Cover not available
Part of
Evaluation in Context
Edited by Geoff Thompson † and Laura Alba-Juez
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 242] 2014
► pp. 27–46

The emergence of axiology as a key parameter in modern linguistics

A review of significant contributions from the 1950s to the 1980s

This article sets out to provide a summarized historical survey of some relevant contributions to axiological semantics from linguists included in the two most influential linguistic traditions from the 50s to the late 70s: structural linguistics and transformational-generative grammar. In fact, even if their representative opinions at that time could now be regarded as incidental, it would be unfair to claim that some of their intuitions and principles have not been crucial in illuminating essential aspects of the parameter of axiological evaluation in modern linguistics. In this respect, it is worth highlighting the ideas disseminated by key figures of the Saussurean or Chomskyan traditions from the perspective given by half a century of evolution in the field. For that purpose contributions are included from authors such as Apresjan, Bally, Coseriu, Ducháček, Fodor, Grzegorek, Guiraud, Katz, Klima, Pottier, Stati, and Ullmann, among others.

Published online: 4 February 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.242.02fel
References
Apresjan, Juri.
1966 “Analyse distributionnelle des significations et champs sémantiques structures.” Langages, 1 (1): 44–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bally, Charles.
1909/1951 Traité de Stylistique Française. (3rd. ed., 2 vol.) Paris: C. Klincksiek.Google Scholar
1913 Le Langage et la Vie. Geneva: Atar. (Spanish ed. El Lenguaje y la Vida. Buenos Aires: Losada 1941).Google Scholar
Bendix, Edward H.
1971 “The data for semantic description.” In Semantics. An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology, Danny D. Steinberg and Leon A. Jakobovitz (eds), 393–409. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Bever, Thomas G., Katz, Jerrold J. and Langendoen, D
Terence 1976 An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Ability. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, Manfred.
1971 “On classifying semantic features.” In Semantics. An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology, Danny D. Steinberg and Leon A. Jakobovitz (eds), 410–435. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolph.
1956 (1947) Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio.
1967 “Lexicalische solidaritäten.” Poetica, 1: 293–303.Google Scholar
1968 “Les structures lexématiques.” In Probleme der Semantik. Beiheft 1 (Neue Folge) Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur, W. Thomas Elbert (ed), 13–16. Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
1977 Principios de Semántica Estructural. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Duchaček, Otto.
1960 Le Champ Conceptuel de la Beauté en Français Moderne. Prague: Státní Pedagogické Nakladateství.Google Scholar
Felices-Lago, Ángel.
1991 El Componente Axiológico en el Lenguaje. Su Configuración en los Adjetivos que Expresan Emociones y Conducta en la Lengua Inglesa. Ph. D. Dissertation. Granada: University of Granada.Google Scholar
1997a “The integration of the axiological classeme in an adjectival lexicon based on Functional-Lexematic principles”. In A Fund of Ideas: Recent Developments in Functional Grammar, Christopher S. Butler, John H. Connolly, Richard A. Gatward and Roel M. Vismans (eds), 95–112. Amsterdam: IFOTT.Google Scholar
Felices Lago,Ángel.
1997b “La compilación de un diccionario de términos valorativos desde la perspectiva Lexemático-Funcional”. In Toward a Functional Lexicology/ Hacia una lexicología funcional, Gerd Wotjak (ed), 159–184. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Felices-Lago Ángel.
2003 “Reformulation of the domain-level semantic pattern of axiological evaluation in the lexicon of English verbs”. Hermes 30: 179–179.Google Scholar
Geckeler, Horst.
1971 Strukturelle Semantik und Wortfeldtheorie. Munich: Fink. (Spanish ed. Semántica Estructural y Teoría del Campo Léxico, Madrid: Gredos 1976).Google Scholar
Gougengheim, Georges.
1958 “Adjectifs laudatifs et adjectifs dépreciatifs. Les changements de register.” Français Moderne 26: 3–3.Google Scholar
Guiraud, Pierre.
1955 La Sémantique. Paris: P.U.F.Google Scholar
Kalisz, Roman.
1981 The pragmatics, semantics, and syntax of the English sentences with indicative that complements and the Polish sentences with zee complements : a contrastive study. Gdanńsk: Uniwersytet Gdanński.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J.
1964a “Analyticity and contradiction in natural languages.” In The Structure of Language, Jerry A. Fodor and Jerrold J. Katz (eds), 519–543. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
1964b “Semantic theory and the meaning of ‘good’”. The Journal of Philosophy LXI, 23. 739–766. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1972 Semantic Theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Katz, J.J. and Fodor J.A.
