How (sub)morphological relicts of perceptual parameters still influence the synchronic use & even might had an impact on the United States presidential election

  • Liane Stroebel RWTH Aix la Chapelle
Mots-clés: Paramètres perceptuels, Paramètres conceptuels, Concepts, Domain Source, Submorphèmes

Résumé

This contribution focuses on the close link between sensorimotor actions and language. The interaction between perceptual and conceptual parameters will be illustrated in detail and from different perspectives via specific examples. Furthermore, the analysis will extend beyond morphological evidence to include the role of sub morphological relicts of perceptual and conceptual parameters. It will also raise the question of whether submorphemic knowledge might have had an impact on the United States presidential election and helped Donald Trump to become the 45th President of the United States. In short, this paper seeks to tackle three questions: first, how aware are we that words are never innocent, second, how transparent are words, and finally, is it possible to sketch semantic mappings from the initial encoding strategies on to the synchronic powerof a given word.

Perceptual Parameters, Conceptual parameters, Concepts, Source domain, Submorphemes

La présente contribution traite du lien étroit entre les actions sensorimétriques et notre langue. L’interaction entre les paramètres perceptuels et conceptuels sera illustrée en détail et à l’aide d’exemples spécifiques à travers différentes perspectives. L’analyse ne s’arrêtera pas aux éléments morphologiques des paramètres susdits ; elle traitera également leurs aspects phonétiques et posera la question de savoir si les connaissances submorphologiques ont pu avoir un impact sur les résultats de l’élection du 45ème président des Etats-Unis. Dans cet article, il s’agira également de trouver des réponses à trois autres questions: premièrement, est-on conscient du fait que les mots ne sont jamais innocents ? Deuxièmement, quel est le degré de transparence synchronique d’un mot ? Et finalement, est-il possible d’illustrer les réseaux sémantique et conceptuel à partir des domaines sources et jusqu’aux domaines cibles pour montrer le "pouvoir" d’un mot.

Paramètres perceptuels,  Paramètres conceptuels, Concepts, Domain Source, Submorphèmes

Biographie de l'auteur

Liane Stroebel, RWTH Aix la Chapelle

2014-2021 Professeur vacataire à l’Institut de philologie romane à la RWTH d’Aix-la-Chapelle        

Références

ARGOUD, L. (2007). Approche lexico-cognitive des ‘mots en kn-’ du vocabulaire anglais. Anglophonia/Sigma 22, 129-143. Toulouse: Presses Universitaires du Mirail.

AURNAGUE, M. (2008). Qu’est-ce qu’un verbe de déplacement? Critères spatiaux pour une classification des verbes de déplacement intransitifs du français. J. Durand et al. (Eds.), Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, CMLF 2008, Paris, Institut de Linguistique Française. http://www.linguistiquefrancaise.org/articles/cmlf/pdf/ 2008/01/cmlf08041.pdf

BACH–Y–RITA, P., COLLINS, C. C., SAUDERS, F., WHITE, B., & SCADDEN, L. (1969). Vision substitution by tactile image projection. Nature, 221, 963–964.

BARSALOU, L. W. (2008). Grounding symbolic operations in the brain’s modal systems. In G. R. SEMIN, & E. R. SMITH (Eds.), Embodied grounding: Social, cognitive, affective, and neuroscientific approaches (pp. 9–42). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.

BEER, R. (2003). The dynamics of active categorical perception in an evolved model agent. Adaptive Behavior, 11, 209–243.

BERGEN, B. K. (2004). The psychological reality of phonæsthemes. Language, 80, 2, 290- 311.

BOLINGER, D. L. M. (1965). Rime, Assonance and Morpheme Analysis. In: BOLINGER, D. L. M. Forms of English: Accent, Morpheme, Order. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 203-229.

BOTTINEAU, D. (2002). Les cognèmes de l’anglais : principes théoriques. In: LOWE, R. (dir.), en collaboration avec PATTEE, J. et TREMBLAY, R., Le système des parties du discours, Sémantique et syntaxe, Actes du IXe colloque de l’Association internationale de psychomécanique du langage. Les Presses de l’Université Laval, Québec, Canada, 423- 437.

BOTTINEAU, D. (2003a). Les cognèmes de l’anglais et autres langues. In: Ouattara, A. (éd.), Parcours énonciatifs et parcours interprétatifs, Théories et applications, Actes du Colloque de Tromsø organisé par le Département de Français de l’Université, 26-28 octobre 2000, Ophrys, Gap, France, 185-201.

