LUND UNIVERSITY
PO Box 117
221 00 Lund
+46 46-222 00 00
Ontologies and construals in lexical semantics
Paradis, Carita
Published in:
Axiomathes
2005
Link to publication
Citation for published version (APA):
Paradis, C. (2005). Ontologies and construals in lexical semantics.
Axiomathes
,
15
, 541-573.
Total number of authors:
1
General rights
Unless other specific re-use rights are stated the following general rights apply:
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors
and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the
legal requirements associated with these rights.
• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study
or research.
• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal
Read more about Creative commons licenses: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/
Take down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove
access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
CARITA PARADIS
ONTOLOGIES AND CONSTRUALS IN LEXICAL
SEMANTICS
1
ABSTRACT. The purpose of this paper is to propose a framework of lexical
meaning, broadly along the lines of Cognitive Semantics (Langacker 1987a). Within
the proposed model, all aspects of meaning are to be explained in terms of properties
of ontologies in conceptual space, i.e. properties of content ontologies and schematic
ontologies and construals which are imposed on the conceptual structures on the
occasion of use. It is through the operations of construals on ontological structures
that different readings of lexical expressions arise. Lexical meanings are dynamic and
sensitive to contextual demands, rather than fixed and stable. In a dynamic, usage-
based model like this, polysemy and multiple readings emerge as a natural conse-
quence of the human ability to think flexibly. Another more specific purpose of this
paper is to draw attention to the usefulness of ontologies in linguistic research in
general and semantic modelling in particular.
Key words: adjectives, cognitive semantics, construal, linguistics, nouns, ontology
1.
INTRODUCTION
The notion of ontology is perhaps most commonly associated with
the academic disciplines of mathematics, philosophy and computer
science. In computer science, formalism has traditionally been the
main priority, and ontologies have been viewed as entities in the
world for model-theoretical approaches to meaning within objec-
tivist frameworks. However, the human user has become more and
more important. Ontologies are currently being used in the orga-
nization and functioning of semantic networks associated with
natural language, such as Princeton WordNet and EuroWordNet as
well as in the development of information systems as a basis for
interpreting and organizing knowledge retrieved from natural lan-
guage sources. This contact with natural language has made com-
puter scientists aware of the importance of the human user, which
in turn has created a need for collaborative enterprises with
Axiomathes (2005) 15:541–573 Springer 2005
DOI 10.1007/s10516-004-7680-7
linguists. The importance of how human beings construct and
understand meanings cannot be overestimated, since semantic net-
works are created to reflect how human beings build meanings in
natural language and information systems are designed to serve
humans so that the information provided is correctly understood.
The purpose of this paper is to propose a usage-based framework of
lexical meaning as ontologies and construals, to highlight the use-
fulness of ontologies in linguistics and to point to the potential
importance of ontology research as a meeting-ground between lin-
guistics and computer science/information science in the modelling
of meaning.
2
The proposed framework analyzes lexical meaning in terms of
ontologies and construals. The framework is dynamic and usage-
based, broadly along the lines of Cognitive Semantics (Langacker
1987a; Talmy 2000; Cruse 2002). It argues that concepts form the
ontological basis of lexical knowledge. Conceptual space is structured
relative to two types of knowledge structures: content structures and
schematic structures (Cruse and Togia 1996; Paradis 1997, 2001).
Content structures involve meaning proper and schematic structures
provide various configurational templates. Both these domain types
are conceptual in nature and mirror our perception of the world. In
addition to the conceptual realm, there is an operating system con-
sisting of different types of construals, which are imposed on the
domains by speakers and addressees on the occasion of use. They are
not themselves conceptual, but ways of structuring conceptual do-
mains, reflecting some broad basic cognitive abilities, such as (i) the
choice of Gestalt, (ii) the focussing of attention, salience, (iii) the
ability of making judgements, comparisons, and (iv) the selection of
speaker perspective (Croft and Wood 2000). It is through the oper-
ations of construals on the ontological material that meanings of
lexical expressions arise. Lexical meanings are dynamic and sensitive
to contextual demands, rather than fixed and stable.
