The Role of Polysemy in the Relationship Between Mind and Language: On What Cognitive Semantics Teaches

Öz

There are two kinds of lexical ambiguity in natural languages. The first one is homonymy, where different meanings are not related to each other. The second one is polysemy, where different meanings are related. The relationships between the different meanings of words play a decisive role in how we should approach the concept of meaning. Polysemy in natural languages has an important place in the controversy between cognitive and formal traditions. Formal semantics, with the help of logic and computer science, tries to model meaning by isolating it from subjective human experiences. Cognitive semantics, on the other hand, claims that human experience plays a crucial role in linguistic meaning. Cognitive semantics aims to reveal the mechanism behind the way we understand linguistic expressions. Can linguistic meaning be studied formally, independent of our experiences, conceptual depths, and cognitive processes as a whole? Cognitive semantics, answer this question in terms of polysemy. According to cognitive semantics, polysemy reflects the strong relationship between our experiences and linguistic meaning. Therefore, they argue that linguistic meaning cannot be studied in isolation. In this study, cognitive semantics’ criticism of formal semantics is discussed through polysemy.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Polysemy
• Cognitive Semantics
• Formal Semantics
• Metaphor
• Image Schema
• Metonymy

Çok Anlamlılığın Zihin Dil İlişkisindeki Rolü Üzerine: Bilişsel Anlambilimden Öğrendiklerimiz

Öz

Doğal dillerde sözlüksel muğlaklığın iki türü bulunmaktadır. Birincisi, farklı anlamların birbirleriyle ilişkili olmadığı eşadlılık durumu, ikincisi ise farklı anlamların ilişkili olduğu çok anlamlılık durumudur. Kelimelerin farklı anlamları arasındaki ilişkiler anlam kavramına nasıl yaklaşmamız gerektiği konusunda belirleyici bir rol oynamaktadır. Doğal dillerdeki çok anlamlılık olgusu biçimsel ve bilişsel anlambilim geleneklerinin arasındaki karşıtlıkta önemli bir rol oynamaktadır. Biçimsel anlambilim, mantık ve bilgisayar biliminin de yardımıyla, anlamı öznel deneyimlerden olabildiğince ayırarak modellerken, bilişsel anlambilim ise dilsel anlamın deneyimlerimizle bir bütün oluşturduğunu iddia etmektedir. Bilişsel anlambilim dilsel ifadeleri anlamlandırma sürecinin arkasındaki mekanizmayı, diğer bir ifadeyle, yaşam formunun dilsel anlama katkısını ortaya çıkarmayı hedeflemektedir. Dilsel anlam, biçimsel bir şekilde, deneyimlerimizden, kavramsal derinliklerimizden, bilişsel süreçlerimizin bütününden bağımsız olarak incelenebilir mi? Bilişsel anlambilimciler bu soruya çok anlamlılık üzerinden cevap vermektedirler: Bilişsel anlambilimcilere göre, çok anlamlılık, deneyimlerimiz ile dilsel anlam arasında bulunan güçlü ilişkilerin bir yansımasıdır. Dolayısıyla, dilsel anlamın insan deneyimlerinden bağımsız incelenemeyeceğini iddia etmektedirler. Bu çalışmada bilişsel anlambilimin iddiaları çok anlamlılık üzerinden ele alınmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çok Anlamlılık
• Bilişsel Anlambilim
• Biçimsel Anlambilim
• Metafor
• İmge
• Ad Aktarması

Kaynakça

1. Apresjan, J. D. (1974). Regular polysemy. Linguistics, 12, 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1974.12.142.5
2. Berkeley, G. (2009). Philosophical writings. New York: Cambridge University Press.
3. Brugman, C. ve Lakoff, G. (1988). Cognitive topology and lexical networks. S. Small, G. Cottrell ve M. Tannenhaus (Ed.), Lexical ambiguity resolution (s. 477–508) içinde. San, Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
4. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. New York: Walter de Gruyter.
5. Church, A. (1932). A Set of Postulates for the Foundation of Logic. Annals of Mathematics, 33(2), 346–366. https://doi.org/10.2307/1968337
6. Clark, H. H. (1983). Making Sense of Nonce Sense. G. B. D'Arcais ve R. J. Jarvella (Ed.), The Process of Language Understanding (s. 297–331) içinde. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
7. Curry, H. B. (1972). Combinatory logic (Volume I). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
8. Curry, H. B. (1972). Combinatory logic (Volume II). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.

