Cognitive Mechanisms for the Semantic Enrichment of Discourse through Mapping Functions

Article Sidebar

PDF (Español)
Published: 05-07-2018

Main Article Content

Jesús Portillo Fernández
Universidad de Sevilla
Spain
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9446-9496
Biography
Francisco José Salguero Lamillar
Universidad de Sevilla
Spain
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0589-2944
Biography
Vol 23 (2017), Articles
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15304/m.v23i0.4345
Submitted: 04-10-2017 Accepted: 08-03-2018 Published: 05-07-2018
Copyright How to Cite

Abstract

In this paper we study some linguistic-cognitive mechanisms involved in semantic enrichment processes of discourse and dialogue: dislocation of normality profiles and failure of the Extensionality Principle, disautomatization of expressions and inferential study of its contents, and use of tropes (morpho-syntactic and lexical-semantic tropes). We have also analyzed the modification of normality profiles, active zones, and the creation of conceptual blending in these processes.

Keywords:

semantic enrichment, mapping functions, normality profile, active zones, mental spaces
Cited by

Article Details

References

Akman, V. y Bazzanella, C. (2003). “The complexity of context: guest editors’ introduction”. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 321-329.

Attardo, S. (1993). “Violation of Conversational Maxims and Cooperation: The Case of Jokes”. Journal of Pragmatics, 19: 537-558.

Auer, P. (1992). “Introduction: John Gumperz’s approach to contextualization”. En Auer, P. y di Luzio, A. (eds.), The Contextualization of Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins, páginas 1-37.

Barwise, J. y Perry, J. (1983). Situations and attitudes. Cambridge (Mass.) y Londres: MIT Press.

Beaver, D. I. (2001). Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Bermúdez, F. (2006). “La subida de los clíticos: modalidad, prominencia y evidencialidad”. Lexis 30(1): 83-115.

Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.

Casas Gómez, M. (1999). Las relaciones léxicas. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.

Chierchia, G. (1995). Dynamics of Meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Croft, W. & Cruse, A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cruse, A. (1986). Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cruse, A. (2000). Meaning in Language. An introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press [2nd edition, 2004].

Curcó, C. (1997). “Relevance and the manipulation of the incongruous: some explorations on verbal humour”. In Proceedings of the University of Hertfordshre Relevance Theory Workshop, M. Groefsema (ed.), 68-72. Chelmsford: Peter Thomas and Associates.

Davis, W. A. (2003). Meaning, Expression, and Thought. Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.

Domaneschi, F. (2016). Presuppositions and Cognitive Processes. Understanding the Information Taken for Granted. Londres: Palgrave Macmillan.

Ducrot, O. (1977). “Présupposés et sous-entendus (réexamen)”. En O. Ducrot, Le Dire et le dit, París: Éditions de Minuit.

Fauconnier, G. (1985/1994). Mental spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Languages. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, Mass.

Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, Mass.

Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (1995). “Blending as a central process of grammar”. Paper presented at the Conference on Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language. En A. Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language, Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (Cambridge University Press).

Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (1998). “Conceptual integration networks”. Cognitive Science 22(2): 133-187.

Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (2002). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. Nueva York: Basic Books.

Fauconnier, G. (s.f.). Mental Spaces. http://www.wam.umd.edu/~israel/Fauconnier-MentalSpaces.pdf [Recuperado el 12-10-2016]

Frege, G. (1884). Grundlagen der Arithmetik. Eine logisch mathematische Untersuchung über den Begriff der Zahl. Breslau.

Frege, G. (1892). “Über Sinn und Bedeuntung”. Zeitschrift fu?r Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, N. F. 100: 25-50.

Gallardo Paúls, B. (1995). “El sobreentendido”. Pragmalingüística 3-4: 351-381.

Goodman, N. D. & A. Stuhlmüller (2013). “Knowledge and implicature: modeling language understanding as social cognition”. Topics in Cognitive Science 5: 173-184.

Goodwin, C. (eds.) (1992). Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Grice, H. P. (1975). “Logic and conversation”. En P. Cole y J. L. Morgan, Syntax and semantics, 3: Speech Acts, Nueva York: Academic Press, páginas 41-58.

