Lexicalization (in neurocognitive linguistics) - Revision history

PaulSank: improved readability of the article

2017-10-31T20:28:50Z

improved readability of the article

PaulSank: added categories

2017-10-31T20:20:03Z

added categories

PaulSank: /* Sources */

2016-12-05T21:07:09Z

Sources

PaulSank at 21:05, 5 December 2016

2016-12-05T21:05:42Z

PaulSank: added cross-reference links

2016-12-05T21:02:25Z

added cross-reference links

PaulSank at 20:55, 5 December 2016

2016-12-05T20:55:38Z

PaulSank: developing the page further

2016-12-05T20:49:00Z

developing the page further

PaulSank: developing the page further

2016-12-05T20:47:31Z

developing the page further

PaulSank: new page

2016-12-05T20:26:39Z

new page

New page

LEXICALIZATION (in Neurocognitive Linguistics)
‘Lexicalization’ in the title of the paper can be clarified by reference
to Lamb (1999:163–70, 179, 271), together with information about the frequency of occur-
rence of particular English words. Lamb notes (163) that even though a word such as hap-
piness can be understood on the basis of the meanings of its constituent morphemes, the
frequency with which this combination occurs is such that the lexicon of the typical speaker
will contain not just the separate lexemes happy and -ness but also a complex lexeme happi-
ness. Moreover, for this to be the case it is unnecessary for the meaning of happiness to be in any way idiomatic: ‘it is repeated use rather than degree of idiomaticity that determines
presence or absence of a higher-level lexical [node]’ (165, 271). Furthermore, the more fre-
quently any part of the linguistic network (or wider cognitive network) is used, the easier it
is to use it again: ‘The pathways of the brain are like pathways through a meadow or field or
jungle—the more they are used the easier they become to use again’ (179). In formalizing
this phenomenon in Relational network Grammar (rng), lines of different strengths are
used (e.g. they are drawn with different thicknesses) and it is assumed that the strengths of
the lines corresponding to frequently used items will increase over time. A Google search
on the words happy, happiness, full and fullness, carried out on July 5, 2005, revealed that
while the word happiness was only 7 times less frequent than happy, fullness was 443 times
less frequent than full. If these figures are representative of a typical speaker’s receptive and
productive experience with the words in question, it seems reasonable to assume that he/
she might either have no single node corresponding to the word fullness or, at least, that its
connections would be rather weak compared with those of happiness.
~LACUS Forum XXXIII
THE EVoLUTIon oF CLITIC SySTEMS:
A LEXICALIZATIon EXPLAnATIon
David C. Bennett
SOAS, University of London, 2009.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-'''Lexicalization''' (in neurocognitive linguistics) can be clarified by reference to Lamb (1999:163–70, 179, 271), together with information about the frequency of occurrence of particular English words. Lamb notes (163) that even though a word such as happiness can be understood on the basis of the meanings of its constituent morphemes, the frequency with which this combination occurs is such that the lexicon of the typical speaker will contain not just the separate [[Lexeme (in neurocognitive linguistics)|lexemes]] happy and -ness but also a complex lexeme happiness. Moreover, for this to be the case it is unnecessary for the meaning of happiness to be in any way idiomatic: 'it is repeated use rather than degree of idiomaticity that determines presence or absence of a higher-level lexical [[Node (in neurocognitive linguistics)|[node]]] (165, 271). Furthermore, the more frequently any part of the linguistic network (or wider cognitive network) is used, the easier it is to use it again: 'The pathways of the brain are like pathways through a meadow or field or jungle--the more they are used the easier they become to use again' (179). In formalizing this phenomenon in [[Relational network theory|Relational Network Grammar]] (rng), [[Line (in relational network theory)|lines]] of different strengths are used (e.g. they are drawn with different thicknesses) and it is assumed that the strengths of the lines corresponding to frequently used items will increase over time. A Google search on the words happy, happiness, full and fullness, carried out on July 5, 2005, revealed that while the word happiness was only 7 times less frequent than happy, fullness was 443 times less frequent than full. If these figures are representative of a typical speaker's receptive and
+On '''lexicalization''' Lamb notes that even though a word such as happiness can be understood on the basis of the meanings of its constituent morphemes, the frequency with which this combination occurs is such that the lexicon of the typical speaker will contain not just the separate [[Lexeme (in neurocognitive linguistics)|lexemes]] "happy" and "-ness" but also a complex lexeme "happiness". Moreover, for this to be the case it is unnecessary for the meaning of "happiness" to be in any way idiomatic: It is repeated use rather than degree of idiomaticity that determines presence or absence of a higher-level lexical [[Node (in neurocognitive linguistics)|[node]]].
 productive experience with the words in question, it seems reasonable to assume that he/she might either have no single node corresponding to the word fullness or, at least, that its connections would be rather weak compared with those of happiness.
 === Sources ===

