A cognitive approach to opposites:

In the present paper, opposites are examined and discussed, and a way of describing them from a cognitive perspective is suggested. Related research disagrees upon whether opposites are symmetrical, and whether concepts should be integrated in the relation of opposites. The Swedish opposites levande 'alive' and död 'dead' have been studied thoroughly in order to provide empirical data. Arguments are presented in favour of an analysis in which opposites show semantic symmetry to some extent. When it comes to distribution and domains, however, opposites do not show symmetry. Further, it is argued that concepts should be included in the relation of opposites. The asymmetries found are related to markedness, information value, Aktionsart and the prototype of the word connected to referent of the subject/NP that one of the opposites describes. 1. Background and purpose Opposite terms and the nature of opposites intrigue and fascinate. Myths have it that opposites are both far apart and close, like the allegedly thin line between madness and genius. Untrained native speakers have clear intuitions about the overall category of opposites (Cruse 1994:178). The opposites in language supposedly reflect a human cognitive tendency to categorise experiences with the help of dichotomous relations (Lyons 1977:277). Terms of oppositeness incorporate both closeness and distance. The distance reflects only one semantic dimension. The closeness, on the other hand, includes syntactic distribution, which is supposed to be identical, as well as contextual factors (Cruse 1986:197, Pohl 1970:188). The present paper aims to explore the nature of opposites in terms of symmetry, similarity and difference, and suggest how this can be undertaken within a cognitive semantic framework. In the article, Swedish levande död 'alive dead' is examined. The alleged symmetry/closeness is in focus. Are the two words semantically symmetrical, i.e., do they differ in only one dimension? What does their use look like and how do language users understand them? 2. Related research in the past As Lehrer & Lehrer (1982) points out, the terminology concerning opposites suffers from some confusion. The present paper follows Lyons (1977:279), which uses opposition to describe dichotomous contrast. The term antonymy is reserved for gradable opposites (e.g. high low), while complementarity denotes ungradable opposites (e.g. dead alive). However, complementaries can appear in a gradable A cognitive approach to opposites Anna Vogel http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/03/vogel/[2010-03-25 13:18:32] Dictionaries context, such as "Is John dead?" "No, he is very much alive". This fact is discussed in several studies; see for example Cruse (1980), Jackson (1988), Jones (2002), Murphy (2003), and Paradis & Willners (2006). Willners (2001) declares that the words in an antonymous pair must be similar in all respects but one. This is in accordance with Cruse (1986) who writes that opposites typically differ along only one dimension of meaning. In respect of all other features they are identical, and thus show almost identical distributions. Justeson & Katz suggest that "adjectives may be more or less antonymous rather than simply antonymous or not antonymous" (1992:182). Muehleisen (1997:4) writes that good opposites have "the clang", which means that language users identify two words as opposites: this is the case with hot cold, but not with loud faint. Further, good opposites should also be associated with the same kind of nouns (things) (1997:113). A main issue in the related research on opposites concerns what is included in the relation of opposition. Some studies on opposition and antonymy regard concept(s) as constituting the sense of a word (Nowak 2006 and Cruse 1992), and as such, concepts must be incorporated into the relation of oppositeness. Other studies view concepts as separated from the sense (Miller et al. 1990, Gross & Miller 1990, and Murphy 2003) and thus, they are not part of the relation of oppositeness. Fellbaum (1995) does not overtly commit to either side, but presents arguments that opposition (in her case, antonymy) is a relation between concepts, pointing out that antonymy can exist between words belonging to different word classes. Nowak agrees with her, and argues that the grammatical category of difference, between for example dead (adjective) and dead (noun), consists of different profiling. The conceptualiser chooses to adopt a certain profiling for a given conceptual content. Krishnamurty (2002) shows that the two words of an antonymous pair exhibit differences in their collocational profile, and thus do not have identical distribution. Murphy (2003) sheds further light on the distribution of opposites. She indicates some antonyms that do not exhibit symmetrical distribution in linguistic contexts or in speakers' behaviours. Murphy links the phenomenon to the notion of markedness. She points out that while the antonym relation is logically symmetric, there is word-association evidence indicating that specific antonym relations may be mentally stored in a directional way, so that for example the directional link from TABLE to CHAIR is stronger than the link from CHAIR to TABLE. (The small capitals in italics indicate metalinguistic concepts of words.) Murphy regards markedness behaviour in linguistic contexts as predictable from conceptual information, and therefore, she finds it inappropriate for inclusion in the lexicon. 