Advertisement

Polysemy and Gestaltist Computation. Some Notes on Gestaltist Compositionality

  • Francesco La MantiaEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology book series (PEPRPHPS, volume 20)

Abstract

The paper is devoted to the concept of Gestaltist Compositionality. It is divided into two parts. The first part will introduce a minimal definition of «Gestaltist Compositionality». Moreover, it will prove that the computations implemented by this model of compositionality are sufficiently flexible to ensure the presence of several orders of semantic determination. The second part will be devoted to an investigation of the consequences of this result with particular reference to the identification of some versions of compositionality which relax the condition of semantic atomism without weakening the links of determination between understanding of the compounds and understanding of the components. These versions give priority to a particular interpretation of the “whole-parts” dependencies, on which are based the assertions of compositionality. In the conclusions, we we will suggest a possible theoretical extension of this last perspective with particular reference to language operations of interlocution.

References

  1. ALLWOOD J. (2003) «MeaningPotentials: some consequences for the analysis of variation in meaning. In H. CUYCKENS etal., Cognitive Approach to LexicalSemantics, Berlin-New-York: Mouton De Gruyter, pp. 85–125.Google Scholar
  2. CADIOT P. & VISETTI Y.M. (2006). Motifs et proverbes – Essai de sémantique proverbiale. Paris: PressesUniversitaires de France.Google Scholar
  3. CHEN C.J. (2008). «GestaltistSemanticCompositionality in Chinese V-V Compounds». in Language & Linguistics, 9, pp. 325–340.Google Scholar
  4. COL G., DE ANGELIS R., POIBEAU T. (2016). «Continuity in the InteractionsBetweenLinguisticUnits». In F. LA MANTIA, I. LICATA, P. PERCONTI (Eds.) Language in Complexity. The EmergingMeaning, Berlin-Amsterdam-New-York: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. EVANS, V. (2009) How wordsmean. New-York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. GAYRAL F., KAYSER D., LEVY P. (2005). «Challenging the Principle of Compositionality in Interpreting Natural Language Texts». In E. MACHERY, M. WERNING, G. SCHULZ (Eds.) The Compositionality of Meaning and Content, II, pp. 83–107.Google Scholar
  7. GIBSON J.J. (1979) The ecologicalapproach to visualperception, London: Lawrence ErelbaumAssociates.Google Scholar
  8. GOSSELIN L.(1996) «Le traitement de la polysémiecontextuelledans le calculsémantique».In Intellectica 1996/1, 22: pp. 93–117Google Scholar
  9. HALLIDAY M. (1978) Language as social semiotic. London: University Park Press.Google Scholar
  10. JASZCOLT K. (2016) Meaning in LinguisticInteraction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. LAFONT R. (2007). Il y a quelqu’un. Le corps et la parole, Limoges: Lambert-Lucas.Google Scholar
  12. LAFONT R. (2004). Pour une anthropologielinguistique, Limoges: Lambert-Lucas.Google Scholar
  13. LENCI A.(2006).«The lexicon and the boundaries of compositionality».In A. TUOMO e Ahti- Veikko PIETARINEN (Eds.) Truth and Games. Essays in Honor of Gabriel Sandu, Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, pp. 119–138.Google Scholar
  14. LINELL P. (2009). RethinkingMind, Language and World Dialogically, New-York: IPS.Google Scholar
  15. NOREN K. & LINELL P. (2007) «MeaningPotentials and the InteractionbetweenLexis and Contexts: an EmpiricalSubstantiation». In Pragmatics 17, 3, pp. 387–416.Google Scholar
  16. PAGIN P. (1997). «Iscompositionalitycompatible with holism?». In Mind and Language, 12, 1, pp. 11–33.Google Scholar
  17. RASTIER F. (2001) Arti e scienze del testo, Roma: Meltemi.Google Scholar
  18. RECANATI F. (2004). LiteralMeaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. RICOEUR P. (1975) La métaphore vive, Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  20. VICTORRI B. (1992). «Un modèleopératoire de constructiondynamique de la signification». In J.C. MILNER (Ed.) La théorie d’Antoine Culioli. Ouvertures et incidences (pp. 185–201), Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
  21. VICTORRI B. (1994). «The use of continuity in modelingsemanticphenomena». In C. FUCHS & B. VICTORRI (Eds.) Continuity in linguisticsemantics (pp. 241–251), Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  22. VICTORRI B. (1997). «Modèles en linguistique». In EncyclopaediaUniversalis, Paris.Google Scholar
  23. VICTORRI B. & FUCHS C. (1996). La polysémie. Construction dynamiquedusens, Paris: Hermés.Google Scholar
  24. VICTORRI B.. et alii (2010) «Compositionnalité gestaltiste et constructiondusens par instructionsdynamiques». In Cognitextes, 25, pp. 72–93.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Scienze UmanisticheUniversità degli studi di PalermoPalermoItaly

Personalised recommendations