Gumperz, J. (1992). “Contextualization and understanding”. En Duranti, A. y Goodwin, C. (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, páginas 229-252.

Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1986). L'implicite. Paris: Armand Colin.

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago-Londres: Universitity of Chicago Press.

Langacker, R. W. (1984) “Active zones”. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 10: 172-188.

Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1 Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Langacker, R. W. (1991). Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlín/Nueva York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Langacker, R. W. (1999) Grammar and Conceptualization. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Langacker, R. W. (2004). “Metonymy in Grammar”. Journal of Foreign Languages 6: 2-24.

Mena Martínez, F. (2003). “En torno al concepto de desautomatización fraseológica: aspectos básicos”. Tonos digital 5 [URL: https://www.um.es/tonosdigital/znum5/estudios/H-Edesautomatizacion.htm].

Murphy, M. L. (2003). Semantic Relations and the Lexicon. Antonymy, Synonymy and Other Paradigms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pelletier, F. J. (2001). “Did Frege Believe Frege’s Principle?”. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10: 87-114.

Portillo Fernández, J. (2011). “Yuxtaposición e inferencia”. Thémata 44: 439-453.

Portillo Fernández, J. (2013). “Lo absurdo: descontextualización, sentido, significado y humor”. Revista de Humanidades de Valparaíso 2: 105-134.

Portillo Fernández, J. (2015). La interpretacio?n inferencial en la comunicacio?n absurda. Universidad de Sevilla, Tesis Doctoral.

Portillo Fernández, J. (2016). “Estudio de las estructuras yuxtapuestas en el discurso absurdo”. Thémata 53: 237-260.

Portillo Fernández, J. (2017). “Topoi y espacios mentales”. Tonos digital 32 [URL: http://www.tonosdigital.com/ojs/index.php/tonos/article/view/1647/904]

Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic Mechanisms of Humour. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Regier, T. (1996). The human semantic potential: spatial language and constrained connectionism. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. y Santibáñez Sáenz, F. (2003). “Content and formal cognitive operations in construing meaning”. Italian Journal of Linguistics 15(2): 293-320.

Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2009). “Integración conceptual y modelos de inferencia”. Quaderns de Filologia. Estudis lingüístics 14: 193-219.

Salguero Lamillar, F. J. (2000). “DRT’s treatment of inference and presupposition as a source of semantic enrichment”. En Á. Nepomuceno, J. F. Quesada y F. J. Salguero (eds.), Logic, language and information – Proceeding of the first Workshop on Logic and Language, Universidad de Sevilla, páginas 279-286.

Salguero Lamillar, Francisco J. (2010). “A validade do(s) Princi?pio(s) de Frege na ana?lise da linguagem natural”. Kairos: Journal of Philosophy & Science 1: 43-54.

Salguero Lamillar, Francisco J. (2014). “Modelling Linguistic Context with Hintikka Sets and Abduction”. Teorema, 33: 105-119.

Salguero Lamillar, Francisco J. (2016). “Cognition and metaphor as bases for the Principle of Translatability and the Principle of Synonymy”. Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts 2:124–141.

Sinha, C. y Thorsheng, L. (1995). “A coding system for spatial relational reference”. Cognitive linguistics 6: 261-309.

Sperber, D. y Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press.

Timofeeva, L. (2009). “La desautomatización fraseológica: un recurso para crear y divertir”. En Jiménez Ruiz, J. L. y Timofeeva, L. (eds.), Estudios de lingüística: Investigaciones lingüísticas en el siglo XXI, Universidad de Alicante, páginas 249-271.

Yus Ramos, F. (1997). “La teoría de la relevancia y la estrategia humorística de la incongruencia-resolución”. Pragmalingüística, 3-4: 497-508.

Yus Ramos, F. (2003). “Humour and the search for relevance”. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1295-1331.

Zlatev, J. (1997). Situated embodiment. Studies in the emergence of spatial meaning. Estocolmo: Gotab Press.

Zuluaga Ospina, A. (2001). “Análisis y traducción de las UF desautomatizadas”, PhiN, 16: 67-83 [URL: http://web.fu-berlin.de/phin/phin16/p16t5.htm].