3. Theoretical framework As was mentioned in the section 2 on related research, earlier studies take different standpoints regarding the issue of whether concepts should be integrated into or separated from meaning. In the present study it is, in accordance with cognitive linguistics, assumed that concepts are crucial in the study of meaning. As Langacker (2002:2) puts it: Meaning is conceptualization. According to the view adopted in this study, lexical relations are not stored solely in the lexicon. The relation between words becomes available by virtue of their links to common background frames, as well as to indications of the manner in which their meanings highlight particular elements of these frames (Fillmore 1985:229). The concept is understood to be formed by two units, called profile and base (Langacker 1987). Alternative terms for base are the above-mentioned frame (Fillmore 1982), domain (Langacker 1987, Lakoff 1987) or idealized cognitive A cognitive approach to opposites Anna Vogel http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/03/vogel/[2010-03-25 13:18:32] model (Lakoff 1987). According to Langacker, the profile "stands out in bas-relief" against the base (here, Langacker cites Susan Lindner). The semantic value of an expression resides in neither the base nor the profile alone, but in their combination (Langacker 1987:183). The willingness to include domains (bases, frames etc.) in the semantics distinguishes cognitive linguistics from some other schools, mainly within structural semantics, where these spheres are rather understood as belonging to something that is not part of the lexical semantics, but as belonging strictly to conceptual information, separate from the meaning of a single word, as was mentioned in section 2 (see e.g. Murphy 2003 Chapter 3 for an overview). In the present paper, the term domain is preferred. According to Langacker (2002), linguistic meaning is associated with experiencebased conceptual archetypes. Examples of such archetypes are Physical object and the Motion of a physical object in space. Further, Langacker (2002:209) writes about energy. The transmission of energy and how energy may cause events together form a domain or an idealized cognitive model, which language users have in common, and which explains and describes patterns in the world. Langacker makes use of the "billiard-ball model" as an archetypal conception of how energy is transmitted from the mover to the impacted object. Langacker argues that this model has influence on our thought process. The model is important both for physical energy and abstract energy, like transmitting information or documents. Langacker's use of energy as a domain can be contrasted to Johnson (1987), where Force is regarded an image schema. It is slightly unclear whether Johnson addresses force or energy, since he counts notions such as Enablement (for example the ability to carry a child), which, in strictly physical terms, is rather seen as potential or stored energy than force. In the present paper, Physical object and Motion are regarded as conceptual archetypes, while energy is seen as a domain. The image schema Force is not used. According to Cruse & Togia (1995), antonymy forms a relation between construals. Construal operations should be understood as conceptual processes. The relation involves the structuring of content domains by means of one of a limited repertory of image-schemas. The general notion of opposite would correspond to a single image-schema, which would display diametric opposition, for example manifest in the set-up in a tug-of-war (Cruse 1994:183). The different types (complementaries and antonyms) correspond to more specific image-schemas. Cruse & Togia (1995) suggests that the principal image-schema for antonymy is Scale. For complementarity, the basic image-schema would probably be Existence, and then in terms of presence or absence. (Croft & Cruse 2004:44, 166-167). The present study further relies on a few other theoretical standpoints suggested within the cognitive linguistic framework. These involve the way meaning is represented in network models and how polysemy is treated. The network conception, proposed by Langacker, can be regarded as a synthesis of prototype theory and categorisation based on schemas. The members of a category are analysed as nodes in a network, which are linked to each other by relationships (such as extension and specification). One node forms the prototype. The precise configuration of the network is variable, even indeterminate, so every attempt must be seen as an abstraction (2002:267). Geeraerts (1993) discusses polysemy, and demonstrates how two different operational tests may yield contradictory results concerning the polysemy of a word, and also that one and the