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:20, 31 October 2017
Line 5:		Line 5:
	*David C. Bennett. 2009. [http://www.lacus.org/volumes/32/401_bennett_d.pdf "The Evolution of Clitic Systems: A Lexicalization Explanation]. LACUS Forum XXXII.		*David C. Bennett. 2009. [http://www.lacus.org/volumes/32/401_bennett_d.pdf "The Evolution of Clitic Systems: A Lexicalization Explanation]. LACUS Forum XXXII.
	*[[Sydney M. Lamb\|Lamb, Sydney M.]]. 1999. ''[http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_bookview.cgi?bookid=CILT%20170 Pathways of the Brain: The Neurocognitive Basis of Language].'' Philadelphia: John Benjamins.		*[[Sydney M. Lamb\|Lamb, Sydney M.]]. 1999. ''[http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_bookview.cgi?bookid=CILT%20170 Pathways of the Brain: The Neurocognitive Basis of Language].'' Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
		+
		+	[[Category:En]][[Category:DICT]][[Category:Stratificational_Grammar]]

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 === Sources ===
-*David C. Bennett. 2009. [http://www.lacus.org/volumes/32/401_bennett_d.pdf "The Evolution of Clitic Systems: A Lexicalization Explanation] in LACUS Forum XXXIII. London: SOAS, University of London.
+*David C. Bennett. 2009. [http://www.lacus.org/volumes/32/401_bennett_d.pdf "The Evolution of Clitic Systems: A Lexicalization Explanation]. LACUS Forum XXXII.
 *[[Sydney M. Lamb|Lamb, Sydney M.]]. 1999. ''[http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_bookview.cgi?bookid=CILT%20170 Pathways of the Brain: The Neurocognitive Basis of Language].''  Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:05, 5 December 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	'''Lexicalization''' (in neurocognitive linguistics) can be clarified by reference to Lamb (1999:163–70, 179, 271), together with information about the frequency of occurrence of particular English words. Lamb notes (163) that even though a word such as happiness can be understood on the basis of the meanings of its constituent morphemes, the frequency with which this combination occurs is such that the lexicon of the typical speaker will contain not just the separate [[Lexeme (in neurocognitive linguistics)\|lexemes]] happy and -ness but also a complex lexeme happiness. Moreover, for this to be the case it is unnecessary for the meaning of happiness to be in any way idiomatic: 'it is repeated use rather than degree of idiomaticity that determines presence or absence of a higher-level lexical [[[Node (in neurocognitive linguistics)\|node]]] (165, 271). Furthermore, the more frequently any part of the linguistic network (or wider cognitive network) is used, the easier it is to use it again: 'The pathways of the brain are like pathways through a meadow or field or jungle--the more they are used the easier they become to use again' (179). In formalizing this phenomenon in [[Relational network theory\|Relational Network Grammar]] (rng), [[Line (in relational network theory)\|lines]] of different strengths are used (e.g. they are drawn with different thicknesses) and it is assumed that the strengths of the lines corresponding to frequently used items will increase over time. A Google search on the words happy, happiness, full and fullness, carried out on July 5, 2005, revealed that while the word happiness was only 7 times less frequent than happy, fullness was 443 times less frequent than full. If these figures are representative of a typical speaker's receptive and	+	'''Lexicalization''' (in neurocognitive linguistics) can be clarified by reference to Lamb (1999:163–70, 179, 271), together with information about the frequency of occurrence of particular English words. Lamb notes (163) that even though a word such as happiness can be understood on the basis of the meanings of its constituent morphemes, the frequency with which this combination occurs is such that the lexicon of the typical speaker will contain not just the separate [[Lexeme (in neurocognitive linguistics)\|lexemes]] happy and -ness but also a complex lexeme happiness. Moreover, for this to be the case it is unnecessary for the meaning of happiness to be in any way idiomatic: 'it is repeated use rather than degree of idiomaticity that determines presence or absence of a higher-level lexical [[Node (in neurocognitive linguistics)\|[node]]] (165, 271). Furthermore, the more frequently any part of the linguistic network (or wider cognitive network) is used, the easier it is to use it again: 'The pathways of the brain are like pathways through a meadow or field or jungle--the more they are used the easier they become to use again' (179). In formalizing this phenomenon in [[Relational network theory\|Relational Network Grammar]] (rng), [[Line (in relational network theory)\|lines]] of different strengths are used (e.g. they are drawn with different thicknesses) and it is assumed that the strengths of the lines corresponding to frequently used items will increase over time. A Google search on the words happy, happiness, full and fullness, carried out on July 5, 2005, revealed that while the word happiness was only 7 times less frequent than happy, fullness was 443 times less frequent than full. If these figures are representative of a typical speaker's receptive and
	productive experience with the words in question, it seems reasonable to assume that he/she might either have no single node corresponding to the word fullness or, at least, that its connections would be rather weak compared with those of happiness.		productive experience with the words in question, it seems reasonable to assume that he/she might either have no single node corresponding to the word fullness or, at least, that its connections would be rather weak compared with those of happiness.