Tipología Semántica Conferencia 6|

UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL
MAYOR DE SAN MARCOS
Escuela Profesional de Lingüística
“Año de la unidad, la paz y el desarrollo”

CURSO: TIPOLOGIA LINGÜÍSTICA

Tema: The typology of semantic affinites

Profesora: Dra. Emérita Escobar Zapata

2023-II
 The typology of semantic affinities

Bernard Pottier
Université Paris Sorbonne, Institut de France, Fédération TUL

Following previous research by the author, this chapter shows how semantic
proximity (or proxemy) may result from meaning divergence in one lexical item
(polysemy) or from meaning convergence of different lexical items (parasemy).
Polysemous variations are explained by the interplay of several parameters:
domains of instantiation, synaesthesic fields, and universal visualized cognitive
schemas. In parasemy, a referential domain is conceived and uttered through
several optional solutions, i.e., polysemiosis, within one and the same language
as well as crosslinguistically (e.g., correspondences between proverbs in spite of
distinct cultural environments). The paper shows how taxemic paradigms are
expressed by roots, stems, classifiers, determiners, a compromise between the
necessary multiplicity of lexical items and memory limitations.

Keywords: cognitive schema; conceptualization; mental imagery; noeme;

parasemy; polysemiosis; polysemy; proxemy; taxeme

1. Introduction

The (relatively) recent interest of American linguists such as Fillmore & Kay (1996),
Lakoff & Johnson (1980), Langacker (1990) or Talmy (2000) for cognitive research, as
well as the European tradition initiated by Gustave Guillaume as early as 1920, which
propose an indepth semantic reflection about grammatical mechanisms, and, later on,
lexical mechanisms, put to the fore the prevalence of the mental level within the enun-
ciative process.
The studies of individual languages provide a very rich data of phenomena which,
although specific to certain areas, disclose, nevertheless, general tendencies at a cer-
tain level of abstraction. Such is the case of semantic affinities between grammatical
and lexical elements all along their historical evolution as well as in their synchronical
interrelationships.
In line with previous works (Pottier 1955, 1992, 1999, 2000), the present study
offers a catalogue of the different mental processes at work in the domain of semantic
affinities that can be a useful tool for crosslinguistic comparison in future research.
Each process is named, described, visualized by use of dynamic graphs whenever
possible, and exemplified.
 Bernard Pottier

“Semantic affinities” may result from a divergence (i.e., when a sign has several val-
ues, that is polysemy) or from a convergence (i.e., several signs share several common
values, that is parasemy). This general phenomenon is called proxemy (or semantic
proximity, cf. Gaume et al., this volume.), and can be represented and illustrated as
follows (Fig. 1):

Si 1
Si
**
Si 2

Si 3
Sds

POLYSEMY PARASEMY
(of one sign) (of several signs)
PROXEMY
Signified
relations
top: of the stairs, of the milk, to spoil ~ to damage
of a bottle ~ to ruin

Figure 1. Representation of proxemy.

2. Semantic divergence or polysemy

2.1 Polysemy and homonymy

Let us consider the utterance:

Iˉputˉtheˉfileˉwithˉtheˉplane

The co-occurrence of two polysemous terms leads to a reciprocal selection of likelihood:

file: “tool”ˉratherˉthanˉ“folder”
plane:ˉ“tool”ˉratherˉthanˉ“tree”ˉorˉ“aircraft”

The semic affinities between these two terms, which lead to a likely interpretation, are
called semic harmony or isosemy.
It is interesting to note that the semic density plays a part in the phenomenon of
polysemy in which the terms that are less dense and those that are very dense are the
 The typology of semantic affinities 

most subject to variation. The first ones, because their intension is weak, have a great
extension and the second ones which are full of imagery, are easily metaphorically
transposed (Fig. 2):

— +
to go, to work, consult, perforate burst, feed
to put, to run
my hat has gone
to put an end her heart was ready to burst
colour that runs in the wash to feed the mind
the lift isn’t working
Figure 2. Representation of semic density.