same test may show inconsistencies when testing the polysemy of a word. In the article Geeraerts questions the existence of sense A cognitive approach to opposites Anna Vogel http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/03/vogel/[2010-03-25 13:18:32] boundaries. Instead, he wants to view meaning with the help of a floodlight metaphor, where words are searchlights that highlight, upon each application, a particular subfield of their domain of application. Geeraerts suggests that instead of viewing meanings as "things", meanings should be viewed as processes of sense creation (1993:260). To regard meaning as a process can be connected to construal, which is also a process that involves meaning and context. Cruse (2000), on the other hand, acknowledges sharp sense boundaries, but stresses that these are subject to construal. Cruse distinguishes between a variety of difference and similarity. Polysemy equals full sense boundaries, while there are weaker types of differences, such as facets and ways-of-seeing. The present paper only deals with polysemy, and, following Cruse, departs from a view where sharp sense boundaries exist. However, even if Geeraerts and Cruse have different opinions, both perspectives seem to base their theory on a relatively common ground where the context may modulate some raw-material area of meaning. Therefore, the view of the present paper is that Geeraerts's work need not be rejected or accepted in full, but should rather be taken into consideration as a request to work consciously and carefully with polysemy tests. 4. Data and methodology There are two main traditions in the study of opposites when it comes to collecting data: on the one hand, studies that examine the relation with the help of the researcher's linguistic intuition (see e.g. Lehrer & Lehrer 1982 and Cruse 1994) and on the other hand, studies that explore the relation using corpus data (see e.g. Justeson & Katz 1991 and Willners 2001). An alternative to these approaches is research which makes use of elicited data (see e.g. Murphy & Andrew 1993 and Paradis & Willners 2006). The present paper tries to combine all three types of data (linguistic intuition, corpus data, and elicited data) as well as introducing a fourth type: dictionary articles. Below, the four types of data are described in more detail: The first source is formed by 8 Swedish dictionaries, whose articles on levande 'alive' and död 'dead' have been used. The dictionary articles include distinctions on various senses and sub-senses. SAOB is the most thorough of the dictionaries, and its distinction into senses has served as a hypothesis for a plausible model for polysemy in the present study. The dictionaries differ quite extensively from each other when it comes to how many senses are suggested. One dictionary (SAOB) proposes 12 senses for levande 'alive' while another dictionary (NEO) discerns two senses. The second source is the linguistic intuition of the author, who is a native speaker of Swedish. This source has been essential when performing the polysemy tests. This source has also been important in the process of suggesting "claims", i.e., short sentences which are supposed to capture the sense of levande 'alive' and död 'dead' respectively. An example of such a claim concerning levande 'alive' is: "the referent of the subject/NP has a pounding heart". All the claims are declared in section 6.1.2. The third source is a corpus, from which all lemmas of levande and död have been gathered. In total, 598 samples of levande 'alive' occurred in the corpus, and 697 samples of the lemma död 'dead'. The corpus (press98, Språkbanken) contains newspaper text, published in major Swedish newspapers in 1998. It contains 12 million tokens, and around 400 000 types. [1] The corpus data have been used to study various types of subjects/noun phrases that are described as levande 'alive' and död 'dead', syntactic distribution of levande 'alive' and död 'dead', as well as their metaphorical and non-metaphorical uses. As was the case with data from linguistic intuition, the corpus data have also been used in the process of A cognitive approach to opposites Anna Vogel http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/03/vogel/[2010-03-25 13:18:32] suggesting "claims". Finally, the corpus data were used when suggesting the polysemy and the sense boundaries of the words. All corpus uses needed to fit into one of the senses. The fourth source includes data from 24 adult informants, evenly distributed regarding sex, age, and level of education. The author met each informant individually and showed 6 pairs of pictures. The pictures showed a healthy man a dead man, a living cat a dead cat, fresh roses withered roses, a living tree a dead tree, a live chicken/hen a chicken drum stick, and finally an amorous couple stones. The informant was asked to describe what he/she saw. The interview was video-recorded. The interviews produced data about how language users talk about people, animals and plants that are alive and dead. One main issue was whether the informants would use the word levande 'alive' at all. These data were used for suggesting a model for the relation of oppositeness between levande 'alive' and död 'dead'. After the interview, the same informants were asked to write down the answer to two questions, (1) Hur är något som är levande? 