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:02, 5 December 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	'''Lexicalization''' (in neurocognitive linguistics) can be clarified by reference to Lamb (1999:163–70, 179, 271), together with information about the frequency of occurrence of particular English words. Lamb notes (163) that even though a word such as happiness can be understood on the basis of the meanings of its constituent morphemes, the frequency with which this combination occurs is such that the lexicon of the typical speaker will contain not just the separate lexemes happy and -ness but also a complex lexeme happiness. Moreover, for this to be the case it is unnecessary for the meaning of happiness to be in any way idiomatic: 'it is repeated use rather than degree of idiomaticity that determines presence or absence of a higher-level lexical [node] (165, 271). Furthermore, the more frequently any part of the linguistic network (or wider cognitive network) is used, the easier it is to use it again: 'The pathways of the brain are like pathways through a meadow or field or	+	'''Lexicalization''' (in neurocognitive linguistics) can be clarified by reference to Lamb (1999:163–70, 179, 271), together with information about the frequency of occurrence of particular English words. Lamb notes (163) that even though a word such as happiness can be understood on the basis of the meanings of its constituent morphemes, the frequency with which this combination occurs is such that the lexicon of the typical speaker will contain not just the separate [[Lexeme (in neurocognitive linguistics)\|lexemes]] happy and -ness but also a complex lexeme happiness. Moreover, for this to be the case it is unnecessary for the meaning of happiness to be in any way idiomatic: 'it is repeated use rather than degree of idiomaticity that determines presence or absence of a higher-level lexical [[[Node (in neurocognitive linguistics)\|node]]] (165, 271). Furthermore, the more frequently any part of the linguistic network (or wider cognitive network) is used, the easier it is to use it again: 'The pathways of the brain are like pathways through a meadow or field or jungle--the more they are used the easier they become to use again' (179). In formalizing this phenomenon in [[Relational network theory\|Relational Network Grammar]] (rng), [[Line (in relational network theory)\|lines]] of different strengths are used (e.g. they are drawn with different thicknesses) and it is assumed that the strengths of the lines corresponding to frequently used items will increase over time. A Google search on the words happy, happiness, full and fullness, carried out on July 5, 2005, revealed that while the word happiness was only 7 times less frequent than happy, fullness was 443 times less frequent than full. If these figures are representative of a typical speaker's receptive and
−	jungle--the more they are used the easier they become to use ~~again’~~ (179). In formalizing this phenomenon in [[Relational network theory\|Relational Network Grammar]] (rng), [[Line (in relational network theory)\|lines]] of different strengths are used (e.g. they are drawn with different thicknesses) and it is assumed that the strengths of the lines corresponding to frequently used items will increase over time. A Google search on the words happy, happiness, full and fullness, carried out on July 5, 2005, revealed that while the word happiness was only 7 times less frequent than happy, fullness was 443 times less frequent than full. If these figures are representative of a typical ~~speaker’s~~ receptive and
	productive experience with the words in question, it seems reasonable to assume that he/she might either have no single node corresponding to the word fullness or, at least, that its connections would be rather weak compared with those of happiness.		productive experience with the words in question, it seems reasonable to assume that he/she might either have no single node corresponding to the word fullness or, at least, that its connections would be rather weak compared with those of happiness.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:55, 5 December 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~LEXICALIZATION (in Neurocognitive Linguistics)~~
	'''Lexicalization''' (in neurocognitive linguistics) can be clarified by reference to Lamb (1999:163–70, 179, 271), together with information about the frequency of occurrence of particular English words. Lamb notes (163) that even though a word such as happiness can be understood on the basis of the meanings of its constituent morphemes, the frequency with which this combination occurs is such that the lexicon of the typical speaker will contain not just the separate lexemes happy and -ness but also a complex lexeme happiness. Moreover, for this to be the case it is unnecessary for the meaning of happiness to be in any way idiomatic: 'it is repeated use rather than degree of idiomaticity that determines presence or absence of a higher-level lexical [node] (165, 271). Furthermore, the more frequently any part of the linguistic network (or wider cognitive network) is used, the easier it is to use it again: 'The pathways of the brain are like pathways through a meadow or field or		'''Lexicalization''' (in neurocognitive linguistics) can be clarified by reference to Lamb (1999:163–70, 179, 271), together with information about the frequency of occurrence of particular English words. Lamb notes (163) that even though a word such as happiness can be understood on the basis of the meanings of its constituent morphemes, the frequency with which this combination occurs is such that the lexicon of the typical speaker will contain not just the separate lexemes happy and -ness but also a complex lexeme happiness. Moreover, for this to be the case it is unnecessary for the meaning of happiness to be in any way idiomatic: 'it is repeated use rather than degree of idiomaticity that determines presence or absence of a higher-level lexical [node] (165, 271). Furthermore, the more frequently any part of the linguistic network (or wider cognitive network) is used, the easier it is to use it again: 'The pathways of the brain are like pathways through a meadow or field or
	jungle--the more they are used the easier they become to use again’ (179). In formalizing this phenomenon in [[Relational network theory\|Relational Network Grammar]] (rng), [[Line (in relational network theory)\|lines]] of different strengths are used (e.g. they are drawn with different thicknesses) and it is assumed that the strengths of the lines corresponding to frequently used items will increase over time. A Google search on the words happy, happiness, full and fullness, carried out on July 5, 2005, revealed that while the word happiness was only 7 times less frequent than happy, fullness was 443 times less frequent than full. If these figures are representative of a typical speaker’s receptive and		jungle--the more they are used the easier they become to use again’ (179). In formalizing this phenomenon in [[Relational network theory\|Relational Network Grammar]] (rng), [[Line (in relational network theory)\|lines]] of different strengths are used (e.g. they are drawn with different thicknesses) and it is assumed that the strengths of the lines corresponding to frequently used items will increase over time. A Google search on the words happy, happiness, full and fullness, carried out on July 5, 2005, revealed that while the word happiness was only 7 times less frequent than happy, fullness was 443 times less frequent than full. If these figures are representative of a typical speaker’s receptive and

