Similitud y contraste en el procesamiento léxicoaproximación teórico-práctica

  1. Carmen Varo Varo 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Cádiz
    info

    Universidad de Cádiz

    Cádiz, España

    ROR https://ror.org/04mxxkb11

Revista:
Anuario de Letras. Lingüística y Filología

ISSN: 2448-8224 2448-6418

Año de publicación: 2017

Volumen: 5

Número: 2

Páginas: 183-212

Tipo: Artículo

Otras publicaciones en: Anuario de Letras. Lingüística y Filología

Resumen

En el presente trabajo1 nuestro objetivo es valorar la función que los rasgos de similitud y contraste desempeñan en los modelos cognitivos actuales del procesamiento lingüístico. De acuerdo con tal propósito, nos detenemos en las implicaciones de estos en la representación del conocimiento léxico y su relevancia para la caracterización de las relaciones semánticas. Por otra parte, presentamos varias evidencias científicas y algunos datos experimentales a favor de la eficiencia del principio de contraste que nos permiten cuestionar las propuestas mayoritarias elaboradas hasta el momento.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Aprile, L. (1992), “Modello di sviluppo dei fattori cognitivo-linguistici della tautologia, sinonimia e antonimia nei bambini dai 3 ai 6 anni di eta”, Rassegna Italiana di Linguistica Applicata, 24, 1, pp. 61-83.
  • Barsalou, L. W. (1987), “The inestability of graded structure: Implications for the nature of concepts”, en U. Neisser (ed.), Concepts and conceptual development: ecological and intellectual factors, Cambridge (UK), Cambridge University Press, pp. 101-140.
  • Berthonneau, A.-M. (1993), “Avant/apres. De l’espace au temps”, Lexique, 11, pp. 41-109.
  • Blair, M. y D. Homa (2005), “Integrating novel dimensions to eliminate category exceptions: when more is less”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 31, pp. 258-271.
  • Blair, M. y S. C. Somerville (2009), “The importance of differentiation in young children’s acquisition of expertise”, Cognition, 112, pp. 259-280.
  • Bolinger, D. L. (1977), Meaning and form, Londres, Longman.
  • Bréal, M. (1883), “Les lois intellectuelles du langage. Fragment de sémantique”, Annuaire de l’Association pour l’encouragement des études grecques en France, París, Maisonneuve et Cie, Libraires-Éditeurs, pp. 132-142.
  • Breál, M. (1897), Essai de sémantique. Science des significations (1924, 7ª ed.), París, Librairie Hachette.
  • Butters, N., M. Barton y B. A. Brody (1970), “Role of the right parietal lobe in the mediation of cross modal associations and reversible operations in space”, Cortex, 6, pp.174-190.
  • Caramazza, A. et al. (1976), “Right hemisphere damage and verbal problem solving”, Brain and Language, 3, pp. 41-46.
  • Casas Gómez, M. (2014), “A typology of relations in semantics”, Quaderni di Semantica, 35, 2, pp. 45-73.
  • Chaffin, R. y D. J. Herrmann (1984), “The similarity and diversity of semantic relations”, Memory and Cognition, 12, pp. 134-141.
  • Charles, W. G. et al. (1994), “Conceptual and associative processing in antonymy and synonymy”, Applied Psycholinguistics, 15, 3, pp. 329-354.
  • Clark, E. V. (1972), “On the child’s acquisition of antonyms in two semantic fields”, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 11, pp. 750-758.
  • Clark, E. V. (1987), “The principle of contrast: a constraint on language acquisition”, en B. MacWhitney (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition, Hillsdale, N. J., Erlbaum, pp. 1-33.
  • Clark, E. V. (1995), The lexicon in acquisition, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.
  • Croft, W. y D. A. Cruse (2004), Cognitive linguistics, Cambridge, UK, Cambrigde University Press.
  • Di Giacomo, D. et al. (2012), “Semantic associative relations and conceptual processing”, Cognitive Processing, 13, pp. 55-62.
  • Doumas, L. A. et al. (2008), “A theory of the discovery and predication of relational concepts”, Psychological Review, 115, pp. 1-43.
  • Feider, H. (1973), “Comparatives in early child language”, Glossa, 7, 1, pp. 3-20.
  • Fellbaum, C. (1995), “Co-ocurrence and antonymy”, International Journal of Lexicography, 8, 4, pp. 281-303.
  • Gardner, H. et al. (1978), “The appreciation of antonymic contrasts in aphasia”, Brain and Language, 6, 3, pp. 301-317.
  • Gazzaniga, M. S. y G. Miller (1989), “The recognition of antonymy by a language-enriched right hemisphere”, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 1, 2, pp. 187-193.
  • Geckeler, H. (1976), Semántica estructural y teoría del campo léxico, Madrid, Gredos.
  • Grice, H. P. (1975), “Logic and conversation”, en P. Cole y J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics: Vol. 3: Speech acts, Nueva York, Academic Press, pp. 41-58.
  • Gross, D. et al. (1989), “The organization of adjectival meanings”, Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 1, pp. 92-106.
  • Hammer, R. et al. (2009), “The development of category learning strategies: what makes the difference?”, Cognition, 112, 1, pp. 105-119.