Polysemy is called homonymy when the signifieds have no connected semantic rela-
tions (Fig. 3):

Sd 1
Si
Sd 2

kind of tool kind of tool

file plane
folder tree
Figure 3. Representation of homonymy.

When comparing the lexicon of several languages, one notices that words share a
number of “semantic molecules” which correspond to the intersection of two semantic
domains (cp. in François, this volume, where the term colexification is proposed, and
the example of English straight and French droit).

2.2 The role of cultural habits

Cultural habits are situated between the Universal and the Individual.
The Universal refers to the mental imagery linked to nature’s phenomena, the
human body, the “whole/part” relations, everyday objects, fundamental actions.
The Individual depends on each person’s own history (even the existential traumas).
The Cultural characterizes groups, and concerns colours, forms, beliefs, good and
evil, life cycles. The prototypical representations, such as the essential forms of the
moon or of a bottle, evoke cultural orthomorphy.
 Bernard Pottier

So do the connotative semes included in the signified of certain signs: “Friday

the thirteenth” (ill-fated), “to have a yellow streak” (bad), “touch wood” or “knock on
wood!” (good). They are latent elements of the virtueme of any sign: “to have two left
feet” (bad), “touch wood!” (good).

2.3 The parameter of the domains of instantiation

A morpheme (be it a lexeme or a grammeme) can alter according to the domains of
instantiation it applies to. These variations are characterized by their use on a regular
basis, e.g.,:
Existential theˉvaccineˉtook Iˉsawˉhimˉinˉperson
Spatial Johnˉtakesˉaˉbook inˉJapan
Temporal itˉtookˉmeˉtwoˉhours inˉtheˉnight
Notional toˉtakeˉaˉdecision expertˉinˉeconomics
Modal IˉtookˉyouˉforˉanˉEnglishman inˉmyˉopinion

2.4 The parameter of synaesthesic fields

This parameter concerns the numerous lexemes (often belonging to the adjectivisation
category) whose values depend on the sensorial modality which is highlighted:
Sight douxˉauˉregardˉ(fr.) (soft)
Smell unˉdouxˉparfum toˉsmellˉsweet
Taste uneˉpommeˉdouce sweetˉcream
Hearing uneˉdouceˉmélodie sweetˉtoˉhear
Touch laˉpeauˉdouce (soft)

2.5 Mental schemas

Mental schemas, as cognitive studies have repeatedly shown, are an essential element
of the semantic path which leads to polysemy. As I proposed in former studies,1 look-
ing for more abstract representations than the highly iconic ones of the American
cognitive tradition, four types of mental schemas (Fig. 4) can be distinguished, even
though it is not always easy to oppose them. They are referred to as dominants, and
they are useful for the understanding of the mental phenomena.

. Many of the concepts already proposed in Pottier (1955) meet current research in cognitive lin-
guistics: “schèmes représentatifs” is parallel to mental schemas, “mouvement” to trajector, “limite”
to landmark, “point de visée” to viewpoint. For event conceptual schemas, see Pottier (1992).
 The typology of semantic affinities 

VISUEME IDEEME NOEME SCHEMA

entity abstraction morphodynamic event
bridge middle separate modify
+

Figure 4. Mental schemas.

2.5.1 The visueme

A visueme is a mental representation which selects, among the semic constellation of
an entity or its characterizations (properties, activities, location) a semantic feature
meant to be metaphorical and considered to be salient. Cultural prototype is a particu-
lar instance among others, e.g.:
Theˉhouseˉdoor theˉmiddleˉofˉtheˉcentury
Toˉshutˉtheˉdoorˉonˉanyˉdiscussion I’mˉinˉtheˉmiddleˉofˉreading

In several writing systems, the pictogram of “water” (three undulating lines in paral-
lel), makes us understand why a same sign can refer to “ water”, “tears”, “hair”, “grass”.

2.5.2 The ideeme

The ideeme, as a notional concept, is a mental representation based on a typical
abstraction that evokes properties, activities, general relations and can be represented
as in Figure 5.

‘pend-’ pendant la séance (Fr.)

la solución queda pendiente (Sp.)
the pending authorization
o nosso caso continua pendente (Ptg.)

