Pressto.

Nagłowek strony

Kohiponimia jako relacja z pogranicza kategorii opozycji semantycznej. Perspektywa użytkownika języka polskiego: badanie psycholingwistyczne

Nawoja Mikołajczak-Matyja Mikołajczak-Matyja

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14746/pspsj.2018.25.1.7

Abstrakt


The paper considers the relation of semantic opposition in terms of the prototype theory of concepts. Its purpose is to provide information on peripheral or border areas of the category of semantic opposition. Data from linguistic analyzes, as well as the results of contemporary corpus studies, indicate that pairs of co-hyponyms from multi-element sets are potentially relevant material in peripheral areas of the category of semantic opposition. A psycholinguistic study was conducted to verify the psychological reality of the data. 720 Polish language users were instructed to provide semantic oppositions to the list of 24 stimuli words (test of directed associations). The research material was Polish nouns belonging to 3 lexical fields: animals, plants and artifacts, with no obvious semantic oppositions (as bee, cabbage, vase). It turned out that, according to the hypothesis, proportions of reactions classified as co-hyponyms of stimuli are high: for 21 stimuli it was 52–94% of the response corpora and for 22 stimuli the dominant reaction was co-hyponym of the stimulus word (as cabbage-lettuce, bee-wasp, vase-flowerpot). The characteristics that determine the choice of a given co-hyponym as the semantic opposite of the stimulus were identified. The remainder of the response corpus was analyzed in order to reveal other ways and mechanisms for seeking the semantic opposition by respondents. The data obtained in the presented study confirm the necessity to incorporate the problem of co-hyponymic pairs from multi-element sets into reflections on the category of the semantic opposition.


Słowa kluczowe


lexical semantics; psycholinguistics; semantic relations; semantic opposition;verbal association; co-hyponymy

Pełny tekst:

Bibliografia


Skróty

ISJP – Bańko Mirosław, red. (2000), Inny słownik języka polskiego, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa.

SJPSz – Szymczak Mieczysław, red. (1983), Słownik języka polskiego, t. 1–3, PWN, Warszawa.

SWJPDun – Dunaj Bogusław, red. (1996), Słownik współczesnego języka polskiego, Wilga, Warszawa.

Literatura

Bańczerowski Jerzy, Pogonowski Jerzy, Zgółka Tadeusz (1982), Wstęp do językoznawstwa, Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, Poznań.

Cacciari Cristina i in. (2015), Is black always the opposite of white? An investigation on the comprehension of antonyms in people with schizophrenia and in healthy participants, „Behavioral Sciences”, t. 5, nr 1, s. 93–112, DOI:10.3390/bs5010093.

Chaffin Roger J.S., Herrmann Douglas J. (1987), Relation element theory: a new account of the representation and processing of semantic relations, w: Memory and learning. The Ebbinghaus Centennial Conference, red. David S. Gorfein, Robert R. Hoffman, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Hillsdale, s. 221–245.

Cixous Hélène (1989), Sorties: Out and Out: Attacks/Ways Out/Forays, w: The Feminist Reader: Essays in Gender and the Politics of Literary Criticism, red. Catgerien Besley, Jane Moore, Macmillan, London, s. 101–116.

Cruse David Alan (1994), Prototype theory and lexical relations, „Rivista di Linguistica”, nr 6, s. 167–188.

Cruse David Alan (1995), Lexical Semantics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Cruse David Alan (2000), Meaning in language. An introduction to semantics and pragmatics, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Cruse David Alan (2002), Hyponymy and its varieties, w: The semantics of relationships. An interdisciplinary perspective, red. Rebecca Green, Carol A. Bean, Sung Hyon Myaeng, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, s. 3–21.

Davies Matt (2012), A new approach to oppositions in discourse: The role of syntactic frames in the triggering of noncanonical oppositions, „Journal of English Linguistics”, t. 40, nr 1, s. 41–73, DOI: 10.1177/0075424210385206.

Grochowski Maciej (1993), Konwencje semantyczne a definiowanie wyrażeń językowych, Polskie Towarzystwo Semiotyczne, Warszawa.

Herrmann Douglas i in. (1979), Comprehension of antonymy and the generality of categorization models, „Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory”, nr 6, s. 585–597.

