Logic and semiotics: Ontology or linguistic structure?

1998 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 323-327
Author(s):  
Bernard S. Jackson
Keyword(s):  
Linguistic Structure

scholarly journals Comparability of signed and spoken languages: Absolute and relative modality effects in cross-modal typology

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 527-562
Author(s):  
Ulrike Zeshan ◽  
Nick Palfreyman
Keyword(s):  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Sensory Perception ◽  
Sound Symbolism ◽  
The Other ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Linguistic Structure ◽  
Modality Effects ◽  
Inductive Approach

AbstractThis article sets out a conceptual framework and typology of modality effects in the comparison of signed and spoken languages. This is essential for a theory of cross-modal typology. We distinguish between relative modality effects, where a linguistic structure is markedly more common in one modality than in the other, and absolute modality effects, where a structure does not occur in one of the modalities at all. Using examples from a wide variety of sign languages, we discuss examples at the levels of phonology, morphology (including numerals, negation, and aspect) and semantics. At the phonological level, the issue of iconically motivated sub-lexical components in signs, and parallels with sound symbolism in spoken languages, is particularly pertinent. Sensory perception metaphors serve as an example for semantic comparison across modalities. Advocating an inductive approach to cross-modal comparison, we discuss analytical challenges in defining what is comparable across the signed and spoken modalities, and in carrying out such comparisons in a rigorous and empirically substantiated way.

Optimization of morpheme length: a cross-linguistic assessment of Zipf’s and Menzerath’s laws

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (s3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Stave ◽  
Ludger Paschen ◽  
François Pellegrino ◽  
Frank Seifart
Keyword(s):  
Structural Information ◽  
Unit Length ◽  
Zipf’S Law ◽  
Zipf's Law ◽  
Linguistic Structure ◽  
Morphological Complexity ◽  
Linguistic Assessment ◽  
Linguistic Units

Abstract Zipf’s Law of Abbreviation and Menzerath’s Law both make predictions about the length of linguistic units, based on corpus frequency and the length of the carrier unit. Each contributes to the efficiency of languages: for Zipf, units are more likely to be reduced when they are highly predictable, due to their frequency; for Menzerath, units are more likely to be reduced when there are more sub-units to contribute to the structural information of the carrier unit. However, it remains unclear how the two laws work together in determining unit length at a given level of linguistic structure. We examine this question regarding the length of morphemes in spoken corpora of nine typologically diverse languages drawn from the DoReCo corpus, showing that Zipf’s Law is a stronger predictor, but that the two laws interact with one another. We also explore how this is affected by specific typological characteristics, such as morphological complexity.

scholarly journals A Reflection of Thai Culture in Thai Plant Names

MANUSYA ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-97
Author(s):  
Unchalee Singnoi
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Linguistics ◽  
Plant Taxonomy ◽  
Folk Taxonomy ◽  
Linguistic Structure ◽  
Thai Language ◽  
Plant Names ◽  
Traditional Societies ◽  
Cognition And Culture ◽  
Printed Materials ◽  
Thai Culture

The present study focuses on the plant naming system in the Thai language based on 1) Brent Berlin’s general principles of categorization of plants and animals in traditional societies (Berlin, 1974, 1992) which suggest that it is worthwhile to think about a plant taxonomy system on the basis of plant names since the names provide the valid key to folk taxonomy and 2) Lakoff’s central guiding principles of cognitive linguistics (Lakoff and Johnson, 2003 and Lakoff 1987). Data on plant names collected from printed materials are selectively analyzed. The study examines the linguistic structure, folk taxonomy and conceptualization of plant terms in the Thai language. It is found that there exists in the Thai language a complex and practical plant naming system establishing a relationship between language, cognition and culture.

scholarly journals Speech rhythm: a metaphor?

2014 ◽  
Vol 369 (1658) ◽  
pp. 20130396 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis Nolan ◽  
Hae-Sung Jeon
Keyword(s):  
Traditional View ◽  
Time Intervals ◽  
Speech Rhythm ◽  
Linguistic Structure ◽  
Regular Time ◽  
Linguistic Functions ◽  
Absence Of Evidence ◽  
Metaphorical Extension ◽  
Analogical Process