‘from’ In several languages a same sign can mean

‘trunk’, ‘beginning’, ‘source’, ‘because’

‘duality’ In several languages polysemies are mentioned:

‘two’, ‘opposed’, ‘rival’, ‘companion’ can be
expressed by a same sign (cf. Sakhno & Tersis,
this vol.). Fr. ‘contre l’amiral’ (as opposed to),
‘contre-amiral’ (‘next to’ in military rank)

‘active part’ nú (Gbaya man’s mouth

nú Roulon p.c.) edge of knife
selvage of woman’s wrap
point of needle
Figure 5. Representation of ideemes.
 Bernard Pottier

2.5.3 The noeme

The noeme is a component of a noemia, or a kinetic and often a dynamic three
phase mental schema (the trimorph) of the morphology of an event. It is useful for
numerous instantiations, whether lexemic or grammemic, such as in the following
examples (Fig. 6):
1 2 3 1 2 3
to enter to stay to leave

Figure 6. Representation of noemes.

Below in Figure 7 are examples of noemes and their metaphorizations:

frôler (Fr.) S: frôler un mur (to brush against a wall)

‘to skim’ N-M: frôler le ridicule (to border ridicule)
T: frôler les 10 secondes au 100 mètres
(to run a 100 metres in under 10 seconds)
to catch S: to catch something (‘grasp’)
N-M: to catch the wind (‘benefit’)
+ M: I caught a few words (‘understand’)

Figure 7. Examples of noemes and their metaphorizations.

2.5.4 The analytic schema

The analytic schema (AS) is a mental representation of a conceived event, from the
most simple to the most complex, which combines noemes. The following are some
graphic representations together with the corresponding examples (Figure 8):

A A+ A
>>>> A
a b
======
(A turns red) B
a to become b A to cut B A to wish ([A] to leave)

A+

A to drink a beer A to eat a cake

A to drink in somebody’s words A to eat one’s words

Figure 8. Examples of analytic schemas.

The following example from Latin: pugnas bibit aure vulgu (bibit = “drinks”) “the
crowd is all ears to the battle narratives” is also an illustration of the left part of the
above graphic representation.
 The typology of semantic affinities 

The difference between the above mentioned two types of activities can be char-
acterized as follows:
ReceptiveˉpositionˉofˉA ActiveˉpositionˉofˉA+
The Chinese word miè: “turn off, eliminate, be stifled, erase the traces, annihilate …”
reminds Portuguese apagar which means “erase the blackboard” as well as “turn off the
light” or “eliminate a memory” (Fig. 9):

A+

>>
/existence/ → /non-existence/

Figure 9. The analytic schema of Chinese miè and Portugese apaga.

3. Semantic convergence or Parasemy

3.1 From referentiality to signs: Polysemiosis

When the enunciator uses a referent ℜ (entity or event), it undergoes a process of
conceptualization (Co).
Conceptualizations may be numerous and therefore may lead to choosing, in an
utterance or a chain of utterances, several signs, successively, for a same referent (co-
referentiality). We deal here with polysemiosis. Polysemiosis may concern the lexicon,
leading to cases of polynomies as in the following example:
“It’sˉaˉsortˉofˉbrochure,ˉofˉleafletˉaboutˉtheˉcityˉmainˉmonuments” or it may con-
cern different syntactic constructions, named polysyntaxies, for equivalent conceptu-
alizations as in:

“-ˉLook!ˉItˉstoppedˉraining.
-ˉFinally!
-ˉYes,ˉitˉisˉnotˉrainingˉanymore”

All co-referential signs in a particular discourse form some sort of a paradigm that
corresponds to the parasemiosis phenomenon (Fig. 10).

3.2 Semiotization
Semiotization corresponds to the need to give a name to conceptualized referents.
“Immediate”, spontaneous naming, for instance when we call dog an animal
accompanying a blind person to guide him, shows a relation of orthonymy.
 Bernard Pottier

Coa Sign a
ℜ PARASEMY
Cob Sign b

POLYSEMIOSIS

Figure 10. Representation of polysemiosis.

