33.2900, Calls: General Linguistics, Linguistic Theories, Morphology, Psycholinguistics, Semantics, Typology / Lexis, Journal in English Lexicology (Jrnl)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-33-2900. Sat Sep 24 2022. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 33.2900, Calls:  General Linguistics, Linguistic Theories, Morphology, Psycholinguistics, Semantics, Typology / Lexis, Journal in English Lexicology (Jrnl)

Moderator: Malgorzata E. Cavar (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Student Moderator: Billy Dickson
Managing Editor: Lauren Perkins
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Everett Green, Sarah Goldfinch, Nils Hjortnaes,
        Joshua Sims, Billy Dickson, Amalia Robinson, Matthew Fort
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Hosted by Indiana University

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Sarah Goldfinch <sgoldfinch at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2022 21:26:54
From: Denis Jamet [denis.jamet at univ-lyon3.fr]
Subject: General Linguistics, Linguistic Theories, Morphology, Psycholinguistics, Semantics, Typology / Lexis, Journal in English Lexicology (Jrnl)

 
Full Title: Lexis, Journal in English Lexicology 


Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics; Linguistic Theories; Morphology; Psycholinguistics; Semantics; Typology 

Subject Language(s): English (eng)

Call Deadline: 31-Jan-2023 

Call for Papers:

Margins and boundaries in linguistic categorization  

Categorization is a basic cognitive process. Humans use language to
categorize, primarily through the nominal category (Mignot [2017]). More
particularly, categorization enables them to better organize the world around
them in order to make learning and decision-making easier (Lakoff [1987]).
Metaphorically, humans resort to cognitive boundaries to define their everyday
experiences and bring them together according to the properties they have in
common, or the “family resemblances” (Familienähnlichkeit) that they share,
i.e. networks of more or less significant similarities (Wittgenstein [1953]). 

The classical view of categorization considers categories as clear-cut and
homogeneous – no element can belong to two distinct categories, and all the
elements within a category have the same status. However, Rosch’s [1973]
research in psychology posits that categories are organized around a central
element called “prototype”, with other elements moving progressively further
from it. Thus, categories include marginal elements – for example, a chair is
considered a more prototypical piece of furniture than a telephone (Rosch
[1975]).  In linguistics, various authors have taken up the notion of
prototype. In his work on notional domains, Culioli [1990] puts forward the
notions of “inside” and “outside”, separated by a boundary, while Lakoff
[1987] defines cognitive models as categories built around a membership
gradient, a generator (i.e. a specific, central member of the class) and
common features.  

Prototype theory is used more or less explicitly in the study of many lexical
units, whether it is kinship (Lounsbury [1964]), color (Berlin & Kay [1969])
or taxonomy (Wierzbicka [1992]).  

Taylor [1998] applies categorial gradience to linguistic description. He
posits that a specific lexical unit should not be categorized according to
strict selection criteria (which would imply a clear boundary and equality of
the members within the class), but according to tests of prototypicality which
make it possible to distinguish central members from marginal ones. This point
of view is taken up by Aarts [2007], who puts forward the notion of
“subsective gradience”: lexical categories are organized around prototypes,
and within these classes some elements are closer to the center or to the
periphery (e.g. utter is a less typical adjective than happy).  

Subsective gradience can be the source of intersective gradience: a peripheral
element within a linguistic category can also be at the margin of another
category, and therefore be a kind of hybrid, such as near (both an adjective
and a preposition). This more flexible view of parts of speech also calls into
question some traditional cases of conversion: in real good or come quick, are
the units real and quick adverbs derived from adjectives, adjectives used as
adverbs, or units belonging to both categories?  

More broadly, the question of the boundary between the lexicon and syntax may
be explored. Indeed, cognitive approaches (Langacker [2008]) question the
perception of language as consisting of a finite list of lexical units and
combination rules (Taylor [2012]). Moreover, in Construction Grammar (Fillmore
et al. [1988], Goldberg [1995]), all linguistic units are considered
fundamentally similar. In this view of language, the lexicon deals with
simpler, specified units, while grammar encompasses more complex, schematic
units. Thus, there is no clear-cut distinction between these two notions,
which must rather be seen as the two ends of the same continuum (simple →
complex, specified → schematic).  
 
More on https://journals.openedition.org/lexis/6553




------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***************************    LINGUIST List Support    ***************************
 The 2020 Fund Drive is under way! Please visit https://funddrive.linguistlist.org
  to find out how to donate and check how your university, country or discipline
     ranks in the fund drive challenges. Or go directly to the donation site:
                   https://crowdfunding.iu.edu/the-linguist-list

                        Let's make this a short fund drive!
                Please feel free to share the link to our campaign:
                    https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-33-2900	
----------------------------------------------------------