The framework has been put to use in an small-scale empirical
study of the interpretation of adjective–noun combinations in Eng-
lish, henceforth
ADJ N
combinations, extracted from a corpus of
spoken British English.
3
The methodological strategy for the analysis
was thus from lexical items in each particular context to their inter-
pretation as ontologies and construals. This method serves to point
up various generalizations across readings of lexical items and the
construals that they profile in use. For instance, the expression ‘She is
a clever girl’ presupposes knowledge about
GIRL
and the concept
CARITA PARADIS
542
complex that
GIRL
activates. G
IRL
presupposes various constitutional
properties, one of them being
INTELLIGENCE
, the range of which is
specified by clever. The property of
CLEVERNESS
serves to highlight a
particular aspect of
GIRL
, namely her functioning with respect to
INTELLIGENCE
. The observations made in the empirical study of
ADJ N
combinations are used as examples in this paper. However, the design
of the model applies to readings of all lexical items from all word-
classes and their various combinations with other lexical items.
The underlying assumptions of the framework are (i) that lexical
items from different parts-of-speech have the same ontological
structures in conceptual space at their disposal, but they are differ-
ently construed, (ii) there are systematic operations on the ontologies
by the construals that account for the flexibility of meaning pro-
cessing in a probabilistically predictable way, and (iii) lexical mean-
ings arise from more or less probable combinations of content
ontologies, schematic ontologies and modes of construal that are
invoked by the formation of plausible inferences mainly related to
encyclopaedic knowledge and situational demands on the occasion of
use.
The paper is structured as follows. First, the theoretical founda-
tion of the model is outlined. Second, the actual model of meaning as
ontology and construal is described in general terms. It is argued that
the meanings of nouns and adjectives are in principle based on the
same types of ontological structures. Yet they are differently con-
strued. Third, the ontologies for nouns and adjectives are described in
more detail. Fourth, examples of construals of
ADJ N
combinations
are presented and discussed. Finally, the conclusion provides a
summary of the gist of the framework and a brief evaluation of the
value of ontologies and construals to linguistic theorizing. The ulti-
mate theoretical goal is to contribute to our understanding of the
relation between linguistic expressions and meaning. Another, more
practical, goal is to make the framework useful for implementation in
the field of language technology.
4
2.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The primary goal for a theory of lexical semantics is to account for
how meanings are represented and how they can be modelled for
empirical study. Three basic questions are central to lexical semantic
theory and to the modelling of lexical meaning:
ONTOLOGIES AND CONSTRUALS IN LEXICAL SEMANTICS
543
(i) What is meaning?
(ii) What is the relation between lexical items and meanings?
(iii) How do different readings arise?
The core idea in Cognitive Linguistics is that meanings are mental
entities in conceptual space. Meanings are in people’s minds. They
are not independent entities in the external world, as is the case in
objectivist models. The external world is only indirectly relevant in
that meanings are constrained by how human beings perceive the
world.
The second question concerns the relation between lexical items
and meaning. Lexical items map on to concepts, and meaning is the
relation between the lexical item and the domain matrix that it
activates. Lexical meaning is constrained by encyclopaedic knowl-
edge, conventionalized mappings between lexical items and concepts,
conventional modes of thought in different contexts and situational
frames.
5
Meanings are thus not inherent in the lexical items as such,
but they are evoked by lexical items. Moreover, there is no purely
linguistic level of representation that is intermediate between con-
cepts and lexical items.
6
Multiple readings are natural and expected in
a dynamic usage-based model. The components of the framework are
shown in Figure 1.
The third question concerns the dynamics of language in terms of
synchronic flexibility and diachronic change. Different readings in
different contexts emerge from the intention that activates the
Figure 1. The components of the cognitive semantic framework.
CARITA PARADIS
544
