(http://www.psych.mcgill.ca/perpg/fac/shultz/personal/Recent_Publications_files/amb iguity05.pdf) 1. the precise neurocognitive mechanisms underlying language processing following lesion remain to be fully elucidated. 2.

The aim is to extract some meaningful principles, formalize existing theories in concrete instantiation, and generate novel hypothesis about the interaction between neurophysiological structures, cognitive processes and experimental manipulations. (http://espace.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:160417) 1. people with low working-memory capacity have difficulty inhibiting inappropriate homograph meanings and further demonstrate that these difficulties may vary as a function of context-meaning dominance. (http://web.media.mit.edu/~dkroy/papers/pdf/fleischman_roy_2007.pdf) Structural linguistics: limitation is inability to explain how words are used to refer to non-linguistic referents. A recent trend in the cognitive sciences is to address these limitations by modeling word meaning in terms of the non-linguistic context, or situation, surrounding language use. Recent efforts to model language acquisition have focused on models that ground the meaning of words in a learners perceptions and actions. Ex: nouns- color, shape || verb meaning grounded in motor-control structures. Semantics is tied/grounded with intentions of the agent performing the action. Intention recognition and linguistic mapping. (movements and speech recorded in video game) Representing behaviors as a grammar enables us to treat intention recognition as a parsing problem over observed sequences of movements, in much the same way that a PCFG (probabilistic CFG) of syntax enables parsing of words in a sentence. a behavior grammar produces intention trees by parsing observed movements. The model demonstrates the importance of representing intentions in computational models of word learning. (http://www.mt-archive.info/TMI-1993-Mandelblit.pdf) Cognitive Linguistics introduces a framework to deal precisely with this - the cognitive processes which manipulate linguistic expressions. Linguistic expressions convey minimum conventional information which triggers the appropriate cognitive constructions necessary for interpretation. Cognitive constructions have been argued to emerge chiefly from humanly relevant experience such as our bodily movements through space, our manipulation of objects, and our perceptual interactions refer to How does Cognitive Linguistics Tie in with the Translation Process? A linguistic expression is associated with a semantic structure (a LanguageUsage schema) which reflects the cognitive structure triggered by the expression Wernickes and Brocas area of brain for language comprehension, semantic integration and language expression (phonetic, semantic and grammatical processing)

(http://www.psych.sc.edu/facdocs/morris.html) understand the relationship between when and where a reader directs their gaze and the cognitive processes associated with the reading process. (http://mc.psychonomic-journals.org/content/31/1/87.full.pdf) in the absence of syntactic ambiguity, syntactic-category information mediates the semantic-resolution process. Factors imp in resolving lexically ambiguous words whose meanings share a syntactic category are: context and meaning dominance. Eye-movement role: When prior context is neutral as to the intended interpretation of the ambiguous word, readers fixate longer on a balanced ambiguous word than on a biased ambiguous word or on an unambiguous control word. In the absence of prior biasing context, the dominant meaning is available first with little competition for selection from the subordinate meaning. The pattern from eye movement studies is consistent with findings from other tasks that have demonstrated that context can influence the availability of the meanings of semantically ambiguous words (pattern ex: subordinate bias effect) large number of investigations into how lexical ambiguity within a syntactic category is processed, much less work has been done in examining the processing of lexical ambiguity that crosses syntactic categories. role of syntactic information in the semantic-resolution process.: in the absence of syntactic ambiguity, syntactic category assignment can mediate meaning resolution. prior syntactic context is sufficient to override any competition from the contextually inappropriate interpretation when lexicalsemantic ambiguity crosses syntactic categories. One interpretation of these findings is that the syntactically appropriate interpretation is selectively accessed. (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgibin/fulltext/121675552/PDFSTART? CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0) Cognitive linguistics: Meaning is described in terms of the human construal of reality rather than the objective reflection of the real world language as a fixed inventory of conventional linguistic units. Langacker (1987) proposes that categorization, together with symbolization and integration, forms the three basic relations of language structure. Liao (2005) discusses subcategorization with regard to the semantic system of a polysemous word, in which meanings split or shift from the prototype and their variants may constitute a subcategory and thus form a knowledge network. prototype theory: Prototype Model (Rosch 1975), the Radial Model (Lakoff 1987), and the Schematic Network Model (Langacker 1987, 1990, 2006). COGNITIVE FRAMES OF PROFILED CONCEPTS: ex The two words land and ground, then, differ not so much in what it is that they can be used to identify, but in how they situate that thing in a larger frame. Langacker (1987) holds a similar position by arguing that a words scope of predication involves a profile and a base. Apart from searching for mechanisms underlying word formation and word relations, researchers have also begun to look for mechanisms that guide construction formation, and the roles of the lexicon in constructions and relations between constructions.