Some parasemies, i.e., when several signs have several common values, are every
day rhetorical figures (including tropes), such as metonymy (London rejects the treaty),
metaphor (the elder daughter of the Church stands for France, land of the free for America),
hyperonymy and hyponymy (this dog is a mammal whose breed is the spaniel), or pero-
nymy (the baker’s oldest son).
For the receiver, in a given environment (situation, context, co-text), if a signified
appears to be “immediate”, it is referred to as orthosemy (London for the city where the
Tower Bridge is located). Any other intention causes a metasemy (London for the U.K.).
Parasemy is clearly explained by the polynomy of a noeme or of a conceptual schema:

to spring up, to emit, elocution, to talk

‘impassable’ opaque, waterproof, watertight,

airtight
(“not allowing x, y, z to pass”)

to come close, to near, to skim

to skim through a book

to come very close to the 5 meter mark (sports)
the country is nearing disaster; my book is nearing completion
“il était difficile de passer de l’un à l’autre sans friser une chute qui
pouvait entraîner dans l’abîme commun” (G.Sand, in Frantext)
([N.d.T.] “it was difficult to go from one to the other without being
on the verge of falling into the common abyss”.)
Figure 11. Polynomy of a noeme.

The same phenomenon also occurs with grammatical elements:

Descartes → x (x) accordingˉto Descartes;
selonˉDescartes,ˉd’après Descartes,
suivantˉDescartes,ˉàˉlaˉsuiteˉdeˉDescartesˉ(Fr.)
 The typology of semantic affinities 

In the context of dictionaries, parasynonymic series can be found, either in dictionar-

ies of synonyms, or in monolingual dictionaries that have cross references (i.e., to get
damaged, to go bad, to spoil, to ruin), or in bilingual dictionaries where there is an
attempt to grasp the semantic field of the word to be translated by using several terms
in the target language.
Signs whose signifieds have in common one conceptual element show a common
parasemy as in e.g., to grow, to increase, to raise. This common parasemy could be writ-
ten as follows: /goes towards the +/. In certain constructions, there is a possibility to
alternate between lexemes:
anxietyˉgrows/raises/increases,
while in others, the alternation is not accepted or hardly:
Peterˉgrowsˉ(*increases)
Theˉpricesˉareˉincreasingˉ(*areˉgrowing)
In French, the term voire functions as a semantic reagent of signified affinity and orga-
nizes terms on a progressive axis, similarly to “even” in the English translations:
ilˉcomprend voire approuveˉ(heˉunderstands,ˉheˉevenˉapprovesˉofˉit)
l’admiration voire l’éblouissementˉ(admirationˉevenˉbedazzlement)
séculaires voire millénairesˉ(centennialˉevenˉmillennial)
This use is comparable to that of “pour ne pas dire” (“if not to say”) in the following
examples: “avarié, pour ne pas dire pourri” (spoilt, if not to say rotten), “passionné,
pour ne pas dire exalté” (passionate if not to say elated).
A similar case is found in English with “indeed”:
I’m astounded, indeed disgusted
I feel that he is right, indeed I know he is
He was happy, indeed delighted, to hear the news.
The parasemic path from parasemy (also known as parasynonymy) to synonymy can be
represented as follows, where Signified 1 is included in Signified 2.

Si 1

Si 2

Sd 1 Sd 2
⊃

Parasemy Synonymy
‘to spoil ~ to damage’ French = franco-(phone)

Figure 12. Representation of parasynonymy.