1964 “The structure of a semantic theory.” In The Structure of Language, Jerry A. Fodor and Jerrold J. Katz (eds), 479–518. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul and Kiparsky, Carol.
1970 “Fact.” In Progress in Linguistics, Manfred Bierwisch and Karl Erich Heidolph (eds), 143–173. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Klima, Edward S.
1964 “Negation in English.” In The Structure of Language, Jerry A. Fodor and Jerrold J. Katz (eds), 246–323. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Krzeszowski, Tomasz P.
1990 “The axiological aspect of idealized cognitive models.” In Meaning and Lexicography, Jerzy Tomaszczyk and Barbara Lewandowska (eds), 135–165. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993 “The axiological parameter in preconceptual image schemata.” In Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language, Richard A. Geiger and Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (eds), 307–330. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997 Angels and Devils in Hell. Elements of Axiology in Semantics. Warsaw: Energeia.Google Scholar
Lavelle, Louis.
1950–1955 Traité des Valeurs. (2 vol.). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey.
1975 Semantics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Le Senne, René.
1942 Traité de Morale Générale. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Lyons, John.
1977 Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, James and White, Peter.
2005 The Language of Evaluation. Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martín-Mingorance, Leocadio.
1987 “Classematics in a Functional-Lexematic grammar of English”. Actas del X Congreso de AEDEAN, AEDEAN, Zaragoza, 377–388.Google Scholar
1990 “Functional Grammar and Lexematics in lexicography”. In Meaning and Lexicography, Jerzy Tomaszczyk and Barbara Lewandowska (eds), 227–253. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995 “Lexical logic and structural semantics. Methodological underpinnings in the structuring of a lexical database for Natural Language Processing.” In Panorama der Lexicalischen Semantik, Ulrich Hoinkes (ed), 461–474. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Matoré, G.
1953 La Méthode en Lexicologie. Domaine Français. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Ortega y Gasset, José.
1923 «Introducción a una estimativa: ¿qué son los valores?», Revista de Occidente, IV, October. (Ed Obras completas, Vol. VI (1941–1946) Madrid: Revista de Occidente 1947, 315–335).Google Scholar
Osgood, Charles.
1980 “The cognitive dynamic of synaesthesia and metaphor.” In Cognition and Figurative Language, Richard P. Honek and Robert R. Hoffman (eds), 203–238. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Osgood, Charles, Suci, George and Tannenbaum, Percy.
1957 The Measurement of Meaning. Chicago: Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Pottier, Bertrand.
1974 Linguistique Générale. Théorie et Description. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Rokeach, Milton.
1973 The Nature of Human Values. New York: The Free Press, McMillan.Google Scholar
Scheler, Max.
1913–16. Der Formalismus in der Ethik und die Materiale Wertethik. (Spanish ed. Etica: Nuevo Ensayo de Fundamentación de un Personalismo Ético. Madrid: Revista de Occidente, 2 vol 1941).Google Scholar
Sansome, Rosemary.
1986 “Connotation and lexical field analysis.” Cahiers de Lexicologie, XLIX (II): 13–33.Google Scholar
Skinner, B.F.
1957 Verbal Behavior. New York: Appleton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stati, Sorin.
1979 La Sémantique des Adjectifs: Essai d'Analyse Componentielle Appliqué aux Langues Romanes. Paris: Jean Favard.Google Scholar
Suchecki, Jacek.
1983 “Status poznawczy wyrazen metaforrycznych.” In Studia z psycholingwistyki ogólnej i rozwojowej, Ida Kurcz (ed), 83–110. Warsaw: Ossolineum.Google Scholar
Trujillo, Ramón.
1970 El Campo Semántico de la Valoración Intelectual en Español. La Laguna: University of La Laguna Press.Google Scholar
Ullmann, Stephen.
1962 Semantics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno.
1963 “The grammar of goodness”, Philosophical Review 72: 443–443. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel.
1966 “Explorations in semantic theory”. In Current Trends in Linguistics 3, Thomas A. Sebeok (ed), 395–477. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Wotjak, Gerd.
1971 Untersuchungen zur Struktur der Bedeutung. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag (Spanish ed. Investigaciones sobre la Estructura del Significado. Madrid: Gredos 1979).Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Benenowska, Iwona & Anna Bączkowska
2023. “Nobody from the Kossaks family has mounted a horse with a knife and fork so far” – Axiolinguistic analysis of evaluative culinary language in letters written by Maria Pawlikowska-Jasnorzewska. Forum Filologiczne Ateneum :1(11)2023 ► pp. 113 ff. DOI logo
Fernández-Martínez, Nicolás José & Ángel Miguel Felices-Lago
2021. Automatic lexical collocate extraction for corpus-based ontology building and refinement. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 34:2 ► pp. 435 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.