(http://www.vyvevans.net/cognitiveLinguisticsPRAG-ENCYC.pdf) (imp paper) scholars working in cognitive semantics investigate knowledge representation (conceptual structure), and meaning construction (conceptualisation). research in cognitive semantics tends to be interested in modelling the human mind as much as it is concerned with investigating linguistic semantics. Cognitive semantics theories ex: Theory of Lexical Concepts and Cognitive Models LCCM Theory (Evans 2006), approach to Dynamic Construal (Croft and Cruse 2004), the approach to domains in Cognitive Grammar (Langacker 1987), Frame Semantics (Fillmore 1982; Fillmore and Atkins 1992) A cognitive approach to grammar, in contrast, is concerned with modelling the language system (the mental grammar), rather than the nature of mind per se (intrinsically). construction grammars. This general approach takes its name from the view in cognitive linguistics that the basic unit of language is a form-meaning pairing known as a construction. (http://digitum.um.es/xmlui/bitstream/10201/1582/1/vol6%20n2%201997.pdf? sequence=1) (imp paper) Meanings 'reside' in our rninds and our brains (they can be characterised as neural routines). Linguistic forms just activate thern, but the (part of the) rneaning cornplex activated in rnyrnind need not be exactly the same as the one activated in sorneone else's by an utterance with the sarne linguistic form, because, as was said earlier, meaning is a result of experience, both collective and individual. Try to discover the qmbolic value of each linguistic form. A cognitive linguistic methodology would take a very different path. One of the basic general cognitive abilities reflected in the stnicture and use of languages is protozype categorisation: two aspects of ski11 acquisition: the level of mental representations and the level of access to those representations (e.g. Anderson 1980). (http://www.mental.lexicon.ling.ualberta.ca/downloads/AbsBookMentalLex.pdf) Views regarding polysemy: 1) processed same as homonymy 2) all senses of polysemous words possess an interdependent representation (Frazier & Rayner, 1990; Klepousniotou, 2002; Williams, 1992) in which activation of one sense directly leads to activation of all other senses. 3) A third view posits that polysemous words have a core or dominant sense through which all other senses are derived. This view predicts that polysemy and homonymy differ in how they are processed depending on whether the context biases a dominant core meaning or a subordinate non-core meaning (Klepousniotou, Romero, & Titone, submitted; Durkin & Manning, 1989). when High Overlap polysemous words(ex: baby lamb, marinated lamb) are encountered in a dominant context, they behave like unambiguous words (i.e., the subordinate meaning is not automatically accessed) whereas Low Overlap polysemous words (ex: saving bank, river bank) bear a cost associated with automatically retrieving the alternative meaning. In contrast, when High Overlap or Low Overlap words are encountered in a subordinate context, both bear a cost associated with automatically retrieving their respective dominant meanings. Taken together, these results are most consistent with the core meaning view of polysemy. An electrophysiological investigation of quantificational ambiguity

 Diff methods of tests included: set of behavioural as well as event-related potentials (ERP) , EEG, theoretical distinction between homonymy and polysemy was reflected both in the reaction times of the behavioural tasks as well as in the N400 component of the ERPs (Research on the N400 generally suggests that this component is specifically sensitive to the violation of semantic expectancies.) behavioural studies that indicate differences in the processing of homonymous and polysemous words and point toward differences in their representation in the mental lexicon depending on the type of lexical ambiguity (i.e., distinct representations for each meaning in homonymy; single core meaning representation in polysemy). Multilevel mixed-effects regression analyses revealed danger and usefulness effects, including interactions between danger and usefulness ratings, in the auditory lexical decision and the auditory naming data. BIT (Bayesian Information-Theoretical) model of lexical processing, provides a neurophysiological grounding for the facilitatory and inhibitory effects of different types of lexical neighborhoods: morphological and semantic. In addition, these results show how, under a model based on neural assemblies, distributed patterns of activation naturally result in the arisal of discrete symbol-like structures. (http://cogprints.org/1663/0/act2.htm) Empirical evidence has shown that spread of activation is automatic as opposed to being under strategic control (Balota, 1983; Neely, 1977). It has also been shown that the amount of activation of a concept node is a function of the length of the associative pathway between the node and the source of activation (Lorch, 1982). Moreover, the amount of activation spreading from a given node along a pathway is a function of the strength of that pathway relative to the sum of the strengths of all paths emanating from that node (Reder & Anderson, 1980).