Strategies Employed in Explaining Meaning – The Example of Alias

U ovom se radu iz kognitivnolingvističke perspektive pristupa analizi podataka prikupljenih snimanjem jedne igre Aliasa. Cilj je proučiti koje strategije govornici upotrebljavaju pri objašnjavanju pojmova s obzirom na obilježja samih pojmova te što nam to govori o organizaciji jezičnoga znanja općenito. Postavljene su tri hipoteze: 1. Igrači će se češće koristiti značenjskim strategijama objašnjavanja nego obličnim te će paradigmatske značenjske strategije biti učestalije upotrebljavane od sintagmatskih strategija; 2. Prilikom objašnjavanja sudionici će se oslanjati na iskustvo i konvencionalizirane situacijske kontekste; i 3. Za pojedine će kategorije leksema biti učestalije neke od strategija objašnjavanja. Istraživanjem je potvrđeno da se igrači češće služe značenjskim nego obličnim strategijama, ali razliku u frekventnosti upotrebe između paradigmatskih i sintagmatskih strategija nije bilo moguće utvrditi. Drugu smo hipotezu potvrdili: iskustvo i kontekst čine bitan dio većine objašnjenja igrača. Veza između pojedine strategije i kategorije leksema nije potvrđena, osim u slučaju hijerarhijskih odnosa koji se kao strategija koriste za objašnjavanje imenskih pojmova (imenica i imena). Međutim, pokazalo se da je antonimija istaknuta strategija objašnjavanja kad leksem koji se objašnjava ima istaknutog antonimskog parnjaka. Oblične su strategije upotrebljavane kada je igračima značenje leksema bilo manje poznato ili nepoznato. Prilozi i zamjenice promatrani su kao pojedinačni primjeri jer ih nije bilo mnogo. Premda se na temelju ovoga istraživanja zbog maloga uzorka sudionika ne može zaključivati o strukturi leksika, možemo ipak uočiti neke pravilnosti koje se pojavljuju i opisati važnost izvanjezičnih čimbenika u gradbi značenja, poput iskustva i konteksta. Na kraju rada izneseni su prijedlozi za buduća istraživanja.This thesis analyzes data acquired during a game of Alias within a cognitive linguistics framework. The aim is to explore which strategies were employed by speakers in explaining concepts, taking into account the characteristics of the concepts. Another objective is to examine the organization of linguistic knowledge in general. Three hypotheses were formulated: 1. Players will use meaning-based explanation strategies more frequently than form-based explanation strategies, with paradigmatic meaning-based strategies being more prevalent than syntagmatic ones; 2. Participants will rely on experience and conventionalized situational contexts when explaining concepts; and 3. There is a link between the lexeme category and the frequency of the strategy used in explaining concepts. The research confirmed that meaning-based strategies were more frequently employed than form-based strategies, although a significant difference in the frequency of use between paradigmatic and syntagmatic strategies could not be determined. The second hypothesis was confirmed: experience and context play an important role in most players’ explanations. The third hypothesis was not confirmed, except in the case of hierarchical relations, which were predominantly used as a strategy for explaining nominal concepts. Nevertheless, this does not imply that nominal concepts were primarily explained by reference to hierarchical relations. Conversely, it was found that antonymy was a prominent explanation strategy in cases when a salient antonym of the lexeme being explained existed. Form-based strategies were employed when the players were not completely familiar or were unfamiliar with the meaning of lexemes. Adverbs and pronouns were treated as individual cases due to their low occurrence. Given the small sample size of participants, conclusions about the structure of the lexicon cannot be drawn from this research. However, it does highlight regularities and describes the important role of extralinguistic factors in meaning construal, such as experience and context. Finally, suggestions for future research were presented