'please describe what something that is alive is like' and (2) Hur är något som är dött? 'please describe what something that is dead is like.' The answers to questions 1-2 were used in the process of suggesting "claims". The methodology for studying polysemy involves a few tests. The first is the identity constraint test which Lakoff (1970) used. The identity test operates on coordinated clauses. One word should be used in a co-ordinated clause, where the word should modify two or more units. The test is positive, if the word can be interpreted in two ways, as long as only one interpretation is valid for both units at the same time. This can be illustrated by the following: The sentence "Mary was wearing a light coat, so was Jane" can either be interpreted as both women wearing bright coats (light in terms of colours), or both women wearing coats made of thin fabric (light in terms of weight). If the test has a positive result for polysemy, a reading will invoke one meaning (either bright for both women, or of little weight for both women), not two (bright for Mary, of little weight for Jane). According to the outcome of the test, light is polysemous. Related to the identity constraint test is the zeugma test: zeugma sometimes occurs when the identity constraint test is performed. The sentence "John and his driving licence expired last Thursday" has a comical effect (a pun or a zeugma) which shows that expire is polysemous. The third test is the truth condition test, used by Quine (1960). A word is polysemous if it can be true and false about the same referent at the same time, such as "Sandeman is a port, but not a port" (=it is a wine, but not a harbour). A fourth test is introduced in Hellberg (2007), which makes use of gradability. If a word can occur both in a gradable and in a non-gradable form with different senses, the word is polysemous. As mentioned in the section 3 above on theory, Geeraerts (1993) is critical of the polysemy tests, both the identity constraint test (which he refers to as the linguistic test) and the truth condition test (logical test). He further questions whether sharp sense boundaries really exist. The adapted view in this paper is that these tests may serve as a starting-point. In testing the polysemy of levande 'alive' and död 'dead' four tests have been used, but it has not been possible to test every (supposed) sense with the help of all four tests. It has not been possible (or it has felt very awkward) to construct a test sentence where both (supposed) senses occur in a "natural" way. The context-dependence of the tests is one of the points that Geeraerts (1993) refers to in his critique. Further, the tests may indicate a semantic oddness, while, in fact, the oddness may be due to syntactic phenomena (too). The reliability of the method when testing the polysemy of levande 'alive' and död 'dead' in the present paper may thus be subject to discussion, but hopefully, the awareness of such a problem helps to prevent interpretations and arguments that are too far-fetched. A cognitive approach to opposites Anna Vogel http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/03/vogel/[2010-03-25 13:18:32] The methodology of the present study has both quantitative and qualitative applications. The quantitative aspects involve frequencies in the corpus, measurable data from the elicitations and rankings in the dictionaries. The qualitative parts concern types of samples in the corpus, odd samples, association patterns in the elicited data and type of definition in the dictionary articles. For the corpus samples, the principle of "total accountability" has been observed. This means that no sample is considered too odd to be included in the analysis (Johansson 1985). 5. Questions at issue The present study will give an account for the semantics of levande 'alive' and död 'dead'. This task includes examining whether the words are polysemous. The paper will also examine whether the words have somewhat identical distribution. This will be performed by studying word-class and syntactic function (attributive vs. predicative). These two areas have been chosen since at an early, tentative period in the study these areas seemed to include deviations from the general picture in which it was assumed that levande 'alive' and död 'dead' behaved alike. Further, the domains and the metaphorical uses will be studied. One issue that will be addressed is: What is the balance between non-metaphorical senses and metaphorical senses for the two words? Another issue relates to the terms of oppositeness: Are there domains where levande 'alive' and död 'dead' are not opposites? What other opposites can be connected to each word? The paper also wants to examine the gradability of complementaries. Are there patterns for this, i.e., what factors produce or provoke the gradability? Finally the paper will study if levande 'alive' and död 'dead' describe the same kind of things.