[Lexicog] Re: lexical phrase

Tue Dec 5 01:04:54 UTC 2006

David,

I don’t think our linguistic models are so different. Most models have some
sort of lexical component composed of some sort of list of lexemes. How we
define “lexeme” may be a matter of some debate. But most linguists would
agree that a lexeme is a form with a single “lexical” meaning. A sequence of
words such as ‘on the other hand’ is a form with a single “lexical” meaning.
A sequence of words such as “the cat chased a mouse” would be considered to
have a different sort of meaning (propositional) and wouldn’t belong in a
dictionary, nor would it be stored in the mental lexicon as (presumably) ‘on
the other hand’ is.

I believe that prototype theory can help us in this discussion. Just about
any linguistic phenomenon is subject to prototype effects. A phoneme has a
prototypical allophone. The lexeme ‘bird’ has a prototypical mental
representation (or at least people can draw a prototypical bird). There is a
prototypical pronunciation of the word ‘very’, but I can lengthen the vowel
to make it veeeery emphatic. The form ‘veeeery’ is still the same lexeme as
‘very’, but it is not prototypical. This is one way we can explain
non-prototypical uses of language such as ‘on the third hand’ and
‘abso!@#$%&*lutely’. Language isn’t as cut and dried as the
scientist-wanna-be’s among us would like. We have exceptions and variants
and gradations. The laws of physics have no exceptions (except miracles).
But we linguists love pointing out exceptions to other linguist’s “rules.”

Non-prototypical usage sometimes becomes conventionalized as you pointed out
with the examples “pregnant with meaning” and “talent.” It may be that “on
the third hand” has now become conventionalized (or is at least a cliché or
overused joke). If it is conventionalized, then we would need to add it to
the dictionary. If such an expression is not conventionalized, then it is in
the same category as “a cat chased a mouse”—a one time construction of
lexemes to form some sort of sentence. So I would accept your statement that
there is not a clear dividing line between normal use and creative use, any
more than there is between a prototypical bird and a non-prototypical bird.
But that doesn’t mean that we cannot distinguish in a general way between
conventionalized lexical phrases and one-time compositions. There will be
marginal cases, perhaps such as ‘on the third hand’.

When I said that ‘on the other hand’ has a particular “function,” I was
unfortunately being imprecise. It has the internal structure of a
prepostional phrase. But if we take it as a lexical unit and look at where
it occurs in a sentence, we see that it occurs where conjunctions normally
occur, but not where prepositional phrases normally occur. (We could talk
about “filling slots” or “distribution”, but I’m trying to avoid a theory
specific viewpoint.) It also has a meaning that is normally associated with
conjunctions. (It indicates a logical relation between sentences.) So it
“functions” syntactically and semantically more like a prototypical
conjunction than the prototypical prepositional phrase. So I would call it a
conjunction phrase, since (in my opinion) the fact that it is internally a
preposition phrase is immaterial to the way it behaves syntactically and
semantically. (However the fact that it does have an internal structure
enables us to play with that structure as I point out below.) The word
‘go-between’ is a noun even though its internal structure looks like a
phrasal verb. So we see that internal structure of complex forms and their
syntactic function are unrelated.

Some lexical phrases like ‘of course’ (and compounds like ‘nevertheless’)
make no sense at all when you look at the meaning of the individual words.
Other lexical phrases like ‘on the other hand’ can be interpreted to a
degree (although its literal interpretation is different than the idiomatic
meaning). When we compare ‘on the one hand’ and ‘on the other hand’, we can
contrast and therefore make sense of ‘one’ and ‘other’. We can think of one
opinion being in one hand and a contrasting opinion being in the other hand.
(This sort of thinking is reminiscent of conceptual metaphors.) We also have
the sequence “one, two/other, three, four
” and the pair “hand, foot.”  This
enables us to play with the two conventionalized phrases and come up with
the variants you listed (on the third hand, in the other hand, on the other
foot). But I still hold that we are playing when we use such expressions and
that they have a humorous connotation.

I don’t think that serious scholarship should ignore playful uses of
language. Instead I think recognition that language is both rule governed
and yet not rule bound is very important to our understanding of the nature
of language. A dictionary that ignored variants would be inadequate. A
theory of lexical phrases that excluded variants (conventionalized and
playful) would also be inadequate. In fact I find it fascinating that we can
play with the internal structure of ‘on the other hand’.