Herrmann Douglas i in. (1986), The role of elements of relation definition in antonym and synonym comprehension, „Zeitschrift für Psychologie”, nr 194, s. 133–153.

Hurford James R. i in. (2007), Semantics. A coursebook, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Jones Steven (2002), Antonymy: a corpus based perspective, Routledge, London.

Jones Steven (2006), A lexico-syntactic analysis of antonym co-occurrence in spoken English, „Text & Talk – An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse Communication Studies”, t. 26, nr 2, s. 191–216.

Jones Steven (2007), ‘Opposites’ in discourse: A comparison of antonym use across four domains, „Journal of Pragmatics”, nr 39, s. 1105–1119.

Jones Steven i in. (2007), Googling for ‘opposites’: a web-based study of antonym canonicity, „Corpora”, nr 2, s. 129–154.

Kurcz Ida (1976), Psycholingwistyka, PWN, Warszawa.

Leech Geoffrey (1987), Semantics. The study of meaning, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.

Lévi-Strauss Claude (2010), Surowe i gotowane, przeł. Maciej Falski, Wydawnictwo „Aletheia”, Warszawa.

Lloyd Geoffrey Ernest Richard (1966), Polarity and analogy. Two types of argumentation in early Greek thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Lyons John (1977), Semantics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Lyons John (1984), Semantyka, t. 1, przeł. Adam Weinsberg, PWN, Warszawa.

Lobanova Anna i in. (2010), Defining antonymy: a corpus-based study of opposites by lexico-syntactic patterns, „International Journal of Lexicography”, t. 23, nr 1, s. 19–53.

Łobacz Piotra, Mikołajczak-Matyja Nawoja (2002), Skojarzenia słowne w psycholeksykologii i onomastyce psycholingwistycznej, Sorus, Poznań.

Markowski Andrzej (1986), Antonimy przymiotnikowe we współczesnej polszczyźnie na tle innych typów przeciwstawień leksykalnych, Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, Wrocław.

McNeill David (1997), Growth points cross-linguistically, w: Language and conceptualization, red. Jan Nuyts, Eric Pederson, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, s. 190–212.

Mettinger Arthur (1994), Aspects of semantic opposition in English, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Mikołajczak-Matyja Nawoja (2008), Hierarchiczna struktura leksykonu umysłowego. Relacje semantyczne w leksykonie widzących i niewidomych użytkowników języka, Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, Poznań.

Muehleisen Victoria, Isono Maho (2009), Antonymous adjectives in Japanese discourse, „Journal of Pragmatics”, nr 41, s. 2185–2203.

Murphy M. Lynne (2003), Semantic relations and the lexicon, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Murphy M. Lynne i in. (2009), Discourse functions of antonymy: A cross-linguistic investigation of Swedish and English, „Journal of Pragmatics”, nr 41, s. 2159–2184.

Murphy M. Lynne i in. (2015), Signals of contrastiveness: but, oppositeness, and formal similarity in parallel contexts, „Journal of English Linguistics”, t. 43, nr 3, s. 227–249.

Okuniewska Hanna (2004), Asymetria. Antonimia. Nacechowanie. Studium psycholingwistyczne, Matrix, Warszawa.

Paradis Carita i in. (2009), Good and bad opposites. Using textual and experimental techniques to measure antonym canonicity, „The Mental Lexicon”, t. 4, nr 3, s. 380–429.

Paradis Carita, Willners Caroline (2011), Antonymy: From convention to meaning-making, „Review of Cognitive Linguistics”, nr 9, s. 367–391.

Rosch Eleanor (1975), Cognitive representations of semantic categories, „Journal of Experimental Psychology: General”, nr 104, s. 192–233.

Taylor John R. (2001), Kategoryzacja w języku. Prototypy w teorii językoznawczej, przeł. Anna Skucińska, Universitas, Kraków.

Van de Weijer Joost i in. (2014), Antonym canonicity: Temporal and contextual manipulations, „Brain & Language”, nr 128, s. 1–8.

Wierzbicka Anna (1999), Język – umysł – kultura, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa.

PRESSto2AMUR - export

Statystyki

Abstrakt - 0 PDF - 0

Altmetric

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Copyright (c) 2018