Docstoc

Theil-II

Document Sample
Theil-II Powered By Docstoc
					Cognitive-Functional
Linguistics
– Some Basic Tenets II
  Rolf Theil
  Bergen, June 19, 2006
Why did we introduce the terms
entrenchment, abstraction, comparison,
composition, and association?
 The first answer:
 “Regarding the issue of innate specification I
  make no a priori claims. I do however sub-
  scribe to the general strategy in cognitive
  and functional linguistics of deriving lan-
  guage structure insofar as possible from the
  more general psychological capacities (e.g.
  perception, memory, categorization), positing
  inborn language-specific structures only as a
  last resort.”
                               R. W. Langacker (2000: 2)
June 19, 2006         RT/CFL                           2
Why did we introduce the terms
entrenchment, abstraction, comparison,
composition, and association?
The second answer:
“The usage-based model … is applicable to
 all domains of language structure: semantics,
 phonology, lexicon, morphology, syntax. A
 linguistic system comprises large numbers of
 conventional units in each domain … A few
 basic psychological phenomena … [apply]
 repeatedly in all domains and at many levels
 of organization ….”
                              R. W. Langacker (2000: 2)

June 19, 2006        RT/CFL                           3
   Six Theses About Grammar
 In “The English Passive”, chapter 4 in Con-
  cept, Image, and Symbol (1991), R. W.
  Langacker compares six theses about gram-
  mar – “accepted virtually without question by
  many theorists” (e.g. generativists) – with the
  corresponding cognitive view.
 They are listed on the next slide.
 Afterwards, we shall look at each of them in
  detail.

June 19, 2006         RT/CFL                    4
         The Seven Theses
Descriptive Minimalism Descriptive Maximalism
Self-Contained
                         Continuum
Components
Autonomous Syntax        Symbolic Syntax
Universal Semantics      Language-Spec. Semantics
Meaningless
                         Meaningful Morphemes
Morphemes
Abstract Syntax          Overt Grammar
Syntax-Lexicon
June 19, 2006         RT/CFL                        5
                         Non-Generality of Syntax
                Descriptive Economy
The Descriptive                        The Descriptive
Minimalism Thesis                   Maximalism Thesis

Economy is to be sought      Economy must be consistent
in linguistic description.   with psychological reality. The
Specifically,   particular   grammar of a language repre-
statements are to be ex-     sents conventional linguistic
cluded if the grammar        knowledge and includes all
contains a general state-    linguistic structures learned as
                             established “units”. “Content
ment (rule) that fully
                             units” coexist in the grammar
subsumes them.               with subsuming “schemas”.

June 19, 2006           RT/CFL                              6
                Rules and Lists – 1
Cognitive grammar seeks an accurate
characterization of the structure and orga-
nization of linguistic knowledge as an
integral part of human cognition. … The
question whether the grammar of a
language should include both general
statements and particular statements sub-
sumed by them is a factual rather than a
methodological issue.
June 19, 2006           RT/CFL            7
                Rules and Lists – 2
If speakers in fact master and manipulate
both lists (particular statements) and rules
(general statements) from which these
lists could be predicted, a truthful descrip-
tion of their linguistic knowledge must
contain both the lists and the rules.



June 19, 2006           RT/CFL              8
       Components of Grammar
The Self-Contained                 The Continuum Thesis
Components Thesis

Linguistic structure can be    Only semantic, phonologi-
resolved into nume-rous        cal, and bipolar symbolic
separate, essential-ly self-   units are posited. Sharp
contained compo-nents.         dichotomies are usually
                               found only by arbitrarily
                               selecting examples from
                               opposite endpoints of a
                               continuum.


June 19, 2006             RT/CFL                       9
 Bipolar Symbolic Units                                              =
         Constructions
 All levels of grammatical analysis involve
  constructions:
       learned pairings of form with semantic or
        discourse function
 – including morphemes or words, idioms,
  partially lexically filled and fully general
  phrasal patterns.
                                         P. 5 in Adele E. Goldberg (2006):
          Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language.