BOTTINEAU, D. (2003b). Iconicité, théorie du signe et typologie des langues. In: Monneret, Ph. (dir.), Cahiers de linguistique analogique, no 1 – Juin 2003, Le mot comme signe et comme image : lieux et enjeux de l’iconicité linguistique, Association Bourguignonne d’Etudes Linguistiques et Littéraires (ABELL), Dijon, 209-228.

BOTTINEAU, D. (2007). Language and enaction. In: Stewart, J., Gapenne, O. & Di Paolo, E. (eds), Enaction: towards a new paradigm for cognitive science. MIT, in press.

BOTTINEAU, Didier (2008). The submorphemic conjecture in English: towards a distributed model of the cognitive dynamics of submorphemes. In: Lexis - Revue de lexicologie anglaise, no. 2, 19-42.

BROOKS, R. A. (1991). Intelligence without representation. Artificial Intelligence, 47, 139–159.

CARSTON, R. (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.

CASASANTO, D., & G. LUPYAN. (2015). All concepts are Ad Hoc Concepts. In: E. MARGOLIS & S. LAURENCE (Eds.). The Conceptual Mind: New directions in the study of concepts.pp. 543-566, Cambridge, MIT Press.

CHOI-JONINI, I & L. SARDA (2007). The Expression of Semantic Components and the Nature of Ground Entity in Orientation Motion Verbs: a Cross-Linguistic Account based on French and Korean. In: M. AURNAGUE, M. HICKMANN & L. VIEU (eds), The categorization of spatial entities in language and cognition, Amsterdam: John Benjamins (Human Cognitive Processing series).

CADIOT, P., LEBAS, F., & VISETTI, Y.-M. (2006). The semantics of motion verbs: Action, space, and qualia. In: M. Hickmann & S. Robert (Eds.), Space in Languages. Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories (pp. 175–206), Amsterdam: Benjamins.

CIFUENTES-FEREZ, P., & GENTNER, D. (2006). Naming motion events in Spanish and English. Cognitive Linguistics 17–4, pp. 443–462, Gruyter.

CSIKY, N. (2008). Das Wortfeld WACHSEN im Deutschen, Studien zu seiner Struktur in Gegenwart und Geschichte, Dr. Kovač, Hamburg.

DE JAEGHER, H., DI PAOLO, E., and GALLAGHER, S. (2010). Can Social Interaction Constitute Social Cognition?. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14(10): 441-447. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.06.009.

DI PAOLO, E. (2009). Extended Life. Topoi 28: 9–21.

DUBOIS, J., & DUBOIS-CHARLIER, F. (1997). Les verbes français. http://www-rali.iro.umontreal.ca/Dubois/

EMIRKANIAN, L. (2008). Sémantique de verbe monter, Proposition d’un noyau de sens. In: Durand J. Habert B., Laks B. (Eds.) Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, EDP Sciences, pp. 1997-2008.

ENGEL, A. K., FRIES, P., & SINGER, W. (2001). Dynamic predictions: Oscillations and synchrony in top-down processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 704–716.

FIRTH, J. R. (1930) Speech. London: Ernest Benn Ltd.

FODOR, J.A. & Z.W. PYLYSHYN. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis, Cognition, 28: 3–71.

FRADIN, B., & KERLEROUX, F. (2003). Troubles with Lexemes, Topics in Morphology. Selected papers from the Third Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (Barcelona, September 20-22, 2001), BOOIJ G., J. de CESARIS, S. SCALISE, A. RALLI (eds). 177-196. Barcelona: IULA-Universitat Pompeu Fabra.

FROESE, T. & ZIEMKE, T. (2009). Enactive Artificial Intelligence: Investigating the Systemic Organization of Life and Mind. Artificial Intelligence 173(3-4): 466-500.

GALLESE, V., & LAKOFF, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: the role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22 (3/4), 455-479.

GALLESE, V. (2010). Embodied Simulation and its Role in Intersubjectivity. In: T. FUCHS, H. C. SATTEL, and P. HENNINGSEN (eds.), The Embodied Self. Dimensions, Coherence and Disorders, pp. 78-92. Stuttgart: Schattauer.

GEUDER, W. & WEISGERBER, M. (2006). Manner and Causation in Movement Verbs. In: Chr. EBERT & C. ENDRISS (eds). Proceedings of "Sinn & Bedeutung 10". Berlin, ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 44. URL: <http://www.zas.gwz-berlin.de/index.html?publications_zaspil>

GEUDER, W. (2009). ‘Descendre en grimpant’: Une étude contrastive de l’interaction entre déplacement et manière de mouvement. Langages, 175, 123-139.

GIBBS, R. (2005). Embodiment and Cognitive Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.

GOLDMAN, A. (2012). A Moderate Approach to Embodied Cognitive Science. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 3 (1): 71-88.

