On the continuous debate about discreteness

Abstract The issue of discreteness vs. continuity comes into play in all domains of linguistic analysis and at multiple levels. The distinction’s experiential basis is discussed, as well as various means of discretization and continuization. Most phenomena are sufficiently complex that treatments emphasizing discreteness and continuity both have some validity—it is not a matter of choosing between them, but of determining what each contributes and how they relate to one another. These notions are applied to a number of specific problems, including genetic relationships, constituency, constructions, grammaticality, and grammatical categories. Special attention is devoted to the network model of complex categories. Like any metaphor, it can be misleading if pushed too far. An alternative is proposed which arguably represents a more appropriate mixture of discreteness and continuity.

[1]  William D. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Modelling the effects of semantic ambiguity in word recognition , 2004, Cogn. Sci..

[2]  C. Fillmore,et al.  Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone , 1988 .

[3]  R. Langacker,et al.  Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping , 1997 .

[4]  G. Lakoff The Invariance Hypothesis: is abstract reason based on image-schemas? , 1990 .

[5]  Karen Van Hoek,et al.  Conceptual Reference Points: A Cognitive Grammar Account of Pronominal Anaphora Constraints. , 1995 .

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

[7]  Anna Wierzbicka,et al.  Cups and mugs: Lexicography and conceptual analysis , 1984 .

[8]  R. Langacker Reference-point constructions , 1993 .

[9]  J. Haiman Dictionaries and Encyclopedias , 1980 .

[10]  S. Thompson “Object complements” and conversation towards a realistic account , 2002 .

[11]  Conceptual blending and the interpretation of relatives: A case study from Greek , 2005 .

[12]  Ronald W. Langacker,et al.  Dynamicity In Grammar , 2001 .

[13]  Jordan Zlatev,et al.  Polysemy or generality? Mu , 2003 .

[14]  Ronald W. Langacker,et al.  Nouns and Verbs , 1987 .

[15]  Ronald W. Langacker Remarks on nominal grounding , 2004 .

[16]  Jens Allwood,et al.  MEANING POTENTIALS AND CONTEXT : SOME CONSEQUENCES FOR THE ANALYSIS OF VARIATION IN MEANING , 2003 .

[17]  Jeffrey L. Elman,et al.  Finding Structure in Time , 1990, Cogn. Sci..