June 19, 2006                     RT/CFL                                10
    Examples of Constructions –
   Varying in Size and Complexity
 Morpheme                  pre-, -ing
 Word                      Avocado, and
 Complex word              daredevil
 Complex word              [N-s] (for regular
  (partially filled)         plurals)
 Idiom (filled)            going great guns
 Idiom (partially          jog <someone’s>
  filled)                    memory
 Ditransitive              Subj V Obj1 Obj2
June 19, 2006          RT/CFL                     11
                Autonomy of Syntax
The Autonomous Syntax                The Symbolic
Thesis                               Syntax Thesis

As a special case of the   Syntax is not autonomous,
modularity of grammar,     but symbolic, forming a
syntax is an autono-mous   continuum with lexicon
component dis-tinct from   and morphology. Syntactic
both     seman-tics  and   units are bipolar, with
lexicon.                   semantic and phonological
                           poles.



June 19, 2006          RT/CFL                     12
       Universality of Semantics
The Universal      Semantics              The Language-Specific
Thesis                                         Semantics Thesis

Supporting the autonomy of         Semantic structure is language
syntax thesis, it can be pre-      specific, involving layers of con-
sumed that semantic struc-ture     ventional imagery. Semantic
is universal, while gram-matical   structure is conventionalized
structure varies greatly from      conceptual structure, and gram-
language to language.              mar is the conventional sym-
                                   bolization of semantic structure.




June 19, 2006                 RT/CFL                               13
            Universal Semantics
Language has means for making reference to the
objects, relations, properties and events that popu-late
our everyday world. It is possible to suppose that these
linguistic categories and structures are more or less
straightforward     mappings     from   a    pre-existing
conceptual space, programmed into our biological
nature. Humans invent words that label their concepts.

                                  P. 266 in Li and Gleitman (2002):
“Turning the tables: language and spatial reasoning.” Cognition, 83,
                         265–94. (Cited in Evans & Green 2006: 62)



June 19, 2006                  RT/CFL                             14
Conventionalized Conceptual
         Structure
Cognitive linguists argue against the view that
language is pre-specified in the sense that …
semantic organization [is mapped out by] a set
of primitives. Instead linguistic organization is
held to reflect embodied cognition …, which
serve to constrain what is possible to experi-
ence, and thus what is possible to express in
language.
                 P. 63-64 in V. Evans and M. Green (2006):
                      Cognitive Linguistics. An Introduction.

June 19, 2006          RT/CFL                              15
            From Embodiment To
            Conceptual Structure
                   (Evans and Green 2006: 177)


                      EMBODIMENT

                CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURE
                   Consists of conceptual
                  representations including
                       image schemas

                 SEMANTIC STRUCTURE
                  Consists of ŌmeaningÕ units
                     like lexical concepts

June 19, 2006                RT/CFL              16
       Meaningless Morphemes
The Meaningless Morphemes                         The Meaningful
Thesis                                         Morphemes Thesis

In accordance with the auto-        Grammatical morphemes are
nomy of syntax thesis and the       meaningful, and are present be-
universality of semantics thesis,   cause of their semantic contri-
syntactic     structure    relies   bution.
crucially    on     gramma-tical
morphemes, which are often
meaningless and serve purely
formal purposes.




June 19, 2006                  RT/CFL                            17
 Meaningful   Grammatical
       Morphemes – 1
[T]he claim [in autonomous syntax] that gram-
matical morphemes are for the most part mean-
ingless, being inserted for purely formal or
grammatical purposes, is almost a necessary
one, since the autonomy of syntax would ap-
pear very dubious if we admitted that gram-
matical markers are meaningful, and that their
syntactic use is determined by the meanings
they convey.

June 19, 2006        RT/CFL                 18
 Meaningful   Grammatical
       Morphemes 2
 The distinction between lexical and gramma-
  tical morphemes represents an artifactual
  dichotomization based on sharp differences
  between examples selected from the end-
  points of what is really a continuum.
 In reality, however, both lexical and gramma-
  tical morphemes vary along a continuum in
  regard to such parameters as the complexity
  and abstractness of their semantic specifi-
  cations.

