On the challenge of polysemy in contemporary cognitive research: What is conscious and what is unconscious

Abstract

Background. The problem of polysemy has attracted scholars' attention since antiquity and interest in the phenomenon never lessens. A substantial number of works have been published on the cognitive nature of meaning ambiguity. Despite a new emphasis on the cognitive aspects of polysemy, little has been done towards an integrated approach to the study of this linguistic phenomenon. objective and method. This work's objective was to contribute to an integrated interdisciplinary theory of polysemy. To this end, we explored the cognitive foundation of meaning using empirical and theoretical research methods, but mostly relying on semiotic analysis of texts central to the humanities. In particular, we analyzed the dichotomy of conscious vs. unconscious processing in the acquisition and use of polysemy. For the identification of cognitive patterns of polysemy development in ontogenesis, we used probabilistic conceptual modeling. Results. The acquisition of meaning is a conscious process: it is a conscious interaction of the speaker with an interlocutor and their common social environment. On the other hand, meanings are unconscious unless a connection between the phonological, acoustic form and the concept is established. Correspondingly, polysemy is conscious when a new meaning is formed in the course of social interaction. However, polysemy, as an inherent language phenomenon, remains unconscious for native speakers, who are unaware of its presence provided they are not involved in some form of intentional language games (pun, zeugma or intended ambiguity). conclusion. The present approach to the analysis of meaning ambiguity seems to be a productive endeavor. Further research into polysemy has to be based on a range of additional types of evidence, including those obtained by methods of cognitive neuro science.

Advanced Russian EFL Learners’ Awareness of Idiomatic Synonymy, Antonymy, and Polysemy

“…The research revealed that polysemy among idiomatic expressions was not as regular or productive as synonymy (59%). This finding is in accordance with the data obtained by Boyarskaya and Zabotkina (2017), Dobrovol'skij and Piirainen (2018), and Ivanova (2017). The authors indicated that idioms' inherently evaluative and expressive nature, as well their extended lexical make-up prevented them from developing a ramified network of paradigmatic relations.…”

“…That said, the posthoc interviews with the participants revealed that they guessed rather than knew the second meaning of a polysemous idiom. While guessing is a useful strategy for figuring out polysemous words' and expressions' meanings (Boyarskaya & Zabotkina, 2017), this may still result in a significant margin of error and may lead to appreciable communicative mistakes, which is inadmissible if much is at stake, not least the interpreter's reputation and/or integrity. Given this, we believe that a more rigorous methodical tool for singling out idioms' meanings should be proposed, such as the 'cognitive trace' criterion, discussed in Glucksberg (2001), or the context of usage, which may be definitive in teasing idiomatic meanings apart (Naciscione, 2010).…”

Interlinguistic Idiomaticity in the Onomasiological Aspect

“…Обзор научной литературы проведен на основе анализа работ по следующим проблемам: язык и культура как объект изучения в междисциплинарных областях -когнитивной лингвистике, психологии, биологии, педагогике [Беляев, 2016; Платон, 1990-1994]; (Hassan, 2014, Imai, Kanero, Masuda, 2016, Nakahashi, 2019), идиоматика языковой системы и сравнительносопоставительный анализ единиц разных уровней [Аксенова, 2017;Савицкий, 2006;Хонькина, 2010;Zabotkina, Boyarskaya, 2017]; кросс-культурная коммуникация, основанная на фоновых знаниях и культурных реалиях DOI: https://doi.org/10.25146/1995-0861-2020-52-2-215 УДК 37.011. 33 МЕЖЪЯЗЫКОВАЯ ИДИОМАТИЧНОСТЬ В ОНОМАСИОЛОГИЧЕСКОМ АСПЕКТЕ Л.Р.…”