GOLDMAN, A. & DE VIGNEMONT, F. (2009). Is Social cognition Embodied?. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13(4): 154-9.

GROSSMAN, M., ANDERSON, C., KHAN, A., AVANTS, B., ELMAN, L., & MCCLUSKEY, L. (2008). Impaired action knowledge in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Neurology, 71(18), 1396–1401.

HARVEY, I., P., H., CLIFF, D., THOMPSON, A., & JAKOBI, N. (1997). Evolutionary robotics: the Sussex approach. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 20, 207-224.

HEIDEGGER, M. (1962). Being and Time. Oxford: Blackwell.

HINTON, Leanne/ NICHOLS, Johanna/ OHALA, John (1994): Sound-symbolic processes. In: HINTON, Leanne/ NICHOLS, Johanna/ OHALA, John. Sound symbolism. Cambridge [u.a.]: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1-12.

JESPERSEN, Otto (1922). Language, its nature, development and origin. London: Allen & Unwin

KLEIBER G. (1990). La sémantique du prototype, PUF, Paris.

KOPECKA, A. (2004). Etude typologique de l’expression de l’espace: localisation et déplacement en français et en polonais. Thèse de doctorat, Sciences du langage, Université Lumière Lyon 2.

LAKOFF, G. & JOHNSON, M. (1999), Philosophy In The Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought, Basic Books.

Lakoff (2016). Understanding Trump’s Name. https://georgelakoff.com/2016/10/07/understanding-trumps-name/

LANGACKER R.W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

LANGACKER, R. (2008). Cognitive Grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

LEBAS, F., & CADIOT, P. (2003). Monter et la constitution extrinsèque du référent, Langages, No.150, Armand Colin, Paris, pp. 9–30.

LEVIN, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: a preliminary investigation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

LÖBNER, S. (1979). Intensionale Verben und Funktionalbegriffe. Tübingen: Narr.

MALDONADO, R. (1999). A media voz: problemas conceptuales del clítico se. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México.

MARCHAND, Hans (1960). The categories and types of present-day English word-formation. A synchronic-diachronic approach. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

MATURANA H. & VARELA F.J. (1987). The tree of knowledge. Shambhala, Boston.

MCNEILL, D. (2005). Gesture and thought. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.

MERLEAU-PONTY, M. (1963) The Structure of Behavior, trans. A. Fisher. Pittsburgh, PA: Dusequesne University Press.

NOË, A. (2004). Action in Perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

NOLFI, S., & FLOREANO, D. (2000). Evolutionary robotics. The biology, intelligence, and technology of self–organizing machines. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

NUCKOLLS, J. B. (1999): The Case for Sound Symbolism. In: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 28, Annual Reviews, 225-252.

NÚÑEZ R. (2010) “Enacting Infinity: Bringing Transfinite Cardinals into Being,” in J. STEWART, O. GAPPENE, and E. DI PAOLO (eds.), Enaction: Towards a New Paradigm in Cognitive Science, pp. 307-333. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

O’REGAN, J. K., & NOË, A. (2001). A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24 (5), 883–917.

OYAMA, S. (2000). The ontogeny of information: Developmental systems and evolution (Second edition). Duke University Press.

PEZZULO,G. (2011). Grounding Procedural and Declarative Knowledge in Sensomotor Anticipation. In: Mind & Language, Vol. 26, Issue 1, 78-114.

PHILPS, D. (2000). Le sens retrouvé ? De la nomination de certaines parties du corps : le témoignage des marqueurs sub-lexicaux de l'anglais en .Anglophonia/Sigma 8 (2000): 207-232.

PHILPS, D. (2012). Submorphemes: backtracking from English ‘kn- words’ to the emergence of the linguistic sign. Miranda [Online], 7 | 2012.

PIAGET, J. (1967). Biologie et connaissance, Paris: Pléïade.

POINCARE, H. (1907). La science et l’hypothèse. Paris: Flammarion.

RAPPAPORT HOVAV, M., & LEVIN, B. (2010). Reflection on Manner/Result complementarity. M. Rappaport Hovav, E. Doron & I. Sichel (Eds.), Lexical Semantics, Syntax, and Event Structure (pp. 21–38). Oxford: OUP.

REAY, I.E. (1994). Sound symbolism. In R.E. ASHER and Y.M. SIMPSON (eds.). The Pergammon Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

RECANATI, F. (2004). Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

RHODES, R./ LAWLER, J. (1981). Athematic Metaphors. In: HENDRIK, R./ MASEK, C./ MILLER, M. F. (Eds.). Papers from the 17th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 318-342

RHODES, Richard (1994). Aural Images. In: HINTON, L./ NICHOLS, J./ OHALA, J.. Sound symbolism. Cambridge [u.a.]: Cambridge Univ. Press, 276-292

ROBERT, S. (Ed.). (2003). Perspectives synchroniques sur la grammaticalisation. Peeters, Louvain-Paris.