June 19, 2006        RT/CFL                  19
 Meaningful   Grammatical
       Morphemes 3
 While so-called lexical morphemes tend to
  cluster near the complex/concrete end of the
  continuum, we see a clear gradation in
  series like ostrich–bird–animal–thing.
 So-called grammatical morphemes tend to
  cluster near the simple/abstract end of the
  continuum, but here too we observe a
  gradation: above–may–have–of.
 The scales clearly overlap.

June 19, 2006        RT/CFL                 20
   Abstract Syntactic Structure
The Abstract Syntactic                     The Overt Grammatical
Structure Thesis                                 Structure Thesis


Syntactic structure is ab-stract.   Grammatical structure is entire-
Surface structures often derive     ly overt. No underlying struc-
from deep struc-tures which are     tures or derivations are posited.
significantly    different     in
character, and contain elements
(grammati-cal morphemes) that
have no place in underlying
struc-ture.



June 19, 2006                  RT/CFL                              21
      The Content Requirement
The only units permitted in   This requirement rules out all arbi-
     the grammar of a         trary descriptive devices, i.e. those
                              with no direct grounding in phonetic
     language are:            or semantic reality:
(i) semantic, phonologi-      (a) contentless features or dia-
     cal, and symbolic        critics;
     structures that occur    (b) syntactic dummies with neither
     overtly in linguistic    semantic nor phonological content,
     expressions;             introduced solely to drive the formal
                              machinery of autonomous syntax;
(ii) structures that are      (c) the derivation of overt structures
     schematic for those in   from abstract, underlying structures
     (i).                     of a substantially different charac-
                              ter.

June 19, 2006             RT/CFL                                 22
        The Generality of Syntax
The Syntax-Lexicon                  The Non-Generality of Syntax
Dichotomy Thesis                                          Thesis

Syntax consists primarily of        Lexicon and grammar form a
general rules. It is to be          continuum of symbolic struc-
distinguished     sharply    from   tures. This continuum contains
lexicon, the repository for ir-     no sharp dichotomies based on
regularity and idiosyncrasy.        generality, regularity, or analy-
                                    zability.




June 19, 2006                  RT/CFL                              23
Grammar versus
   Lexicon
A Classical Generative Solution
  Grammar versus Lexicon – 1
 Lexicon
       hopar / JUMP, PRES
       hopa / JUMP, PAST
       dansar / DANCE, PRES
       dansa / DANCE, PAST
       spe:lar / PLAY, PRES
       spe:la / PLAY, PAST
       se:r / SEE, PRES
       so:g / SEE, PAST

June 19, 2006              RT/CFL   25
  Grammar versus Lexicon – 2
 Lexicon                       Grammar
       hopar / JUMP, PRES     1.   [V, PRES] → [V, PRES] +ar
                               2.   [V, PAST] → [V, PAST] +a
       hopa / JUMP, PAST
       dansar / DANCE, PRES
       dansa / DANCE, PAST
       spe:lar / PLAY, PRES
       spe:la / PLAY, PAST
       se:r / SEE, PRES
       so:g / SEE, PAST

June 19, 2006              RT/CFL                               26
  Grammar versus Lexicon – 3
 Lexicon                       Grammar
       hopar / JUMP, PRES     1.   [V, PRES] → [V, PRES] +ar
                               2.   [V, PAST] → [V, PAST] +a
       hopa / JUMP, PAST
       dansar / DANCE, PRES
       dansa / DANCE, PAST
       spe:lar / PLAY, PRES
       spe:la / PLAY, PAST
       se:r / SEE, PRES
       so:g / SEE, PAST