So when I say that ‘on the other hand’ is ‘invariant’ or is a ‘fixed
phrase’, I mean that if you vary it you have changed the meaning or are
making a joke. If I vary the form of a compound, I do the same. I may take
the word ‘overwhelming’ and say something like, “His mumbled thanks was
underwhelming.” But that doesn’t mean that ‘underwhelming’ should go in the
dictionary or is some kind of variant of ‘overwhelming’.

Ron Moe

   _____  

From: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Frank
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 2:58 PM
To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Lexicog] Re: lexical phrase

Ron --

You may have a somewhat different model of linguistics structures in mind
than I have. I realize your emphasis is on lexemes more than on syntax or
other linguistic structures. So you call "on the other hand" a lexeme. I'll
have to think about that. You would have to say that "on the other hand" is
a prepositional phrase at the same time. I suppose that is your definition
of "lexical phrase": a phrase that functions as a lexeme. From my
perspective, I would say that "on the other hand" is a prepositional phrase
no less than it is a lexeme. As a prepositional phrase, it can have
variation:

    on the other hand

    in the other hand

    on my other hand

    on the third hand

    on the other foot

Your is that "on the other hand" has a specific function and goes together
with "on the first hand," whether that is explicit or implied. The two
phrases constitute a fixed pair, not allowing for a "third," or an "other
other" hand. You cannot vary "on the other hand" because in doing so you
would not have the same lexeme. A lexeme has a certain function, and you
have determined that the function of "on the other hand" is as the second
half of a binary pair, not allowing for any more parts. To suggest that
there could be a third hand would be illogical and facetious and need not be
taken seriously.

Are you making a distinction between the meaning and the function of a
lexeme? "Function word" or "functor" is the term for a lexeme that can be
described as having a function, not a meaning. Are you saying that "on the
other hand" is a phrasal equivalent of a function word, in that it has a
function but not a meaning?

Are you saying that "on the other hand" has a function while "A cat chased a
mouse" has a meaning? Are you saying that "on the other hand" is basically a
word that happens to have spaces in it when written? You would then say that
using "third" in place of "other" would be analogous to inserting an
obscenity in the word "absolutely" between "abso-" and "-lutely." Or would
you say that the sentence "The cat chased a mouse" cannot have any variation
either, because a sentence like "The dog chased a mouse" has a different
meaning and so is not the same sentence?

I'm just exploring some here. It seems my perspective on language isn't as
strictly lexicographically--oriented as yours. Also, I am not as quick to
dismiss experimentation with language as being out of bounds for serious
analysis. As I'm sure you are quite aware, metaphorical uses of words can
become common use (like "pregnant with meaning"), and eventually become
secondary meanings or even primary meanings (like "talent"). I'm not saying
that "on the third hand" is a metaphorical use, but just that there is not a
clear distinction between normal use of language and creative use.

-- David

----- Original Message ----- 

From: HYPERLINK "mailto:ron_moe at sil.org"Ron Moe 

To: HYPERLINK
"mailto:lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com"lexicographylist at -yahoogroups.-com 

Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 8:38 PM

Subject: RE: [Lexicog] Re: lexical phrase

David,

.... I’ll accept that ‘on the other hand’ *appears* to have variants. But
the three mentioned all have different functions and therefore are different
lexemes. ‘On the one hand’ marks the first of two contrastive statements.
‘On the other hand’ is “used when introducing another opinion that is as
important to consider as the one you have just given” (Longman Language
Activator). It isn’t necessarily used in conjunction with ‘on the one hand’.
‘On the third hand’ is just plain silly (and I would question its status as
an established lexeme). ‘Facetious’ is a nicer label for it. It would be
used jokingly to introduce a third opinion. You could also say, “But back on
the first hand,” to add a confirming statement to the first opinion. So I
will maintain that the phrasal lexeme ‘on the other hand’ has a unitary
lexical meaning and has no variants....

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.15.6/566 - Release Date: 12/3/2006
4:36 PM

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.15.6/566 - Release Date: 12/3/2006
4:36 PM

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lexicography/attachments/20061204/53a91f03/attachment.htm>