9. David R. Dowty, R. E. ve Peters, S. (1981). Introduction to montague semantics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
10. Davidson, D. (2001). What Metaphors Mean. D. Davidson (Ed.), Inquiries into truth and interpretation: Philosophical essays (s. 245–264) içinde. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. Fillmore, C. J. (2006). Frame Semantics. D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (s. 373–400) içinde. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
12. Fraenkel, A. (1922/1967). The notion "definite" and the independence of the axiom of choice. J. van Heijenoort (Ed.), From Frege to Gödel: A source book in mathematical logic, 1879–1931 (s. 284–289) içinde. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13. Frege, G. (1879/1967). Begriffsschrift, a Formula Language, Modeled Upon That of Arithmetic, for Pure Thought. J. van Heijenoort (Ed.), From Frege to Gödel: A source book in mathematical logic, 1879–1931 (s. 1–82). içinde Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
14. Goodman, N. (1968). Languages of art: An approach to a theory of symbols. Indianapolis: Hackett publishing.
15. Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16. Heim, I. ve Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
17. Johnson, M. (2013). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous thing: What catergories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18. Lakoff, G. (1993). The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (s. 202–251) içinde. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19. Lakoff, G. ve Johnson, M. (2008). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20. Lewis, D. (1975). Languages and Language. K. Gunderson (Ed.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science (s. 3-35) içinde. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
21. Mervis, C. B. ve Rosch, E. (1981). Categorization of Natural Objects. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 89–115. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.000513
22. Mill, J. S. (1882). A system of logic, ratiocinative and inductive: Being a connected view of the principles of evidence and the methods of scientific investigation. New York: Harper and Brothers.
23. Miller, G. A. (1999). On Knowing a Word. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.1
24. Montague, R. (1974). English as a formal language. H. Thomason (Ed.), Formal philosophy: Selected papers of Richard Montague (s. 188–221) içinde. New York: Yale University Press.
25. Montague, R. (1974). Universal Grammar. H. Thomason (Ed.), Formal philosophy: Selected papers of Richard Montague (s. 222–246) içinde. New York: Yale University Press.
26. Nietzsche, F. W. (2009). On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense. Writings from the early notebooks (s. 253–264) içinde. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27. Partee, B. H., Meulen, A. T. ve Wall, R. E. (1990). Mathematical methods in linguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
28. Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1981). The Imagery Debate: Analogue Media versus Tacit Knowledge. Psychological Review, 88(1), 16–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.1.16
29. Quine, W. V. (1951). Two Dogmas of Empiricism. Philosophical Review, 60, 20–43. doi:10.2307/2266637
30. Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of Categorization. E. Rosch ve B. Lloyd (Ed.), Cognition and categorization (s. 27–48) içinde. Hillsdale: Lawrence Elbaum Associates.
31. Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M. ve Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic Objects in Natural Categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-X
32. Rumelhart, D. E. (1975). Notes on a Schema for Stories. D. G. Bobrow & A. M. Collins (Eds.), Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitive science. (s. 211–236) içinde. New York: Academic Press. Russell, B. ve Whitehead, A. N. (1910/1967). Incomplete symbols: Descriptions. J. van Heijenoort (Ed.), From Frege to Gödel: A source book in mathematical logic, 1879–1931 (s. 216–223) içinde. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33. Schank, R. C. ve Abelson, R. P. (2013). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Psychology Press.
34. Schönfinkel, M. (1924/1967). On the Building Blocks of Mathematical Logic. J. van Heijenoort (Ed.), From Frege to Gödel: A source book in mathematical logic, 1879–1931 (s. 355–366) içinde. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
35. Searle, J. R. (1978). Literal Meaning. Erkenntnis, 13(1), 207–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00160894
36. Searle, J. R. (1993). Metaphor. A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (s. 83–111) içinde. New York: Cambridge University Press.
37. Searle, J. R. (1983). Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.
38. Turing, A. (1936). On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 42, 230–265.
39. Wilson, D. ve Sperber, D. (2002). Truthfulness and Relevance. Mind, 111, 583–632. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/111.443.583
40. Zermelo, E. (1908/1967). Investigations in the Foundations of Set Theory I. J. van Heijenoort (Ed.), From Frege to Gödel: A source book in mathematical logic, 1879–1931 (s. 183–198) içinde. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.