June 19, 2006              RT/CFL                               27
  Grammar versus Lexicon – 4
 Lexicon                       Grammar
       hopar / JUMP, PRES     1.   [V, PRES] → [V, PRES] +ar
                               2.   [V, PAST] → [V, PAST] +a
       hopa / JUMP, PAST
       dansar / DANCE, PRES
       dansa / DANCE, PAST
       spe:lar / PLAY, PRES
       spe:la / PLAY, PAST
       se:r / SEE, PRES
       so:g / SEE, PAST

June 19, 2006              RT/CFL                               28
  Grammar versus Lexicon – 5
 Lexicon                            Grammar
       hop / JUMP                  1.   [V, PRES] → [V, PRES] +ar
       dans / DANCE                2.   [V, PAST] → [V, PAST] +a
       spe:l / PLAY                3.   [V, PRES] → [V, PRES] +er
       se:r / SEE, PRES            4.   [V, PAST] → [V, PAST] +te
       so:g / SEE, PAST
       kvi:ler / REST, PRES
       kvi:lte / REST, PAST
       de:ler / DIVIDE, PRES
       de:lte / DIVIDE, PAST

June 19, 2006                   RT/CFL                               29
  Grammar versus Lexicon – 6
 Lexicon                            Grammar
       hop / JUMP                  1.   [V, PRES] → [V, PRES] +ar
       dans / DANCE                2.   [V, PAST] → [V, PAST] +a
       spe:l / PLAY                3.   [V, PRES] → [V, PRES] +er
       se:r / SEE, PRES            4.   [V, PAST] → [V, PAST] +te
       so:g / SEE, PAST
       kvi:ler / REST, PRES
       kvi:lte / REST, PAST
       de:ler / DIVIDE, PRES
       de:lte / DIVIDE, PAST

June 19, 2006                   RT/CFL                               30
  Grammar versus Lexicon – 7
 Lexicon                            Grammar
       hop / JUMP                  1.   [V, PRES] → [V, PRES] +ar
       dans / DANCE                2.   [V, PAST] → [V, PAST] +a
       spe:l / PLAY                3.   [V, PRES] → [V, PRES] +er
       se:r / SEE, PRES            4.   [V, PAST] → [V, PAST] +te
       so:g / SEE, PAST
       kvi:ler/ REST, PRES
       kvi:lte / REST, PAST
       de:ler / DIVIDE, PRES
       de:lte / DIVIDE, PAST

June 19, 2006                   RT/CFL                               31
  Grammar versus Lexicon – 8
 Lexicon                       Grammar
       hopα / JUMP            1.   [Vα, PRES] → [Vα, PRES]
       dansα / DANCE               +ar
       spe:lα / PLAY          2.   [Vα, PAST] → [Vα, PAST]
                                    +a
       kvi:lβ / REST          3.   [Vβ, PRES] → [Vβ, PRES]
       de:lβ / DIVIDE              +er
       se:r / SEE, PRES       4.   [Vβ, PAST] → [Vβ, PAST]
       so:g / SEE, PAST            +te




June 19, 2006              RT/CFL                             32
  Grammar versus Lexicon – 9
 Lexicon                      Grammar
    hopα / JUMP              1.   [Vα, PRES] → [Vα, PRES]
    dansα / DANCE                 +ar
    spe:lα / PLAY            2.   [Vα, PAST] → [Vα, PAST]
    kvi:lβ / REST                 +a
    de:lβ / DIVIDE           3.   [Vβ, PRES] → [Vβ, PRES]
    se:r / SEE, PRES              +er
    so:g / SEE, PAST         4.   [Vβ, PAST] → [Vβ, PAST]
    le:r / LAUGH, PRES            +te
    lu: / LAUGH, PAST



June 19, 2006             RT/CFL                             33
The Emergent
  Grammar
 A Cognitive Solution
        The Emergent Grammar
Predictable features need not be excluded from repre-
sentation in individual items. The presence of a feature
on a list does not exclude it from being predictable by
rule. Rather the notion of rule takes a very different
form. Linguistic regularities are not expressed as cogni-
tive entities or operations that are independent of the
forms to which they apply, but rather as schemas or
organizational patterns that emerge from the way that
forms are associated with one another in a vast network
of phonological, semantic, and sequential relations.
                                     P. 21 in Joan Bybee (2001):
                                   Phonology and Language Use

June 19, 2006             RT/CFL                              35
           The Rule/List Fallacy 1
 The exclusionary fallacy holding, on
  grounds of simplicity, that particular
  statements (lists) are to be excised
  from the grammar of a language if gen-
  eral statements (rules) can be estab-
  lished that subsumes them.

