Language and Cognition最新文献

Words with complex semantic types such as book are characterised by a multiplicity of interpretations that are not mutually exclusive (e.g., as a physical object and/or informational content). Their status with respect to lexical ambiguity is notoriously unclear, and it is debatable whether complex types are a particular form of polysemy (closely related to metonymy) or whether they belong to monosemy. In this study, we investigate the nature of complex types by conducting two experiments on ambiguous nouns in French. The first experiment collects speakers’ judgements about the sameness of meaning between different uses of complex-type, metonymic and monosemous words. The second experiment uses a priming paradigm and a sensicality task to investigate the online processing of complex-type words, as opposed to metonymic and monosemous words. Overall results indicate that, on a continuum of lexical ambiguity, complex types are closer to monosemy than to metonymy. The different interpretations of complex-type words are highly connected and fall under the same meaning, arguably in relation to a unique reference. These results suggest that complex types are associated with single underspecified entries in the mental lexicon. Moreover, they highlight the need for a model of lexical representations of ambiguous words that can account for the difference between complex types and metonymy.

Verb semantics has been widely approached as a dichotomy of manner and result. However, from a cognitive perspective, manner and result are often linked by intention, as captured by the ‘fulfilment type’ property formulated in the Realisation event domain in Talmy’s event integration theory. The four ‘fulfilment types’ (intrinsic-, moot-, implied-, and attained-fulfilment) indicate different degrees of result certainty in verbs. This study investigates whether manner/result complementarity is cognitively less dichotomous and more nuanced, as the four fulfilment types in verbs could indicate more than two mental representations of verbs. Through two psycholinguistic experiments, we examine whether fulfilment types influence the cognitive salience of manner and result in novel verb meaning interpretation (Experiment 1) and the semantic relatedness between English verbs with different fulfilment types (Experiment 2). Our results demonstrate that manner and result in the mental lexicon act less like a dichotomy but more like a cline. This blur between manner and result verb statuses has consequences for a language’s typological stance in the Realisation domain and implications for how Talmyan event research should be extended beyond well-studied Motion.

According to Talmy, in verb-framed languages (e.g., French), the core schema of an event (Path) is lexicalized, leaving the co-event (Manner) in the periphery of the sentence or optional; in satellite-framed languages (e.g., English), the core schema is jointly expressed with the co-event in construals that lexicalize Manner and express Path peripherally. Some studies suggest that such differences are only surface differences that cannot influence the cognitive processing of events, while others support that they can constrain both verbal and non-verbal processing. This study investigates whether such typological differences, together with other factors, influence visual processing and decision-making. English and French participants were tested in three eye-tracking tasks involving varied Manner–Path configurations and language to different degrees. Participants had to process a target motion event and choose the variant that looked most like the target (non-verbal categorization), then describe the events (production), and perform a similarity judgment after hearing a target sentence (verbal categorization). The results show massive cross-linguistic differences in production and additional partial language effects in visualization and similarity judgment patterns – highly dependent on the salience and nature of events and the degree of language involvement. The findings support a non-modular approach to language–thought relations and a fine-grained vision of the classic lexicalization/conflation theory.

The expression of manner has been extensively studied in the case of motion event descriptions, unveiling significant typological differences between satellite-framed and verb-framed languages and cognitive differences between speakers of these languages. However, far from being restricted to this semantic domain, the expression of manner extends to other types of event descriptions and across virtually all verb classes. In this paper, by considering all the means of expressing manner and grounding our research in a domain-independent definition of this component, we investigate the expression and the transfer of manner under high cognitive pressure as evidenced by corpus data from French–English (FE) and English–French (EF) simultaneous interpreting. Unexpectedly, both French and English displayed an overall cross-domain preference for the verbal-lexical coding of manner in event descriptions, while still differing in the degree to which it was favored. In addition, although our study does not allow a direct measure of cognitive load, the FE interpreters transfer more manner from the source to the target speeches than the EF interpreters do, despite high pressure on cognitive resources, supporting the claim that manner can be cognitively more salient and accessible for English than for French speakers, not only in the domain of motion but also at a more general level, potentially in any semantic domain.