 102
  4.2.3 Using comparative adjectives to support initiation 104
  4.2.4 U sing but to support initiation 106
 4.3 Messages involving visual features: look versus appearance 107
5. C onclusion 110
chapter 5
Competing analyses of the meaning of look 111
1. Introduction 111
2. A componential analysis 111
3. A construction analysis 116
4. A markedness analysis 120
chapter 6
Theoretical excursus: A critique of William Diver’s approach to the
grammar-lexicon divide and a recapitulation of analytical assumptions
and findings 125
1. Introduction 125
2. Th e linguistic status of the categories of grammar and lexicon 126
 2.1 The a priori assumption of a grammar-lexicon continuum 127
 2.2 The a priori assumption of polysemy in the lexicon 128
 2.3 The a priori assumption that only grammatical forms constrain one
another 130
 2.4 The a priori assumption that lexical meanings are based on real-world
categorizations 130
 2.5 Conclusion 131
3. R ecapitulations 132
References 139
Index 143

Acknowledgements
I am grateful to the Columbia University Seminar on Columbia School Linguistics
for the many occasions it afforded me to present data and analysis pertaining to
this study. I am also grateful for the Columbia School Linguistics Society Graduate
Student Fellowship which has been awarded to me for the 2014–15 academic year,
during which time most of this manuscript was written. I would like to thank all
attendants of the Columbia School Seminar for their contribution to my develop-
ment of this project; particularly Wallis Reid, Ricardo Otheguy, Alan Huffman,
Joseph Davis, Nancy Stern and Radmila Gorup. Our discussions at seminar have
always been intellectually stimulating and nurturing, and most invaluable in the
development of the hypotheses presented in this manuscript. Of course, acknowl-
edgement in no way implies that the above individuals agree with everything writ-
ten here; all errors are mine.
I would like to specially thank Wallis Reid, with whom I have engaged in hun-
dreds of email correspondences, ranging from the littlest to the most substantial of
questions. Beginning from my first introduction to Columbia School linguistics in
2011, I have insistently raised many challenges to this theoretical framework, and
Wallis has consistently taken the time to engage with me, thoroughly educating
me in CS linguistics and providing me with the tools necessary to do this research.
Ricardo Otheguy has been the most rigorous reader of my work, always
offering much needed encouragement along with incisive criticism and excellent
advice, both in terms of content and organization. Our many hours of endless dis-
cussions have taught me a great deal about linguistic theory and have had a lasting
influence on me as a scholar.
I would finally like to extend my gratitude to Juliette Blevins and Sam Al
Khatib. Their questions and criticisms have challenged and pushed me to spell out
as clearly and as fully as possible the theoretical assumptions and methodological
procedures of CS linguistics, which many linguists are not familiar with.