Is speech rhythmic? In the absence of evidence for a traditional view that languages strive to coordinate either syllables or stress-feet with regular time intervals, we consider the alternative that languages exhibit contrastive rhythm subsisting merely in the alternation of stronger and weaker elements. This is initially plausible, particularly for languages with a steep ‘prominence gradient’, i.e. a large disparity between stronger and weaker elements; but we point out that alternation is poorly achieved even by a ‘stress-timed’ language such as English, and, historically, languages have conspicuously failed to adopt simple phonological remedies that would ensure alternation. Languages seem more concerned to allow ‘syntagmatic contrast’ between successive units and to use durational effects to support linguistic functions than to facilitate rhythm. Furthermore, some languages (e.g. Tamil, Korean) lack the lexical prominence which would most straightforwardly underpin prominence of alternation. We conclude that speech is not incontestibly rhythmic, and may even be antirhythmic. However, its linguistic structure and patterning allow the metaphorical extension of rhythm in varying degrees and in different ways depending on the language, and it is this analogical process which allows speech to be matched to external rhythms.

Grammar and the Intersubjectivity of Language. Focus on Epistemic Verbs

1981 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 91-109
Author(s):  
Lars Heltoft
Keyword(s):  
Present Article ◽  
Speech Act ◽  
Communicative Action ◽  
Linguistic Theory ◽  
Jürgen Habermas ◽  
Natural Languages ◽  
Linguistic Structure ◽  
Four Dimensions ◽  
Contrastive Focus ◽  
Universal Pragmatics

This paper argues that Jürgen Habermas' theory of universal pragmatics is valuable for semantic and text-linguistic theory. Habermas' distinctions between communicative action (Kommunikatives Handeln) and discourse (Diskurs; debate on the validity of statements) are reflected in linguistic structure, as is his distinction between the four dimensions involved in every speech, act: comprehensibility, truth, sincerity, and correctness. The primary question is: Given that Habermas' distinctions are universal, what means of signalling them do natural languages contain? The present article limits itself to contrastive focus and epistemic verbs. The application of contrastive focus, to epistemic verbs enables speakers to mark the distinction between communicative action and discourse (the level of debate) and to clarify the dimension, under debate: comprehensibility, truth, sincerity, or correctness.

scholarly journals How handshape type can distinguish between nouns and verbs in homesign

Gesture ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 354-376 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dea Hunsicker ◽  
Susan Goldin-Meadow
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Deaf Child ◽  
Stages Of Development ◽  
Linguistic Structure ◽  
Early Stages ◽  
Hearing Parents ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Combinatorial System ◽  
The Moment ◽  
Do So

All established languages, spoken or signed, make a distinction between nouns and verbs. Even a young sign language emerging within a family of deaf individuals has been found to mark the noun-verb distinction, and to use handshape type to do so. Here we ask whether handshape type is used to mark the noun-verb distinction in a gesture system invented by a deaf child who does not have access to a usable model of either spoken or signed language. The child produces homesigns that have linguistic structure, but receives from his hearing parents co-speech gestures that are structured differently from his own gestures. Thus, unlike users of established and emerging languages, the homesigner is a producer of his system but does not receive it from others. Nevertheless, we found that the child used handshape type to mark the distinction between nouns and verbs at the early stages of development. The noun-verb distinction is thus so fundamental to language that it can arise in a homesign system not shared with others. We also found that the child abandoned handshape type as a device for distinguishing nouns from verbs at just the moment when he developed a combinatorial system of handshape and motion components that marked the distinction. The way the noun-verb distinction is marked thus depends on the full array of linguistic devices available within the system.

scholarly journals Definiteness

Linguistics ◽  
2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Klaus von Heusinger
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Science ◽  
Computational Linguistics ◽  
Proper Names ◽  
Analytic Philosophy ◽  
Noun Phrases ◽  
Definite Descriptions ◽  
Definite Article ◽  
Personal Pronouns ◽  
Linguistic Structure ◽  
Definite Expressions

Definiteness is a semantic-pragmatic notion that is closely associated with the use of the definite article (or determiner) in languages like English, Hungarian, Hebrew, and Lakhota. The definite article can be used in different conditions: deictic, anaphoric, unique, and certain indirect uses, often also called “bridging uses.” Accordingly, there are different semantic theories of definiteness, such as the salience theory, the familiarity or identifiability theory, and the uniqueness or inclusiveness theory. Definite expressions cover personal pronouns, proper names, demonstratives, definite noun phrases, and universally quantified expressions. Noun phrases with the definite article, known as “definite descriptions,” are a key issue in semantics and analytic philosophy with respect to the interaction of reference and description in identifying an object. The research and analysis of definiteness is of great importance not only for the linguistic structure of languages but also for our understanding of reference and referring in philosophy, cognitive science, computational linguistics, and communication science.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document