A Meaning Hypothesis to Explain Speaker\u27s Choice of the Sign Look

A meaning hypothesis to explain speakers\u27 choice of the sign look by Nadav Sabar Adviser: Professor Ricardo Otheguy The purpose of the meaning hypotheses advanced in this dissertation is to explain why speakers and writers choose the forms that they do in the course of documented acts of speaking or writing. The choice of interest is the decision to use look (or /lÊ?k/), particularly in situations where see, seem, and appear would at first glance seem to be just as appropriate. The answer to the question of why language users make the choices they do is cast in theoretical terms that rely on the construct of the sign (a synchronically stable form-meaning correspondence) rather than on the construct of the sentence. The analytical consequences of this decision regarding theoretical framework are laid out in detail. The explanation for the use of look is given in terms of a meaning hypothesis, a single invariant semantic value that, rather than encoding messages, functions as a communicative tool that merely facilitates or contributes to the communication of many different types of messages or message partials. The hypothesized meaning for look is summarized here in shorthand form as ATTENTION, VISUAL. This hypothesis by itself explains the full range of the distribution of look without the need to posit as linguistic units \u27look-noun\u27 and \u27look-verb\u27, \u27look-visual\u27 and \u27look-intellectual\u27, or constructions such as look-for, have-a-look, look-like, etc. Tentative meaning hypotheses are also posited for the forms see, seem and appear that explain speakers\u27 expressive choices between look and each of these other forms. Support for the meaning hypotheses comes in the form of (a) qualitative analyses of attested examples that demonstrate through redundant information in the text that the hypothesized meaning has motivated the choice of its corresponding signal, and (b) large-scale quantitative predictions, tested in the Corpus of Contemporary American English, of the regular co-occurrence of look with other forms that, by hypothesis, are chosen to produce partially overlapping message effects. The meaning hypotheses of look as well as the other forms mentioned have led to the discovery of numerous peculiarities in the distribution of look that are noted here \u27 and explained \u27 for the first time

Lexical Meaning As a Testable Hypothesis The Case of English Look, See, Seem and Appear

Intro -- Lexical meaning as a testable hypothesis -- Editorial page -- Title page -- LCC data -- Table of contents -- Acknowledgements -- List of tables -- List of figures -- 1. The problem, methodology and theoretical background -- 1. Introduction -- 2. The problem of the identification of linguistic units -- 2.1 The problem of identifying linguistic units based on syntactic categories -- 2.2 The problem of identifying linguistic units based on cognitive status -- 2.2.1 The problem of stored sequences -- 2.2.2 The problem of polysemy -- 3. Methodology -- 3.1 Qualitative support -- 3.2 Quantitative support -- 4. Preview of upcoming chapters -- 2. attention, visual as the explanation for the choice of look -- 1. Introduction -- 2. The fit with messages involving acts of visual attention -- 3. The fit with messages where a visual stimulus is absent -- 4. The fit with messages involving the communication of one's thoughts or feelings -- 5. The fit with messages involving attention-grabbing visual features -- 6. The fit with messages involving attribution based on visual attention -- 7. The fit with messages involving either visual or intellectual attention -- 8. The fit with messages of searching -- 9. Look in combination with directional terms: up, down, forward, back and after -- 10. Conclusion -- 3. Using big data to support the hypothesized meaning attention, visual -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Methodology -- 2.1 Quantitative predictions test the generality of communicative strategies -- 2.2 Justification of the inductive approach -- 3. Supporting attention in the meaning of look -- 3.1 Using carefully to support attention -- 3.2 Using this to support attention -- 3.3 Using but to support attention -- 3.4 Using at to support attention -- 3.5 Using deliberately to support attention -- 3.6 Using think to support attention4. Supporting visual in the meaning of look -- 4.1 Using eye to support visual -- 4.2 Using painting to support visual -- 4.3 Using see to support visual -- 5. Conclusion -- 4. attention, visual in competition with the meanings of see, seem, and appear -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Look and see - attention, visual versus experiencing visually -- 2.1 The hypothesis for see as a monosemic sign -- 2.2 attention as the explanation for the choice of look over see -- 2.2.1 Using turn to to support attention -- 2.2.2 Using notice to support attention -- 2.3 experiencing as the explanation for the choice of see over look -- 2.3.1 Using believe to support experiencing -- 2.3.2 Using understand to support experiencing -- 2.3.3 Using less control to support experiencing -- 3. Look and seem - attention, visual versus perspective dependency -- 3.1 The hypothesis for seem as a monosemic sign -- 3.2 visual as the explanation for the choice of look over seem -- 3.2.1 Using green to support visual -- 3.3 perspective dependency as the explanation for the choice of seem over look -- 3.3.1 Using logical to support perspective -- 3.3.2 Using to me to support perspective -- 3.3.3 Using at the time to support perspective -- 4. Look and appear - attention, visual versus initiation of perception -- 4.1 The hypothesis for appear as a monosemic sign -- 4.2 initiation as the explanation for the choice of appear over look -- 4.2.1 Using introduce to support initiation -- 4.2.2 Using first to support initiation -- 4.2.3 Using comparative adjectives to support initiation -- 4.2.4 Using but to support initiation -- 4.3 Messages involving visual features: look versus appearance -- 5. Conclusion -- 5. Competing analyses of the meaning of look -- 1. Introduction -- 2. A componential analysis -- 3. A construction analysis -- 4. A markedness analysis -- 6. Theoretical excursus1. Introduction -- 2. The linguistic status of the categories of grammar and lexicon -- 2.1 The a priori assumption of a grammar-lexicon continuum -- 2.2 The a priori assumption of polysemy in the lexicon -- 2.3 The a priori assumption that only grammatical forms constrain one another -- 2.4 The a priori assumption that lexical meanings are based on real-world categorizations -- 2.5 Conclusion -- 3. Recapitulations -- References -- IndexDescription based on publisher supplied metadata and other sources.Electronic reproduction. Ann Arbor, Michigan : ProQuest Ebook Central, YYYY. Available via World Wide Web. Access may be limited to ProQuest Ebook Central affiliated libraries