 Bernard Pottier

3.3 The fields homology: Co-hyponymy and co-semy

When a concept is applied to different domains, the selected terms are in a co-hyponymic
relationship with the concept because they share, at least, the nuclear content of this
concept. Thus,//to bring something back into its initial (good) state//which corresponds
to a minimal analytic schema, can be formulated by the metaterm (ad-hoc hyperonym)
//REPAIR//, and be realized, in the language, by co-semic lexemes such as:
toˉcure toˉmend toˉrestore toˉresole toˉbrightenˉup
______ _______ ________ _______ _______
MED. SEWING BUILD. SHOE COLOR
In the same way, the concept of//FILIATION//(an element stemming from a whole
keeps some of the properties of the whole) may be formulated in different languages
such as:
“telˉpère,ˉtelˉfils”ˉ(Fr.)
“deˉtalˉpalo,ˉtalˉastilla”ˉ(Sp.)
“suchˉasˉtheˉtreeˉis,ˉsuchˉisˉtheˉfruit”
The /a little while ago/ concept is found in various adjectival constructions such as:
Freshˉpaint,ˉfreshˉnews,ˉfreshˉtroops
Newˉborn,ˉtheˉnewˉrich
Inˉrecentˉyears,ˉhisˉmostˉrecentˉbook
Furthermore, the fields’ homology can be very abstract. It can be based on a synaes-
thesic backgroup, more or less clear depending on the culture, as is the case in the
Taoist philosophy which contrasts two complementary principles:
YANGˉ(+):ˉtheˉsun,ˉhard,ˉdry,ˉstable,ˉawaken,ˉman,ˉreality,ˉwhite,ˉdayˉ…
YINˉ(–):ˉtheˉmoon,ˉsoft,ˉhumid,ˉvariable,ˉasleep,ˉwoman,ˉdream,ˉblack,ˉnightˉ…

3.4 Paradigmatic parasemy: The taxeme

The taxeme is an element of sense recurring over a large paradigm whose forms are
related by a minimum of semantic affinities. Crosslinguistically and within one lan-
guage, the taxeme can be expressed by different forms.

a. The taxeme can be represented by a root or a stem, what I call the morphosemy
phenomenon. Such is the case of the consonantal roots in Semitic, such as the root
KTB in Arabic:
KaTaBa: “heˉwrote” KāTiB: “secretary,ˉwriter”
KiTāB: “book” ma-KTūB: “written”
and of the stem in many Indo-European languages:
read,ˉreader,ˉreading,ˉreadable,ˉreadership
 The typology of semantic affinities 

b. The taxeme can also be a word, which acquires a generic value when used in com-
pound forms:

open-:ˉopen-door,ˉopen-handed,ˉopen-hearted,ˉopen-necked,ˉopen-plan

In Chinese, the compound words clearly reveal the intersections of the signifieds. e.g.,
duì is part of the composition of a whole series of forms which have in common the
concept of “duality”:

duìchènˉ“symetric” duìdĕngˉ“equivalent”
duìfāngˉ“adversary” duìhuàˉ“toˉenterˉintoˉdialogue”
duìmiànˉ“across” duìshŏuˉ“rival”
duìliánˉ“distich” duìzhàoˉ“toˉcompare”

c. The taxeme can also be a classificatory element, i.e., classifier, determiner, which
applies to a whole series of lexemes. Chinese, numerous African and Amerindian lan-
guages are well known examples. A similar phenomenon occurs in European languages
when the introducer of series of entities is selected as in the following examples:

aˉbundleˉof:ˉfiles,ˉletters,ˉtickets,ˉsticks,ˉclothes,ˉnewspapers
aˉwadˉof:ˉdocuments,ˉbanknotes,ˉtobacco
aˉsliceˉof:ˉbread,ˉsausage,ˉmeat,ˉcake,ˉcredit,ˉluck,ˉaction,ˉfilm,ˉplay,ˉbook

In the individual and discursive realizations, a great variation can appear. In French,
for instance, to indicate a very small quantity of concrete or abstract entities, the word
zeste (zest) is attested in Frantext (http://www.frantext.fr/) in combination with the
following words:

citron,ˉfierté,ˉraison,ˉpassé,ˉdétritus,ˉcouperoseˉ(lemon,ˉproud,ˉreason,ˉpast,ˉlitter,
blotches)

and soupçon (hint) with:

rouille, réserve, détachement, désir, pleurésie, sourire, vitriol (rust, reserve,

detachment, desire, pleurisy, smile, vitriol)

Both are found, together with larme (tear), in the following excerpt from Françoise
Chandernagor’s novel L’Allée du Roi (1981; p. 293):

“Ninon disait trouver elle-même dans ses “caprices”: un soupçon de désir, un zeste
de plaisir et, au pis, une larme de repentir”.2

