Semantic maps and the typology of colexification: Intertwining polysemous networks across languages

Building upon the model of Semantic Maps (Haspelmath 2003), which typologists have designed mainly for grammatical semantics, this chapter discusses methodological issues for a model in lexical typology. By breaking up polysemous lexemes of various languages into their semantic ‘atoms' or senses, one defines an etic grid against which cross-linguistic comparison can be undertaken. Languages differ as to which senses they colexify, i.e., lexify identically. But while each polysemous lexeme as a whole is language-specific, individual pairings of colexified senses can be compared across languages. Our model, understood as an empirical, atomistic approach to lexical typology, is finally exemplified with the rich polysemies associated with the notion “BREATHE”. Intertwined together, they compose a single, universal network of potential semantic extensions.

[1]  Nick Riemer.  The semantics of polysemy : reading meaning in English and Warlpiri , 2005 .

[2]  M. Maeseneer,et al.  Finger and Hand , 2007 .

[3]  Alexandre François,et al.  Contraintes de structures et liberté dans l'organisation du discours : une description du mwotlap, langue océanienne du Vanuatu , 2001 .

[4]  David D. Clarke,et al.  Polysemy : flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language , 2003 .

[5]  R. Langacker.  Foundations of cognitive grammar , 1983 .

[6]  N. J. Enfield,et al.  Linguistic Epidemiology: Semantics and Grammar of Language Contact in Mainland Southeast Asia , 2002 .

[7]  Elisabeth Rieken.  Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective , 2009 .

[8]  James A. Matisoff.  Variational semantics in Tibeto-Burman : the "organic" approach to linguistic comparison , 1980 .

[9]  Lloyd B. Anderson.  The ‘Perfect’ as a Universal and as a Language-Particular Category , 1982 .

[10]  Alexandra Francois.  Araki : a disappearing language of Vanuatu , 2002 .

[11]  Ernst Leumann,et al.  A Sanskrit-English Dictionary: Etymologically and Philologically Arranged With Special Reference to Cognate Indo-European Languages , 1988 .

[12]  Richard Hudson,et al.  Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume 1. Theoretical prerequisites , 1990 .

[13]  G. Lakoff,et al.  Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind , 1988 .

[14]  Anna Wierzbicka,et al.  Semantics, Culture, and Cognition: Universal Human Concepts in Culture-Specific Configurations , 1992 .

[15]  Félix Gaffiot,et al.  Dictionnaire latin français , 1934 .

[16]  Dan Jurafsky.  Universal Tendencies in the Semantics of the Diminutive. , 1996 .

[17]  Andrea Tyler,et al.  Reconsidering Prepositional Polysemy Networks: The Case of Over , 2001 .

[18]  David Gil,et al.  The World Atlas of Language Structures , 2005 .

[19]  Michael Fortescue,et al.  Comparative Eskimo Dictionary: With Aleut Cognates , 1994 .

[20]  Nicholas Evans.  Multiple semiotic systems, hyperpolysemy, and the reconstruction of semantic change in Australian languages , 1992 .

[21]  D. Sandra,et al.  Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind—the linguist’s or the language user’s? , 1995 .

[22]  Martin Haspelmath,et al.  The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison , 2003 .

[23]  A. François.  La sémantique du prédicat en mwotlap, Vanuatu , 2003 .

[24]  A. François.  Des valeurs en héritage: Les isomorphismes sémantiques et la reconstruction des langues , 2010 .

[25]  D. Geeraerts.  Vagueness's puzzles, polysemy's vagaries , 1993 .

[26]  Nicholas Evans,et al.  In the Mind's Ear: The Semantic Extensions of Perception Verbs in Australian Languages. , 2000 .

[27]  William Croft,et al.  Diachronic semantic processes in the middel voice , 1987 .