Most linguists consider hierarchies based on hyponymic relations the most important structure of the noun lexicon (cf. Miller 1998:24), especially in the domain of concrete nouns (cf entity - object - garment - skirt - miniskirt). Hyponyms are usually defined by modified hyperonyms: miniskirt = "short skirt". Hierarchies can be traced back to Aristotle, and they are the foundation of modern ontologies. In the past years a peculiarity has been noticed: The most salient concepts of a hierarchy, such as skirt, are found on an intermediate so-called "basic level" (Rosch 1978). These concepts are the most general concepts that can still be represented by a global image. They are usually morphologically simple and semantically primitive roots. On that level, semantic representations based on images are more convincing than verbal definitions. Lexemes on other levels tend to be morphologically more complex - compare skirt with miniskirt or garment. This conflicts with the traditional logical analysis of hierarchies. If the traditional analysis were true we would expect to find at least a few iconic reflexes: simple roots on the top level, and increasingly complex lexemes as we descend the hierarchy. Instead, we find simple lexemes on the basic level. Both superordinates and subordinates tend to be more complex. Even though this evidence suggests a very different organization from traditional logical hierarchies, these discoveries still haven't fundamentally modified our understanding of the organization of nouns and the cognitive basis of taxonomies.
The aim of this talk is to analyse several noun taxonomies in German, English, French and Spanish and to show the sweeping consequences of the basic level for our understanding of hierarchies by elaborating Ungerer/ Schmid's notion of "parasitic categorization", the dependence of non-basic level concepts on basic level concepts (1996:74). Evidence will be taken from synchronic and diachronic linguistic analysis, ontogenesis and psycholinguistics. Logical inclusion is rather restricted to formal or scientific contexts, what seem to be hierarchies in everyday language are clusters of nouns based on the more primitive cognitive associations similarity and contiguity linking basic level images. Below basic level, the basic level images are specified, here the organization is closest to traditional hierarchies, definitions are felicitous. Above basic level, schemata are preserved as well, although in a different way: we find many collective nouns that are semantically based on (contiguous) conjunctions of several basic concepts: clothes = "skirt, trousers, shirt,?". In some languages such as ASL superordinates are even expressed by coordinative compounds of basic level signs. I will show that hyponyms closely resemble collective nouns (and are often diachronically derived from collectives, as in the case of garment). Basic level concepts are the basic units in the concrete noun lexicon.
If we go further up the "tree", we find simple short nouns such as thing beside learned words like entity or object. They are not semantically related with the lower levels. I will argue that the former nouns aren't full lexemes but grammaticalized dummy nouns, almost indefinite pronouns (cf Haspelmath 1997). Unlike lexical nouns in hierarchies of concrete nouns, they are shape-neutral, just like other grammatical concepts (Talmy 2000: 40) and strangely enough, not derived from first order concrete nouns via bleaching but from higher order nouns meaning "matter" or "court case". Maybe basic level attraction prevents conrete lexical nouns from generalization. Thus everyday superordinates are skewed between lexicon and grammar.
Cruse, D. Alan (1986): Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: CUP.
Haspelmath, Martin (1997): Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Clarendon.
Miller, George A. (1998): Nouns in WordNet. In: C. Fellbaum (ed.): WordNet. An Electronic Lexical Database, 23-46. Cambridge/Mass., London: The MIT Press.
Rosch, Eleanor (1978): Principles of Categorization. In: E. Rosch / B. Lloyd (eds.): Cognition and Categorization, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 27-48.
Talmy, Leonard (2000): Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol.1: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, MA, London: MIT Press.
Ungerer, Friedrich/ Schmid, Hans-Jörg (1996): An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. - London: Longman.
| Workshop Homepage | Workshop Program | Previous Abstract | Next Abstract |