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 LEXICALIZATION (in Neurocognitive Linguistics)
-‘Lexicalization’ in the title of the paper can be clarified by reference
+'''Lexicalization''' (in neurocognitive linguistics) can be clarified by reference to Lamb (1999:163–70, 179, 271), together with information about the frequency of occurrence of particular English words. Lamb notes (163) that even though a word such as happiness can be understood on the basis of the meanings of its constituent morphemes, the
-to Lamb (1999:163–70, 179, 271), together with information about the frequency of occur-
+frequency with which this combination occurs is such that the lexicon of the typical speaker will contain not just the separate lexemes happy and -ness but also a complex lexeme happiness. Moreover, for this to be the case it is unnecessary for the meaning of happiness to be in any way idiomatic: 'it is repeated use rather than degree of idiomaticity that determines presence or absence of a higher-level lexical [node] (165, 271). Furthermore, the more frequently any part of the linguistic network (or wider cognitive network) is used, the easier it is to use it again: 'The pathways of the brain are like pathways through a meadow or field or
-rence of particular English words. Lamb notes (163) that even though a word such as hap-
+jungle--the more they are used the easier they become to use again’ (179). In formalizing this phenomenon in [[Relational network theory|Relational network Grammar]] (rng), [[Line (in relational network theory)|lines]] of different strengths are used (e.g. they are drawn with different thicknesses) and it is assumed that the strengths of
 the lines corresponding to frequently used items will increase over time. A Google search
 on the words happy, happiness, full and fullness, carried out on July 5, 2005, revealed that
@@ Line 20: / Line 10: @@
 she might either have no single node corresponding to the word fullness or, at least, that its
 connections would be rather weak compared with those of happiness.
-~LACUS Forum XXXIII
-THE EVoLUTIon oF CLITIC SySTEMS:
-A LEXICALIZATIon EXPLAnATIon
+=== Sources ===
-David C. Bennett
+*David C. Bennett. 2009. [http://www.lacus.org/volumes/32/401_bennett_d.pdf "The Evolution of Clitic Systems: A Lexicalization Explanation] in LACUS Forum XXXIII. London: SOAS, University of London.
-SOAS, University of London, 2009.
+*[[Sydney M. Lamb|Lamb, Sydney M.]]. 1999. ''[http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_bookview.cgi?bookid=CILT%20170 Pathways of the Brain: The Neurocognitive Basis of Language].''  Philadelphia: John Benjamins.