Good and bad opposites: using textual and experimental techniques to measure antonym canonicity

Abstract: This article offers a Cognitive Semantic approach to antonymy in language and thought. Based on a series of recent empirical investigations using different observational techniques, we analyze (i) the nature of the category of antonymy, and (ii) the status of its members in terms of goodness of opposition. Our purpose is to synthesize these empirical investigations and provide a theoretical framework that is capable of accounting for antonymy as a mode of thought in language use and meaning-making. We show that antonymy has conceptual basis, but in contrast to other lexico-semantic construals, a limited number of words seem to have special lexical status as dimensional protagonists. Form–meaning pairings are antonyms when they are used as binary opposites. Configurationally, this translates into a construal where some content is divided by a BOUNDARY . This configuration (or schema) is a necessary requirement for meanings to be used as antonyms and all antonyms have equal status as members. In contrast to categorization by configuration, categorization by contentful meaning structures forms a continuum ranging from strongly related pairings as core members to ad hoc couplings on the outskirts. In order to explain why some lexico-semantic couplings tend to form conventionalized pairs, we appeal to their ontological set-up, the symmetry of the antonyms in relation to the BOUNDARY between the meaning structures, their contextual range of use and frequency.

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examine the significance of the schematic domain of boundedness in adjectives and show that the configuration of adjectives in terms of boundaries may dominate their interpretation at the expense of the content proper, and adjectives become more like function words than content words.

TL;DR: This article investigated how cross-linguistic phoneme distributions of 56 fundamental oppositional concepts can reveal semantic relationships by looking into the linguistic forms of 75 genetically and areally distributed languages.

TL;DR: It is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights and may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.

TL;DR: The authors argue that the essence of language is its symbolic dimension, which rests on the uniquely human ability to comprehend intention, and that children pick up these patterns in the buzz of words they hear around them.

TL;DR: In “Constructing a Language,” Tomasello presents a contrasting theory of how the child acquires language: It is not a universal grammar that allows for language development, but two sets of cognitive skills resulting from biological/phylogenetic adaptations are fundamental to the ontogenetic origins of language.