Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T21:52:58.895Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Yang and Yin to and OR but

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Charles E. Osgood and
Meredith Martin Richards
Charles E. Osgood
Affiliation:
University of Illinois
Meredith Martin Richards
Affiliation:
University of Illinois
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ancient Chinese metaphysics, as recorded some 4000 years ago in I ching, the Book of changes, expresses three fundamental characteristics of human thinking: (1) bipolar organization of the dimensions of cognitions; (2) attribution of positive polarity to the Yang pole and negative to the Yin; (3) parallelism in the orientation of the dimensions in terms of underlying Positiveness/Negativeness. In the present paper, eight postulates governing the dynamics of interaction among cognitions are developed, utilizing both linguistic and psychological evidence. In the theory, complex cognitions are reduced to simple cognitions consisting of signed and directed relations between pairs of meaning elements (e.g. M1 → M2) which in turn are analysed into simultaneous sets of bipolar semantic features capable of having only one sign and value at any one time. These postulates are used to predict English speakers' performance in a simple and specific type of cognitive interaction—the usage of and vs. but in the conjunction of pairs of adjectives. The measured affective meanings of the pairs of adjectives predict usage with high precision—in a frame which, linguistically speaking, will accept either conjunction—and the data are consistent with the three characteristics of Yang and Yin stated above.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , June 1973, pp. 380 - 412
Copyright
Copyright © Linguistic Society of America 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abelson, R. P. 1959. Modes of resolution of belief dilemmas. Conflict Resolution 3.343–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abelson, R. P., and Rosenberg, M. J. 1958. Symbolic psycho-logic: a model of attitudinal cognition. Behavioral Science 3.1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bever, T. A. 1970. The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. Cognition and the development of language, ed. by Hayes, J. R., 279–352. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Boucher, J., and Osgood, C. E. 1969. The Pollyanna hypothesis. J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 8.1–8.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
DiVesta, F. J. 1965. Developmental patterns in the use of modifiers as modes of conceptualization. Child Development 36.186–213.Google ScholarPubMed
Ervin, S. M., and Foster, G. 1960. The development of meaning in children's descriptive terms. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 61.271–275.Google Scholar
Festinger, L. 1957. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, Ill.: Rowe, Peterson.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1968. The case for case. Universals in linguistic theory, ed. by Bach, E. and Harms, R., 1–90. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Gollub, H. F. 1968. Impression formation and word combination in sentences. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 10.341–353.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. 1966. Language universals. In Sebeok, pp. 61–112.Google Scholar
Hastorf, A. H., Osgood, C. E.; and Ono, H. 1966. The semantics of facial expressions and the prediction of the meanings of stereoscopically fused facial expressions. Scand. J. Psychol. 7.179–188.Google Scholar
Heider, F. 1958. The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heise, D. R. 1969. Affectual dynamics in simple sentences. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 11.204–213.Google Scholar
Heise, D. R. 1970. Potency dynamics in simple sentences. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 16.48–54.Google Scholar
Howe, E. S. 1970. Passive transformation, cognitive imbalance, and evaluative meaning. J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 9.171–175.Google Scholar
Klima, E. S. 1964. Negation in English. The structure of language, ed. by Fodor, J. A. and Katz, J. J., 246–323. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1971. On generative semantics. In Steinberg & Jakobovits, pp. 232–296.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. 1970. If's, and's and but's about conjunction. Mimeo, U. of Michigan.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. 1968. Lexical insertion in a transformational grammar without deep structure. Papers from the Fourth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 71–80.Google Scholar
Osgood, C. E. 1960. Cognitive dynamics in the conduct of human affairs. Pub. Opin. Quart. 24.341–365.Google Scholar
Osgood, C. E. 1964. Semantic differential technique in the comparative study of cultures. Amer. Anthro. 66.171–200.Google Scholar
Osgood, C. E. 1969. On the whys and wherefores of E, P, and A. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 12.194–199.Google Scholar
Osgood, C. E. 1970. Speculation on the structure of interpersonal intentions. Behav. Sci. 15.237–254.Google Scholar
Osgood, C. E. 1971. Where do sentences come from? In Steinberg & Jakobovits.Google Scholar
Osgood, C. E., May, W. H.; and Miron, M. S. 1973. The cross-cultural generality of affective meaning systems. Urbana: U. of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Osgood, C. E., Saporta, S.; and Nunally, J. C. 1956. Evaluative assertion analysis. Litera 3.47–102.Google Scholar
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J.; and Tannenbaum, P. H. 1957. The measurement of meaning. Urbana: U. of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Osgood, C. E., and Tannenbaum, P. H. 1955. The principle of congruity and the prediction of attitude change. Psychol. Rev. 62.42–55.Google Scholar
Sebeok, T. A. (ed.) 1966. Current trends in linguistics, III. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Steinberg, D. D., and Jakobovits, L. A. (eds.) 1971. Semantics. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U. 1966. Explorations in semantic theory. In Sebeok, pp. 395–477.Google Scholar
Wilhelm, R. 1967. The I ching or Book of changes. Rendered into English by C. F. Baynes. (Bollingen Series, 19.) Princeton, N. J.: Princeton U. Press.Google Scholar
Zajonc, R. B. 1968. Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., Monogr. suppl., 9, no. 2, pp. 1–27.Google Scholar