                   P. 492 in R. W. Langacker (1987):
                  Foundations of Cognitive Grammar

June 19, 2006         RT/CFL                      36
           The Rule/List Fallacy 2
 If all the regularity is factored out of a
  linguistic structure, the residue is sel-
  dom if ever recognizable as a coherent
  entity plausibly attributed to cognitive
  autonomy.

                         P. 393 in Langacker (1987):
                  Foundations of Cognitive Grammar

June 19, 2006         RT/CFL                      37
                The Cheshire Dog
That is to say, if our memories for dogs ex-
cluded all the predictable features (two ears, a
muzzle, fur, a tail, wet nose, etc.), what is left
would not be a recognizable or coherent entity.
Similarly, if all predictable features are removed
from a word, it would not be recognizable as an
English word, or as a linguistic object at all.
                                 P. 21 in Joan Bybee (2001):
                               Phonology and Language Use


June 19, 2006         RT/CFL                             38
                The Emergent Grammar 1




                          hopar / JUMP, PRES   hopa / JUMP, PAST


June 19, 2006            RT/CFL                             39
                The Emergent Grammar 2




                                        hopa... / JUMP, TNS



                          hopar / JUMP, PRES      hopa / JUMP, PAST


June 19, 2006            RT/CFL                                40
                The Emergent Grammar 3




                                              hopa... / JUMP, TNS



         dansar / DANCE, PRES   hopar / JUMP, PRES      hopa / JUMP, PAST


June 19, 2006                   RT/CFL                               41
                The Emergent Grammar 4




                       σ…ar / VERB, PRES        hopa... / JUMP, TNS



         dansar / DANCE, PRES     hopar / JUMP, PRES      hopa / JUMP, PAST


June 19, 2006                    RT/CFL                                42
                   The Emergent Grammar 5




dansa / DANCE, PAST       σ…ar / VERB, PRES        hopa... / JUMP, TNS



            dansar / DANCE, PRES     hopar / JUMP, PRES      hopa / JUMP, PAST


   June 19, 2006                    RT/CFL                                43
                   The Emergent Grammar 6




              dansa... / DANCE, TNS



dansa / DANCE, PAST        σ…ar / VERB, PRES        hopa... / JUMP, TNS



            dansar / DANCE, PRES      hopar / JUMP, PRES      hopa / JUMP, PAST


   June 19, 2006                      RT/CFL                               44
                   The Emergent Grammar 7




              dansa... / DANCE, TNS      σ…a / VERB, PAST



dansa / DANCE, PAST        σ…ar / VERB, PRES        hopa... / JUMP, TNS



            dansar / DANCE, PRES      hopar / JUMP, PRES      hopa / JUMP, PAST


   June 19, 2006                      RT/CFL                               45
                    The Emergent Grammar 8



kvi:ler / REST, PRES


               dansa... / DANCE, TNS      σ…a / VERB, PAST



dansa / DANCE, PAST         σ…ar / VERB, PRES        hopa... / JUMP, TNS



             dansar / DANCE, PRES      hopar / JUMP, PRES      hopa / JUMP, PAST


    June 19, 2006                      RT/CFL                               46
                    The Emergent Grammar 9



kvi:ler / REST, PRES          σ…Vr / VERB, PRES


               dansa... / DANCE, TNS      σ…a / VERB, PAST



dansa / DANCE, PAST         σ…ar / VERB, PRES        hopa... / JUMP, TNS



             dansar / DANCE, PRES      hopar / JUMP, PRES      hopa / JUMP, PAST


    June 19, 2006                      RT/CFL                               47
               The Emergent Grammar 10