SHAPIRO, L. (2011) Embodied Cognition. New York: Routledge.

SKARDA, C. A., & FREEMAN, W. J. (1987). How brains make chaos in order to make sense of the world. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 161–195.

SPERBER, D. & D. WILSON. (2008). A deflationary account of metaphor. In: R.W. GIBBS (ed.), e Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and thought, 84–108. New York: Cambridge University Press.

SPIVEY, M. (2007). The Continuity of Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

STEFANOWITSCH, A. (2002). Sound symbolism in a usage-driven model. Unpublished manuscript, Rice University, Houston, TX.

STROEBEL, L. (2011). Invisible, visible, grammaticalization. In: CALLIES, M. LOHÖFER, A. KELLER, W. (Eds.), Bi-Directionality in the Cognitive Sciences: Avenues, challenges, and limitations. 2011. viii, 313 pp., New York/Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 211-234.

STROEBEL, L. (2014a). Grenzen und Spielräume der Wahrnehmung - eine typologische Analyse von Bewegungs-, Kontakt- und Lokationsverben. In: Krefeld, T./ Pustka E. (Hrsg.), Perzeptive Linguistik: Phonetik, Semantik, Varietäten. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik (ZDL), Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, pp.166-186.

STROEBEL, L. (2014b). Sprache & Gedanken - Spurensuche nach einem gemeinsamen Ursprung. In: L. MELCHIOR et al.: Spuren.Suche (in) der Romania. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang, pp. 59-72.

STROEBEL, L. (2014c). Sensomotorische Strategien & Sprachwandel, In: PUSTKA, E. & GOLDSCHMITT, S. (Hrsg.): Emotionen, Expressivität, Emphase. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag, pp. 139-154.

STROEBEL, L. (2016a). L’influence du concept de source – une analyse contrastive des extensions et des restrictions sémantiques du verbe «monter». Antonio Pamies, Philippe Monneret & Salah Mejri: Analogie, Figement et Polysémie. Language Design (Special Issue), pp. 343-370.

STROEBEL, L. (Ed.) (2016b). Sensory-Motor Concepts – at the Crossroads between Language & Cognition, Düsseldorf University Press (DUP).

TALMY L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical shape. In: SHOPEN, T. (éd.) Language typology and syntactic description, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge MA : 57-149.

THOMPSON, E. & COSMELLI, D. (2011). Brain in a Vat or Body in a World? Brainbound versus Enactive Views of Experience. Philosophical Topics 39: 163-180.

THOMPSON, E., & VARELA, F. (2001). Radical embodiment: Neural dynamics and consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 418–425.

THOMPSON, E. (2007). Mind in Life. Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

TORRES CACOULLOS, R., & SCHWENTER, S.A. (2008). Constructions and pragmatics: variable middle marking in Spanish subir(se) ‘go up’ and bajar(se) ‘go down’. Journal of Pragmatics 40:1455-1477.

TOURNIER, J. (1985), Introduction descriptive à la lexicogénétique de l’anglais contemporain, Paris, Genève: Champion Slatkine.

VANDELOISE, Cl. (1987). La préposition à et le principe d’anticipation, Langue française 76 : 77-111.

VARELA, F. J., THOMPSON, E., & ROSCH, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

WILSON, D. & R. Carston. (2007). A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In: N. BURTON-ROBERTs (ed.), Pragmatics, 230–259. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

WILSON, R. A. & FOGLIA, L. (2011). Embodied Cognition. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosoph (Fall 2011 Edition), Ed. N. ZALTA (ed.),

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/embodied-cognition/.

WILSON, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychological Bulletin and Review, 9(4), 625-636.

WINOGRAD, T. & FLORES, F., (1986) Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

YUNE, K.-CH. (2009). La sémantique grammaticale du verbe ‘monter’, Approches monosémique et cognitive, Université du Québec, Montréal,

http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/actes2009/CLA2009_YUNE.PDF>

YUNE, K.-Ch. 2008. Étude de la motivation conceptuelle des métaphores du mot « haut » : approche cognitive, dans les actes du congrès annuel de l’ACL 2008

ADESSE: http://webs.uvigo.es/adesse/

DUDEN: http://www.duden.de

RAEI : Real Academia Española, http://www.rae.es/rae.html

TLFI: Trésor de la langue française, http://atilf.atilf.fr/TLFi.htm

Publiée
2017-11-20