. [N.d.T.] “Ninon said that even she could find in her own “whims”: a hint of desire, a zest of
pleasure and, at the worst, a drop of repentance”.
 Bernard Pottier

A suffix can determine a specific characteristic of the lexeme:

Sp.: -adaˉ(cuttingˉobjects):ˉcuchillada,ˉestocada,ˉlanzada
-azoˉ(bluntˉobjects):ˉcodazo,ˉmartillazo,ˉlatigazo

The capital letter at the beginning of proper names can be considered to be a class
mark as well: Rose, Martin (a rose, a martin) and, without any possible opposition,
Manchester or Cyprus.
d. The above-mentioned Arabic root in (a) suggests a morphemic motivation of the
invariable element KTB for a whole semantic field. Conversely, this semantic field is
expressed in English by words without any formal link such as write, book, secretary,
office, library. Such a phenomenon may be called lexemic dissemination which can be
considered as an implicit taxeme, well perceived by the enunciator.
French offers a good example of dissemination for the taxeme which alludes to
/the sense of sight/.
/∢/: v oir, regarder, miroir, lunette, télescope, œil, ophtalmologiste, loupe, observer,
optique, aveugle, spectateur, scruter … (to see, to look, mirror, glasses,
telescope, eye, ophthalmologist, magnifying glass, to observe, optical, blind,
spectator, scrutinize …)

This is not mere speculation: we can notice that in the texts, there is a cooccurrence of
many of these terms, as in the following example from Frantext:
“Le médecin des yeux eût rougi de s’appeler œilliste (…); déjà la qualification
d’oculiste, insuffisamment barbare, humilie ses prétentions: il est ophtalmologue”3
 (Remy de Gourmont).
“Ce regard jeté à la loupe sur mes moindres détours de pensée, cette scrutation
continue de mon être le plus caché …”4 (P. Bourget, Le Disciple 1889; p. 85).

4. Conclusion

Even though reflection and thought are built on theoretical reasoning, it is only when
languages are embodied in texts that the detailed study of examples throws light on
and justifies the initial hypotheses.

. [N.d.T.] “The eye doctor would have been ashamed of being called eyeist (…); the designation
oculist, not barbarian enough, already is a humiliation for his pretensions: he is ophthalmologist.”
. [N.d.T.] lit. “My thoughts being looked through a magnifying glass in the smallest detail, this
continuous scrutinizing of my deepest inner self …”
 The typology of semantic affinities 

The operations of semantic choice concern both the enunciator and the interpret-
ing receiver, and these are constructed through mental schemas, several of which can
be visualized on graphs. These schemas are approximations that can be compared with
the ideograms of several ancient or modern writing systems, the catastrophe schemas
in mathematics (Thom 1974), or the symbolic forms of various cultures.
The specificity of each individual language does not contradict the supposedly
universal thought mechanisms. Semantic typology is ground in the to-ings and fro-
ings between these two extreme poles.

References

Base textuelle Frantext, (http://www.frantext.fr/)

Fillmore, C.J. & Kay, P. 1996. Construction Grammar. Ms, University of California at Berkeley,
Department of Linguistics.
Guillaume, G. 1919. Le problème de l’article et sa solution dans la langue française. Paris: Hachette.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1980 [2003]. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Langacker, R.W. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Pottier, B. 1955. Systématique des éléments de relation. Paris, thèse. (Also 1962; Paris : Klincksieck)
Pottier, B. 1992. Sémantique générale. Paris: PUF.
Pottier, B. 1995. Le cognitif et le linguistique [Acta Romanica Basiliensia, ARBA 3], Linguistique
et modèles cognitifs: 175–199.
Pottier, B. 1999 [1997]. Mental activities and linguistic structures. In Proceedings of the 16th
International Congress of Linguists, Paris 20–25 July 1997, B. Caron (Ed.), paper No. 7.
Oxford: Pergamon (Elsevier Science, CDRom).
Pottier, B. 2000. Représentations mentales et catégorisations linguistiques. Louvain: Peeters.
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Thom, R. 1974. Modèles mathématiques de la morphogenèse. Paris: Union Générale d’Editions.