kvi:lte / REST, PAST



kvi:ler / REST, PRES          σ…Vr / VERB, PRES


               dansa... / DANCE, TNS      σ…a / VERB, PAST



dansa / DANCE, PAST         σ…ar / VERB, PRES        hopa... / JUMP, TNS



             dansar / DANCE, PRES      hopar / JUMP, PRES      hopa / JUMP, PAST


    June 19, 2006                      RT/CFL                               48
               The Emergent Grammar 11

kvi:lte / REST, PAST        kvi:l…e… / REST, TNS



kvi:ler / REST, PRES          σ…Vr / VERB, PRES


               dansa... / DANCE, TNS      σ…a / VERB, PAST



dansa / DANCE, PAST         σ…ar / VERB, PRES        hopa... / JUMP, TNS



             dansar / DANCE, PRES      hopar / JUMP, PRES      hopa / JUMP, PAST


    June 19, 2006                      RT/CFL                               49
               The Emergent Grammar 12
de:ler / DIVIDE, PRES

kvi:lte / REST, PAST        kvi:l…e… / REST, TNS



kvi:ler / REST, PRES          σ…Vr / VERB, PRES


               dansa... / DANCE, TNS      σ…a / VERB, PAST



dansa / DANCE, PAST         σ…ar / VERB, PRES        hopa... / JUMP, TNS



             dansar / DANCE, PRES      hopar / JUMP, PRES      hopa / JUMP, PAST


    June 19, 2006                      RT/CFL                               50
               The Emergent Grammar 13
de:ler / DIVIDE, PRES
                                                   σ…er / VERB, PRES
kvi:lte / REST, PAST        kvi:l…e… / REST, TNS



kvi:ler / REST, PRES          σ…Vr / VERB, PRES


               dansa... / DANCE, TNS      σ…a / VERB, PAST



dansa / DANCE, PAST         σ…ar / VERB, PRES        hopa... / JUMP, TNS



             dansar / DANCE, PRES      hopar / JUMP, PRES      hopa / JUMP, PAST


    June 19, 2006                      RT/CFL                               51
               The Emergent Grammar 14
de:ler / DIVIDE, PRES
                                                   σ…er / VERB, PRES
kvi:lte / REST, PAST        kvi:l…e… / REST, TNS



kvi:ler / REST, PRES          σ…Vr / VERB, PRES


               dansa... / DANCE, TNS      σ…a / VERB, PAST



dansa / DANCE, PAST         σ…ar / VERB, PRES        hopa... / JUMP, TNS



             dansar / DANCE, PRES      hopar / JUMP, PRES      hopa / JUMP, PAST


    June 19, 2006                      RT/CFL                               52
               The Emergent Grammar 15
de:ler / DIVIDE, PRES
                                                   σ…er / VERB, PRES
kvi:lte / REST, PAST        kvi:l…e… / REST, TNS



kvi:ler / REST, PRES          σ…Vr / VERB, PRES                  se:r / SEE, PRES


               dansa... / DANCE, TNS      σ…a / VERB, PAST



dansa / DANCE, PAST         σ…ar / VERB, PRES        hopa... / JUMP, TNS



             dansar / DANCE, PRES      hopar / JUMP, PRES      hopa / JUMP, PAST


    June 19, 2006                      RT/CFL                                53
               The Emergent Grammar 16
de:ler / DIVIDE, PRES
                                                   σ…er / VERB, PRES
kvi:lte / REST, PAST        kvi:l…e… / REST, TNS



kvi:ler / REST, PRES          σ…Vr / VERB, PRES                  se:r / SEE, PRES


               dansa... / DANCE, TNS      σ…a / VERB, PAST        … and then?

dansa / DANCE, PAST         σ…ar / VERB, PRES        hopa... / JUMP, TNS



             dansar / DANCE, PRES      hopar / JUMP, PRES      hopa / JUMP, PAST


    June 19, 2006                      RT/CFL                                54

				
DOCUMENT INFO