  • Herrmann, D. J. et al. (1986), “The role of elements of relation definition in antonym and synonym comprehension”, Zeitschrift für Psychologie mit Zeitschrift für angewandte Psychologie, 194, 2, pp. 133-153.
  • Hjelmslev, L. (1971), Prolegómenos a una teoría del lenguaje, Madrid, Gredos.
  • Jackendoff, R. (1983), Semantics and cognition, Cambridge (MA), MIT Press.
  • Jakobson, R. (1975), Ensayos de lingüística general, Barcelona, Seix Barral.
  • Jones, S. (2002), Antonymy. A corpus-based perspective, Londres, Routledge.
  • Justeson, J. S. y S. M. Katz (1991), “Redefining antonymy: the textual structure of a semantic relation”, Literary and Linguistic Computing, 7, pp. 176-184.
  • Karčeuskij, S. (1929), “Du dualisme asymétrique du signe linguistique”, Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 1, pp. 88-93.
  • Keil, F. C. (2008), “The primal frontier? Spatial cognition and the origin of concepts”, Philosophical Psychology, 21, 2, pp. 241-250.
  • Krampen, M. (1984), “Binary features and visual semantics. A study of children’s drawings of different buildings types”, Quaderni di Semantica, 5, 1, pp. 170-182.
  • Lamb, S. (1999), Pathways of the brain. The neurocognitive basis of language, Ámsterdam/Filadelfia, John Benjamins.
  • Livingston, K. R. y J. K. Andrews (2005), “Evidence for an ageindependent process in category learning”, Developmental Science, 8, pp. 319-325.
  • Mahon, B. y A. Caramazza (2009), “Concepts and categories: a cognitive neuropsychological perspective”, Annual Review of Psychology, 60, pp. 27-51.
  • Malt, B. C. (1995), “Category coherence in cross-cultural perspective”, Cognitive Psychology, 29, pp. 207-230.
  • Mandler, J. M. (2008), “On the birth and growth of concepts”, Philosophical Psychology, 21, 2, pp. 207-230.
  • Markman, A. B. y D. Gentner (1993), “Structural alignment during similarity comparisons”, Cognitive Psychology, 25, pp. 431-467.
  • Medin, D. L. et al. (1990), “Similarity involving attributes and relations: judgments of similarity and difference are not inverses”, Psychological Science, 1, 1, pp. 64-69.
  • Mettinger, A. (1994), Aspects of semantic opposition in English, Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press.
  • Miller, G. et al. (1990), “Introduction to WordNet: an on-line database”, International Journal of Lexicography, 3, pp. 235-244.
  • Miller, G. y C. Fellbaum (1991), “Semantic networks of English”, Cognition, 41, pp. 197-229.
  • Muehleisen, V. (1997), Antonymy and semantic range in English, Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University.
  • Murphy, G. L. (2004), The big book of concepts, Cambridge (MA), MIT Press.
  • Murphy, G. L. y J. M. Andrew (1993), “The conceptual basis of antonymy and synonymy in adjectives”, Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 3, pp. 301-319.
  • Murphy, L. M. (2003), Semantic relations and the lexicon, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.
  • Pulvermüller, F. (2005), The neuroscience of language (reimpr), Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.
  • Quinn, P. C. (2004), “Development of subordinate-level categorization in 3-to 7 month-old infants”, Child Development, 75, pp. 886-899.
  • Randall, B. et al. (2004), “Distinctiveness and correlation in conceptual structures: Behavioral and computational studies”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 2, pp. 393-406.
  • Rosch, E. et al. (1976), “Basic objects in natural categories”, Cognitive Psychology, 8, pp. 382-439.
  • Sabourin, L. y G. Libben (2000), “Lexical processing of synonymy and antonymy: an exploration of task and word form differences”, University of Alberta Papers in Experimental and Theoretical Linguistics, 5, pp. 114-136.
  • Saussure, F. de (1980), Curso de lingüística general (publicado por Ch. Bally y A. Sechehaye, trad. esp.), Barcelona, Akal.
  • Singleton, D. (2000), Language and the lexicon: an introduction, Nueva York, Oxford, University Press.
  • Talmy, L. (2000), Toward a cognitive semantics, Cambridge (MA), MIT Press.
  • Trubetzkoy, N. S. (1973), Principios de fonología, Madrid, Paraninfo.
  • Tversky, A. (1977), “Features of similarity”, Psychological Review, 84, 4, pp. 327-352.
  • Ullmann, M. T. (2006), “Language and the brain”, en J. Connor-Linton y R. W. Fasold (eds.), An introduction to language and linguistics, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, pp. 235-274.
  • Varo Varo, C. (2003), La polaridad en el lenguaje, Cádiz, Universidad de Cádiz (Documentos de Investigación Lingüística, 8).
  • Varo Varo, C. (2010), “El procesamiento de las relaciones léxicas”, Revista Española de Lingüística, 40, 1, pp. 149-171.
  • Vaughan, J. et al. (1982), “Cortical evoked responses to synonyms and antonyms”, Memory and Cognition, 10, 3, pp. 225-231.
  • Wotjak, G. (1979), Investigaciones sobre la estructura del significado, Madrid, Gredos.